Cohn Wants to Raise Moraga Taxes; Moragans Should Vote Donnelly for MOFD District 3
Updated: 10 hours ago
Steve Cohn wants Moraga property owners to pay substantially more in taxes to the Moraga-Orinda Fire District, based on his longstanding contention that Orinda subsidizes Moraga. It is an argument he has advanced for years—and one that MOFD leaders, directors and a joint Moraga-Orinda-MOFD review have repeatedly rejected. More importantly, it conflicts with the “one district” principle on which MOFD was founded and relies on a questionable method of dividing the costs of an integrated fire district between two cities. After nearly two decades of Cohn advancing essentially the same Moraga-versus-Orinda argument despite repeated review and rejection, SMARTMoraga considers his continued insistence on treating the two communities as competing interests disqualifying for a seat on a Board that is charged with providing oversight and direction for the district as a whole.
Steve Cohn is running against John Donnelly for the open District 3 seat on the Moraga-Orinda Fire District Board. For Moraga voters, one difference between the candidates deserves particular attention:
Cohn has repeatedly advocated dramatically increasing Moraga's Fire Flow Parcel Tax.
In a May 2025 letter to the MOFD Board, Cohn urged consideration of increasing the Moraga-zone rate from 6 cents to its statutory maximum of 30 cents. By Cohn's own calculation, that would generate approximately $2.2 million in additional annual revenue and cost the average Moraga homeowner about $320 more per year.
Why should Moraga residents pay more?
Cohn's answer is essentially that Moraga isn't paying its fair share.
This is not a new argument. Cohn has contended for years that Orinda generates substantially more of MOFD's property-tax revenue than Moraga, and that Moraga consequently benefits at Orinda's expense. In 2019, for example, Cohn wrote that Moraga property owners paid approximately $3.3 million less than the cost he attributed to serving them and asked why Moraga taxpayers weren't “paying what it costs to serve them.”
His proposed solution then was the same: substantially increase Moraga's Fire Flow Tax.
Cohn continues to advance the underlying premise in his 2026 campaign. He recently told The Orinda News that Moraga and Orinda should be regarded as “two separate entities, not ‘MOFD-ville.’” Because Orinda generates more MOFD revenue, Cohn believes resources should be allocated accordingly.
Cohn has gone further than arguing that Moraga and Orinda should be treated separately for financial purposes. In describing how he would approach the job, Cohn has said he would wear his “District 3 hat,” not an “MOFD hat.”
That statement gets directly to the philosophical divide in this election.
MOFD directors are elected from geographic divisions, but they govern a single fire district. Cohn's statement is consistent with his longstanding effort to account separately for Moraga and Orinda and direct resources according to where tax revenue originates. It is difficult to square that approach with the integrated-district philosophy described by MOFD's founders and reflected in its formation documents and subsequent operation.
Cohn's financial argument may sound superficially logical.
But Cohn's argument has a fundamental problem: it attempts to divide into two municipal balance sheets a fire district that was deliberately created, and has operated for nearly three decades, as one integrated emergency-service agency.
It conflicts with MOFD's founding “one district” principle. It treats city boundaries as though they were fire-service boundaries when they are not. It fails to account adequately for the substantial number of Orinda homes served from Moraga-based stations. And simply comparing the property taxes generated within each city with estimated expenditures inside its borders ignores significant differences in geography, wildfire exposure, emergency-call volume and the cost of providing equivalent emergency service.
Why Orinda Joined With Moraga
Understanding the issue requires going back to MOFD's creation in 1997.
And that history is important because the circumstances were almost the reverse of what someone hearing today's “Orinda subsidizes Moraga” argument might assume.
Before MOFD existed, Moraga already had a well-developed local fire operation. Moraga had provided ambulance service since 1971 and paramedic-level service since Contra Costa County introduced paramedics in 1977.
Orinda had significant deficiencies.
John Wyro, one of the architects of MOFD and later a longtime member of its board, recalled joining the old Orinda Fire District board in 1995 and finding aging equipment, no paramedics aboard Orinda's fire apparatus, and inadequate ambulance response—with ambulances potentially responding from Walnut Creek.
Wyro approached Moraga fire officials about combining the districts.
