Author Topic: Fire fees under California state budget  (Read 444000 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline lagomorphmom

  • Raccoon
  • *****
  • Posts: 1026
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #20 on: Jul 13, 11, 02:16:28 PM »
I think if they demand cuts away from other cities and counties (in order to "save money"), then they're going to have to pay for their own services TOO.  What a majorly stupid mess, right?
It IS majorly stupid, but only if you don't live in SD. They don't HAVE to pay for Co Fire. It's been on the ballot a few times and been voted down by SD voters - why pay for something that you're getting for 'free'???

Nice maps John, I had not seen them before. I wonder what the state/local very high fire coverage areas are in sq miles by county....

KB

  • Guest
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #21 on: Jul 13, 11, 03:07:26 PM »
"...why pay for something that you're getting for 'free"What do you mean "free"?, property owners pay PROPERTY TAXES already, just like San Diego and every other county. This is right up with the Adventure Pass, Forest Recreation and other "fees", double taxation if you ask me and due only to mismanagement of funds. Brown, Fienstien and Boxer appear to be at it again. Can't understand why people want to move to Texas, hmmm.


Offline lagomorphmom

  • Raccoon
  • *****
  • Posts: 1026
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #22 on: Jul 13, 11, 03:45:25 PM »
KB, are you following my point or the OP?

My point was that San Diegans have a tax benefit (something for free) compared to us because they do not pay county taxes to support a county fire department and instead let the state/fed resources handle rural fires. Since state/feds assume more burden, more of our state/fed taxes go to pay their fires compared to ours.

So, no, property owners pay PROPERTY TAXES already, just like San Diego and every other county they are not just like us.

KB

  • Guest
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #23 on: Jul 21, 11, 11:28:22 AM »
Sorry, I guess I really don't understand your point. My point is that we collectively already pay taxes for "services". Whether that's in the form of Federal, State or Local taxes really doesn't concern me as much as the Fed, State and Local administration's inability to well manage those current taxes to the point that they think it's necessary to impose added fees as a way to avoid the majority vote.

KB

  • Guest
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #24 on: Jul 26, 11, 10:05:19 AM »

mototman

  • Guest
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #25 on: Jul 26, 11, 05:24:05 PM »
I read today that our Governor signed into law a bill that funds college education for illegal immigrants, guess that is more important than using my tax dollars to pay for fire protection ?

YardBird

  • Guest
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #26 on: Aug 01, 11, 11:04:26 PM »
Yeah, ain't that special...........

Offline ChrisLynnet

  • Raccoon
  • *****
  • Posts: 1340
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #27 on: Aug 02, 11, 08:33:15 AM »
That is simply not true. AB130 allows PRIVATE scholarship funding. This has nothing at all to do with fire protection taxes -- it's doesn't involve taxes at all. There IS AB131 moving through the CA legislature that would allow public funding of scholarships but that has NOT been passed. I doubt it will given the current economic climate.

Also, this is not coming out of left field but is inspired by the Federal "Dream Act." I'm not saying this is a good idea or not, but there is nothing in the signed bill that uses tax dollars.

Offline Wrightwood

  • Administrator
  • Raccoon
  • *****
  • Posts: Plenty of Posts!
  • Wildlife Gateway
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #28 on: Aug 02, 11, 08:51:27 AM »
Back to the Fire Fee.

Last week it was mentioned to me that Wrightwood would not be included in the fire fees and I just don't understand where that logic came from.

It seems clear to me after reading this statement and looking at the map link below that private property in Wrightwood, Phelan & Pinon Hills, Oak Hills, West Cajon Valley Horse Canyon, and Lone Pine Canyon are all included.

This bill would require the board, on or before September 1, 2011, to adopt emergency regulations to establish a fire prevention fee in an amount not to exceed $150 to be
 charged on each structure on a parcel that is within a state responsibility area.


http://www.bof.fire.ca.gov/sra_viewer/

mototman

  • Guest
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #29 on: Aug 02, 11, 09:28:36 AM »
I do not want to get into an off topic argument here, but where does any government money come from if not from taxes or "fees" ?

