For the 2019 Measure B article, go to FireTaxB.
F ON MEASURE F -- VOTE NO!
Measure F was given the right grade: F. It should be rejected for 4 reasons. As was Measure B last year, Measure F is fashioned in the most regressive form possible, causing the least wealthy to subsidize the more wealthy. It also is questionable that the Foresthill Fire Protection District (FFPD) needs the amount this will raise. It imbeds automatic increases. And lastly, having a special election is unnecessary, simply an attempt to game the voting and get their way. Let's take them in order:
I apologize in advance to those who find math frustrating.
01. THE STRUCTURE OF THE TAX
BACKGROUND
We pay taxes with three different structures on our property tax bill. First are the Placer High Measure W 1999 taxes (of which there are three, Ser A, Ser B, and Ser C), strictly based on a percentage of assessed value. One percent of the assessed value times the rate, which is 0.020379, 0.002966, and 0.002207, respectively. This is the least regressive tax; the higher the value of your land and buildings, the more you pay. Since it's generally true that the more wealth one has, the higher the value of the possessions, this method is the fairest way to apportion the responsibility of funding agencies that benefit all citizens.
Second is the Mosquito Abatement Tax, which is a fixed amount modified by circumstances of each parcel. A Single Family Residence is charged the base rate, then that amount is raised or lowered for other types of property depending on usage and assumptions based on many factors. The base amount increases each year by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco Bay Area (not to exceed 3%). For more information, those interested can read the 2017-18 East and West (PDF) Engineer's Report; East County covers Foresthill.
Third is the present FFPD Tax, present iteration at $129.38, which targets residences and businesses with a fixed amount, but is not charged to those parcels that are undeveloped. It raises about $340,000 for the FFPD (2017 was $348,147). So the less wealthy subsidize the more wealthy for the services obtained. This also seems tied to the CPI and capped at 3% as the last 3 increases were 1.9%, 3%, and 3%, respectively.
$348,147.00 divided by 124.64 (2017 rate) equals 2793 parcels. According to the FFPD website, under History, the FFPD services an area with "nearly 3000 homes and 60 businesses". I'm not sure why the decline.
MEASURE F
The ballot question will read (draft from June 21 FFPD Board meeting):
To maintain rapid local emergency medical response and fire protection in the Foresthill Fire Protection District, and continue current staffing so firefighters are available to respond to emergencies, shall a special property tax of $240.37 per year per parcel, raising approximately $800,000.00 annually, be imposed by the District, with an annual adjustment equal to the increase in the CPI-West Region, to remain until ended by voters, with all funds staying in our community?
From the text of the measure itself:
Taxable parcels are those parcels that appear on the annual secured Placer County property tax roll and are billable for Foresthill Fire Protection District services.
Annual adjustments shall be limited to a percentage increase equal to the Consumer Price Index for the West Region and shall under no circumstances be greater than four percent (4.00%).
NOTE: The final version, passed by the Board on July 12, lowered the CPI cap to 2.6%. I have changed the numbers below to reflect that change.
First thing to note is the expectation that they will still ignore undeveloped parcels. $800,000.00 divided by $240.37 equals 3328 parcels to be taxed.
According to the Placer County Assessed Values and Tax Rates information (2016/2017), the Net Secured value (properties) of the FFPD area is $658,496,607. Since dividing that number by 3328 gives an average of $197,865, I would guess it only includes residences and businesses, not undeveloped parcels.
Now consider a beginning homeowner with a property valued at $100,000. His base property tax at 1% is $1000. $240 is an additional 24%, and he already pays nearly $130 to the FFPD. So he'd pay FFPD $370 every year.
For a property valued at $1,000,000, 1% being $10,000, that's only a 2.4% increase. And the milliondollar property owner also pays $370 every year.
It is unclear where mobile home parks fit in this. One park charges its tenants a $9 a month ($108 a year) Foresthill Fire Protection Fee. If the FFPD gets that money, and if so how it enters it on its revenues, I don't know.
If the Measure F tax were properly structured as the Placer High taxes, based on percentage, it would be a $0.121489 hit on the 1% of the assessed value. For the new homeowner's $100,000 property, he'd owe $121.49; the milliondollar property owner would be charged $1214.89.
It's quite simple: to protect a property worth ten times as much, the owner contributes ten times as much. And the FFPD would still get the $800,000.
Who can argue that's not a fairer system?
Moreover, if all properties were included, not just residences and businesses, the individual burden on the least able to pay would go down further.
02. IS IT NEEDED?
But is the $800,000 increase even necessary? Let's look at the basics: revenue in versus expenditures out (does not include assets, liabilities, fund balances, depreciation, or other accounting). From the FFPD Audited Financial Statements:
2014/2015: Revenue was $1,365,820, Expenditures $1,250,977
2015/2016: Revenue was $1,544,297, Expenditures $1,474,940
2016/2017: Revenue was $1,256,640, Expenditures $1,330,236
That means for the year:
2014/2015: $114,843
2015/2016: $69,357
2016/2017: -$73,596
Latest info this year is the 11th month (May 2018) report from the June 21 board meeting agenda; compare to the May 2017 agenda report (this includes all income and all expenses):
As of May 2017: Total Income was $1,113,534.38, Expenses $1,179,800.19
As of May 2018: Total Income was $1,290,088.65, Expenses $1,183,957.67
As of May 2017: -$46,265.8
As of May 2018: $106,130.98
So, as is the nature of such services, the revenue and expenditures vary. But notice the greatest negative in the last few years was $74,000, with the lowest upside $69,000. Ups and downs of these amounts are often balanced out by the way accounting is done, and it is obvious the last few years, 2014/2015-2016/2017, are a net of $100,000 to the good. And this year is on track to add another positive number. It is not the day-to-day operating costs that are harming the District.
The District is not really in danger of financial collapse. Let's look at what else they say the money is needed for.
Before the recent station closure (FFPD History): The Fire Chief operates the District with (1) Full Time Deputy Fire Marshal, (1) Full-time Administrative Assistant (3) Full-time Captain positions, (3) Full-time ALS Firefighters (5) Part-time paid Firefighter Paramedics, and (8) part-time paid Firefighter EMT's.
Currently the District operates with (2) type I fire engines (pumpers), (2) type III brush engines, (1) rescue squad, (1) air unit, (1) water tender, (2) staff vehicles and (3) ALS ambulances from its three strategically located stations within the jurisdictional borders.
According to the Foresthill Messenger (March 7, 2018) article by Fire Chief Kushen, Station 88 closed "due to the continuing loss of several highly trained firefighters and paramedics." And "We have experienced an unsustainable level of attrition over the last year and no longer have adequate personnel to fully staff both Foresthill Fire Stations. The on duty daily staffing at Foresthill Fire will be reduced from 2 personnel at both Stations 88 and 90 to 3 personnel daily operating out of Fire Station 90, located at 20540 Foresthill Road."
What was the result of this loss of personnel and station closure? They saved money, surely. No, personnel costs in June 2016 through May 2017 were $534,976.19. From June 2017 through May 2018 it actually increased to $549,271.13. Less personnel means $15,000 in additional payments? Station 88 maintenance did decrease about $800.
The main issue, according to Board President Chris Reams, is keeping recruits who leave for better pay and benefits with other Fire Departments. His argument in the October 18, 2017 Messenger was: "Our firefighter/EMT’s make $11.01/hr. In the next physical year the minimum wage goes to $12.00/hr. . . . Our Captain/Paramedics are in the $15.00/hr. range. If you give a raise to the bottom person you have to give one to the top, otherwise in 4 years they will all make the same amount. . . . Each minimum wage year will cost an estimated $53,000 more than the previous year, to an estimated total of $212,000. Minimum wage will deplete the reserves rapidly."
CORRECTION: I originally had a problem with these numbers; a 40 hour work week times 52 weeks is $2080 a year. I have since become aware of how the 24-hour firefighter shifts are organized (such as Kelly shift schedules or 3 Team Fixed 24 plans). Every 28 days they work either 216 or 240 hours. Anything over 212 hours in that 28 day period is mandated by the Federal Labor Standards to be overtime. There are 13 28-day periods in a year. $1 raise x 13 x 212 = $2756. Add the overtime of 4 or 28 hours at time-and-a-half, you get an increase of $2834 to $3302. For a staff of 18, that becomes a yearly cost somewhere between $51,012 to $59,436. So I accept Mr. Reams estimate of $53,000. And as the minimum wage increases are state mandated, FFPD will need $212,000 more.
Still, how does needing $212,000 after 4 years segway into an $800,000 a year increase? We still need a reason to approve the additional $600,000.
Another issue that has arisen is the need for $60,000 of repairs to 2 engines, or their replacement with a new $500,000 engine. If true, it would be good to get a replacement, but a one-time $500,000 cost should not excuse a yearly $800,000 increase. Yes, the up-and-down nature of funds does not allow such a purchase, but a $100,000 increase in taxes that sunsets in 5 years would do so and could likely win broad support. Unfortunately, such a targeted and limited tax doesn't appeal to our Board.
Why should we consider the closing of Station 88 anything other than an attempt to shame and bully the voters into blindly accepting this increase? Has it had any documented negative effect on the community? Are response times substantially up? Perhaps it should be viewed as a cheap political move, not a truly needed closure.
03. CPI - bad news.
The failed Measure B had noxious language imbedded that attempted to bypass the Gann Limit of Proposition 13, giving the FFPD the ability to raise the tax 4% every year in perpetuity without getting permission from the voters. Thankfully, they dropped that from this measure.
However, Measure F also has a similar, equally noxious, addition. Every year it will automatically increase by the Consumer Price Index-West Region. This last year, the CPI-West was 3.6%. The only good news is the Board changed the percentage. Now Measure F caps any increase at 2.6% instead of the original 4%. Still, for a reason only their psychiatrists know, the Board members feel they just have to find a way to keep voters from having a say in taxes.
With the economy growing, the CPI could quite easily be at or over 3% for years. If it stays there or above for the next 5 years, the tax will be $273.29, the original tax (capped at 3%) will have raised to $149.99, for total fire taxes at $423.28.
So after 5 years, the total the FFPD could be receiving will be about $909,500 on the new tax and $394,150 on the old tax, for a total of $1,303,700. A $163,700 increase in 5 years without a single vote; I wonder if that'll be enough for them?
To have a massive increase of $800,000 in taxes, nearly tripling the amount of tax now paid, with no evidence of needing anywhere near that much to be solvent and indeed growing in revenue, and then add automatic increases? That shows contempt for the voters.