When MOFD began operations, Orinda immediately gained paramedics staffing its engines.
The official consolidation documents similarly identified disparities between the two predecessor districts. Orinda lacked a paramedic program and needed additional investment in stations and capital equipment.
That history matters.
Moraga wasn't entering the new district because it needed Orinda to rescue an inadequate Moraga fire service. Orinda entered the consolidation seeking capabilities that Moraga already had.
The Plan Was One Integrated District
The historical record also presents a significant problem for the idea that ordinary Orinda property-tax revenue was intended to remain permanently attributable to Orinda.
The original consolidation plan initially maintained separate service zones because Moraga and Orinda entered the new district with different service levels, infrastructure and tax structures.
But that wasn't intended to be the permanent operating model.
The 1996 consolidation application contemplated eliminating those distinctions once services, equipment and infrastructure became comparable. At that point, the new district could combine personnel, equipment and funds.
Ordinary property-tax revenue previously allocated to the two predecessor districts went to the new combined district.
There was an important exception: the separate Fire Flow Parcel Taxes.
Orinda voters approved their Fire Flow Tax when MOFD was formed, and those proceeds were geographically restricted. But that restriction did not similarly apply to ordinary ad-valorem property taxes.
The distinction is critical.
Statements made during the 1997 campaign told Orinda voters that their fire-protection dollars would remain in Orinda. Cohn has relied upon such statements in arguing that today's spending should more closely track the revenues generated by each community.
But when MOFD staff subsequently reviewed the actual formation resolutions, LAFCO application, ballot language and related records, they concluded that the legally restricted revenue was the Fire Flow Tax—not Orinda's ordinary property-tax contribution.
Indeed, just two years after MOFD was created, its board consolidated the Moraga and Orinda operating and capital accounts.
That is much easier to reconcile with the original consolidation documents than with the proposition that MOFD was intended to operate indefinitely as two separate municipal accounts.
MOFD itself describes its creation as the formation of an integrated independent special district.
“One District” Wasn't Invented Later
The people who were there have been similarly clear.
Former Moraga Fire District official and later MOFD Chief Pete Nowicki recalled that resources were redistributed when the new district was created—including personnel, an ambulance and inventory.
Founding director John Wyro repeatedly defended the principle that MOFD was one integrated fire district.
Another original director, Gordon Nathan, described Wyro's philosophy as creating one district serving all residents equally.
This wasn't a philosophy invented decades later to rebut Cohn.
It was reflected in the consolidation documents, the actions of the district shortly after formation and the recollections of the people who created it.
And there is a practical reason for it:
Fires, medical emergencies and fire engines don't stop at the Moraga-Orinda municipal boundary.
City Boundaries Aren't Fire-Service Boundaries
Approximately 700 Orinda homes are historically within the service area of Moraga-based fire stations.
During an earlier examination of this very issue, Chief Nowicki estimated that 20% to 25% of the coverage provided by Moraga stations actually extended into Orinda.
Former Chief Randall Bradley later said that properly accounting for those approximately 700 Orinda homes brought the respective revenue contributions “very close to being equal.”
That alone illustrates the difficulty with trying to assign every MOFD dollar to either “Moraga” or “Orinda.”
But geography presents another problem with a simple revenue-versus-expenditure calculation.
Orinda is more complicated territory to protect.
MOFD has documented greater high-fire-hazard exposure in Orinda, the need for specialized wildland equipment and training, additional staffing during periods of extreme fire danger, more difficult roads and historically higher emergency-call volume.
Orinda itself today cites its steep terrain, dense vegetation, fuel loads, topography, and wind and ember exposure among the factors that make the community particularly vulnerable to wildfire.
Equal fire protection therefore does not necessarily mean equal expenditures per household, equal expenditures per acre—or expenditures proportional to the property taxes generated inside municipal boundaries.
An integrated fire district deploys its resources according to risk and service needs.
Orinda Was the Early Beneficiary of Unequal Capital Spending
The district's early spending provides perhaps the clearest illustration.
Orinda entered MOFD with the greater infrastructure deficit: no paramedic program, aging equipment and fire stations requiring substantial investment.
