WrightwoodCalif.com Forum
Public Forums => Hot Topics => Topic started by: Wrightwood on Jun 18, 18, 07:58:32 PM
-
-
Is this just a replacement for the Fire Fee/Tax that got repealed?
http://www.wrightwoodcalif.com/forum/index.php/topic,17850.msg319548.html#msg319548 (http://www.wrightwoodcalif.com/forum/index.php/topic,17850.msg319548.html#msg319548)
-
The fire fee lawsuit was dismissed it was not repealed.
-
They did not discuss the Fire Fee we are paying even though we have a FD in our community..
The parcel tax is higher than the "adjusted" fire fee.
I couldn't tell by the article if this parcel tax was in addition to the fire fee.
Our supervisor's comments seem "thoughtful" but most of the fires are exacerbated by the environmentalist policies and legal action and the lack of preventative forestry--IMHO!
-
Our supervisor's comments seem "thoughtful" but most of the fires are exacerbated by the environmentalist policies and legal action and the lack of preventative forestry--IMHO!
Which environmental policies?
-
Some excerpts:
Research and adaptive management are essential in allowing fire?hazard?reduction projects to move forward where proposed projects are met with uncertainty and mistrust. While legislative reform may be desirable, a strategy that is not entirely dependent on new legislation is needed. Building on existing programs that are consistent with a science?based strategy will enable land?management agencies to better utilize information in pursuit of the overall objective of reducing uncharacteristically severe wildfires.
Fortifying the forest: thinning and burning increase resistance to a bark beetle outbreak and promote forest resilience.
Remember the Lake Arrowhead fire, i believe it was determined that the extensive destruction was a result of their local mandate not to cut or trim the existing forest and the fact that there was no thinning created competition for water resulting in weakened trees making them more susceptible to Bark Beetle infestation and the increase in the number of dead or dying trees resulted in exacerbation of the fire damage.
https://www.fs.fed.us/appeals/
Forest Service Environmental Appeal Responses
This site contains information about the Forest Service's Environmental Appeals. An appeal is a request to an agency higher authority for review of an environmental decision.
General Information: For general information about the environmental appeals process, please refer to the Related Information links.
Appeal Decisions: Recent and historical appeal decisions are available on this site and are organized by the unit managing the project.
Please use the map or drop-down lists to view the Forest Service's appeal responses issued from projects taking place in the Washington Office (at the national level), in region-level units, or in forest-level units.
You may navigate directly to a Regional Appeal Response page using the following drop-down list, or by clicking on any of the Forest Service Regions on the map:e.g. R5 Pacific SW Region
Forest Service Appeal Responses for R5 - Pacific Southwest Region
An Environmental Appeal is a formal request to an agency higher authority for review of an environmental planning (NEPA) decision. The public's rights to file an appeal are defined in specific appeal regulations. Usually, all administrative processes must be exhausted before a person can bring a court action (litigation) against with a NEPA decision. This usually includes the filing of a formal appeal.
215 Appeals: These appeal NEPA decisions related to specific projects.
217 Appeals: These appeal NEPA decisions related to the development and amendment of Regional Guides and Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs).
251 Appeals: These appeal NEPA decisions associated with the occupancy and use of National Forest System land under permit, including special-use permits, municipal watersheds, mining locations, mineral rights, water rights, grazing and livestock permits, as well as others.
This appeal response list contains the best available information at the time of publication. It is not an exhaustive list, as some responses may have been issued before the next nightly report is published.
-
The "Fire fee" we paid was to CalFire and went to Sacramento. It had and has nothing to do with the funding of our County Fire Department. Only CalFire benefited from the replacement for funds that state legislature decided not to fund any more.
County Fire was alwaysthe red haired step child of the County Services. We existed on a funding mechanism that did not allow for funding a fire department that met the needs of a rapidly growing county. The services we enjoy now....staffing that allows a timely response with professionals and equipment comes at a price and a change of attitude at the BOS. It was not that long ago that our station was staffed with one firefighter and we waited to respond until the paid call firefighters could respond (remember the fire sirens in each end of town) I spent many a year as a Captain alone in the station here until the cross staffed ambulance got back from the hospital because we only had three on duty. Now we have a staffed paramedic ambulance and a staffed Paramedic Engine (Captain-Engineer and Firefighter) that can also provide critical care or fight fire when the next emergency comes in back to back.
Folks will have to decide what level of service they want in the future and how long they might willing to wait when they have an emergency. $12.75 cents a month is something I'd be willing to pay to keep what we have fought for and demanded over the years.
-
I agree with Jim and I'd pay more to ensure adequate staffing and equipment. The fire fee we all paid went away in a trade between state reps for their votes on 'cap and trade." Those monies were pilfered by the state anyway. They were supposed to go for mitigation as discussed in The Hallmarks messages. The Jarvis lawsuit was either dismissed or dropped.
It also makes sense to me to do something about the rule that paramedics have to stay with their patients until cleared by hospital staff. Ambulances and paramedics can be caught in ER admissions for hours.
I'm unclear about the procedural issue that was mentioned in the article. cheryl o7o
-
-
Cheapskate, I agree with you too. I don't know if this expansion of the parcel tax would be required to go to the voters.