04. The Special Election Scam.
The growing corruption in the political classes is troubling. The Board of Supervisors for Placer County approved this Special Election on September 18 for the FFPD Measure F. They are paying for it with the tax money from ALL of Placer County.
On November 6 is the General Election. Adding Measure F to that ballot would have cost next to nothing. The Clerk-Recorder's Elections Office routinely adds local measures to the Primary and General ballots and distributes them to the correct voters; it's what they do. So there was no reason not to have Measure F on the November ballot.
Except:
By holding a Special Election one-and-a-half months earlier, the calculus was that voters would be confused and NOT VOTE on September 18. If YES voters were more motivated, and therefore more likely to pay attention to the dates, they could squeak a YES vote through. It is all about gaming the system, rigging the election process to gain an advantage for your side.
That the Board of Supervisors joined into this game is not surprising: if they can trick Foresthill into raising taxes, it is all the more OPM (Other People's Money) to feed their County-wide spending addiction. What's a few thousand ($39,920, to be exact) wasted on a Special Election if they get the $800,000 prize?
In some ways, these last 2 points are the most disturbing. Every attempt to shut out voters, every scam to improperly increase or decrease votes, is a travesty. By themselves, they should disqualify this Measure. Coupled with the first 2 points, it should be clear: Measure F needs a loud, resounding NO vote.
In a politically perfect world, no one would take my word or anyone else's; they'd check it out. There are many other questions that can be raised after looking through the FFPD reports, but these 4 are the most salient in my mind. Please read the documents yourself and decide.
F on Measure F -- Vote NO!
Addendum:
Comparing Georgetown FPD to Foresthill FPD
Board Member Tyler Harkness had a letter to the editor in the July 18 Foresthill Messenger contrasting Georgetown's Fire District with ours. The letter can be read here:
http://www.foresthillmessenger.com/opinion/views/two-visions-for-the-foresthill-fire-district/article_687c7412-88ae-11e8-85d1-632462f42190.html
Trying to get information on the GFPD is difficult. Their website has some good info and much rudimentary, incomplete info. (I should mention, the last 2 years of the Foresthill District has very complete info; for that, I do commend them). Here is the Georgetown site:
http://www.georgetownfiredepartment.com/financials.html
I also accessed these documents: FY 2016/2017 Board Approved Budget (but no actual figures) and FY 2014/2015 Audit Findings, the latest available.
The Assessed Valuation of the GFPD (value of all properties) as of 2016 was $368,290,000.
The GeorgeTown Fire Protection District has a Parcel Fee of $35 per parcel, improved or unimproved. This brings in about $80,000 annually. It has no automatic increase, so the GFPD must, rightly, request that the citizens increase the fee.
The GFPD also has a Fire Suppression Benefit Assessment that is charged to each parcel, $55.42 if undeveloped and $64.64 if developed. This tax is tied to an automatic increase apparently capped at 2%. This brings in about $140,000 a year.
Apples to apples is hard to do. I can directly compare 2014/2015, but that is too long ago to be really relevant. The next best is to compare the FFPD 2016/2017 final to the GFPD preliminary budget.
According to the 2016/2017 Audit, FFPD had 8 full time and 10 part time staff. According to Mr. Harkness' letter, they have now 10. Mr. Harkness says GFPD has 9 full time and over 40 volunteers.
Let's compare revenue:
Property Tax revenue share from the County:
FFPD (at .062%) $434,817
GFPD about $418,000
Foresthill Parcel Tax: $348,147
GFPD Parcel Tax & Assessment: $219,760
Foresthill Wages and Benefits: $860,830
GFPD Total Payroll expenses: $735,080
Let's consider this a bit closer. Georgetown has 9 paid firefighters. Since volunteers are the worker drones, it is fair to believe these aren't minimum wage beginners. Plus, GFPD pays for health insurance and retirement benefits that accounts for $240,000 of that. For FFPD, that would be around $45,000.
So by my math, Foresthill is $144,000 ahead in revenue, and pays $125,750 more in wages. And if you add the difference in insurance and retirement to the wages, FFPD is paying $320,750 more in wages.
Now please follow my logic here: $735,080 divided by 9 GFPD professional firefighters equals an average salary of $81,675. If we remove the $240,000 in health and retirement, it becomes $495,080 in wages, divided by 9 equals $55,008 as an average salary.
If 18 FFPD Firefighters are paid an average of $55,008, that comes to $990,144. Remember, though, some are the equivalent of the volunteers and then would be paid a lower wage, bringing the average down. $990,144 minus the now amount of $860,830 means the FFPD only needs to raise $129,314 more to afford to pay 18 Firefighters at the average rate of the GFPD if health and retirement costs are not included (as they are not now for most of the FFPD staff).
Final thought
So to be competitive in pay, it does not follow that FFPD needs $800,000 more in taxes. From all the above, a request for $400,000, based on valuation of property and with no automatic raises would cover the $212,000 needed for minimum wage increases and the $130,000 for hiring if at GFPD levels.
But $800,000, with the poorer taxpayers subsidizing the wealthier, with automatic raises, and with the Special Election attempt to sway the vote? NO! I strongly urge a NO! vote.
__________________________
Rebuttal by John Michelini
[I will append my commentary after each section in brackets; KeLP]
Taxes
After passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, the California Constitution was amended to limit ad valorem tax to 1% of assessed valuation. The District cannot levy a tax based on assessed value. While your position about regressive taxation has some merit, it is imperiled by law.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
ARTICLE XIII A TAX LIMITATION
SECTION 1
Section 1. Maximum ad valorem tax on real property. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.
(b) The limitation provided for in subdivision (a) shall not apply to ad valorem taxes or special assessments to pay the interest and redemption charges on any of the following:
(1) Indebtedness approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1978.
(2) Bonded indebtedness for the acquisition or improvement of real property approved on or after July 1, 1978, by two-thirds of the votes cast by the voters voting on the proposition.
(3) Bonded indebtedness incurred by a school district, community college district, or county office of education for the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities, including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities, or the acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities, approved by 55 percent of the voters of the district or county, as appropriate, voting on the proposition on or after the effective date of the measure adding this paragraph. This paragraph shall apply only if the proposition approved by the voters and resulting in the bonded indebtedness includes all of the following accountability requirements:
To see the complete text of the above Constitutional Article go to: http://www.boe.ca.gov/lawguides/property/current/ptlg/ccp/XIII-A-1.html
[I am not a lawyer. I don't know if Mr. Michelini is, but I have no doubt the Board has consulted with such and perhaps were told they cannot do an ad valorem tax. But I read Article XIII A differently.
[It does not restrict which agencies can impose an ad valorum tax and does not say "the sum total of all ad valorum taxes shall not exceed 1%". The use of the word "any" implies there can be many taxes, but no individual tax can be above 1%. Section 1 (b) says the limit (1%) does not apply to the following (then the list). My interpretation would seem supported by the SEC. 10. LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION court case summaries which reference the 1% limitation on the new or existing assessments.
[Regardless, there is another model to address the regressiveness of the FFPD proposed tax: the Mosquito Abatement Tax. The direct charge can be a fixed amount modified by circumstances of the parcel. Setting a base rate and increasing it by acreage would be akin, although poorly, to a charge based on value. The charge could be modified by usage of the parcel. And it could be modified by how well the parcel adheres to the fire safe property guidelines.]
Measure F
1. Undeveloped parcels are NOT ignored by Measure F. All parcels within the District Boundary subject to property tax are covered by the measure. According to the County Assessors Office there are 3331 parcels in the District (not all are taxable).
[Here I am confused. Trying to get solid numbers on homes and parcels is difficult. The website History of the Fire District states it serves "nearly 3000 homes and 60 businesses" serving around 6000 people. The Audits from 2012-on echo that with a boilerplate statement asserting the 6000 number. The 2007 Foresthill Divide Community Plan, using year 2000 numbers, shows 2,384 housing units, of which 343 are mobile home or van/rv. The Foresthill Public Utility District says it has (as of year 2013) 1,979 connections, which of course does not include those with wells.
[It is not clear at all that the 3331 number is total parcels in the district.
[I hate to bring personal information into this discussion, as I'm trying to focus on principles, not individuals. But here I must, just to get some clarity.
[My property consists of 2 parcels. The parcel with the home is taxed for the bonds, mosquitos, and the current FFPD tax. The parcel without a residence is charged for bonds and mosquitos, but NOT the FFPD tax. Why? Either all parcels are taxed and somehow it got missed, or there is a criteria applied that exempted it.
[And to wrap this up, Measure F states "Taxable parcels are those parcels that appear on the annual secured Placer County property tax roll and are billable for Foresthill Fire Protection District services." My italics. This sounds very much like it consists of the same properties that are currently taxed, so if only residential and business parcels are taxed, that will continue under Measure F.]
2. Your math is chosen to maximally inflate the impact of a new tax. For example: If a homeowner has a home valued at $100,000.00 and they pay 1% property tax they will pay $1,000.00 per year. Adding on a parcel tax of $240.00 increases their tax by .24% to a total of 1.24%. Regardless of the manner it is displayed it is an unwelcome impact to the cost of the household.
[Guilty as charged. An argument that does not consider maximum consequences defeats its purpose. And I note that you ignore the $1,000,000.00 home that pays 1.024% with that $240.00 addition, minimizing the disparity.]
3. Mobile Home Parks will be taxed by parcel. Most have a single parcel but according to assessor maps, Skyview shows two parcels. Occupants of Mobile Home Parks should pay a pro-rata share of the $240.37 (if the owners pass through the cost). If you can document a Mobile Home Park that is charging tenants a Foresthill Fire Protection Fee, I would like to see it because it is illegal and it does NOT go to the Fire District.
[Documentation has been provided.]
4. The Example of Placer High provided refer to bond indebtedness. It is taxation approved by voters to pay back loans taken by the School District to complete capital improvement projects. Bond indebtedness is the only other approved use of Ad Valorem taxation in California (See Taxes above).
[Yes, I knew it was bond payments, but again I see that as a mis-reading of Article XIII A. It does not say bond indebtedness is an approved use of ad valorum taxation, but rather that the 1% limitation does not apply to bond debt.]
Is It Needed?
