Author Topic: Fire fees under California state budget  (Read 444020 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Wrightwood

  • Administrator
  • Raccoon
  • *****
  • Posts: Plenty of Posts!
  • Wildlife Gateway
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #40 on: Aug 23, 11, 08:34:03 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.  ::)

July 8, 2011
LOS ANGELES (KTLA) -- Just as fire season is heating up in Southern California comes word that the state's biggest and perhaps most effective tool will not be available to fight fires this year.

The contract for two DC-10 Super Tankers has been canceled due to budget cuts, according to The Press-Enterprise.

Rick Hatton, CEO of 10 Tanker Air Carrier which owns and operates two Super Tankers, said he was notified on June 30 about the decision.

The three-year contract would have cost $7 million for each fire season.

Cal Fire officials say they have no wiggle room and are facing even deeper cuts.

Spokeswoman Janet Upton said the cancellation is the best choice among poor alternatives.

The planes are based at Southern California Logistics Airport in Victorville and can be in the air within 30 minutes.

The DC-10 can carry nearly 12,000 gallons of fire retardant and cover about 300 feet in less than 10 seconds.

A similar cancellation in 2009 was reinstated after firefighters and the public complained, and Cal Fire says the jetliner may still be available on a day-to-day basis for now.
http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-dc-10-super-tanker-contract-canceled,0,4497130.story

tiltronix

  • Guest
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #41 on: Aug 23, 11, 09:11:21 AM »
It's nice that we are allowed to help pay for the "big city's" transportation systems through our gasoline taxes and they aren't allowed to help pay for the fire protection of their playgrounds.

Offline Toolman

  • Raccoon
  • *****
  • Posts: 874
  • You can't fix stupid
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #42 on: Aug 23, 11, 09:18:45 AM »
Thanks WW on that. I knew I read that at one time but wasn't sure if that card was still in play.

It still baffles me why there is so much good military support that is availble at the ready but isn't called upon. Isn't arson considered terrorism? just say'n. ::)

Chesslike

  • Guest
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #43 on: Aug 23, 11, 02:35:28 PM »
State's $90 fire fee OK'd; criticism heats up

10:54 PM PDT on Monday, August 22, 2011

BY JIM MILLER
SACRAMENTO BUREAU
jmiller@pe.com

SACRAMENTO - Tens of thousands of rural property owners in Riverside and San Bernardino counties will have to pay fire prevention fees of up to $90 a year under emergency regulations adopted Monday by the state forestry board.

The approved fee on inhabitable structures in places where the state has the main firefighting responsibility is significantly less than the $150 maximum fee sought by the Legislature and Gov. Jerry Brown in the June budget package.

Various discounts could reduce the fee to almost nothing for some property owners, generating much less than the $50 million assumed in the 2011-12 budget.

Monday's fees, however, could have a heavier impact in places like Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Many of the more than 1 million acres of state responsibility area land in the two counties are identified as having a very high fire threat, and those places pay more under Monday's fee.

The fee will take effect Sept. 1. It could be altered before Monday's emergency regulations expire in 180 days, and possibly as soon as October.

"I don't think anybody expects that this package could be anywhere near perfect," Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Chairman Stan Dixon, of Eureka, said Monday before the panel's unanimous vote. "We are going to find out very quickly, after Sept. 1, what needs to be addressed. We're going to get an earful."

Supporters of the June $150 fee contended that state taxpayers effectively subsidize residents in the state areas. The Legislature's nonpartisan fiscal analyst had linked the areas' rising population to increases in the state's firefighting budget and more medical calls.

Critics, however, call the proposed charge illegal and unfair. Many homeowners in the targeted areas already pay for local fire protection, opponents said. A Republican lawmaker has filed paperwork to overturn the law.

State officials estimate there are as many as 850,000 dwellings in state responsibility areas. An average fee of $30 per structure would mean revenue of $25.5 million in 2011-12.

But in his signing message last month, Brown said he envisioned a $150 fee that would provide $50 million for Cal Fire in 2011-12 and $200 million annually thereafter.

The Brown administration is crafting legislation to modify the fee law before lawmakers recess for the year Sept. 9.

