�
�
This news item came from the Ramona Sentinel Newspaper which is online Here
Tax idea rejected
By WAYNE E. GREEN
Editor
A fledgling effort to explore a new tax that would supplement fire and paramedic funding has been stopped cold by the Ramona water board.
The staff of the Ramona Municipal Water District had sought board support to more fully research the idea, saying the district needs to seek ways to cure a continuing budget shortfall in fire funding. But after discussing the topic at a special workshop Tuesday evening, a majority of directors indicated they didn't want to proceed any further.
Among their objections were concerns about the equity of a new tax, as well as skepticism over whether such as assessment would garner sufficient support from voters, who would have to approve it.�
"I don't want to mess with it," said director William Clark. He and fellow director Doug Wilsman were the most vocal in their opposition to a new tax.�
Currently, Ramona's fire and paramedic services are funded directly through an ad valorem tax of $188.52 per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU), which is a measure of how much service a particular structure may require.�
However, because revenue from the fire tax does not cover all the fire related costs, the RMWD for several years has supplemented the fire fund with money from the water fund�money collected through water fees imposed on residents connected to the RMWD system.
Robert McCullough, RMWD general manager, has said the district projects will need nearly $482,000 transferred to the fire budget in the current fiscal year. One result of using the water fund, he has said, is that water district customers end up paying more for fire and paramedic service service than residents who are not connected to the system. It also puts upward pressure on water rates.
At Tuesday's workshop, which preceded the regular board meeting, McCullough and Ron Bement, RMWD financial services manager, told the board that the $482,000 adds about 16 cents per unit to treated water rates and seven cents to untreated charges.
"This means that water customers pay 20 percent more for fire protection than non-water customers," they stated in materials prepared for the workshop.
While several options for curing the shortfall were outlined, two possibilities generated the most discussion. One would be a new, separate EDU assessment in addition to the current $188.52.
Another would be a new acreage or parcel assessment that would bring undeveloped land into the revenue-producing mix.�
Both options would be considered special taxes, thus requiring voter approval under Proposition 218.
Much of the debate centered on fairness. McCullough and Bement contended that the current situation is inequitable because non-water district customers are getting the fire and paramedic services, but don't have to pay as much for it. But Clark and Wilsman noted that non-water district customers are paying personal property taxes which the RMWD uses to service water debt. So these non-water customers, in effect, are subsidizing the water fund even though they aren't RMWD customers, the directors said. They contended that the use of water funds to subsidize their fire protection is a fair trade off.
The directors and staff also debated the fairness of a tax on undeveloped property. In addition, Wilsman expressed strong skepticism about the RMWD asking voters to approve another tax. He recalled getting "hung out to dry" by supporting a previous parcel tax proposal aimed at supporting parks. The proposal was defeated by voters, he said.�
According to Wilsman, members of the public told the board they wouldn't vote for that tax because they didn't trust the water board to spend the money correctly. "And if we ever had a water board that's in disrepute, it's right now," said Wilsman. "And I don't want to be hung out to dry again."
October ?14, 1999
--------------------