Does anyone know why the levy wasn't applied to all parcels back when it was created? Cheryl o7o
-
Funny....most of the travelers who might use our services (car fire, medical aid, car crash) are not staying in hotels out here. They're traveling from the Southland to points east. We get some money from the Feds called In Lieu of Taxes for the vast area of the county that is federal land where they pay no property tax. It is why for years we had fire stations with hour and forty minute response times on the way to the river. There's not much there in the In lieu money. We've always treated folks no matter where they are from or what they are doing (The ski area is good example...90% of our patients do not live in our county) I do know that this would give the department a allocated revenue stream rather then trying to pry it out of the general fund. I do know that I pay a heck a lot more for schools, road bonds and such then I pay for fire protection on my property taxes.
-
"...this would give the department an allocated revenue stream rather then trying to pry it out of the general fund."
Will parcel taxes fully fund county fire? If not, the general fund shenanigans continue...
-
If you ever wondered just what your Fire Department does or faces in their day to day operation....grab a chair and watch this very well put together overview of the San Bernardino County Fire Department. Fire Chief Mark Hartwig was one of my Paramedic/Firefighters in the beginning of his career here and we knew he was someone special back then. Well worth the time to watch.
www.facebook.com/SanBernardinoCountyFire/videos/2068368140043779
-
-
This is proposed in addition to the Fire Fee we already pay each year? Did anything ever happen with that fire fee or is it still going to be charged?
-
-
(http://www.wrightwoodfsc.com/documents/MD_Wrightwood.FP_5.JPG)
-
Proposed County FIRE ASSESSMENT meeting. The flyer about the meeting indicates it is about "Service Zone FP-5 Expansion". This expansion includes an annual assessment of $157 for all properties in the unincorporated area of the County (with a 3% annual increase built in). This will NOT be on a ballot for a vote unless 25% of property owners in the County mail in a protest after receiving the notice in September. If less than 25% of the property owners protest, the expansion and $157 assessment will go into effect. Attend the meeting to get all of the details.
(Borrowed from Mountain Rim Fire Safe Council notice about yesterday's meeting in Lake Arrowhead)
-
Is this for vacant land too, or just improved parcels?
-
All properties.
-
And this is in addition to the current fire fee we pay?
-
The state fire fee (which did nothing for you) is no longer. You don't pay it anymore. This goes directly to the Co Fire Department to maintain and keep the service you have come to expect when you dial 911. County Fire has never had a solid funding source they could count on. This provides a steady source of income....that they can plan for and count on. I know I am pretty happy with having a three person paramedic fire company and a two person Paramedic Ambulance in our station and Station 10 in Phelan. I remember the days when I would be alone in the station for two hours when the Ambulance made a run to the hospital.
-
The unfairness of the structure of the FP-5 protest vote!
The county is using another Interesting approach to the approval process using percentages.
Instead of counting the number of protests based on the number of parcels, they are using the appraised value of the parcels. That reduces the "protest" value of the undeveloped parcels to protect their 25% and 50% requirements. If each parcel had an equal vote the protest would have a better chance of success!
-
(http://www.wrightwoodfsc.com/documents/MD_Wrightwood.FP_5.JPG)
-
Currently, FP-5 is only 2 significantly developed areas: Upland and San Bernardino (look at the FP-5 map, the Needles/Helendale/29 Palms is largely undeveloped nothing). Fun fact: levying this new tax on the REST of the unincorporated county and cities contracted to County Fire only raises 10% of the current fire budget (today's shortfall). My point: our basic property taxes almost cover fire costs, this parcel tax seems like a Band-Aid that only rises 3% annually. What happens 5-10 years from now when the inevitable next 10% shortfall occurs? The problem isn't the level in which we tax ourselves, it's the rate of growth of fire costs. Not aware of any plan to rein THAT in! (if anything, unfunded pension liability will cause the rate to grow even more). The best solution to more money in the County treasury is growing the base economy AND controlling costs. Increasing the rate of taxation encourages the opposite.
-
I listen to a podcast called 99% Invisible on my drive to and from work. A recent episode was on some really interesting fire research that started in the 1970s regarding why woodland fires burn homes. A guy named Jack Cohen (I don't think he's popular with the fire fighting community) did some research that showed homes could be built in a way that nearly guaranteed they wouldn't burn in close proximity to a woodland fire, mitigating the need for most fire fighting measures. Nobody listened to him and so we continue some really bad building and property maintenance methods that just increase the boundary between vulnerable homes and woodlands. The fire community decided to go the route of fighting fires harder and harder, incorporating air defense techniques and hiring more fire fighters. Fire suppression over the last 80 years has created nearly unprecedented levels of fire fuels and in turn the fires get harder, and more expensive, to fight. Don't get me wrong. I love our fire fighters and nothing makes me happier than seeing those big fixed wing aircraft show up to save my home. I just wonder if the current model is sustainable in the long run. Plus, these crazy hot and fast fires put fire fighter lives at more and more risk. All opinion but I thought it was a good listen. https://99percentinvisible.org/episodes/ It was an episode from 7/31/18.
-
Hank.. Where did you find the information on the developed vs undeveloped allocation to compute the #of protest votes required to initiate a full vote?
Cheapskate - Good points. But, we in the unincorporated haven't been paying this fee - right? So, it does seem fair to me. With climate change (whoops.. I mean Chinese Hoax) it's sounding like we're going to be doing a lot more fire fighting in the future.
jwhays661 - I'm soundwave challenged. How about an executive summary? thx. cheryl o7o
-
Hank.. Where did you find the information on the developed vs undeveloped allocation to compute the #of protest votes required to initiate a full vote?