Your review of District Financials excludes (as noted on your page) among other things, fund balances, assets, and depreciation. These are some of the most important elements of this District’s financial picture. There are basically two funds that are maintained by the District. The AB2016 fund is revenue that is paid by developers to off set the impact of new development. This revenue is what is know as restricted. In other words, the Board of Directors are restricted by law on hoe the revenue can be utilized. AB2016 funds can only be used for capital purchases such as land, new building construction, and non-disposable equipment like fire engines or ambulances.
The other fund is General Reserves (Savings). Government agencies typically maintain a reserve policy that dictates how much must be held in savings to prevent operational disruptions caused by unanticipated expenses like a major equipment breakdown or building repair. Funds in General Reserves are discretionary and can be used for any District financial need.
Why are these two accounts important? They don’t have enough funding to serve their respective purposes. During the recession when the community’s property tax bills went down, so did revenue for the Fire District. To make up the difference and avoid service delivery cuts, the District was forced to use savings. The funds from the discretionary reserve account had been slated to be used for replacing fire engines and other essential equipment. The Board of Directors “kicked the can down the road” to the intersection of Today and Measure F.
The short summary of Revenue versus Expenditures you have listed illustrates just how precarious the situation has become. In a three-year span (post-recession), the District had a positive cash flow of $110,604.00. What you are failing to acknowledge is the Assets of the District. District assets (mostly building and fire engines) have been severely depreciated because of their age. $36,868.00 per year is insufficient to replace ambulances, fire engines, hose, breathing apparatus, heart monitors, and safety gear. Your illustration also leaves out the draconian cuts made to the budget over the last six to seven years to maintain a marginally balanced budget.
I respectfully disagree with your assessment that the day-to-day operating costs are not harming the District. Further in your blog you recognize the cost impact of the near future minimum wage law. You assess the cost to be $53,000.00 per year. Let’s do the math. Using your numbers, $36,868.00 positive cash flow impacted by $53,000.00 of new mandated labor expense equals a yearly negative budget balance of $16,132.00 and let’s not forget those pesky equipment replacement costs that continue to be unfunded. Therefore, it is my assessment that the District is unable to continue funding day-to-day operations on the existing revenue stream.
[see below]
Staffing
You list inaccurate staffing levels prior to the station closure.
Before the recent station closure (FFPD History): The Fire Chief operates the District with (1) Full Time Deputy Fire Marshal, (1) Full-time Administrative Assistant (3) Full-time Captain positions, (3) Full-time ALS Firefighters (5) Part-time paid Firefighter Paramedics, and (8) part-time paid Firefighter EMT's.
The District prior to the station closure had a shared Fire Chief (.5 FTE). The Fire Chief is employed by the Placer Hills Fire District and is under contract to provide executive management services to the Foresthill Fire District. The Deputy Fire Marshal position was illuminated for cost savings after Gary Kirk retired nearly 5 years ago. Other positions were as follows: (1) Full-time administrative assistant, (4) Full-time Captains – 1 acting in the temporary position of Battalion Chief, (3) Full-time Lieutenants and a varying number of part-time employees. Daily staffing was 2 personnel at each of the two staffed stations for a total on duty force of 4 personnel. Standard staffing was 1 full-time and 1 part-time employee at each station.
Chief Kushen’s article states correctly that the immediate causal factor to trigger the closure of Station 88 was the inability to retain employees coupled with the inability to attract new employees. That however is a symptom of the larger problem. The District fails to pay employees a comparable salary and pays full-time employees only $475.00 per month for all benefits. Part-time employees receive no benefits. The reason the District is unable to pay better wages and provide benefits is the funding gap. Without additional funding any effort to improve retention would collapse the budget. Pushed by attrition, the District closed station 88 and in a questionable but understandable move, they increased wages and made the previously part-time positions full-time to attract new candidates. The new wages remain far below comparable agencies and no changes have been made to benefit levels.
Savings created by the decrease in daily staffing are eliminated by two factors. All remaining employees are full-time. Prior to the closure, 50% of daily staffing was part-time staff paid $11.02 per hour. With the closure, 100% of the 9 personnel who work at the station are full-time employees paid between $15 and $20 per hour. The difference is a small increase in the cost of wages as you note.
Your numbers for firefighters working hours and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime hours are slightly incorrect. Firefighters work a 56-hour work week. At a basic level, FLSA requires overtime to be paid for all hours worked in a week over 53. Typically, a firefighter on a 56-hour work week will get 1.5 hourly wage for the last 3 hours worked. FLSA is very complicated but the basic premise is 3 hours of overtime per week times 52 weeks is 156 hours of ½ time pay in addition to hourly wage for 2,912 hours per year.
I am impressed with your understanding and calculations relative to FLSA as you have illustrated in your blog – Nice job.
[see below]
Replacement Equipment
You and I agree that throwing $60,000.00 at a 24-year-old piece of equipment so that it remains a 24-year-old piece of equipment is not in the best interest of the community. Your assessment of the equipment lacks depth. There is not one but many pieces of equipment in need of replacement and in addition there is essential life safety equipment that must be replaced. I have completed a cost analysis for the replacement of District vehicles, the annual on-going expense is $200,000.00 per year. The District operates with 2 Type I (structure fire) engines, 2 Type III (Wildland) engines, 1 rescue squad, 1 water tender, 2 staff vehicles, and 3 ambulances. Any replacement schedule must consider the cost of the entire fleet not just one piece of equipment. The District could “target” tax the equipment needed and propose a bond issue for voters to consider, but that would simply be a bandage on a continuously hemorrhaging wound.
The closure of Station 88 is not a tactic or a political move of any nature. The math is simple, so too is the lack of applicants for vacant positions. The Board of Directors have done all that they can to push off the inevitable and after the community voted down Measure B they had no choice. No new revenue means less service as was widely advertised going into the last election. In fact, if Measure F fails, the District will be forced to further reduce staffing from 3 per day to 2 per day. This again is simple math. The District recently passed the 2018-2019 Fiscal Year Budget using reserves to make up for a deficit budget. That cannot be sustained. This year’s budget fails to fund equipment replacement and still was upside down.
I cannot speak to response times as I have not had opportunity to see any relative data.
[First, let me thank you for the staffing and pay information. That is very helpful.
[In the end, all of this is about Revenue versus Expenditure. Funds, Assets, and Depreciation/Appreciation are useful accounting tools, but by themselves have no effect on the year-in-year-out operation.
[Adding to a Fund is Revenue, spending from it is Expenditure.
[Assets are an Expenditure when purchased (unless gifted), and a Revenue if sold.
[Depreciation, for normal businesses, is a way to recover the cost of a major purchase, over few or many years, by reducing their tax burden.
[Depreciation/Appreciation for an entity like the FFPD is all about the assets. Some assets, like land, can actually go up in value as years go by. Most, e.g. trucks, go down in value. But that Appreciation/Depreciation only effects the District when those assets are sold.
[The issue in this election is all about raising Revenue via taxation.
[I agree that $36,000 a year is not a healthy profit, but it is still to the positive. What makes the present situation untenable is the irresponsible minimum wage increase dictated by the progressive legislature in Sacramento. The increase of $53,000 (a number not by me, but by Chris Reams) will guarantee a loss, if not in the first year, for sure by the fourth year. (By the way, using your 56 hours per week, I'd put it more at $55,000 per year).
[That $53,000 increase is for 16 or 17 full-time employees; returning to part-time employees might lower the cost, but I don't have the info to figure how much. So we'll run with it. Asking for an additional $212,000 in tax revenue I find justifiable.
[On top of that, there are health and maybe retirement benefits that the Board expects to pay to keep employees. There is no information that I've seen as a guesstimate of the amount that will cost. My worry is that many cities and counties have gone into bankruptcy, or nearly so, by overpromising these benefits and not being able to pay into the accounts (those unfunded mandates we hear of), so they need to be carefully considered.
[On replacing equipment, my trying to keep things short as possible must have given you the wrong impression. I am no fan of planned obsolescence. Depreciation is not deterioration. A 24-year-old truck can be a reliable workhorse, and a 24-month-old truck an unreliable money-pit. I notice that the Financial Review of Distressed Fire Service Providers in Placer County (appended to the minutes of the April 13, 2017 FFPD meeting) gave a replacement schedule that would replace all vehicles by 2036.
[Before I could accept spending $500,000 on a new vehicle (and that number is more than $100,000 over the costs given in the Financial Review), I would need to know what that $60,000 left undone. Tell me what that $60,000 will do, and tell me why, in the long run, it will be better to replace the truck instead.
[I'll accept your estimate of $200,000 per year, if the money is to be available on the schedule you and/or the Board wish. But that is just what I object to. You want no questions, trust us, we're doing what's needed. I want discussion and justification. You admit the Board could "target" tax. Unless the Board must go to the voters for approval, they will never be held to account for such decisions. So that's $200,000 I can't approve of adding to the taxes.]
CPI
Your statement: The failed Measure B had noxious language imbedded that attempted to bypass the Gann Limit of Proposition 13, giving the FFPD the ability to raise the tax 4% every year in perpetuity without getting permission from the voters. is inaccurate.
Measure B did NOT attempt to bypass the Gann Limit. First, Gann is NOT part of Proposition 13. It is found in Proposition 4, passed by voters in 1979 to limit end runs on Proposition 13. Second, the approved full text of both Measure B and Measure F include a authorization to extend the District’s Gann Limit.
Measure F DOES NOT AUTOMATTICALLY INCREASE each year. State law is very clear on the process by which such an increase is addressed. Based on the Western States Consumer Price Index, the Board of Directors may present a proposal to adjust (up or down – don’t laugh to hard) the tax once each year. Nothing in Measure F compels an annual evaluation of CPI but it does limit evaluations to one time in any 12-month period. If the Board of Directors desires a change, it must be presented at a Public Hearing with opportunity for public input. After a public hearing the Board is required to obtain a at least a 3/5 majority vote of the Board to pass any adjustment. In other words, 3 Board members cannot pass an adjustment to the tax with a 2-1 vote, it requires at least 3 yes votes out of 5 members.
On an interesting note relative to this subject. The reason it was changed from 4% to 2.6% was public input at a public hearing!
Your use of worst case scenario’s for illustrating potential annual increases in tax rate is somewhat disingenuous. You did not use worst case scenarios in any of your other calculations when examining District expenses.
Community members have opportunity to vote now and that includes authorizing future increases. All community members have the opportunity each month to address the Board of Directors and if not satisfied with their response have opportunity to vote them out of office every four years. It is not necessary and quite expensive to repeatedly vote on annual adjustments.
