WrightwoodCalif.com Forum
Public Forums => Hot Topics => Topic started by: Wrightwood on Jul 07, 11, 01:06:10 AM
-
http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_18419376
State budget includes annual foothill fire fee
By ROGER H. AYLWORTH -- Staff Writer
07/06/2011
Under the recently passed and signed California state budget, people living in the foothills are facing a new annual $150 fee per dwelling on their property.
The fee applies to property in the "state responsibility areas," which are the lands outside of town or city jurisdictions that are served by Cal Fire units.
The fee is assessed on a per "residential unit" basis, said Daniel Berlant, public information officer for Cal Fire at its Sacramento headquarters.
In Butte County, there are 19,589 dwellings in the state responsibility areas, he said.
The state coverage area in Butte County runs east from Highway 99 north of Oroville, and east from Lower Wyandotte Road, Upper Palermo Road and the Palermo-Honcut Highway south of the county seat. Areas with city limits and lands in the Plumas and Lassen National Forests are exempted.
Money generated by the fee is not in addition to the agency's usual funding, Berlant said. The fee money is to replace an equivalent amount of state general fund money diverted to other uses.
The advantage to the fire agency is the fee revenue would be dedicated to Cal Fire.
Paul McIntosh, the former Butte County chief administrator officer who is now executive director of the California State Association of Counties, said the fee may be justifiable, but it doesn't seem to be a good way to go about it.
"We thought it is fraught with problems from the first suggestion," McIntosh said. His association thought the idea was a dead
Advertisement
issue until the most recent incarnation of the state budget was revealed.
County assessors would be tasked to identify the number of dwellings on a given parcel and then the State Franchise Tax Board would be called upon to actually collect the money, McIntosh said.
The concept surfaced again late in the process when budget crafters were "grasping at straws and this is one of the straws that stuck."
The plan is expected to generate $120 million statewide, but against the backdrop of an $85.9 billion total budget, this is "budget dust," McIntosh said.
While some people have said the assessment for fire service is a tax and should have required a two-thirds vote of the Legislature, McIntosh says he has no doubt that it meets the standards of a fee.
He explained that increasingly California's population has moved into areas that put homes and people in danger of wildfires.
A case can be made that people who move into wildfire areas should pay the cost, but, "This isn't a way to resolve that problem," McIntosh said. "It's a hell of a lot of work for $120 million."
Butte County Supervisor Bill Connelly, whose 1st District includes the foothills east of Oroville, said this fee is being imposed because the legislators were not willing to cut state commissions and agencies to cover the budget deficit.
He alleged that the fee constitutes a tax, regardless of legal nuances. "It may pass the test of a fee, but fees are actually taxes," he said.
Connelly predicted the $150 per dwelling would be a big burden for many of his constituents, particularly people on fixed incomes.
He predicted that frustration caused by paying an additional fee above the individual's property tax might encourage people to investigate creating fire districts or even find ways to have private fire agencies.
-
-
-
(http://www.wrightwoodfsc.com/News/ABX129-fire-fee.jpg)
-
BILL NUMBER: ABX1 29 CHAPTERED
BILL TEXT
CHAPTER 8
FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE JULY 8, 2011
APPROVED BY GOVERNOR JULY 7, 2011
PASSED THE SENATE JUNE 15, 2011
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY JUNE 3, 2011
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 14, 2011
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Blumenfield
MAY 19, 2011
An act to add Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 4210) to Part 2
of Division 4 of the Public Resources Code, relating to public
resources, and making an appropriation therefor, to take effect
immediately, bill related to the budget.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 29, Blumenfield. State responsibility areas: fire prevention
fees.
Existing law requires the state to have the primary financial
responsibility for preventing and suppressing fires in areas that the
State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection has determined are state
responsibility areas.
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. The board would be
required to adjust the fire prevention fee annually using prescribed
methods.
The bill would require the State Board of Equalization to collect
the fire prevention fees, as prescribed. The bill would require,
within 30 days of the effective date of its provisions, and each
January 1 thereafter, the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
to transmit to the State Board of Equalization the appropriate names
and addresses of persons who are liable for the fire prevention fee
and the amount of the fire prevention fee to be assessed by the State
Board of Equalization.
The bill would require the State Board of Equalization to collect
the fee commencing with the 2011-12 fiscal year. Commencing with the
2012-13 fiscal year, if there are sufficient amounts of moneys in the
State Responsibility Area Fire Prevention Fund to finance the costs
of specified fire prevention activities for a fiscal year, the bill
would prohibit the State Board of Equalization from collecting the
fee for that fiscal year.
The bill would establish the State Responsibility Area Fire
Prevention Fund and would require the fire prevention fees collected,
except that portion retained by the State Board of Equalization, to
be deposited into the fund and to be available, upon appropriation by
the Legislature, for certain specified fire prevention activities,
which would benefit the owners of structures in state responsibility
areas who are subject to the fire prevention fee, including, but not
limited to, covering startup costs, and for the costs of
administration, as specified.
The State Board of Equalization would be required to retain and
expend, upon appropriation by the Legislature, the funds necessary to
pay refunds and for its expenses incurred in collection.
This bill would require the board, on and after January 1, 2013,
to submit an annual written report to the Legislature on specified
topics.
This bill would permit a person from whom a fire prevention fee is
determined to be due to use an appeals process and, if applicable, a
refund process that would be established by the bill.
The bill would appropriate $1,000 from the General Fund to the
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for administrative costs
to implement its provisions.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a
bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.
Appropriation: yes.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 4210) is added to
Part 2 of Division 4 of the Public Resources Code, to read:
CHAPTER 1.5. STATE RESPONSIBILITY AREA FIRE PREVENTION FEES
Article 1. General Provisions
4210. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Fire protection of the public trust resources on lands in the
state responsibility areas remains a vital interest to California.
Lands that are covered in whole or in part by a diverse plant
community prevent excessive erosion, retard runoff, reduce
sedimentation, and accelerate water percolation to assist in the
maintenance of critical sources of water for environmental,
irrigation, domestic, or industrial uses.
(b) The presence of structures within state responsibility areas
can pose an increased risk of fire ignition and an increased
potential for fire damage within the state's wildlands and
watersheds. The presence of structures within state responsibility
areas can also impair wild land firefighting techniques and could
result in greater damage to state lands caused by wildfires.
(c) The costs of fire prevention activities aimed at reducing the
effects of structures in state responsibility areas should be borne
by the owners of these structures.
(d) Individual owners of structures within state responsibility
areas receive a disproportionately larger benefit from fire
prevention activities than that realized by the state's citizens
generally.
(e) It is the intent of the Legislature that the economic burden
of fire prevention activities that are associated with structures in
state responsibility areas shall be equitably distributed among the
citizens of the state who generally benefit from those activities and
those owners of structures in the state responsibility areas who
receive a specific benefit other than that general benefit.
(f) It is necessary to impose a fire prevention fee to pay for
fire prevention activities in the state responsibility areas that
specifically benefit owners of structures in the state responsibility
areas.
4211. For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall
have the following meanings:
(a) "Structure" means a building used or intended to be used for
human habitation. For purposes of this subdivision, a building
includes, but is not limited to, a mobilehome or manufactured home.
The board shall exclude from this definition building types that
require no structural fire protection services beyond those provided
to otherwise unimproved lands.
(b) "State responsibility area" means state responsibility area as
defined in Section 4102.
4212. (a) (1) By September 1, 2011, the board shall adopt
emergency regulations to establish a fire prevention fee for the
purposes of this chapter in an amount not to exceed one hundred fifty
dollars ($150) to be charged on each structure on a parcel that is
within a state responsibility area.
(2) The Legislature finds and declares that a fire prevention fee
of not more than one hundred fifty dollars ($150) is a reasonable
amount for the necessary fire prevention activities of the state that
benefit the owner of a structure within a state responsibility area.
(b) On July 1, 2013, and annually thereafter, the board shall
adjust the fire prevention fees imposed pursuant to this chapter to
reflect the percentage of change in the average annual value of the
Implicit Price Deflator for State and Local Government Purchases of
Goods and Services for the United States, as calculated by the United
States Department of Commerce for the 12-month period in the third
quarter of the prior calendar year, as reported by the Department of
Finance.
(c) Emergency regulations adopted pursuant to subdivision (a)
shall be adopted in accordance with the rulemaking provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section
11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code).
The adoption of emergency regulations shall be deemed an emergency
and necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace,
health, and safety, or general welfare.
4213. (a) (1) Commencing with the 2011-12 fiscal year, the fire
prevention fee imposed pursuant to Section 4212 shall be collected
annually by the State Board of Equalization in accordance with the
Fee Collection Procedures Law (Part 30 (commencing with Section
55001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code).
(2) Notwithstanding the appeal provisions in the Fee Collection
Procedures Law, a determination by the department that a person is
required to pay a fire prevention fee, or a determination by the
department regarding the amount of that fee, is subject to review
under Article 2 (commencing with Section 4220) and is not subject to
a petition for redetermination by the State Board of Equalization.
(3) (A) Notwithstanding the refund provisions in the Fee
Collection Procedures Law, the State Board of Equalization shall not
accept any claim for refund that is based on the assertion that a
determination by the department improperly or erroneously calculated
the amount of the fire prevention fee, or incorrectly determined that
the person is subject to that fee, unless that determination has
been set aside by the department or a court reviewing the
determination of the department.
(B) If it is determined by the department or a reviewing court
that a person is entitled to a refund of all or part of the fire
prevention fee, the person shall make a claim to the State Board of
Equalization pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 55221) of
Part 30 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(b) The annual fire prevention fee shall be due and payable 30
days from the date of assessment by the State Board of Equalization.
(c) Within 30 days of the effective date of this chapter, the
department shall transmit to the State Board of Equalization, and
each January 1 thereafter, the appropriate name and address of each
person who is liable for the fire prevention fee and the amount of
the fee to be assessed, as authorized by this article, and at the
same time the department shall provide to the State Board of
Equalization a contact telephone number for the board to be printed
on the bill to respond to questions about the fee.
(d) Commencing with the 2012-13 fiscal year, if in any given
fiscal year there are sufficient amounts of money in the State
Responsibility Area Fire Prevention Fund created pursuant to Section
4214 to finance the costs of the programs under subdivision (d) of
Section 4214 for that fiscal year, the fee may not be collected that
fiscal year.
4214. (a) Fire prevention fees collected pursuant to this chapter
shall be expended, upon appropriation by the Legislature, as
follows:
(1) The State Board of Equalization shall retain moneys necessary
for the payment of refunds pursuant to Section 4228 and reimbursement
of the State Board of Equalization for expenses incurred in the
collection of the fee.
(2) The moneys collected, other than that retained by the State
Board of Equalization pursuant to paragraph (1), shall be deposited
into the State Responsibility Area Fire Prevention Fund, which is
hereby created in the State Treasury, and shall be available to the
board and the department to expend for fire prevention activities
specified in subdivision (d) that benefit the owners of structures
within a state responsibility area who are required to pay the fire
prevention fee. The amount expended to benefit the moneys of
structures within a state responsibility area shall be commensurate
with the amount collected from the owners within that state
responsibility area. All moneys in excess of the costs of
administration of the board and the department shall be expended only
for fire prevention activities in counties with state responsibility
areas.
(b) (1) The fund may also be used to cover the costs of
administering this chapter.
(2) The fund shall cover all startup costs incurred over a period
not to exceed two years.
(c) It is the intent of the Legislature that the moneys in this
fund be fully appropriated to the board and the department each year
in order to effectuate the purposes of this chapter.
(d) Moneys in the fund shall be used only for the following fire
prevention activities, which shall benefit owners of structures
within the state responsibility areas who are required to pay the
annual fire prevention fee pursuant to this chapter:
(1) Local assistance grants pursuant to subdivision (e).
(2) Grants to Fire Safe Councils, the California Conservation
Corps, or certified local conservation corps for fire prevention
projects and activities in the state responsibility areas.
(3) Grants to a qualified nonprofit organization with a
demonstrated ability to satisfactorily plan, implement, and complete
a fire prevention project applicable to the state responsibility
areas. The department may establish other qualifying criteria.
(4) Inspections by the department for compliance with defensible
space requirements around structures in state responsibility areas as
required by Section 4291.
(5) Public education to reduce fire risk in the state
responsibility areas.
(6) Fire severity and fire hazard mapping by the department in the
state responsibility areas.
(7) Other fire prevention projects in the state responsibility
areas, authorized by the board.
(e) (1) The board shall establish a local assistance grant program
for fire prevention activities designed to benefit structures within
state responsibility areas, including public education, that are
provided by counties and other local agencies, including special
districts, with state responsibility areas within their
jurisdictions.
(2) In order to ensure an equitable distribution of funds, the
amount of each grant shall be based on the number of structures in
state responsibility areas for which the applicant is legally
responsible and the amount of moneys made available in the annual
Budget Act for this local assistance grant program.
(f) By January 1, 2013, and annually thereafter, the board shall
submit to the Legislature a written report on the status and uses of
the fund pursuant to this chapter. The written report shall also
include an evaluation of the benefits received by counties based on
the number of structures in state responsibility areas within their
jurisdictions, the effectiveness of the board's grant programs, the
number of defensible space inspections in the reporting period, the
degree of compliance with defensible space requirements, measures to
increase compliance, if any, and any recommendations to the
Legislature.
