President's Message
Fielding the Issues
By Russel Efird
Read everything, study the issues before you cast your vote on rural fire protection
This month, rural residents of Fresno County will be asked to vote on an increase in property taxes to pay for additional fire protection services in the unincorporated areas of Fresno County. By the time you read this, you may have already received your ballot, which must be returned before Sept. 15, asking for an increase in the benefit assessment to fund the Fresno County Fire Protection District (FCFPD). Before you vote, take some time to read all of the information about the proposed tax, study the issue, weigh the facts and statements made by both proponents and opponents, and ask questions.
In this issue of Agriculture Today, we have included an article starting on page 1 that comprehensively covers the issue and answers many of the questions you may have. Your FCFB Executive Committee reviewed the measure, discussed various concerns and decided not to take an advocacy position, but instead wanted to take an educational role to assist the landowners/voters in making an informed decision.
Having said that, there are several points I feel need clarification and consideration before you vote. As a former member of the Board of Directors of the FCFPD, I have had the opportunity to represent the rural residents, and for 15 years, worked to help ensure the unincorporated areas of the county had adequate and dependable fire protection. Based on that experience and the fact there are other points that need to be addressed before asking the voters for more money, I am not supporting the proposed assessment fee and will vote “no.”
Point 1: I urge you to ask yourself do we really need this added tax to support additional services? Currently, the FCFPD is sufficiently funded, with the existing stations fully staffed with upgraded fire protection equipment. With this assessment, we are asked to fund a cut-above-type of program for an unidentified length of time when the current level of fire protection is adequately funded and is ample. Is the added tax really necessary?
Point 2: There is no sunset provision with this benefit assessment. It will go on into perpetuity.
Point 3: Landowner-based taxes continue to escalate. Look at the numbers. FCFPD has had a 41 percent increase in income from property taxes that rural residents and landowners have already paid to the fire protection district, a 67 percent increase in total project revenue and an increase of over 2,500 percent in Allocated Reserve Funds. (Look at the article continued on page __ , Question 10 and 11.)
Point 4: The FCFPD is a stand-alone rural fire district governed by a Board that is not elected, but rather appointed, by the Fresno County Board of Supervisors. It is a special district that has the ability to go to the voters for approval or denial of changes in assessments. Residents within the District make up only three-to-four percent of the total population of Fresno County. The cities within the FCFPD have their own fire protection services or they contract with the District, but those residents do not have a vote, and will not participate in any additional assessment.
The County of Fresno also is considering its own public safety tax to be put before voters perhaps as early as the November election. If both the proposed FCFPD and County assessments are approved, the three-to-four percent of the rural residents that live within the FCFPD could be paying a duplicate assessment, if both tax increases are passed.
Point 5: Has the FCFPD looked at all areas where it can improve efficiencies and make maximum use of existing resources before it went to the voters to ask for an increase in taxes? The issue of consolidation of public safety agencies has been discussed extensively and two studies, commissioned by the Board of Supervisors, have explored how consolidating resources among County and cities within the County can increase efficiencies and services. Also, the FCFPD contracts with the State of California for its employees. It might be time for the Fire District to have local control over all of its budget, not just 20-to-25 percent of the budget, with the balance of the 75-to-80 percent of the budget being dictated by the state. These recommendations have not been implemented, which could free-up resources to be used elsewhere. Maximizing the efficiency of our tax dollars should be a top priority before asking voters for an increase on their property taxes.
Point 6: In February 2008, SCI Consulting Group conducted and published the Fresno County Fire Protection District Survey and Opinion Research Findings, a separate study approved and funded by the FCFPD Board to determine public support for a potential tax measure. The results showed only a 41.6 percent overall support for a proposed benefit assessment at the lowest rate of $65 for a single-family resident parcel. Support fell as the assessment amount increased. Despite the decrease in support as the amount increased, the FCFPD board and staff went ahead with this proposed benefit assessment. Are these dollars for the study and the vote on the benefit assessment a wise use of this tax money?
Point 7: The FCFPD’s main responsibility is fire protection within the District’s service area. It is not the responsibility of the FCFPD to provide emergency medical care; it does so out of a moral obligation to the citizens of the county and anyone who travels through the county. The responsibility for emergency medical aid rests with the County of Fresno. If emergency medical aid is needed along the Interstate 5 corridor, this proposal to pay for and staff a new station in that vicinity with this benefit assessment should be paid by the County of Fresno. If this service is necessary, the three-to-four percent of the district residents should not be the only ones to pay for the whole amount.
Without question, there are many components to the decision our rural residents will cast with their votes between now and Sept. 15. It is our responsibility as voters to explore all angles, listen to all arguments and push the pencil on projected costs before deciding which way to vote. We hope the article that starts on page 1 helps to answer your questions, and I hope some of the points I raise here help by providing one person’s perspective. Please do not hesitate to contact me or the FCFB staff for additional information. But above all, please vote and return your ballot. Your vote is important and will be counted!