To rectify County Fire budget, supervisors eye parcel tax - FP-5

[tcaarabians]

I'm pretty sure that Fire Districts preceded Prop 13.  I've tried to find the reason why they were created. I agree that cities and counties have tried any number of creative workarounds since the passage of Prop 13 in 1978.  I also agree that Supervisors have to approve any shortfalls with a transfer from the General Fund.

[lwt42]

I'm pretty sure that Fire Districts preceded Prop 13. 

Proposition 13 fundamentally changed how special districts are funded, regardless of size.

I also agree that Supervisors have to approve any shortfalls with a transfer from the General Fund.

Actually, they don't have to fund the SBCoFPD at all, which would slash the budget by 25%.  Traditionally, the Board of Supervisors have done so, but the whole FP-5 expansion started with the Supervisors saying "don't count on this in the future."

Seems foolish and shortsighted, but it is politics.

[tcaarabians]

I agree with you lwt42:  The Prop 13, that we all would die to keep, not only changed funding for special districts - it changed funding at the county and city level as well.  You add in the Gann Amendment and Prop 218 and local governments are squeezed.  While the Supervisors don't "have" to fund the FD to its current level - it would be political suicide not to do so.  Or, at least I hope it would be.

[thehallmarks]

Here are some questions to the SBC FD presentation on this Tuesday at 5:30 pm--the Mt. Progress printed it incorrectly at 6pm!

FYI: Article XIII C, section 2, subsection d, of the Constitution of the State of California states: No local government may impose, extend, or increase any special tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote.

The SBC FD expanded Fire Protection Zone 5 (FP-5) to include all unincorporated communities in the county.

This would result in an annual fee of $157.26 on each parcel, with an annual increase of 3 percent a year, per parcel, vacant or not.

The Board directed the CEO and fire chief to determine a date upon which FP-5 will sunset." It was my understanding that motion required a sunset date to be set by the Board!

There was not a sunset clause passed by the Board therefore it could continue until repealed!

The FP-5 fee compounds at 1.03 % of the previous years fee.

In 2021 the FP-5 fee on my Secured tax bill was $161.90, in 2023 the FP-5 fee was $171.85--an increase of $9.95 in 2 years.

Does the SBC FD have a current deficit?

Does the Board of Supervisors still have funding responsibility for the SBC FD or do they just "rubber stamp" your FP-5  budget?

It was stated in the past that the revenue would be used solely to maintain existing services, and not to create new ones! Is this still the case and if not what additional services have been implemented.

This question was asked before, are any of the FP-5 fees being used to fund retirement and health services cost?

Q: Is this expansion and the FP-5 property assessment due to rising pension cost?

A: No, this is about the total cost of providing fire and emergency medical services. Those costs include facilities, vehicle replacement, equipment, salaries, pensions, etc.

[tcaarabians]

Hi Hank, Hope you're well.  I'm going to take a stab at some of the questions you posed here for the sake of discussion.

Yes, the state constitution requires a vote - it also allows for certain fees to be conducted by a 'protest vote."  The so-called 'fire tax' (which is really a fee for service) was approved when the protest vote failed. That process has been upheld in the courts In addition, when the voters approved Measure K in 2022 - that included a vote for any FP-5 or related fees.

The Board of Supervisors also serves as the Board of the Fire Protection District. There is an additional seat on that Board. I'm not familiar with a 'sunset clause' in any of the actions.

Yes, the FP-5 district without the FP-5 fee runs a deficit. You can see that in the county budget which is available online.

You can compare the "proposed budget" to the "final budget" to see if the Supes, sitting as the Fire Protection District Board, made any changes. I've looked at the budget. I see no fat. If anything, I'd support more resources going into the SB fire budget. I'm not sure what you mean by 'new services." We need more abatement - not less. Is that a new service? We need to get tough on property owners that never clear their brush. Is that a new service? The monies raised by the FP-5 fee go into services for the district. The new off-road fire truck is an example of that expenditure. The fee doesn't go towards p&h directly.  Course, I think our firefighters deserve p&h and it should be part of the expenditures in the budget.

I plan to Vote NO on Measure W - again.  It costs the fire district around $400k each time this is on the ballot. I'd rather see that money go to fire fighting.

[lwt42]

Does the SBC FD have a current deficit?

Does the Board of Supervisors still have funding responsibility for the SBC FD or do they just "rubber stamp" your FP-5  budget?

The SBCOFD is funded from property taxes and a supplement from the County.  Their statutory "cut" of property taxes isn't quite enough. 

The argument is that the San Bernardino Fire Protection District Board (who happens to also be the Board of Supervisors) cannot rely on the Board of Supervisors (also the SBCFPD board) to provide any kind of consistent funding.

So, FP-5 monies bypass the Board of Supervisors budget.  It also means that for every dollar of FP-5 money, the Board of Supervisors can reduce the annual supplement.

I'd say it was a conspiracy between the SBCOFD board, and the SBC Board of Supervisors, but they're the same, so I'm not sure that's a conspiracy.

[tcaarabians]

LWT42 - Right. And they don't have to approve either cuts in the fire budget or cuts elsewhere in the budget to cover the deficit - whichever hat they're wearing when they do.

[lwt42]

LWT42 - Right. And they don't have to approve either cuts in the fire budget or cuts elsewhere in the budget to cover the deficit - whichever hat they're wearing when they do.

Not quite the point.  Increased funding for SBCOFD is arguably an increase in the County General Fund, because what the County does not have to pay the SBCOFD can be spent on other things.

[tcaarabians]

The county does not "have to pay the SBCOFD."  They could make cuts in that service. If the county has to make cuts, I'd prefer it come out of another department's budget. In the absence of the FP-5 fee - the county either has to cover the deficit or make cuts.