"We will deal with issues related to the fee and a host of other technical issues," Department of Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer said Monday, offering few details about the legislation. Monday's fee, he said, is only "the first step in a number of steps that still have to happen."

Assemblyman Kevin Jeffries, R-Lake Elsinore, said the fee is unworkable and he urged the board to hold off on the regulations.

"You have been handed a lemon and you're trying to make lemonade," Jeffries said.

INLAND AREA

There are about 100,000 structures on state responsibility land in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, based on census and Cal Fire data.

At least three-quarters of the housing units in Riverside County's state responsibility also are in or near very-high fire severity zones. In San Bernardino County, two-thirds of San Bernardino County structures are in very-high threat areas

Cal Fire, however, lacks detailed parcel-level maps showing fire threat, Cal Fire Director Ken Pimlott said.

In Riverside County, for example, there are almost 40,000 parcels that are completely within a very high fire severity zone in a state responsibility area. There are 5,000 additional parcels that are at least partly within a very high fire severity zone.

"It's going to be a very challenging task to go back and revalidate the numbers, determine those that qualify and generate a list to go" to the state Board of Equalization, which will administer the fee, Pimlott said. "I'm concerned that the regulations as adopted don't meet the intent of the governor's signing message."

Fire fee

Regulations adopted Monday set the following charges and exemptions for an inhabited structure covered by the State Responsibility Area Fire Prevention Benefit Fee.

$15 Administration

$10 Inspections

$5 Mapping

$15 Fire prevention program

$20 Dwelling in a very high fire severity zone

$25 Grant program

Discounts

$10 Living in a county that have certified fire safe regulations or safety element

$45 Already covered by local fire protection program

$10 Home has had defensible space inspection within four years.

Board of forestry and fire protection

http://www.pe.com/localnews/politics/stories/PE_News_Local_D_firefee23.386d25c.html

Offline K9luvr

  • Raccoon
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #44 on: Aug 26, 11, 08:47:43 AM »
It still baffles me why there is so much good military support that is availble at the ready but isn't called upon. Isn't arson considered terrorism? just say'n. ::)

MAFFs units, Modular Airborne FireFighting System, is used in fighting large fires.  Here is a link that talks about it.  We have 2 MAFFS units that can fly out of Kirtland AFB here in Albuquerque.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_Airborne_FireFighting_System

Offline Toolman

  • Raccoon
  • *****
  • Posts: 874
  • You can't fix stupid
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #45 on: Aug 26, 11, 02:28:33 PM »
MAFFs units, Modular Airborne FireFighting System, is used in fighting large fires.  Here is a link that talks about it.  We have 2 MAFFS units that can fly out of Kirtland AFB here in Albuquerque.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_Airborne_FireFighting_System

Yes, we have a squad of Marines based ( 10 heli's) at Edwards that train twice monthly for call out. A close friend is one of them and a heli mechanic, and it baffles them all WHY nobody picked up the phone during the Station fire. All they could do is watch from the desert. He told me last week while we were discussing this: "we're Marines, we'll fight anything."

Offline K9luvr

  • Raccoon
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #46 on: Aug 26, 11, 07:33:36 PM »
The forest service can't just call in or request the military.  The govenor has to declare a state of emergency, then request the national guard or military assistance.  If the hoops are not jumped thru, the agency can't just request them.  A lot of people were upset that GW Bush didn't send in the military right away to assist in Katrina.  He was prohibited by law until the governor requested it.  I was not a big fan of GW for various reasons, but he really got the bad end of that scenario.  The delay in katrina rests on the mayor of NO and the gov. of LA at the time of the crisis. 
I know it sounds like a lot of bureacratic BS.  If you think it looks bad from there--you should see it from this side!

Offline Toolman

  • Raccoon
  • *****
  • Posts: 874
  • You can't fix stupid
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #47 on: Aug 26, 11, 08:00:04 PM »
The forest service can't just call in or request the military.  The govenor has to declare a state of emergency, then request the national guard or military assistance.  If the hoops are not jumped thru, the agency can't just request them.  A lot of people were upset that GW Bush didn't send in the military right away to assist in Katrina.  He was prohibited by law until the governor requested it.  I was not a big fan of GW for various reasons, but he really got the bad end of that scenario.  The delay in katrina rests on the mayor of NO and the gov. of LA at the time of the crisis. 
I know it sounds like a lot of bureacratic BS.  If you think it looks bad from there--you should see it from this side!


