Nearly three times per day in 2025, Ripon’s only staffed fire engine was already responding to another emergency when a second call came in.

Data presented to the Ripon City Council last night by Ripon Consolidated Fire District Chief Eric DeHart showed the district experienced 986 concurrent calls last year—situations where another emergency occurred while the department’s engine company was already on a call. That averages to roughly 2.7 incidents per day requiring additional assistance.

When those situations occur, the district must rely on neighboring fire departments in Manteca or Escalon to respond. While an engine responding from within Ripon typically arrives about four to five minutes after dispatch, calls requiring assistance from outside agencies averaged about 14 minutes in response time due to the additional travel distance.

DeHart noted that none of the concurrent calls involved a cardiac arrest in 2025, but he emphasized that most of the department’s calls involve medical emergencies, where response time can play an important role in achieving the best possible outcomes for patients.

The data was presented as the Ripon Consolidated Fire District continues evaluating a potential Proposition 218 parcel tax measure that could go before local property owners. District officials are currently refining what would be included in the proposal, with a tentative timeline that could see ballots mailed in late May or early June, with voting scheduled to conclude Aug. 13, the same day the district board is expected to review the results.

During the discussion, Mayor Gary Barton asked DeHart whether he had a sense of where the district may be headed regarding indexing for a future Proposition 218 measure.

DeHart responded cautiously, noting that the district board has not yet had an opportunity to fully weigh in on the issue.

“The last go around it was going to be capped out at three percent,” DeHart said. “Somehow it got lost in translation through the language that the feedback I got back was the fire district is going to raise it three percent every year no matter what that it was automatic, which was never the case.”

DeHart added that he does not believe any responsible government entity would implement automatic annual increases without careful consideration.

“I don’t think any responsible government entity would ever engage in something like that,” he said.

He also pointed out that the Ripon Consolidated Fire District has historically operated very conservatively when it comes to spending and taxation.

“If you look at Ripon Fire, the reason we are in the pickle that we are is because we have always been a super conservative fire district,” DeHart said. “We have one of the lowest tax share ratios of all the fire districts in the county because we were so economical with our spending.”

According to DeHart, funding levels established decades ago continue to impact the district today. When tax allocations were set in 1978, Ripon Fire District was designated to receive a limited share.

He added that even after a 1985 tax measure was approved, there were years when the district chose not to levy the tax because the funding was not needed at the time.

“I like to remind our customer base that the board members are citizens just like you,” DeHart said. “They all pay taxes. They all own property. They are all affected by these decisions just like anybody else, so they’re not necessarily looking to tax themselves for absolutely no reason.”

One of the primary goals being discussed for a potential funding measure would be to staff the second fire station located at North Ripon Road and River Road. The station was completed in 2014, but it has never been staffed due to a lack of operational funding.

The station was built for approximately $1.8 million, including about $500,000 from local funding sources, at a time when the district had access to funding that would have otherwise been lost if it had not been used.

DeHart said building the station when the district had the opportunity ultimately proved to be a smart decision given how much construction costs have increased.

“It’s really a genius idea,” DeHart said. “If we tried to build that station today, we would be somewhere around $8 million. Then I’d be coming to the city saying, ‘Hey, we need to raise $8 million.’”

It is also important to note that during the district’s previous Proposition 218 parcel tax proposal, the funding plan did not include adding a second ambulance in Ripon. Instead, the proposal focused on staffing a second fire engine company at the River Road and North Ripon Road station with two firefighters.

Under that structure, ambulance availability in the city would remain unchanged. If the district’s ambulance is already responding to another call or transporting a patient to a hospital outside the area, patients may still need to wait for an ambulance to respond from another community.

During the discussion, Council Member Michael Restuccia noted that the increasing demand for emergency calls may not be driven by rapid population growth in the city, but rather by changes in the community’s demographics, particularly an aging population. DeHart said he agreed with that assessment.

DeHart also shared information related to housing growth in Ripon. He said that during a conversation with Ripon Planning Director Ken Zuidervaart, he was told that 21 home permits have been issued in the past five years, a number that does not include the 88 homes currently under construction.

Council members noted that the modest pace of housing growth further supports the idea that increasing emergency calls may be more closely tied to demographic changes within the community rather than rapid population expansion.