Arcata Fire Protection District Explains Measure M
Press release from Arcata Fire District:
The Arcata Fire Protection District has placed a ballot measure on the upcoming 2024 General Election. The District would like to take this opportunity to explain the purpose of Measure M.
Measure M is a proposal from the Board of Directors of the Arcata Fire Protection District to allow for an increase of the District’s annual appropriations limit to the extent that the revenues received from the District’s existing special tax exceed the appropriations limit for any particular year.
Measure M is not a new tax, does not extend any existing tax, and does not raise tax rates.
Measure M is made necessary by Proposition 4, adopted in 1979, which added Article XIIIB to the California Constitution. The article limits the amount of money a local government can appropriate in each year. The cap is then adjusted annually for cost of living and population growth. When a government implements a new tax, as the Arcata Fire District did in 2020 with Measure F, the limit often needs to be raised in order for the government to appropriate (utilize) the new money generated from the voter approved 2020 special tax.
The Constitution allows the government to raise this limit with voter approval for a maximum of four years at a time. In 2020, Measure F raised the limit for four years. If the voters approve Measure M, the appropriations limit would be increased for four more years. This allows the District to spend the full value of the funds generated as was intended by the voters in 2020. Measure M requires a simple majority to pass. If you have any questions, please contact the Arcata Fire District at 707-825-2000.
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
There’s a California Constitutional limit to government spending? Increases must not exceed amount created by increased population and cost of living?
What a surprise. Never seen a government entity ask for an extension of the time on exceeding that limit. So far it’s been part of the approval on the original approval that it is an indefinite increase.
“If voters reject this Measure, it may result in the District raising tax revenues in excess of its appropriations limit. If this were to happen, Article XIIIB, Section 2 requires the District return the money by revising the tax rates or fee schedules.”
https://onyourballot.vote411.org/race-detail.do?id=69424352
It’s raising the limit to match the revenue. Their revenue may exceed what they set as a limit (by law) four years ago. It’s like if your store is trucking along and you have a little savings in excess of your budget from four years ago, maybe you’ll give the employees a raise, or fix the roof.
The thing is, nothing is cheaper than it was four years ago. Fire engines need fuel and tires to be useful. You get what you pay for, and the citizens get more direct benefit from the Fire Service than almost any other form of government service. Do any of you have a group of friends with a big pump truck ready at any time of night who will rush over to effectively help when your Air BNB guest set your side hustle on fire? Is anybody just planning on sitting out the crushing chest pain? if your kid falls out the window, what? Yell down for them to come back inside? You may not have needed them yet, but when you do, you don’t want them to START shopping for a fire engine, you want it there in four minutes.
If they spelled out how “the District’s existing special tax” works, or at least named it so we could look it up, that would be helpful. If more parcels have been created and are paying parcel taxes, or if it’s a percentage of assessed valuation–overall property value has certainly been going up–that would explain how revenues could exceed the appropriation limit.
Kind of a wonky system.