Bingo !...exactly my point and you solidified it. We know the governator (at that time) was aware of the situation (Station Fire) but at some point, the staff of commanding officials should have realized the situation was far beyond the resources available and should have (in my opinion) requested a state of  emergency.

 But what do I know, I'm just a volunteer, but I work for the Govt. full time and keep my eyes and ears open and take it all in on the grey matter hard drive.

 Meanwhile, the military guys I know, sit back and shake their heads wondering why can't we do something to fix stupid.  ;)

Offline thehallmarks

  • Bear
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
  • Who let the dogs out?
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #48 on: Sep 08, 11, 09:21:55 AM »
New rural fire fee bill stalls in California Legislature  :2thumbsup:

Gov. Jerry Brown's latest proposal to charge a minimum $175 firefighting fee on rural homeowners is on life support in the Legislature.  ;D

The Democratic governor sponsored new legislation last week to replace an earlier fire charge that was supposed to raise $50 million for the state budget. In separate hearings, the Assembly and Senate budget committees tabled Brown's new plan, saying it still requires significant work. Some Democrats joined Republicans in voicing opposition.

The new proposal would impose a higher fee than a $90 charge approved last month by the state fire board and authorized by the Legislature. Brown's new plan would charge $175 on the first structure and $25 each on additional structures. The plan also would charge for land, starting at $1 per acre for the first 100 acres. Homeowners who live in fire districts, which includes 94 percent of the roughly 730,000 structures being charged, would qualify for a $25 discount.

The new fee is contained in Assembly Bill X1 24 and Senate Bill X1 7, which require a majority vote:o

"We stand ready to work with members and others to address their concerns," said Brown's Department of Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer. "That said, we need this follow-up legislation."

If the governor's proposal fails, the state will likely push forward with a proposal laid out last month by the state Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. That plan has a maximum $90 fee for rural homeowners with several discounts, the largest being $45 for those living in fire districts.

While fees are lower under that plan, it would raise much less than the $50 million first envisioned by state lawmakers and Brown. George Gentry, the board's executive officer, estimated that the plan would raise around $25 million before subtracting administrative costs of about $10 million to $12 million. [That's 20 to 25% of the revenue generated going to "administration"--no wonder this state has budget problems!]  ::)

Sen. Ted Gaines, R-Roseville, has filed a referendum to repeal the original bill, while the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is vowing to sue the state.
  :2thumbsup:

Offline Wrightwood

  • Administrator
  • Raccoon
  • *****
  • Posts: Plenty of Posts!
  • Wildlife Gateway
FIREFIGHTING: Forestry board approves higher fee
« Reply #49 on: Nov 10, 11, 07:29:10 AM »

Offline Moose

  • Bear
  • ****
  • Posts: 294
  • The Moose is Loose
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #50 on: Nov 10, 11, 09:06:45 AM »
What did you think would happen with the new appointments...

Four members of the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection appointed three weeks ago by Gov. Jerry Brown helped push through a $150 charge for structures in the 31 million acres of state responsibility area. The vote was 6-2, with one abstention.

Offline Wrightwood

  • Administrator
  • Raccoon
  • *****
  • Posts: Plenty of Posts!
  • Wildlife Gateway
SRA Fees/Notice of Public Comment Period
« Reply #51 on: Nov 21, 11, 06:12:34 PM »

Offline Wrightwood

  • Administrator
  • Raccoon
  • *****
  • Posts: Plenty of Posts!
  • Wildlife Gateway
Derry blasts fire fee, promotes legal action
« Reply #52 on: Nov 25, 11, 07:30:53 AM »
Derry blasts fire fee, promotes legal action
Joe Nelson, Staff Writer

San Bernardino County Supervisor Neil Derry is in a furor over a $150 state-imposed fire fee on rural property owners that is nearly double what was initially proposed in August.

Derry called the fee an act of "outright thievery" by Gov. Jerry Brown. The state Board of Forestry and Fire Protection approved the fee on a 6-2 vote on Nov. 10.

