To rectify County Fire budget, supervisors eye parcel tax - FP-5

[Nolena]

From what I understand, if a certain percentage of us (I think 25?) contest this, then we get to vote on it.
I want to have a vote.
I want the extra time to research it.

[KW]

Yes, it does need more research. I like having the fire station staffed 24/7 but want to be sure there are no other options. Also, I'm concerned about the voting process because so many property owners don't live in San Bernardino County.

[Leftfield]

What bothers me is the conflict of interest between the SBCFPD Board of Directors and the County Board of Supervisors -- the two boards are made up of the same five people.

I think the crux of the problem lies here.   If a judge or member of the jury knows any of the parties involved, they would recuse themselves so the balance of justice isnt tipped.   Considering that there is a obvious conflict of interest, it is a travesty of power in representing ALL fairly.  Instead of being honorable statesmen (women?) and not serve on two Boards, they are the typical self seeking politicians.

[lwt42]

Yes, it does need more research. I like having the fire station staffed 24/7 but want to be sure there are no other options. Also, I'm concerned about the voting process because so many property owners don't live in San Bernardino County.

For the protest process, it's based on property ownership, not residency.

If the protest succeeds, then it goes to the voters, and that is based on where you are registered to vote.

Keep in mind also that we're talking about 85% of San Bernardino County, not just Wrightwood.

[lwt42]

I think the crux of the problem lies here.   If a judge or member of the jury knows any of the parties involved, they would recuse themselves so the balance of justice isnt tipped.   Considering that there is a obvious conflict of interest, it is a travesty of power in representing ALL fairly.  Instead of being honorable statesmen (women?) and not serve on two Boards, they are the typical self seeking politicians.

Keep in mind that if a Judge has a conflict, there is a different Judge who can hear the case.

I don't remember  the details, but there has been a push to reduce the total number of elected officials on special district boards, so it's common for one board to also sit as the board for another organization.

Our Supervisors didn't run for Fire Protection District board, it's simply part of their job as County Supervisor.

I don't think that's a good idea, but it is something the current Supervisors inherited.

[Wrightwood]

John,

I looked at the forum.  Good conversation.  Just a couple of points (based upon my understanding and what SBCFD said at the meeting I attended:

1. One comment (lwt42) says that this only applies to 17,000 parcels.  Their math is wrong.  $26,900,000 / $157 is 171,337 parcels.  Per a 2014-15 report fromt he Tax Assessor there are 820,314 parcels in SB County....so maybe this IS just going to those not currently in FP-5??

2. Important - the SRA Fire Prevention Fee is not rescinded (as Hartwig stated publicly) or repealed. It was "suspended" until 2030 with the passage of Cap & Trade. In theory it could still come back. HJTA is still trying to get it repealed and to get refunds to those who paid.

3. Re KW's comment about 323,000 mailings when that exceeds the number of parcels - they are mailing to everyone ON TITLE to a property, not just one per parcel. This way if you and your wife get the mailer but only one responds to protest, your vote is then weighed related to the assessed value of your property - BUT ONLY 50% since you are half-owner. Likewise, a business or commercial entity who may own, let's say Inland Center Mall or SB Int'l Airport, may have one mailer/vote but have an assessment value in the millions of dollars. And the likelihood of a corporate mall owner returning a protest vote is slim to none; so their "support" vote nullifies hundreds if not thousands of regular residential parcel "votes".

So right now there would need to be 25% or more protests (80,750) whose ownership exceeds 25% of the assessed value. Per the 2014-15 Tax assessors report, the assessed value at that time for the whole County was $187 billion, so 25% would be $46.5 billion.  I will ask the County for the exact figures for the mailer both in terms of parcels, property owners and assessed value. I am thinking it is less than the overall figure, since it appears they are not mailing to the entire 820,000 parcels in the county.

We need to get this discussion away from whether or not one supports the assessment, and focus on the process.  If they can do this for an "expansion", even those who support the $157 now might not be happy if they use it to increase the assessment to $200 or more or ? ? ? ? ?

Laura Dyberg - Mountain Rim Fire Safe Council

[lwt42]

John,

I looked at the forum.  Good conversation.  Just a couple of points (based upon my understanding and what SBCFD said at the meeting I attended:

1. One comment (lwt42) says that this only applies to 17,000 parcels.  Their math is wrong.  $26,900,000 / $157 is 171,337 parcels.  Per a 2014-15 report fromt he Tax Assessor there are 820,314 parcels in SB County....so maybe this IS just going to those not currently in FP-5??

