February 14, 2007 - Top Stories
Three years after 81% of county voters approved the non-binding Prop. C expressing their support for a consolidated County fire department LAFCO has issued its “Micro Report” on how that might be accomplished.
It looked at several proposals:
• Replacing existing fire districts with a Regional Fire District.
• Replacing the existing fire districts with the County as the successor agency.
• Use an existing county service area (CSA) CSA 135, and activate its latent powers to provide emergency services and fire protection.
It left a big hole in the doughnut: where money to pay for the CONSOLIDATION will come from. It estimates that the cost will be $44.8 million a year to extend the minimum service needed.
There is a shortfall of $22.3 million between that amount and what is currently funded by the various fire districts.
The report recognizes that funding is the major problem and emphasizes: “Notwith-standing the remarkable record of Phase I voters in approving special assessments, and the precedent-setting allocations of discretionary revenue from the County Fire Enhancement Program, the SSP and successive LAFCO studies each conclude that transformation of the structural fire protection system in Phase I requires an infusion of sustainable revenue. Additionally, Prop. C and the SSP condition a reorganization of the region’s service providers upon reprioritizing existing revenues to support fire protection and emergency medical services.”
It also cautions that volunteer participation could decline under such as system, actually leading to a decline in services.
However, Second District Supervisor Dianne Jacob said this week that she has persuaded two legislators in Sacramento to sponsor a bill to shift enough property taxes from education to pay for the new department.
The process is expected to take two years. Success is not guaranteed.
The Micro Report and Proposed Phase I Reorganization was released last week on LAFCO’s Web site. Download it by visiting www.sdlafco.org.
The initial LAFCO report on emergency services two years ago called the region’s system “dysfunctional—characterized by duplicate organizations that needlessly consume public resources and limit opportunities to provide enhanced services…because emergency services are divided among so many agencies—”
Note: Services being considered are both emergency (i.e. ambulance and paramedic) and structure fire suppression. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (“CalFire”) is responsible for wildland fires.
Two years ago LAFCO began the process to reclaim firefighting and emergency functions that the County willingly gave up several decades ago.
At that time the county Board of Supervisors initiated a process to form a county fire department that will also include areas not covered by an existing district.
Currently this is the only urban county without a county fire department.
The study looked at several scenarios with differing levels of service and different costs.
Regional Fire District
The proposed Phase I Reorganization would fold special districts, volunteer fire departments, and about 950,000 acres that aren’t being served by any agency a Regional FPD.
This would use existing County Fire Enhancement Program, which is providing extra manpower for districts such as VC’s Fire Protection District and combine it with contracting with CalFire to provide structural fire protection and emergency medical services
Administration, permitting and land use activities related to fire prevention programs would be taken over by County staff under a County Fire Warden.
The micro report notes: “The conceptual plan recognizes that funding gaps between Phase I resources and the cost of CDF contracts would need to be addressed.”
The various fire districts and county service areas that provide fire protection in the unincorporated areas would cease to exist, replaced by a Regional FPD.
This would not affect volunteer organizations, such as the Palomar Mountain Volunteer Fire Department.
Community-based advisory boards would give input the the FPD board, much as the VC planning group advises the County on land matters.
Property taxes and assessments previously approved locally would absorbed by the new district, but could not be used outside of the areas that approved them.
Cost savings are envisioned because duplicate positions would be eliminated, functions combined and funds used more efficiently. But there would be no new revenue. The FPD would have the existing revenues of the existing 35 fire districts.
The micro report also concludes that, “if volunteers operations were not aggressively supported by a successor agency, regional resources could actually decline and overall costs would increase.”
It adds that it LAFCO approves the Regional FPD, a mandatory election would held among voters within the territory to be included.
One problem is that raising additional revenues for the FPD would still be subject to the 2/3 vote requirement mandated by Prop. 13.
Division of the existing 1% property taxes is established by state law. This is something Supervisor Jacobs hopes to get changed.
County as successor
Dissolving the existing agencies and naming the County as successor agency, or activating the latent powers of CSA 135 would, says the report, “eliminate duplications and unify command and control similar to the FPD option.”
The Board of Supervisors would replace the various publically elected boards.
