Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Fire debate: Who owns the trucks?
BY CHARLYN FINN
The non-renewal of the fire protection agreement between the City of Port Lavaca and Calhoun County Commissioners’ Court brings up some issues concerning equipment the county loaned or gave to the city to provide rural fire protection.
The Port Lavaca City Council does not find the $130,000 the county offered to pay for some of the city’s fire protection services acceptable . The council has given the county until Dec. 31 to approve one of three options proposed by the council. The deadline is Dec. 31 and then the agreement to the two entities will expire. The question is does the city have to return the fire equipment.
City Manager Gary Broz said the truck and equipment were given to the city by the county in lieu of payment and the truck is now eight years old. The truck has already depreciated. “We are not giving anything back, no,” said Broz.
According to Broz the truck eight years ago cost about $170,000 and it gave the city an in kind payment for services. Two other trucks the city did not need were given back to the county to help the new Six Mile Volunteer Department get started, Broz said. He said the county formerly also assisted with other fire equipment.
Pct. 4 Commissioner Ken Finster said the matter will be resolved by law. The truck, he said, is still titled to Calhoun County. “If in lieu of services, why are the trucks not titled to the city?,” he said. “The county auditor will police that question. In this case it is who owned the insurance and who has the name on the title.”
The Texas certificate of title is in the county auditor’s office. The original title dates back to April 6, 2000 and Calhoun County is the registered owner.
Auditor Cynthia Mueller said since the county owns the title to the vehicle it must pay the insurance on it. She said in addition to paying a cash amount to the city, the county has been paying the insurance on the fire truck the firemen use when they go to rural events. The policy in the auditor’s office on the fire truck allows $500,000 for liability insurance, $500,000 for uninsured motorists, $500,000 for under insured motorists, $240,000 for comprehension and $240,000 for collision. The annual cost of insurance is $1,248.
The county also gave the city equipment over the years such as bunker gear, boots, an air pack, etc.. The list of what was loaned is also recorded in the auditor’s office.
Finster explained that the inventory list has to come before commissioners’ court so it may be purged as salvage. “We also keep track of where it is at,” he said.
Finster said the offer from the county to the city still exists. “We budgeted $130,000 for 2009 and until it is removed from the 2009 budget it is still there for the City of Port Lavaca,” he said.
This year the city presented commissioners’ court with three options. One has to be chosen if the intergovernmental agreement is to be renewed. The county instead offered the city $130,000 which was rejected by the council, that wanted $150,000. The council gave commissioners’ court a Dec. 31 deadline to comply.
County Auditor Mueller said to raise the additional $20,000 the county would have to raise the property tax rate an additional 0.0005 of a cent to generate the additional $20,000 for the 2009 budget.
County Judge Michael Pfeifer noted that the county has already increased payments for city services from $75,000 in 2007 to $125,000 in 2008 and now the county is offering $130,000 for 2009. This, he said, cannot continue (increasing fire payments to the City of Port Lavaca). “We have obligations to our business also,” he said. “They have actually wanted to increase each year until they get to some point. We don’t know what that is. I believe something will be worked out but it will not be an increase in money.”
Pct. 1 Commissioner Roger C. Galvan said the volunteer fire departments (there are six) could handle the rural fire fighting because each department has 15 to 20 members.
Pct. 2 Commissioner Vernon Lyssy said the commissioners’ court wants whatever fire protection it can get for $130,000. “What does $130,000 cover,” he said. “They want $150,000. To me, options are still open. We contribute to expenses of fire protection. The offer is still on the table. There are still three months left to negotiate on both sides. We just wanted whatever $130,000 would take care of. It is an increase from last year but they want the $150,000. It is what we can afford this year. We cannot foresee what is going to happen next year. We don’t know if we can increase our payment $50,000 each year.”
Pct. 3 Commissioner Neil E. Fritsch and Lyssy have both worked on a committee with Councilmen Lee Rivera and Ken Barr and Broz.
Like Lyssy, Fritsch said he would like to renew an intergovernmental agreement.
If not, Fritsch says the trucks and equipment must be returned. “If they are on our asset list, the taxpayers expect us to reclaim them,” Fritsch said. He said that the county fire truck has “Calhoun County” painted on the side and it is on the county’s asset list.
If it’s on our assets list it’s ours,” he said.
Fritsch said that whether or not the city firemen continue to go out in the county to fires and other events, the city will still have to pay its fire protection expenses. “They should be happy to get what we give them,” said Fritsch, who went on to explain that with the county money the city gets some fire protection support.