Here is a copy and paste of text from the RESOLUTION NO. 2018-100
SECTION 8. Upon conclusion of the protest hearing, the District Board shall determine the value of
written protests filed and not withdrawn. If at least 25% of the number of landowners within the
affected territory who own at least 25% of the assessed value of land within the territory affected
submit a protest, then the District Board shall order by resolution that the formation or change in
boundaries of the service zone be submitted for confirmation by the voters.
Found here: http://www.sbcfire.org/Portals/58/Documents/FP-5/RES_2018-100_BOS_PROTEST_PROCEDURES.pdf?ver=2018-08-01-112017-193×tamp=1533147830585
Which was found here: http://www.sbcfire.org/ServiceZoneFP-5.aspx
-
Found here: http://www.sbcfire.org/Portals/58/Documents/FP-5/RES_2018-100_BOS_PROTEST_PROCEDURES.pdf?ver=2018-08-01-112017-193×tamp=1533147830585
Which was found here: http://www.sbcfire.org/ServiceZoneFP-5.aspx
Nice to see I'm not the only one that goes back to the sources.
Anyone who has ever played "Post Office" knows that each time the story is told it changes a little. The info on the sbcfire.org site are going to be the most accurate.
I'm not entirely certain if they require at least 25% of the parcels by count, 25% of the parcels by value, or both, but this may work in our favor.
It means that absentee owners (vacation houses in the San Gabriels and San Bernardinos) count, and places with higher values (and those who bought recently) have a little bit of extra clout. If you own several pieces of property, you should be able to "protest" once per parcel.
A home in Wrightwood may represent a bigger vote than 40 acres near ZYZZX. We bought in 2016, so our assessed valuation is much higher than someone who bought 20 years ago.
This kind of inbalance may be a way to mount a legal challenge if the action carries without a vote.
The resolution says "protest in writing" and says that protests dated (or postmarked) before September 14th will not count. The policy does not specify a proper form or format.
-
A couple of points:
- the District motion states "..25% of assessed value of land...." My question is whether that includes the value of improvements in determining the 25% of value that will trigger an election? My property tax bill breaks down those valuations. The word "land" is not defined in the motion.
-the motion also states " if 25% of landowners" submit a protest - it goes to a vote. I read that to mean the protestor does not have to be a registered voter or resident and it excludes renters. But, I'm assuming that if it goes to a full vote - it will be registered voters that determine. I'm not sure of that.
-I note our Supervisor voted no on the motion that outlines the 'protest vote' procedures.
-The new fee seems like a per parcel fee - regardless of how large your parcel is compared to others. It also has a 'no more than 3% increase per year clause. That has, to me, some hazy language so I'm not sure if the District has to vote to implement an increase.
-I particularly note the language at the end that ends with 11,000+ ... more or less, more or less. That ambiguity could get quite tricky for them if there's a challenge on the percentage rules.
By the way, I am not going to protest the fee. If it goes to a vote - I will vote for it. They could double the fee and I would vote for it. I will grumble and moan with others.. but vote for it I will.
There are public, information meetings here locally in addition to the one in WW. cheryl o7o
-
If you "parse" the words it states "If at least 25% of the number of landowners within the affected territory who own at least 25% of the assessed value of land" it means there must be at least
35% 25% of the parcels AND 25% of the accessed value. "AND" is unstated but understood! For clarity it should read "If at least 25% of the number of landowners within the affected territory and who own at least 25% of the assessed value of land"!
-
Hank.. Where did you find the information on the developed vs undeveloped allocation to compute the #of protest votes required to initiate a full vote?
If I understand the question, you asked where the information i used to determine that the voting process was unfair to the undeveloped parcels?
It is logical that if you are protesting and own developed parcels the assessed value will be greater than the assessed value of undeveloped parcels! Therefore, the protesting owners of undeveloped parcels vote counts toward the 25% of the number of parcels but the assessed value is lacking in value in the 25% assessed value. The vote should be equal per parcel regardless the value of the parcel due to the fact that the FP-5 fee is not reduced on undeveloped parcels--it is the same amount as the fee on a developed parcel In such it is an unfair & unequal amount of fee!
-
Hank or Elk or someone smarter then me....take a look and tell me how much you are paying on your primary residence for Fire Department and paramedics per year on your property taxes. In Wrightwood, that's a full time three person engine company (with paramedic engine) and a full staffed Paramedic ambulance. You have the same thing just down the road in Phelan. I know it's not a lot of money compared to the value received and the piece of mind.
-
If you "parse" the words it states "If at least 25% of the number of landowners within the affected territory who own at least 25% of the assessed value of land" it means there must be at least 35% 25% of the parcels AND 25% of the accessed value. "AND" is unstated but understood! For clarity it should read "If at least 25% of the number of landowners within the affected territory and who own at least 25% of the assessed value of land"!
For clarity, it probably should not have been written by someone involved in government.
Your interpretation, Hank, is common sense. It's the way I'd read it.
What a lawyer or a politician would think could be very different.
-
Hank or Elk or someone smarter then me....take a look and tell me how much you are paying on your primary residence for Fire Department and paramedics per year on your property taxes. In Wrightwood, that's a full time three person engine company (with paramedic engine) and a full staffed Paramedic ambulance. You have the same thing just down the road in Phelan. I know it's not a lot of money compared to the value received and the piece of mind.
No doubt that it's a great value and an important service.
