top of page

Measure O and Metro Fire Finances

You deserve a board member who will prioritize fire protection—someone who will ensure every dollar is spent wisely and clearly focus on protecting our homes and families.

​Measure O concerns not solely equipment costs but also management costs and Metro Fire's broader fiscal responsibility. Voters deserve a fuller picture, including how the district’s financial management affects their funding needs.

 

This point is critical to understanding why some of us oppose Measure O. The missing perspective warrants further discussion.

​

Metro Fire’s Measure O asks you to cover their financial mismanagement with your hard-earned dollars. This costly bond measure will raise property taxes by $19 per $100,000 of assessed value for decades, potentially costing up to $890 million when all is said and done!

​

What Measure O Means for You:

  • Long-Term Tax Burden: Measure O would add to property tax bills until 2061.

  • Decades of Debt: While Metro Fire claims it’s for equipment and facilities, this bond mainly covers past financial missteps, sticking you with the bill.

​

Read more here

NO on Measure O

Mismanagement is Costing You More

Metro Fire has made bad financial decisions for years. They borrowed money through pension bonds to cover their retirement promises, adding more debt instead of properly managing funds. On top of that, they issued lease revenue bonds to fund projects, creating even more long-term debt. Instead of carefully planning and saving, they relied on borrowing to pay for their mistakes.

​

Pension: They could have ensured the pension fund had enough money to meet future retirement payments. Without a large "unfunded liability" (the shortage between what's promised to retirees and what's available), there wouldn’t have been a need to borrow money through the bond to cover the gap.

​

In other words, stronger financial management and planning could have prevented the need to issue a bond to pay off pension debt.

​

Metro Fire’s lease revenue bonds are another type of borrowing, often used to finance things like building new fire stations or purchasing equipment. These bonds are paid back over time using money from leasing public assets (like fire stations or other property) rather than directly raising taxes. 

​

If Metro Fire had taken one or more of these steps—such as reserving funds over time, utilizing grants, or prioritizing essential projects—they could have potentially avoided issuing lease revenue bonds. Like with pension bonds, it comes down to long-term planning and better financial management. Had they taken proactive measures, they might not have needed to borrow money and create future debt obligations for taxpayers.

​

And now, Metro Fire wants you—the taxpayer—to bail them out by passing Measure O, which will raise your taxes to cover their poor financial decisions. Our fire district should focus on responsible spending and protecting our community, not making us pay for their failures. Vote against Measure O and demand better financial management.

Demand Responsible Spending—Vote No on the Metro Fire Bond Measure

With Metro Fire's uncontrolled spending, it's essential to vote "No" on the upcoming bond measure. If approved, this bond will increase your property taxes for decades, potentially costing up to $890 million, including interest. The financial burden could be much higher than projected, especially during uncertain economic times.

​

A key concern is whether Metro Fire will use the funds efficiently. The District has proposed various projects, but are they all truly necessary? With such a large sum at stake, there’s a real risk of mismanagement or inefficiency, leading to wasted resources and leaving taxpayers to cover the cost for years. Metro Fire’s spending history raises doubts about whether they can effectively manage this level of funding.

​

Before asking local taxpayers to bear this burden, Metro Fire should explore alternative funding methods, like state and federal grants. These options could provide the necessary funds without increasing local taxes. The District must demonstrate that it has done everything possible to secure external funding before committing to the community for such a large financial commitment.

​

Voting "No" on this bond measure sends a clear message that taxpayers expect responsible and controlled spending. It’s not about opposing necessary projects—it’s about ensuring financial responsibility and exploring all available funding options before raising taxes. Metro Fire can achieve its goals with better planning and management, without placing an undue financial burden on residents. Don’t commit to decades of higher taxes for potentially inefficient and unnecessary spending—vote "No" and demand better solutions.

Overspending and Mismanagement: How Metro Fire's Finances Spiraled

Personnel Costs

Salary, overtime, other pay, and benefits are by far the most significant cost center. In Sac Metro’s instance, it means from a Chief who makes almost $500,000 a year down to Board Member Ted Wood of $4,568 in other income.

 

Here is the website of every district employee, including clerical, and how much they made last year.