(g) (1) The requirement for submitting a report imposed under
subdivision (f) is inoperative on January 1, 2017, pursuant to
Section 10231.5 of the Government Code.
(2) A report to be submitted pursuant to subdivision (f) shall be
submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code.
(h) It is essential that this article be implemented without
delay. To permit timely implementation, the department may contract
for services related to the establishment of the fire prevention fee
collection process. For this purpose only, and for a period not to
exceed 24 months, the provisions of the Public Contract Code or any
other provision of law related to public contracting shall not apply.
Article 2. Appeals Process
4220. A person from whom the fire prevention fee is determined to
be due under this chapter may petition for a redetermination of
whether this chapter applies to that person within 30 days after
service upon him or her of a notice of the determination. If a
petition for redetermination is not filed within the 30-day period,
the amount determined to be due becomes final at the expiration of
the 30-day period.
4221. Each petition for redetermination of the application of
this chapter shall be in writing and be sent to the department, the
board, and the State Board of Equalization. The petition shall state
the specific grounds upon which the petition is founded and include
supporting documentation. The petition may be amended to state
additional grounds or provide additional documentation at any time
prior to the date that the department issues its order or decision
with regard to the petition for redetermination.
4222. If a petition for redetermination of the application of
this chapter is filed within the 30-day period, the department shall
reconsider whether the fee is due and make a determination in
writing. The department may eliminate the fee based on a
determination that this chapter does not apply to the person who
filed the petition.
4222.5. If a timely petition for redetermination has been filed
pursuant to Section 4220, all legal action to collect the fire
prevention fee shall be stayed pending the final determination of the
department pursuant to Section 4224.
4223. Notice of the determination of the department pursuant to
Section 4222 shall be served, on the same date, to the board, the
State Board of Equalization, and the person who filed the petition.
4224. The order or decision of the department upon a petition for
redetermination of the fire prevention fee shall become final 30
days after service upon the petitioner of notice of the
determination.
4225. The fire prevention fee determined to be due by the
department under this article is due and payable at the time it
becomes final, and if it is not paid when due and payable,
notwithstanding the penalty imposed pursuant to Section 55042 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code, a penalty of 20 percent of the fee
determined to be due shall be added to the amount due and payable for
each 30-day period in which the fee remains unpaid.
4226. Written notice required by this article shall be served as
follows:
(a) The notice shall be placed in a sealed envelope, with postage
paid, addressed to the petitioner at his or her address as it appears
in the records of the department. The giving of notice shall be
deemed complete at the time of the deposit of the notice in a United
States Post Office, or a mailbox, subpost office, substation, mail
chute, or other facility regularly maintained or provided by the
United States Postal Service without extension of time for any
reason.
(b) In lieu of mailing, a notice may be served personally by
delivering it to the person to be served and service shall be deemed
complete at the time of delivery. Personal service to a corporation
may be made by delivery of a notice to any person designated in the
Code of Civil Procedure to be served for the corporation with summons
and complaint in a civil action.
4227. A dispute regarding the fire prevention fee imposed by this
chapter shall be resolved pursuant to this article only.
4228. If the department determines that a person is entitled to a
refund of all or part of the fire prevention fee paid pursuant to
this chapter, the person shall make a claim to the State Board of
Equalization pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 55221) of
Part 30 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
SEC. 2. There is hereby appropriated one thousand dollars ($1,000)
from the General Fund to the Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection for administrative costs to implement this act.
SEC. 3. This act is a bill providing for appropriations related to
the Budget Bill within the meaning of subdivision (e) of Section 12
of Article IV of the California Constitution, has been identified as
related to the budget in the Budget Bill, and shall take effect
immediately.
-
Blah, blah, blah. I understand the rational.
But, when is San Diego County going to buck up and get a real fire department??????? ???
-
THE ONLY A FEW PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
-
Blah, blah, blah. I understand the rational.
But, when is San Diego County going to buck up and get a real fire department??????? ???
Why? Whats so unreal about this one? Do they not serve you well enough?
http://www.sandiego.gov/fireandems/
-
Why? Whats so unreal about this one? Do they not serve you well enough?
She's talking about San Diego County (not city)
-
http://sdcounty.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=1152
I knew somebody would bring up the "county" "city" distinction which is also why I think this information will be most helpful and pleasing to the supporters of the above council. Fire services, of course, cost tax payer money, right? No?
-
Existing law requires the state to have the primary financial
responsibility for preventing and suppressing fires in areas that the
State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection has determined are state
responsibility areas.
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. The board would be
required to adjust the fire prevention fee annually using prescribed
methods.
And since I didn't read the entire thing either, I couldn't "blah blah blah" it myself especially after reading the first part, which seems to be what is wanted in the first place. Fire Departments are not free, are they? I think not, therefore I think Fire FEES are appropriate. And some of the money actually does come from monies collected by the state. So now, whats the real problem? Moreover, I cannot ignore the fact that in major Southern California fires, departments and personel from other counties and cities and municipalities from as faaaar away as Northern California come and HELP. So what is the real problem? I just don't understand so much of the "seemingly" angry cynicism even with questions of "seemingly" angry cynicism are asked. I think a "real" Fire Station should exist in and near all populated areas. Does this cost money? Yeah. Tax money? Yeah. So whats it going to be? Scream for tax cuts? Well thats fine and dandy, but tax cuts without tax ReVenue is a form of major irresponsible "fiscal" action. Guess who is responsible for that?
-
Here's another topic on this forum when a fire fee of $310 a year was brought up in 2008:
http://www.wrightwoodcalif.com/forum/index.php?topic=11118.0
-
Fire Departments are not free, are they? I think not, therefore I think Fire FEES are appropriate.
I already pay taxes toward the agency that protects me (SB County Fire). Now, I'm to pay another tax (no, I wont call it a fee), for no increase in services?
Just curious... will you also be paying this new fee on your property?
Moreover, I cannot ignore the fact that in major Southern California fires, departments and personel from other counties and cities and municipalities from as faaaar away as Northern California come and HELP. So what is the real problem?
And "our" fire departments do the same when they go into other areas. That's the way it is. Sometimes your municipality gets "freebie" support from an outside agency, and sometimes your municipality sends your resources to other areas. That's what mutual aid is. Everyone benefits, right? But not everyone pays this new fee.
-
MMB, my particular point was regarding the San Diego wildfires a couple of years ago. These fires were fought by CalFire, USFS, etc. BUT there were no SD Co fire personnel because there pretty much aren't any. However, those of us who live in LA & SB Co have paid for and support the County Fire concept.
What does this mean to you and me AND San Diego Joe, you ask???
If a fire is in LA or SB Co, it is paid for by taxes you and I pay to the county (in which we live). You, me & Joe all pay state & fed.
If a fire is in SD Co, it is paid for by taxes you, me & Joe pay to the state & fed. Joe does not contribute fire support in the county in which he resides, therefore, you and I subsidize fires in SD Co. and therefore subsidize Joe.
One could understand this if SD Co was tiny; however, it is one of the largest and most populous counties in the state.
Someone correct me if things have changed.
-
Just curious... will you also be paying this new fee on your property?
No. But I also know that the fire station six blocks away from my home has gone up closer to your part of town to kill fires. Wrightwood is worth protecting, right? After all, somebody up there CHOSE to live in a dangerous fire hazzard area.... And I PAID for protecting that, and gladly my friend. Its real, its true, it is what it is.
And "our" fire departments do the same when they go into other areas. That's the way it is. Sometimes your municipality gets "freebie" support from an outside agency, and sometimes your municipality sends your resources to other areas. That's what mutual aid is. Everyone benefits, right? But not everyone pays this new fee.
Yeah I agree. Something is rather fishy. Somebody in San Diego County wants something, and they want the burden to be distributed equally amongst those who do not live there. Fair enough? I think Counties and teeny tiny cities with big giant criticism of other larger cities, should be more inclusive of the supporters money they truly seek. Going back to San Diego "county" though... 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?
-
The real problem, in my opinion, has to do with
demanding cuts to fire departments. Everybody suffers. Including your neighboring cities. As Victorville has,
as Apple Valley has, as Phelan, has, etc. etc. etc. I think many dumb people are willing to "cut" off their noses to "spite" their neighbors, and then they complain and blame others when they realize what
they've done.
-
Let's not forget this only applies to state responsibility areas (SRA)
The fee applies to property in the "state responsibility areas," which are the lands outside of town or city jurisdictions that are served by Cal Fire units.
For instance look at the LA or San Diego County maps and check the legends to see what SRA land it actually applies.
http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention_wildland_zones_maps.php
-
Let's not forget this only applies to state responsibility areas (SRA)
The fee applies to property in the "state responsibility areas," which are the lands outside of town or city jurisdictions that are served by Cal Fire units.
For instance look at the LA or San Diego County maps and check the legends to see what SRA land it actually applies.
http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention_wildland_zones_maps.php
I checked it out and located the fire severity zone maps and couldn't find Wrightwood. I don't know if the info. is current. Also, does Wrightwood pay higher fire insurance premiums than most people who do not live in high severity zones? Just wondering. Because thats really gotta suck too, in addition to the new budget demands.
-
The SB County portion of WW is on this map:
(On the left side just below the orange area)
http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/webdata/maps/san_bernardino_sw/fhszs_map.62.jpg
The LA County portion is on this map:
(On the right side just below the orange area)
http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/webdata/maps/los_angeles/fhszs_map.19.jpg
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVEgOqGdlsk&NR=1
Obviously these drills aren't cheep n' free. Can you imagine cutting funding for these personel? Neither can I. But guess what?
-
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....
-
"...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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
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 ?
-
Yeah, ain't that special...........
-
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.
-
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/
-
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" ?
-
I'd pay the $150. Its worth it.
-
I'd pay the $150. Its worth it.
maybe . . . if it actually went to fire protection. i highly doubt it will.
-
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.
-
I pay $200 to an individual every year to "abate" my tumbleweeds. BIG deal. ::)
-
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. ;)
-
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
-
And we have to pay for illegal alien's college, too!
-
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
-
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. ::)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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. ::)
-
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
-
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
-
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."
-
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!
-
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. ;)
-
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:
-
-
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.
-
-
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
-
-
-
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?
-
-
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.
-
-
-
North State Lawmakers Target Fire Tax Fee
A controversial statewide fire protection fee that targets rural property owners is now in the cross-hairs of Republican lawmakers.
Today, a group of assemblymen made it official, introducing a bill that would repeal the annual fee.
Governor Jerry Brown and democratic lawmakers approved the fee last year, saying those who choose to live in rural areas should pay more for the cost of fire protection, but Republican lawmakers feel the fee is being unfairly imposed.
It's a controversial wildfire fee that has rural homeowner and Cohasset resident Jean Freedom fired up.
"It is unfair, it isn't equal, just to be taxed more and double because you live out in the country doesn't make any sense to me," said Freedom.
She isn't alone.
"We already pay a lot of taxes and this is just another one in a recession so it's really hard on all of us up here," said Cohasset resident Perry Johnson.
The wildfire fee requires rural homeowners residing in the 31 million acres that fall under the protection of Cal Fire to pay as much as $150 annually for fire fighting services.
The fee could raise as much as 84 million dollars to help the state's firefighting budget, something Cal Fire spokesman Daniel Berlant says helps guarantee a stable funding source for the state's firefighters.
"This is isn't new money. This is money that is being taken out of our general fund portion and being replaced by this special fund so really what it does is create a stable funding source for us for fire prevention," said Berlant.
But north state lawmakers Jim Nielsen and Doug LaMalfa today introduced legislation that would repeal the fee.
They think it's a tax and it should've required two-thirds vote to pass.
"This fire tax is indeed illegal, it doesn't follow constitutional guidelines for a two-thirds vote by the legislature ,nor was it even presented to the people for a vote. It's another attack on rural Californians," said LaMalfa.
"It is not only illegal, it happened in a despicable way, dark of night, behind closed doors, no public input on this immense and enduring fee," added Nielsen.
"I don't see where it's a necessity. I think they're just trying to come up with more money to cover their shortfalls," concluded Johnson.
http://www.khsltv.com/content/localnews/story/North-State-Lawmakers-Target-Fire-Tax-Fee/oEvnZwllSUa5xWgJ884UkQ.cspx
-
Governor Jerry Brown and democratic lawmakers approved the fee last year, saying those who choose to live in rural areas should pay more for the cost of fire protection...
Yeah, right democrats... sounds reasonable at first glance, but they don't even apply these kinds of thoughts fairly either. Our sales tax went up 1/2 percent after that nasty earthquake in San Francisco several years ago (even though we don't live there), because we had to help them pay for their damage.
-
Two wrongs don't make a right, Bob.
-
-
-
-
Yesterday State Assembly Bill AB 1506 passed the Natural Resources Committee. That bill would repeal the Fire fee if passed.
AB 1506 (Cook and Jeffries)
State responsibility areas: fire prevention fees.
Existing law requires the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, 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, as defined, and requires that the fire prevention fee be adjusted annually using prescribed methods. Existing law requires the State Board of Equalization to collect the fire prevention fees, as prescribed, commencing with the 2011-12 fiscal year. Existing law establishes the State Responsibility Area Fire Prevention Fund and prohibits the collection of fire prevention fees if, commencing with the 2012-13 fiscal year, there are sufficient amounts of moneys in the fund to finance specified fire prevention activities for a fiscal year. Existing law requires that the fire prevention fees collected, except as provided, be deposited into the fund and be made available, to the board and the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for certain specified fire protection activities that benefit the owners of structures in state responsibility areas who are required to pay the fee. Existing law further requires the board, on and after January 1, 2013, to submit an annual written report to the Legislature on specified topics.
