CC 2014-03-11 Items Rec'd at Mtg. RCvd 3-1kV!
•
Item 8.3 .
REMARKS TO ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 11, 2014
INTRODUCTION
As I enter my 84th year I am compelled to reflect on the fact that I have a
grandson-in-law who is married to my granddaughter.
He is a Navy Seal, Lt Cmdr, with two Silver Stars, one Bronze with Valor,
who put his life on the line and kills people to defend my and your security.
In that context firemen are also dedicated and will put their lives on the line to
save lives to defend my and your security. And any man who puts his life on
the line to protect mine is a friend of mine, and in that context I address my
concerns about the Board of the FCFA.
I am critical of the FICA Boards decision to impose a tax on your citizens
without public comment, without your Council soliciting public comment on
this tax measure. That is not right!
As you know, I oppose the $66 tax being voted on this April. The concern
here is my criticism of the FCFA Board and its implementation of the matter.
THE BACKGROUND ON THE MATTER
- In August of 2013 the Board received a proposal by consultants to
administer a tax on property owners.
- The proposal was approved in September 2013 and brought to the AG
Council by Board member by Joe Costelllo on October 8.
- The consultant made a presentation.
- Various concerns were stated by council members — particularly about the
initiation of the Engineers Report substantiating the benefits of the tax
increase.
- Three other council members joined Costello and approved Costello's
initiative to establish an assessment district following Prop 218.
1
•
(This begs the question: Is Costello's conduct as a FICA Board member in
conflict with his obligation to the citizens of Arroyo Grande on this tax
matter?)
- Over two months later, on December 20, 2012, the FCFA Board approved
the consultant's Engineering Report and made plans to send ballots to
property owner with tax increases on February 15.
- On February 5, 2014 the FCFA Board denied the inclusion of an opposition
statement with the ballot explanation on the tax increase to property owners.
- On February 13 2014 the Board called a meeting with only two days notice.
There were two items on the agenda: 1) The approval of the revised
Engineer's Report —justifying the tax, and 2) approval to send the Ballots on
2-15-2014.
- At the meeting of the Board a letter was presented establishing the areas of
complaint, the attempt to reconcile the differences.
THE ENGINEERS REPORT
The issue before you is the Engineers Report.
Have you as Council members representing the citizen property owners of
Arroyo Grande read and understand this report?
As related to you by the consultant in the presentation on October 8, the
Engineers Report is a key legal document justifying the benefits of the tax.
I suggest that if you have not read the Report you should, for it can be and
will be challenged in a number of important ways.
The report alleges benefits to be derived by the tax increase, but it is biased
by the prior decision to apply a "nominal standard" $66 tax against single
family residences.
Single family residences is the great majority by over 90% of the property
owners in AG and in the whole area served by the FICA.
How was the $66 derived? By a price sensitivity judgment derived simply by
the fact of dividing $1,000,000 by 15,000 property owners.
2
($66 is a nit, dinner and drinks for two at McClintocks)
But the "nominal standard" of a single family residence makes no
differentiation between large and small residences, disregarding huge swings
in insured values.
It is a one shoe fits all standard adopted prior the Engineer's assessment of
benefits.
This is not only inequitable it doesn't make sense, because the application of
the tax in other property areas comport to size and value.
Further, in the assessment of benefits the report attempts to conform to the
requirements of Prop 218. But it only endorses benefits presently derived
before the tax increase before rationalizing other areas the money supports.
And the report makes no attempt to establish the negative benefits derived if
the tax measure fails.
Why is this a problem?
Prop 218 is designed to satisfy the whole budget requirement, not an exercise
of"band-aid" financing that only satisfies a budgetary requirement imposed
by the termination of the SAFER Grant.
OPPORTUNITY LOST
Here we see why there is an opportunity lost by the FCFA Board. That
opportunity was to finance the total budget not $1,000,000 of its total.
A $40 charge on the bimonthly bill if applied to all property owners would not
only finance the FCFA, it would also relieve the General Fund contributions
of the city, whose costs in supporting the FICA approached $50,000 a year.
And a $40 charge is equated and consistent the charges for water and sewer
services!
This Council should establish and solicit a public hearing on the Engineering
Report at its next meeting — so the citizens of AG are informed of the
Council's action approving the FICA's implementation of a tax increase on its
property owner citizens.
AFTER ALL, IT IS AN ELECTION YEARS!
3