Author Topic: To rectify County Fire budget, supervisors eye parcel tax - FP-5 (Read 338821 times)

tcaarabians · « **Reply #222 on:** Feb 17, 19, 09:50:20 AM »

Does anyone know if SBCoFD had actually imposed the parcel tax on Upland/San Antonio Hghts? The argument by the County in the Red Brennan case hinges largely on the Constitutional requirement that taxpayers can only sue after they've paid the tax. Thus, they maintain there is no standing for the Red Brennan suit. I hope you'll be able to post the final decision in the Upland case.

Does anyone know the status of Austin v San Bernardino County Fire? The Writ of Mandate is posted in this thread on Oct. 13, 2018. I thought it was a well-written brief. My non-lawyer read of it anyway. Cheryl o7o

thehallmarks · « **Reply #223 on:** May 21, 19, 04:23:20 PM »

SBC Board action on FP-5

Not only did they approved it they have already raised the amount for for next year.

Action on Item 134.

Acting as the governing body of the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District, adopt resolution for Service Zone FP-5 (expanded area is shown in Attachment A to the resolution) that:

Sets the amount of the existing special tax for 2019-20 at $161.98 per parcel (3% increase from the 2018-19 special tax rate of $157.26).
Directs the Secretary of the Board of Directors to publish a copy of the resolution once in a newspaper of general circulation within Service Zone FP-5.
Directs the Auditor-Controller/Treasurer/Tax Collector to place the special tax for Service Zone FP-5 on the 2019-20 tax roll.

(Presenter: Don Trapp, Interim Fire Chief/Fire Warden, 387-5779)

tcaarabians · « **Reply #224 on:** May 22, 19, 10:02:45 AM »

Given the likelihood of a worse fire season this year due to the growth from all the rain and the new challenge from the Trump administration to CA's billing for costs incurred for firefighting on federal lands - I will pay this tax.

thehallmarks · « **Reply #225 on:** Jun 11, 19, 04:27:43 PM »

A solid win in today's FP-5 vote of the SB Cty Board of Directors meeting!

I was viewing the on-line discussions of item 96, the FP-5 issue, which has a couple of lawsuits one waiting to be appealed--however, it may be a "mute" issue given the board's vote today.

If I heard the chairman correctly the vote was 4-1 on Supervisor Rutherford's motion! I believe Chairman Hagman was the NO vote?

If I recall the motion correctly, they approved the lower amount of the new FP-5 tax however the original fees stayed in place due to the timing of fp-5 going on the tax roles. That means some of the existing FP districts and CSA's will be double billed for fire service.

The county staff has 90 days to come back to the board with alternatives to fp-5 and the board will schedule a workshop to decide what funding mechanism will be proposed to fund "equitable" fire service in all areas--Supervisor Gonzales was adamant about that!

That proposal should be put before the voters 11/20--let's hope so as the turnout will be greater than 11/21. If the voters don't approve the tax, the board will have to address a county wide measure to provide funds ostensible to get the fire funding out of the general fund.

In any case, FP-5 will sunset sometime in the future!

However, if Supervisor Gonzales gets her way there will be a future ballot measure for establishing a stable fire funding source with different tax levels depending on the cost of providing fire protection to the different--and unique--cities, districts and unincorporated areas which the voters will be given the opportunity to approve or disapprove!

I don't think Supervisors Lovingood or Gonzales support the fire funding being totally removed from the general fund.

thehallmarks · « **Reply #226 on:** Jun 11, 19, 04:29:41 PM »

A solid win in today's FP-5 vote of the SB Cty Board of Directors meeting!

I was viewing the on-line discussions of item 96, the FP-5 issue, which has a couple of lawsuits one waiting to be appealed--however, it may be a "mute" issue given the board's vote today.

If I heard the chairman correctly the vote was 4-1 on Supervisor Rutherford's motion! I believe Chairman Hagman was the NO vote?

If I recall the motion correctly, they approved the lower amount of the new FP-5 tax however the original fees stayed in place due to the timing of fp-5 going on the tax roles. That means some of the existing FP districts and CSA's will be double billed for fire service.

The county staff has 90 days to come back to the board with alternatives to fp-5 and the board will schedule a workshop to decide what funding mechanism will be proposed to fund "equitable" fire service in all areas--Supervisor Gonzales was adamant about that!

That proposal should be put before the voters 11/20--let's hope so as the turnout will be greater than 11/21. If the voters don't approve the tax, the board will have to address a county wide measure to provide funds ostensible to get the fire funding out of the general fund.

In any case, FP-5 will sunset sometime in the future!

However, if Supervisor Gonzales gets her way there will be a future ballot measure for establishing a stable fire funding source with different tax levels depending on the cost of providing fire protection to the different--and unique--cities, districts and unincorporated areas which the voters will be given the opportunity to approve or disapprove!

I don't think Supervisors Lovingood or Gonzales support the fire funding being totally removed from the general fund.

Wrightwood · « **Reply #227 on:** Jun 13, 19, 12:14:10 PM »

thehallmarks · « **Reply #228 on:** Jun 13, 19, 04:26:16 PM »

This is an Update!

A solid win in Tuesday's FP-5 vote of the SB Cty Board of Directors meeting!