This bill would repeal the above provisions relating to the fire prevention fees.
More:
http://www.myvalleynews.com/story/62718/
-
-
What is a habitable structure?
A "habitable structure" is a building that can be occupied for residential use. These include single family homes, multi-dwelling structures, mobile and manufactured homes, condominiums and apartment buildings. Habitable structures do NOT include incidental buildings such as detached garages, barns, outdoor sanitation facilities and sheds.
-
What about a guest room over a detached garage?
-
-
-
https://www.facebook.com/CalFireFee
Links to a page nearly as promising as Ms. Steel's - CalFireFee.com - but their link to the sample bill didn't work for me.
-
(http://www.wrightwoodfsc.com/documents/Fire_Fee_Sample_Determination.JPG)
-
More than 800,000 Californians who own property in wildfire country will begin receiving bills this week for a new annual fire-protection fee, rekindling outrage among rural residents and leading to a likely lawsuit seeking to overturn the surcharge.
The fee, passed by Democrats in the Legislature and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown last year, is intended to raise an estimated $84 million in its first year for fire-prevention efforts. The annual charge can run as high as $150 for property owners with a single occupied dwelling, although there is a $35 discount for those who already pay a local tax for fire protection.
The discount will apply to about 95 percent of rural property owners, but it's not enough to quell the anger in the parts of California where the fee will apply.
"Everybody that knows about it is upset, but I think 90 percent of the public has no idea it's coming. It's going to be quite a shock," said John Little of Laytonville, chief of the Long Valley Fire Protection District in rural Mendocino County.
He said the $115 annual bill will hurt residents in his 250-square-mile district. The region, between the Mendocino National Forest and the Pacific Ocean, has a jobless rate of 18 percent and many seniors living on fixed incomes.
The bills start going out Monday and will have been issued to more than 825,000 property owners by year's end. They are being sent to counties in alphabetical order, so residents of Alameda, Alpine and Amador counties will be first in line.
The fee was imposed on those who own property within the 31 million rural acres covered by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, a responsibility area that includes about one-third of the state.
Fire danger there is growing more extreme, according to a recent University of California, Merced study prepared for the California Energy Commission. Climate change, development and changes to the landscape may double the fire risk to rural homes over the next 40 years, researchers found. They predict the greatest increase in risk in Northern California's foothills and mountains.
Brown sought the fee mostly to help close the state's budget deficit, calling it "a fee consistent with the 'beneficiary pays principle'," in his signing message. If additional money can be raised and dedicated to CalFire, he reasoned, a similar amount could go to other state services that have experienced deep budget cuts.
The fee will help prevent more spending cuts for state firefighters, department spokesman Daniel Berlant said.
Over the last 18 months, the department has dealt with an $80 million budget cut by hiring 700 fewer seasonal firefighters, closing an air base in Fresno and mothballing five bulldozers and both of its fire engines serving the Lake Tahoe area because it lacked enough firefighters to operate them. Fire protection around Lake Tahoe is now provided by local fire districts and the U.S. Forest Service.
The fee will pay for the department's existing fire-prevention efforts, including thinning brush and trees and clearing around homes.
Soon after the bills go out, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association plans to file a lawsuit to have the fee declared unconstitutional.
Association president Jon Coupal said the fee is actually a tax, which requires a two-thirds vote in the Legislature to enact. The fire fee passed on simple majority votes in the Assembly and Senate, without support from any Republican lawmakers.
Adding to the confusion is a notice sent by the state Board of Equalization to alert affected property owners that a bill for the new fire fee would be coming. The notice shows a picture of a firefighter spraying water on flames, giving the impression that the fee is for suppression rather than its stated purpose of prevention. It further says property owners have 30 days to send their payment or "protest the amount of the bill in writing."
State fire officials worked with the board last week to revise the wording of the notice and substitute a different photograph, Berlant said. "Protest makes it sound like if you don't want to pay, you don't have to pay. That's not accurate," he said.
Property owners can ask for "redetermination" if they can prove, for instance, that their property is not in the state responsibility area and they should not have to pay. They also can argue that they are entitled to the $35 discount because they pay a local fire district tax or that they are being billed for more habitable structures than they actually own.
Former state Sen. George Runner, a Republican from Lancaster who sits on the Board of Equalization, pushed for the advance notice to give rural residents more time to pay or contest the billings. He agreed with changing the wording and the photograph to more accurately reflect the details of the new fee.
"We're going to use the word 'appeal.' This is going to the public. They don't understand the word 'redetermination.' Our agency tries to use words that real people understand," said Runner, who has been critical of the fee.
The nonpartisan Office of Legislative Counsel ruled that it qualifies as a fee because it directly pays for specific state services. Democratic lawmakers said they also followed a recommendation from the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office to levy a fee on homeowners who directly benefit from the state's firefighting efforts in rural areas.
Opponents said it singles out one group of homeowners subject to a particular type of natural disaster.
"It's a bogus way the state is just trying to sidestep their budget issues and slap it on the rural communities," said mortgage broker Jason DeLeo, president of the chamber of commerce in Ramona, which abuts the Cleveland National Forest about 40 miles northeast of San Diego.
He recalls working with friends and neighbors using garden hoses to save homes threatened by devastating wildfires that roared through San Diego County in 2003. The same homeowners already clear around their homes to protect them from fires, without the state's help, he said. "The money they're going to raise from this isn't going to new fire engines, or firefighters or any of that," DeLeo said. "The only thing that could help is more boots on the ground, which none of this is going to do."
Berlant said the state fire department would face a gap of $85 million in its current year budget if the lawsuit succeeds in overturning the fee, forcing more service cuts.
Carol Banner, who lives and sells real estate in the Lake Arrowhead region of the San Bernardino Mountains 80 miles east of Los Angeles, is upset because she already pays for local fire protection.
"Those are the people who we call when we have a fire in our home or when the big one comes," she said.
Local fire officials said they worry the new fee will discourage residents from paying more for local services.
John Hallman, who sits on a local board that promotes fire-prevention efforts in his community near Lake Berryessa, has been trying to persuade his neighbors to each pay $25 to $50 a year. The money would go toward clearing brush around their properties and on the road linking the community to the Napa Valley.
"With this going through, people are not going to want to pay any more for sure," he said.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news%2Fstate&id=8770803
-
Brown sought the fee mostly to help close the state's budget deficit, calling it "a fee consistent with the 'beneficiary pays principle'," in his signing message. If additional money can be raised and dedicated to CalFire, he reasoned, a similar amount could go to other state services that have experienced deep budget cuts.
Yeah, I love how they like to use "beneficiary pays" when it suits them. Seems to me, my sales tax went up after that rather nasty earthquake in the SF area several years ago, even though I didn't "benefit" from that money. I know I won't benefit from that stupid high-speed train either! If Sacramento can ever just cut the waste, then I'd feel more comfortable with these kinds of "beneficiary pays" approaches to things.
Personally, I think too many areas are considered SRAs, and even then, I think these are the kinds of costs that all citizens should chip in for via taxes, the way its been done up until now.
I also love how this tax (I refuse to call it a fee) is applied to multi-family dwellings. Take the same exact 4-plex. If it's 4 apartments, with renters paying one owner, that entire structure is "taxed" as one dwelling. If that same structure is 4 separate condo's, each family pays (so the state get 4 times the tax for that same building). At least that's the way I understand it works.
-
-
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- One of California's top elected tax collectors is facing criticism for his high-profile campaign to block a controversial fee that Democratic leaders say he and the state board he serves are responsible for collecting, not opposing.
Republican Board of Equalization member George Runner says the Democratic Legislature and governor engaged in an "illegal money-grab" when they voted last year to charge rural residents whose homes are at risk from wildfires a $150 fee.
Runner has a website encouraging homeowners to appeal the fee. He has written and spoken out against it, and says he will join a planned lawsuit by opponents who argue it is an unconstitutional tax.
"I've opposed this new tax from the beginning, because I believe it is unconstitutional," Runner says on his website. "I intend to join a lawsuit asking the courts to halt this illegal money-grab as soon as possible."
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/12/4814411/calif-tax-collector-criticized.html#storylink=cpy
-
Has anyone seen a bill yet?
-
-
Ok,,, I'm sort of in the dark here with the quote attributed to George Runner. I mean,, read it for yourself and let me know if I missed something.
That said.. if it helps maintain our firefighters I will pay $150 for that.. but I will be darned if I will pay another $150 for the old mobile home that is now a chicken coop.
And, there is something off in this release about the counties.. but, oh well.. I guess it will be in alpha order according to this.. so it is time to change our name to "Zanbernardino." cheryl o7o
-
-
Actually, I believe fire prevention is just as important as fire suppression. Maybe even more!
-
K9luvr ~ Any opinions?
-
Actually, I believe fire prevention is just as important as fire suppression. Maybe even more!
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
My place is 100% defensible, my neighbors place will burn to the ground unless he has an engine and crew in his driveway. He should pay more!
-
What type of fire prevention does Calfire actually perform in Wrightwood or the surrounding communities? I never see any Calfire up here performing any sort of fire prevention. Please define "Fire Prevention" and what we are being forced to pay for. We live in the Angeles National Forest which is FRA responsibility and I think it is unfair that we have to pay Calfire for a service that they do not perform in our community. Is Calfire going to help clear the vegetation around my house or put up Smokey the Bear signs and conduct school programs to teach children not to play with matches? What do we get for paying a fee to prevent fires in Wrightwood from Calfire? Please let me know if you have an answer.
-
After reading an article about Runners position on this fire fee issue, I noticed this comment following the article.
Sherrie D.
"I live in a rural area where there the roads are not maintained, no street lights and a 2-4 hr response to 911 calls even though the sherrif station is a 15 minute drive away. Why should I pay an aditional $150 for a fire truck to arrive after my house has burned down?"
This is pretty much how I feel, living in Pinon Hills. Where I live, I only see SB County Fire respond to 911 calls and they seem to do a pretty good job of responding quickly if not on another call.
I think this is why people call it a money grab. What are we really paying for?
-
It's a rip off way for the state to squeeze money out of us. End of story.
I haven't got a good thing to say abot it.
But don't blame the CalFire personnel. It wasn't their decision. They're just firefighters trying to do their jobs, like all firefighters.
And the firefighters will be here to protect us when needed. It's what they do.
Politicians don't seem to mind sucking hard working employees into their little, biased, political worlds.
-
Well said Nolena. It is to bad that the politicians have to bring Calfire into this unlawful fee.
-
I think that prevention is greatly needed. I do not think that the "old model" of Smokey programs and such do much good now days. I think things like the WW FSC wildfire awareness day and free green waste days and cost shares to treat homes etc. do make a difference, especially at a neighborhood or community level. And I agree--don't blame the worker bees on the ground for policies made at much higher pay grades than what they are at--or those that are at the whim of politics. I dread election years because good common sense goes out the window and blowhard rhetoric whipsaws agencies in the resulting hot air winds.... If the prevention dollars collected went into a 50/50 or 70/30 cost share to treat properties or entire communities in the high risk areas--I think the funds might be worth it. If they are piddled away on other stuff, not so much.
-
Unfortunately, given past state history, I believe that the latter may happen.
-
I'm certainly no expert, but when we see the Fenner crews up here, aren't they somehow connected to CalFire? They do a lot of brush clearance along the highway, and up near Grassy Hollow.
-
Cal Fire sponsors the crews. Under their Granger Thye special use permit to occupy Camp Fenner (it used to be a federal job corps center back in the 1960's) they have to provide free labor to the Angeles National Forest. The other work that is outside of the forest property--I don't know where that funding comes from. They are a state prison so a lot of their funding comes thru the state prison system.
And Nolena--methinks you be right.... ;)
-
What if you have property but no home on it?? is there still a fee?
-
No.. It's for property with habitable structures located within State Responsibility Areas (SRA)
-
property with habitable structures
Does this apply to mobile homes that are "Licensed" by DMV. They don't show up as property taxable items.
-
My friend in Bishop lives in a trailer park on the outside of town and every trailer in the park has to pay the fee.
I'm not sure about travel trailers,, they're not really structures.. good question.
-
My friend in Bishop lives in a trailer park on the outside of town and every trailer in the park has to pay the fee.
I'm not sure about travel trailers,, they're not really structures.. good question.
It might be those mobiles were built after '83. Those built before then are considered vehicle trailers under the law, and are licensed by DMV the same way travel trailers and 5th wheels are.
I'm not arguing, just curious how they're being handled.
-
-
-
If there is a refund, it should be double. They'll think twice next time.
-
Thanks we paid ours today and filed a petitiontoo. They give a 35.00 credit but we paid 226.00 on our tax bill for fire. Very unfair
-
Has Wrightwood residents began to receive their fire fee billings from the California Board of Equalization?
If so I have yet to receive my billing!
-
Hank that's probably for the LA County residents of Wrightwood which were suppose to be mailed a few weeks ago.
-
-
Has Wrightwood residents began to receive their fire fee billings from the California Board of Equalization?
If so I have yet to receive my billing!
They are not all mailed on same cycle. I did not get it yet for my Phelan home but did receive it for my rental in Palmdale.