Voters can eliminate this tax at any point by a vote of the people.
[You are correct that Gann was Prop 4, not Prop 13, although it is part of the package of proposals by Jarvis and Gann to reform the system. Prop 13 is Article XIII A, Prop 4 Article XIII B. But Measure B did try to bypass Gann. Ballotpedia (and I remember the official Placer County analysis also) said "Measure B was designed to increase the district's spending limit through a gann overide". And the most egregious part of Measure B was ignoring Section 4 of Article XIII B: "The appropriations limit imposed on any new or existing entity of government by this Article may be established or changed by the electors of such entity, subject to and in conformity with constitutional and statutory voting requirements. The duration of any such change shall be as determined by said electors, but shall in no event exceed four years from the most recent vote of said electors creating or continuing such change." My italics. Measure B would not have returned to the voters to get approval in four years.
[On CPI increases: since state law requires the Board to vote on increases, it must also be true of the present FFPD tax that increased the last two years at 3%. Has the Board at any time since the tax was enacted not implemented the increase or done so at a lower than CPI rate? Sincere question.
[But as for the 2.6% rate that Measure F calls for, I note that one Board Member not only said the $800,000 was half what was needed, but that no cap should be placed on the CPI increase. Given that attitude, and the fact that all Board Members wanted a 4% CPI cap but went with the 2.6% out of what they perceived as political necessity, how can a vote to raise the tax 2.6% (or maximum if lower; unlikely) not be a done deal? Not automatic, fine, but just a formality. Not much difference in the end.
[And talking about my maximizing, how about your minimizing? You call it an annual adjustment, which kinda downplays it is really a tax increase. Rather than annual adjustments, how about a slightly larger request and come back to the voters in eight years, present the evidence that you've been fiscally responsible, and make the case for any needed increase for the next eight years?
[Lastly, repeal of an existing tax is extremely hard. Voters default to believing it must be needed or would never have passed, especially if it has been in place for years. Examples of repealed taxes are scarce. Better to never pass them in the first place.]
Special Election
I was a proponent of a Special Election so long as the County paid all costs. This is not an attempt to disenfranchise voters and quite the opposite. We (The Board and those community members who endorsed a Special Election) all felt that this is a very important local community matter and we did not want it lost in the immensity of the General Election. Communicating the issue to the voters is paramount.
Contrary to the theory that a Special Election yields a smaller voter turnout, Measure B had an outstanding response of 53%. There is no calculus that voters won’t vote on September 18th and your statement indicates that you are not aware that the ballot is all mail. Voters will have some 28 days to decide on the issue and return their ballot.
The Board of Supervisors only role in this Measure is the granting of funds to pay for the cost of the election. There is NO prize for them at the end. The Revenue raised by Measure F is that of the Foresthill Fire Protection District and NOT Placer County.
There is no attempt to shut out voters, there is no scam to improperly increase or decrease votes.
[Here I had to laugh. The Measure B mail-in vote was in an off-year, and many were obviously motivated to return the ballots. That's good. But this Measure F is quite different.
[I am very aware the September 18 election is by mail. That is why I put that fact on my signs. By contrast, not one of the many signs and banners by the FOR F side mentions either the date, nor the mail-in fact. Why? I'll tell you why.
[Those politically engaged, either by nature or motivated by words or actions, will send their YES or NO votes in early. But the majority of voters are apolitical and put off considering their vote until very near the election date. Many do not decide until actually in the polling booth. They are aware the Primary occurred and of the upcoming General Election in November, the usual date.
[The calculus on the YES side is that those people, many who might be off-put by the size of the request, will put their ballot aside to fill out later (after all, they have 28 days) and not realize it is not in November with all the other political items.
[The loss of Measure B was by about 5%, despite the threat of closing Station 88. By actually closing the Station (I'd argue it's more unstaffed than actually closed, but say it as you will), and finagling the date of the vote, it is hoped that 5% will be either scared into a YES, or forgetful and miss the deadline.
[Supervisors have no prize waiting? Even before Measure B, we were reading how the Board of Supervisors should be allocating more funds to the Fire Districts, some saying money was being wrongfully withheld. Right or wrong, guess what happens if Measure F passes? With $800,000 dangling in the air, no-one will be speaking against the Supervisors. Whatever funds they would otherwise have had to spend on the Foresthill Fire District, they can now spend elsewhere. To get the people of Foresthill to tax themselves $800,000, $40,000 is a bargain.]
Georgetown
As you indicate in your Blog, it is difficult to get information about Georgetown Fire from their webpage. I too have information about their budget and how taxes are used. Your research is good on this subject!
Mr. Harkness’ letter to the editor is insufficient. It does not cover the issue, only selected excerpts from his conversation with the Georgetown Fire Chief. It fails to mention that Georgetown has a 7-acre training facility to train volunteers and that the Special Parcel Tax od $35.00 per parcel is used to pay for a Training Officer. It also leaves out the largest single funding source for the Georgetown Fire Department, a County Ambulance Tax.
I have completed a side-by-side comparison for your reference:
Georgetown Fire Department versus Foresthill Fire District
Side-by-Side Financial Comparison
Georgetown Fire 2016-2017 Budget
Revenue Source Use Annual Amount
Property Tax Fund Department Operations $430,000.00
Special Parcel Tax Fund Training Center $79,000.00
Fire Benefit Assessment Tax Fund Department Operations $140,760.00
Ambulance Tax Fund Ambulance Program $1,700,000.00
Charges for Service Fund Department Operations $50,000.00
Other Revenue Fund Department Operations 123,198.68
Proposed Parcel Tax N/A $00.00
TOTAL REVENUE - $2,522,958.68
Foresthill Fire District 2017-2018 Budget
Revenue Source Use Annual Amount
Property Tax Fund Department Operations $431,420.14
Special Parcel Tax Fund Department Operations $348,147.00
Fire Benefit Assessment Tax N/A $00.00
Ambulance Tax N/A $00.00
Charges for Service (Ambulance Transport Fees) Fund Department Operations $304,097.38
Other Revenue Fund Department Operations $170,449.27
Proposed Parcel Tax Fund Department Operations $800,672.47
TOTAL REVENUE INCLUDING MEASURE F FUNDING - $2,054,786.26
Georgetown Fire Annual Revenues - $2,522,958.68
Foresthill Fire District Annual Revenues - $1,254,113.79 ($2,054,786.26 if Measure F passes)
In addition, I have included an email from Chief Schwab at Georgetown addressing lapses in the material provided by Harkness to the Messenger in his editorial.
On Jul 19, 2018, at 5:12 PM, Greg Schwab wrote:
Chief Kushen,
Sorry for the delay, it’s been a very busy week!
As always, as a Fire Chief I do my best to avoid being in the press; especially, an open debate over a contentious funding issue.
Here is a list of omissions from Director Harkness and my telephone conversation on the afternoon of Monday, July 9th:
· Georgetown Fire has been providing a primarily volunteer delivery service model since 1854 (over 160 years), so our community has supported this delivery model in many ways, here are just some examples:
o Employers frequently allow members to make responses from their businesses during working hours
o Families are very supportive, we many ‘multi-generational/legacy’ firefighters
o Relationship with high school Fire/EMS ROP program which helps ‘feed’ new members to our agency
· Georgetown Fire has a seven acre Training Center with multi-story burn building and training props to host an annual volunteer firefighter academy and other OSFM Courses. Additionally, this facility aid in keeping our responders’ currency in rescue operations, structure and wildland firefighting.
· Georgetown Fire has many challenges with existing and new State and Federal regulations. These numerous unfunded mandates create a significant hardship on volunteer members and the agency.
In conclution, Director Harkness and I discussed the challenges of our comminty’s changing demographics in implimenting restarting and/or a creating ‘new’ volunteer firefighter programs in the foothills region of California.
Futhermore, here are Georgetown Fire’s FY2017-18 Budget Information:
Fire District $1.2M
County Ambulance $1.7M
I wish you the best in securing the funding Foresthill Fire needs to continue to provide its important mission!
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your blog!
John Michelini
[I sincerely thank Mr. Michelini for the Georgetown info, and for his rebuttal. Such is what our democractic republic needs, more rather than less light.
[My conclusion is it really comes down to two philosophies.
[The FFPD Board takes the view that they are the experts, having access to the data and a close view of what is occurring within the Fire Department. And that is true. Therefore they favor a "one time-one vote" that gives them all the financing that the future seems to demand (or, rather, as much of it as they believe voters will approve at this time). Basically, it's trust us to be responsible with the tax monies. Trust us to know whether to repair or replace equipment. Trust us with not raising to the full CPI if unnecessary.
[My philosophy is more akin to "Doveryai no proveryai" -- "Trust but verify". And it is based on a few principles. First, that taxes should be fairly shared -- no soak the rich, but neither unnecessarily harm the less wealthy. A much less regressive tax structure can be had, if not by ad valorum taxation, by setting conditions which modify the base tax.
[Secondly, no automatic raises in taxes (including those that require a formal vote). The damage is done at least for a time before Board Members can be removed and/or taxes rescinded. Better not to happen in the first place.
[Third, major purchases should be brought before the voters and the expenditure justified. Depreciation is not deterioration. Let the community weigh in on the wisdom of such purchases, and sunset any taxes after the neeeded money is raised.
[It is fine to trust those we elect, but in return we need them to justify their decisions and requests, not in generalities, but in sufficient detail.
[Measure F fails these principles. I still urge a NO! vote.]
_______________________________
Links to information (cut and paste into your browser if necessary):
http://www.foresthillfire.org
http://www.foresthillfire.org/board-of-directors.php
http://www.foresthillmessenger.com
http://www.foresthillmessenger.com/news/local/fire-station-closure/article_72295f50-228a-11e8-aff5-f73e76063bf7.html
http://www.foresthillmessenger.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/the-saga-of-the-fire-district-where-we-really-stand/article_4b00ce92-b3b1-11e7-97a0-0b68f2074fcc.html
http://www.placermosquito.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2017-18-Placer-MVCD-East-and-West-ER-Final.pdf
_______________________________
Mea Culpa
In full disclosure, my letter against the failed Measure B last year in the Foresthill Messenger had some wrong numbers. That it was assembled in haste and the incorrect figures mistakenly inserted is no excuse. I trust this time my article has few, if any, factual errors of that sort. And I trust any errors of any sort will be pointed out.
I always say, I make more mistakes in a day than most people in a month. But I own my mistakes and correct them if I can. That should be all one can ask of another.
