In some cases members of the community are asking for proof before writing another check.
“As much as I despise another tax being added to my already outrageous property tax bill, I am willing to help with vital services, however, I am always suspicious of government spending and how it is actually disbursed, how can we be assured the funds from this tax will be used only for the fire department improvements described?” wrote Erin Kelly in correspondence to the City Council.
The parcel tax option would follow a 2022 measure approved by the voters for the Library Special Parcel Tax, which generates about $2.8 million a year and comes up for renewal before 2038. Unlike the proposed fire measure, the library tax pays for operations only and cannot fund construction.
For the fire measure, staff modeled a special parcel tax on developed square footage and presented three possible rates — 17, 20 and 24 cents per developed square foot. Because a parcel tax is a special tax, it would require two-thirds voter approval and could be spent only on the purposes named in the measure.
The measure would address hundreds of millions of dollars in fire infrastructure needs, including aging stations, seismic upgrades and expanded wildfire protection. The fire chief’s 10-year plan is estimated at about $230 million.
Councilmembers also weighed an alternative that would shift part of the cost onto visitors: a 10% tax on paid parking, which the finance department estimated could raise about $5 million a year. As a general tax, it would require only a simple majority to pass, and some council members favored keeping it in reserve — potentially dedicated to street repairs — if the fire parcel tax falters. The council is scheduled to take up final ballot decisions on August 3, ahead of an August 7 deadline to place measures before voters on the November 3 ballot.
John Fauvre urged the council to conduct a deeper analysis before asking voters to approve another major financing package.
While praising firefighters and acknowledging the lessons of the Eaton Fire, he questioned whether repairing the existing system is necessarily the best investment in an era of improved technology, including drones, satellites and other emerging firefighting tools.
He also asked what residents would receive in return for higher taxes and whether the investment would measurably improve public safety.
“We all salute the heroism of our firefighters and the value of their programs to minimize fire damage and risk,” Fauvre wrote. “We saw from the Altadena fire that we cannot harness the whirlwind. ‘Containment’ came only when the wind stopped. And we have done much since then to cushion inevitable risks. Insurance cost increases have driven home safety improvements. New building codes matter. Home yard inspections by the Fire Department help. Actual goats have reduced tinder brush. Better satellite systems can reduce fire detection times.”
Fauvre questioned if better aircraft and drones can reduce initial response times and if smaller and faster ambulance services can improve efficiency.
“The contemplated bond funds would apparently strengthen and repair an old system at high cost. But could a new system in light of new insights and new tools do a better job? What do we get for what we spend? What would be my tax increase? Would I be safer? What options are likely best? Fear of catastrophes alone may not lead to the best protection,” he wrote.
At the council’s July 13 meeting, Councilmember Rick Cole warned against rushing a tax proposal while also arguing that Pasadena cannot afford to delay investments in fire protection after the Eaton Fire exposed vulnerabilities in the city’s emergency response system.
The Eaton Fire killed 19 people, destroyed thousands of structures and burned more than 14,000 acres in Altadena and Pasadena.
Get our daily Pasadena newspaper in your email box. Free.
Get all the latest Pasadena news, more than 10 fresh stories daily, 7 days a week at 7 a.m.
