Jake Goodrick
The Sacramento Bee
(TNS)

Voters in Yuba City will decide at the ballot box in November whether to add an additional 1% sales tax within city limits to address the city’s budget crunch, funding overdue road repairs and public safety expansion.

Although many in the community recognize the need to address damaged roads before their condition worsens, area voters shot down a similar tax two years ago.

The upcoming vote on Measure D follows an unsuccessful bid last election cycle by Sutter County officials, who pushed for a county-wide penny tax that failed by a narrow margin.

The proposed tax is expected to raise about $17.5 million annually, which would primarily go toward dealing with years of underfunded maintenance on city roads as well as investments in law enforcement, addressing homelessness and funding upgrades for the fire department.

City and county officials have reached an unorthodox deal to share the 1% revenue if the vote passes. Under their agreement, the city would claim two thirds of the expected income and the county would take the remaining third, with the purpose of funding projects and services that benefit both the city and county.

“Our understanding is this is extremely unusual for a city to propose to share revenue proceeds with the county,” said Diana Langley, city manager for Yuba City.

With a current sales tax of 7.25%, Yuba City is one of eight California cities at that state-minimum threshold, according to city officials. The extra penny would bring the city on par with neighboring Marysville and Yuba County, which each carry an 8.25% sales tax.

If the vote passes, Sutter County’s 7.25% rate would still apply to in-county transactions made outside the city.

Currently, Yuba City peels 1% from sales tax collections, with 4% going toward the state general fund and most of the remaining 2.25% to the county. Sales tax, along with property tax, is a major contributor to the city’s budget, which officials said has been hit, like consumers’ budgets, by inflation.

Yuba City Council members endorsed the new sales tax at their regular meeting this week, a show of support for the measure they previously voted to put on ballots. A similar 1-cent sales tax pitched by Sutter County officials failed narrowly during the November 2022 election, with more than 48% of voters in favor, shy of the majority needed.

How the tax works

Splitting the sales tax, based on current projections, would leave the city with about $11.7 million and the county with shy of $5.8 million each year. Any collections above the estimated $17.5 million would be split 50-50, with half going to the city and the other half into a joint project fund shared with the county, according to an agreement council members approved earlier this month.

“The funds are to go toward things that benefit Yuba City residents, which are also Sutter County residents,” Langley said.

In future ye

HOLLY HUDSON HILL
Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier, Iowa
(TNS)

CEDAR FALLS — The city is moving forward with the purchase of a new fire truck.

The City Council unanimously authorized the purchase at its Monday meeting.

The new truck will replace a 30-year-old vehicle and is scheduled for purchase in 2028. The item is being brought forward now because the bid and build process takes about three years to complete.

Brian Heath reviewed the process with the council.

“The build time for an apparatus like this is typically around three years,” he said. “This is a platform aerial (truck). It is a little more involved than a normal pumper.”

Bids were received from Toyne, Inc., for $2.23 million and Feld Fire Equipment for $2.11 million, however both dealers are offering discounts for early payment, bringing the Toyne bid down to $2.1 million and the Feld bid down to $1.95 million.

The Public Works Department recommended the city accept the Toyne bid, as Feld required the truck to be paid off within 90 days to receive the discount, which was not budgeted.

___

(c)2024 Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier (Waterloo, Iowa)

Visit Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier (Waterloo, Iowa) at www.wcfcourier.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Lincoln Hose 2273 (Keyport, NJ) made the following Facebook post recently:

On Monday, Sept. 10, just before 3 p.m. Monmouth County communications started receiving calls for a boat fire at Brown’s Point Marina. Lincoln Hose 2273 responded first due with seven.

Upon arrival, the fire marshal confirmed three boats fully involved were docked on the far side of the marina. The wagon lay 700-feet of 5-inch supply hose, stretched a 400-foot pre-connect 1¾-inch handline and connected it to 300-feet of 2½-inch attack line. By the time members got the 700-foot line in place the chauffeur had the water supply established and watered the line.

The main fire was quickly knocked protecting the exposures. Once the fuel tanks let go our box alarm companies helped stretch an additional 2-inch attack line and held the fire until the fire boats could finish the job. Thank you to all agencies that assisted.

There were 1,550-feet of hose that came off the wagon in total.

Thank you to not only our box alarm companies but Hazlet Fire Department Marine 39-3, Perth Amboy Marine 5, FDNY Marine 8/9.

---

Two Firefighters Hurt, Three Boats Destroyed in Fire at NJ Marina, Officials say
Jeff Goldman
nj.com
(TNS)

Two firefighters suffered minor injuries battling a fire that destroyed three boats docked at a marina in Keyport on Monday, authorities said.

The fire broke out shortly before 3 p.m. at Brown’s Point Marina, Keyport police and the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office said.

One firefighter was treated at the scene while another was treated and released from an area hospital, a prosecutor’s office spokesman said. Firefighters cleared the scene at about 6:30 p.m.

The pier also was left with minor damage, officials said. The fire does not appear to be suspicious but remains under investigation.

The marina, located on West Front Street, sits on the Matawan Creek.

Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to NJ.com.

Jeff Goldman may be reached at jeff_goldman@njadvancemedia.com.

©2024 Advance Local Media LLC. Visit nj.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

By Bill Adams

This article was originally intended to discuss the working ends of the mobile water supply apparatus (aka tankers and tenders) displayed at FDIC International 2024. After a postshow review of the many photographs I took during the hubbub of setup and the initial opening of the exhibit floor, I have made a revision.

The photos show more than a dozen apparatus by a like number of manufacturers featuring rear direct tank fills. There were many variations in their installations. Included are the types of apparatus on which they were provided, the number of fills provided, their physical locations, valve and piping sizes, as well as labeling or lack thereof. Those differences warranted further analysis and a later topic change.

The fireground tactics and strategies of individual fire departments are not debated or challenged—nor should they be. The accoutrements fire departments choose and where they are mounted on their apparatus are solely their decision as it should be. Why they did so might be interesting to readers. However, more noteworthy is what, if any, regulatory standards were, could have been, or should have been followed.

TANKS AND NFPA 1900

Years ago, most apparatus manufacturers fabricated many of the major component parts on their apparatus in-house, including the water (booster) tank. With the acceptance of nonmetallic water tanks today, many apparatus manufacturers outsource tanks to manufacturers specializing in using the tank material chosen. Regardless of how important it is to end users whether tanks are built in-house or outsourced, the type of material used and the advantages or disadvantages are irrelevant for this discussion. Ascertaining the requirements for direct tank fills is.

Most queries about direct tank fills led back to National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1900, Standard for Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Vehicles, Automotive Fire Apparatus, Wildland Fire Apparatus, and Automotive Ambulances. The requirements of its Chapter 17 Fire Apparatus-Water Tanks (NFPA 1901/1906) and, in particular, Section 17.5.1-External Fill appear to be confusing and are ambiguous to me. More questions were raised than answers found.

Frustrating was trying to determine which portions of Chapter 17 were applicable to the various types of appa-ratus recognized by the standard. This was compounded by features found on the undefined but very popular tanker-pumpers and pumper-tankers, which NFPA 1900 does not recognize. There is no intent to disparage the NFPA for not addressing every concern and question raised herein. Perhaps no one has inquired previously.

ANNEX A

In the past, condemnatory comments have been made about the scope and amount of material in prior NFPA fire apparatus standards’ appendice