Fire Tax Measure B 2019
So, is the latest iteration of the FFPD's fire tax an improvement? Alas, it is the same pack of baloney, with a new label, but still the same unappetizing fare in all important details.
The defeated Measure F tax was for $240.37 with an annual increase of 2.6%. The new proposal, Measure B, is for a $240.38 tax with a $7 yearly increase for 15 years. The end result is the same.
(Quick background info that should be kept in mind: California, including Foresthill, is suffering from an exodus of the middle class, and from the middle class is where most of the tax revenue is raised. Median household income in Foresthill is about $35,000. Median household income nationwide is above $50,000, pushing $60,000. And over 50% of all Americans say they do not have $400 immediately available if needed for an emergency purchase. So any tax increase in a high-tax state needs to be soundly justified.)
In my anti-Fire Tax article last August, I laid down 4 principles that I believe should be adhered to before the tax is approved. Let me reiterate them here in a hopefully clearer format:
1. Taxes should be fairly shared -- no soak the rich, but neither unnecessarily harm the less wealthy.
The proposed tax is again a straight $240.38 for all parcels, the most regressive way of taxing, where the poorer citizens subsidize the richer. It is unacceptable.
The only sop given in this iteration is to not tax parcels deemed not developable (not defined). And this seems to be going the wrong way; a not developable lot could be a limited access parcel that holds overgrown, fire-prone vegetation, the very type of parcel that could fuel a wildfire. Exempting that from taxation makes no sense.
I still hold that, in my reading of the text of the law, there is no prohibition on an ad valorem tax. But even if there is, a tax structured similarly to the Mosquito Abatement Tax would be acceptable.
The Mosquito Abatement Tax has a base rate. That base rate is then modified as the following factors apply to the property description: a single family residence, a condominium, a multi-family residence, a mobile home on a separate lot, commercial property, office property, a shopping center, an industrial site, a self-storage facility, an agricultural property, vacant land, church property, institutional property, property used for educational purposes, and publicly owned property that is used for purposes similar to private residential, commercial, industrial or institutional uses. The rate is further modified by additional factors such as number of multi-family or condominium units and total acreage.
Parcels not charged the Mosquito Abatement Tax are those with limited economic value such as: public right-of-way parcels, limited access open space parcels, common area parcels, watershed parcels, and well, reservoir or other water rights parcels that cannot be developed into other improved uses.
So the FFPD should consider structuring the Fire Tax with a base rate modified by a few factors, such as:
Number of structures
Acreage
Defensible space for structures, or lack thereof.
Type of usage (residential, commercial, agricultural, etc.)
Thick, fire-rich uncleared vegetation
Yes, it takes a little work to decide the modifiers, but if the Mosquito Tax designers were willing to do so for a less than $25 tax, shouldn't we expect at least as much consideration for $240?
2. No automatic raises in taxes (including those that require a formal vote by elected members).
The proposed tax replaces the 2.6% yearly increase with a $7 a year increase that sunsets in 15 years. But do the math, and it is really the same thing. As the chart below shows, the $7 method brings in more revenue the first 9 years, then less the final 6 years. After 15 years, the 2019 proposal would raise $30,050 less.
(This chart gives the numbers for the tax increases. The first column is the year it would take effect, through the 15 years before the measure sunsets. The next 2 columns are what we would have been paying through the failed Measure F, with its 2.6% yearly increase. The next 2 columns are the new Measure B, with the $7 per year increase. Then I show our present tax, which increases by up to 3% a year (might be off on the Present Tax; I'm using the 2018 tax amount as Year 00, but probably should have used Year 01's number instead). Last column is the total the FFPD will collect from both the proposed 2019 measure and the present tax.
The Amount is calculated on the $800,000 they say the Measure will generate, which works out to 3328 lots that are so taxed.)