What bothers me is the method being used. If this was a new fee (it's not a tax), there are requirements under Proposition 218 for new fees.
https://lao.ca.gov/1996/120196_prop_218/understanding_prop218_1296.html (https://lao.ca.gov/1996/120196_prop_218/understanding_prop218_1296.html)
Because FP-5 exists currently, it's not a new fee, and the Fire Protection District has found a way to raise revenues that would otherwise be subject to voter approval.
Fire is a good place to set the precedent, because most of us will agree that a well-funded Fire service is a benefit to all of us. What other special districts can be expanded if this goes through?
That's what makes me uncomfortable.
-
Hank,
I'm not disagreeing with your point. What I am asking is based on the question as to whether the term "assessed value of land" includes the improvements on that land to make the determination that the threshold of 25% of value has been met? The motion does not state "value of land and improvements." Arguably, one could protest that it simply means the 'land value' without the value of improvements. And, thus argue as to whether the value threshold has been met. There could be definitions elsewhere in the County Code or in CA law that do define the term. If not, the motion is silent on that point and the determination could be challenged.
lwt42 - Excellent point about Prop 218 requirements.
I'm still going to vote for this if it comes to a vote. Cheryl o7o
-
What does "assessed value" mean to you? What is means to me is the assessed value established by the county assessor's office and used for the basis for determining the my property tax on my parcel including any and all improvements.
-
BTW I made a typo in the following post: "there must be at least 35% of the parcels"! It should have read 25%! Also, is there any way to go to you original post and correct it similar to FB?
-
Hank I changed your original post to 25%
-
"Hank or Elk or someone smarter then me....take a look and tell me how much you are paying on your primary residence for Fire Department and paramedics per year on your property taxes. In Wrightwood, that's a full time three person engine company (with paramedic engine) and a full staffed Paramedic ambulance. You have the same thing just down the road in Phelan. I know it's not a lot of money compared to the value received and the piece of mind."
Exactly...our two communities currently have the same thing, funded out of today's property tax. None of us yet pay the proposed additional assessment.
What am I paying? A significant fraction of the $3k per year of my basic property tax. It may not be specifically designated as such, but property tax collected by the county overwhelmingly goes to local law enforcement and fire. Sacramento largely funded from income tax.
Repeating myself from earlier, this proposed $159/parcel on virtually all unincorporated lots is a Band-Aid, some chump change, added to address a recent shortfall because the increases in local tax revenue in today's growing economy aren't matching increases in fire costs. Repeating myself, if passes at the ballot box, fire and law enforcement will be pleading poverty and threatening cuts again within 5 years, because the growth in their costs far exceeds the growth in (most family's) household incomes and expenses.
I suppose I feel a request for additional taxes that increase 3% annually should be accompanied by a plan that assures us that cost increases will be controlled, stay within that rate. I've yet to see any evidence of such a plan...
-
Hank .. The "assessed value" of my parcel, that I pay to the County annually is two sums. It is the assessed value of the 'land' and the assessed value of the 'improvements.' Add them together and it equals the total assessed value of my 'parcel" .. my little slice of heaven. The District motion states 'assessed value of the land.' My question goes to the seemingly bifurcation of the term "land" from the actual total 'assessed value." Is that what they meant to do when they drafted the motion? I do not know. Does my question split a hair? Quite possibly. I need more coffee before we discuss this further.
-
Hank or Elk or someone smarter then me....take a look and tell me how much you are paying on your primary residence for Fire Department and paramedics per year on your property taxes.
Let me start by saying that I am yet undecided as to how I feel about this proposed increase and whether or not I will support it or not. I am split right now.
Secondly, I agree with Cheapskate that a significant portion (I don't know exactly how much) of my basic property tax currently goes toward fire services.
I am all for paying my fair share of the cost and have nothing but respect for the need and importance of making sure our fire dept. has what is needed to maintain services and reasonable response times.
I share the concern of others... when does it stop? When does government have to live within budget as we do in our daily lives?
-
Elk and Cheapskate....Maybe you can help me out....I pay around $3,000 for my current house in taxes each year. You seem to know what you pay for LE and Fire and it's a substantial part of the 3K that you pay each year. Could you share what that amount is for Public Safety (law enforcement and fire)? Not a perfect comparison but would be greatly interested. How did you find out that most of your taxes went to these two agencies. Thanks
-
Elk and Cheapskate....Maybe you can help me out....I pay around $3,000 for my current house in taxes each year. You seem to know what you pay for LE and Fire and it's a substantial part of the 3K that you pay each year. Could you share what that amount is for Public Safety (law enforcement and fire)? Not a perfect comparison but would be greatly interested. How did you find out that most of your taxes went to these two agencies. Thanks
Jim, I am not looking for an argument with you and never was nor did I claim that "most" of my "taxes went to these two agencies". What I said was a "significant portion (I don't know exactly how much)" as I do not know the actual breakdown. I also said... "I am all for paying my fair share of the cost and have nothing but respect for the need and importance of making sure our fire dept. has what is needed to maintain services and reasonable response times."
-
This report is 20 years old and I don't know what has changed since then, but it's a very interesting read about how the State money is split up between counties and cities, and discusses what percentage of property taxes go to each area. Maybe this will help understand the issue a bit better?
https://lao.ca.gov/1998/050798_county_revenues/050798_county_revenue.html
-
You can try this link for the county budget:
https://cms.sbcounty.gov/CAO-Finance/home.aspx
My links never, ever work. I googled "San Bernardino County, CA budget to find it. If you find it.. click on the pie chart to see what a woefully, pitiful slice of our county budget goes to fire. Law & Justice is slightly larger. The whopping majority of our county budget goes to 'human services." Let's save that debate for another time.
