1/30/1985 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the taxpayers and the spenders of the money. It was felt because the volunteers are not in this for profit that the Chiefs would represent the money spending need and the president of the not-for-profit department was basically a citizen and would represent the taxpayer; the third party was to be an elected official or an unbiased individual. He did agree, however, that it seems there is more discussion from the fire department's point of view than the taxpayers. Commissioner Scurlock inquired what the District's major objection is to a paid Administrator. Chief Arand noted that when the North County District was formed, it was told it would get 3 mills to run the District. That was fine, but they never did get 3 mills and at that time they had three departments. Now they have four departments and are going to five. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that the Commission recommended the North County District go to referendum and adopt a higher millage, but the North County said absolutely no - if we put in three mills, we will spend it and have paid people, etc., Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that voting in a higher millage cap does not mean that you have to use it. .003. Chief Arand stated that they went for .5 and all they get is OMB Director Barton noted that is incorrect. The District does levy .5 mills every year; although one year it was .43 when we used the rollback. The one-half mill levy creates approximately $150,000. Commissioner Scurlock felt that is part of the problem; you can't run the District on $150,000. OMB Barton agreed, noting that the budget used to be in four segments, and now it is five, plus there is a general account to pay the expenses common to all, i.e., insurance, Tax Collector and Property Appraiser's fees, etc. Chief Arand felt a coordinator or administrator as discussed, would require a salary of about $50,000 a year and 11 JAN 3 0 1985 BOOK v FACE 129