-
-
Read the Class Action lawsuit: http://www.wrightwoodfsc.com/documents/FireTaxClassActionFiling.pdf (http://www.wrightwoodfsc.com/documents/FireTaxClassActionFiling.pdf)
-
The State of California is clearly demonstrating how far out of touch with spending reality they really are.
Why in the world would they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to mail property owners a color flyer with envelope and using 1st class postage to make an advance notice that a bill is coming soon?
What an incredible waste of money when they are broke.
Let's see.... 800,000 envelopes + 800,000 color flyers + 800,000 1st class postage
(http://www.wrightwoodfsc.com/documents/MD_FireFeeAdvanceNotice.JPG)
-
What an incredible waste of money when they are broke.
I opened the same envelope last night and had the same thought as Wrightwood. Ridiculous.
-
Yup, when I opened mine a couple of days ago it reminded me of something my grandfather always said:
"Expense is nothing we got plenty of it." ::)
-
I called the Fire Prevention Fee Service Center to inquire about the mailing and here's what I learned so far:
It was initially going to be a post card mailing.
Questions about the mailings such as the cost and who authorized needs to directed to the State Board of Equalization.
-
And the part I never understood was why they are taking months and months to do these separate "counties in alphabetical order" mailings. Jeeze, the Francise Tax Board mails out income tax forms and whatnot all at once to everyone... doesn't take them months to do it.
-
-
Ok.. is it just me? It is probably me... the Luddite.. I cannot read anything on that map link.
Must say I wasn't happy with that quote in the SBD Board of Supervisors news release that stated ,, the tax, fee, levy.. whatever you want to call it...could cause ..,, :" long term disruptions in mutual aid between local, state and federal agencies ... in times of emergency..." the Board said" ... Must say that quote was somewhat biforcated.. so I wasn't certain as to who or whom was being quoted. I really do want to know who said that or if it was the entire BOS signing off on that statement. I guess it sounded like a threat to me... so why? Why did our BOS put out a news release implying that this new 'choose your name for it" fire fee.. would impact mutual aid in a time of an emergency.
I want to know why and I want to know exactly what they mean by that. Must say that the entire release, as posted here from SBD County,, did not read as a release from a government agency.. it read more as a campaign release.
Phooey,,, cheryl o7o
-
Well, hey.... Just today I too have received my "Urgent Notice" notifying me that the bill would be coming. And, just to be sure I paid attention... well, hecky darns... they enclosed five copies of the "Advance Notice" in the envelope. And, in what appears to be four colors.
Here are some thoughts:
1) The State needs a new sorting house ( my mind boggles at how much this could save);
2) Nothing says "fire" like black and white.. full color is just a waste of money (particularly if its just for the state seal).. but hey full color and a nice weight of paper and a semi-gloss .. we deserve that as taxpayers;
3) If they really felt they needed to let us know this was coming... a simple postcard.. as cheap as it could be.. just black & white... don't really think we need a picture.. that costs extra. And, we all get the concept of 'fire.'
4) This idea may not be possible under the legislation: But what if they just sent us the bloody bill and gave us 60 days to pay instead of thirty? Or, is it not feasible to just attach it to our property tax bills... thus saving a lot of money?
Oh, cute house on the mailer.. not sure what those trees behind it might do.. but cute house. I still cannot believe I got five copies of the mailer in a number 10 envelope in full color. Oh, the "Urgent Notice" in red on the envelope also cost extra. Is the cost of these mailings coming out of our new 'fire fee"? What idiot is responsible for this? later, cheryl o7o
-
Sorry,, I forgot to mention the semi-gloss on the paper was also on the blank side. I just have to wonder what printer took the state for this. I don't see a 'union logo' on it.. so I do not know. Tho, there is some logo of somesort.. on the bottom right in half-tones or less. Sorry, I don't have glasses strong enough to read it.
So, since our Board of Equalization is charged with collecting this.. is their budget responsible for this.. or will they just bill the new "fire fund" for it?
I'm not annoyed so much about the fire fees... if they go to our firefighters... I am truly annoyed about this wasteful mailing.
later, cheryl o7o
-
Cheryl I'm with you on the useless mailings. I remember one of the utilities doing a big campaign about their name change. Called to complain & ask where the money is coming from. Got some flunky on the phone who just kept saying advertising fees are already paid for....well, yeah I paid for it I think!
-
Or, is it not feasible to just attach it to our property tax bills... thus saving a lot of money?
Well, since this isn't a "tax", they won't put it on your property tax bill. Besides, those go to the county, not the state. I'm sure the counties would not want to be handling money for the state without being compensated, and I'm sure the state doesn't want to let counties possess money the state earmarked for itself (the state is already raping county finances).
I would have thought a new "line" on the income tax forms would have done the same thing, but I suppose they can't do that either (since this is a "fee" and not a tax). Besides, the state doesn't want to wait until April 2013 to start getting money. They want money now.
I don't understand why all the separate "by county" mailings, and I certainly don't understand the advance notice they've also been sending out. Again, the state doesn't do that with income tax forms.
It does boggle the mind. I hope the Jarvis group is successfull with their lawsuit in stopping this. And if they actually do manage to stop it, the state still held a lot of people's money with no interest for quite some time. Nice way to get a 0% loan, huh?
Its way too easy for the state to waste money, especially when it's not theirs.
-
Got my UGENT envelope. When I opened it, only had paper with name and address on it. Those who vote 5 fliers probably got mine. The money they collect will probably be spent with the same care and attention to detail. More waste!!!
Tom
-
Tom.. If I hadn't already thrown my five fliers out.. I'd send one to you.. but you can scroll backwards here to see what you missed out on. It isn't much .. other than it was pretty the way they did it and totally not necessary. I'm thinking the little icon on the bottom in the right hand corner .. may have been a union bug. But, I'm not sure.. since I cannot read it.
And, since the state may be trying to show they are using union printers.. it would be interesting to know if the sorting house was also union. From years of overseeing printer jobs.. I can tell you that a good number of union houses will farm the job out and just put their 'union bug' on it. Yup,that is what they do. You wind up paying for the logo to be politically correct. cheryl o7o
-
May I please add~~ I have an elderly friend who asked me the other day... "What if I don't pay it?" I really didn't know any other answer answer because I think we HAVE to pay it..right? I told her to "Pay it." ~~and she's on tight, tight fixed income!
-
Anyone thinking about not paying better be careful as the penalties are very strict.
From: http://firetaxprotest.org/?page_id=10
PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE DUE DATE. You may have fewer than 30 days to pay. If you are late, there is a 20% penalty, plus interest. Every 30 days after that, another 20% penalty is added, plus interest. The fee is a lien on your property, and failure to pay can result in foreclosure.
-
-
Here is a copy of a recent press release from the County of San Bernardino about the tax that we received last night at a meeting of the Inland Empire Fire Safe Alliance:
http://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/CAO/pressreleases/content/SRA_Fire_Tax_PR_10-12-12_FINAL.pdf
It was recommended that everyone go on the site http://firepreventionfee.org and register your complaints about this illegal tax as all complaints are reviewed and reported weekly. I have looked around the site and am not sure where emails should be directed. I will try to get clarification and report back.
-
Just a note: The "Alert" message I received did not say anything about 'payment plans." Sheesh,, the whole other side of the darn thing was blank. There could have been room for it there. .. Not to mention on the 8x11 insert that had nothing on it but my name and address because they used a 'window envelope' .. instead of just printing our name on the envelope. They could have printed the entire message on that insert. But, I quibble. I think I will continue to quibble. And, I think that stupid decisions should come out of the BOE's budget instead of deducting them from the 'fire fees' for their enforcement. But, one way or the other.. we will all wind up paying for it. cheryl o7o
-
I was intrigued so I looked closer. I put on my reading glasses . . . under a strong light using a magnifying glass it was still very hard to read with the dotted background, but there it was . . . an SEIU, CTW, CLC union label. Huh.
Cheryl, if you hadn't remarked on it in your post I would never have noticed it. But I have to wonder if they went to the trouble of putting the label there, why make it so hard to read? (shrugs shoulders)
-
This information is what I was referring to Sunday.
The brochure advises taxpayers that they will have 30 days to either pay the tax or protest the amount of the bill in writing. Questions are referred to a toll-free phone number, 888-310-6447, or www.firepreventionfee.org.
Unless, it states elsewhere you must pay the fee and then protest the amount.
-
The October 2012 American Motorcycle Association magazine reported that the OHV funds had been robbed of $7 million to pay for other things. The new budget passed and became effective on July 1, 2012 and very shortly after that California "found" a whopping $423 million that was unaccounted for and was found in accounts "nobody knew about". REALLY? And, now we have to pay a fee (tax) of $150 yearly to pay for who knows what? I had heard that the State Parks Dept (I think) had found somewhere in the neighborhood of $35 million suddenly as well. Donations given by private citizens and such to help keep parks open weren't returned upon the discoverly of this $35 million and California still needs us to turn over $150 and give us nothing in return? I thought theft and fraud were illegal?
-
New Fire-Prevention Fee Draws Heat
State officials announced the $150 fee earlier this year, but it still came as a surprise for some homeowners.
By Craig Fiegener and Bill French
| Wednesday, Oct 24, 2012 | Updated 11:21 PM PDT
Across California, some 825,000 residents are receiving notices about the state's new Fire Prevention Fee. Creation of the charge was no secret, but many people had not heard about it until this week.
"It's very shocking," said Anita Phillips, of Crestline, who received the letter a couple days ago.
Residents are being asked to pay $150 to cover the cost of fighting fires in heavily wooded areas where the state is responsible for fire prevention. But for Phillips, it comes just as she's struggling to modify her mortgage.
Some residents say it's the wrong time for unexpected bills, especially in the Inland Empire, where people are trying to recover from a badly-beaten economy.
Without question, Crestline is an area that has faced terrible fire threats. The Governor signed the Fire Prevention Fee law last July to help battle fires in areas similar to Crestline.
The language in the new law reads this way: "The law established a new annual Fire Prevention Fee to pay for fire prevention services within the State Responsibility Area. This fee is assessed on owners of habitable structures."
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association considers it such an unfair levy that it plans to fight the fee in court. Others see it as a worthwhile expense.
"We need it," said Crestline resident Bridgitte Nowakowski. "Firefighters are here to help us keep our homes so they don't burn down. So what is $150? That's nothing."
If everybody pays it, the fee will raise more than $123 million. Phillips says she doesn't like what she sees as heavy-handed language in the letter.
"Well yeah, not be so demanding, and say they will foreclose on our homes if we don't pay and impose a 20 percent penalty if we don't pay," she said.
For now, the Fire Prevention Fee is state law and it's coming due. At least until a judge says otherwise.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Complaints-Grow-About-New-Fire-Prevention-Bills-175707431.html
-
We got a notice saying we 'would' be billed. I suppose another mailing of The Bill due and payable will arrive soon?
-
Just got our $115 bill today.
-
I got a bill today as well.
Is this fee going to be applied to houses in Phelan/Pinon Hills etc. as well as Wrightwood?
-
yes, it's down here too. I'm in PH, and I received my notice, no bill yet, but my technicolor notice
-
Does anyone have an answer? My bill was also $115. Can I still apply for the $35 rebate ?
-
The correct amount for this area is $115 total. That's with the $35 deduction.
Does anyone have an answer? My bill was also $115. Can I still apply for the $35 rebate ?
Make sure to protest after paying, as stated in previous posts.
-
-
I knew there was a reason I didn't bother to go to the PO today, I guess that subconsciously, I didn't want to see this stupid bill.
It's not like I can't afford it, it's the principle. Thanks for posting what we should do to protest. I will definitely follow these instructions.
-
I knew there was a reason I didn't bother to go to the PO today, I guess that subconsciously, I didn't want to see this stupid bill.
It's not like I can't afford it, it's the principle.
Same here, but I guess I should probably go tomorrow and pick it up and resist the desire to through it in the trash. :brickwall: :brickwall: :brickwall:
-
OK here's another question. I understand that failure to pay can result in foreclosure on your property. If you own your property, and do NOT have a mortgage, can they still foreclose? For failing to pay a lousy $115? ??? :P >:( >:( >:( >:(
-
I don't see how a govt. agency can foreclose on a property since that is an agreement made with a lending institution. I can see where the govt. could put a lien on your house/taxes and if you don't pay, take action that way. But I'm not a real estate attny either!
-
It being so-called a fee, but it is payable to the State Board of Equalization (who collect TAXES) and you are instructed to mail your "fee" to "Special TAXES Remittance Processing". They are admitting that it is in fact a tax by who is collecting it and where it is being mailed. If you bill isn't paid in a timely manner, interest will accrue in accordance with the Revenue and TAXATION Code. Actually, it is nothing more than extortion. And, this will be due again beginning January 1, 2013. They just keep taxing and taxing and making more fees. Our costs to register our vehicles is outrageous. Other states charge $60.00 for any regular car for a two year period. Are they bankrupt?
-
We will have to pay again in January??? >:( Wow...Yes, California is expensive, it's crazy. What I really got upset about last year was when my daughter, who was going to CSUSB, was given a $3500 grant by the state, and they gave her the 1st installment but not the balance because they ran out of funds! Now, she was an excellent student and she received this grant because of her grades, and this is how the state rewards her? I really wanted to write to someone and complain because I'm certain she wasn't the only one who got shorted these funds.
I know this was off topic but it still makes me mad....
-
Got mine for a property that I sold. The period stated is for 07/01/11 - 06/30/12.
