Notes of Comments made during the April 21st Board Meeting Discussion About Station 56
When I took office, we had two county fire stations. Our county fire department applied for and secured a SAFER grant from the federal government. The grant allowed us to expand to 5 stations staffed with CAL FIRE employees. By the time the grant expired, we found a way to permanently fund two of those three additional stations, effectively doubling our fire services from 2 to 4. This is probably the first time in Tuolumne County history that such a large line-item in the budget has doubled.
At the same time, through our Master Stewardship Agreement, we’ve secured $95M and built a horseshoe of fuel breaks around Tuolumne County, dramatically reducing the risk of a megafire. Fire is our number one priority, right alongside law enforcement and roads.
The bright colors on the map below represent fuels reduction work.
There’s a narrative right now that this board has “defunded” fire. That’s not accurate. If anything, the Federal Government defunded Station 56 by not renewing the grant. Even with the additional $780,000 (which was put into contingencies) earned under Assistance by Hire, there still isn’t enough to sustain Station 56 outside of the grant. Station 56 costs 2.3M per year. $780K still leaves a roughly $1.5M shortfall. During break, I confirmed with county staff that the $3+M in contingencies is already spoken for, as in the checks have been written, just not deposited for things like the Chinese Camp Fire clean-up effort.
I understand exactly where the public is at, no one wants to see this station go away. No one on this Board does either. But for years, this issue sat in District 2, with solutions tied to a tax measure or hopes the grant would be renewed. About a year and a half ago, I began bringing forward motions to fund Station 56 without relying on grants or new taxes.
I voted against pay raises and classification changes that added ongoing costs, specifically to preserve funding for Station 56. Those efforts were not supported, and those increases ultimately moved forward.
On January 6th, I brought forward a final option to fund Station 56 by cutting 5.6% across the entire organization, excluding Law Enforcement, Roads, Visitor Bureau, Parks & Rec and Libraries. That also was not supported, and I respect that decision. However, other proposals included cutting Law Enforcement, Roads, the Visitors Bureau (which generates funds to support these very services), Parks & Rec, and Libraries to fund Station 56. That would mean cutting public safety to fund public safety, and I will not support that. I will not ROB PETER TO PAY PAUL.
I am not going to cut the TNT program which is also saving lives and getting deadly fentanyl off our streets. We were just informed by our public health officer, that deaths due to fentanyl overdoses were down from 18 in 2024 to 4 in 2025. I am not going to cut the school resource officers protecting our kids. And like FIRE, road funding can save lives as well. 90% of fires start along roads. Our increased road funding will increase the amount of roadside brushing projects, and the sheriff is doing that work as well with his jail work crews. This also improves access for fire trucks and improves emergency egress for residences.
We are also in a political season. I could support using contingencies to temporarily keep Station 56 open even though it does not exist. That might be politically beneficial. But it would simply kick the can down the road and create even greater financial problems for future Boards.
On Monday, I met with Cal Fire leadership from outside of Tuolumne County. We are actively working toward any solution for Station 56. In that meeting, it was acknowledged that on January 6th, no alternative options were presented by CAL FIRE, only a choice to keep it open or close it. That has now changed, and I am glad CAL FIRE is now looking at more affordable ways to keep this station open. We are working collaboratively to explore restructuring options, and I’ve also been meeting with other districts and community partners for other viable options. But these solutions will not happen overnight.
So to be clear: I can make a short-term political decision today with money I don’t have, or I can hold the line and work toward a sustainable, long-term solution so we are not facing this same issue again next year.
With that said, I have noticed some people in the room seem to be writing blogs and other written materials that appear to heavily rely on AI, especially ChatGPT. Let me read you what Chat GPT wrote this morning about using contingencies regarding Station 56:
Would contingencies be appropriate to use in funding station 56?
CHAT:
Short answer: not for this.
Government contingencies are meant for:
• Unplanned emergencies
• One-time, unforeseen costs
They are not intended for ongoing operations like staffing and running a fire station year after year.
Why it doesn’t fit here:
• Station 56 is a recurring expense, not a one-time emergency
• Using contingencies would be a temporary patch, not a solution
• It creates a structural deficit—you’d be back in the same spot next year
• It weakens your ability to respond to actual emergencies
When it could be justified:
• Very short-term bridge
• Only if there’s a clear, approved long-term funding plan already in motion
End of chat————————————————
Until there is a clear, approved long-term funding plan in motion, I will not support structural deficits for our priorities. My vote today will be to continue down the current path decided January 6, while we finalize a viable, permanent solution moving forward.
