Fire districts weigh options after $243 million in bond measures fail

Fire districts in Santa Cruz County faced an uphill battle this year to secure millions in new taxpayers dollars from a series of bond measures placed on the November ballot – a battle they appear to have mostly lost. 

Out of three fire district bond and tax measures on the ballot this year, only one of them — Zayante’s Measure T — passed, while Central Fire’s Measure R and Scotts Valley’s Measure S are both headed to failure. 

Combined, Measure R and S sought to authorize more than $243 million in bonds to replace equipment and upgrade or relocate facilities. In the case of Scotts Valley, the money would have gone toward building a new station and administration building at Mount Hermon Road and La Madrona Drive.

For Scotts Valley’s fire department, Measure S’s defeat marks the second time in two years that the district has seen a bond measure fail. Last year’s Measure W, which asked voters to approve $22.4 million in bonds, largely to fund similar projects, failed by just a sliver, receiving 66.4% of the vote. 

Fire chiefs in both districts point to a variety of factors for why their bond measures seem destined for failure. 

Central Fire Chief Jason Nee said the district knew that it faced a high bar to get its $221 million bond measure approved. The measure required approval from two-thirds of voters, or 66.67%, which Nee acknowledged was a “heavy lift.” The measure has received less than 58% of the vote, while Scotts Valley’s Measure S received just shy of 62%.

California’s Proposition 5 would have lowered the voter approval threshold for public infrastructure bonds to 55%, which would have allowed both measures to pass. But Prop 5, too, failed to pass, earning just 44.5% of the vote. 

Central Fire District also chose to go to voters once with one large bond rather than multiple times for a variety of smaller projects, something Nee acknowledged was a hard sell. “We recognized that it’s ambitious and a big ask, but also, we’ve never gone to the public for funds before,” he said.

Fire district voters were also faced with a slew of measures asking them to open their wallets to fund local services, from bonds and parcel taxes in several school districts to Capitola’s sales tax hike, and Measure Q, a parcel tax to fund countywide climate resiliency initiatives.

“If I had to give an opinion about why our bond failed, it’s likely just because of the number of items that were on the ballot,” said Scotts Valley Fire Chief Mark Correira. “Everything from state propositions to local propositions I think contributed to a very difficult choice for our taxpayers.”

Nee cited measures like Pajaro Valley Unified School District’s $300 million bond going to voters the same time as Central Fire’s $221 million measure. “That’s not an insignificant amount,” he said. “And there’s only a certain level that folks will be willing to pay.”

At the same time that both fire districts saw their bond measures fail, Measure Q — the Santa Cruz County Water and Wildfire Protection Initiative – passed handily with 59% of the vote, requiring only a simple majority. 

The Santa Cruz County Fire Chiefs Association was the only official opponent of Measure Q. Correira and Nee both said they appreciate the spirit of the legislation, but fire chiefs’ biggest concern is that they weren’t consulted in the drafting of the measure. 

Measure Q envisions making an estimated $2.9 million dollars available for grants for eligible county projects, such as controlling invasive species, creating defensible space along roadways and trails, and building wildlife infrastructure. But the fire chiefs say applying for grants is a far more complex and uncertain process than a bond. 

“Do we write a bunch of grants? No, we don’t. It takes a huge amount of staff time and people, and oftentimes you have to match those grant funds with your own funds,” said Nee. “For smaller organizations, that’s a really challenging piece.”

Correira said Scotts Valley plans to apply for Measure Q grant funds but worries the process of applying for grants could be a barrier to funding for some tiny fire districts. “I think the general consensus is that all of the fire districts should apply for that money, as well as the cities,” he said “But the question is do our most vulnerable fire districts have the resources to do that?”

Dave Reid, director of the Santa Cruz County Office of Response, Recovery and Resilience, which will administer the grant program, said the office is working to identify the best people to participate in the development and implementation of the vision and grant program before it heads to the separate, new nine-person citizens oversight advisory board for approval. He said that will include people from fire agencies, the Fire Safe Council, water preservation agencies, parks and open space and environmental groups.

“One of the things we’re trying to do is build better coordination within the wildfire risk reduction space with our key partners like the Resource Conservation District, the Fire Safe Council, Firewise communities and our fire districts,” he said. 

Reid said he hopes to have the citizens oversight advisory board assembled by February or March. Each county supervisor will get a pick, as will each of the four cities in the county. He also said that he hopes to adopt a five-year plan by July, laying out the funding priorities for the next five years, and opening the door for grant proposals in late 2025 or early 2026. Reid said that while the county can’t change how the funds are allocated, the office is striving to make the grant process accessible and straightforward. “We want to be sensitive not just to the administrative capacity of fire districts, but also small environmental nonprofits and other eligible applicants,” he said.

Fire districts will closely watch as the process unfolds. “I hope that some of the communities that Central Fire serves and other fire districts can benefit from those funds,” said Nee. “It makes sense in theory, but whether or not the application is going to be as seamless as the idea, I don’t know if that’s necessarily going to be the case.”

Meanwhile, both Correira and Nee said their fire districts are planning to have in-depth discussions early next year once new board members begin their tenures, hoping to figure out how to manage their budgets now that both bonds look to have failed. 

For Scotts Valley, that includes exploring whether to go back to the community with another bond measure in the future to fund the construction of a new fire station or shelve those plans, Correira said: “The question in January will be: Do we do more short-term fixes with a plan to potentially go back out in the future with a revised plan? Or do we do more long-term fixes and abandon this idea of moving the fire station to a more advantageous location within the community?”

Nee said the district hired an advisor who told the agency that its only real options for generating revenue aside from general obligation bonds are parcel taxes and special taxes: “We’ll strategize what the next steps are.”

Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.