I was viewing the on-line discussions of item 96, the FP-5 issue, which has a couple of lawsuits-- one waiting to be appealed--however, it may be a "moot" issue given the board's vote Tuesday.

http://www.sbcounty.gov/Main/Pages/ViewMeetings.aspx

If I heard the chairman correctly the vote was 4-1 on Supervisor Rutherford's motion! I believe Chairman Hagman was the NO vote? [Update! That is an error, Supervisor Lovingood was the NO vote!]

If I recall the motion correctly, they approved the lower amount of the new FP-5 tax however the original fees stayed in place due to the timing of fp-5 going on the tax roles. That means some of the existing FP districts and CSA's will be double billed for fire service.

The county staff has 90 days to come back to the board with alternatives to FP-5 and the board will schedule a workshop to decide what funding mechanism will be proposed to fund "equitable" fire service in all areas--Supervisor Gonzales was adamant about that!

That proposal should be put before the voters 11/20--let's hope so as the turnout will be greater than 11/21. If the voters don't approve the tax, the board will have to address a county wide measure to provide funds ostensible to get the fire funding out of the general fund.

In any case, FP-5 will sunset sometime in the future!

However, if Supervisor Gonzales gets her way there will be a future ballot measure for establishing a stable fire funding source with different tax levels depending on the cost of providing fire protection to the different--and unique--cities, districts and unincorporated areas which the voters will be given the opportunity to approve or disapprove!

I don't think Supervisors Lovingood or Gonzales support the fire funding being totally removed from the general fund. [Update! I think I recall Supervisor Rowe also expressing support for this issue!]

The vote takes place at approximately at the 2 hours mark. Josie is very "loquacious" btwn 38 minutes and the vote.

She seems "equivocating" on the vote and I didn't hear anything "supportive" from Hagman.

Supervisor Lovingood "disappointingly" didn't vote for the motion even though his attempt at an amendment didn't get a second and he knew that if Rutherford's motion passed, FP-5 would "sunset" at the latest by 2021!

I'm disappointed because the only apparent yes votes were Rutherford and Rowe--we could have lost by a 2 to 3 vote--unless the outcome of the vote was a "given," however, it did not appear so due to the amount of discussion and exchange--it seemed extemporaneous!

I really wasn't expecting Hagman to be a yes vote and if he and Josie didn't support the amendment we would have lost!

Cheapskate · « **Reply #229 on:** Jun 13, 19, 05:10:23 PM »

Quoting thehallmarks: "In any case, FP-5 will sunset sometime in the future!" My reading is that the sunset is contingent on a DIFFERENT tax being approved Nov 2020. If they measure fails, the expanded FP-5 remains. Quote below is from this link: http://z1077fm.com/county-supervisors-vote-to-end-controversial-fire-tax/

"FP-5 sunsets after the vote AND the solution approved by voters is implemented" (emphasis on "and" is mine)

thehallmarks · « **Reply #230 on:** Jun 13, 19, 05:21:29 PM »

If you watch the discussion before the vote, you will hear Supervisor Rutherford adamantly state that "FP-5" will sunset!

Cheapskate · « **Reply #231 on:** Jun 13, 19, 08:50:34 PM »

If the link I posted accurately reflects the text of the actual resolution that passed 4-1 it doesn't matter what an official says, folks commit honest mistakes and misspeak all the time. Written trumps oral.

tcaarabians · « **Reply #232 on:** Jun 13, 19, 08:56:17 PM »

It took me a second to realize that was a lower case "t."

Wrightwood · « **Reply #233 on:** Jul 24, 19, 06:44:10 PM »

https://redbrennan.org/fire-prevention-zone-five-expansion/

Dated July 23, 2019

Click on the top link called:
Motion for Relief from Order

jcrice · « **Reply #234 on:** Sep 04, 19, 10:41:25 AM »

Just another tax in the socialist republic of California. Spreading fear to raise taxes.

thehallmarks · « **Reply #235 on:** Sep 06, 19, 02:10:07 PM »

Cheapskate · « **Reply #236 on:** Sep 07, 19, 09:32:21 AM »

In June the county supes gave staff 90 days to draft recommendations on what is to be put on the Nov. 2020 ballot, so we'll soon know what we'll be voting on. I thought the court found until we actually pay the parcel tax we don't have "standing" to bring a suit. (which is why Red Brennan group's suit was dismissed).

thehallmarks · « **Reply #237 on:** Sep 07, 19, 09:51:34 AM »

Cheapskate · « **Reply #238 on:** Sep 07, 19, 12:46:26 PM »

When did a judge order that the state fee be refunded (did you get a check?)

In April, Judge Alvarez already definitively refused an injunction. Did HJTA appeal? If not, it will be on the November tax bill.

The supes probably realize the FP-5 expansion is unlawful, I suppose we'll find out which variation of it they will put on the Nov 2020 ballot. The good news is it will be hard for them to craft something that can avoid the 2/3 requirement.

thehallmarks · « **Reply #239 on:** Sep 07, 19, 04:17:38 PM »

Unless of course they do the same as the statewide fire safe fee folks who billed us, required payment, allowed us to protest--each year--and then refused to refund the fee until it was determined by the courts that it must be refunded. That after they decided to put the collection of the fee in "abeyance"

It will take a court decision to mandate a total refund to the monies paid--that's why I protested each year! Just in case....