Prior to 2015, the Twentynine Palms Water District provided fire services in Twentynine Palms. The sole source of revenue for providing fire protection services was an $80 parcel tax. In 2015, the city was annexed by the county fire department into Fire Protection District-5, and city residents agreed to abolish the $80 parcel tax and instead pay a $157 fee on their property taxes for fire protection services. A few years ago, the county fire department held a protest vote to annex most of the rest of the county into FP-5, along with the corresponding fee of $157. Some residents are fighting the annexation and fee in a ballot measure, Measure U, which would repeal the FP-5 fire fee. Managing editor Tami Roleff says at Tuesday’s meeting of the Twentynine Palms City Council, the council discussed the financial realities for the city if Measure U is approved and city residents no longer pay the $157 FP-5 fire fee…
“If this measure gets a “yes” vote, there will be no funding for our service.”
City Manager Frank Luckino warned the city council and residents that voting in favor of Measure U would abolish the city’s only revenue source for fire protection services.
Fire Chief Dan Munsey also explained the consequences of repealing the FP-5 fee.
“Without FP-5, the city of Twentynine Palms has zero property tax, zero any other revenues to pay for fire protection. Without that money, we’re still going to be your fire department. As your fire chief, I’m going to provide the very best fire protection that I can, with the money that the citizens allocate toward that fire protections. Looking at projections, there are six fire stations that provide service in this division, but without FP-5, the revenue for three of those fire stations would be removed. We would have to eliminate three fire engines. Does that mean a fire station would not exist in Twentynine Palms? I’m really not at a point right now to say that. If FP-5 is repealed … we’ll use very sophisticated computer modeling to look at how to provide the best service to the most amount of people. … As the fire chief, I’ll look at that modeling and I’ll show the best geographical coverage, the best response times for the most amount of people, and probably an alternate plan, and let the policy makers make that decision.”
Despite a plea from a representative of the Red Brennan Group, which put Measure U on the ballot, the council voted unanimously to support a resolution urging residents to vote “no” on Measure U.
