Latest news with #Proposition218
Yahoo
07-08-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
California homeowners rejected a property tax. Now, fire districts struggle
Multimillion dollar homes around Folsom Lake in Granite Bay offer exclusive views. The tree-lined neighborhoods in the suburb — containing the Sacramento region's highest median household income — is at a very high fire risk, according to Cal Fire. Yet, 53.1% of residents in this wealthy enclave rejected Proposition 218, a fee on properties, in 2022 to raise money for the South Placer Fire District, the local station serving Granite Bay, Loomis and southern portions of Penryn and Newcastle. Two stations out of six shut down in September 2022 as funding streams failed to keep apace with expenditures. Firefighters for years have raised the alarm about fire protection districts pinching pennies as scant dollars cannot cover soaring costs of fire trucks and equipment. Industry standards recommend replacing each after a certain amount of years to protect first responder. A fire truck can cost $1 million, which at times, can be impossible to buy for small, rural fire protection districts, such as those scattered across Yolo County. But agencies in well-populated areas — such as Granite Bay and Truckee — also contend with financial shortages. The problems, five fire district chiefs across Yolo and Placer counties say, stem from referendums about taxes and legislative decisions made in the last century which whittled away money. Prop. 13 limited property tax gathering; Prop. 172 created a public safety sales tax for first responders, but none went to Placer County fire protection districts; and the Legislature also earmarked a certain portion of property taxes must flow to schools. 'How do we keep going in the face of what seems to be a daunting task of the increasing cost?' said South Placer Fire District Chief Mark Duerr, who serves about 38,000 people. On Tuesday, this struggle reemerged at the Placer County Board of Supervisors. Wayne Nader, a former board member for the North Auburn and Ophir Fire Safe Council, raised concerns during public comment about the difficulties of buying a ladder truck which he said could cost $3 million and take years for it to be delivered. Fire protection districts are categorized as special districts and only serve a county's unincorporated areas. They are independent from a county's budget and reliant upon funds raised by its communities. Placer County does not directly give money to fire districts out of its $1.4 billion budget, but has offered support to firefighters by waiving the cost of special elections and offering dispatch services for free, said county spokesperson Chris Gray-Garcia. Unless changes are made, fire chiefs said, fire protection districts could face increasing challenges to provide services. 'I cannot fathom a world that exists in the next three to five years where small one to two stations can afford to operate,' Duerr said. How Prop. 13 cut away funding There have been three cost measures the Placer Hills Protection Fire District — which serves the communities of Applegate, Meadow Vista, Weimar, Clipper Gap and Eden Valley — embarked on in recent years to meet costs. Residents in the 34 square miles approved Measure A in 2019 to levy a special property tax. The district, containing about 12,500 residents, also approved raises in 2020 and in 2024 to raise fire impact fees. But those increases do not come close to offsetting capital costs, said Placer Hills Fire Protection District Mark D'Ambrogi in an interview. Residents have been supportive, willing to fork over $300 to $400 per year for medical services and fire protection measures, said Alex Harvey, a Placer Hills Protection Fire District board member. 'There comes a point, though, when you can't keep taking money,' Harvey said. The main concern for fire chiefs boils down to how exactly Prop. 13 is allocated. California voters approved Prop. 13 in 1978, a watershed decision, limiting property taxes collected by local government. Before Prop. 13 was approved, municipalities could determine it's own property tax rate based on the land's market value, or the monetary value it would be sold for, according to the California Legislative Analyst's Office. But the new referendum capped property taxes while only assessing properties based on its value at the time of purchase. 'As a result, under Proposition 13 the taxable value of most properties is less than their market value,' according to the Legislative Analyst's Office. In the South Placer Fire District, only 5 cents from every $1 collected of property tax goes to special districts and distributed to all special districts across Placer County, Duerr said. There's also a disparity across the fire districts who receive funding. The Placer Hills Fire Protection District gets about 6 cents, while the Newcastle Fire Protection District gets about 3 cents, D'Ambrogi said. This division in property tax has led to lawsuit between one fire district and Placer County. The Truckee Fire Protection District — which serves Truckee and other unincorporated areas of Placer and Nevada counties — filed a lawsuit earlier this year alleging Placer County is 'withholding at least $200,000 per year of property taxes from Truckee Fire needed to fund its essential fire safety and medical services.' The lawsuit alleges county officials withheld property taxes from Martis Valley and areas called 'Zone 7,' required to be allocated under Prop. 13 and Assembly Bill 8, the legislation which codified the tax referendum. 