Measure V Proponents Concede Election
Sonora, CA — While ballots will still be counted over the coming days, it is evident the gap is too wide for Measure V to pass.
As reported last night, the initial 12,000 ballots tabulated had about 67-percent opposed and 32-percent in favor. It requires a supermajority in favor, nearly 67-percent, to pass.
The Chairman of the Tuolumne County Supervisors, Ryan Campbell, has put out a statement on behalf of the Tuolumne Fire Authority, the group that came together in support of the parcel tax.
It reads, “The Tuolumne County Fire Authority Accepts the results of the June 8th election, and is grateful for every voter who took the time to make their voices heard. This election boiled down to a simple question: Do we want to improve our community’s ability to react to and prevent destructive fires? While we are disappointed with the result, we respect the voter’s decision, and are grateful for all of the people who volunteered their time to raise awareness about the need for better fire protection in our county. The numbers don’t lie. The current funding model for local fire districts is not sustainable, and our community will need to find a way to increase resources or face reduced services. We remain dedicated to working with the public to find a way to keep our community safe.”
We reported earlier that many opponents were upset about how the proposed tax was structured, and they had concerns about a lack of community input ahead of drafting the proposal.
Pete Kampa, General Manager of the Groveland Community Services District, was disappointed with the results. He adds, “As far as the failure of Measure V, we are not done. Fire services are underfunded and we owe it to the community to keep up the fight for funding. There is a lot of confusion, no doubt. Fire departments like Groveland cannot survive on the funding they have. So, immediately, we will need to look at how we fund fire services going forward because more money is absolutely needed. If the public decides a fire department is not needed or we should reduce services, we absolutely will. We will work and listen to that sentiment and move toward alternative solutions. Our goal is to protect life and property. No one is getting rich here. We are trying to replace decades-old equipment and increase staff. We know the hazards intimately. I can’t imagine anyone feeling that this is inappropriate for us to plan to be ready. We implore the public to pay attention, be prepared, and provide positive solutions and input on how we resolve this structural financial fire services deficit in the future. I am concerned for our communities.”