-
I think I'll pay them $115.01 and wait for my refund check. ;D
-
I still have not received a bill.. tho I did get five copies of that pretty flyer saying that I would. Its retroactive??? I just want to know. I suppose that is buried here somewhere any number of posts ago. I guess if I don't receive it this week.. I'll have to call. I'll make sure I go to the bathroom first. There isn't a week that goes by that I don't have to send something back to the P.O. because it was put in the wrong box.
Speedracer: Nice plan.. very nice! cheryl o7o
-
I called to make sure they had my PO Box address, and they said that I don't owe this year, because the bill is sent to who own's the house on July 1, 2011. So they're billing the bank. I bought the house in August, so had it most of the time-period in question. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I'm not complaining ;D
-
We got our bill today also. Gee.... wonder if it's tax deductible.... as it should be. ::)
-
I was wondering the same thing ::)
-
No it is not deductible because they are calling it a fee.
-
::) ::)
-
Where on the Bill does it indicate the address of the property being billed, or for that matter, the city (area)?
I have 1 property in Wrightwood and 1 property in Phelan. There is no way that I can find, to tell which bill go with which property. It is necessary to know which Parcel Number to add to the "Petition for Redetermination" letters.
-
The APN number is in the middle of the fine print ::)
-
The APN number is in the middle of the fine print ::)
Thanks John.
That is such a special place to put needed information. :(
-
I spent my share of time looking for it and was ready to call when I notice it in the 8 or 9 point text.
-
Did anyone notice the address on the submission envelope?
"SPECIAL TAXES REMITTANCE PROCESSING"
-
I did receive my bill today. It, along with another very pretty multi-color informational brochure on rather heavy card stock paper. At the top it states:
"Billing and Refund Notice." On the envelope, as someone else noted, I am mailing it to "Special Taxes Remittance Processing." Perhaps "Special Taxes..." are different than just 'taxes." I am actually thrilled that I wasn't billed for the chicken coop.
How they may have saved some money:
1) A simple postcard mailing for the advance notice.. if they really thought it necessary to deliver bad news early.. letting us know it was coming;
2) A sheet of 8 x 11 on regular paper stock that had all the info needed that was put on the more expensive version. We really do not need the pictures ,, we have the picture. And, we don't need the State Seal in multi Color ... we know who is screwing us.
But, I am going to save this pretty latest insert because I will want to know exactly how the state is accomplishing its obligations in my fire area here in P.H. Gotta just say here.. if this fee was going towards more firefighters I would be happier. I do love our firefighters. cheryl o7o
-
I called to make sure they had my PO Box address, and they said that I don't owe this year, because the bill is sent to who own's the house on July 1, 2011. So they're billing the bank. I bought the house in August, so had it most of the time-period in question. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I'm not complaining ;D
Thanks Tim..... that answered my question why I didn't get one either
-
For those who didn't own their homes last July 1, it will be interesting to see how the state deals with those "former owners" who don't pay the tax. Will the state put a lein on your home, because the former owner didn't pay it? Could get interesting.
-
I did some quick research on this "FEE". All I could find is that the state can place a "TAX" lien lean on property after the fact. So I think the bigger question is the definition and a fee is not a tax, so a lien could not be made on the property.
-
Got a letter today from the county letting me know I might get a bill from the state for this fee. ::)
-
My boss, who is a known for procrastinating on everything, failed to pay his fire tax bill on time. He reports the state was very quick to send him another bill, with a penalty/late fee applied. I guess it wasn't very much ($11?) but the state is very serious about collecting late fees.
-
I got no bill. What do I do?
-
Unfortunately many people thought this was a second bill and inquired about it through the Supervisor's office.
Got a letter today from the county letting me know I might get a bill from the state for this fee. ::)
-
As much as I hate to say it, I'd call as you are still responsible to pay it.
Many homeowners have their tax bills sent directly to the mortgage company as they pay the taxes because of impound accounts. If the mortgage company is the only one listed to receive the tax bills it's possible they received the bill.
Regardless - call
I got no bill. What do I do?
-
Got a number?
-
I'd try: 1 800 400-7115
Which is the Board Of Equalization listed on their handy dandy color insert
-
I will call my mortgage company first, as they get my tax bills.
-
The bill I got was for 7/1/11 through 6/30/12. Has 7/1/12 through 6/30/13 been billed yet? Just asking because I had a refinance a little over a year ago, and if a new bill for 2012-2013 went out, it might go to the mortgage company.
-
New Fire-Prevention Fee Draws Heat
State officials announced the $150 fee earlier this year, but it still came as a surprise for some homeowners.
By Craig Fiegener and Bill French
| Wednesday, Oct 24, 2012 | Updated 11:21 PM PDT
Across California, some 825,000 residents are receiving notices about the state's new Fire Prevention Fee. Creation of the charge was no secret, but many people had not heard about it until this week.
"It's very shocking," said Anita Phillips, of Crestline, who received the letter a couple days ago.
Residents are being asked to pay $150 to cover the cost of fighting fires in heavily wooded areas where the state is responsible for fire prevention. But for Phillips, it comes just as she's struggling to modify her mortgage.
Some residents say it's the wrong time for unexpected bills, especially in the Inland Empire, where people are trying to recover from a badly-beaten economy.
Without question, Crestline is an area that has faced terrible fire threats. The Governor signed the Fire Prevention Fee law last July to help battle fires in areas similar to Crestline.
The language in the new law reads this way: "The law established a new annual Fire Prevention Fee to pay for fire prevention services within the State Responsibility Area. This fee is assessed on owners of habitable structures."
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association considers it such an unfair levy that it plans to fight the fee in court. Others see it as a worthwhile expense.
"We need it," said Crestline resident Bridgitte Nowakowski. "Firefighters are here to help us keep our homes so they don't burn down. So what is $150? That's nothing."
If everybody pays it, the fee will raise more than $123 million. Phillips says she doesn't like what she sees as heavy-handed language in the letter.
"Well yeah, not be so demanding, and say they will foreclose on our homes if we don't pay and impose a 20 percent penalty if we don't pay," she said.
For now, the Fire Prevention Fee is state law and it's coming due. At least until a judge says otherwise.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Complaints-Grow-About-New-Fire-Prevention-Bills-175707431.html
It says right on the "pre-billing" that we will receive no additional services from this $150.00. How can anyone say "we need it" "it's worth it". Its EXTORTION. I have friends that live near Hwy 18 and Oasis Rd. They received the bill too. That is certainly not a wooded area, nor is there a whole lot of anything that would make fire fighting more labor intensive. But, like they said, we get nothing more in regard to services than we do now
-
New Fire-Prevention Fee Draws Heat
Creation of the charge was no secret, but many people had not heard about it until this week.
Other than the information here on this forum and the bill itself, I still have heard nothing.
-
-
I also just received the same email notice. I did file and hope that HJTA is able to win this one in court to send a message that we will not just roll over and open our wallets!
-
Since I have not received my bill I called the Board of Equalization. Turns out they had the wrong PO Box, missing one digit. They will correct and send a new bill with an extension, due to incorrect mailing information.
-
Hi Chuck -- glad to know that we're not the only ones having problems getting our bill. ::)
We've been at the same address up here in WA, since moving from Wrightwood, over a year ago. Last year, we notified the County Tax Assessor's office of our new address, and have had no problems getting our property tax bills from them. Thanks to you guys on the forum, I knew to be watching for the "announcement" of the fire tax bill. We received that, as well as the other information from the County -- but NO bill. We waited and waited, and DH finally called the Board of EQ to find out what happened. Turns out that they had sent the actual bill to our Wrightwood PO Box, which we closed last year (when we moved). When the time came to match names and addresses to County parcel numbers, they are obviously working from an outdated address list! They have supposedly corrected our address and are sending a new bill. ???
So, anyone who has moved or changed mailing addresses recently should definitely call them, if you haven't received your bill yet. The State has made it very clear that it's OUR responsibility to get billed, not theirs! >:(
-
Yes, I noticed their address list is at least a year old. Our place was held in a family trust, but it mistakenly was put in me and my wife's name when we refinanced recently. We still got the bill because the mailing address is the same either way, but we could tell they had older records because it was addressed to the trust.
-
-
BILL NUMBER: SB 17 INTRODUCED
BILL TEXT
INTRODUCED BY Senator Gaines
DECEMBER 3, 2012
An act to repeal Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 4210) of
Part 2 of Division 4 of the Public Resources Code, relating to fire
prevention.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 17, as introduced, Gaines. State responsibility areas: fire
prevention fees.
Existing law requires the State Board of Forestry and Fire
Protection, 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 habitable structure on a parcel
that is within a state responsibility area, as defined, and requires
that the fire prevention fee be adjusted annually using prescribed
methods. Existing law requires the State Board of Equalization to
collect the fire prevention fees, as prescribed, commencing with the
2011-12 fiscal year. Existing law establishes the State
Responsibility Area Fire Prevention Fund and prohibits the collection
of fire prevention fees if, commencing with the 2012-13 fiscal year,
there are sufficient amounts of moneys in the fund to finance
specified fire prevention activities for a fiscal year. Existing law
requires that the fire prevention fees collected, except as provided,
be deposited into the fund and be made available to the board and
the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for certain specified
fire prevention activities that benefit the owners of structures in
state responsibility areas who are required to pay the fee. Existing
law further requires the board, on and after January 1, 2013, to
submit an annual written report to the Legislature on specified
topics.
This bill would repeal the above provisions relating to the
implementation of the fire prevention fees.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 4210) of Part 2 of
Division 4 of the Public Resources Code is repealed.
-
-
Oh, fudge.. I forgot to pay this bill.. but I did send it off today. And I, just speaking for myself, do think the state should be held accountable for what it does in the way of "prevention." Frankly, if it had gone to boosting up the number of firefighters and equipment to fight fires.. I might be more sanguine about it.
And,the State Board of Equalization (a misnomer if ever there was one).. is deducting how many millions to handle this billing process?? I guess $14 million betwixt the BOE and CalFire. It might be time for them to not equate 'prevention' with pretty 4-color mailers. If nothing else.. the BOE should stop putting "special taxes" on the return envelope. That will be Exhibit One. Just fudge. cheryl o7o
-
After submitting all three forms (as recommended) to the various agencies, I got my rejection letters today in the mail. One from the Board of Equalization and one from the Fire Prevention Fee Service Center. Both saying my request for redetermination had been rejected, as I knew it would be. Hopefully by submitting these forms I will now be in the system in case any the outcome of any lawsuit reverses this "tax".
-
I also got my 2 rejection letters last month. Thought it was a bit over the top to get 2 different ones.
-
.37 and .45 cents (total .82) of my $115 well spent. Plus they sent an envelope with the invoice that had a net amount due of $0.00.
-
Since I have not received my bill I called the Board of Equalization. Turns out they had the wrong PO Box, missing one digit. They will correct and send a new bill with an extension, due to incorrect mailing information.
Still have not received a new bill. I called them and they made adjustments, now have interest due, said they will correct and send me a bill. They said this fun should be fixed in two weeks. If I don't receive a bill, a corrected bill, to call back ;D
-
There's an interesting piece in the LAT today about the Dept of Forestry hiding around $3 million in a fund with a non-profit to avoid the money being transferred to the general fund.
-
-
From: Firetaxprotest.org
Cal Fire faces investigation by authorities
The Los Angeles Times has exposed the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for hiding $3.6 million in money derived from legal settlements that many are saying should have been deposited in the General Fund.
Instead, Cal Fire hid the money in a nonprofit account, using it to buy digital cameras and evidence sheds.
Following questions raised by the Times, Cal Fire now faces an investigation by the Department of Finance. Cal Fire officials are cooperating with authorities and researching how to deposit the remainder of the money in the General Fund where it belongs.
We will soon be in communication with you about the current status of the lawsuit by email. However, lawsuits generally take considerable time and encounter many procedural delays and roadblocks. Please be patient and do not call us asking when you will receive your refund. We will let you know when the lawsuit is resolved.
Thank you so much for your support.
-
-
Support SB 125 and stop paying the Fire Fee
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0101-0150/sb_125_bill_20130122_introduced.html
BILL NUMBER: SB 125 INTRODUCED BY Senator Gaines JANUARY 22, 2013
An act to amend Section 4212 of the Public Resources Code, relating to fire prevention.
This bill, recently introduced at the State level, would exempt property owners who live in an area currently provided fire protection by a fire district (such as our County Fire Department with stations in Wrightwood).
The key provision of this proposed law is:
(d) Notwithstanding any other law, a property owner of a habitable structure that is both within a state responsibility area and within the boundaries of a local fire district that provides fire protection service in the district shall be exempt from the payment of the fire prevention fee required under subdivision (a).
Contact your State representatives and urge their support and passage of SB 125.
State Assembly (District 36) Assembly Member Steve Fox-DEM
http://asmdc.org/members/a36/
State Senate (District 23) Senator Bill Emmerson-REP
http://cssrc.us/web/23/
-
Well here is one to add a bit of tinder to the fire. I was talking with a friend yesterday about the fire fees. She had called to see whether a payment plan was available. She was told yes, but if she protested the fee it would not be available to her.
Say what? cheryl o7o
-
^^ I doubt the right hand knows what the left hand is doing.
-
By DON THOMPSON
Associated Press
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- An annual fire-prevention fee that is unpopular with some rural property owners is headed back before the state Legislature, as Gov. Jerry Brown proposes to expand its use and opponents try to kill it.