Fritsch said he would like to see all volunteer fire departments meet with the city council and then discuss “who goes when and where. Establish that. Establish cost.”
Fritsch said there is inefficiency in the method used to call for fire departments. “Maybe Port Lavaca doesn’t need to go to all of the fires,” he concluded. Maybe we need to give Port Alto (or any other volunteer fire department) a chance to put out the fire.”
The Port Lavaca City Council does not find the $130,000 the county offered to pay for some of the city’s fire protection services acceptable . The council has given the county until Dec. 31 to approve one of three options proposed by the council. The deadline is Dec. 31 and then the agreement to the two entities will expire. The question is does the city have to return the fire equipment.
City Manager Gary Broz said the truck and equipment were given to the city by the county in lieu of payment and the truck is now eight years old. The truck has already depreciated. “We are not giving anything back, no,” said Broz.
According to Broz the truck eight years ago cost about $170,000 and it gave the city an in kind payment for services. Two other trucks the city did not need were given back to the county to help the new Six Mile Volunteer Department get started, Broz said. He said the county formerly also assisted with other fire equipment.
Pct. 4 Commissioner Ken Finster said the matter will be resolved by law. The truck, he said, is still titled to Calhoun County. “If in lieu of services, why are the trucks not titled to the city?,” he said. “The county auditor will police that question. In this case it is who owned the insurance and who has the name on the title.”
The Texas certificate of title is in the county auditor’s office. The original title dates back to April 6, 2000 and Calhoun County is the registered owner.
Auditor Cynthia Mueller said since the county owns the title to the vehicle it must pay the insurance on it. She said in addition to paying a cash amount to the city, the county has been paying the insurance on the fire truck the firemen use when they go to rural events. The policy in the auditor’s office on the fire truck allows $500,000 for liability insurance, $500,000 for uninsured motorists, $500,000 for under insured motorists, $240,000 for comprehension and $240,000 for collision. The annual cost of insurance is $1,248.
The county also gave the city equipment over the years such as bunker gear, boots, an air pack, etc.. The list of what was loaned is also recorded in the auditor’s office.
Finster explained that the inventory list has to come before commissioners’ court so it may be purged as salvage. “We also keep track of where it is at,” he said.
Finster said the offer from the county to the city still exists. “We budgeted $130,000 for 2009 and until it is removed from the 2009 budget it is still there for the City of Port Lavaca,” he said.
This year the city presented commissioners’ court with three options. One has to be chosen if the intergovernmental agreement is to be renewed. The county instead offered the city $130,000 which was rejected by the council, that wanted $150,000. The council gave commissioners’ court a Dec. 31 deadline to comply.
County Auditor Mueller said to raise the additional $20,000 the county would have to raise the property tax rate an additional 0.0005 of a cent to generate the additional $20,000 for the 2009 budget.
County Judge Michael Pfeifer noted that the county has already increased payments for city services from $75,000 in 2007 to $125,000 in 2008 and now the county is offering $130,000 for 2009. This, he said, cannot continue (increasing fire payments to the City of Port Lavaca). “We have obligations to our business also,” he said. “They have actually wanted to increase each year until they get to some point. We don’t know what that is. I believe something will be worked out but it will not be an increase in money.”
Pct. 1 Commissioner Roger C. Galvan said the volunteer fire departments (there are six) could handle the rural fire fighting because each department has 15 to 20 members.
Pct. 2 Commissioner Vernon Lyssy said the commissioners’ court wants whatever fire protection it can get for $130,000. “What does $130,000 cover,” he said. “They want $150,000. To me, options are still open. We contribute to expenses of fire protection. The offer is still on the table. There are still three months left to negotiate on both sides. We just wanted whatever $130,000 would take care of. It is an increase from last year but they want the $150,000. It is what we can afford this year. We cannot foresee what is going to happen next year. We don’t know if we can increase our payment $50,000 each year.”
Pct. 3 Commissioner Neil E. Fritsch and Lyssy have both worked on a committee with Councilmen Lee Rivera and Ken Barr and Broz.
Like Lyssy, Fritsch said he would like to renew an intergovernmental agreement.
If not, Fritsch says the trucks and equipment must be returned. “If they are on our asset list, the taxpayers expect us to reclaim them,” Fritsch said. He said that the county fire truck has “Calhoun County” painted on the side and it is on the county’s asset list.