'After years of failed efforts to persuade Placer County to honor the law, Truckee Fire now seeks judicial assistance in righting this historic wrong — before it is too late to protect its communities from wildfire,' according to the lawsuit filed in February. Placer County denied the allegations, and said enough time has passed that some allegations listed in the lawsuit fail to 'constitute a cause of action,' according to the county's court documents. In addition, none of the funding allocated for public safety agencies under Prop. 172 in Placer County. The referendum, approved in 1993, created a half-cent sales tax to law enforcement. The Placer County Sheriff's Office receives the largest amount, with about $46 million, according to the county. Truckee Fire Chief Kevin McKechnie serves a large district which grows around peak travel times as tourists flock to beautiful California resort. In the summer and winter, the population triples to about 60,000 people, he said. He commended his community for passing Measure T in 2021, which placed a $179 tax per parcel, and will sunset in eight years. Money raised under this measure can only be spent on fuel reduction and wildfire prevention projects. But the voter-approved initiative does not allow him to buy fire trucks, pay firefighters or fix stations. 'It's one of the best tools I have right now,' McKechnie said. 'But it is limited.' Dual worries weigh on McKechnie. To sufficiently provide services to his community, the same personnel must operate different types of equipment, which require different skillset. He also seeks to buy new fire trucks, some of which he's had for 30 years. But funds are scarce. 'I gotta be honest with you,' he said, 'I don't have a plan for that.' Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
03-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Stanislaus County community faces huge water rate increase to $600 a month
In the Spotlight is a Modesto Bee series that digs into the high-profile local issues that readers care most about. Story idea? Email tips@ Residents of the troubled Diablo Grande resort in western Stanislaus County are facing an extraordinary water rate increase. Under the Western Hills Water District proposal, the monthly residential flat rate would jump fourfold from $145 to $569, effective July 1. The plan, plotting increases over five years, would set the rate at $610 in 2029 and $626 in 2030. Such rates would be eye-popping in any community, but Diablo Grande property owners are being asked to accept it because the new rates will keep a supplier from cutting off water to their homes June 30. Kern County Water Agency, the water supplier, said in a May 28 letter that it will shut off water deliveries June 30 if the majority of Diablo Grande parcel owners reject the rate increases and the resort can't make monthly payments to Kern. The Western Hills Water District, serving Diablo Grande, is conducting a Proposition 218 process before implementing the first rate hike and is scheduled to tally the protests at a June 28 hearing. Proposition 218 allows property owners to reject new assessments through a majority protest. 'If the rate increase is successful and WHWD begins to make monthly payments to the agency for administrative and variable costs, the agency will continue supplying water to WHWD through Dec. 31, 2025, to allow WHWD to develop an alternative water supply,' Kern's letter said. The Kern board took action May 27 to end the year 2000 contract because Western Hills owes $13.5 million for water and hasn't made a payment since 2019. With water use charges on top of the flat rate, Diablo Grande residents could be paying around $600 a month starting in July. 'It's our understanding if a majority are opposed to it, we will definitely have our water turned off,' said Linda Powell, a 76-year-old homeowner whose husband is a disabled Marine Corps veteran. 