Derry is adamant that the fee is actually a tax in disguise. He says it is a mechanism to generate as much revenue for the state as possible without providing any services to taxpayers in return.

"This supposed fee is not based on anything other than filling the $50 million gap in Cal Fire's budget," Derry said. "They don't provide any of the fire-prevention services they claim this fee is for. The county does."

The fee could generate up to $88 million in revenue for Cal Fire and is expected to pull in roughly $50 million in its first year. That revenue will help provide a stable funding source for a portion of Cal Fire's budget that is used for fire-prevention services, Cal Fire spokeswoman Janet Upton said.

Cal Fire is tasked with protecting 31 million acres of California's privately-owned wildlands. State law allows the imposition of fire-service fees on people who own property on lands protected by the agency. The rationale is that those property owners receive a disproportionately larger benefit from Cal Fire's services than other taxpaying citizens.

But opponents of the fee argue that property owners will be ponying up more than $100 annually to the state and getting no additional services in return.

"You'll see nothing change in my district with the fee, other than the people will pay the fee and it will go straight to Sacramento," said Mike Sherman, the chief of the Crest Forest Fire Protection District in Crestline. "All that money heads to Sacramento and disappears into the big, bloated government."

In August, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution calling for the Legislature to rescind the proposed fee, which at the time would affect roughly 100,000 property owners in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. At the time, the forestry board agreed to limit the fee to $90 for residents living in extremely fire-prone areas and $45 for residents who already pay fees to fire and community service districts.

But Brown continued to push for the higher fee. In September, the Legislature thwarted his attempt to pass a $175 fee. So in October, Brown appointed four new members to the nine- member forestry board, all Democrats.

"When the board significantly limited the size and scope of the tax in August, Gov. Brown subsequently appointed four handpicked members to guarantee support of his illegal tax," Derry said in a news release.

Under the new fee schedule, property owners living within a fire district will receive a $35 discount. But the fee also now applies to nonresidential properties, including government buildings, museums, libraries, hospitals and jails.

Derry said that is the only good thing to come of the new fee plan because local governments now can sue the state directly instead of waiting for homeowners or watchdog groups to take action. He said 22 fire stations in the county will have to pay the fee, which he called "preposterous."

He said he will call on his fellow supervisors and constituents to take legal action when the first bill comes in the mail.

"As soon as we get our first bill from the state of California, I will be asking the board to join the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and numerous constituents throughout the county in litigation against the state," Derry said.

joe.nelson@inlandnewspapers.com 909-386-3874

http://www.sbsun.com/ci_19406211

Offline Wrightwood

  • Administrator
  • Raccoon
  • *****
  • Posts: Plenty of Posts!
  • Wildlife Gateway
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #53 on: Dec 09, 11, 09:32:46 AM »

Chesslike

  • Guest
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #54 on: Jan 12, 12, 09:21:58 AM »

Offline Bob C

  • Moderator
  • Raccoon
  • *****
  • Posts: 968
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #55 on: Jan 12, 12, 10:18:14 AM »
FIRES: State board approves revised fees

The revised rules target the fee at structures that have assessor numbers. For example, an apartment building would pay just one fee, but individually owned condominiums grouped together would each pay the fee.

Now that seems a little odd. Same identical building, but with different ownership schemes are charged differently?


Chesslike

  • Guest
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #56 on: Feb 06, 12, 12:56:30 PM »

Offline SkierBob

  • Raccoon
  • *****
  • Posts: 1894
  • Hangin' out Down the street
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #57 on: Feb 06, 12, 01:10:00 PM »
Quote
Some say a $150-per-dwelling fee will prompt rural communities to annex to cities or find other ways to leave state fire jurisdiction

Being annexed into a city and having to deal with even more buracratic local government city bs is no way to dodge a  $150 fee.



 


Offline Wrightwood

  • Administrator
  • Raccoon
  • *****
  • Posts: Plenty of Posts!
  • Wildlife Gateway
AB 1506 would repeal controversial state fire fee
« Reply #58 on: Mar 05, 12, 07:56:07 PM »

Chesslike

  • Guest
Re: Fire fees under California state budget
« Reply #59 on: Mar 16, 12, 10:31:30 AM »