If it’s on our assets list it’s ours,” he said.
Fritsch said that whether or not the city firemen continue to go out in the county to fires and other events, the city will still have to pay its fire protection expenses. “They should be happy to get what we give them,” said Fritsch, who went on to explain that with the county money the city gets some fire protection support.
Fritsch said he would like to see all volunteer fire departments meet with the city council and then discuss “who goes when and where. Establish that. Establish cost.”
Fritsch said there is inefficiency in the method used to call for fire departments. “Maybe Port Lavaca doesn’t need to go to all of the fires,” he concluded. Maybe we need to give Port Alto (or any other volunteer fire department) a chance to put out the fire.”
 |
||
| Tumlinson found not guilty |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of portlavacawave.com.
Tapped-out Taxpayer wrote on Oct 13, 2008 2:32 PM:
" While there are some valid points raised by both sides of the fire protection coverage argument, from the viewpoint of a city dweller, it seems that the rural county residents (those outside of the city limits) are getting a much better end of the bargain.
First, I will concede that whether or not the Port Lavaca Fire Department responds outside the city limits, the capital and operational costs of fire protection for city residents would be approximately the same. What disturbs me more than anything is the fact that as a city tax payer as well as a county tax payer, I do not believe that rural residents are paying an equitable portion of the fire protection burden and our county commissioners have the attitude that they only represent constituents outside of the Port Lavaca city limits.
The services for which we pay on a somewhat equitable basis (i.e., equal access to services and facilities) might include EMS, access to the hospital, library, museum, county parks and boat ramps, fairgrounds and ball park facilities, the use of the jail by all legitimate peace officers be they city, county, or state officers, and the use of county roads. Let us not, however, forget that we not only pay taxes to support EMS and the hospital, we have the pleasure of receiving a bill from those entities should we require their services. In essence, they are the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac organizations at the county level.
The services and facilities for which the city dweller is paying a disproportionately larger cost burden would include the aforementioned fire services. The maintenance of the “city” streets in Port O’Connor is covered by the county coffers as well, since it is not an incorporated township and does not collect city taxes to support road/street maintenance. Port Lavaca residents are also paying for the non-jail facility operations of the sheriff’s department which is another benefit to the rural residents for which city dwellers receive almost no advantage. (Oops, I forgot about the swat team saving our entire county from the insurgent high school girl gang.) And adding to the tax burden, one could also include the portion of county tax dollars paid to the rural volunteer fire departments by the Port Lavaca property owners.
Excluding the industrial tax dollars collected from Dow, Formosa, Alcoa, Ineos, Seadrift Coke, etc. – which is by far the lion’s share by the way, Port Lavaca residents pay something more than half of the county taxes. To exacerbate the situation, I would also speculate that if a duplicate of my house were sitting elsewhere in a rural (non-resort) area of the county, its evaluation would be somewhat lower, probably by 15-30%.
Port Lavaca city residents comprise 57% of the county population according to the 2000 census data. The city is the county, especially in three of the four precincts. It is time for the citizens of Port Lavaca to demand that county government represent them as well as the rural residents. If the city dwellers would ever wake up to that fact, three of the commissioners and the county judge would (and should) be looking for another job. The fourth commissioner should be back working on air conditioners, but Port Lavaca city residents with the current “good ol’ boy” representation have no leverage over that situation.
In the bottom line, the city residents are paying for the county services, but the rural residents are not, except for the token amount so begrudgingly bequeathed to the city by our commissioners (don’t forget those funds represent dollars paid by city residents also), paying for the city fire services to which they – at least at the moment – have access. The way that I see it, the county should have to pay a significantly higher percentage of the PLFD budget. This should be done without a tax increase by trimming excess from other places in the county budget, such as cutting Port O’Connor “city” streets from the county road maintenance budget, rolling back the size of the sheriff’s department to about a 1995 level, and selling the hospital (another subject) to a private enterprise.
If the egos and kingdoms primarily residing at the county level and secondarily at the city level were eliminated, we could save even more money by combining the EMS and fire services with cross-trained personnel and implementing a central dispatch thus allowing us to reduce the size of the combined workforces. "
First, I will concede that whether or not the Port Lavaca Fire Department responds outside the city limits, the capital and operational costs of fire protection for city residents would be approximately the same. What disturbs me more than anything is the fact that as a city tax payer as well as a county tax payer, I do not believe that rural residents are paying an equitable portion of the fire protection burden and our county commissioners have the attitude that they only represent constituents outside of the Port Lavaca city limits.