'It's going to be tough for us to make that kind of payment. We don't feel like we have a choice.' An original developer and World International, which acquired the Diablo Grande development out of bankruptcy in 2008, formerly subsidized the water purchases from Kern County while trying to develop the project into a 5,000-home destination resort. But only 600 homes were built. World unloaded the debt-ridden project to another firm in 2020, which hasn't paid debts and taxes. Debbie Antigua of the Diablo Grande Community Action Committee said the rate increase will allow Western Hills to make payments to Kern and buy time for finding a different water source for the 600 households. According to a district water rate study, the extraordinary bills will cover water purchases from Kern, treatment expenses, community water service and securing an alternative supply, but won't cover money owed to the Kern agency. Western Hills has looked into an agreement with the Patterson Irrigation District to deliver San Joaquin River water to the district, which has treatment facilities. But it could take two or three years to get approval and build a 5,000-foot pipeline to connect with Western Hills, Antigua said. The community also is trying to get assistance from the state Department of Water Resources to find another district to sell water that could be delivered to Western Hills' facilities via the California Aqueduct. If a new water source is secured at affordable cost, the water rates could be adjusted down to a more acceptable level, Antigua said. Antigua acknowledged the new rate will be too much for many renters, some of whom live on $1,800 a month in Social Security or less. But the situation is desperate. 'My feeling is that a majority of people (at Diablo Grande) understand if they protest they will not have water and they are putting their homes in jeopardy,' Antigua said. 'You have a lot of renters up here that don't want to pay the increase.' According to a rate increase notice, Western Hills provides treated drinking water to about 1,800 people through 600 residential connections. Jennifer Hamilton, a Diablo Grande homeowner for eight years, said Monday it's upsetting that the Kern County agency won't renegotiate its 25-year-old contract with Western Hills. The residents are billed for 8,000 acre-feet of water annually but Diablo Grande neighborhoods use only 400 acre-feet of that. 'If we were to get the correct amount of water, the residents would be able to pay,' Hamilton said, adding that customers deserve a clearer accounting of what's done with the excess water. 'I don't want to pay for water we are not using.' A spokesman for Western Hills couldn't be reached Monday. The Western Hills website says one of the district's services is raw water provided to vineyards, construction and the two golf courses, which are closed. In a May 23 letter to water district customers, Stanislaus County officials discussed potential ramifications of a water shutoff, citing a state law requiring homes to have access to potable water. Robert Kostlivy, county environmental resources director for the county, wrote that his department has a complaint-driven approach to consider red-tagging homes that are uninhabitable and that it does not inspect without a formal complaint. The county is 'operating under the assumption that individual residents and property owners have taken steps to secure basic sanitation needs including access to water, in light of the potential shutoff,' said the letter also signed by Fire Warden Erik Klevmyr. 'There is no intention to conduct sweeping or preemptive enforcement actions.'
Yahoo
04-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Our View: Sewer fees: Heed lessons from rate increase outcry
Public outrage over Bakersfield City's ham-fisted approach to raising the city sewer fee 300% in July — from $239 to $950 a year — prompted City Council members last week to abruptly withdraw the proposal. But city officials now must ask: How can we: • Finance Bakersfield's sewer and water system improvements, without suddenly sticking the tab squarely onto the shoulders of residents? • Convince residents that we are good stewards of the city's tax dollars? • Create a way to anticipate infrastructure needs by setting aside more appropriate budget reserves? Council members and city officials have a lot of explaining to do. How were critically important systems allowed to deteriorate, without sufficient money set aside to improve or replace them? During their March 26 meeting, enough City Council members voted to send property owners notices that the annual sewer fee would increase from $239 to $950 and the monthly water fee would increase 50.8% in phases — jumping 34% on July 1, 2025; 6% in fiscal year 2026-27; and 2.4% in 2027-28 and 2028-29. The monthly residential bills would rise from $43.46 to $54.94 this year and eventually to $64.72 by the final year. To be fair, not every council member voted to send the notices, and the vote on sending the sewer notice was not the same as for the water notice. Proposition 218, a California law voters passed in 1996, requires the city to notify residents of potential rate increases. If more than 50% oppose, the increases fail. Even if sufficiently supported, the final rate decision rests with the City Council. Because the public outrage over the sewer fee hike was so quick and loud, council members at last week's meeting directed staff to withdraw the proposal. A formal vote is