The County is already empowered to provide fire protection, however for the last few decades it chose to abrogate that responsibility.
No new revenue would be created if this option is chosen, except where the Board of Supervisors chose to spend new money from the budget.
The County would contract with CalFire to provide services under this option.
The Roadrunner announces the return of “The Horseman” a monthly section devoted to the doings of equestrians in Valley Center, Pala Pauma Valley and Palomar Mountain.
The section begins on B-4 and this week showcases an article by this year’s Rodeo Queen Kohlby Rockenmacher.
Kohlby writes about how her love of horsemanship was enhanced by last year’s rodeo queen contest. She’s urging other young women to enter the competition.
We are also featuring an article about the Vaqueros horse club and opportunities for businesses to sponsor their activities.
Each month we will have articles about horses, their owners and activities.
Anyone interested in contributing a story idea, an article or a tip for inclusion in The Horseman, contact the editor at 749-1112 (editor@valleycenter.com) or Dan Kidder at 749-1112 (sports@valleycenter.com).
As always, we are interested in your reaction to new and old features in the paper. Please let us know what you think.
Celebrated local artist Don Schloat has created these colorful T-shirts that will soon go on sale to raise money for the VC Art Assn. Most of the money will go towards the club’s scholarship fund. If you want to order one of the four colors and pictures, attend the Feb. 21 meeting of the Art Assn., 6:30 p.m. at the library.
“It was great!” was the reaction of VC Parks & Rec. general manager Doug Johnsen to the news that the Board of Supervisors last week approved dramatic increases in the fees that are collected whenever a new home construction pulls a building permit.
These fees are called PLDO (parklands dedication ordinance) funds. Currently they are $800 per unit. However, under the new fee structure adopted by the board, they will gradually increase until by 2010 they will be $3,858 per unit.
The increased fees, says Johnsen, will be used to purchased new parklands, or any other capital improvement that the district needs.
PLDO funds cannot be used for routine maintenance or day -to-day expenses.
Most recently the fees were used to replace the old sidewalk around VC Community Hall and to replace the bathrooms in Adams Park.
Right now the district has between $250,000-$300,000 in the fund.
Next year the fee will go up to $1819. The following year it will go up to $2838 and by the third year will reach $3858.
It has been over 20 years since the fees were last increased. The vote to increase them was 4-1 with supervisor Dianne Jacob voting against the motion.
Last October parks district Pres. Eric Jockinsen told The Roadrunner that if he had his way the fees would be increased all at once.
A higher fee, said Jockinsen at the time, “would help tremendously in land purchases and equipment. I’d like to crank it up right now! You’ve got some big projects on the books in Valley Center.”
He added, “The only way we survive is off that fund. That’s the only way we will be able to buy things that we need.
“If $3,850 puts you out of a house, you are shopping in the wrong market. You can barely buy a TV for $3,000!” he said last fall.
One project that could put a lot of money into the parks district once it is built is John Belanich’s Orchard Run project. Under the new fees, the Belanich project would put over $1,150,000 into the park district’s capital improvement and land purchasing fund.
The LAFCO report on the consolidation of fire districts in the County is now available online and the VC fire board will discuss it and its implications at their meeting Thursday, Feb. 15, 7 p.m. in the water district boardroom.
The long anticipated report from the Local Agency Formation Commission looks at the feasibility of folding all of the various unincorporated fire districts, including Valley Center’s, into a countywide organization.
The study leaves unsaid where the money for this will come from. However Supervisor Dianne Jacob, who has been pushing the project, is hoping to persuade the legislature in Sacramento to alter the law so that the County will get several cents of property tax revenue to use for this purpose.
You can download LAFCO’s “Micro Report” on fire consolidation by visiting their Web site at www.sdlafco.org.
It’s been less than a month since the VC Municipal Water District, reacting to rate hikes from its suppliers, raised ag rates by nearly 13% and residential rates by nearly 10%.
So VCMWD director Merle Aleshire is pretty fired up to hear that the Metropolitan Water District, the big agency that supplies southern California, is planning on raising rates again in 2008, this time another 7.3%.
Aleshire, who represents ratepayers in the division that serves Hidden Meadows told The Roadrunner this week: “Another 7.3% increase from MWD, in the paper today, leads one to conclude that it is time to scrutinize much more carefully how MWD is managing ratepayer revenue.
