As Ballot Count Nears, Success of City's Fire Assessment Tax Uncertain

There is less than a week left for property owners to make a decision about the proposed fire suppression assessment tax that would help pay for fire service costs in Pacifica. 

As of today, it’s difficult to predict whether voters will approve the tax or not. A vote on a similar measure in 2004, which drew a comparable turnout as to what it appears this vote’s will be, drew overwhelming support, but current economic conditions and nationwide anti-tax sentiment make this decision a different ballgame.

If passed, the assessment would levy a yearly tax of about $73 per on residential property owners (per dwelling unit), $678.28 on business owners (per parcel) and $41.13 on agricultural or vacant land (per acre). These taxes, which would last for seven years, would raise about $1.3 million annually to pay for the services of the North County Fire Authority, including parts of that agency's payroll. 

Property owners can turn in their ballots until 5p.m. on Monday, April 11, or until the end of the public hearing about the tax, which begins that same night at 7 p.m. at Pacifica City Council Chambers, 2212 Beach Boulevard. 

So far, said Pacifica City Clerk Kathy O'Connell, about 5,099 ballot envelopes have been turned in to her office, which would, at the very least, represent just under a 40 percent voter turnout in this election. That number may not be very accurate, however, because each envelope could contain more than one ballot, she said. The envelopes will not be opened until the vote count begins at 9 a.m. Tuesday.

All ballots are not equal in this election. Each property owner is being given one vote per dollar they will have to pay annually according to the assessment, so a single business owner has approximately 9.3 times as many votes a single residential property owner.  

Pacificans overwhelmingly passed a similar fire suppression assessment tax in March 2004.

In that election, said O'Connell, 5,363 ballots were turned in out of a total of 11,883—a turnout of about 45 percent. 3,976 of submitted ballots, or 70.6 percent, were in support of the tax. 1,387 were against it. 

Still, current conditions may render the approximate turnout this year of 40 percent, or even a turnout of 45 percent, insufficient to pass the tax.

Ed McGovern, a political consultant in San Mateo County who has run countywide and city campaigns for about 20 years, said he'd be nervous if he were in the city's shoes. 

"Forty percent [turnout] might seem like a lot but I think if I were running the campaign, I would want it to be up in the 60-percent-or-higher range to feel comfortable," said McGovern, who owns Ed McGovern Consulting in San Bruno. "It's probably right on the edge of whether people will approve it or not."

McGovern went on to say that people who will oppose this tax are more likely to vote in a case like this and a greater turnout could indicate a higher rate of 'yes' votes. 

Pacificans also voted down the city’s proposal to raise the sales tax in 2009 by a wide margin, indicating their unwillingness to take on more of the city’s costs.

This proposal, which was originally introduced in the city's five-year plan to end Pacifica's budget deficit and more recently in January of this year, has been hotly disputed at public meetings and online.

In response to the criticism, Pacifica Mayor Mary Ann Nihart published two pieces on Pacifica Patch. The reader comments on both articles, one a  and the other a , exemplified the public's concerns about the tax.

There's the assertion that the assessment will simply shift the burden of fire services, mainly comprised of firefighters' salaries, from the city's general fund to taxpayers. 

"What this assessment will do is transfer firefighter salaries from the general fund to our property tax bills," said Pacifica resident Lionel Emde in a comment. "The engineers report mentioned by the mayor confirms this, we're talking $1.2 million in salaries towards a $1.3 million assessment. What's missing, as usual, is any acknowledgment of just how bad things are for most people."

When asked about the claim that this tax would shift the burden of fire services to taxpayers and away from the city's general fund, thus freeing up money in that fund for other purposes, Mayor Nihart is forthcoming: that's exactly the point.

Concerns also lie with the fact that about 87 percent of fire costs in Pacifica go to firefighter salaries, which Todd Bray, a Pacifica resident who has been publishing editorials on  Pacifica Riptide against the fire suppression assessment tax, asserts are inflated.

Mayor Nihart said that Pacifica firefighters have actually taken significant pay cuts recently. 

If the fire suppression assessment tax does not pass, one leg of the city's  for filling Pacifica's budget deficit will have failed and Mayor Nihart has indicated that savings will need to found elsewhere, perhaps through cuts in services.  

Details about where those cuts might be made are still unclear.