KW's link was interesting. As KW noted, it's way of date. It is about how counties receive revenue from the state and other sources.
This is an important discussion for all of us. We have to decide if we're going to protest the proposal for us to pay an additional fire fee. I'm going to bet my bloomers we can do this without getting angry at one another.
A segment of the county has been paying this additional fee. We are in a segment of the county that has not. That reality, for me at least, dispells the 'fair share' concept.
We're dealing with a lot more wild fires. Blue Cut is still seared in my memory. I would much rather be penny wise than pound foolish. The cost to me if my house goes up is a heck of a lot more than $150+ a year. cheryl o7o
-
SB County Adopted Budget 2017-2018
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
Starts page 629
FP-5 starts on page 641
http://cms.sbcounty.gov/Portals/59/Content/2017-2018/2017-18-Adopted-Budget.pdf
-
Has San Bernardino County thought of contracting with CalFire for fire services like Riverside County does? Might be cheaper.
-
I spent a bit of time reviewing the budget links.
Here are a few factoids:
Total county budget - $5.8 billion
Total revenue from taxes - $913 million (that's all taxes)
Taxes compose 14.6% of revenue
Fire district budget is $252.3 million or 4.3% of the total budget
Fire serves 19,278 sq. miles and 60+ communities and cities.
Taxes contribute varying percentages to the various fire districts from 20% to 30%. The charts cutoff, so I'm not sure.
Feel free to correct any of these figures.
My conclusions: Yes, my property taxes contribute to the total revenue of the county. But, my property taxes are not the biggest piece of the pie. I have lived here 17 years. Not counting fires around me - of which there have been plenty. We have used fire services approx. nine times for various emergencies - mostly ambulances. Blue Cut still stands out in my memory.
We can certainly question whether our fire service dollars are being managed properly. It's the ever-popular refrain about government. It is a legitimate question. My own opinion is that it deserves specific questions - not just broad strokes of accusation.
I agree that the 'protest vote' procedures could use improvement. One Supervisor voted no because she wanted it to go straight to a vote. Our Supv. Lovingood thought that we should tax visitors instead. I call that the "throw the baby out with the bath water and call the F.D to find the baby theory."
I will try to make the meeting tonight. Hope to see some of you there. If not, I hope someone will post a summary of the meeting. Hope this info. is of assistance. cheryl o7o
-
I'll take a "stab" at correcting your figures. Every penny of that 5.8 billion comes from taxes, or fees "disguised" as taxes. Based on what you wrote, I surmise that most of it is income tax kicked-back from Sacramento, to run the jails and whatever else. Your figures suggest that only about 5% of the County budget goes to fire protection; I have a difficult time believing that, unless it's somehow doesn't include the payments that many cities make as part of their contract with county fire. I dunno; everyone knows on the gov't $$$ merry-go-round that a huge fraction of local spending is dedicated to 2 things and 2 things only, fire and law enforcement.
-
Good points Cheapskate - but nope. The figures I posted were in the CAO's budget. Yes, the biggest part of the County's revenues are from state and federal monies. Yes, that is our money - same pants different pockets. We were discussing how much of our property taxes were paying for fire services. It's less than you think. And, the percentage of the county budget that goes to fire and law/justice combined isn't even half of the budget. The budget delineates law/justice as one section. I assume that is Sheriff, courts and jails. I didn't look at it. The largest part of the budget is 'human services.'
The link in Wrightwood's post of 8/21/18 is the full county budget... all 900+ pages of it. I looked at the beginning that has the summaries of total spending and revenue. Then I looked at the Fire District section that starts on page 629. That's where I obtained the figures in my post of 8/22/18. Cheryl o7o
-
I wasn't able to make the meeting. Can someone tell me how many parcels in SB County will be taxed? Someone told me they are sending out 323,000 letters. But if you multiply that by $57, it's double the shortfall mentioned.
-
I wasn't able to make the meeting. Can someone tell me how many parcels in SB County will be taxed? Someone told me they are sending out 323,000 letters. But if you multiply that by $57, it's double the shortfall mentioned.
They didn't give a number of parcels.
The San Bernardino County Fire Protection District is responsible for 19,200 square miles of county.
Every part that is not covered by a contract (cities with their own fire authority) is going to be part of FP-5.
The Chief said that they have to individually notify each person named on the title for every parcel. If your title names you and your spouse, you get two notices.
-
Back somewhere in one of the links - I recall it stating an additional 11k+ parcels. I'm not sure if that includes those parcels that are already paying the fee. The fee will be $157 annually. Plus a 3 percent annual increase. I assume it will part of our annual property tax bill. Don't know that for sure. Cheryl o7o
-
I wasn't able to make the meeting. Can someone tell me how many parcels in SB County will be taxed? Someone told me they are sending out 323,000 letters. But if you multiply that by $57, it's double the shortfall mentioned.
It's $26.9 million in new revenue. 26,900,000 / 158 is 17,025 parcels.
That's only accurate to 3 significant figures because I'm sure it's not exactly $26.9m, but the number of parcels is good enough for discussion.