Old Measure F Measure B Present Tax Total
Year +2.6% Amount +$7 Amount +3% Amount
00 240.37 $799,951 240.38 $799,985 134.04 $446,085 $1,246,070
01 246.62 $820,751 247.38 $823,281 138.06 $459,464 $1,282,745
02 253.03 $842,084 254.38 $846,577 142.20 $473,242 $1,319,819
03 259.61 $863,982 261.38 $869,872 146.47 $487,452 $1,357,324
04 266.36 $886,446 268.38 $893,168 150.86 $502,062 $1,395,230
05 273.29 $909,509 275.38 $916,464 155.39 $517,138 $1,433,602
06 280.40 $933,171 282.38 $939,760 160.05 $532,646 $1,472,406
07 287.69 $957,432 289.38 $963,057 164.85 $548,621 $1,511,678
08 295.17 $982,326 296.38 $986,353 169.80 $565,094 $1,551,447
09 302.84 $1,007,852 303.38 $1,009,649 174.89 $582,034 $1,591,683
10 310.71 $1,034,043 310.38 $1,032,944 180.14 $599,506 $1,632,450
11 318.79 $1,060,933 317.38 $1,056,241 185.54 $617,477 $1,673,718
12 327.08 $1,088,522 324.38 $1,079,537 191.11 $636,014 $1,715,551
13 335.58 $1,116,810 331.38 $1,102,833 196.84 $655,084 $1,757,917
14 344.31 $1,145,864 338.38 $1,126,129 202.75 $674,752 $1,800,881
15 353.26 $1,175,649 345.38 $1,149,425 208.83 $694,986 $1,844,411
Total $15,625,325 $15,595,275 $8,991,657 $24,586,932
3. Major purchases should be brought before the voters and the expenditure justified -- depreciation is not deterioration.
According to the Replacement Schedule in the April 2017 Fire Service Financial Review, FFPD needs $160,201 every year to pay for replacement vehicles and equipment beyond the normal maintenance needs.
But not every piece of equipment needs replacement as opposed to being repaired and/or refurbished. Consider a box-body ambulance; instead of a new vehicle, often the box-body can be installed on a new chassis, at quite a cost savings.
The present structure engine purchase is another example that might be worth a closer look. The Replacement Schedule gives the replacement cost for each engine, E88 and E90, as $367,500. The Board has approved the purchase of a $399,000 used engine to replace both E88 and E90.
Timeline of events:
In August through October 2017, Board Member Tyler Harkness and Board President Chris Reams exchanged letters in the Foresthill Messenger. Harkness wrote that the Board wanted a $500,000 engine to replace both engines, but the district mechanic had told him he could "replace everything that could conceivably go wrong on our structure engines for $35,000." This claim was disputed by Board President Chris Reams, who said the mechanic did not say that and expected costs to keep both in repair was $60,000. Harkness replied he meant $35,000 each and that was 6 years ago so it might be $200,000 now.
In early 2018, the Board applied for Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and Assistance to Firefighters (AFG) grants to replace the engines; the AFG grant request was for $537,000.
In June, E90 had the main pipe from the tank to the pump replaced as it had rotted out. The Budget vs. Actual report at this time shows E90 fiscal year cost to date as $2638.45, and E88 as $3,278.78. (I could find no specific information on E88 problems or repairs, only the dollar amounts.)
In November, the Board accepted a APCD grant of $160,000 to replace the two engines, but put off the approval of buying a $537,000 vehicle.
In December, a Staff Report recommended the purchase of a 2019 Smeal engine for $422,910 ($587,010 minus the APCD grant of $160,000). This was the "optimal" solution. Alternatives were repairing the E88 and E90 for $40,000 to $70,000 (the amount Harkness cited in 2017), purchasing a stock (non-custom) engine, or purchase of a used engine.
Per the February 6, 2019, Foresthill Messenger, on December 28 (a FFPD meeting whose agenda is not on the website) the Board decides to purchase a 2017 used (demonstrator) engine for $240,000 ($399,000 minus the $160,000 grant).
February 28, 2019, E90 has a transmission failure and is said to leave the district with no operating structure engine (when or why E88 was/is unusable, I could not find in the agendas). A borrowed engine will not fit in Station 88, so is placed in Station 90 every night.
So let's recap in my words, with my commentary/questions:
The Replacement Schedule estimated replacement of both engines at $735,000.
The Board preferred a single $587,000 engine with all the bells and whistles they want. We all want the new and shiny thing, but they were wise not to go this way.
The Board chose to purchase a single engine for $240,000 ($400,000 minus $160,000). This is less than the Replacement Schedule expected cost, but uses an APCD grant that requires they get rid of both older engines. If we are to fully staff two stations, how can we afford to go to only one structure engine? The APCD requirement that we give up both, to mitigate Climate Change, seems excessive.
The Board could have kept in repair E88 and E90 for around $70,000. The transmission failure was likely not expected, so E90's cost would rise some. But why is E88 unusable?
The Staff Report puts the salvage value of the two engines at $4,100. Is that what the FFPD is doing with them, selling for scrap? Is that a requirement of the APCD grant (likely)? Or could they be sold to a private buyer for more?
Other questions:
How long and for what cost would E90 have been down if repairs had gone forward?
If speedy access to the borrowed engine is important, and it is, why not park it in Porter's Garage across from now-staffed Station 88? Surely it will fit in there and be readily available.
It's clear that if Measure F had passed, the Board would have approved the new, shiny engine. Why not, they'd have had the money and no need to consider cost savings. The prudence of acquiring a slightly used (demonstrator) engine as opposed to repairing E88 and E90 hangs on just how failure-prone the two really were, and the written record is not clear. And replacing both, leaving no backup engine, is questionable.
And that's why funding for large purchases needs to be not on an automatic path; it needs to be transparently explained and justified.
4. No attempt should be made to skew the results by manipulating how the voting is conducted. Putting the tax on the primary or general ballot saves taxpayers money and assures everyone is aware of when to vote.
This is a moot point in an off-year election, since it can only be a special election. The choice of May 7 holds no significance to effect the vote that I can see.
I will note that they increased the tax by $.01. I wonder if they were told people are more likely to vote for even amounts?
5. Other considerations.
The FFPD Board seems to believe if they keep coming back with the same proposal enough times, they'll wear down the voters and get their way. I hope the voters see it differently.
I do not deny that the FFPD needs more funding. But how much more?
Foresthill's official census population has dropped from 1,791 in 2000 to 1,483 in 2010. There is no reason to think the population has not gotten even smaller in the last 9 years. So one relevant question is "Do we really need 2 fully staffed Fire Stations?" We've done quite well with one over the recent months. Of course, everyone wants more coverage, but at what cost?
If the Board is comfortable reducing structure engines to one, perhaps they should revisit the need for two of everything. Fully staffing one station with a lesser tax could keep personnel and more easily pay for the necessary repairs and replacements.
Proponents of the tax will say we need two ambulances/fire trucks in case an emergency arrives while one is already on a call. But the same is true if both are on a call, say a multi-vehicle accident, or a structure fire. Do we then require a third fully staffed station?
With Measure F, I've heard complaints that Station 88 was closed, because it put residents farther from help. But did it really matter which, 88 or 90, was closed? Now 90 is closed and 88 staffed. Either way, some people are put 5 or 10 minutes farther from the responders.
Cut the tax in half, properly structure the rates, and let it run for 10 years. If an increase is then wanted, if the FFPD illustrates they have been responsible stewards and the increase is justified, the voters will agree.
But until then, this Measure B again should be rejected. Make them do it right. Vote NO.
For my rebuttal to the FFPD mailer, click here: Fire and Prop 13
For my rebuttal to You Can't Wait, click here: YouCan't
For rebuttals to latest Yes articles, click here: Last Thoughts
So, is the latest iteration of the FFPD's fire tax an improvement? Alas, it is the same pack of baloney, with a new label, but still the same unappetizing fare in all important details.
The defeated Measure F tax was for $240.37 with an annual increase of 2.6%. The new proposal, Measure B, is for a $240.38 tax with a $7 yearly increase for 15 years. The end result is the same.
(Quick background info that should be kept in mind: California, including Foresthill, is suffering from an exodus of the middle class, and from the middle class is where most of the tax revenue is raised. Median household income in Foresthill is about $35,000. Median household income nationwide is above $50,000, pushing $60,000. And over 50% of all Americans say they do not have $400 immediately available if needed for an emergency purchase. So any tax increase in a high-tax state needs to be soundly justified.)
In my anti-Fire Tax article last August, I laid down 4 principles that I believe should be adhered to before the tax is approved. Let me reiterate them here in a hopefully clearer format:
1. Taxes should be fairly shared -- no soak the rich, but neither unnecessarily harm the less wealthy.
The proposed tax is again a straight $240.38 for all parcels, the most regressive way of taxing, where the poorer citizens subsidize the richer. It is unacceptable.
The only sop given in this iteration is to not tax parcels deemed not developable (not defined). And this seems to be going the wrong way; a not developable lot could be a limited access parcel that holds overgrown, fire-prone vegetation, the very type of parcel that could fuel a wildfire. Exempting that from taxation makes no sense.
I still hold that, in my reading of the text of the law, there is no prohibition on an ad valorem tax. But even if there is, a tax structured similarly to the Mosquito Abatement Tax would be acceptable.
The Mosquito Abatement Tax has a base rate. That base rate is then modified as the following factors apply to the property description: a single family residence, a condominium, a multi-family residence, a mobile home on a separate lot, commercial property, office property, a shopping center, an industrial site, a self-storage facility, an agricultural property, vacant land, church property, institutional property, property used for educational purposes, and publicly owned property that is used for purposes similar to private residential, commercial, industrial or institutional uses. The rate is further modified by additional factors such as number of multi-family or condominium units and total acreage.
Parcels not charged the Mosquito Abatement Tax are those with limited economic value such as: public right-of-way parcels, limited access open space parcels, common area parcels, watershed parcels, and well, reservoir or other water rights parcels that cannot be developed into other improved uses.
So the FFPD should consider structuring the Fire Tax with a base rate modified by a few factors, such as:
Number of structures
Acreage
Defensible space for structures, or lack thereof.
Type of usage (residential, commercial, agricultural, etc.)
Thick, fire-rich uncleared vegetation
Yes, it takes a little work to decide the modifiers, but if the Mosquito Tax designers were willing to do so for a less than $25 tax, shouldn't we expect at least as much consideration for $240?
2. No automatic raises in taxes (including those that require a formal vote by elected members).
The proposed tax replaces the 2.6% yearly increase with a $7 a year increase that sunsets in 15 years. But do the math, and it is really the same thing. As the chart below shows, the $7 method brings in more revenue the first 9 years, then less the final 6 years. After 15 years, the 2019 proposal would raise $30,050 less.
(This chart gives the numbers for the tax increases. The first column is the year it would take effect, through the 15 years before the measure sunsets. The next 2 columns are what we would have been paying through the failed Measure F, with its 2.6% yearly increase. The next 2 columns are the new Measure B, with the $7 per year increase. Then I show our present tax, which increases by up to 3% a year (might be off on the Present Tax; I'm using the 2018 tax amount as Year 00, but probably should have used Year 01's number instead). Last column is the total the FFPD will collect from both the proposed 2019 measure and the present tax.
The Amount is calculated on the $800,000 they say the Measure will generate, which works out to 3328 lots that are so taxed.)
