Fire district bones up on how to set up assessment district Fire district bones up on how to set up assessment district (May 26, 2004)

By Marion Softky
Almanac Staff Writer

The Menlo Park Fire Protection District is on a tight timeline if it wants to get money by 2006 from a special assessment being proposed to maintain its services in the face of a constant drain of property tax funds by Sacramento.

The board will have to decide to go forward at its June 15 meeting if it hopes to have the necessary studies and analysis of benefits done in time to mail out ballots in early fall. This timing is necessary to get on the tax rolls in 2005, in order to get money in 2006, consultant Brian Jewett of MuniFinancial told the board during a briefing at its May 18 meeting.

The board set a study session to discuss these and other issues for Wednesday morning, May 26, at 7 a.m. at the main fire station, 300 Middlefield Road in Menlo Park.

The proposed assessment is being driven by the loss of additional property taxes to the state under the governor's latest budget proposals. Current estimates of a $719,000 take-away in the next budget year, and $980,000 in 2005-06 are forcing the district to cut staff and services.

These losses would come on top of annual losses that began in 1993, when the state Legislature approved a maneuver called ERAF -- Educational Augmentation Revenue Fund -- which shifts property taxes from cities, counties and special districts to schools. Under this program, the district lost $2.3 million this fiscal year, and is scheduled to lose $2.4 million next fiscal year, and $2.6 million in fiscal 2005-06.

"The purpose (of the assessment) is to replace dollar for dollar funds taken away by the state," said board member Peter Carpenter.

The proposed fire suppression assessment would involve an unusual process authorized by Proposition 218, often called the "grandchild of Prop 13," Mr. Jewett explained. Voters respond yes or no by a mailed ballot. Their vote is weighted by the benefit to their particular property of fire services.

"It's not like an election for a board, with one person, one vote," Mr. Jewett said. It is also not a parcel tax, which requires a two-thirds vote for approval. Instead, 50 percent-plus-one of the weighted votes must reject the assessment to stop it.

Assessments to some 22,500 parcels served by the district would vary depending on the benefit the parcel receives, with commercial property receiving more benefit and higher assessments than residential. For a residential parcel, "it's in the $60 range," Chief Wilson estimated.

Actual assessments would vary year by year according to the need, Mr. Jewett said. The board could choose not to levy the assessment at all.

MuniFinancial has submitted a proposal for $38,800 to prepare the studies, including the analysis of benefits; conduct the balloting, including individual notification of property owners of their assessments; and conduct information and outreach services connected with the election.

Mr. Jewett stressed that outreach to the community is key to getting the assessment approved. "The knee-jerk reaction of the property owner is to vote no -- no new taxes," he said. "There needs to be outreach."

"This is a very powerful tool," said board member Carpenter. "We should bend over backwards to have something that is transparent and accountable."

Board member Del Krause, for one, opposed the assessment. The cost is out of line, and the district has other out-of-control costs, such as pensions, he said. He suggested that the district may have to cut staff and close one or more fire stations. "I don't think it will pass," he said. "I think we have to weather the storm."

Mr. Carpenter countered, "I think the voters should have a chance to say (whether) we'll replace what the state takes away, or accept a reduction in services."

E-mail a friend a link to this story.