The board would like to clear up some recent questions raised over Measure A. It is correct that the proposed Measure A is in addition to the previous assessments levied some 40 years ago. If you’re old enough, think about the cost of living and what you could get for $40 about 40 years ago and imagine what you can get today for that same amount of money. Virtually nothing. When this funding measure was passed, you could likely fill up your gas can about 16 times for $40 and today you’d be lucky to fill it up 4 times for that same amount. The additional $69/year is very minimal when compared to the increased cost of living, wages, food and everyday items over the last 40 years. And the life-saving efforts of our ambulance are much more important than mowing your lawn.
While the proposed Measure A does allow up to a 3% annual increase, it is not guaranteed. The percentage of increase, if any, will be annually determined by the board based on the needs of the district. If it is deemed necessary 5 consecutive years, the 3% increase could equate to nearly $80/year, however, we are talking about a difference of less than $11/year in 5 years. At the rate things are going today, that may get you an iced vanilla latte in 2029. A very minimal price to pay to ensure that an ambulance shows up in minutes when you dial 911. If the next 5 years are good, that $69/year tax could very well still be $69 in 2029 (or potentially less).
While there is seemingly no way to make anything 100% equitable, the per parcel tax is the best we could come up with given the severity of our financial situation and the fact that we have no control over parcel and property lines. Generally speaking, the more parcels a person owns, the more likely we are to be called to a parcel owned by that individual. We realize that this, or any tax, is not ideal for anyone but there is virtually no way to allocate our need to each specific type of parcel and its use. For example, some farm ground may be occupied by workers and equipment on a daily basis, increasing the likelihood of an incident requiring our services. Other farm ground may only be worked once a week. A residential home owned by someone who works in the Bay Area may only be occupied in our district for a small percentage of the week, thus being less of a risk for needing our services. Or there could be a small home occupied by a family of 6 who work in town, making them more likely to need our services. There is no perfect way of exactly allocating the cost of our resources so we use the per-parcel method. While some of us are young, healthy and less likely to need an ambulance, others (often our friends and family) are at a higher risk of needing ambulance services. We must often sacrifice for the good of the community and this is no different. You just never know when the unthinkable will happen.
While Merced County is required to provide ambulance service to the county, it is not required to have a physical ambulance present. If we cease to exist, response times will be outrageous, especially being in a rural area where an ideal transport takes nearly an hour. The mutual aid agreement between neighboring agencies basically says that we must help
each other. Any ambulance that may have been in our district would likely be pulled in every direction leaving our local residents hanging out to dry.
This is a matter of life and death; thus, we cannot put the lives of our district members in jeopardy and leave this up to the county.
There are 3 neighboring agencies (Patterson, Oak Valley and us) who are funded by assessments and as a special district, we cannot abandon the portion of our district that includes Merced County. One common misconception regarding ambulance services is that we are considered an “essential service,” we are not. We are not funded by the state as the local police and fire departments are. Our funding comes from these tax assessments and we are currently operating on 40-year-old funding that included no adjustment for inflation. So, in effect, we are subsidizing the contracted ambulance service provider. This is a main reason why special districts like ours were created and given our rural nature, we must be adequately funded to ensure our residents get the best possible care as more urban residents do.
Abandoning the parcel tax and/or repealing the original Measure A is not an option. The mere time it would take to make this happen would cause WSHCD to fold, leaving our local residents in jeopardy. The original measure was voted on by the people and would need to be put back on the ballot to be repealed, which would likely take years (and tens of thousands of dollars). If repealed, we would need to put an additional replacement measure on the ballot. This could likely take years as well and if failed, would again leave our citizens hanging out to dry.
To combat the idea of abandoning the existing Measure A, the board has an option to only levy a percentage of the tax based on the needs of the district. Unfortunately, the current state of the district and economy forces us to need the entirety of it in addition to the proposed $69/year parcel tax. The proposed Measure A will help bring us from 1984 to 2024 with regards to funding. While we may need the additional 3% in the near future to catch up to current times, we look forward to the time we can provide our life-saving services to local residents at a fraction of the proposed tax assessment costs. Rest assured, we are in the business to serve the people and save lives and when the time comes that we can do this with less tax money from our residents, we will do it!
Thanks for your support and we encourage any concerned citizens to attend our meetings and be a part of the solution. The board meets the 4th Monday of each month.