2. Important - the SRA Fire Prevention Fee is not rescinded (as Hartwig stated publicly) or repealed. It was "suspended" until 2030 with the passage of Cap & Trade. In theory it could still come back. HJTA is still trying to get it repealed and to get refunds to those who paid.

3. Re KW's comment about 323,000 mailings when that exceeds the number of parcels - they are mailing to everyone ON TITLE to a property, not just one per parcel. This way if you and your wife get the mailer but only one responds to protest, your vote is then weighed related to the assessed value of your property - BUT ONLY 50% since you are half-owner. Likewise, a business or commercial entity who may own, let's say Inland Center Mall or SB Int'l Airport, may have one mailer/vote but have an assessment value in the millions of dollars. And the likelihood of a corporate mall owner returning a protest vote is slim to none; so their "support" vote nullifies hundreds if not thousands of regular residential parcel "votes".

So right now there would need to be 25% or more protests (80,750) whose ownership exceeds 25% of the assessed value. Per the 2014-15 Tax assessors report, the assessed value at that time for the whole County was $187 billion, so 25% would be $46.5 billion.  I will ask the County for the exact figures for the mailer both in terms of parcels, property owners and assessed value. I am thinking it is less than the overall figure, since it appears they are not mailing to the entire 820,000 parcels in the county.

We need to get this discussion away from whether or not one supports the assessment, and focus on the process.  If they can do this for an "expansion", even those who support the $157 now might not be happy if they use it to increase the assessment to $200 or more or ? ? ? ? ?

Laura Dyberg - Mountain Rim Fire Safe Council

My math is fine -- my typing and proofreading left something to be desired in this case.

Laura is absolutely correct about the process.  We know about FP-5 because this action expands Fire Protection District 5. 

What I haven't found is a complete list of all of the special districts in the county.  I see an assessment on my tax bill for mosquito abatement (vector control), I don't know if we have a separate vector control district or if that is a county department.  I don't know if that matters.

What I do know is that the $26.9 million new revenue for Fire leaves $26.9 million in the County General Fund, which can be spent for other things.

[tcaarabians]

I just spent some time on sbcfire.org.  I was looking for the history of why fire/emergency services are designated as a Fire District. I haven't found it. But, regardless of that name - it is County Fire and the elected Supervisors are the appropriate body to oversee it. It isn't a conflict of interest for them to do so .. imho. Snowline School District wouldn't be a comparable comparison. It is a school district with an elected body that oversees it.

I found scrolling through the annual report and the last few fiscal budgets instructive.  The  Tri-Community - as well as a lot of other places - are in the North District (FP-5). The various district budgets break down the specific budget lines by that district. They also break down the sources for the revenue for that district. Taxes account for 15% of the budget for this district. The largest revenue source is fee/rate at 58%. I assume that includes fees for ambulance and the plethora of other charges they have. I learned that 'haunted houses" have their own fee rate for inspections. The information is very, very detailed. And, it doesn't take all that long to scroll through it. The revenue sources vary by district. Other districts pay a higher percentage of their taxes to their district.

The vast majority of calls are medical (ambulance, paramedic, airlift, etc.) at approx 75-80%. (I didn't do the math.)

There are numerous areas/zones that have already passed special parcel taxes. Some of these go back decades and vary. Some do not have an annual % increase.

SBFire has absorbed: the City of San Barnardino, Mentone, 29 Palms and Upland in recent years. The County also contracts with other areas for service to remote areas. Example: Kern County.

The budget details costs down to which station is going to be painted or get new roofs, etc. It also shows staffing increases/decreases by area and function. It's pretty darn detailed.

The County could increase fees to offset the increases in the budget. That is the largest revenue source for the Fire District.  The 3% increase to $157, that is included in the proposal, would be $4.71 in the first year it is applied and compounded thereafter. I don't recall if the increase is automatic or has to be approved by the Supes. The history of why Fire Districts were created is in LAFCO. I will keep hunting for it. cheryl o7o

[lwt42]

The County could increase fees to offset the increases in the budget. That is the largest revenue source for the Fire District.  The 3% increase to $157, that is included in the proposal, would be $4.71 in the first year it is applied and compounded thereafter. I don't recall if the increase is automatic or has to be approved by the Supes. The history of why Fire Districts were created is in LAFCO. I will keep hunting for it. cheryl o7o

This was covered in some detail by Chief Hartwig at the meeting.  The San Bernardino Fire Protection District has separate funding (is a taxing authority) and when making decisions for the FPD the Board of Supervisors is sitting as the Fire Protection District Board, not as the Board of Supervisors.

