At their monthly May meeting, Orinda's representatives on MOFD's board of directors not only voted to continue to undercharge users in Moraga (forcing Orinda taxpayers to subsidize Moraga's operating expenses), but they explicitly stated that they did not represent their constituents’, but rather MOFD's "interests". 

 

The background of this action is: In addition to receiving a significant portion of local property taxes ($23 million from Orinda this year), MOFD has the ability to charge homeowners in Orinda and Moraga a small parcel tax to supplement the property tax.  This supplemental tax was agreed to by the residents of Moraga before MOFD was formed and by Orinda residents at the time of formation. 

 

This year the property taxes from Orinda properties will average about $3,200 per household while in Moraga they average about $2,100.  

 

The MOFD board sets the "rate" for the parcel tax each year.  The rate for Orinda properties is separate from the rate for Moraga properties.  Even though MOFD projects a surplus next year of $2.3 million, and even though that surplus comes 100% from Orinda property taxes, and even though Moraga's property taxes are insufficient to fully fund the expense of MOFD service to Moraga by almost $5 million next year, the board voted to continue to charge Orinda and Moraga each the same supplemental parcel tax, about $90 per household.  

 

The board has the power to charge Moraga property owners five times as much (an additional $360 per year per household) as they agreed to charge.  This would only generate an additional $2 million (out of the $4.7 million Moraga is underfunding this year), but the directors somehow believe that even that partial adjustment would not be "fair" because it is not the same as Orinda property owners are paying for this one portion of the total tax.  They shut their eyes to the fact that Orinda property owners are each paying $1,100 more per year in “basic” property tax.

 

In order to "justify" their action this year, all three board members representing Divisions in Orinda (the board is elected by geographic Division, not at large), specified at the meeting precisely who/what they believed they were representing.  It was not the residents in their divisions who voted for them, but it was the "interests" of all of MOFD.

 

The comments made by the directors (only the Orinda directors felt they needed to justify their actions; the Moraga directors stayed mum, voting for their constituents' best interests: services at a bargain price) can be heard at (www.youtube.com/live/QxHQYTrV06s), starting at time stamp 2:33:40.  A transcript of their remarks on who/what they represent is as follows:

 

2:35:40

Roemer

Question of whether we as board members represent just the constituents in our district (division) or whether we have an obligation to represent the entire Moraga Orinda.

Roemer – The whole board represents the whole district.  Just like a congressman doesn’t just represent the congressional district, but if she’s doing her job well, she’s representing the interests of the United States of America.

2:36:14

Jorgens

We swear allegiance to the whole district, not to our sub-district (division).

Roemer

That’s correct.

2:36:50

Danziger

I just want to say that MOFD is a single district operationally and fiscally.

 

What strikes this observer is not just that the current directors do not take their constituents' best interests into account when making decisions regarding their service, but that they believe that their actions benefit MOFD as a whole even though it negatively impacts a majority of MOFD’s service recipients.

 

First: How can undercharging a minority of the district’s "clients" be a benefit to the organization?  If those clients were "needy" and could not afford the essential service MOFD provides, there could be a rationale. But the record shows that the median annual household income in Moraga is in excess of $200,000.  Even in the Bay Area that does not count as "needy".  Especially when the extra cost to those households would only be about one dollar per day.

 

Second: How are the excess funds which Orinda taxpayers are providing being used?

The district’s recently released Long Range Financial Forecast shows that over the next ten years about 1/3 of the excess will be used to cover general operating expense shortfalls in Moraga including rebuilding Station 41 on Moraga Way and pay for Moraga’s share of an $11 million "training facility" adjacent to Station 41.  Another third is paying for Moraga’s share of $60 million of increases in reserves planned for the next ten years and the final third going Orinda’s share of those reserve increases (because MOFD does not know what else to do with all of the money coming from Orinda).

 

If Orinda had no other use for that $90 million over the next ten years, maybe the directors could justify letting it be used as they plan.  But that is not the case.

 

One third of Orinda’s homes have lost their fire insurance because of the continued high risk.  There are millions of dollars of excess vegetation, including fire prone trees that will cast embers and cause fire to travel faster, that our tax dollars could be used to remove.

 

While this is not MOFD’s “problem”, there are also significant infrastructure shortfalls in Orinda.  One quarter of Orinda’s roads are not being publicly maintained, something the Council is discussing.  And there is not integrated storm water drainage system which could have serious impacts with continued global warming and intense storm activity. 

 

The 23% of Orinda’s property taxes allocated to “fire protection” was “set” 50 years ago with the passage of Prop 13.   A lot has changed since then.  If MOFD will be receiving almost $100 million more from Orinda property taxes than it will cost to service Orinda over the next ten years, maybe a “reallocation” is in order.

 

Our current representatives on the MOFD Board seem to have no inclination to discuss what is really best for Orinda.  Our City Council and the residents of Orinda need to get involved.  “Status Quo” is not working.