The fee was imposed for the first time last year and helps fund the state's firefighting agency. It has run into two new hurdles in recent weeks that are feeding criticism and uncertainty about its future.
First came a disclosure that the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection funneled money from wildfire damage settlements into a special account instead of the state treasury.
That revelation was followed by an opinion from the Legislature's legal counsel that the department is improperly using some of the new fire fee revenue to collect damages from those who maliciously or accidentally start fires, instead of its intended purpose.
The news prompted a state audit, led Republican lawmakers to call for a federal investigation and bolstered the hopes of an anti-tax organization that is suing over the way the fee was enacted.
Department spokesman Daniel Berlant said there was no intent to hide $3.6 million in wildfire settlement money that was placed in an account kept by the California District Attorneys Association. Most of the money was used to buy digital cameras, radio scanners and other equipment, and for conferences to train county prosecutors and fire investigators.
The department provided documents it said show that state officials were told about the fund, unlike the parks department where officials deliberately hid $20 million from lawmakers and the governor.
A February 2010 email to the Department of Finance, state Assembly and Bureau of State Audits has an attached memo outlining 10 financial and management issues facing the firefighting agency. The Wildland Fire Investigation Training and Equipment Fund at the center of the dispute is addressed in four paragraphs on page seven of the 10-page memo.
A 26-page internal audit of the account also was posted on a public website in 2009, four years after the fund was created.
Finance Department spokesman H.D. Palmer said the existence of the fund was not widely known, and officials are now auditing the account.
Putting money from wildfire settlements into an account overseen by the district attorneys association is like playing "shell games with the public's money," said Assemblyman Adam Gray, D-Merced.
He is chairman of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, which plans a hearing on the shift.
Republican lawmakers sent Brown a letter two weeks ago demanding that he ask a federal prosecutor to investigate. The administration is still working on a response.
"It damages the credibility of the agency," said Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association President Jon Coupal, whose organization is suing to overturn the new property fee. "This smacks of the same issues that tarnished the parks department."
As revenue from the new fee on rural property owners comes in, the state fire department is using a portion of it to pay for 24 employees who collect damages from those who start wildland fires. Brown has proposed using $3.7 million from the fees to fund that program permanently, but the legality of that move also is being challenged.
The nonpartisan Office of Legislative Counsel concluded that using the rural property fee to investigate and prosecute those who start wildfires violates the state constitution because there is no direct benefit to the property owners paying it. The fee ranges up to $150 a year and is assessed on nearly 800,000 property owners.
Republican lawmakers have introduced at least five bills to repeal or restrict the new fee.
Meanwhile, the administration wants the Legislature to amend the property fee so the money collected can be used for fire-prevention efforts in areas that border the regions where the fee is assessed.
That bill would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and officially turn the fee into a tax. The property fee was approved on a simple majority vote in 2011. Its opponents argue in their court filings that it actually is a tax that required a two-thirds vote by the Legislature.
"It's just another tax," said Vince Cal of Greenwood as he recently took time out from mowing his lawn in the tiny Sierra Nevada community 50 miles northeast of Sacramento.
"Prop. 13 was supposed to stop all that; now they put another name on it," he said, referring to the landmark 1978 property tax initiative.
Democrats now have two-thirds majorities in the Legislature and could make the legal challenge moot if they voted with a supermajority to redefine the assessment as a tax. That wouldn't matter to Darnell Olszweski, a single mother who lives in the foothill community of Garden Valley and sees no problem with an extra assessment for those who willingly live in wildfire country.
"It's for our protection, and I don't see why not if it is going for a good cause," she said.
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/02/18/5198460/legislature-to-renew-debate-over.html
-
Important information about your 2013 fire tax bill
Cal Fire is preparing to mail the next round of fire tax bills to people in the so-called State Responsibility Area. CalFire will bill you every year until we win our class action lawsuit.
http://us5.campaign-archive2.com/?u=a40c318dba8ce9a0fc951284f&id=4707837722&e=287f3cb9d1
-
Important information about your 2013 fire tax bill
Cal Fire is preparing to mail the next round of fire tax bills to people in the so-called State Responsibility Area. CalFire will bill you every year until we win our class action lawsuit.
Some people have already begun to ask whether they should protest their bill again. If you already filed the Petition for Redetermination according to the instructions on FireTaxProtest.org, and you received a denial that was not due to your Petition being late or incomplete, then you do NOT need to protest again unless you face one of three special circumstances, which are as follows:
Your parcel is no longer located in the State Responsibility Area
Your parcel has fewer habitable structures than the number billed, or
Your bill omitted the $35 credit for a parcel located within the jurisdiction of a local fire protection agency.
If you have not already filed the protest paperwork on FireTaxProtest.org, you should protest now.
Our lawsuit continues to wind its way through the process and we will be in touch with more information when it becomes available. Please be patient as lawsuits typically take a long time.
-
-
-
-
-
You are invited to a Fire Fee Tele-Townhall!
You are invited to join Board of Equalization Member George Runner April 2, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. for a teleconference townhall concerning the confusing and controversial California Fire Prevention Fee
If you would like to participate, please register in advance at: http://www.calfirefee.com/townhall/ (http://www.calfirefee.com/townhall/)
-
-
A Republican-authored bill to eliminate a fire prevention fee levied on some California residents failed to make it out of committee Tuesday morning.
Senate Bill 17, by Sen. Ted Gaines, R-Rocklin, fell on a 4-3 vote in the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee.
Supporters wearing bright red T-shirts bearing the phrase "Burned by the Fire Tax" packed the hearing room and lined up to register their support, joining fire officials and advocates for taxpayers and homeowners. No one appeared to voice opposition.
The state Office of Legislative Council has questioned how the administration of Gov. Jerry Brown spends revenue from the fee, which is assessed on property in rural areas. Lawmakers approved the fee in 2011 on a majority vote, rather than the two-thirds vote required for new taxes. Revenue from a fee must be spent to benefit those who pay it.
Opponents of the fee have argued that it has been used for other purposes. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has sued the state on those grounds, arguing that the fee is in fact an unconstitutional tax.
But some committee members said the fee was warranted to guard against blazes spreading from rural areas where they are more likely to start.
Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, who voted against the bill, endorsed awaiting the results of the lawsuit before moving to a legislative fix.
"The issue of tax vs. fee, I'm sure the courts will straighten this out," Jackson said.
http://m.sacbee.com/sacramento/db_98822/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=G47T4bPM&full=true#display
-
-
-
Hurray! Hope dawns!
http://arc.asm.ca.gov/member/AD33/?p=article&sid=427&id=254953
:2thumbsup:
-
-
-
-
If this bill stalls or dies, I figure the State already has our 2013 assessments ready to be mailed...
-
-
I had a question about this fee. We just bought our home at the end of 2012 and have not received any bill in the mail...so, are we going to get a bill for $150 or $300? I am confused...
-
-
-
-
Informative .. thank you. And, I wonder what the judge would think about my friend that was told she could not receive a payment plan if she protested the fee. cheryl o7o
-
-
-
-
i just got my bill. i don't remember if i filed the petition last time, so i'm doing it this time/again. i downloaded the form, but in the "reason for petition" there are 4 boxes to check. the 2nd and 3rd boxes don't apply to me, so do i pick box one, or 4 and what would be the reason, explanation and what documentation is there to send, or do i not qualify?
http://www.firepreventionfee.org/PetitionForm_081012.pdf (http://www.firepreventionfee.org/PetitionForm_081012.pdf)
-
-
-
I got my bill in the mail today also. I haven't bought colored paper in years. I wonder how much more it cost them to mail these in PINK envelopes? ??? >:(
-
thanks Elk, that's what i needed. only problem is in in PDF format and i don't have a converter. if anyone has converted this PDF file into a WORD doc could you please email me a copy at ezzpete@yahoo.com
thanks
-
ezzpete
You can go to the adobe site and download a free pdf reader
http://get.adobe.com/reader/ (http://get.adobe.com/reader/)
-
Okay, I have been reading this thread for some time, and resisting asking the obvious question because I don't want to get 'flamed'. However, I am serious about my question, and the recent fire above town has just increased my need to ask:
Knowing that we live in a high fire danger area, why are not ready to just write out that check - why are we protesting this fee? I know the legal argument, that it is an "illegal tax" because it wasn't passed by a 2/3 vote of the legislature. That's a legal technicality, not the point of my question. If we are looking at the state's financial ability to protect our homes in the event of a forest fire, I would think we would consider it like paying for fire insurance - a necessary evil to maintain our way of life in this rare, beautiful part of Southern California.
If you respond, please give me logical arguments, not emotion, because I seriously want to know what others are thinking about this issue.
-
Does anyone know if the neighborhoods in San Diego that were ravaged by the fire a few years ago are paying the fire fee? That would be my argument, that the fee is being applied unequally when every California citizen should expect fire protection at the level available to everyone else. San Diego doesn't seem like a likely place to be a fire risk, but look at what happened there.
-
Knowing that we live in a high fire danger area, why are not ready to just write out that check - why are we protesting this fee?
For me, yes, it's an illegal tax. That's #1. Secondly, this tax does not go toward fire fighting in any way. It's for "education" and "fire prevention". Again, it is NOT used in any way to fund actual fire fighting. It was enacted to make up the difference in the budget cuts to CalFire. it was also "retroactive" , which is why we are already paying the second installment of this tax. The boundaries of the SRA's are in question, too, especially in areas where there is a local fire department.
regarding "fire prevention/education"...I would also argue that we, who live here are already pretty darned educated about fire prevention. We have to be. It's often the idiots who come to the forest from the big city, who have no idea that their tossed cigarette, or illegal campfire can cause problems.
Now, I might agree that people who live in remote areas that are in no way serviced by any local fire department presence, should have to pay something if CalFire is the only agency that would protect their property. Heck, everyone else pays taxes to their local fire department.
I would have preferred if they just increased income tax for everyone in the state to pay for things like this. That way, it would be fair, and everyone who benefits from using public (state/fed) lands, would help defray the cost. It's simply not fair to tax people who live in certain areas only, under the assumption that only they will benefit from the increased tax. Remember the nasty earthquake in the SF Bay area several years ago? The state increased everyone's sales tax by 1/2 point (as I recall) to "pay" for all the damage. Using the "we live in a high fire area" argument... I could argue that only the people living in SF or Oakland should have had to pay for all the damage done.
I'm also not too happy about hearing reports of gazillions of dollars being "discovered" in CalFire's contrrol. I guarantee you that this is just the beginning of creative "taxes" or "fees" being created by the idiots in Sacramento.
I wonder how much money it cost us tax payers to have the state mail out numous "it's coming soon" mailings to people, followed by the pretty colorful invoice packages that were sent out. Add to that, the cost of people going thru the tap dance to protest it, followed by more mailings from the state departments denying those requests. Now, add the costs associated with the current lawsuit. I have no idea what other overhead is involved with this, but I'm sure there is plenty in Sacramento, associated with "administering" this tax.
The sad part, is that even if the lawsuit is successfull, even more money will be spent, refunding those who paid, if that's part of the settlement. Of course, I suspect some CPA in Sacramento has already figured out that the state will still make a tidy profit, just from interest earned while they held our money ransom.
-
-
I guess I answered my own question. ;D
Paid on-line using ePay at www.boe.ca.gov. Saved the confirmation as a PDF and printed three copies to send with the petitions.
-
-
And just to add insult to injury, if you read the instructions for the "petition" form (http://firetaxprotest.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Petition_for_Redetermination_Fillablenew1.pdf (http://firetaxprotest.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Petition_for_Redetermination_Fillablenew1.pdf)), at the very bottom is a partial list of "reasons you can't ask for a re-determination".
I quote..."Claims that do not qualilfy for redetermination include, but are not limited to...Disputes regarding the legality of the fee"
-
And just to add insult to injury, if you read the instructions for the "petition" form (http://firetaxprotest.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Petition_for_Redetermination_Fillablenew1.pdf (http://firetaxprotest.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Petition_for_Redetermination_Fillablenew1.pdf)), at the very bottom is a partial list of "reasons you can't ask for a re-determination".
I quote..."Claims that do not qualilfy for redetermination include, but are not limited to...Disputes regarding the legality of the fee"
Well good grief, that would be the reason that I would choose for disputing this "fee". I did not file a dispute last year, I just paid the dang thing. I have not looked at the forms yet so I don't yet know, but does anyone have any valid suggestions we could write on it for disputing it?
-
Karin,
Just protest as they recommend (writing the appropriate words on your check, and yes, filing that petition for redetermination). It will be a cold day in heck before I allow California to tell me I don't have a right to petition something.
-
Thanks, Bob. My middle name should have been Procrastination, but I will look at it soon and follow your and John's suggestions on this wonderful site. At least I put the stupid envelope in a safe place so it wouldn't get lost in the rest of the paper clutter on my table. I need to do some serious straightening up. ;D
-
I did not file a formal protest last year. I did write 'Paid Under Protest" on my check. I don't know if that puts me out of the running for a refund. Cheryl o7o
-
Remember the redetermination claim must be made within 30 days from the date of the invoice.
Ours were dated 9/20/2013 so time is running out.
-
-
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
New ruling will bar some from receiving refunds
The Court has issued a ruling that has important implications for those affected by the fire tax.
While we do not agree with the decision, the Judge has decided taxpayers who failed to file a Petition for Redetermination will not be eligible to receive a refund if the fire tax is declared unconstitutional.