Taxing authorities used to have the ability to set a tax rate, but Proposition 13 changed that. 

[tcaarabians]

[lwt42]

Someone, other than me, may want to find the updated law/s governing Prop 218 or whatever law governs this type of election.  In particular, the process for a protest vote and the weighted ballot by 'value' when the assessment/whatever is not proportional.

This is where things get slippery.

FP-5 exists, so this isn't a new tax or fee.

I haven't found anything in Prop. 218 that speaks to changing the borders of an existing special district like FP-5.

As far as I've been able to tell, the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District Board can change the borders of FP-5.  They need to notify those affected and hold a public hearing no less than 30 days later.  They don't have to do anything else.

I think that's something they didn't think about when Proposition 218 was drafted.

[tcaarabians]

Spent some time going back over the various links in this thread and a few others.

Clarifying a few points:

-the FP-5 expansion is to 11,215 acres. Parcels to an acre obviously vary by locality. All property owners of parcels have a vote.

-Prop 218 defines all levies as: a general or special tax; an assessment or a property-related fee. 218 excludes fire services from property-related fees.  The proposed "levy" is not a general or a special tax. Therefore, under the 'a rose by any other name.... theory" - it is an "assessment" that is proposed.

-Prop 218 specifically states regarding assessments:  Sec. 4 (e) votes "..shall be weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected property."  The proposed 'levy' (as stated in the motion) is an 'assessment' (as defined in Prop 218).  Therefore, imho ... weighting the protest votes according to value is not in compliance with Prop 218. The proposal is a one-size-fits-all levy on individual parcels. It is an assessment and the votng procedures as specified in Prop 218 prevail.  It could only be changed by a court order or another ballot measure. I do not know why the county/fire district is asserting a 'weighted' ballot should be used in determining the protest vote.  I htink they're wrong. All they have to do to correct it is notice a change in procedure and count the votes per parcel. I think!!

If 25% of property owners (however you weigh the votes) protest. It goes to a vote. My reading of 218 is that it's only property owners that will vote. Not all registered voters. Renters would be included if they are required to pay the assessment in rent.

When FP-5 was created or expanded back in 2008 .. there were no protests. LAFCO Re. 2997, adopted 7-1-08

Prop 218 was sponsored by the Jarvis group. They have info on their website. They likely know of changes to the provisions of Prop 218, if any. The League of Calif Cities also has information on their website. They usually have pretty good information.

lwt42 - good points. My reading is that this is an assessment and it requires the procedures outlined in Prop 218 and the Gov't. Code.

Cheapskate - While reading this material, I found information that implies that a county cannot impose a 'hotel tax."  Charter cities can. I'm not 100% sure of that.

In summary and just speaking for myself:  I find the determination to weight the protest votes troubling. In light of the language of Prop 218, I don't see how they can do that. I'm open to being corrected.
I'm still not going to protest the vote.   cheryl o7o





 

[lwt42]

Spent some time going back over the various links in this thread and a few others.

Clarifying a few points:

-the FP-5 expansion is to 11,215 acres. Parcels to an acre obviously vary by locality. All property owners of parcels have a vote.

Just for what it's worth.  I questioned the 11,215 acres and spoke to the Chief about that.  They are correcting the surveyor's document.

San Bernardino County is a bit over 20,000 square miles, or more than 12,800,000 acres.  The expansion is the grey area on the map below.

[Wrightwood]

Fire Assessment responses from Assistant Chief Kat Opliger

I received a call from Kat today saying she is so busy that getting to he emails is difficult, so I don't need to send emails, just to give her a call if I have questions on the FP-5 expansion

So I went over the ones I had already emailed and here is the gist of her responses:

1. Where will $ be used - she says it will remain in the "regional service zone" where it is collected, i.e. Mountain, North Desert, South Desert and Valley.  I reiterated that this is NOT was is on their website, it just says FP-5 Service Zone. Kat thanked me for bringing that to her attention and said they would change it. (ummmm)
     a, I told her if this is true than according to the slide at the meeting, that each Regional Service Zone would have a surplus (see attached), but the "Sepcial Operations" would still have an $8.2million deficit.....so would the surplus be going to cover that deficit.  She said no that "surplus" or net in excess of the estimated deficit would go to capital improvements and sustaining operations.