During approximately MOFD's first 11 years, Chief Nowicki reported that nearly $3 million in unequal capital improvements had been directed to Orinda, compared with about $265,000 in Moraga, after excluding equivalent projects undertaken in both communities.
Was Moraga therefore “subsidizing” Orinda?
Of course, that isn't how an integrated fire district works.
MOFD spent money where the district needed to spend it to provide appropriate service.
And that's the central problem with trying to determine whether one community “subsidizes” the other by comparing property-tax receipts with expenditures geographically attributed to each city.
This Question Has Already Been Studied. Repeatedly.
More importantly, none of these objections to Cohn's approach are new.
The question has been studied before—repeatedly.
In 2008 and 2009, representatives of the Orinda City Council, Moraga Town Council and MOFD Board formed a six-member Tri-Agency Committee specifically to examine concerns about the allocation of MOFD property-tax revenue.
This wasn't simply MOFD investigating itself.
Both municipalities participated.
The committee held four meetings and received detailed analyses examining capital expenditures, station coverage, emergency response, wildfire requirements, liabilities and other measures of the services actually provided to the two communities.
MOFD Chief Pete Nowicki concluded that the existing allocation was fair.
Moraga's representatives subsequently reported that they were satisfied with the review and that no changes were necessary. MOFD reached the same conclusion.
Orinda Mayor Victoria Smith, the city's liaison to MOFD, likewise said after the review:
“We have studied this. I am satisfied.”
Orinda Councilmember Steve Glazer later cited the Tri-Agency Committee's conclusion directly when the subsidy argument resurfaced: the revenue split between Orinda and Moraga was fair when the scope of service and area of coverage received by each community were taken into account.
That's an important part of this history.
The argument that Orinda was unfairly subsidizing Moraga wasn't merely dismissed by Moraga officials defending Moraga.
It was examined in a process involving Moraga, Orinda and MOFD.
Cohn Kept Raising the Issue
Cohn nevertheless continued pressing the issue.
When he sought yet another citizen task force to investigate whether Orinda was paying more than its fair share, the Orinda City Council rejected the proposal 4-1 in 2011.
Cohn and others subsequently produced their own lengthy analysis.
Then-MOFD Chief Randall Bradley disputed its conclusions.
Bradley emphasized that MOFD operated as one district, pointed to the substantial amount of Fire Flow Tax expenditures that had gone toward Orinda projects, and specifically noted the hundreds of Orinda homes served from Moraga stations.
Bradley also said MOFD's professional actuaries disagreed with financial figures contained in the Cohn-initiated report.
That doesn't mean every number Cohn has ever calculated can simply be labeled mathematically false. Much depends upon the assumptions used to allocate the costs of an integrated emergency-service operation geographically.
But that's precisely the problem.
If one begins by assuming that expenditures should be attributed separately to Moraga and Orinda and then compares those estimates with property taxes generated within each municipality, one can calculate a “subsidy.”
But that methodology assumes much of what it purports to prove.
The more fundamental question is whether that's an appropriate way to account for a fire district deliberately created to provide integrated service across municipal boundaries.
Repeated examinations have concluded that it isn't.
Rejected Again
The issue came back again in 2016.
MOFD staff reviewed the district's formation history, including the original resolutions, LAFCO application, ballot materials and subsequent actions.
Cohn again argued that promises made when MOFD was formed required Orinda revenues to be spent for Orinda's benefit.
The response was broad.
Former founding director John Wyro reiterated that the issue had been repeatedly examined and that MOFD had operated as one district from day one.
Moraga Councilmember Dave Trotter, who had participated in the earlier Tri-Agency review, said the issue had already been examined.
MOFD Director Kathleen Famulener specifically said the district should continue with the findings of the 2009 Tri-Agency Committee.
Director Fred Weil emphasized that resources should be allocated according to service, geographic and demographic needs across the district.
Director Alex Evans likewise said MOFD must provide service without regard to city boundaries.
The board did not adopt Cohn's interpretation.
The dispute nevertheless continued.
In 2019, Cohn again argued that Moraga wasn't paying enough and again proposed increasing Moraga's Fire Flow Tax to its maximum rate.
In 2023, he again advocated increasing Moraga's rate from 6 cents to 30 cents.
