As Ripon property owners continue receiving ballots for the Ripon Consolidated Fire District’s proposed benefit assessment, the City of Ripon now has its own decision to make.

At Tuesday night’s meeting, the Ripon City Council is expected to decide how the City will vote on ballots connected to city-owned property within the Fire District. The City owns 98 parcels that are included in the assessment process.

If the Council votes in favor of the assessment for those parcels, the City’s annual cost would be about $12,002.

The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, July 14, at 6 p.m.

City-owned parcels are part of the same ballot process

The Fire District’s proposed Fire Protection and Emergency Response Services Benefit Assessment is being handled through a Proposition 218 property-owner ballot process.

That means ballots are sent to property owners, not registered voters. Each ballot is weighted based on the amount that property would be assessed. Because the City of Ripon owns property within the district, it also receives ballots and must decide whether to support or oppose the assessment for those parcels.

The City Council’s vote will not decide the overall outcome of the Fire District assessment. Instead, it will determine how the City votes on the 98 parcels it owns.

What it would cost the City

The estimated $12,002 annual cost would be paid from several city funds.

The largest share, about $8,454, would come from the general fund. Other estimated amounts include $1,108 from the water fund, $2,201 from the sewer fund, $205 from the street and road fund, and $33 from the garage fund.

Those funds support public services, utilities and city operations. That means the City’s share would ultimately be paid with public dollars, including taxpayer-supported and ratepayer-supported funds.

Residents could see the cost directly and indirectly

For Ripon residents and businesses, the proposed assessment could be felt in more than one way.

If the assessment is approved, property owners within the Fire District would pay the amount assigned to their own parcel through the property tax roll.

At the same time, the City of Ripon would also pay the assessment on its publicly owned parcels. While that cost would not show up as a separate line item on an individual resident’s property tax bill, it would still come from city funds that are supported by taxpayers and ratepayers.

In other words, residents and businesses could pay directly through their own property assessment and indirectly through public funds used to cover the City’s assessment costs.

Some residents want the City to do more first

The proposed assessment has also raised a broader question among some residents: whether the City of Ripon should provide more financial support to the Fire District before asking property owners to pay more through a new assessment.

Some residents have argued that the City should look at additional ways to support local fire service, especially because the assessment would affect homeowners, businesses and public agencies at the same time.

City officials have continued to state that Ripon cannot simply raise sales tax and dedicate a portion of that money to the Ripon Consolidated Fire District because the Fire District is a separate special district and not a City department.

That issue has become part of the larger local debate over whether the City, the Fire District, property owners or some combination of public funding sources should carry more of the cost of expanded fire service.

Some residents point to Lathrop as an example

Some residents have pointed to nearby Lathrop as an example of a city helping fund a separate fire district through sales-tax revenue.

In Lathrop, voters approved Measure C in 2012, a one-cent transaction and use tax for public safety and essential city services. City documents show that Lathrop later entered into an agreement with the Lathrop-Manteca Fire District to allocate 40% of Measure C revenue to help augment and enhance fire protection services within the city.

That does not automatically mean Ripon could use the exact same approach. Ballot language, legal structure, voter approval requirements, service boundaries and agreements between agencies can all matter.

If Ripon were to pursue any future sales-tax increase, it would require a separate public process and voter approval. A general-purpose sales tax generally requires majority voter approval, while a special tax legally dedicated to a specific purpose typically requires a higher voter-approval threshold. No City of Ripon sales-tax proposal has been announced.

Still, the Lathrop example may continue to be part of the public discussion as residents ask whether the City has other options to help support fire service before property owners are asked to pay a new annual assessment.

Why the Fire District is asking for the assessment

The Ripon Consolidated Fire District says the proposed assessment is needed to improve staffing, emergency response and overall fire protection coverage.

The District currently staffs Station 1 at 142 South Stockton Avenue 24 hours a day. Station 3, located at 1705 North Ripon Road, is currently unstaffed.

If the assessment is approved, the District says the funding would help support increased firefighter staffing and training, along with equipment and operational needs. A major goal is to provide staffing for the second station on North Ripon Road.

District officials have said a second staffed station would help improve response coverage, especially when crews are already committed to another emergency call.

In 2025, the District reported 986 concurrent calls, meaning another emergency came in while the District’s staffed engine company was already responding elsewhere.

Proposed assessment amounts

The proposed base rate for a single-family home is $249.98 per Single Family Equivalent. The actual amount for each parcel may vary depending on property type, parcel classification and other factors used in the Fire District’s assessment formula.

Other proposed rates include approximately:

· $107.32 per multi-family unit

· $461.44 per half-acre of commercial or industrial property

· $381.88 per half-acre of office property

· $630.64 per half-acre of storage property

· $33.02 per parking lot

· $36.82 per vacant lot

· $2.74 per acre of non-irrigated agricultural land

· $0.77 per acre of irrigated agricultural land

· $1.59 per acre of rangeland or open space

The Fire District’s Engineer’s Report estimates the assessment would generate about $1.76 million annually. Most of the proposed funding would go toward staffing, with additional money for operations, apparatus and equipment needs.

Staffing and emergency response remain central issue

The Fire District has said current funding only allows it to staff one station full time.

Additional staffing would help the District respond to emergencies from two locations and improve its ability to handle multiple calls at the same time. The District has also pointed to rising costs, firefighter training requirements and staffing challenges as reasons for seeking a dedicated funding source.

Fire response staffing is also tied to safety standards. For certain structure fires, firefighters generally need enough qualified personnel on scene before entering dangerous conditions. With only one staffed station, the District may need additional resources or mutual aid before some operations can begin.

Supporters of the assessment say staffing the second station would improve response times and strengthen coverage in parts of the district. Opponents have raised concerns about cost, transparency and the impact on residents and businesses already facing higher expenses.

What happens next

The Fire District has mailed ballots to property owners throughout the assessment area. A public hearing and ballot tabulation are scheduled for Aug. 13.

If the weighted ballots in support of the assessment exceed those in opposition, the Fire District Board may move forward with placing the assessment on the San Joaquin County property tax roll beginning in fiscal year 2026-27.

Before that happens, the Ripon City Council must decide how the City will vote on its own parcels.

For residents, Tuesday’s Council decision is one part of a larger local conversation over fire service funding, public safety needs and how much of the cost should be carried by individual property owners, businesses and city funds.