Loading...
1995-0130_ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY_Fax Letter from AAOCTO ='L1 '9 �„ --- 14•, 22PM APT PSSN OF Q,C. January 30, 1995 Carolyn Nash, Mayor Members of the City Council City of San Juan Capistrano 32400 Pasco Adelanto San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 1 J Garden Grove Boulevard, Suite D, Garden (714) 638.5550 FAX (714) 741 JAN 31 P. z;4 rir l"hbrnta92643 58 4S N '95 k+C'4T t. 4 Re: Joint Powenr Agreement creating the Orange County Fire Authority - AAOC position and recommended action Dear Mayor Nash and Counciimembers: On Monday, January 23, 1995, I corresponded to you on behalf of AAOC, requesting continuance of any further action regarding the proposed joint powers agreement creating the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). AAOC and other private sector groups had only recently received the proposed agreement and this lengthy document raised a number of questions and issues of concern, many of which were included in my correspondence to you. Based on the information AAOC has gathered since January 23, today I am writing to inform you that our association is now taking a neutral position on the proposed joint powers agreement itself, AAOC is, however, recommending specific council action, as outlined below, for those cities which choose to adopt the agreement creating the OCFA. Following our initial review of this document in December, AAOC took a position to "oppose as written" the joint powers agreement creating the Orange County Fire Authority. In early January our association determined that opposition to the agreement was not justified until additional information was gathered, Thus, while researching the agreement, AAOC began to formally request continuance of this issue in the eighteen cities considering adoption. As I mentioned in my January 23 letter, AAOC's request for continuance was based solely on our desire to thoroughly evaluate the agreement and gain answers to the many questions it raised prior to final approval by the cities involved. It was our hope that by allowing more time your city council would have the benefit of broader community and business input as well as rite opportunity to address any issues of concern prior to adoption of the agreement In order to gather the information necessary to properly evaluate this proposal and hear from some of its principle proponents, we hosted a meeting on Thursday, January 26, with members of the OCFA negotiating team. 'Phis meeting also included representatives of business and citizen groups from throughout Orange County and it provided a forum through which many questions were answered and issues resolved. The discussion was highly informative and revealed to us some of the critical reasons why the eighteen member cities have been pushing so hard for this agreement. Clearly, the agreement will provide cities with mote control over the administration of fire services. The meeting was very helpful and ultimately your negotiating team was able to allay our concerns on all but two issues. A noxpraft9 arganiaatim for the advancesa+a Of" rental housing kAWrY X Po- C,(&f�3,1a5'e e I C) -f i 1 X15 5feo-(-P-e 1-1 -TAN -10 '95 04:23PM APT P65N CF O.C. P.3/4 Mayor Nash and Councilmembers January 30. 1995 Page 2 The issues which remain have been at the forefront of our association's concerns since our initial review of the joint powers agreement. In question are the issues of fee levying authority and accountability. Under the agreement, the OCFA would posses the authority to levy taxes, assessments, and fees related to fire service. California law provides safeguards to taxpayers should the OCFA choose to exercise its taxing and assessing authority. In each case there are varying requirements for public notification, public hearing, and vow approval. However, these safeguards do not exist in the area of fee levying. Thus, the OCFA's twenty member board may vote to establish fees related to fire service with no guarantee that the city councils or the citizens of the member cities would have any hearing, discussion, or notification before such fees are adopted. This scenario is of great concent to AAOC. The OCFA would have the power to impose fees upon the citizens and businesses within its jurisdiction and do so in the relative anonymity of the OCFA board room, rather than in the limelight of the city council chambers. During our meeting with the cities' negotiating team we were pleased to learn that less than l% of the revenue currently funding the Orange County Fire Department is derived from user fees. However, there are no provisions within the agreement limiting or capping the future expansion of user fees as a revenue source. Further, even after our meeting with the negotiating seam, AAOC is still uncertain as to the degree of member city participation required during the fee approval process. According to the agreement, other than paramedic or ambulance user fees, there is no requirement that fees be approved by the member cities affected. Thus, in our opinion, it is all the more likely that there will be limited city council or public input on such issues. The OCFA's taxing/fee levying authority and limited accountability is a potentially dangerous combination, which, if abused, could blind side citizens, businesses, and possibly even cities with unanticipated new expenses. let's not lose sight of the significance of this eventuality, after all, our nation begun its Revolution over the issue of "taxation without representation." Although fee levying authority and accountability remain issues of concern to our association, they are issues which can be mitigated. AAOC believes that the city council in each member city should require that, before their representative to the OCFA Board of Directors can vote on any proposed user fees and/or fee increases, he or she must bring the issue before the city council for concurrence. AAOC would suggest that such concurrence be an agenda item during open session of a regularly scheduled city council meeting. In this way citizens and businesses would have an assurance of input and accountability since discussion of all proposed OCFA fees would take place in a local public forum. Ideally, this requirement for council concurrence would be included within the text of the joint powers agreement itself. However, in recognition of the agreement's February 3 adoption deadline and the fact that such an amendment would result in delays beyond this date, AAOC believes that the same objective can be achieved through separate council action. By using this approach, your city will be able to reset the February deadline and still provide your council, citizens, and businesses with a level of certainty that any fees that might be proposed by the @9='� 4.24PM RPTRSSM OF O.C. 0 4,4 Mayor Nash and Councilmembers January 30, 1995 Page 3 OCFA will receive concurrence locally before they am adopted. In the event that the agreement's February 3 approval date is changed, and further revision to the document is possible, AAOC would recommend that a retluirement for council concunraae of any proposed fees or fee increases be included within the text of the agreement itself. This approach would of course eliminate the teed for sepware. council action. AAOC sincerely appreciates the efforts made by so many cities and the cities' negotiating team, to hear our concerns and add" our issues before adoptee of the joint powers agreement creating the OCFA. We do see great value in what the eighteen member cities sttd the county are trying to accomplish. After all, our association has believed for quite some time that the regional approach to fire service delivery is the most efficient and therefore, we look forward to the cost saving opportunities that would be available to cities through the OCFA. Our concerns regarding the OC,FA have never stemmed from the concept itself, but rather from the details involved and from our desire to assure that a balance had been reached which rnects the needs of both the public and private sectors. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our input on this issue and your sincere consideration of our recommendation. Our association would welcome e the opportunity to meet or speak with you and further discuss our findings. In the meantime, if you have any questions regarding this recommendation or AAOC's position on this issue, please do not hesitate to contact AAOC's Director of Public Affairs, Rich Lambtos at (714) 638-7401. Sincerely, Wilf "Bill" D Gower, Jr. President cc, George Scarborough, City Manager SRN --e 195 04:22PM APT FSSN OF 0,r, P,1/4 TO: COMPANY: FAX #: FROM: FAX #f: TIMEYDATE: 0 \J 12822 Garden Grove Boulevard, Suite D, Garden Grove, California 82943 (714) BW5550 FAX (714) 741.8457 FAX COVER SHEET City Clerk's Office Ayagaient Aasocration of Orange County #r OF PAGES 70 FOLLOW' (714) 741-9457 3:12 am, January 301 1995 Please distribute a copy to all councilmembers, the mayor and the city, manager. Hard copies to follow In mall. Thank you. If you have any questions, please call (714) 741-9467. A nonprofit organization for the advanoement of the rental housing 1 OWY r w ', oo _. a If you have any questions, please call (714) 741-9467. A nonprofit organization for the advanoement of the rental housing 1 OWY