expected at the council's May 14 meeting. However, there was no mention of the water rate increase. It is unclear if that rate increase also will be withdrawn. In a recent Californian Community Voices article, Councilman Andrae Gonzales explained Bakersfield eventually must significantly upgrade or replace — at a cost of more than $500 million — its 70-year-old Sewer Treatment Plant 2. Sewer Treatment Plant 3 will operate at capacity by the early 2030s. South Bakersfield development may require yet another sewer treatment plant. The city's sewer system is funded through an 'enterprise fund,' not general tax dollars. The fund, which is supported by business and residential fees, is separate from the city's general fund and cannot be used for other city purposes. According to city officials, the proposed water rate increases are needed to fund a $72-million, 10-year infrastructure maintenance and expansion program. 'Bakersfield continues to grow, and our infrastructure is a permanent obligation,' wrote Gonzales. 'Over the last 30 years, the city chose to keep rates low and make the most of limited resources. But patch jobs only last so long. Eventually, you reach a point where delaying investment costs more than making it.' In his Community Voices article, Gonzales suggested a good alternative three-part strategy: • Modestly increase Bakersfield's sewer rates over the next five years, rather than increasing them to $950 in July. Align Bakersfield's rates with the lower ones charged in neighboring cities. • Allow the city time to seek additional professional opinions on how to grow reserves, and explore cost-saving options for improving or replacing Sewer Treatment Plant 2. • Use bonds to help cover improvement or replacement costs, but at a level that will not jeopardize other capital projects. A more modest sewer rate would require some bonding to fund capital expenses. The enterprise fund now includes two revenue bonds issued in 2007 to help finance Treatment Plant 3 improvements. The issuance of new bonds could be timed with the payoff of existing bonds in 2033. And as the furor over the recently proposed massive rate increase demonstrated, Bakersfield city officials also must work collaboratively with the community.
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
City of Bakersfield to mail out notices regarding water rate increases
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KGET)– The city announced Monday that residents of Bakersfield should expect mailed notices regarding increased water rates in the coming days. If increased, the rate would rise $11.50 per month. The proposal comes after Proposition 218 that states local government is able to raise taxes on city services. 'We don't need another nail in the coffin': City of Bakersfield says it will rescind proposed sewer rate increase The Domestic Water System is ran through the city and would mostly affect residents mostly west of Highway 99, according to city officials. The city says no final decision on the potential increase has been made. For information such as the city's water plan and how to file a protest, click here. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
‘We don't need another nail in the coffin': City of Bakersfield says it will rescind proposed sewer rate increase
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KGET) — The city of Bakersfield said they are rescinding the decision to increase the sewer and water usage rate. Multiple Bakersfield residents attended the city council meeting on April 23 to comment on the sewer rate proposal, which would increase the rate up to 300% over the next five years. The current sewer rate in Bakersfield is $239 per year, or $19.92 per month. The proposed rate calls for $950 per year, or $79.17 per month over the next five years. Bakersfield sewer rates set to skyrocket over the next 5 years According to the city, the money from this increase would be used to fix an old sewer plant off of East Planz Road. This change would affect around 165,000 people in Bakersfield. 'We already have a problem with housing,' a member of the public said during the public comment segment. 'We don't need another nail in the coffin.' Before Mayor Karen Goh opened up public comments, Bakersfield City Manager Christian Clegg said the city will rescind Proposition 218. Proposition 218 is a state law passed in 1996 that requires government entities to notify property owners of any property-related tax hike. The law also allows property owners to protest the hike to stop it. Never miss a story: Make your homepage The city sent out the notice when the sewage and water usage rate proposals were approved. 'We are pausing and reevaluating the proposed rate and increase, and as vice mayor, I'd like to tell the public we hear you,' Bakersfield Vice Mayor Manpreet Kaur said. The city will formally rescind the notice in a vote at the next city council meeting set for May 14. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