The services for which we pay on a somewhat equitable basis (i.e., equal access to services and facilities) might include EMS, access to the hospital, library, museum, county parks and boat ramps, fairgrounds and ball park facilities, the use of the jail by all legitimate peace officers be they city, county, or state officers, and the use of county roads. Let us not, however, forget that we not only pay taxes to support EMS and the hospital, we have the pleasure of receiving a bill from those entities should we require their services. In essence, they are the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac organizations at the county level.
The services and facilities for which the city dweller is paying a disproportionately larger cost burden would include the aforementioned fire services. The maintenance of the “city” streets in Port O’Connor is covered by the county coffers as well, since it is not an incorporated township and does not collect city taxes to support road/street maintenance. Port Lavaca residents are also paying for the non-jail facility operations of the sheriff’s department which is another benefit to the rural residents for which city dwellers receive almost no advantage. (Oops, I forgot about the swat team saving our entire county from the insurgent high school girl gang.) And adding to the tax burden, one could also include the portion of county tax dollars paid to the rural volunteer fire departments by the Port Lavaca property owners.
Excluding the industrial tax dollars collected from Dow, Formosa, Alcoa, Ineos, Seadrift Coke, etc. – which is by far the lion’s share by the way, Port Lavaca residents pay something more than half of the county taxes. To exacerbate the situation, I would also speculate that if a duplicate of my house were sitting elsewhere in a rural (non-resort) area of the county, its evaluation would be somewhat lower, probably by 15-30%.
Port Lavaca city residents comprise 57% of the county population according to the 2000 census data. The city is the county, especially in three of the four precincts. It is time for the citizens of Port Lavaca to demand that county government represent them as well as the rural residents. If the city dwellers would ever wake up to that fact, three of the commissioners and the county judge would (and should) be looking for another job. The fourth commissioner should be back working on air conditioners, but Port Lavaca city residents with the current “good ol’ boy” representation have no leverage over that situation.
In the bottom line, the city residents are paying for the county services, but the rural residents are not, except for the token amount so begrudgingly bequeathed to the city by our commissioners (don’t forget those funds represent dollars paid by city residents also), paying for the city fire services to which they – at least at the moment – have access. The way that I see it, the county should have to pay a significantly higher percentage of the PLFD budget. This should be done without a tax increase by trimming excess from other places in the county budget, such as cutting Port O’Connor “city” streets from the county road maintenance budget, rolling back the size of the sheriff’s department to about a 1995 level, and selling the hospital (another subject) to a private enterprise.
If the egos and kingdoms primarily residing at the county level and secondarily at the city level were eliminated, we could save even more money by combining the EMS and fire services with cross-trained personnel and implementing a central dispatch thus allowing us to reduce the size of the combined workforces. "
cityresident wrote on Oct 14, 2008 10:00 PM:
" Good points. City residents pay both county and city taxes - seems that the county should pick up its fair share of the fire cost. "
Tom wrote on Oct 23, 2008 7:17 AM:
" Great letter. It needs to be published so many more city residents can appreciate the costs they are incurring to support the county. "
medic911 wrote on Nov 1, 2008 10:08 PM:
" While I agree with Tapped-out Taxpayer on some of his points, I must point out that the Port Lavaca Fire Department needs the Volunteer Departments in the County as much as the Volunteers need the Port Lavaca Fire Department.
Do you really think 5 paid firefighters on one shift handle all of the fire incidents by themselves?
I am a County Volunteer FireFighter and I appreciate the help Port Lavaca Firefighters give us out in the County, but you are getting your tax money back that goes to the volunteers every time I come to the city to man the station or help out at a city fire on my free time when I could be spending it with my family or working.
This City & County as a whole under appreciate the service the Volunteer Firefighters do for the taxpayers of this County. ( and city ) "
Do you really think 5 paid firefighters on one shift handle all of the fire incidents by themselves?
I am a County Volunteer FireFighter and I appreciate the help Port Lavaca Firefighters give us out in the County, but you are getting your tax money back that goes to the volunteers every time I come to the city to man the station or help out at a city fire on my free time when I could be spending it with my family or working.
