Influential home-builder granted special tax favor by Fresno politicians | Opinion
Fresno’s most influential developer asked the city council to exempt 71 new homes he wants to build from certain fees designed to cover the costs of bringing police and fire service to the city’s outskirts.
We can’t possibly do that, council members replied. So instead, by a 4-3 majority, they exempted 12,000 new and previously approved homes from such fees and left the city’s general fund holding the bag.
At full build out, the annual shortfall from the public safety piggy bank would be $1.8 million. According to a hastily prepared financial analysis openly discussed by council members and city staff but undisclosed to the public.
That’s a condensed version of an issue that sucked up more than 3 hours of the last two Fresno City Council meetings: a 2-hour debate on Sept. 28 followed by Thursday’s 1 hour, 18-minute “special meeting” contained within the regular session.
Why so much time? Because sprawl is a long-winded conversation bristling with political implications for next year’s election.
And because the developer who requested the tax break for his company’s 71-home project happens to be Darius Assemi, the CEO of Granville Homes, owner of GV Wire and major campaign donor.
Assemi spent Thursday’s special meeting sitting in the second row and was seen chatting with Fresno Mayor Jerry Dyer. He did not speak during public comment. But during a lull in the council debate, Assemi stepped to the podium without being invited to do so by Council President Tyler Maxwell.
Maxwell seemed surprised but allowed Assemi to continue under the pretense that he was answering a question posed by Councilmember Mike Karbassi.
Karbassi, who co-hosts a weekly podcast with Assemi and authored a competing measure to do away with those developer fees altogether, hadn’t asked a question.
Prior to the council’s vote, Assemi wanted the overhead projector to display a “heat map” depicting which areas of Fresno have the most police and fire responses. As the developer argued that residents in new homes on the edges of town shouldn’t have to pay extra property taxes for stretching existing services (not to mention building future stations) because there are more calls in urban parts of the city, I sat at home watching the live stream and shaking my head.
So much for “One Fresno.” Would Assemi rather form a new city that excludes downtown and other parts he considers a financial drain?
Assemi didn’t get the map display he wanted, which must’ve irked him. But he did get the requisite council votes.
“I think this is a rushed decision that I don’t think we’re fully comprehending, taking full responsibility for,” warned Councilmember Annalisa Perea, who joined Councilmembers Miguel Arias and Gary Bredefeld in turning down the measure.
The council majority of Nelson Esparza, Luis Chavez, Maxwell and Karbassi disagreed, with Esparza disputing the entire premise of the $1.8 million shortfall projected by the city’s public works director.
“I would reject the premise that we’re putting the city in dire financial straits, because (the tax revenues in question) have never materialized at this point,” he said.
So just because the hole won’t have to be filled in next year’s budget, or the year after that, who really cares? Remember that the next time Esparza, or any council member, moans about being hamstrung by short-sighted decisions of the past.
City, county dispute tax sharing
The backdrop to all this is an ongoing debate between the city of Fresno and Fresno County over how to divide property tax revenues. Historically, it was a 50-50 split for homes built at the suburban fringe. In 2003, however, the county’s share increased to 62% — partially to discourage the city from further expanding.
That agreement expired in August 2020. Three years later, city and council officials remain at odds over what’s fair.
Dyer maintains the city’s 38% share is not enough to adequately fund police and fire services to new developments. Which is why his administration proposed Special Financial District 18 (and its $164 annual property tax hike for single-family homes), which was approved by the council last December.
While Dyer lobbies for a return to the 50-50 split (“or something close” as he put it Thursday), their county counterparts maintain the 62-38 arrangement actually favors the city considering the outsized demand city residents place on a wide range of county services.
Moreover, the county has the data to back up its assertions. Chavez, during his turn at the mic, asked city staff to produce their own set of numbers and figures that (presumably) would favor the city’s position.
Chavez, of course, is among three city council members challenging two incumbents on the county Board of Supervisors in the 2024 election. Chavez and Arias are running against Sal Quintero in District 3, while Bredefeld is opposing Steve Brandau in District 2.
Quintero and Brandau are former city council members who may be replaced by those following in their footsteps. If that happens, I wonder if the perspectives of two newly elected county supervisors will experience a sudden shift.
Something to think about while watching Fresno politicians hand a special favor to the city’s most influential home-builder.