The MOFD Board instead voted unanimously to maintain the same 6-cent rate in both zones.
And in 2025, Cohn returned with the proposal again.
His own estimate this time was straightforward:
Approximately $320 more per year for an average Moraga home.
Nearly Two Decades of the Same Argument
Cohn's contention that Orinda subsidizes Moraga isn't a newly discovered inequity that MOFD has somehow refused to confront.
It is a longstanding argument that has been examined repeatedly—and rejected repeatedly—by MOFD leadership and successive MOFD boards, including after a joint review involving representatives of MOFD and both the Moraga and Orinda city councils.
Reasonable people can disagree about MOFD spending priorities, reserves, wildfire mitigation and whether the district should devote substantially more resources to prevention.
Cohn has raised some legitimate questions in several of those areas.
But his proposal to shift substantially more of MOFD's cost onto Moraga rests on a much more consequential philosophy of the district.
Cohn says Moraga and Orinda should be treated as two separate entities and MOFD should recognize how much revenue each generates.
The historical record points in the opposite direction.
Orinda sought consolidation while lacking emergency-service capabilities Moraga already possessed.
The communities deliberately created an integrated fire district.
The formation plan contemplated combining personnel, equipment and funds.
The district subsequently did exactly that.
Its founders described MOFD as one district.
Its service areas cross city boundaries.
Orinda's terrain, wildfire exposure and emergency-service needs historically required different resources and expenditures than Moraga's.
And when the question of whether Orinda was unfairly subsidizing Moraga was formally examined by representatives of Orinda, Moraga and MOFD, the review did not substantiate the claimed inequity.
Nearly three decades after MOFD was created, that distinction remains fundamental.
A fire engine responding from Moraga to a burning Orinda home isn't providing “Moraga service.”
A paramedic from Orinda treating a Moraga resident isn't providing “Orinda service.”
They're providing MOFD service.
That was the point of creating the district in the first place.
Our Conclusion
The issue here is larger than a disagreement over a tax rate.
For nearly two decades, Cohn has pursued essentially the same theory: that Orinda subsidizes Moraga and that MOFD should allocate revenues and expenses more closely according to municipal boundaries.
That theory has not gone unexamined.
It has been considered by MOFD chiefs and professional advisers. It has been considered by successive MOFD boards. It was examined through a joint process involving representatives of the Orinda City Council, Moraga Town Council and MOFD Board. Orinda subsequently rejected another proposed investigation by a 4-1 City Council vote. MOFD later went back to the original formation documents and revisited the issue again.
Those reviews have repeatedly returned to essentially the same place: MOFD is one integrated fire district, its resources are deployed according to service needs rather than municipal tax receipts, and the simple premise that Orinda's larger property-tax contribution demonstrates an improper subsidy of Moraga does not adequately account for how the district was created or how fire protection is actually delivered.
The historical evidence points in the same direction.
The original consolidation documents contemplated combining personnel, equipment and funds. The people who created MOFD described a “one district” philosophy. Moraga-based stations serve hundreds of Orinda homes. Orinda entered the district requiring substantially greater capital investment and with more difficult geography and significant wildfire exposure. And MOFD actually combined the predecessor districts' operating and capital accounts shortly after formation.
Cohn is entitled to disagree with all of that.
But after nearly two decades of governmental reviews, historical-document examinations and contrary conclusions, continuing to pursue the same premise—and proposing to make Moraga property owners pay substantially more because of it—is consequential.
His statement that he would wear a “District 3 hat,” rather than an “MOFD hat,” makes the concern even clearer. It suggests that this isn't merely a historical accounting dispute. It reflects how Cohn says he would approach governing the district today.
SMARTMoraga has historically viewed firefighter-union involvement in MOFD board elections with considerable caution, and Donnelly's endorsement by the Contra Costa Labor Council gives us pause. An independent fire district board must represent taxpayers and residents, particularly when negotiating compensation and benefits with employees whose unions participate in local elections.
That concern is real.
But SMARTMoraga's conclusion in this race ultimately turns on Cohn's own record and proposals.
In our view, Cohn's continued insistence on treating Moraga and Orinda as competing financial interests—despite the district's founding documents, the operating philosophy described by its founders, the realities of cross-boundary fire service, and the conclusions of repeated MOFD and joint Moraga-Orinda-MOFD reviews—is disqualifying.
