Safety always comes first in fire protection, but spending more money doesn’t necessarily guarantee increased safety.
Key Point Summary:
- Increased safety is not a guarantee
- The costs are too high, and the benefits will be short-lived
- California/Calaveras residents can not afford more taxes
- There are already considerable disparities in fire salaries in our county
- There are better solutions that are not being considered
Everyone understands that fire protection is essential, but everything has limits. This initiative goes beyond the boundaries of reasonable, affordable, and sustainable. Simply put, this initiative is too expensive and will not, over time, provide what it is stated to do.
California has the highest sales tax rates in the United States. Californians are being taxed to death and are leaving the state in large numbers. We cannot afford more taxes. The measure asks that we add one percent to all sales tax purchases exclusively for fire protection. The County/City gets 1.25% to cover ALL programs in the county, including fire protection. Fire is attempting to collect its share of taxes twice.
Our fuel costs are some of the highest in the nation, and the tax will add one percent to every gallon of gasoline, diesel, kerosene, and propane every time you fill up.
It will not stop here. After this initiative, other agencies such as law enforcement, tourism, and recreation services will see a funding source. We already have one of the state’s highest transient occupancy taxes (TOT) at twelve (12) percent. We will then be equally taxed as in large cities without the large city income. We live in our rural, remote county because we do not want big-city taxes and government control.
Use Ebbetts Pass Fire as an example. Their Chief with benefits makes over $192,500 annually, and the District Secretary makes over $144,790 annually.1 The median HOUSEHOLD income in Calaveras County is $67,054. The Chief’s current salary is 289% of the median household income, yet Ebbetts Pass asks for an additional $647,844.68 of OUR money every year from this tax. Maybe salaries could be distributed more fairly to provide better fire protection instead of asking for a tax increase.
Here are some of the challenges with staffing.
1. There are considerable differences in salary already, with many being paid retirement and benefits. You are asking young firefighters to work alongside firefighters who are being paid more, paid medical coverage, and paid a PERS retirement, one of the most expensive in the US. This compensation is unfair and unethical, and the firefighter unions will not allow it. It will cause personnel costs to skyrocket and create tension among firefighters. This practice is unjust and unethical, and it is not sustainable. But when it collapses, the taxpayer will be left paying the additional tax.
Ebbetts Pass has set the standard in our county with a firefighter paramedic being paid $79,142-$92,643 salary, plus 12% longevity pay, plus 100% Family Medical Plan or $34,000 annually, plus PERS retirement. Departments are competing with this in our county now. The costs for a single person are $136,509 multiplied by three or $409,527 to staff a single person. You can see that adding more than one position staffed 24/7 will take significantly more than the one percent being proposed.
As an example from Ebbetts Pass, a Captain 2- paramedic is paid $130,713 plus a $34,000 medical plan plus a $25,644 PERS retirement contribution or $190,357. It takes three to staff a single position, so adding a single person 24/7 based on the Ebbetts Pass model is $571,071 annually.
2. As areas in the county develop, the percentage of the population will shift and, with it, the funding. The districts with low populations and low funding will get less, and those with more population will take funding from districts with less population. Government agencies may offset current revenue sources with this new income, and fire departments may not realize any net gain in income or be able to add staffing. This question has not been addressed.
3. The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, when asked how much this transactions and use tax (TUT) will generate, writes, “Unfortunately, CDTFA will not be able to provide that at this point since Calaveras County does not have an existing TUT. It will be hard to determine how much revenue the county will get from a 1% district tax (TUT) increase. You may take a look at the current Bradley-Burns 1% revenue on our website to get a general idea. However, please keep in mind that Bradley-Burns local 1% can be very different than district tax (TUT) because of online sales. For Bradley-Burns, taxes are collected from businesses located within the county. For district taxes, taxes are collected from customers’ purchases that are shipped into the county.”
The committee organizing this tax does not factor this in. And while the Fire Departments may receive significantly less than projected, the taxpayer WILL pay one percent more even when fire protection is not what was promised.
4. Some districts have stated they can not afford staffing and will use the money generated for apparatus purchases. First, they can only use 30% for assets other than staffing, and the rest must be returned to the fund to be distributed to other departments. Second, the purchase of the apparatus, while expensive, does not consider maintenance and replacement costs. A new $800,000 piece of unstaffed equipment is useless, and the ongoing maintenance and depreciation costs occur regardless of use.
This tax increase adds one percent to the purchase of cars, trucks, boats, and aircraft. Imagine adding $3,000 to the cost of a new $300,000 truck or piece of equipment. That is $3,000 out of your bottom line and will not provide the protection it advertises. More taxes are not the solution.
The elephant in the room is twofold. We live in a mountainous area with a very low population density, and fire protection is challenging. Second, we have nine (9) separate departments with tremendous inefficiencies in duplicated services. Here is a look at population density in the USA, California, and our county. Some fire districts in Calaveras County have densities as low as 17.5 with 5 districts under 35. Think about it this way, in an entire square mile there are less than 18 persons. Protecting these areas with paid staff is impossible with or without this new tax.
Average Density /mi2
USA 96
California 250
Calaveras County 44
Nine administrative staff, nine sets of apparatus, and nine sets of support equipment and vehicles, the departments in our county are very small, and much could be consolidated, but NONE of this is addressed in this initiative.
We already have a Fire Joint Powers Authority (JPA) in place used for fire inspections. It can be expanded to consolidate many functions and provide increased staffing through efficiencies NOT more taxes.
This is a key point: Station placement for nine districts is not optimized to serve the entire county. Nine departments serve only 47,000 people. Until these inefficiencies are addressed, throwing more money at the problem is shortsighted and irresponsible.
The Ebbetts Pass model increases property taxes based on out-of-county demographics and still asks for more taxes. Calaveras County residents can no longer afford houses in the district because of increased prices and taxes. We can not allow this to happen to the entire county.
Take a breath. Fix the problem before blindly throwing money at it. Address why our fire departments do not provide a county-wide EMS Advance Life Support system with transportation, a system that generates money and saves our citizens money. Then, consolidate existing services, equipment, and stations. Optimize station placement based on population and geography to better serve all residents, not a system based on fire district lines, which is inefficient. Consolidate duplicated staff, equipment, stations, and services. Our county does not need all of the chief officers, administrators, and stations we currently have. This measure does not address or correct any of these challenges. All it does is recklessly throw taxpayer money at the problem without a viable solution. Big Government is never Better Government.
More Information is coming soon!