2. What are Special Operations? All EMS, all training departments, crews, dozers, helicopters, all services not paid out of the general fund or ad valerum tax $. Also include "SPD" such as admin functions for finance dept, payroll, etc. budget. I asked her to provide a breakdown for me in writing.

3. The total number of mailers being sent out is 300,000+.
      a. Property owners of parcels currently in FP-5 will not receive a mailer.
      b. Kat will get back to me about the total number of parcels involved and the total assessed value of "impacted properties"
      c.  They have some "sovereign land" that will be a part of the mailing. Known as CRIT or Colorado River Indian Tribes, they own 300,000 acres along the Colorado River, most appears to be in AZ, but there are at least 5,000 parcels in SB County, per Kat.  These are not technically on a reservation (?) but are subject to a different agreement (for 100 years), so they an be assessed.  Kay said most land is "owned" by the tribe, but is leased to individuals, so a parcel could receive 3 or more mailers - one for the tribe and one for each person on the lease?
     d. She did not have an answer yet as to what happens to returned mail.

4, She did not have an answer as to why the flyers for the Community meeting did not mention the Fire Assessment, only that the topic of the meeting was Expansion of FP-5.

That's all I have for now.

Laura Dyberg - Mountain Rim Fire Safe Council

[tcaarabians]

For an expanded reading of Prop 218 go to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers site:  www.hjta.org   click on Propositions in the top bar .. scroll down to Prop 218.  It includes the language of Prop 218 with comments. I found it informative.  It took me about an hour. Understanding Prop 218 is important to this discussion because it controls whether a 'levy' is a tax, assessment or fee and how the vote/protest vote must be conducted.

After reading it, I still think the weighting of the protest vote ballot by value is not appropriate.  That is appropriate when the assessment is proportional. In this case it is a flat rate for all. Therefore, it should be by parcel with each owner receiving a % of the vote according to the number of the owners.

I also clicked around and read their information on 'parcel taxes."  That caused me to sign up for the hjta newsletter.

Wrightwood:  Would you ask Asst. Chief Opliger why the county deduced that the assessment protest ballot should be weighted by value of the parcel? And, whom in the Fire Protection District/County Counsel/Assessor etc. office made that determination?   And, ask her to clarify if this is considered an assessment, fee or what?  They can't just call it a 'levy' without defining it.  Thanks, Cheryl o7o

[lwt42]

After reading it, I still think the weighting of the protest vote ballot by value is not appropriate.  That is appropriate when the assessment is proportional. In this case it is a flat rate for all. Therefore, it should be by parcel with each owner receiving a % of the vote according to the number of the owners.

For what it's worth, the Chief said that they copied the LAFCO protest procedure, basically verbatim.

[thehallmarks]

That doesn't make it right or fair.  It's just and excuse for not thinking what would be fair to his "constituents!
 

[tcaarabians]

Let me rephrase my earlier. I think the weighting of the protest ballot by value is not in compliance with Prop. 218. It specifies when you weight the vote. It is when the levy is proportional to value. That would be fair in that situation. 

I'm also concerned that the community meetings did not mention the tax levy. I also don't like that the community meetings were not well publicized. There's no requirement for them in the law. But still.....


lwt42 .. I did find the language you were looking for -  I'll dig it up and post it tomorrow.

Does anyone know someone at LAFCO?  Cheryl o7o

[tcaarabians]

After reading 218 again, I believe the county/fire district is using the 'protest vote' procedures for 'fees' rather than for 'assessments.' Both are defined in the state constitution.

CA Constitution, Art. XIIID
Sec. 3 (e)   governs votes for assessments. I paraphrase:  " ..the ballots are weighted according to the proportional financial obligation."  It is a majority vote with both yes and no votes.  The financial obligation is equal as the fire district/county is levying a rate that is equal for all property owners - therefore each parcel gets the same # of votes and not weighted by value.

Sec. 6 (5)  governs votes for 'fees."   It has the 25% of total'value' protest process.  By my reading, fire districts may not levy 'fees' under the rules of this section. There are other rules that make me think the F.D. is not calling this a 'fee."

Somebody with fresh eyes should read this. I'm not perfect. (Please don't argue with me.)

https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_local_ballot_measures_in_California 

lwt42 .. The language in 218 that I found regarding expansion, etc. seems to be limited to general or special taxes. It's at the top of 218.    cheryl o7o

[Wrightwood]