This City & County as a whole under appreciate the service the Volunteer Firefighters do for the taxpayers of this County. ( and city ) "
Tapped-out Taxpayer wrote on Nov 2, 2008 8:10 AM:
" To Medic911: while you may agree with some of my points, one point that perhaps I didn’t stress enough, or perhaps you didn’t fully appreciate, is that as a city resident (and by default, a county resident as well), my county tax dollars support the volunteer fire organizations, also. Therefore, I should expect the volunteer services to help the city (and again by default, we city dwellers who are also county residents and taxpayers) fire department.
However, the converse is not true. Basically, those who are living outside the city limits are only providing token (and in my opinion, paltry) support for the city fire service. Bear in mind that more than half of the county population resides within the Port Lavaca city limit. I would venture that, excluding the industrial tax base, more than half of the taxable property valuation rests there as well. But for the sake of argument, let us assume that half of the non-industrial county taxes come from city residents with the rest coming from all others and the following in round numbers.
● Cost of Port Lavaca fire department: $1,000,000 per year.
● “Contribution” from county for PLFD: $125,000 per year ($62,500 from city residents; $62,500 from all others).
By these figures, residents outside the city limits are paying 1/16 or 6.25% of the cost of the PLFD operation, yet historically, about 40% of the fire calls to PLFD fall outside the city limit. By a similar analysis, the city dwellers are paying half the cost of the VFDs.
The county should be cutting fat from other places in the budget and covering a much larger percentage of the cost of PLFD. As city dwellers, we should demand more equitable distribution of county tax dollars allocated to the services benefiting city residents. Otherwise, the city residents should elect a county judge and commissioners who will represent them equitably, unlike every one of those who are currently in those positions.
My argument is solely about how the fire organizations are funded and not about the value of the services. I fully recognize that volunteerism has traditionally been a backbone element of the success and development of this country and should not go unappreciated. For your volunteer service, I would like to thank you. "
However, the converse is not true. Basically, those who are living outside the city limits are only providing token (and in my opinion, paltry) support for the city fire service. Bear in mind that more than half of the county population resides within the Port Lavaca city limit. I would venture that, excluding the industrial tax base, more than half of the taxable property valuation rests there as well. But for the sake of argument, let us assume that half of the non-industrial county taxes come from city residents with the rest coming from all others and the following in round numbers.
● Cost of Port Lavaca fire department: $1,000,000 per year.
● “Contribution” from county for PLFD: $125,000 per year ($62,500 from city residents; $62,500 from all others).
By these figures, residents outside the city limits are paying 1/16 or 6.25% of the cost of the PLFD operation, yet historically, about 40% of the fire calls to PLFD fall outside the city limit. By a similar analysis, the city dwellers are paying half the cost of the VFDs.
The county should be cutting fat from other places in the budget and covering a much larger percentage of the cost of PLFD. As city dwellers, we should demand more equitable distribution of county tax dollars allocated to the services benefiting city residents. Otherwise, the city residents should elect a county judge and commissioners who will represent them equitably, unlike every one of those who are currently in those positions.
My argument is solely about how the fire organizations are funded and not about the value of the services. I fully recognize that volunteerism has traditionally been a backbone element of the success and development of this country and should not go unappreciated. For your volunteer service, I would like to thank you. "
ann wrote on Apr 9, 2009 10:23 PM:
" we need a new county commissioner for alamo beach & mag beach, he is not doing us any ,favor I was told that each year we should a a bucket of dirt for our drive way that their perks we can get for living out of the county , however no one will tell us the perks we can have each year, where can we find this info out? "
George wrote on Jun 9, 2009 12:33 PM:
" My taxes have gone up by 5x or more.
in 14 years. ( Six Mile area )
We have not seen any benifit at all from all these years of paying.
We drove 2,200 miles all over Texas and U.S last year and the road going to our house (Park Road ) was the worse road we drove or even saw the whole time.
It is sad to travel that distance and notice on the last mile home is the worse road in Texas. I think it is time all tax payers get a statement showing where all the tax dollars are going.Then we would all have something to complain about. We all should have input an know where the $$ are going. "
in 14 years. ( Six Mile area )
We have not seen any benifit at all from all these years of paying.
We drove 2,200 miles all over Texas and U.S last year and the road going to our house (Park Road ) was the worse road we drove or even saw the whole time.
It is sad to travel that distance and notice on the last mile home is the worse road in Texas. I think it is time all tax payers get a statement showing where all the tax dollars are going.Then we would all have something to complain about. We all should have input an know where the $$ are going. "
Just a bit confused wrote on Oct 6, 2008 4:18 PM: