Directories
Quick Searches
Find a Job
Quick Search
For Employers
Yahoo! HotJobs Local Search
ELECTION: Merits of proposed countywide parcel tax debated
Proposition A would assess a minimum of $52 in first year, more in later years
By EDWARD SIFUENTES - Staff Writer | ∞
Twice over the last five years, the region struggled to contain devastating wildfires that taxed manpower and resources. Both times, post-fire reviews noted there was too little of each.
Now, a group of politicians and fire officials, acknowledging the inadequacies and responding to criticism, is proposing to bolster the region's readiness by asking county voters to dig into their pockets to pay for improvements.
Proposition A on the Nov. 4 ballot would do two things: It would create a regional fire agency and it would levy a parcel tax on most property owners, a minimum of $52 in the first year and more in future years based on the cost of living.
But opponents argue the ballot measure is ill-advised. They believe the funds can be found elsewhere. And they say county officials are just avoiding tough decisions.
The proposed new property tax would help buy more firefighting equipment, including fire engines and aircraft. If approved by the voters, the tax would be in effect for 30 years.
"Nobody likes asking people to dig down into their wallets," said San Miguel fire Chief Augie Ghio, one of the main spokespersons for the ballot measure.
But the region needs more equipment and better coordination and "it takes money to do that," Ghio said.
Two-thirds of the county's voters must approve the measure for it to pass.
Regional plan
Supporters hoped memories of last year's wildfires were fresh enough to compel voters to support the measure, but national economic worries appear to have overshadowed local issues.
And the measure's supporters have yet to flesh out their campaign.
There has been virtually no advertising for the measure apart from a Web site that even several supporters said last week they had not seen, including Supervisor Ron Roberts, who was on the committee that drafted the measure.
The parcel tax was drafted by the county-backed Regional Fire Protection Committee, which was formed earlier this year to study how to improve regional firefighting following the October 2007 wildfires.
The 2007 wildfires, coupled with the 2003 wildfires, burned hundreds of thousands of acres, destroyed more than 4,000 homes and killed 27 people.
The committee, headed by San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders and Roberts, proposed having voters decide whether to approve the parcel tax and form the regional fire authority as a way to bolster and better coordinate regional firefighting resources.
Roberts and other county officials say the regional fire authority will lead the way in creating a fire protection system similar to that of neighboring Orange County. That county formed a joint powers authority in 1995 that has an annual budget of about $270 million and protects unincorporated areas and member cities.
By comparison, San Diego County's parcel tax would raise about $50 million in the first year, but only $25 million of that would be dedicated to the regional agency. The tax would increase each year depending on the county's consumer price index, which was 2.3 percent in 2007 and 4.6 percent for the first half of 2008.
Depending on how quickly the cost of living rises, the parcel tax could nearly double or triple from the first year to the last, opponents say.
There is no accurate way to predict the consumer price index into the future, but assuming a 2 percent average increase, the parcel tax would be $94 on the 30th year. Assuming a 4 percent average increase, the tax would be $162 on the 30th year.
Under the plan, all property owners ---- except publicly held land and American Indian reservation residents ---- would pay the tax. Those who own larger buildings or larger parcels would pay more.
Parcels with larger buildings, such as high-rises, would be taxed an additional 1 cent for each square foot of space beyond 10,000 square feet. Large parcels without structures also would be taxed $1 for every acre beyond 50. The parcel tax could not exceed $1,000 on the first year, but the cap would also be subject to cost of living increases in subsequent years.
Time-share owners would pay $1 per unit each year.
Blueprint
The parcel tax would be collected by the county tax collector on the same bill as property taxes. It would take effect in 2009. The first half of the money collected in the first year, about $25 million, would be used to start the regional fire authority. The second half would go to local fire departments.
Under the plan, local fire departments would be allowed to use their share of the tax for training, purchasing equipment or hiring personnel. However, the departments would not be allowed to replace existing revenues with money from the parcel tax.
The plan includes a so-called maintenance of effort clause, which means a city or fire district cannot reduce spending on its fire resources and backfill the gap with the parcel tax funds.
During deliberations, the Regional Fire Protection Committee drafted a budget for the regional fire authority, which showed how the revenues from the parcel tax could be spent in the first five years.
In the first year, that proposed budget would have included $14.7 million to purchase and maintain equipment, $6.3 million to lease four firefighting aircraft, $1.5 million for a communications system and $1.2 million for administrative costs.
However, members of the committee decided to leave out the funding plan and allow the regional joint powers authority to decide how to spend the money.
Enough taxes?
Opponents of the parcel tax say the county should use existing revenues to pay for fire protection, including money collected under Proposition 172 ---- the half-cent sales tax California voters approved in 1992 to fund public safety.
That money, about $235 million a year, is now spent on the Sheriff's Department, district attorney's office and probation. Supervisors have steadfastly opposed reaching into those funds to pay for fire services.
Taxpayers advocate Richard Rider said county residents already pay enough taxes. He said the county should look in its coffers to find the money, not taxpayers' pockets. He said the county's budget has grown to $4.7 billion in recent years and that the new tax is not needed.
"By supporting this tax, our supervisors essentially are deciding that all other budget spending is more important than firefighting," Rider said, a freelance columnist for the North County Times.
Following the 2007 fires, several reports criticized the region for its patchwork of underfunded fire departments in the backcountry. A county grand jury report described the county's mostly volunteer fire protection system as something out of the "Old West" and "woefully unprepared."
Supporters say the tax would generate more money for not only the regional authority but local fire departments.
Shared responsibility?
The local fire departments would get half of the money generated by the tax within the city or community they serve. For example, based on the number and size of the parcels in Oceanside, the tax is projected to generate about $2.8 million in that city. Oceanside would get $1.4 million for its fire department.
San Diego and the unincorporated areas of the county would get the largest shares of the revenues, about $9.2 million and $5.1 million respectively.
Some city officials have scoffed at their shares. They say county officials are using the proposal as a way to shirk their responsibility to pay for fire protection.
La Mesa City Councilwoman Ruth Sterling said her city pays proportionally more for its fire services than the county.
The city's Fire Department, which is responsible for about 9 square miles, has a budget of about $8 million, she said. And the county, which includes 3,572 square miles of unincorporated land, spends $15.5 million on fire protection.
At least three cities in the county, Encinitas, National City and La Mesa, have voted to oppose the ballot measure.
"I think the county needs to go back to the drawing table and look at having its own fire department," Sterling said. "I think it's time they put together, with that Prop. 172 money, its own fire department."
Encinitas fire Chief Mark Muir put it another way.
"The concept of taking a regional approach to deal with the critical issues of fire protection in the unincorporated areas is a good one, but the question comes down to whether the tax is worth the benefit for each individual city," Muir said.
County supervisors, all of whom support the parcel tax, say the threat of massive wildfires is a regional concern and the burden of paying for fire protection against them should be shared.
"As we saw in both the 2003 and 2007 fires, while they started in the unincorporated area, if they are not contained, if they are not controlled, if they are not put out, they very likely can and will come into the more urbanized portions of this county," said Supervisor Greg Cox.
Contact staff writer Edward Sifuentes at (760) 740-3511 or esifuentes@nctimes.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
Harley Joe wrote on Oct 4, 2008 5:57 PM:Why do the many (us living in the urban areas) have to pay for the few who insist in living in the outback areas (where the fire danger is real). As I see it, it is just another way around Prop 13 that limited our property taxes so that we would not lose our homes. Don't get me wrong, we need protection, but make it sensible for all of us, just don't make all of pay for the few!
jvc wrote on Oct 4, 2008 9:08 PM:That is, Mr. Rider, you should state where the money should come from if not from an increase in taxes!?
Ridiculous wrote on Oct 4, 2008 10:09 PM:What's the debate? We are all voting no because the people who need this protection need to pay for it themselves! We already pay for our police and fire in my town!
the state.... wrote on Oct 5, 2008 12:41 AM:sold us this line in 1992 with prop 172, it origionally wasn't doing well in the approval ratings until they added on that some of the 1/2 cent tax proceeds would go to firefighting interests....the fire districts have been asking for part of the proceeds ever since....as the D.A. and Sheriffs take and use the entire amount allocated to the County of San Diego, we should demand that they use the proceeds of 172 as it was origionally proposed...not let them keep coming with demands for more funding when the economy is weak as it is...
Fred II wrote on Oct 5, 2008 5:45 AM:No, NO, NO.....
"a group of politicians and fire officials, acknowledging the inadequacies". They are the ones who caused the problem.
Jim wrote on Oct 5, 2008 6:01 AM:Here it is again.. tax tax tax... 90% have more than adiquate fire protection.
But let's tax the little home owner.. well the ones we that have not been forclosed on. And what about the fixed income folks that just don't have and extra $52.00 dollars after being mugged ea month by insurance co's, doctors, Big Pharma.
SD fire dept just wants the latest and biggest toys. And they get 100% of their pay at "retirement", for the rest of their lives...
Vote NO on this Stamp ACT!!
No Way wrote on Oct 5, 2008 6:05 AM:Too much already. We are getting taxed out of our lives now. They are using scare tactics to get more taxes to pay for somethimg that wouldn't make that much difference. Think of this, all this money for equipment, who do you think is going to pay extra for the firefighters to use it,THE TAX PAYERS, nice double dip.(The tax doen't cover salaries) Quit trying to use Armagedon tactics, I live in O'side, I'm glad we pay extra for helping the County prop 172, Sheriffs. Supervisor Cox, you are full of it, let the ones in fire sensative areas pay extra, not eveyone. NO ON "A", NO MORE TAXES!!!!!!!!
Gil wrote on Oct 5, 2008 6:52 AM:I don't have $52 a year to spare. Sorry, I guess they can get the money from another source. I have a few suggestions.
lady wrote on Oct 5, 2008 7:08 AM:Over & over & over. WE keep hearing more taxes,here, there, everywhere. Don't they get it " NO MORE TAXES" period..... Voting NO on anything that is going to ASK for more money OUT of my pocket Period....Going to make it pretty easy to vote this year,no,no,no BUT Yes on prop. 8,there done....
NoParcelTax wrote on Oct 5, 2008 7:37 AM:Below I've posted Richard Rider's NC TIMES column concerning Prop A, It ran two weeks ago.
I can't post the URL, but here's the text. I think it answers the questions. If you want more info -- especially on who opposes Prop A -- you'll have to Google for the no SD parcel tax website.
---
MORE TAXES? WHAT ARE THEY SMOKING?
24 September, 2008
Our county supervisors are taking decisive action to deal with our financial meltdown, soaring energy prices, rising unemployment and plummeting home values.
Their solution? Raise taxes!
What are they smoking?!
This November we'll be voting on Proposition A, a countywide parcel tax to raise $50 million for rural firefighting.
Firefighting should be a top priority for government, along with law enforcement. We already pay plenty of taxes to provide firefighting, if only we make public safety a top priority. Sadly, the current top county priority is to provide most 30-year county workers with two pensions that together far exceed their highest salaries.
San Diego County adopted a 2007-08 budget of about $4.7 billion, over 8 percent higher than the previous year. That's a $350 million increase in one year! Yet the county can't find $50 million for critical public safety needs? Stunning.
Our county supervisors annually distribute about $11 million from their personal taxpayer-funded discretionary accounts (aka "slush funds"). They give only a pittance to firefighting ---- most goes to narrow special interest groups. Again, a priority problem.
Perhaps if firefighters started funding trips overseas for the supervisors, they'd have more luck getting these discretionary funds. Sure seemed to work for other groups!
This parcel tax charges the same $52 to almost all property owners ---- residential and business. Hence it is extremely regressive, hurting the working class and retirees the most. A $5 million homeowner will pay the same parcel tax as a $200,000 condo owner.
It gets worse.
This parcel tax includes a full cost-of-living rider. Hence even with falling real estate prices, the parcel tax will keep rising.
In addition, this tax benefits primarily the 17 percent of our residents living in rural areas. It does little for those who live in cities, or along the coast.
As National City stated in its resolution opposing Prop. A, our county officials should use existing revenue, such as the $235 million it expects to receive next year from Proposition 172, rather than imposing a new countywide tax. Proposition 172, a statewide half-cent sales tax that generates money for public safety, was sold to voters as a firefighting measure in 1993. Yet almost none of the money is spent on firefighting.
Equally disturbing is that the county and local jurisdictions refuse to pursue more innovative, cost-effective options to fight our infrequent but devastating brush fires. See my previous North County Times columns online for some of those options (Oct. 31, "Expand our firefighting options" and Nov. 15, "Firefighters fight reforms").
In this recession, California politicians have gone tax-crazy. Our state and local ballots will be filled with taxes and bonds galore. It's time to say no to all bonds and tax increases.
And especially to this parcel tax. If this measure passes, count on more parcel tax propositions in future elections ---- from cities and school districts around the county.
Join the San Diego Republican Party, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and San Diego Tax Fighters in saying "no" to Prop. A on Nov. 4.
Richard Rider is chairman of San Diego Tax Fighters.
No Fire Boundaries wrote on Oct 5, 2008 7:40 AM:Most of SD County will again see fires similar to 2007.
Such fires can spread and become 'city' fires.
Fire/Wildfire does not have any boundaries and therefore all of us are at risk.
We need better protection. We need to reduce our risk.
The public needs information as to how to help themselves and their cities and communities.
Please google wildfire zone tip cards.
Tip Cards have ACCURATE fire info specifically for SD County.
City and Country folks can benefit from the TIP CARDS.
The County/Cities have limited fire services, and therefore all of us are responsible to 'attack' fire before it attacks us.
Encinitas wrote on Oct 5, 2008 8:59 AM:The primary responsibility of government at all levels is to provide for citizen safety. Fire fighting needs to be put at the top of the county's priority list, and funded out of existing funds.
We are, and will be for some time, in hard economic times. Just as families are scaling back their expenditures, the county needs to as well. It's unrealistic to be asking for more tax monies at this time. I'd suggest a very critical review of where the county is spending it's money, and a hard look at what can be trimmed (hint: the supervisors' individual slush funds).
Escondeeter wrote on Oct 5, 2008 10:13 AM:Proposition A will result in those who already have adequate fire protection paying for their own protection and half the cost of someone else's. Even worse, the fifty percent of the tax that's coming back to the cities can't be used for current protection costs. Did I say fifty percent? Make that forty-five, the new "agency" gets to rake off admin. costs first.
Prop. A is a classic big government boondoggle. What we need is adequate funding for the current agencies, distributed as those agencies direct. Your local fire chief knows what he needs. If you give him the money, he'll buy it. Let's let the people who are fighting the fires decide how to spend the money, not another SANDAG-like committee.
No on A.
Kris wrote on Oct 5, 2008 11:18 AM:So over 4,000 homes lost and 27 people dead in the 2007 fires - and some people are too cheap to cough up $52 a year to help out???
Free Fire Help wrote on Oct 5, 2008 11:53 AM:Reduce your Risk -- FREEBIES
Save your lives, homes (old and new), critters, and business.
-- Defensible space
-- Remove flammable materials
-- Use fire resistant products and fire resistant vegetation
TIP CARDS are FREE
The TIP CARDS can be read and printed
directly from your computer
google "wildfire zone tip cards"
FREE accurate info
Reduce YOUR Risk
Most fire depts will conduct a free fire hazard exterior inspection for your business or home.
Phone your Fire Dept - it is FREE.
Register your mobile phone, VoIP, and email; also TTY/TDD with AlertSanDiego.
More information for AlertSanDiego at
http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/oes/ready/signup.html
JF wrote on Oct 5, 2008 4:59 PM:First off, Rider's column contained factual errors. He stated that the tax unfairly affects all homeowners. That is not true. Prop A taxes increase for larger parcels and larger homes.
Escondeeter advocates letting local fire chiefs decide what they need. Hmmm... half the money goes to local agencies.
Further, Escondeeter writes that those who already have adequate protection will fund those who don't. NO CITY in this county has adequate fire protection. The city of San Diego needs to increase it's fire department by 50% according to a national rating agency. The $9 million that this tax will bring will fund about 20% of that increase. It's a start.
People say that they don't have a spare $52 dollars per year. Really? That's a dollar a week. How much do you spend at Starbucks a day?
Sorry for the negative tone of this letter, but fire protection needs to be a priority. The funding needs to come from somewhere. If you can't get your elected officials to use existing funds, then new funds must be created. Sorry for the harsh reality, but that's the bottom line.
TO JF wrote on Oct 5, 2008 6:08 PM:I don't spend any money at SBUX. Further, it is my money, not the government. I will spend it where I please, and I don't have to explain my spending to anyone, unlike the state.
Gil wrote on Oct 5, 2008 6:42 PM:TO: JF
You sound like a typical liberal/socialist who wants to control how I can spend MY money.
P.S. I hate Starbucks!!!
Sam wrote on Oct 5, 2008 9:25 PM:Every politician tries to come with another way to say, I owe more money. Guess what, they never spend my money that way it is intended.....Take for instance the 700 billion that is now 850 billion....a whole 150 billion more just for pet projects....Politicians being bribed for their vote by the same politicians giving them the money....when it isn't theirs to begin with.....
Beyond disgusted wrote on Oct 6, 2008 4:00 AM:Let me get this straight. You take the risk and we surrender our hard-earned $ when you lose. Sounds like a plan. Burn baby, burn. You are too rich for our blood. I don't think so.
Billy wrote on Oct 6, 2008 7:45 AM:We work hard, through our elected officials, trying to prepare ourselves for wildfires. But, as Mother Nature will have it, mistakes are made. The power company failed to maintain their infrastructure properly and let it deteriorate to an unsafe condition. The power company also failed to keep the right-of-ways cut back properly creating additional fire hazards.
It seems that after most mistakes we tend to reorganize and what a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and a need for more tax money.
If I have learned anything over the years, it is that when mistakes are made the first step is to evaluate and determine the root cause of the mistakes. In the case of our recent wildfires, our power company made the mistakes. Then we must look at this thing in layers. Let us go up one layer to our elected officials that are supposed to perform oversight of the public utilities. The deterioration of power lines takes a relatively long time and it would be simple to perform oversight in the backcountry. A fly over evaluation of the right-of-ways monthly would suffice to spot unsafe overgrowth.
The Board of Supervisors seems to think that imposing another tax and throwing more money at the problem will prevent wildfires. Or are they saying that the reason the fires got out of control is that our fire fighting systems are inadequate? I do not know if they are or not; however, until we deal with the root causes, failure on part of the power companies, and failure on part of the Board of Supervisors, let us not waste money.
The power companies should be letting contracts to upgrade their infrastructure and the Board of Supervisors should be performing oversight and reporting to the taxpayers. There are plenty of companies that have the capability of doing the work.
Real Fire Leadership wrote on Oct 6, 2008 7:53 AM:I suspect we do not trust our politicians to have the integrity to use the fire taxes in a meaningful ethical way.
JF is correct. Fire protection must be a priority for all SD County residents. No cities, communities, unincorporated areas, etc. have adequate funds for our fire protection.
Do you want a system that pays volunteer firefighters less money (which may mean less service)
Those who do not pay, cannot use the service.
or
Do you want a system that pays trained firefights at a reasonable pay level (including a reasonable pay level for retirement)
Those who do not pay, cannot use the service.
or
Do you want a system where POLITICS are eliminated and we - the stakeholders aka homeowners - take responsibility and help fight fires by reducing fire risk ahead of time.
More fires such as 2003 and 2007 mean that at some time some or all of us will no longer be able to get fire insurance.
Move Forward:
Better fire leadership - without politics.
Responsible stakeholders that have accurate fire info.
Look past it. wrote on Oct 6, 2008 7:56 AM:After all the anti-tax rhetoric is said and done the problem still remains. We need to fund a regional fire service to protect this county. It can't be done with harsh words or muckslinging over a tax. In the end it is a small tax to pay, only around $50 per parcel, not to bad for fire protection. We need to learn not to say no just because it is a tax, but to say YES because it is a needed tax.
VOTE YES
JF wrote on Oct 6, 2008 7:57 AM:Yes, I want to suck your blood. You're a couple weeks early for that kind of hyperbole, aren't you? And yes, we take the risk. We continue to take the risk even as you refuse to fund us properly.
Gil, as I wrote, spending for firefighting has to be a priority in this county. Currently it is not. I don't wish to pay more taxes anymore that you do, but I don't realistically see the county supervisors cutting $25 million from the Sheriff, do you? So where will the money come from? Which programs, by name, should be cut to get the money for fire protection? I'm all ears.
Fear Mongering Fatigue wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:26 AM:Who do they think has the money to pay all of these new taxes after the sub-prime meltdown, the credit crunch, the big federal bailout of Wall Street and now the worldwide recessionary results. We are all suffering from fear mongering fatigue and are tired of being how terrible things will get if we don't keep passing all of these new taxes and bonds. In Escondido, we are already paying on at least 5 bond measures and we have one of the lowest income levels in the county. Government is just going to have to learn to do more with less, just like the rest of us during these hard economic times. In the meantime, the county should continue to call in the national guard and use military resources...
- Burst pipe causes 70-foot-deep sink hole in Carlsbad (2466)
- REGION: State green power plan will cost consumers billions (1444)
- HOUSING: Fraud victims struggle to regain cash, credit (1399)
- REGION: Talk of new immigration bill gets mixed reaction (1053)
- VISTA: Grocer brothers suspected of threatening former butcher (1033)
Advertisement