This is no longer simply a disagreement over accounting methodology. Cohn has pursued essentially the same Moraga-versus-Orinda argument for nearly two decades. He continues to argue that Orinda subsidizes Moraga, continues to seek substantially higher taxes on Moraga property owners, says the two communities should be viewed as “two separate entities, not ‘MOFD-ville,’” and says he would govern wearing a “District 3 hat,” rather than an “MOFD hat.”
Taken together, those positions reflect a view of MOFD in which Orinda and Moraga are competing interests rather than communities within one integrated district. That is fundamentally at odds with the one-district model Cohn would be elected to help govern.
Moraga residents shouldn't be asked to pay substantially higher taxes to implement a financial and operating theory that has been examined and rejected repeatedly for nearly two decades.
SMARTMoraga supports John Donnelly for MOFD Division 3.
Sources and Further Reading
This article draws upon original MOFD records and formation documents, public meeting records, contemporaneous reporting, and statements by Steve Cohn and former MOFD, Orinda and Moraga officials. Key sources include:
1996–99 — MOFD Formation and Consolidation Records. MOFD's historical review of the district's formation documents addresses the original consolidation plan, the Moraga and Orinda service zones, restrictions on Fire Flow Tax revenue, and the eventual integration of district finances and operations. The original consolidation plan contemplated combining personnel, equipment and funds once services and infrastructure became comparable.
2008–09 — Moraga-Orinda-MOFD Tri-Agency Review. Representatives of the Moraga Town Council, Orinda City Council and MOFD Board jointly examined the claimed disparity between the communities' property-tax contributions and services received. MOFD Chief Pete Nowicki presented analyses of service coverage, capital expenditures, emergency calls, wildfire exposure and other factors, concluding that the allocation was fair. Contemporary reporting also documents the substantial early capital investment required in Orinda.
2010 — Tri-Agency Findings Revisited. During a subsequent Orinda discussion of proposals to restructure or dissolve MOFD, then-Councilmember Steve Glazer cited the Tri-Agency Committee's conclusion that the cost share was fair based on the scope of service and area of coverage received by the two communities.
2011 — Orinda City Council Declines Another Investigation. The Orinda City Council voted 4–1 against creating another citizen emergency-services task force to investigate whether Orinda was paying more than its fair share. The discussion recounted the earlier four-meeting Tri-Agency process; Orinda Mayor Victoria Smith, the city's MOFD liaison, said, “We have studied this. I am satisfied.”
2012 — MOFD Chief Responds to Cohn Analysis. MOFD Chief Randall Bradley responded to a 90-page report driven in part by Cohn. Bradley said MOFD's professional actuaries had previously disagreed with Cohn's financial figures, emphasized that MOFD operates as one district, and said that accounting for approximately 700 Orinda homes served by Moraga stations brought the communities' respective revenues “very close to being equal.”
2016 — MOFD Historical Review of the District's Formation. MOFD staff revisited the original consolidation documents, service-zone structure, Fire Flow Tax restrictions and subsequent board actions. The historical record includes the 1999 consolidation of Moraga and Orinda operating and capital accounts and MOFD's operation as an integrated district.
2025 — Cohn Proposes Raising Moraga's Fire Flow Tax. In written public comment submitted to MOFD, Cohn proposed increasing the Moraga service-zone Fire Flow Tax from 6 cents to the statutory maximum of 30 cents. His analysis estimated approximately $2.2 million in additional annual revenue and approximately $320 per year in additional tax for the average Moraga home.
2025 — MOFD Board Retains Equal Fire Flow Tax Rates. The MOFD Board considered the proposed Moraga increase and retained the same 6-cent rate in both service zones. The official MOFD record is available through the May 21, 2025 meeting materials and adopted Fire Flow Tax resolution.
2026 — Cohn's Current District 3 Position. In September 2026 candidate coverage, Cohn said that Moraga and Orinda should be treated as “two separate entities, not ‘MOFD-ville.’” Discussing how he would serve as a director, Cohn also said, “I'm going to wear a District 3 hat … not an MOFD hat.”