I have questions about the protest procedure, but we can say that 4,000 protests likely won't force a vote. The protests have to represent 25% of the value of those 17,000 parcels to force a vote.
-
-
-
The old fire fee that was assessed by the state was 'supposedly' for CalFire. There was a Jarvis lawsuit that was pending. The legislature and the Governor agreed to do away with that fee to obtain Republican votes for the 'cap & trade" legislation. Ultimately, the lawsuit was dismissed.
This new proposed fee goes directly to SBC for our county fire department. There is an existing tax/levy/fee for some parcels in the fire district. This proposal expands that to all parcels in unincorporated SBC. It is proposed to cover an operating deficit for the fire dept. that has been ongoing for awhile. I don' know why the county is analyzing this part of the budget as operating in a deficit that requires additional monies from general fund and reserves. Perhaps someone that went to the meeting can chime in and advise us about that. Cheryl o7o
-
I don' know why the county is analyzing this part of the budget as operating in a deficit that requires additional monies from general fund and reserves. Perhaps someone that went to the meeting can chime in and advise us about that. Cheryl o7o
The Fire Protection District is not a county agency. It is a separate entity, not unlike Snowline School District or Victor Valley College.
It's not the County Government that is calling out this deficit, it's the Fire Protection District.
Chief Hartwig said that during his tenure, they've gone to the County and the County has voluntarily sent money from the County General Fund to the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District general fund -- a little more each year.
Apparently, there have been rumblings that they may, or may not, be able or willing to contribute in future years.
That's what this is for, to reduce the dependence on contributions from the County, who has no legal obligation to help.
From Chief Hartwig's point of view, this is what he should do for the continued health of his agency.
What bothers me is the conflict of interest between the SBCFPD Board of Directors and the County Board of Supervisors -- the two boards are made up of the same five people.
-
What bothers me is I have no idea what steps have been taken to reduce spending before deciding to increase all our property tax bills. I don't like paying additional fees/taxes when there may be bloat in the form of salaries, pensions, overhead, or any number of things that could be addressed first. But who has time to review every page of that budget, and then how do you get answers and make those changes? Sometimes I feel like "they" think it's just easier to do this.
-
From what I understand, if a certain percentage of us (I think 25?) contest this, then we get to vote on it.
I want to have a vote.
I want the extra time to research it.
-
Yes, it does need more research. I like having the fire station staffed 24/7 but want to be sure there are no other options. Also, I'm concerned about the voting process because so many property owners don't live in San Bernardino County.
-
What bothers me is the conflict of interest between the SBCFPD Board of Directors and the County Board of Supervisors -- the two boards are made up of the same five people.
I think the crux of the problem lies here. If a judge or member of the jury knows any of the parties involved, they would recuse themselves so the balance of justice isnt tipped. Considering that there is a obvious conflict of interest, it is a travesty of power in representing ALL fairly. Instead of being honorable statesmen (women?) and not serve on two Boards, they are the typical self seeking politicians.
-
Yes, it does need more research. I like having the fire station staffed 24/7 but want to be sure there are no other options. Also, I'm concerned about the voting process because so many property owners don't live in San Bernardino County.
For the protest process, it's based on property ownership, not residency.
If the protest succeeds, then it goes to the voters, and that is based on where you are registered to vote.
Keep in mind also that we're talking about 85% of San Bernardino County, not just Wrightwood.
-
I think the crux of the problem lies here. If a judge or member of the jury knows any of the parties involved, they would recuse themselves so the balance of justice isnt tipped. Considering that there is a obvious conflict of interest, it is a travesty of power in representing ALL fairly. Instead of being honorable statesmen (women?) and not serve on two Boards, they are the typical self seeking politicians.
Keep in mind that if a Judge has a conflict, there is a different Judge who can hear the case.
I don't remember the details, but there has been a push to reduce the total number of elected officials on special district boards, so it's common for one board to also sit as the board for another organization.
Our Supervisors didn't run for Fire Protection District board, it's simply part of their job as County Supervisor.
I don't think that's a good idea, but it is something the current Supervisors inherited.
-
John,
I looked at the forum. Good conversation. Just a couple of points (based upon my understanding and what SBCFD said at the meeting I attended:
1. One comment (lwt42) says that this only applies to 17,000 parcels. Their math is wrong. $26,900,000 / $157 is 171,337 parcels. Per a 2014-15 report fromt he Tax Assessor there are 820,314 parcels in SB County....so maybe this IS just going to those not currently in FP-5??
2. Important - the SRA Fire Prevention Fee is not rescinded (as Hartwig stated publicly) or repealed. It was "suspended" until 2030 with the passage of Cap & Trade. In theory it could still come back. HJTA is still trying to get it repealed and to get refunds to those who paid.
3. Re KW's comment about 323,000 mailings when that exceeds the number of parcels - they are mailing to everyone ON TITLE to a property, not just one per parcel. This way if you and your wife get the mailer but only one responds to protest, your vote is then weighed related to the assessed value of your property - BUT ONLY 50% since you are half-owner. Likewise, a business or commercial entity who may own, let's say Inland Center Mall or SB Int'l Airport, may have one mailer/vote but have an assessment value in the millions of dollars. And the likelihood of a corporate mall owner returning a protest vote is slim to none; so their "support" vote nullifies hundreds if not thousands of regular residential parcel "votes".