“This, on the surface, seems preposterous. We need them to come to VCMWD and explain how and why this is happening. I suggest we invite the North County water agency board members to a joint session for this MWD briefing.”
Some have urged caution in bringing up this issue with the Met, or with the San Diego County Water Authority, which buys water from the Met and then sells it to member agencies, such as VCMWD.
Agricultural water agencies, such as VCMWD, are in a relatively weak political position compared to urban agencies, many of whom are not sympathetic towards the discounted ag water rates, which have been in place for over a decade.
Domestic water rates are $563.63 per acre foot for residential water and $434.32 per AF for ag water. In return for lower rates, ag users are subject to having their supplies interrupted during emergencies.
About half of the ag discounts in the Met, 150,000 AF a year, go to water agencies in North County. That’s about $120 million a year in discounts.
However, there is always an element of urban agencies on the Met board who would support eliminating the ag discount because it would allow them to lower residential rates.
Explanations for why the Met is raising its rates so quickly are complicated.
They include the fact that the Met is engaged in an ongoing capital improvement program, which is reacting to the pressures of population, and of paying to replace old infrastructure that was first built in the 1930s.
At the same time it costs more to pump water because the Met takes a larger percentage of its supplies from the California state water project instead of the Colorado River, which is increasingly being denied to Golden State use.
Colorado River water is cheaper to transport.
In addition the Met, as well as all agencies in the region, are increasingly being hit by higher electricity rates.
The County’s Dept. of Planning & Land Use isn’t interested in any variations to the new road network it presented to the planning group last November, thank you very much!
Monday night the VC planning group heard that the future roads proposed in November by the County as part of General Plan 2020, if not set in stone, may be very difficult to crack.
Billy Wagner figures his entire property will be bounded on three side by new roads proposed by the County for the Southern Village. He believes his property values will be impacted.
He and many other residents of that part of town have complained vociferously ever since the County presented a new road configuration which includes a Mirar de Valle that follows a new path and some totally new roads.
The planning group’s circulation subcommittee has had several meetings on this issue and approved a recommendation of a change to provide some relief for property owners in that area.
However, it may not matter anyway since the Dept. of Planning & Land Use isn’t interested in seeing variations to plans it gave the group in November.
Circulation subcommittee Chairman Deborah Hofler said her committee came up with alternatives “because it [the County proposal] looked good on paper but it negatively affected some land owners.”
She spoke to Robert Citrano, the county’s senior planner assigned to Valley Center’s share of General Plan 2020.
“He showed these motions to his bosses and was told that DPLU would not implement it as it stands. However, Bob, as our champion, asked them, ‘What if DPW (Dept. of Public Works) says it’s OK?”
Citrano asked the planning group to wait on adopting the subcommittee’s motion.
Citrano plans to have a a four hour workshop on March 10, 8-noon at middle school or else the big room at the library and show the community three alternate plans that he can present to the DPLU and DPW.
“The more we discuss it the better plan we will come up with,” said Dr. Hofler.
Planner Terry Van Koughnett, whose Southern Node subcommittee participated in the road meetings, commented, “We spent a lot of hours on this. I guess I was a little disappointed when he said that he presented a plan the other day on his own time because DPLU is not allowing him to do it on their time. DPLU has already said it’s not going to look at our motions and we haven’t even discussed them here at the planning group.”
“The problem is that all we have working for us is Bob, who is doing a lot of different things,” commented planning group Chairman Keith Simpson said. “This is part of the challenge we face. DPLU doesn’t have the resources to meet our needs.”
“Let’s acknowledge the fact that Bob does an awful lot of good work for us. He does his best to appease everyone,” said planner Leon Schwartz.
The Valley Roadrunner
P.O.B. 1529, Valley Center, CA 92082
Tel. 760.749.1112 Fax 760.749.1688
Website: www.valleycenter.com
Email: editor@valleycenter.com
Copyright © 2006, Palomar Community Newspapers, dba Valley Roadrunner. All rights reserved. This content may not be archived, retransmitted, saved in a database, or used for any commercial purpose without the express written permission of the Valley Roadrunner.