F ON MEASURE F -- VOTE NO!
Measure F was given the right grade: F. It should be rejected for 4 reasons. As was Measure B last year, Measure F is fashioned in the most regressive form possible, causing the least wealthy to subsidize the more wealthy. It also is questionable that the Foresthill Fire Protection District (FFPD) needs the amount this will raise. It imbeds automatic increases. And lastly, having a special election is unnecessary, simply an attempt to game the voting and get their way. Let's take them in order:
I apologize in advance to those who find math frustrating.
01. THE STRUCTURE OF THE TAX
BACKGROUND
We pay taxes with three different structures on our property tax bill. First are the Placer High Measure W 1999 taxes (of which there are three, Ser A, Ser B, and Ser C), strictly based on a percentage of assessed value. One percent of the assessed value times the rate, which is 0.020379, 0.002966, and 0.002207, respectively. This is the least regressive tax; the higher the value of your land and buildings, the more you pay. Since it's generally true that the more wealth one has, the higher the value of the possessions, this method is the fairest way to apportion the responsibility of funding agencies that benefit all citizens.
Second is the Mosquito Abatement Tax, which is a fixed amount modified by circumstances of each parcel. A Single Family Residence is charged the base rate, then that amount is raised or lowered for other types of property depending on usage and assumptions based on many factors. The base amount increases each year by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco Bay Area (not to exceed 3%). For more information, those interested can read the 2017-18 East and West (PDF) Engineer's Report; East County covers Foresthill.
Third is the present FFPD Tax, present iteration at $129.38, which targets residences and businesses with a fixed amount, but is not charged to those parcels that are undeveloped. It raises about $340,000 for the FFPD (2017 was $348,147). So the less wealthy subsidize the more wealthy for the services obtained. This also seems tied to the CPI and capped at 3% as the last 3 increases were 1.9%, 3%, and 3%, respectively.
$348,147.00 divided by 124.64 (2017 rate) equals 2793 parcels. According to the FFPD website, under History, the FFPD services an area with "nearly 3000 homes and 60 businesses". I'm not sure why the decline.
MEASURE F
The ballot question will read (draft from June 21 FFPD Board meeting):
To maintain rapid local emergency medical response and fire protection in the Foresthill Fire Protection District, and continue current staffing so firefighters are available to respond to emergencies, shall a special property tax of $240.37 per year per parcel, raising approximately $800,000.00 annually, be imposed by the District, with an annual adjustment equal to the increase in the CPI-West Region, to remain until ended by voters, with all funds staying in our community?
From the text of the measure itself:
Taxable parcels are those parcels that appear on the annual secured Placer County property tax roll and are billable for Foresthill Fire Protection District services.
Annual adjustments shall be limited to a percentage increase equal to the Consumer Price Index for the West Region and shall under no circumstances be greater than four percent (4.00%).
NOTE: The final version, passed by the Board on July 12, lowered the CPI cap to 2.6%. I have changed the numbers below to reflect that change.
First thing to note is the expectation that they will still ignore undeveloped parcels. $800,000.00 divided by $240.37 equals 3328 parcels to be taxed.
According to the Placer County Assessed Values and Tax Rates information (2016/2017), the Net Secured value (properties) of the FFPD area is $658,496,607. Since dividing that number by 3328 gives an average of $197,865, I would guess it only includes residences and businesses, not undeveloped parcels.
Now consider a beginning homeowner with a property valued at $100,000. His base property tax at 1% is $1000. $240 is an additional 24%, and he already pays nearly $130 to the FFPD. So he'd pay FFPD $370 every year.
For a property valued at $1,000,000, 1% being $10,000, that's only a 2.4% increase. And the milliondollar property owner also pays $370 every year.
It is unclear where mobile home parks fit in this. One park charges its tenants a $9 a month ($108 a year) Foresthill Fire Protection Fee. If the FFPD gets that money, and if so how it enters it on its revenues, I don't know.
If the Measure F tax were properly structured as the Placer High taxes, based on percentage, it would be a $0.121489 hit on the 1% of the assessed value. For the new homeowner's $100,000 property, he'd owe $121.49; the milliondollar property owner would be charged $1214.89.
It's quite simple: to protect a property worth ten times as much, the owner contributes ten times as much. And the FFPD would still get the $800,000.
Who can argue that's not a fairer system?
Moreover, if all properties were included, not just residences and businesses, the individual burden on the least able to pay would go down further.
02. IS IT NEEDED?
But is the $800,000 increase even necessary? Let's look at the basics: revenue in versus expenditures out (does not include assets, liabilities, fund balances, depreciation, or other accounting). From the FFPD Audited Financial Statements:
2014/2015: Revenue was $1,365,820, Expenditures $1,250,977
2015/2016: Revenue was $1,544,297, Expenditures $1,474,940
2016/2017: Revenue was $1,256,640, Expenditures $1,330,236
That means for the year:
2014/2015: $114,843
2015/2016: $69,357
2016/2017: -$73,596
Latest info this year is the 11th month (May 2018) report from the June 21 board meeting agenda; compare to the May 2017 agenda report (this includes all income and all expenses):
As of May 2017: Total Income was $1,113,534.38, Expenses $1,179,800.19
As of May 2018: Total Income was $1,290,088.65, Expenses $1,183,957.67
As of May 2017: -$46,265.8
As of May 2018: $106,130.98
So, as is the nature of such services, the revenue and expenditures vary. But notice the greatest negative in the last few years was $74,000, with the lowest upside $69,000. Ups and downs of these amounts are often balanced out by the way accounting is done, and it is obvious the last few years, 2014/2015-2016/2017, are a net of $100,000 to the good. And this year is on track to add another positive number. It is not the day-to-day operating costs that are harming the District.
The District is not really in danger of financial collapse. Let's look at what else they say the money is needed for.
Before the recent station closure (FFPD History): The Fire Chief operates the District with (1) Full Time Deputy Fire Marshal, (1) Full-time Administrative Assistant (3) Full-time Captain positions, (3) Full-time ALS Firefighters (5) Part-time paid Firefighter Paramedics, and (8) part-time paid Firefighter EMT's.
Currently the District operates with (2) type I fire engines (pumpers), (2) type III brush engines, (1) rescue squad, (1) air unit, (1) water tender, (2) staff vehicles and (3) ALS ambulances from its three strategically located stations within the jurisdictional borders.
According to the Foresthill Messenger (March 7, 2018) article by Fire Chief Kushen, Station 88 closed "due to the continuing loss of several highly trained firefighters and paramedics." And "We have experienced an unsustainable level of attrition over the last year and no longer have adequate personnel to fully staff both Foresthill Fire Stations. The on duty daily staffing at Foresthill Fire will be reduced from 2 personnel at both Stations 88 and 90 to 3 personnel daily operating out of Fire Station 90, located at 20540 Foresthill Road."
What was the result of this loss of personnel and station closure? They saved money, surely. No, personnel costs in June 2016 through May 2017 were $534,976.19. From June 2017 through May 2018 it actually increased to $549,271.13. Less personnel means $15,000 in additional payments? Station 88 maintenance did decrease about $800.
The main issue, according to Board President Chris Reams, is keeping recruits who leave for better pay and benefits with other Fire Departments. His argument in the October 18, 2017 Messenger was: "Our firefighter/EMT’s make $11.01/hr. In the next physical year the minimum wage goes to $12.00/hr. . . . Our Captain/Paramedics are in the $15.00/hr. range. If you give a raise to the bottom person you have to give one to the top, otherwise in 4 years they will all make the same amount. . . . Each minimum wage year will cost an estimated $53,000 more than the previous year, to an estimated total of $212,000. Minimum wage will deplete the reserves rapidly."
CORRECTION: I originally had a problem with these numbers; a 40 hour work week times 52 weeks is $2080 a year. I have since become aware of how the 24-hour firefighter shifts are organized (such as Kelly shift schedules or 3 Team Fixed 24 plans). Every 28 days they work either 216 or 240 hours. Anything over 212 hours in that 28 day period is mandated by the Federal Labor Standards to be overtime. There are 13 28-day periods in a year. $1 raise x 13 x 212 = $2756. Add the overtime of 4 or 28 hours at time-and-a-half, you get an increase of $2834 to $3302. For a staff of 18, that becomes a yearly cost somewhere between $51,012 to $59,436. So I accept Mr. Reams estimate of $53,000. And as the minimum wage increases are state mandated, FFPD will need $212,000 more.
Still, how does needing $212,000 after 4 years segway into an $800,000 a year increase? We still need a reason to approve the additional $600,000.
Another issue that has arisen is the need for $60,000 of repairs to 2 engines, or their replacement with a new $500,000 engine. If true, it would be good to get a replacement, but a one-time $500,000 cost should not excuse a yearly $800,000 increase. Yes, the up-and-down nature of funds does not allow such a purchase, but a $100,000 increase in taxes that sunsets in 5 years would do so and could likely win broad support. Unfortunately, such a targeted and limited tax doesn't appeal to our Board.
Why should we consider the closing of Station 88 anything other than an attempt to shame and bully the voters into blindly accepting this increase? Has it had any documented negative effect on the community? Are response times substantially up? Perhaps it should be viewed as a cheap political move, not a truly needed closure.
03. CPI - bad news.
The failed Measure B had noxious language imbedded that attempted to bypass the Gann Limit of Proposition 13, giving the FFPD the ability to raise the tax 4% every year in perpetuity without getting permission from the voters. Thankfully, they dropped that from this measure.
However, Measure F also has a similar, equally noxious, addition. Every year it will automatically increase by the Consumer Price Index-West Region. This last year, the CPI-West was 3.6%. The only good news is the Board changed the percentage. Now Measure F caps any increase at 2.6% instead of the original 4%. Still, for a reason only their psychiatrists know, the Board members feel they just have to find a way to keep voters from having a say in taxes.
With the economy growing, the CPI could quite easily be at or over 3% for years. If it stays there or above for the next 5 years, the tax will be $273.29, the original tax (capped at 3%) will have raised to $149.99, for total fire taxes at $423.28.
So after 5 years, the total the FFPD could be receiving will be about $909,500 on the new tax and $394,150 on the old tax, for a total of $1,303,700. A $163,700 increase in 5 years without a single vote; I wonder if that'll be enough for them?
To have a massive increase of $800,000 in taxes, nearly tripling the amount of tax now paid, with no evidence of needing anywhere near that much to be solvent and indeed growing in revenue, and then add automatic increases? That shows contempt for the voters.