So right now there would need to be 25% or more protests (80,750) whose ownership exceeds 25% of the assessed value. Per the 2014-15 Tax assessors report, the assessed value at that time for the whole County was $187 billion, so 25% would be $46.5 billion. I will ask the County for the exact figures for the mailer both in terms of parcels, property owners and assessed value. I am thinking it is less than the overall figure, since it appears they are not mailing to the entire 820,000 parcels in the county.
We need to get this discussion away from whether or not one supports the assessment, and focus on the process. If they can do this for an "expansion", even those who support the $157 now might not be happy if they use it to increase the assessment to $200 or more or ? ? ? ? ?
Laura Dyberg - Mountain Rim Fire Safe Council
-
John,
I looked at the forum. Good conversation. Just a couple of points (based upon my understanding and what SBCFD said at the meeting I attended:
1. One comment (lwt42) says that this only applies to 17,000 parcels. Their math is wrong. $26,900,000 / $157 is 171,337 parcels. Per a 2014-15 report fromt he Tax Assessor there are 820,314 parcels in SB County....so maybe this IS just going to those not currently in FP-5??
2. Important - the SRA Fire Prevention Fee is not rescinded (as Hartwig stated publicly) or repealed. It was "suspended" until 2030 with the passage of Cap & Trade. In theory it could still come back. HJTA is still trying to get it repealed and to get refunds to those who paid.
3. Re KW's comment about 323,000 mailings when that exceeds the number of parcels - they are mailing to everyone ON TITLE to a property, not just one per parcel. This way if you and your wife get the mailer but only one responds to protest, your vote is then weighed related to the assessed value of your property - BUT ONLY 50% since you are half-owner. Likewise, a business or commercial entity who may own, let's say Inland Center Mall or SB Int'l Airport, may have one mailer/vote but have an assessment value in the millions of dollars. And the likelihood of a corporate mall owner returning a protest vote is slim to none; so their "support" vote nullifies hundreds if not thousands of regular residential parcel "votes".
So right now there would need to be 25% or more protests (80,750) whose ownership exceeds 25% of the assessed value. Per the 2014-15 Tax assessors report, the assessed value at that time for the whole County was $187 billion, so 25% would be $46.5 billion. I will ask the County for the exact figures for the mailer both in terms of parcels, property owners and assessed value. I am thinking it is less than the overall figure, since it appears they are not mailing to the entire 820,000 parcels in the county.
We need to get this discussion away from whether or not one supports the assessment, and focus on the process. If they can do this for an "expansion", even those who support the $157 now might not be happy if they use it to increase the assessment to $200 or more or ? ? ? ? ?
Laura Dyberg - Mountain Rim Fire Safe Council
My math is fine -- my typing and proofreading left something to be desired in this case.
Laura is absolutely correct about the process. We know about FP-5 because this action expands Fire Protection District 5.
What I haven't found is a complete list of all of the special districts in the county. I see an assessment on my tax bill for mosquito abatement (vector control), I don't know if we have a separate vector control district or if that is a county department. I don't know if that matters.
What I do know is that the $26.9 million new revenue for Fire leaves $26.9 million in the County General Fund, which can be spent for other things.
-
I just spent some time on sbcfire.org. I was looking for the history of why fire/emergency services are designated as a Fire District. I haven't found it. But, regardless of that name - it is County Fire and the elected Supervisors are the appropriate body to oversee it. It isn't a conflict of interest for them to do so .. imho. Snowline School District wouldn't be a comparable comparison. It is a school district with an elected body that oversees it.
I found scrolling through the annual report and the last few fiscal budgets instructive. The Tri-Community - as well as a lot of other places - are in the North District (FP-5). The various district budgets break down the specific budget lines by that district. They also break down the sources for the revenue for that district. Taxes account for 15% of the budget for this district. The largest revenue source is fee/rate at 58%. I assume that includes fees for ambulance and the plethora of other charges they have. I learned that 'haunted houses" have their own fee rate for inspections. The information is very, very detailed. And, it doesn't take all that long to scroll through it. The revenue sources vary by district. Other districts pay a higher percentage of their taxes to their district.
The vast majority of calls are medical (ambulance, paramedic, airlift, etc.) at approx 75-80%. (I didn't do the math.)
There are numerous areas/zones that have already passed special parcel taxes. Some of these go back decades and vary. Some do not have an annual % increase.
SBFire has absorbed: the City of San Barnardino, Mentone, 29 Palms and Upland in recent years. The County also contracts with other areas for service to remote areas. Example: Kern County.
The budget details costs down to which station is going to be painted or get new roofs, etc. It also shows staffing increases/decreases by area and function. It's pretty darn detailed.
The County could increase fees to offset the increases in the budget. That is the largest revenue source for the Fire District. The 3% increase to $157, that is included in the proposal, would be $4.71 in the first year it is applied and compounded thereafter. I don't recall if the increase is automatic or has to be approved by the Supes. The history of why Fire Districts were created is in LAFCO. I will keep hunting for it. cheryl o7o
-
The County could increase fees to offset the increases in the budget. That is the largest revenue source for the Fire District. The 3% increase to $157, that is included in the proposal, would be $4.71 in the first year it is applied and compounded thereafter. I don't recall if the increase is automatic or has to be approved by the Supes. The history of why Fire Districts were created is in LAFCO. I will keep hunting for it. cheryl o7o
This was covered in some detail by Chief Hartwig at the meeting. The San Bernardino Fire Protection District has separate funding (is a taxing authority) and when making decisions for the FPD the Board of Supervisors is sitting as the Fire Protection District Board, not as the Board of Supervisors.