MMB

  • Guest
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #30 on: Aug 02, 11, 02:40:45 PM »
I'd pay the $150.   Its worth it.

snwbnny

  • Guest
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #31 on: Aug 02, 11, 05:00:59 PM »
I'd pay the $150.   Its worth it.

maybe . . . if it actually went to fire protection. i highly doubt it will.

Offline SkierBob

  • Raccoon
  • *****
  • Posts: 1894
  • Hangin' out Down the street
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #32 on: Aug 02, 11, 05:44:03 PM »

A little brush clearance will go a lot farther then $150 bucks when a wild fire comes your way. 

Especially if your property is close to where the fire starts.  By the time your $150.00 arrives your home might already be burned.

It's all about proper preperation.  CLEAR THAT BRUSH.

MMB

  • Guest
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #33 on: Aug 02, 11, 06:38:02 PM »
I pay $200 to an individual every year to "abate" my tumbleweeds.  BIG deal.   ::)

MMB

  • Guest
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #34 on: Aug 02, 11, 06:50:51 PM »
Back to the Fire Fee.

Last week it was mentioned to me that Wrightwood would not be included in the fire fees and I just don't understand where that logic came from.
Well, look man, if you ever came to me for help, in a fire, I'd NEVER "bother" to ask whether or not you support my points of view regarding the Right thing to do in all situations. ;)

Offline thehallmarks

  • Bear
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
  • Who let the dogs out?
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #35 on: Aug 10, 11, 09:38:20 AM »
SRA Fee negotiations--today...

In Sacramento, the state Board of Forestry and Fire Protection will discuss the controversial new fee, now the subject of a proposed referendum, that charges rural property owners up to $150 each for fire protection. The state is counting on Assembly Bill X1 29 to raise $50 million. The board's meeting starts at 8 a.m. in the Resources Building auditorium, 1416 9th St.

Click here for the agenda:

http://www.bof.fire.ca.gov/board_business/meeting_agendas/2011_board_meeting_agendas/finalagenda_august_2011.pdf

tiltronix

  • Guest
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #36 on: Aug 10, 11, 09:45:18 AM »
And we have to pay for illegal alien's college, too!

Offline thehallmarks

  • Bear
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
  • Who let the dogs out?
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #37 on: Aug 22, 11, 04:14:34 PM »
The latest on California politics and government

August 22, 2011

Read more: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/08/state-board-approves-maximum-9.html#ixzz1Vno6taEV


State board approves maximum $90 fee on rural homeowners

A state board responsible for rural fire protection on Monday approved a maximum $90 fee per house in sparsely populated areas, significantly below the $150 charge envisioned by state lawmakers in their June budget.

Under the emergency regulation passed by the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, the full $90 fire prevention fee would apply to homeowners in extreme fire zones. Those living elsewhere in state responsibility areas would pay $70 each year.

Monday's regulation includes $65 in credits that would reduce those fees, including $45 for those who already pay for local fire prevention through district fees or taxes.

The regulation appears to raise nowhere near the $50 million that lawmakers are counting on this fiscal year, and certainly not the $200 million projected annually thereafter.

Board executive officer George Gentry estimated that the regulation would generate about $30 on average for each of the 850,000 homes in state responsibility areas. That would equal $25.5 million before subtracting new administrative costs that could be as high as $12 million annually.

The fee structure is far from final. Gov. Jerry Brown has called for clean-up legislation that would allow the state to apply funds to firefighting costs rather than fire prevention measures. Board members acknowledged that their fee proposal was essentially a first draft since they must follow up with a permanent regulation later this fiscal year.