Old Measure F Measure B Present Tax Total
Year +2.6% Amount +$7 Amount +3% Amount
00 240.37 $799,951 240.38 $799,985 134.04 $446,085 $1,246,070
01 246.62 $820,751 247.38 $823,281 138.06 $459,464 $1,282,745
02 253.03 $842,084 254.38 $846,577 142.20 $473,242 $1,319,819
03 259.61 $863,982 261.38 $869,872 146.47 $487,452 $1,357,324
04 266.36 $886,446 268.38 $893,168 150.86 $502,062 $1,395,230
05 273.29 $909,509 275.38 $916,464 155.39 $517,138 $1,433,602
06 280.40 $933,171 282.38 $939,760 160.05 $532,646 $1,472,406
07 287.69 $957,432 289.38 $963,057 164.85 $548,621 $1,511,678
08 295.17 $982,326 296.38 $986,353 169.80 $565,094 $1,551,447
09 302.84 $1,007,852 303.38 $1,009,649 174.89 $582,034 $1,591,683
10 310.71 $1,034,043 310.38 $1,032,944 180.14 $599,506 $1,632,450
11 318.79 $1,060,933 317.38 $1,056,241 185.54 $617,477 $1,673,718
12 327.08 $1,088,522 324.38 $1,079,537 191.11 $636,014 $1,715,551
13 335.58 $1,116,810 331.38 $1,102,833 196.84 $655,084 $1,757,917
14 344.31 $1,145,864 338.38 $1,126,129 202.75 $674,752 $1,800,881
15 353.26 $1,175,649 345.38 $1,149,425 208.83 $694,986 $1,844,411
Total $15,625,325 $15,595,275 $8,991,657 $24,586,932
3. Major purchases should be brought before the voters and the expenditure justified -- depreciation is not deterioration.
According to the Replacement Schedule in the April 2017 Fire Service Financial Review, FFPD needs $160,201 every year to pay for replacement vehicles and equipment beyond the normal maintenance needs.
But not every piece of equipment needs replacement as opposed to being repaired and/or refurbished. Consider a box-body ambulance; instead of a new vehicle, often the box-body can be installed on a new chassis, at quite a cost savings.
The present structure engine purchase is another example that might be worth a closer look. The Replacement Schedule gives the replacement cost for each engine, E88 and E90, as $367,500. The Board has approved the purchase of a $399,000 used engine to replace both E88 and E90.
Timeline of events:
In August through October 2017, Board Member Tyler Harkness and Board President Chris Reams exchanged letters in the Foresthill Messenger. Harkness wrote that the Board wanted a $500,000 engine to replace both engines, but the district mechanic had told him he could "replace everything that could conceivably go wrong on our structure engines for $35,000." This claim was disputed by Board President Chris Reams, who said the mechanic did not say that and expected costs to keep both in repair was $60,000. Harkness replied he meant $35,000 each and that was 6 years ago so it might be $200,000 now.
In early 2018, the Board applied for Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and Assistance to Firefighters (AFG) grants to replace the engines; the AFG grant request was for $537,000.
In June, E90 had the main pipe from the tank to the pump replaced as it had rotted out. The Budget vs. Actual report at this time shows E90 fiscal year cost to date as $2638.45, and E88 as $3,278.78. (I could find no specific information on E88 problems or repairs, only the dollar amounts.)
In November, the Board accepted a APCD grant of $160,000 to replace the two engines, but put off the approval of buying a $537,000 vehicle.
In December, a Staff Report recommended the purchase of a 2019 Smeal engine for $422,910 ($587,010 minus the APCD grant of $160,000). This was the "optimal" solution. Alternatives were repairing the E88 and E90 for $40,000 to $70,000 (the amount Harkness cited in 2017), purchasing a stock (non-custom) engine, or purchase of a used engine.
Per the February 6, 2019, Foresthill Messenger, on December 28 (a FFPD meeting whose agenda is not on the website) the Board decides to purchase a 2017 used (demonstrator) engine for $240,000 ($399,000 minus the $160,000 grant).