04. The Special Election Scam.
The growing corruption in the political classes is troubling. The Board of Supervisors for Placer County approved this Special Election on September 18 for the FFPD Measure F. They are paying for it with the tax money from ALL of Placer County.
On November 6 is the General Election. Adding Measure F to that ballot would have cost next to nothing. The Clerk-Recorder's Elections Office routinely adds local measures to the Primary and General ballots and distributes them to the correct voters; it's what they do. So there was no reason not to have Measure F on the November ballot.
Except:
By holding a Special Election one-and-a-half months earlier, the calculus was that voters would be confused and NOT VOTE on September 18. If YES voters were more motivated, and therefore more likely to pay attention to the dates, they could squeak a YES vote through. It is all about gaming the system, rigging the election process to gain an advantage for your side.
That the Board of Supervisors joined into this game is not surprising: if they can trick Foresthill into raising taxes, it is all the more OPM (Other People's Money) to feed their County-wide spending addiction. What's a few thousand ($39,920, to be exact) wasted on a Special Election if they get the $800,000 prize?
In some ways, these last 2 points are the most disturbing. Every attempt to shut out voters, every scam to improperly increase or decrease votes, is a travesty. By themselves, they should disqualify this Measure. Coupled with the first 2 points, it should be clear: Measure F needs a loud, resounding NO vote.
In a politically perfect world, no one would take my word or anyone else's; they'd check it out. There are many other questions that can be raised after looking through the FFPD reports, but these 4 are the most salient in my mind. Please read the documents yourself and decide.
F on Measure F -- Vote NO!
Addendum:
Comparing Georgetown FPD to Foresthill FPD
Board Member Tyler Harkness had a letter to the editor in the July 18 Foresthill Messenger contrasting Georgetown's Fire District with ours. The letter can be read here:
http://www.foresthillmessenger.com/opinion/views/two-visions-for-the-foresthill-fire-district/article_687c7412-88ae-11e8-85d1-632462f42190.html
Trying to get information on the GFPD is difficult. Their website has some good info and much rudimentary, incomplete info. (I should mention, the last 2 years of the Foresthill District has very complete info; for that, I do commend them). Here is the Georgetown site:
http://www.georgetownfiredepartment.com/financials.html
I also accessed these documents: FY 2016/2017 Board Approved Budget (but no actual figures) and FY 2014/2015 Audit Findings, the latest available.
The Assessed Valuation of the GFPD (value of all properties) as of 2016 was $368,290,000.
The GeorgeTown Fire Protection District has a Parcel Fee of $35 per parcel, improved or unimproved. This brings in about $80,000 annually. It has no automatic increase, so the GFPD must, rightly, request that the citizens increase the fee.
The GFPD also has a Fire Suppression Benefit Assessment that is charged to each parcel, $55.42 if undeveloped and $64.64 if developed. This tax is tied to an automatic increase apparently capped at 2%. This brings in about $140,000 a year.
Apples to apples is hard to do. I can directly compare 2014/2015, but that is too long ago to be really relevant. The next best is to compare the FFPD 2016/2017 final to the GFPD preliminary budget.
According to the 2016/2017 Audit, FFPD had 8 full time and 10 part time staff. According to Mr. Harkness' letter, they have now 10. Mr. Harkness says GFPD has 9 full time and over 40 volunteers.
Let's compare revenue:
Property Tax revenue share from the County:
FFPD (at .062%) $434,817
GFPD about $418,000
Foresthill Parcel Tax: $348,147
GFPD Parcel Tax & Assessment: $219,760
Foresthill Wages and Benefits: $860,830
GFPD Total Payroll expenses: $735,080
Let's consider this a bit closer. Georgetown has 9 paid firefighters. Since volunteers are the worker drones, it is fair to believe these aren't minimum wage beginners. Plus, GFPD pays for health insurance and retirement benefits that accounts for $240,000 of that. For FFPD, that would be around $45,000.
So by my math, Foresthill is $144,000 ahead in revenue, and pays $125,750 more in wages. And if you add the difference in insurance and retirement to the wages, FFPD is paying $320,750 more in wages.
Now please follow my logic here: $735,080 divided by 9 GFPD professional firefighters equals an average salary of $81,675. If we remove the $240,000 in health and retirement, it becomes $495,080 in wages, divided by 9 equals $55,008 as an average salary.
If 18 FFPD Firefighters are paid an average of $55,008, that comes to $990,144. Remember, though, some are the equivalent of the volunteers and then would be paid a lower wage, bringing the average down. $990,144 minus the now amount of $860,830 means the FFPD only needs to raise $129,314 more to afford to pay 18 Firefighters at the average rate of the GFPD if health and retirement costs are not included (as they are not now for most of the FFPD staff).
Final thought
So to be competitive in pay, it does not follow that FFPD needs $800,000 more in taxes. From all the above, a request for $400,000, based on valuation of property and with no automatic raises would cover the $212,000 needed for minimum wage increases and the $130,000 for hiring if at GFPD levels.
But $800,000, with the poorer taxpayers subsidizing the wealthier, with automatic raises, and with the Special Election attempt to sway the vote? NO! I strongly urge a NO! vote.
__________________________
Rebuttal by John Michelini
[I will append my commentary after each section in brackets; KeLP]
Taxes
After passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, the California Constitution was amended to limit ad valorem tax to 1% of assessed valuation. The District cannot levy a tax based on assessed value. While your position about regressive taxation has some merit, it is imperiled by law.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
ARTICLE XIII A TAX LIMITATION
SECTION 1
Section 1. Maximum ad valorem tax on real property. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.
(b) The limitation provided for in subdivision (a) shall not apply to ad valorem taxes or special assessments to pay the interest and redemption charges on any of the following:
(1) Indebtedness approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1978.
(2) Bonded indebtedness for the acquisition or improvement of real property approved on or after July 1, 1978, by two-thirds of the votes cast by the voters voting on the proposition.
(3) Bonded indebtedness incurred by a school district, community college district, or county office of education for the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities, including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities, or the acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities, approved by 55 percent of the voters of the district or county, as appropriate, voting on the proposition on or after the effective date of the measure adding this paragraph. This paragraph shall apply only if the proposition approved by the voters and resulting in the bonded indebtedness includes all of the following accountability requirements:
To see the complete text of the above Constitutional Article go to: http://www.boe.ca.gov/lawguides/property/current/ptlg/ccp/XIII-A-1.html
[I am not a lawyer. I don't know if Mr. Michelini is, but I have no doubt the Board has consulted with such and perhaps were told they cannot do an ad valorem tax. But I read Article XIII A differently.
[It does not restrict which agencies can impose an ad valorum tax and does not say "the sum total of all ad valorum taxes shall not exceed 1%". The use of the word "any" implies there can be many taxes, but no individual tax can be above 1%. Section 1 (b) says the limit (1%) does not apply to the following (then the list). My interpretation would seem supported by the SEC. 10. LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION court case summaries which reference the 1% limitation on the new or existing assessments.
[Regardless, there is another model to address the regressiveness of the FFPD proposed tax: the Mosquito Abatement Tax. The direct charge can be a fixed amount modified by circumstances of the parcel. Setting a base rate and increasing it by acreage would be akin, although poorly, to a charge based on value. The charge could be modified by usage of the parcel. And it could be modified by how well the parcel adheres to the fire safe property guidelines.]
Measure F
1. Undeveloped parcels are NOT ignored by Measure F. All parcels within the District Boundary subject to property tax are covered by the measure. According to the County Assessors Office there are 3331 parcels in the District (not all are taxable).
[Here I am confused. Trying to get solid numbers on homes and parcels is difficult. The website History of the Fire District states it serves "nearly 3000 homes and 60 businesses" serving around 6000 people. The Audits from 2012-on echo that with a boilerplate statement asserting the 6000 number. The 2007 Foresthill Divide Community Plan, using year 2000 numbers, shows 2,384 housing units, of which 343 are mobile home or van/rv. The Foresthill Public Utility District says it has (as of year 2013) 1,979 connections, which of course does not include those with wells.
[It is not clear at all that the 3331 number is total parcels in the district.
[I hate to bring personal information into this discussion, as I'm trying to focus on principles, not individuals. But here I must, just to get some clarity.
[My property consists of 2 parcels. The parcel with the home is taxed for the bonds, mosquitos, and the current FFPD tax. The parcel without a residence is charged for bonds and mosquitos, but NOT the FFPD tax. Why? Either all parcels are taxed and somehow it got missed, or there is a criteria applied that exempted it.
[And to wrap this up, Measure F states "Taxable parcels are those parcels that appear on the annual secured Placer County property tax roll and are billable for Foresthill Fire Protection District services." My italics. This sounds very much like it consists of the same properties that are currently taxed, so if only residential and business parcels are taxed, that will continue under Measure F.]
2. Your math is chosen to maximally inflate the impact of a new tax. For example: If a homeowner has a home valued at $100,000.00 and they pay 1% property tax they will pay $1,000.00 per year. Adding on a parcel tax of $240.00 increases their tax by .24% to a total of 1.24%. Regardless of the manner it is displayed it is an unwelcome impact to the cost of the household.
[Guilty as charged. An argument that does not consider maximum consequences defeats its purpose. And I note that you ignore the $1,000,000.00 home that pays 1.024% with that $240.00 addition, minimizing the disparity.]
3. Mobile Home Parks will be taxed by parcel. Most have a single parcel but according to assessor maps, Skyview shows two parcels. Occupants of Mobile Home Parks should pay a pro-rata share of the $240.37 (if the owners pass through the cost). If you can document a Mobile Home Park that is charging tenants a Foresthill Fire Protection Fee, I would like to see it because it is illegal and it does NOT go to the Fire District.
[Documentation has been provided.]
4. The Example of Placer High provided refer to bond indebtedness. It is taxation approved by voters to pay back loans taken by the School District to complete capital improvement projects. Bond indebtedness is the only other approved use of Ad Valorem taxation in California (See Taxes above).
[Yes, I knew it was bond payments, but again I see that as a mis-reading of Article XIII A. It does not say bond indebtedness is an approved use of ad valorum taxation, but rather that the 1% limitation does not apply to bond debt.]
Is It Needed?