Fiscal conservatives, meanwhile, have vowed to sue the state to block the fire fee from ever taking effect. They believe the law is unconstitutional and represents a tax that should have been passed on a two-thirds vote, rather than a majority.

"I think we're going to find out those areas that we need to come back and talk about in October because we're going to get an earful," said Stan L. Dixon, the board chairman and former Humboldt County supervisor, referring to anticipated public reaction. "I don't think anybody expects that this package could be anywhere near perfect."

Read more: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/08/state-board-approves-maximum-9.html#ixzz1VnnOAlmQ

Offline Toolman

  • Raccoon
  • *****
  • Posts: 874
  • You can't fix stupid
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #38 on: Aug 23, 11, 07:00:27 AM »
Not sure if my question fits here but it is about fire and $$$.  ???

I remember reading that the Governator (when in office) didn't renew the air support contract for the 747 supertanker based out of Sacremento. I believe it was contracted with Cal Fire and part of the fire axe cuts.  Is the air support contract with Canada we had for many years still active?

Additionaly, why isn't military aerial fire suppression support ever called upon when there are available aircraft sitting on the ground doing nothing.  ::)

Offline thehallmarks

  • Bear
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
  • Who let the dogs out?
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #39 on: Aug 23, 11, 07:23:21 AM »
Changes are likely in rural fire fee

California board passes rural fire fee, but changes are likely
By Kevin Yamamura kyamamura@sacbee.com Published: Tuesday, Aug. 23, 2011

The state fire board approved a maximum $90 annual fee on rural homeowners Monday, well below the $150 charge envisioned by lawmakers in their June budget.

The California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection had to act by September under a Democratic budget plan to raise $50 million. But the board's emergency regulation falls well short of that target, especially when higher administrative and inspection costs are considered.  [Higher than the estimated between $10 million and $12 million?] ???

The fee structure is far from final.  ::)

Gov. Jerry Brown is working with lawmakers on a new version that allows the state to use some revenue for firefighting. [I thought the entire fee was for fird fighting?]   ??? Meanwhile, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has vowed to file suit against whatever plan emerges, saying the proposal is a tax that requires a two-thirds voter approval.

Board members sought to lay groundwork that would set the fee in motion, as required by Assembly Bill X1 29. Chairman Stan L. Dixon acknowledged that the regulation was a first draft and expected the board would "get an earful" from the public after approving the fee Monday.

An estimated 850,000 rural residents who live in a "state responsibility area" would have to pay the fee. The board plan calls for a maximum of $90 in annual costs for those who live in areas designated as "extreme" fire zones, while those elsewhere would pay $70.

The regulation also includes $65 in credits that would reduce fees, including $45 for those who already pay for fire prevention programs through district fees and local taxes.  [Does this include Wrightwood & the Tri-Community which pays for County Fire Protection through our property taxes?]  ???

If the plan proceeds as drawn Monday, it would leave Cal Fire with a new budget gap unless the board increases the fire fee or the Legislature provides additional state funding.

Board executive officer George Gentry estimated that the regulation would generate $30 on average for each of the 850,000 homes eligible. That totals $25.5 million before subtracting new administrative costs estimated between $10 million and $12 million. In addition, the department would have to conduct more inspections and map verifications that could add to the price tag.

"I'm concerned the regulation doesn't meet the full intent of the governor's signing message; where he does identify the $50 million?" said Cal Fire Director Ken Pimlott, who recognized the board faced a very short period of time to pass its proposal.

A sparsely attended special session Monday in Sacramento exposed various challenges.

Pimlott noted that thousands of homeowners would likely appeal, which would require Cal Fire employees to visit rural homes to consider whether owners qualified for a defensible space credit or the department had placed a parcel in the correct fire risk zone.  :2thumbsup:

The board was also mindful of a new voter-approved restriction, Proposition 26, that requires fees to pay directly for services rendered by the state. The proposal assigned portions of the $90 fee to different areas such as mapping, inspections and grants for fire prevention.