By Samuel Strait, Reporter at Large – May 14, 2021 In the course of the past week following a series of articles on the Crescent Fire Protection District's new parcel tax proposal, a wealth of new observations and comments were received and the parcel owners affected were not happy. It appears that they have a number of issues related to the CFPD's method of "Weighted Ballots", the timing of the District's election, the $1,000 cap for "the wealthy", as well as the direction that the CFPD has chosen to spend the money should the measure pass. Beyond those particular issues which came up in nearly every response to the articles there were a number of other issues of note that were referred to in a few of the responses. In this following short version, the major issues will be outlined, as well as some of the less common issues. What seems to be the hottest potato that the District finds itself under fire for, is the "Weighted Ballots", where the feeling is that one biased large property owner would have the potential of putting his thumb on the scale of the election and determine the outcome for the District's entire roughly 5,000 parcel owners. The feeling is that not all property owners will realize the full extent of what the District is planning to do and in a non election year low voter response could allow for a single large property owner to determine the entire results of the election. Not fair by any means to single family parcel owners. The next major concern is the timing of the election that places it at a time of the year where most voters are not expecting to have to weigh in on a tax measure and may not return their ballots (simply throw them away) or not take the time to research the ramifications of yet more money out of their pockets when a large tax bill is due the following November and it becomes difficult for many parcel owners without a $74 increase. Furthermore most tax payers are well aware of the immediate and rapid increases to the cost of living just since the first of the year. A tax voted for now may come as a rude shock next November paying the increased amount making it very difficult for some to pay. It was also pointed out that the CFPD does not seem to understand that their particular proposed increase is one of but many to be faced over the next few months. The $1,000 cap on "wealthy parcel owners" is another specific issue that received some rather salty language when discussing this particular benefit that only "certain" parcel owners would receive. There was considerable speculation that a "deal" had been worked out to shield expensive developments from a large assessment in order to attract their large voting blocks. When it was pointed out that these particular parcel owners could simply vote "No" and receive no additional assessment and likely no loss of service, most who voiced the complaint were unmoved. The final and consistent issue raised was the feeling that hiring three Captains, was a move to a paid full time fire department, something that was generally viewed with significant unease. Most complained that the current District's calls hardly warranted a move to focus on fire service calls with three fire captains when attracting a like number of paramedics seemed to be a much more practical direction as well as not requiring three very expensive positions to be filled. Coupled with this observation was the District's forward planning appeared to include significantly larger and more expensive fire equipment. This was something viewed with concern over the direction of the proposed hires. Most who commented appeared to not be aware of the fact that the assessment had no sunset. Once informed, that elicited a great deal of concern. Clearly, the trust in agencies who are funded by tax dollars no longer carries an automatic trust factor that they will do what they say they will do, then get back out of their district owner's pockets. This particular bit of information brought a completely new level of concern for those that had already voted "Yes" on ballots and sent them in to be counted. Informing them that the opportunity to change their mind still existed and they could still change their vote to "No" or vice versa. Large parcel owners who now realize that their "Yes" vote to avoid paying a large assessment by the cap, might consider changing their vote back to "No" as it would eliminate the need for any additional cash out lay without loss of service and makes good business "sense" not to be encumbered by even the modest and reduced outlay. It generally appeared that most who bothered to respond felt the fire district was over reaching, and often referenced the promise by the County to support it's fire districts. With the current measure they felt the District lacked reasonable direction and patience with the County considering the sales tax had just begun to be collected and the "advisory" committee had not been formed. With the consideration of the District's change in immediate budget concerns, it was generally felt "Too Big, Too Soon" and the "No" vote was an imperative.