Your review of District Financials excludes (as noted on your page) among other things, fund balances, assets, and depreciation. These are some of the most important elements of this District’s financial picture. There are basically two funds that are maintained by the District. The AB2016 fund is revenue that is paid by developers to off set the impact of new development. This revenue is what is know as restricted. In other words, the Board of Directors are restricted by law on hoe the revenue can be utilized. AB2016 funds can only be used for capital purchases such as land, new building construction, and non-disposable equipment like fire engines or ambulances.
The other fund is General Reserves (Savings). Government agencies typically maintain a reserve policy that dictates how much must be held in savings to prevent operational disruptions caused by unanticipated expenses like a major equipment breakdown or building repair. Funds in General Reserves are discretionary and can be used for any District financial need.
Why are these two accounts important? They don’t have enough funding to serve their respective purposes. During the recession when the community’s property tax bills went down, so did revenue for the Fire District. To make up the difference and avoid service delivery cuts, the District was forced to use savings. The funds from the discretionary reserve account had been slated to be used for replacing fire engines and other essential equipment. The Board of Directors “kicked the can down the road” to the intersection of Today and Measure F.
The short summary of Revenue versus Expenditures you have listed illustrates just how precarious the situation has become. In a three-year span (post-recession), the District had a positive cash flow of $110,604.00. What you are failing to acknowledge is the Assets of the District. District assets (mostly building and fire engines) have been severely depreciated because of their age. $36,868.00 per year is insufficient to replace ambulances, fire engines, hose, breathing apparatus, heart monitors, and safety gear. Your illustration also leaves out the draconian cuts made to the budget over the last six to seven years to maintain a marginally balanced budget.
I respectfully disagree with your assessment that the day-to-day operating costs are not harming the District. Further in your blog you recognize the cost impact of the near future minimum wage law. You assess the cost to be $53,000.00 per year. Let’s do the math. Using your numbers, $36,868.00 positive cash flow impacted by $53,000.00 of new mandated labor expense equals a yearly negative budget balance of $16,132.00 and let’s not forget those pesky equipment replacement costs that continue to be unfunded. Therefore, it is my assessment that the District is unable to continue funding day-to-day operations on the existing revenue stream.
[see below]
Staffing
You list inaccurate staffing levels prior to the station closure.
Before the recent station closure (FFPD History): The Fire Chief operates the District with (1) Full Time Deputy Fire Marshal, (1) Full-time Administrative Assistant (3) Full-time Captain positions, (3) Full-time ALS Firefighters (5) Part-time paid Firefighter Paramedics, and (8) part-time paid Firefighter EMT's.
The District prior to the station closure had a shared Fire Chief (.5 FTE). The Fire Chief is employed by the Placer Hills Fire District and is under contract to provide executive management services to the Foresthill Fire District. The Deputy Fire Marshal position was illuminated for cost savings after Gary Kirk retired nearly 5 years ago. Other positions were as follows: (1) Full-time administrative assistant, (4) Full-time Captains – 1 acting in the temporary position of Battalion Chief, (3) Full-time Lieutenants and a varying number of part-time employees. Daily staffing was 2 personnel at each of the two staffed stations for a total on duty force of 4 personnel. Standard staffing was 1 full-time and 1 part-time employee at each station.
Chief Kushen’s article states correctly that the immediate causal factor to trigger the closure of Station 88 was the inability to retain employees coupled with the inability to attract new employees. That however is a symptom of the larger problem. The District fails to pay employees a comparable salary and pays full-time employees only $475.00 per month for all benefits. Part-time employees receive no benefits. The reason the District is unable to pay better wages and provide benefits is the funding gap. Without additional funding any effort to improve retention would collapse the budget. Pushed by attrition, the District closed station 88 and in a questionable but understandable move, they increased wages and made the previously part-time positions full-time to attract new candidates. The new wages remain far below comparable agencies and no changes have been made to benefit levels.
Savings created by the decrease in daily staffing are eliminated by two factors. All remaining employees are full-time. Prior to the closure, 50% of daily staffing was part-time staff paid $11.02 per hour. With the closure, 100% of the 9 personnel who work at the station are full-time employees paid between $15 and $20 per hour. The difference is a small increase in the cost of wages as you note.
Your numbers for firefighters working hours and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime hours are slightly incorrect. Firefighters work a 56-hour work week. At a basic level, FLSA requires overtime to be paid for all hours worked in a week over 53. Typically, a firefighter on a 56-hour work week will get 1.5 hourly wage for the last 3 hours worked. FLSA is very complicated but the basic premise is 3 hours of overtime per week times 52 weeks is 156 hours of ½ time pay in addition to hourly wage for 2,912 hours per year.
I am impressed with your understanding and calculations relative to FLSA as you have illustrated in your blog – Nice job.
[see below]
Replacement Equipment
You and I agree that throwing $60,000.00 at a 24-year-old piece of equipment so that it remains a 24-year-old piece of equipment is not in the best interest of the community. Your assessment of the equipment lacks depth. There is not one but many pieces of equipment in need of replacement and in addition there is essential life safety equipment that must be replaced. I have completed a cost analysis for the replacement of District vehicles, the annual on-going expense is $200,000.00 per year. The District operates with 2 Type I (structure fire) engines, 2 Type III (Wildland) engines, 1 rescue squad, 1 water tender, 2 staff vehicles, and 3 ambulances. Any replacement schedule must consider the cost of the entire fleet not just one piece of equipment. The District could “target” tax the equipment needed and propose a bond issue for voters to consider, but that would simply be a bandage on a continuously hemorrhaging wound.
The closure of Station 88 is not a tactic or a political move of any nature. The math is simple, so too is the lack of applicants for vacant positions. The Board of Directors have done all that they can to push off the inevitable and after the community voted down Measure B they had no choice. No new revenue means less service as was widely advertised going into the last election. In fact, if Measure F fails, the District will be forced to further reduce staffing from 3 per day to 2 per day. This again is simple math. The District recently passed the 2018-2019 Fiscal Year Budget using reserves to make up for a deficit budget. That cannot be sustained. This year’s budget fails to fund equipment replacement and still was upside down.
I cannot speak to response times as I have not had opportunity to see any relative data.
[First, let me thank you for the staffing and pay information. That is very helpful.
[In the end, all of this is about Revenue versus Expenditure. Funds, Assets, and Depreciation/Appreciation are useful accounting tools, but by themselves have no effect on the year-in-year-out operation.
[Adding to a Fund is Revenue, spending from it is Expenditure.
[Assets are an Expenditure when purchased (unless gifted), and a Revenue if sold.
[Depreciation, for normal businesses, is a way to recover the cost of a major purchase, over few or many years, by reducing their tax burden.
[Depreciation/Appreciation for an entity like the FFPD is all about the assets. Some assets, like land, can actually go up in value as years go by. Most, e.g. trucks, go down in value. But that Appreciation/Depreciation only effects the District when those assets are sold.
[The issue in this election is all about raising Revenue via taxation.
[I agree that $36,000 a year is not a healthy profit, but it is still to the positive. What makes the present situation untenable is the irresponsible minimum wage increase dictated by the progressive legislature in Sacramento. The increase of $53,000 (a number not by me, but by Chris Reams) will guarantee a loss, if not in the first year, for sure by the fourth year. (By the way, using your 56 hours per week, I'd put it more at $55,000 per year).
[That $53,000 increase is for 16 or 17 full-time employees; returning to part-time employees might lower the cost, but I don't have the info to figure how much. So we'll run with it. Asking for an additional $212,000 in tax revenue I find justifiable.
[On top of that, there are health and maybe retirement benefits that the Board expects to pay to keep employees. There is no information that I've seen as a guesstimate of the amount that will cost. My worry is that many cities and counties have gone into bankruptcy, or nearly so, by overpromising these benefits and not being able to pay into the accounts (those unfunded mandates we hear of), so they need to be carefully considered.
[On replacing equipment, my trying to keep things short as possible must have given you the wrong impression. I am no fan of planned obsolescence. Depreciation is not deterioration. A 24-year-old truck can be a reliable workhorse, and a 24-month-old truck an unreliable money-pit. I notice that the Financial Review of Distressed Fire Service Providers in Placer County (appended to the minutes of the April 13, 2017 FFPD meeting) gave a replacement schedule that would replace all vehicles by 2036.
[Before I could accept spending $500,000 on a new vehicle (and that number is more than $100,000 over the costs given in the Financial Review), I would need to know what that $60,000 left undone. Tell me what that $60,000 will do, and tell me why, in the long run, it will be better to replace the truck instead.
[I'll accept your estimate of $200,000 per year, if the money is to be available on the schedule you and/or the Board wish. But that is just what I object to. You want no questions, trust us, we're doing what's needed. I want discussion and justification. You admit the Board could "target" tax. Unless the Board must go to the voters for approval, they will never be held to account for such decisions. So that's $200,000 I can't approve of adding to the taxes.]
CPI
Your statement: The failed Measure B had noxious language imbedded that attempted to bypass the Gann Limit of Proposition 13, giving the FFPD the ability to raise the tax 4% every year in perpetuity without getting permission from the voters. is inaccurate.
Measure B did NOT attempt to bypass the Gann Limit. First, Gann is NOT part of Proposition 13. It is found in Proposition 4, passed by voters in 1979 to limit end runs on Proposition 13. Second, the approved full text of both Measure B and Measure F include a authorization to extend the District’s Gann Limit.
Measure F DOES NOT AUTOMATTICALLY INCREASE each year. State law is very clear on the process by which such an increase is addressed. Based on the Western States Consumer Price Index, the Board of Directors may present a proposal to adjust (up or down – don’t laugh to hard) the tax once each year. Nothing in Measure F compels an annual evaluation of CPI but it does limit evaluations to one time in any 12-month period. If the Board of Directors desires a change, it must be presented at a Public Hearing with opportunity for public input. After a public hearing the Board is required to obtain a at least a 3/5 majority vote of the Board to pass any adjustment. In other words, 3 Board members cannot pass an adjustment to the tax with a 2-1 vote, it requires at least 3 yes votes out of 5 members.
On an interesting note relative to this subject. The reason it was changed from 4% to 2.6% was public input at a public hearing!
Your use of worst case scenario’s for illustrating potential annual increases in tax rate is somewhat disingenuous. You did not use worst case scenarios in any of your other calculations when examining District expenses.
Community members have opportunity to vote now and that includes authorizing future increases. All community members have the opportunity each month to address the Board of Directors and if not satisfied with their response have opportunity to vote them out of office every four years. It is not necessary and quite expensive to repeatedly vote on annual adjustments.
