Higgins Fire District Makes Fourth Try to Raise Taxes From Property Owners
To vote NO you must send in your ballot by July 3.
In April a “survey” was sent out to property owners claiming Higgins is challenged to provide sufficient fire and emergency services. They suffer flat funding and difficulties recruiting new firefighters. They claim new money, $762,960, is needed to ensure fire protection and other emergency services to their 91-square miles with 4,500 improved parcels operating out of 2 fire stations.
They have a 5-member board, one full-time chief, two full-time captains, one full-time engineer, three full-time firefighters, one full-time office manager, three summer/seasonal firefighters and 12 paid call firefighters. They average 1,200 incidents per year with 65% medical in nature.
The District has given no explanation of the CalFire component of services that are provided every summer during the peak fire season. This should be explained along with current data for a clear picture of the District income, costs and operations.
Funding comes from a portion of annual property taxes on a rate established in 1978 (Prop 13 tax protection against excessive taxation), a $25 fee for each improved parcel passed in 1980, Prop 172 funds (public safety funds) on a rate established by the Board of Supervisors. Property taxes increase based upon assessed valuation of property. Static revenue is $2,280,000 with expenses of $2,507,000 with an annual shortfall of $227,000.
Wouldn’t it seem more productive to re-negotiate Prop 172 funds based on the needs of the District? Shouldn’t we ask the District to define operational costs per station? An estimate of the actual increased costs with a third fire station would be instructive and help taxpayers to understand the true costs or should we assume that the new station will only cost $535,960 based upon use of the taxes to cover the existing shortfall of $227,000 with the excess of $535,960 used to pay for the re-opened fire station or will we face another tax when it is open because of additional shortfalls? And, with two fire stations, splitting the costs in half equates to $1,235,530 which means the reopened fire station will have an immediate shortfall because current funding is inadequate to cover operating costs.
The tax increase will raise three times as much as they currently need to operate the two fire stations. And they do not have a strategic plan on how they will man a new station when they have firefighting difficulties already with an aging staff and can’t recruit and retain trained firefighters for the two existing stations.
Over the past 10 years their budget has not kept pace with inflation with minimal funds for capital improvements (new fire trucks and remodeling). New fire trucks cost $750,000.
Better Alternatives
There are other alternatives. They should think about fully equipped hummers to respond to medical calls. They don’t need to roll out a fire truck and lots of other equipment when the need is defined as medical and the real need is an ambulance with trained EMT’s.
They derive additional revenue from sending personnel and equipment to wildfires around the state that is quite lucrative based on fire conditions – but a big chunk of the money goes to pay the personnel who respond as the “Strike Team”.
Current status of Higgins fire fighting
State regulatory training for new recruits requires 1,000 hours per recruit. In the past 5 years Higgins has recruited 5 volunteers, 18-20 years old, who left after completing training. Current volunteers are aging with 70% of volunteer responses in 2020 provided by 3 firefighters averaging 65 years of age – that is obviously unsustainable. Taxpayers deserve to know the current status of the fire fighters so that we have good numbers on which to rely when considering a tax increase. If the staffing is such a problem perhaps another solution should be considered such as consolidation rather than the remote possibility of opening a new station and being underfunded and short staffed from the beginning.
With the “new money” Higgins would like to re-open the Dog Bar Station and resolve the insolvency and staffing issues.
Ballot issues cause lack of trust
They hired Harris & Associates to shepherd them through another process to raise taxes on property owners in the district. They managed the letter with the survey and will count the ballots.
Ballots have been sent out with names and addresses on them so that there is no confidentiality in the ballot. The returned ballots will be opened at a Public Hearing on July 3 at 7:00 p.m. Everybody will know how you voted. And rather than using the Registrar of Voters election capabilities, a volunteer organization, the League of Women Voters, has the key to the ballot box and has been tasked with handling the ballots. When do they unlock the ballot box? Who observes the ballot handling showing that they meet chain of custody requirements? Where are ballots placed, are they held in a secure area, or are they stuffed into the ballot box at the station with an opening on July 3 just prior to the ballot counting procedure? Is the ballot box large enough to accommodate 4,500 ballots that have been sent out to the taxpayers? If the League of Women Voters is reliable, why is the district going to the expense of hiring another firm to count the ballots?
The new tax will be added onto existing property tax in perpetuity
They propose a new Assessment District with all funds to supplement existing funding sources beginning Fiscal Year 2024-25 so, if passed, the new tax will be on our next property tax bill and will be there for perpetuity. If a new Assessment District is formed, it may take a vote of the taxpayers to dissolve it.
Assessments are calculated and proportionately spread to each parcel based on the special benefits received and will be collected along with other property taxes (for which Higgins will pay the County a fee for services). Voters are advised that there is an Engineer’s report at the District office that has determined their share of the taxes and can be viewed upon inquiry. Why didn’t the District include the formula or more information on the determination of taxes assessed?
The proposed maximum assessment for the entire district is $762,960. This is an unending assessment into perpetuity – “as long as the fire suppression services are provided by the District”. Such method of apportionment was approved by the District’s Board of Directors on May 15, 2024. Benefit units are assigned to other property types based upon risk of fire and economic loss in the event of a fire in proportion to the single-family residence and are included in the Engineer’s Report.
Communication issues also cause lack of trust
Proposition 218 allows for the mailing of ballots to property owners defining the process and escaping combining elections with general or primary elections.
Three public hearings at 6:00 p.m. have been scheduled with a postcard sent out to taxpayers but received after the first one, and one is scheduled at Lake of the Pines that is not open to all taxpayers. The three meetings were scheduled for June 3 at Higgins Lions Community Center, June 19 at Lake of the Pines Clubhouse, and June 21 at Higgins Lions Community Center. The postcard about scheduled meetings should have been received prior to the first meeting allowing taxpayers to attend every meeting if they choose. I received my postcard on June 16.
At the public hearing on July 3 at 7 p.m. the District board of Directors will accept public testimony and receive Assessment Ballots on the proposed assessments. The Board may continue the hearing to a future date if necessary without further written notice.
Tax/Assessment ballot procedure: The vote is based upon received ballots. If a property owner does not vote, it is considered an abstention, not a no vote so, in essence, it becomes a yes. To protest, or vote no, property owners must vote no and return their ballot by the deadline. A majority of protests, or no votes in opposition to the assessment must exceed the number of votes received in favor of the proposed taxes/assessments. It’s a matter of simple math.
No matter what it’s called, it’s a tax
This is exactly what the Protect Our Rights measure on the November ballot will address. Taxes must be called taxes, not fees or assessments. Voters must be informed in advance about taxes and a larger majority needs to be required for new taxes to prevail. Whether a tax is used for a specific purpose or not, it is still a tax. California voters have been duped into believing that assessments are not taxes, but they really are taxes by another name.
If the justification for this 4th attempt to raise funds is to cover their funding shortfalls, recruit new firefighters and buy new equipment, it is a sleight of hand to claim that the main purpose of this new tax is to reopen a fire station because of its appeal to property owners.
They make no mention of the mutual aid agreements practiced by all fire districts in Nevada County so that additional equipment and trained firefighters respond enlarging the firefighting capacity supporting the area fire district. Extra firefighters are available without opening another fire station.
It’s time for thinking outside the box rather than doing the same thing over and over – you know what they say about that? Maybe new strategies to cover the calls need to be considered, and just maybe it is time to consolidate for better efficiency. The problem with this is Higgins Fire District taxpayers will be sucked up into fire districts that pay much more for services but there may be some economies of scale that would benefit everyone.