Inverness wildfire parcel tax measure stirs opposition
A proposed parcel tax in Inverness has aroused the support of some residents, the opposition of others and the ambivalence of the district it would ostensibly benefit.
Measure O on the Nov. 8 ballot aims to raise about $276,000 a year for wildfire safety initiatives. It calls for an annual tax of 20 cents per square foot of developed property or $150 for vacant properties.
The tax would have no expiration date. It could only be terminated by majority vote in another election.
The measure provides for annual increases of up to 3%, pegged to the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Consumer Price Index.
In a ballot statement, the measure’s supporters, who include Supervisor Dennis Rodoni, say the tax is needed to help the forested community reduce its vulnerability to wildfires.
The funding would help the Inverness Public Utility District remove dead vegetation, replace flammable wooden water tanks, bolster the water supply for firefighters and secure matching grants for fire protection projects, among other initiatives, the statement says.
The opposition statement says the tax would be redundant in some respects and inadequate in others. The critics say the plans for the money are vague, and in any case the residents are already paying for fire safety projects through Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and the Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority.
The tax measure requires only a majority vote for passage because it is sponsored by a resident, Jerry Meral, rather than a public entity.
Eric Moeller, an Inverness resident opposed to the tax, says the district “worked with” Meral to craft the measure, thereby doing an “end run” around the two-thirds majority threshold.
Wade Holland, a district official, said the measure is entirely Meral’s proposal.
“The District was scrupulously careful to avoid the perception that this was a joint effort,” Holland said in an email.
“Even if the District were to have crafted its own rival plan (which, indeed, would require a two-thirds vote for approval), Mr. Meral’s majority measure would still have had to be placed on the ballot because that was the one printed on the petitions on which signatures were gathered,” Holland wrote.
The district board has declared neutrality on the ballot measure. In its public statement, the board said it could put the money to “good use,” but it lacks a professional assessment of how much the measure would reduce wildfire risks.
“The Board declined to support Measure O because of its concern that such an enlargement of IPUD’s fire related services has the potential of distracting the agency from its important purpose of providing quality domestic water,” the statement said. “Such a potential for the erosion of our current services will be a focus of the Board in the event Measure O is approved.
“While the current IPUD staff does not have the time to administer the new programs envisioned by Measure O, they could engage contract consultants or even a part-time employee.”
The district serves about 1,400 residents over an area of 2.5 square miles. Its 2022-23 budget includes about $1.6 million in income and nearly $1.3 million in expenses.
The district also has another measure on the Nov. 8 ballot. Measure P would allow the district to raise its appropriations limit to comply with the state Gann law on public spending.
Similarly, Measure Q in the Stinson Beach County Water District asks voters to approve an appropriations limit of $2,478,750 for the 2022-23 fiscal year, and to use that figure to determine the limits in fiscal years 2023-24 and 2025-26.
Neither Measure P nor Measure Q proposes a new tax; rather, they authorize the districts to spend money already being collected. Both measures require a majority to pass.