This.jpg

Instead of focusing on fire protection and prevention, the current leadership is distracted by outside income opportunities.

​​

Duplication or Necessity? The Debate Over Metro Fire’s Ambulance Purchases

Part of the Measure O money will go towards buying 3 new ambulances, costing over $ 824,000 each. 

 

With Metro Fire moving into the ambulance market, residents of Sacramento County need to ask whether this is truly in the best interest of public safety—or just another revenue scheme. Some residents might have broader concerns about Metro Fire's expansion into the ambulance market, where public safety versus revenue motives are questioned. 

​

Why is Metro Fire buying ambulances when we already have reliable services in Sacramento County?

​

Here is a short list of the Approved Ambulance Providers approved by the Sacramento County Department of Health Services. 

  • AlphaOne Ambulance - Offers Advanced Life Support (ALS) ambulances and specialized transport services, including emergency and critical care transport​

  • American Medical Response (AMR) - A major provider of emergency medical transport services across Sacramento County

  • Medic Ambulance - Another service offering emergency medical support, operating in Sacramento County

​​​

The Ambulance Contract War Flares Up

Fire Station Costs

Why is Metro Fire prioritizing the construction of luxury fire stations in Rancho Cordova over the needs of the unincorporated county? As fire station expenses continue to soar, it's concerning that the district is neglecting the crucial needs of unincorporated areas. It's time to ensure equitable resource distribution for the safety and well-being of all residents living in the unincorporated county.

​

Metro Fire recently built Station 68 at 12065 Cobble Brook Drive in Rancho Cordova—annual Impact Fee Report: the station cost $8,558,570.The station covers 9,191 square feet and sits on a 2.62-acre lot. It includes a 2,400 sq. ft. metal storage building, a truck washing station, and a 1,000-gallon fuel storage tank. This fire station serves over 14,000 residents in Rancho Cordova, including Anatolia, Kavala Ranch, Sunridge, and Americana. The station became operational on May 27, 2022.

 

According to the 2020 census data, Vineyard, Vintage Park, and Wild Hawk has a population of 43,935

Read more about where our money goes. Preliminary Budget 2024-2025

The Increasing Costs of Fire Stations

Metro Fire’s NET POSITION: What We Own & What We Owe

(Source: Community Annual Report, Fiscal year 2022-2023 for fiscal year ending June 30, 2023, Page 9)

​

​“The government-wide statement of Net Position provides a "snapshot" of where the district stood financially at a given moment in time' Metro Fire's negative net position is largely due to the liability owed to its employees as they retire from Metro Fire, which includes pension liability and post-retirement medical liability. Changes in net position over time is highly sensitive to changes in these liabilities. Over the past three-year Metro Fire has slowly improved its financial position.”

Screenshot 2024-09-07 at 2.32.17 PM.png

Metro Fire Lawsuit

Harrison v. Sacramento Metro Fire District Sacramento Superior

Court Case No. 34-2023-00337894

 

Accident Details

The accident happened on July 23, 2022, in Sacramento, California. The fire engine, driven by Metro Fire, was making a U-turn but didn't have its sirens on. At the same time, the woman was driving towards the intersection where he was turning. Without any warning, the fire engine turned in front of her, causing her to swerve and crash into a parked car in a parking lot. This crash caused her serious injuries, including a traumatic brain injury.

​

Consequences and Claims

The woman is holding the county and its employees accountable for their actions, which she believes led to her injuries. She expects compensation for the harm she's endured, which includes medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

If the plaintiff is awarded damages, the monetary ramifications of this lawsuit could be significant. The county may be liable for a substantial financial payout, which could cover a range of compensatory damages, depending on the severity of the injuries and the case circumstances.

​

Trial Date

On May 15, 2024, the court set this matter for a Mandatory Settlement Conference on February 3, 2026, at 9:30 AM in department 59 and a Trial for this matter on March 16, 2026, at 8:30 AM in department 47.

Subscribe to get news on all upcoming events.

Thanks for submitting!

Paid for by Lee Miller for Sacramento County Metro Fire Board 2024

FPPC #1472337

bottom of page