If you filed a Petition for Redetermination, you are still eligible to receive a refund if our lawsuit is ultimately successful. If you have not filed a Petition for Redetermination, you can still claim a refund of future payments by filing a Petition when you receive your next bill.
Petitions must be filed within 30 days of the date on the bill. The necessary form and attachment, as well as instructions for completing and filing the form, can be found at our special website, FireTaxProtest.org.
Lawsuits can be long and drawn out processes. We expect at least one more billing before receiving a ruling on the merits of the case.
If we win, all taxpayers could be free from future fire tax bills. However, as a result of this decision, those who have not yet filed Petitions for Redetermination will not be able to recover money they already paid.
Click here to read the decision: http://tinyurl.com/msazhqr (http://tinyurl.com/msazhqr)
-
-
By George Runner
In the middle of California's driest winter on record and following an active fire season, our state must provide the firefighting services Californians need and expect.
That's why I recently sent a letter to Governor Brown urging him to eliminate the controversial (and probably illegal) Fire Prevention Fee. I also asked him to restore full funding to CAL-FIRE in the revised version of his 2014-15 budget proposal. In this time of drought, CAL-FIRE must have the reliable funding it needs to fulfill a mission that benefits all Californians.
Remember, the fire fee doesn't pay one cent toward fighting fires, but rather backfills budget cuts made to CAL-FIRE years ago. The third set of bills is currently scheduled to go out in early March.
The fire fee is a bad tax, not just because of the unnecessary burden it places on taxpayers, but because it is horribly inefficient to collect. From the beginning, the process of collecting the Fire Prevention Fee has been lengthy and expensive, proving it is a poor method for funding CAL-FIRE's fire prevention efforts.
Each year the Board of Equalization is required to mail nearly 800,000 bills on behalf of CAL-FIRE to Californians who own habitable structures in the State Responsibility Area (SRA).
In the 2012-13 fiscal year, the Board of Equalization spent more than $8 million and CAL-FIRE more than $9 million to administer the fire fee. That's more than $17 million in new expenses for the state for just one year's billings. It is a gross understatement to say this does not make good fiscal sense.
In a recent supplement budget report, staff notes that the fee "has created a substantial workload that could not be absorbed by the BOE."
Staff blames the program's administrative complexity and $1.7 million in cost overruns on numerous factors, including the delay of initial billings, a high protest rate, collection actions, errors in CAL FIRE's data file, high rates of returned mail and an extremely high volume of phone calls and correspondence not typical of other tax programs.
To demonstrate just how fiscally unsound the program is, let's compare some numbers.
The Board of Equalization collects only $75 million from nearly 800,000 fire fee payers. In contrast, the Board of Equalization collects approximately $20 billion from nearly one million sales tax permit holders (i.e. traditional retailers).
If we were to redirect the staff currently working on the fire fee to, for example, collecting unpaid taxes from the illegal underground economy, the state would experience a far greater benefit.
Given questions about the law's legality, the state also faces mounting costs and growing exposure as a class action lawsuit brought by fee payers moves forward. Should the courts strike down the fee, which seems likely, the state will need to provide refunds to property owners.
Rather than continue to pick the pockets of rural Californians, a responsible budget will restore CAL-FIRE's full funding using existing revenue. This will save the state the costs of continuing to administer, collect, litigate, and likely refund this illegal and inefficient tax.
The fire fee continues to place more burdens and costs on both CAL-FIRE and the State Board of Equalization, without providing additional firefighters, air protection or even a single hose - despite our state's increased firefighting expenses this year due to drought conditions.
The fiscally responsible thing to do is eliminate this foolish tax.
George Runner represents more than nine million Californians as a taxpayer advocate and elected member of the State Board of Equalization. For more information, visit boe.ca.gov/Runner (http://boe.ca.gov/Runner) or calfirefee.com (http://calfirefee.com).
-
Got bill last week, arrived in pale green envelope from the State Board of Equalization. $115.00 due, for 7/01/11-6/30/12, determination issued 3/18/14. Due 4/17/14, with a penalty of 11.50 if not paid on that date. Interest will accrue 0.050% per month.
States that Board of Eq. issueing on behalf of CAL FIRE, called the Fire Prevention Fee.
Bold print in left upper corner: BILLING & REFUND NOTICE.
Any on else get one of these? I assumed this would appear on my property tax bill, am a little concerned how LATE the billing is, for 2011-2012. Will there be '12-'13 next and then '13-'14.
Any thoughts?
-
Go to the beginning of the thread you posted in. This is where you will find all the important information.
-
Part timer: remember this is a state "fee" and not a county tax so it wouldn't appear on your property tax bill
-
One thing I haven't seen talked about much here is: what are people doing when they sell the property, and then still get the bill? Pro-rating and apportionment of county property tax is routinely dealt with as part of the escrow process -- but, not this fee. ??? ???
Thanks!
-
-
I noticed that the petition had radio buttons for previous years; since I paid the bill before I knew to file the petition for 2011-12, I completed a petition for that year as well as the current year. I thought it was worth trying . . . (shrug)
-
Reminder... Tomorrow is the deadline to pay the fire Fee/Illegal Tax.
-
Well I'm really confused now. Have I missed something in this thread?
I paid first time on November 20, 2012
I just paid again on Oct. 15, 2013...no it was not late. Now I am to pay again? by June 2014?
Are they billing us twice a year now????
Are there two bills for each Tax installment?
Did anyone else get two bills? No I have not been late since these started coming in....
I'm completely confused about this...
-
3pink... We share the same confusion on this one. I too thought to myself "Wait, I paid this." The original fee was retroactive and I guess they're catching up to the normal cycle. That or they are really messing with us. I write "Paid Under Protest" on my check and await some final determination as to its legality.
I do not like when taxes and fees are retroactive. I don't even like them when they start on the date that the law changed.
cheryl o7o
-
3 Roses, we got exactly the same as yours. I won't worry unless we get two bills in the same calendar year. Perhaps they changed the billing cycle.
-
Do not forget to file the three letters of protest and re-determination in a timely manner also.
Then keep then on file in case this tax (fee) should be ruled out in court.
-
-
We're also reminded that not one dime of our state's so-called "Fire Prevention Fee" has helped fund this year's firefighting efforts.
Just curious, if none of the money went to fighting this year's fires, where did it go, and, more curiously, where did we get the money to fight those fires? Bottom line, does it really matter which category the money came from - ultimately it came from us, the taxpayers.
-
My wife and I bought a house in WW in April, but we never received a bill for the fire tax. I do not believe the previous owners paid the fire tax for 2014, I hope we do not get hit with any fines.
-
Forester... If the fire fee was due for your property..it should have shown up in your escrow docs. And, the payment for same should have shown up in your docs.
Ad astra... our Fire Fees are for 'prevention' not fire-fighting. If I understood it right. And, I agree with you.. it really doesn't matter which pocket it comes from .. we're all wearing the same pair of pants. cheryl o7o
-
Im not sure if it was in the escrow papers or not, thats a good idea Cheryl, I will look
, thank you.
-
-
Has anyone picked up a letter from Betty Yee today? I got mine this morning and noticed another one in the door (I guess it had been misdelivered). I'm wondering if anyone else got the same letter.
-
Taxed seemingly on everything. Even stuff our property taxes should cover.
Jerry Brown wants his stupid train! Period! Can't you just hear him... " I want my train! It's my legacy! I like Jello..........", Senile old fart! (I resemble that remark by the way....takes one to know one) :o
-
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
New protest forms now available for 2015
CalFire recently announced they will send a new round of fire tax bills, with counties beginning with the letter "A" receiving bills first.
It is important you file a protest every time you pay the fire tax so that you maximize your chances of receiving a refund if the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association's class action lawsuit currently underway is successful.
Challenging the Fee and Claiming a Refund
http://firetaxprotest.org/?page_id=13 (http://firetaxprotest.org/?page_id=13)
2015 Form:
http://firetaxprotest.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/PetitionFormEN_2015.pdf (http://firetaxprotest.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/PetitionFormEN_2015.pdf)
Although the lawsuit is moving forward slowly - partly as a result of its size and complexity and partly as a result of deliberate stalling by the state's attorneys - another hearing has been scheduled and the public is invited to attend.
This hearing is on our "Motion to Certify Class," which establishes your right to be represented in the case.
If you are interested in attending the hearing, mark your calendar with the following information:
Hearing: Motion to Certify Class (HJTA v. CalFire)
Date: June 12
Time: 11:00 am
Location: Sacramento Superior Court, Dept. 24
720 9th St, Sacramento, CA 95814
-
-
I believe this is what happens when you give fire fighters hero status by failing to adequately prepare for wild fire by having more then adequate defensible space, or living in an area where homes would burn to the ground without their help.
I would be more than willing to opt out of having fire fighters defend my house from wild fire for a significant reduction in taxes.
-
I so agree with the writer --- why should we pay extra for living in a potential fire area, when folks in Compton don't have to pay more for the extra police activity? It's just not right.
-
Compton? The LASD Antelope Valley station is the leader in the county in tag numbers.
-
Hey, Compton is just what came to mind. That and Inglewood, that I drove through recently by accident, lol.
-
Anyone know what the three to five percent surcharge would be based on? Would it be the assessed value of your property? I'm assuming since it's referred to as a 'disaster' fund that it would include earthquakes, etc. cheryl o7o
-
Just got (and paid) our 2015 Fire Prevention Fee . . . in light of the article posted above, should we still be filing a new Petition for Redetermination each year, or is this a lost cause?
-
To protect their eligibility for a refund, property owners should protest every billing by filing a new Petition for Redetermination within 30 days of the billing date. Information on how to appeal is available at www.calfirefee.com/appeal.
More Here (http://goldrushcam.com/sierrasuntimes/index.php/news/local-news/2483-fourth-round-of-california-fire-prevention-fee-bills-begins-mailing)
-
Previously, we were told to mail a copy of our petition to three addresses. I see only one address at the link you listed. We no longer need to send a copy to the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and/or the Board of Equalization?
-
From this page on the the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers site I clicked on the DOWNLOAD FORMS
firetaxprotest.org (http://firetaxprotest.org/?page_id=13)
On the Petition instructions page 3 it says:
Do not mail duplicates of this petition to the Board of Equalization or the Board of Forestry.
It sure appears that they've changed what we were told before.
-
Telephone Townhall on Fire Tax May 13
Don't miss your opportunity to have your questions answered!
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association President Jon Coupal will join Board of Equalization Members Diane Harkey and George Runner as well as Senator Mike Morrell for an important telephone townhall on the fire tax this May 13 from 12:00 pm to 1:00 pm.
Follow the instructions below to register for this informative meeting. The townhall is free, but you are required to register in advance to participate.
TO REGISTER: Visit http://www.boe.ca.gov/townhalls (http://www.boe.ca.gov/townhalls) or call 844-829-8353.
-
Audio of Telephone Town-hall on Fire Tax May 13, 2015 (http://www.wrightwoodfsc.com/firefees/Fire_Fee_Townhall.5.13.15.mp3)
-
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Motion to certify class now scheduled for August 7
The public is welcome to attend this important hearing
Our attorney's "Motion to Certify Class," establishes your right to be represented in the case.
The hearing had previously been scheduled for June 12, but has now been postponed to Friday, August 7. The complete details are below:
Hearing: Motion to Certify Class (HJTA v. CalFire)
Date: August 7
Time: 11:00 am
Location: Sacramento Superior Court, Dept. 24
720 9th St, Sacramento, CA 95814
-
-
Suisun City? Now there's an important State gov't office, LOL
-
-
-
-
I was pondering last night why it is we're in a zone that is considered a high fire risk and thus required to pay the Fire Fees. And, we're simultaneously in a zone with one of the highest percentage targets for water conservation in the state with restrictions on watering our yards. cheryl o7o
-
Two words: Jerry Brown
-
My wife and I bought our house in Wrightwood last year, escrow closed in April 2014. We have never received any fire fee last or this year. I looked into our mortgage and I couldn't find anywhere where the fees were paid automatically through our mortgage. Should I be concerned that I haven't paid any fire fees since I never got any fee? yet?
-
Forester... I'd check with the Board of Equalization. You can use your parcel map #. Might as well check or you can get a late fee. cheryl o7o
-
Okay, thank you Cheryl.
-
$43 million in California fire prevention money goes unspent
SACRAMENTO, Calif.
A state fire prevention account has ended recent fiscal years with tens of millions of dollars unspent despite bone-dry conditions across much of California's wildland area.
The state ended the fiscal year in June with an estimated $43 million in fee money left over for fire prevention, the Sacramento Bee reported Sunday (http://bit.ly/1WFIfCD).
The state collected more than $300 million through June from more than 800,000 property owners who pay a fire prevention fee. Most of them pay $117.33 a year for each habitable structure.
The money has been generated by a contentious, four-year-old fee pushed through by Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative Democrats over the objections of Republicans and rural property owners.
Statewide since January, more than 5,300 fires have torched almost 300,000 acres, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The toll would have been worse without activities and projects funded by the fire prevention fee, state officials said.
Yet they said they have proceeded cautiously in spending the prevention fee money because they were not sure how much money the charge would bring in.
"Given the fact that it's a relatively new fund, there's not a long track record on receipts. We do want to maintain a prudent reserve for unforeseen circumstances," Department of Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer said.
State Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber, who sits on the budget subcommittee that oversees Cal Fire, rejected the idea that the fire fund's large reserve reflects prudence.
"They're hoarding it," he said. "What for, I don't know."
