HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10271987 - 2.1 T - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
' FROM. - .. .`
Phil Batchelor,. CJI 1l
County Administrator
VIAL
DATE:. ..October- 22, 1987 "' (JP " "Y
SUBJECT: SERVICES PROVIDED IN THE CONSOLIDATED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S). & 13ACMROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
Receive this report related to services ' provided. in :the Consolidated Fire
Protection District.
BACKGROUND: .
on November 3., an advisory measure' related to the'..governing board of the
fire district is on the ballot. .. .Some disinformation is -being circulated
alleging '' that the residents of , the Consolidated district receive less
service than they are paying for ' through the property. tax. Staff has
looked at this issue and has concluded that the residents of the district
actually receive far more in , services than they pay. . in property taxes,
including amounts ' '.allocated to ,- the Special. District '..Augmentation Fund.
Services . provided within. the boundaries •of the. -fire...-. district which are-
beneficiaries ' of'. the Special, District Augmentation, Fund include police
services, .'flood. control, parks' and -recreation-.and..,fire services... The value
of these services are . approximately- $37 million annually, : while the
contributions via -the .property tax. total approximately .-$24.5. million; a
difference. of $12.5- million annually.
The figures were developed as follows:.
SDAF* -Property. Value of : .
Servibe Contribution Taxes Services
Police- :. : . $ 0 $'. , , . '0, ' $ 150,000
Flood -Control 54,162'. 2;000,000 11,000,000
Library 0 2,138,545 4,339,350
Parks & Recreation. 396;405 843;457 2,281,507
Fire 10,874,228 8,222,122 . 19,274,673 .
$11,324 795 .$13,204,124. ,. $31-,051,530
added
$24,528,919
.*All ••figures are amounts and values, within the boundaries',of .the .fire
district.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: __- YES SIGNATURE; '
RECOMMENDATION OF -COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _— RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE --..– ,OTHER
SIGNA 'URE IS1:
Os ''
ACTION OF BOARD ON 0� — R:"•..•ROVED AS REC• ;,VNENDED OTHER
The - County. Administrator..is%. DIRECTED to send copies of . the 'r'eport to
the cities in the District . .
VOTE OF' SUPERV 1 SOBS
3 .HEREBY CERTIFY-THAT THIS 1S A TRUE
R UNAN 1 MOUS (ABSENT ——— AND CORRECT•COPY .OF AN ACT 1 ON TAKEN'
AYES: __-- NOES._ _ AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT:. ABSTA I N: OF SUPERV I SIRS'ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: County Administrator ATTESTED October .27 , 1987
PHIL BATCHELOR,.CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
By
M382/7-8.3. - DEPUTY
Page. 2
This information shows that the value of services far exceeds the amounts
contributed by the . residents, even though some districts do contribute more
to the Special District . Augmentation Fund than they get back. The
difference between the value of the services and the amounts contributed
are amounts leveraged from other sources, such as state and federal grants
or fees.
Additionally, it should be noted that• the Consolidated Fire District' s
share of the total tax levy was actually greater in 1986-87 than it was in
1977-78, the year before the passage of Proposition 13. Our information
shows that the fire district received 2.38% of the total property tax levy
in 1977-78. Their share of the total levy in 1986-87 was 4.97%, after
shares for redevelopment agencies are removed.
Finally, in 1986-87 the fire district' s budget was 28% of all budgets
receiving Special District Augmentation Fund. However, the district
received 35% of the total funds allocated from the Special District
Augmentation Fund.
This information should dispel feelings that the fire district has not
received its fair share of property taxes, or that the citizens of the
district aren't receiving an excellent value for their contributions
through the property tax.