February 28, 2019, E90 has a transmission failure and is said to leave the district with no operating structure engine (when or why E88 was/is unusable, I could not find in the agendas). A borrowed engine will not fit in Station 88, so is placed in Station 90 every night.
So let's recap in my words, with my commentary/questions:
The Replacement Schedule estimated replacement of both engines at $735,000.
The Board preferred a single $587,000 engine with all the bells and whistles they want. We all want the new and shiny thing, but they were wise not to go this way.
The Board chose to purchase a single engine for $240,000 ($400,000 minus $160,000). This is less than the Replacement Schedule expected cost, but uses an APCD grant that requires they get rid of both older engines. If we are to fully staff two stations, how can we afford to go to only one structure engine? The APCD requirement that we give up both, to mitigate Climate Change, seems excessive.
The Board could have kept in repair E88 and E90 for around $70,000. The transmission failure was likely not expected, so E90's cost would rise some. But why is E88 unusable?
The Staff Report puts the salvage value of the two engines at $4,100. Is that what the FFPD is doing with them, selling for scrap? Is that a requirement of the APCD grant (likely)? Or could they be sold to a private buyer for more?
Other questions:
How long and for what cost would E90 have been down if repairs had gone forward?
If speedy access to the borrowed engine is important, and it is, why not park it in Porter's Garage across from now-staffed Station 88? Surely it will fit in there and be readily available.
It's clear that if Measure F had passed, the Board would have approved the new, shiny engine. Why not, they'd have had the money and no need to consider cost savings. The prudence of acquiring a slightly used (demonstrator) engine as opposed to repairing E88 and E90 hangs on just how failure-prone the two really were, and the written record is not clear. And replacing both, leaving no backup engine, is questionable.
And that's why funding for large purchases needs to be not on an automatic path; it needs to be transparently explained and justified.
4. No attempt should be made to skew the results by manipulating how the voting is conducted. Putting the tax on the primary or general ballot saves taxpayers money and assures everyone is aware of when to vote.
This is a moot point in an off-year election, since it can only be a special election. The choice of May 7 holds no significance to effect the vote that I can see.
I will note that they increased the tax by $.01. I wonder if they were told people are more likely to vote for even amounts?
5. Other considerations.
The FFPD Board seems to believe if they keep coming back with the same proposal enough times, they'll wear down the voters and get their way. I hope the voters see it differently.
I do not deny that the FFPD needs more funding. But how much more?
Foresthill's official census population has dropped from 1,791 in 2000 to 1,483 in 2010. There is no reason to think the population has not gotten even smaller in the last 9 years. So one relevant question is "Do we really need 2 fully staffed Fire Stations?" We've done quite well with one over the recent months. Of course, everyone wants more coverage, but at what cost?
If the Board is comfortable reducing structure engines to one, perhaps they should revisit the need for two of everything. Fully staffing one station with a lesser tax could keep personnel and more easily pay for the necessary repairs and replacements.
Proponents of the tax will say we need two ambulances/fire trucks in case an emergency arrives while one is already on a call. But the same is true if both are on a call, say a multi-vehicle accident, or a structure fire. Do we then require a third fully staffed station?
With Measure F, I've heard complaints that Station 88 was closed, because it put residents farther from help. But did it really matter which, 88 or 90, was closed? Now 90 is closed and 88 staffed. Either way, some people are put 5 or 10 minutes farther from the responders.
Cut the tax in half, properly structure the rates, and let it run for 10 years. If an increase is then wanted, if the FFPD illustrates they have been responsible stewards and the increase is justified, the voters will agree.
But until then, this Measure B again should be rejected. Make them do it right. Vote NO.
For my rebuttal to the FFPD mailer, click here: Fire and Prop 13
For my rebuttal to You Can't Wait, click here: YouCan't
For rebuttals to latest Yes articles, click here: Last Thoughts