Some have suggested the state may have one eye on the courts, where it is fighting a lawsuit filed by critics who contend the fee is an illegal tax.
In August, a Sacramento County judge elevated the case to class-action status, and a trial date is expected next year. If the state ultimately loses, the fee revenue would disappear and the state would face refunding an estimated 12,000 property owners eligible for the class.
Refunding five years of fees to landowners who filed a required protest would cost more than $7 million. Nevada County Supervisor Hank Weston, echoing a common belief, said he thinks the large balance in the fire prevention fund reflects officials' concern the state will lose the case.
Weston, a former Cal Fire unit chief who pays the fire prevention charge, said there's no excuse for all of the unspent money in the fund.
"Statewide, they're collecting $75 million (a year), during one of the worst droughts, in one of worst fire seasons, and the best thing would have been to add a bunch of inspectors. They didn't do that," Weston said.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article37738437.html
-
-
-
-
I think I always imagined the court ruling the fire fee unlawful and us getting a full refund.
"Class action" always makes me think a partial award (or worse, attorneys accepting a low pre-trial settlement) where, after the attorneys get their 30-40%, our share of the remainder is perhaps a dime on the dollar.
-
after the attorneys get their 30-40%
Not so sure about that with it being:
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
-
I think Cheapskate made some good points. And those points are often how class-action settlements or court decisions are made. I guess we'll all have to wait to see. I did not formally file a protest to the fire fee. I did write "paid under protest" on my check. I do have a friend that asked to make payments. She was told she could do that but she'd have to waive her right to protest the fee. So, I question when the release from the Jarvis group states "everyone who has not opted out" will be a party to the class action suit .. is correct. cheryl o7o
-
I respect the work that the Howard Jarvis group has done and continues to do. If anybody can get this unfair tax off of our backs, it will be HJTA. As for getting refunds, that's probably not going to happen. A lot depends on how the judge rules on the lawsuit. I would be satisfied if the fee was eliminated.
If I received a refund, I would probably become even more generous in my support of HJTA. I am still mindful of the property tax savings that we have enjoyed over the years since Proposition 13 became law. Thank you HJTA!
-
Just FYI if you bought/sold a Wrightwood house since this went into affect .... We bought one house in June 2014 and sold the other one in July 2014. I had to pay fire fees for the full year for both, even though there were only 9-days worth of the year on the house we sold. They don't do any kind of pro-rated bill.
-
KW.. my escrow pro-rated fees that had been paid. Just a thought. cheryl o7o
-
The fee never came up during the sales process or escrow. Maybe the realtors in town need to be aware of this and include this issue to be resolved in escrow. The person at the State Board of Equalization said it's an ongoing problem because some escrow companies don't know about it. I didn't know about it until I got a late notice with interest for my new house. They waived the late fee and interest once they learned of the issue.
-
KW.. good points. When we bought here the fire fees had not been enacted. I might have tried sending the new owners of the house you sold the bill for the upcoming year because I believe the fee is prospective. Course, I can see why you wouldn't have wanted a delinquent bill in your name with the BOE/state. If nothing else, perhaps you'll be a 'double plaintiff' in the Howard Jarvis lawsuit. cheryl o7o
-
KW,
I do believe the "realtors in town" live in town. So they're well aware of the fee. And, in my experience, when they accept listings they don't press the sellers into disclosures. More disclosures = fewer sales. Turn a blind eye, etc.
-
-
In my limited experience with class action lawsuits, part of the court process is for the defendant (the state in this case) to mail the notice to the potential plaintiffs (you and me in this case). I haven't received a letter yet. March 7 appears to be the cut-off date for 'opting out.' Seems a bit close in time if a mailing is to go out.
cheryl o7o
-
Yeah, 'dem notices need to be in the mail PDQ! :-)
-
-
-
-
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Petitions: One and Done
Once you have filed a timely Petition for Redetermination, you do not need to keep submitting Petitions each year. At first, HJTA advised people to submit a new Petition each year. This was in case the Court only allowed refunds for years when people filed a Petition. But now, the Court has confirmed that people protesting the Fire Tax only need to file one timely Petition. If we win, that timely Petition will make you eligible for refunds for the first year you filed and all following years.
If you did not protest the Fire Tax the first year you paid it, you may still be able to protest it! Correspondence with the BOE and CalFire has indicated that a Petition for Redetermination may be submitted to protest all the years the Fire Tax has been paid. The staff persons with whom we corresponded may not be the final authority on this question, but according to them you may check all the boxes on the form for the years you have paid. Please note that Petitions for Redetermination must still be postmarked within 30 days of the date on your bill. Petitions received outside of this time period may be considered invalid. If you have any uncertainty about whether you filed a timely Petition the first year you paid the Fire Tax, you may submit a Petition the next time your receive your bill and check the boxes for all the years you paid. Updated Petitions for the 2015-2016 billing cycle are available on our website at www.FireTaxProtest.org.
-
-
So I have paid this tax for several years now, but I have never filed a Petition of Redetermination. Am I SOL?
It seems to me that if the court finds this tax to be illegal, as they should, then they should issue automatic refunds.
-
Well C&S.. I think the both of us are SOL on this one. But, you know.. after the Blue Cut Fire.. I'm not going to bitch about it anymore. I guess it comes down to whether the Fire Fee is a tax or or a fee. As long as the fee/tax goes to preventing wild fires.. it is ok. I'll whine about it.. but anything that adds to the resources to prevent another fire like Blue Cut.. I'm good with. cheryl o7o
-
-
-
Don't get me wrong -- I pay the fee, I'm sympathetic to this cause like all who do -- but "class action" sounds like I get one-millionth of what remains after the lawyers take their cut, and now those same lawyers want me to throw good money after bad. Howard Jarvis was the rage in like 1977, sometimes you gotta know when to pull up the tent, Mr Coupal. But thanks for your continued spirited support of Prop 13.
-
Class action lawsuit..... the lawyers get the goldmine and everything to be had. Peopel that paid get the shaft nothing.
-
So far I'm impressed with what the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) has taken on. They are a non-profit 501(c) (3) and highly doubt that there's a big windfall for the attorneys in this case. HJTA is fighting for everyone.
-
-
If the "fee" is overturned, everyone will save $135-150 per year from that time forward. Even if the lawyers were to get all of the settlement the future savings to homeowners are real.
-
As for class-action suits: I have a class-action settlement check from AT&T taped to my refrigerator for humor. It is for four cents. Gosh, I appreciated it. I may even have it framed.
As for the fire fee being a tax or a fee.. a rose by any other name. I do wish our fire fees had gone into doing more brush clearance before the "Blue Cut Fire." I'm guessing that there are a lot of priorities for clearance.
As for the HJTA attorney's receiving a windfall or not:... I think it's safe to say that, if they prevail, those attorney's will receive a good portion of any settlement. Course, they worked for it. Whether or not any portion of a settlement/judgment would go to HJTA would be spelled out in the final documents of either a settlement or judgment. And, despite HJTA complaining about a document dump... it was likely because of their subpoenas. So, gather thee roses.... My thoughts.. cheryl o7o
-
I had forgotten that after the last election the Democrats got the supermajority in both houses. If they really want this policy, they can pass it by 2/3 and render the lawsuit or it's outcome moot.
-
Cheapskate.. Are you stating that the Prop 13 provisions require: 1) a vote of the people, or 2) a 2/3 majority in the legislature? I've always thought that any new tax required a vote under Prop 13. Thus, the reason for HJTA trying to show that the fire fee is a tax and not a fee.
After the Gann initiative passed... following Prop 13. ..most local government entities began to require fees for various services that used to come out of tax dollars. Perhaps, an unintended consequence of that initiative.
If a 2/3 majority can repeal this tax/fee.. then the answer is in your question. They don't want to repeal it. cheryl o7o
-
A 2/3 vote in both houses (w/ Governor's signature) can enact a new tax. It's rarely done because legislators seldom take hard stands, they prefer to put the tough votes on the ballot as a referendum. Since the fire fee affects 850,000 rural households (not exactly the Dems base), I think they'd have no qualms about approving it as a tax if push comes to shove; this is one tax where they wouldn't pay a political price. I'm starting to think we're stuck with the "fee" regardless of the lawsuit's outcome.
-
-
"special purpose"...great clarification. There IS hope after all! Thanks.
-
-
-
Facebook
Bob Comperini
After reading this thread, if there are still people who think this tax pays for fire fighting, take a look at the Fire "fee" page from the State. You will NOT find one single word about "fire fighting". It's all "prevention" related (inspections, fuels reduction, education, planning, etc). We get NO new services from this, which is why it is not a "fee", but an illegal tax (that would have required more than a simple majority vote, when it was enacted).
http://www.fire.ca.gov/firepreventionfee/sra_faqs
http://www.fire.ca.gov/firepreventionfee/
What does the fee pay for?
The fee funds a variety of important fire prevention services in the SRA. Such activities include fuel reduction projects that lessen the risk of wildland fire to communities and evacuation routes, defensible space inspections, fire prevention engineering, emergency evacuation planning, fire prevention education, fire hazard severity mapping, implementation of state and local Fire Plans, fire prevention grants awarded to local non-profit groups, and law enforcement activities such as arson investigation.
http://www.fire.ca.gov/firepreventionfee/sra_faqs#15 (http://www.fire.ca.gov/firepreventionfee/sra_faqs#15)
-
-
Re: the previous letter from the Jarvis Taxpayers Assoc
At the end the letter states " that no action is needed by property owners at this time." According to an article in the LAT today the cap and trade bill that includes the fire tax repeal may or may not have the necessary votes needed to achieve the super-majority. Voters are encouraged to contact their Assembly and Senate representatives to urge a yes vote. cheryl o7o
-
We just realized we did not get a bill for the fire fee this year. Did they not send bills this year? Did the restructure of the BOE change the billing process? We logged on to the BOE site and made the payment anyway . . . ::)
-
How did you get so lucky? (or not, if you accidentally misplaced it) We got ours, mailed in a green envelope from SBOE on May 1, 2017 for $117.33, due on or before May 31. (I've saved each one, I'm anal that way :-\)
-
Well guys... with the passage of Cap & Trade.. it looks like the fire fee has been repealed. So,Yippee! Tho, I'd still like to see monies allocated to fire prevention. cheryl o7o
-
-
This comment is in response to Jim's statement in the community crime tread regarding the repeal of the fire fee.
There is a piece in the LAT today about the repeal of the fire fee that was included in the cap & trade legislation. What really frosts me is that evidently none of the monies collected by the fire fee were used for new programs for fire prevention. $200 millions was transferred out of the budget for fire and transferred to the general fund. The fire fee was used to replace that money. No new programs were initiated.
As for the increase in gas prices due to cap & trade - the estimate is 24 cents to 71 cents by the year 2031. i still support the cap & trade legislation. I would like to see something even stiffer to reduce emissions. cheryl o7o
-
I would like to see something even stiffer to reduce emissions. cheryl o7o
You could stop driving your car and ride a bike, JUST KIDDING :)
-
Geez, Cheryl, you just now discovered the general fund switcheroo? :-)
It has always been Sacramento and school district's game, especially with bond money allegedly "dedicated" to specific purposes (which is why bonds use vague terms like "repairs", they don't list specific projects). General fund money once budgeted for repairs -- and the salaries of the people doing the repairs -- are now covered by the bond. And suddenly there's "free money" they can spend on things you never intended.
-
Yes Cheapskate... I just discovered the ole switcheroo. But, wisdom come late is wisdom nonetheless. (That's not my line.) In my own experience, most elected officials couldn't read a budget or a line item change to save themselves. I remain p'od. cheryl o7o
-
-
-
An alternative point of view...that for once doesn't come from the HJTA... looks like the attorneys they engaged should have known the deadlines, etc. but bungled the case
http://idyllwildtowncrier.com/2017/12/12/judge-dismisses-state-fire-fee-litigation/
-
and the attorneys will be paid regardless. Pretty sweet deal.
-
HJTA appeals dismissal of fire tax lawsuit, continues to fight for refunds
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed its Notice of Appeal in the fire prevention fee case on March 1st. Within ten days we will be filing our notice designating the record on appeal.
As regular recipients of these emails know, the annual fire prevention fee has been halted. The State will no longer be billing the fee. However, the trial court judge threw out our case for refunds of past payments. That is what we are appealing.
Besides the appeal, HJTA is supporting a bill in the Legislature, Senate Bill 1044, that would allow fee payers to apply for a refund of all fees they paid in the past.
Passing Senate Bill 1044 will be an uphill battle, even though the State has a large budget surplus. We encourage you to contact your State Senator and your Assembly member urging them to vote yes on SB 1044.
To find contact information for your State Senator and Assembly member, please visit https://www.hjta.org/resources/taxpayer-tools/contact-representative. Thank you for your continued support of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
Timothy A. Bittle
Director of Legal Affairs
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
-
-
Sounds like a waste of time. A bill entering committee from a Republican member (didn't see a Dem co-sponsor)...that gives us our money back. Call all you want, that bill is dead. The fire fee is gone, but the old fee payments aren't coming back. John Coupal has a sweet gig, paid well to send out press releases and write newspaper op-eds for an organization so old it's essentially fringe (although I'm of an age where I actually remember the HJ of the HJ Taxpayers Assn!) I wonder what the John Birch Society is doing these days...
-
-
-
-
The Fire Fee referred to by HTPA is a state issue!
FP-5 is a SB Cty issue!