Voters can eliminate this tax at any point by a vote of the people.
[You are correct that Gann was Prop 4, not Prop 13, although it is part of the package of proposals by Jarvis and Gann to reform the system. Prop 13 is Article XIII A, Prop 4 Article XIII B. But Measure B did try to bypass Gann. Ballotpedia (and I remember the official Placer County analysis also) said "Measure B was designed to increase the district's spending limit through a gann overide". And the most egregious part of Measure B was ignoring Section 4 of Article XIII B: "The appropriations limit imposed on any new or existing entity of government by this Article may be established or changed by the electors of such entity, subject to and in conformity with constitutional and statutory voting requirements. The duration of any such change shall be as determined by said electors, but shall in no event exceed four years from the most recent vote of said electors creating or continuing such change." My italics. Measure B would not have returned to the voters to get approval in four years.
[On CPI increases: since state law requires the Board to vote on increases, it must also be true of the present FFPD tax that increased the last two years at 3%. Has the Board at any time since the tax was enacted not implemented the increase or done so at a lower than CPI rate? Sincere question.
[But as for the 2.6% rate that Measure F calls for, I note that one Board Member not only said the $800,000 was half what was needed, but that no cap should be placed on the CPI increase. Given that attitude, and the fact that all Board Members wanted a 4% CPI cap but went with the 2.6% out of what they perceived as political necessity, how can a vote to raise the tax 2.6% (or maximum if lower; unlikely) not be a done deal? Not automatic, fine, but just a formality. Not much difference in the end.
[And talking about my maximizing, how about your minimizing? You call it an annual adjustment, which kinda downplays it is really a tax increase. Rather than annual adjustments, how about a slightly larger request and come back to the voters in eight years, present the evidence that you've been fiscally responsible, and make the case for any needed increase for the next eight years?
[Lastly, repeal of an existing tax is extremely hard. Voters default to believing it must be needed or would never have passed, especially if it has been in place for years. Examples of repealed taxes are scarce. Better to never pass them in the first place.]
Special Election
I was a proponent of a Special Election so long as the County paid all costs. This is not an attempt to disenfranchise voters and quite the opposite. We (The Board and those community members who endorsed a Special Election) all felt that this is a very important local community matter and we did not want it lost in the immensity of the General Election. Communicating the issue to the voters is paramount.
Contrary to the theory that a Special Election yields a smaller voter turnout, Measure B had an outstanding response of 53%. There is no calculus that voters won’t vote on September 18th and your statement indicates that you are not aware that the ballot is all mail. Voters will have some 28 days to decide on the issue and return their ballot.
The Board of Supervisors only role in this Measure is the granting of funds to pay for the cost of the election. There is NO prize for them at the end. The Revenue raised by Measure F is that of the Foresthill Fire Protection District and NOT Placer County.
There is no attempt to shut out voters, there is no scam to improperly increase or decrease votes.
[Here I had to laugh. The Measure B mail-in vote was in an off-year, and many were obviously motivated to return the ballots. That's good. But this Measure F is quite different.
[I am very aware the September 18 election is by mail. That is why I put that fact on my signs. By contrast, not one of the many signs and banners by the FOR F side mentions either the date, nor the mail-in fact. Why? I'll tell you why.
[Those politically engaged, either by nature or motivated by words or actions, will send their YES or NO votes in early. But the majority of voters are apolitical and put off considering their vote until very near the election date. Many do not decide until actually in the polling booth. They are aware the Primary occurred and of the upcoming General Election in November, the usual date.
[The calculus on the YES side is that those people, many who might be off-put by the size of the request, will put their ballot aside to fill out later (after all, they have 28 days) and not realize it is not in November with all the other political items.
[The loss of Measure B was by about 5%, despite the threat of closing Station 88. By actually closing the Station (I'd argue it's more unstaffed than actually closed, but say it as you will), and finagling the date of the vote, it is hoped that 5% will be either scared into a YES, or forgetful and miss the deadline.
[Supervisors have no prize waiting? Even before Measure B, we were reading how the Board of Supervisors should be allocating more funds to the Fire Districts, some saying money was being wrongfully withheld. Right or wrong, guess what happens if Measure F passes? With $800,000 dangling in the air, no-one will be speaking against the Supervisors. Whatever funds they would otherwise have had to spend on the Foresthill Fire District, they can now spend elsewhere. To get the people of Foresthill to tax themselves $800,000, $40,000 is a bargain.]
Georgetown
As you indicate in your Blog, it is difficult to get information about Georgetown Fire from their webpage. I too have information about their budget and how taxes are used. Your research is good on this subject!
Mr. Harkness’ letter to the editor is insufficient. It does not cover the issue, only selected excerpts from his conversation with the Georgetown Fire Chief. It fails to mention that Georgetown has a 7-acre training facility to train volunteers and that the Special Parcel Tax od $35.00 per parcel is used to pay for a Training Officer. It also leaves out the largest single funding source for the Georgetown Fire Department, a County Ambulance Tax.
I have completed a side-by-side comparison for your reference:
Georgetown Fire Department versus Foresthill Fire District
Side-by-Side Financial Comparison
Georgetown Fire 2016-2017 Budget
Revenue Source Use Annual Amount
Property Tax Fund Department Operations $430,000.00
Special Parcel Tax Fund Training Center $79,000.00
Fire Benefit Assessment Tax Fund Department Operations $140,760.00
Ambulance Tax Fund Ambulance Program $1,700,000.00
Charges for Service Fund Department Operations $50,000.00
Other Revenue Fund Department Operations 123,198.68
Proposed Parcel Tax N/A $00.00
TOTAL REVENUE - $2,522,958.68
Foresthill Fire District 2017-2018 Budget
Revenue Source Use Annual Amount
Property Tax Fund Department Operations $431,420.14
Special Parcel Tax Fund Department Operations $348,147.00
Fire Benefit Assessment Tax N/A $00.00
Ambulance Tax N/A $00.00
Charges for Service (Ambulance Transport Fees) Fund Department Operations $304,097.38
Other Revenue Fund Department Operations $170,449.27
Proposed Parcel Tax Fund Department Operations $800,672.47
TOTAL REVENUE INCLUDING MEASURE F FUNDING - $2,054,786.26
Georgetown Fire Annual Revenues - $2,522,958.68
Foresthill Fire District Annual Revenues - $1,254,113.79 ($2,054,786.26 if Measure F passes)
In addition, I have included an email from Chief Schwab at Georgetown addressing lapses in the material provided by Harkness to the Messenger in his editorial.
On Jul 19, 2018, at 5:12 PM, Greg Schwab wrote:
Chief Kushen,
Sorry for the delay, it’s been a very busy week!
As always, as a Fire Chief I do my best to avoid being in the press; especially, an open debate over a contentious funding issue.
Here is a list of omissions from Director Harkness and my telephone conversation on the afternoon of Monday, July 9th:
· Georgetown Fire has been providing a primarily volunteer delivery service model since 1854 (over 160 years), so our community has supported this delivery model in many ways, here are just some examples:
o Employers frequently allow members to make responses from their businesses during working hours
o Families are very supportive, we many ‘multi-generational/legacy’ firefighters
o Relationship with high school Fire/EMS ROP program which helps ‘feed’ new members to our agency
· Georgetown Fire has a seven acre Training Center with multi-story burn building and training props to host an annual volunteer firefighter academy and other OSFM Courses. Additionally, this facility aid in keeping our responders’ currency in rescue operations, structure and wildland firefighting.
· Georgetown Fire has many challenges with existing and new State and Federal regulations. These numerous unfunded mandates create a significant hardship on volunteer members and the agency.
In conclution, Director Harkness and I discussed the challenges of our comminty’s changing demographics in implimenting restarting and/or a creating ‘new’ volunteer firefighter programs in the foothills region of California.
Futhermore, here are Georgetown Fire’s FY2017-18 Budget Information:
Fire District $1.2M
County Ambulance $1.7M
I wish you the best in securing the funding Foresthill Fire needs to continue to provide its important mission!
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your blog!
John Michelini
[I sincerely thank Mr. Michelini for the Georgetown info, and for his rebuttal. Such is what our democractic republic needs, more rather than less light.
[My conclusion is it really comes down to two philosophies.
[The FFPD Board takes the view that they are the experts, having access to the data and a close view of what is occurring within the Fire Department. And that is true. Therefore they favor a "one time-one vote" that gives them all the financing that the future seems to demand (or, rather, as much of it as they believe voters will approve at this time). Basically, it's trust us to be responsible with the tax monies. Trust us to know whether to repair or replace equipment. Trust us with not raising to the full CPI if unnecessary.
[My philosophy is more akin to "Doveryai no proveryai" -- "Trust but verify". And it is based on a few principles. First, that taxes should be fairly shared -- no soak the rich, but neither unnecessarily harm the less wealthy. A much less regressive tax structure can be had, if not by ad valorum taxation, by setting conditions which modify the base tax.
[Secondly, no automatic raises in taxes (including those that require a formal vote). The damage is done at least for a time before Board Members can be removed and/or taxes rescinded. Better not to happen in the first place.
[Third, major purchases should be brought before the voters and the expenditure justified. Depreciation is not deterioration. Let the community weigh in on the wisdom of such purchases, and sunset any taxes after the neeeded money is raised.
[It is fine to trust those we elect, but in return we need them to justify their decisions and requests, not in generalities, but in sufficient detail.
[Measure F fails these principles. I still urge a NO! vote.]
_______________________________
Links to information (cut and paste into your browser if necessary):
http://www.foresthillfire.org
http://www.foresthillfire.org/board-of-directors.php
http://www.foresthillmessenger.com
http://www.foresthillmessenger.com/news/local/fire-station-closure/article_72295f50-228a-11e8-aff5-f73e76063bf7.html
http://www.foresthillmessenger.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/the-saga-of-the-fire-district-where-we-really-stand/article_4b00ce92-b3b1-11e7-97a0-0b68f2074fcc.html
http://www.placermosquito.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2017-18-Placer-MVCD-East-and-West-ER-Final.pdf
_______________________________
Mea Culpa
In full disclosure, my letter against the failed Measure B last year in the Foresthill Messenger had some wrong numbers. That it was assembled in haste and the incorrect figures mistakenly inserted is no excuse. I trust this time my article has few, if any, factual errors of that sort. And I trust any errors of any sort will be pointed out.
I always say, I make more mistakes in a day than most people in a month. But I own my mistakes and correct them if I can. That should be all one can ask of another.