Fire assessment redux set for November
The controversial Bayshore fire assessment that was rejected by voters last month will get another chance at the polls in the Nov. 4 general election.
There was an opportunity to put the assessment back on the ballot during the November election if it failed the first time, and the district chose to take that option, Fire Chief Larry Nisbet said.
But with the measure having taken such a drubbing in June, odds are it will meet the same fate in November.
And pass or fail, the district is looking at laying off six firefighters as of Sept. 14 unless an alternative funding source can be found in the next nine weeks.
If that money isn’t found, Nisbet said he won’t be able to rehire laidoff employees for another year because the re-vote will happen in the new budget year.
Nisbet and the fire commission are now trying to craft a budget and find the money to pay for firefighters and upkeep on the firehouse withe the projected revenue at hand.
“Many of our concerns are real. We have no other options but the layoffs. The budget is pretty straight forward. The money we’re not getting through grants is the difference,” Nesbit said. “We just have to hope nothing breaks because there’s no money to fix it.”
Voters rejected a new fire assessment by an almost three-to-one margin during the special election on June 24.
The ad valorem tax methodology would have been replaced by a fee-based system. District officials said it would have re-distributed costs among all properties, including the tax-exempt; stabilized revenues; and ensured future growth of the department.
The fire board went back two years to see where most of the calls for service have been.
Nearly three-fourths of them were residential, which is where the bulk of assessment would be levied at a flat cost of $587.78 annually, regardless of property value.
“It’s a validated plan. It was done based on historical call data, which is widely done across the state,” Nisbet said. “The plan is to do away with ad valorem taxes, and some of these towns add fees on top of ad valorem taxes. We didn’t want to do that.”
It was the flat assessment that had most voters in an uproar, since it would have meant a sharp increase for those with lower property values, while those with more expensive homes (and large tracts of land) would have paid less.
They also said that once the millage rate was at zero, there was no guarantee it would stay there if the department needed more money.
They also scoffed at the notion that their insurance rates would skyrocket (caused by a higher ISO rating) with just two full-time fighters on the scene instead of four.
Nisbet said that most of his calls were to the trailers and smaller homes as opposed to the more expensive ones.
“Our intent was to be fair to everybody. Everybody gets the same fire trucks whether it’s a trailer or a $1 million home,” Nisbet said. “The cost of the call is the cost of the call.”