Taxing authorities used to have the ability to set a tax rate, but Proposition 13 changed that.
-
-
Someone, other than me, may want to find the updated law/s governing Prop 218 or whatever law governs this type of election. In particular, the process for a protest vote and the weighted ballot by 'value' when the assessment/whatever is not proportional.
This is where things get slippery.
FP-5 exists, so this isn't a new tax or fee.
I haven't found anything in Prop. 218 that speaks to changing the borders of an existing special district like FP-5.
As far as I've been able to tell, the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District Board can change the borders of FP-5. They need to notify those affected and hold a public hearing no less than 30 days later. They don't have to do anything else.
I think that's something they didn't think about when Proposition 218 was drafted.
-
Spent some time going back over the various links in this thread and a few others.
Clarifying a few points:
-the FP-5 expansion is to 11,215 acres. Parcels to an acre obviously vary by locality. All property owners of parcels have a vote.
-Prop 218 defines all levies as: a general or special tax; an assessment or a property-related fee. 218 excludes fire services from property-related fees. The proposed "levy" is not a general or a special tax. Therefore, under the 'a rose by any other name.... theory" - it is an "assessment" that is proposed.
-Prop 218 specifically states regarding assessments: Sec. 4 (e) votes "..shall be weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected property." The proposed 'levy' (as stated in the motion) is an 'assessment' (as defined in Prop 218). Therefore, imho ... weighting the protest votes according to value is not in compliance with Prop 218. The proposal is a one-size-fits-all levy on individual parcels. It is an assessment and the votng procedures as specified in Prop 218 prevail. It could only be changed by a court order or another ballot measure. I do not know why the county/fire district is asserting a 'weighted' ballot should be used in determining the protest vote. I htink they're wrong. All they have to do to correct it is notice a change in procedure and count the votes per parcel. I think!!
If 25% of property owners (however you weigh the votes) protest. It goes to a vote. My reading of 218 is that it's only property owners that will vote. Not all registered voters. Renters would be included if they are required to pay the assessment in rent.
When FP-5 was created or expanded back in 2008 .. there were no protests. LAFCO Re. 2997, adopted 7-1-08
Prop 218 was sponsored by the Jarvis group. They have info on their website. They likely know of changes to the provisions of Prop 218, if any. The League of Calif Cities also has information on their website. They usually have pretty good information.
lwt42 - good points. My reading is that this is an assessment and it requires the procedures outlined in Prop 218 and the Gov't. Code.
Cheapskate - While reading this material, I found information that implies that a county cannot impose a 'hotel tax." Charter cities can. I'm not 100% sure of that.
In summary and just speaking for myself: I find the determination to weight the protest votes troubling. In light of the language of Prop 218, I don't see how they can do that. I'm open to being corrected.
I'm still not going to protest the vote. cheryl o7o
-
Spent some time going back over the various links in this thread and a few others.
Clarifying a few points:
-the FP-5 expansion is to 11,215 acres. Parcels to an acre obviously vary by locality. All property owners of parcels have a vote.
Just for what it's worth. I questioned the 11,215 acres and spoke to the Chief about that. They are correcting the surveyor's document.
San Bernardino County is a bit over 20,000 square miles, or more than 12,800,000 acres. The expansion is the grey area on the map below.
(http://www.sbcfire.org/Portals/58/Documents/FP-5/FP5_Letter_Map_Final.jpg?ver=2018-08-01-112958-840)
-
Fire Assessment responses from Assistant Chief Kat Opliger
I received a call from Kat today saying she is so busy that getting to he emails is difficult, so I don't need to send emails, just to give her a call if I have questions on the FP-5 expansion
So I went over the ones I had already emailed and here is the gist of her responses:
1. Where will $ be used - she says it will remain in the "regional service zone" where it is collected, i.e. Mountain, North Desert, South Desert and Valley. I reiterated that this is NOT was is on their website, it just says FP-5 Service Zone. Kat thanked me for bringing that to her attention and said they would change it. (ummmm)
a, I told her if this is true than according to the slide at the meeting, that each Regional Service Zone would have a surplus (see attached), but the "Sepcial Operations" would still have an $8.2million deficit.....so would the surplus be going to cover that deficit. She said no that "surplus" or net in excess of the estimated deficit would go to capital improvements and sustaining operations.
2. What are Special Operations? All EMS, all training departments, crews, dozers, helicopters, all services not paid out of the general fund or ad valerum tax $. Also include "SPD" such as admin functions for finance dept, payroll, etc. budget. I asked her to provide a breakdown for me in writing.
3. The total number of mailers being sent out is 300,000+.
a. Property owners of parcels currently in FP-5 will not receive a mailer.
b. Kat will get back to me about the total number of parcels involved and the total assessed value of "impacted properties"
c. They have some "sovereign land" that will be a part of the mailing. Known as CRIT or Colorado River Indian Tribes, they own 300,000 acres along the Colorado River, most appears to be in AZ, but there are at least 5,000 parcels in SB County, per Kat. These are not technically on a reservation (?) but are subject to a different agreement (for 100 years), so they an be assessed. Kay said most land is "owned" by the tribe, but is leased to individuals, so a parcel could receive 3 or more mailers - one for the tribe and one for each person on the lease????
d. She did not have an answer yet as to what happens to returned mail.
4, She did not have an answer as to why the flyers for the Community meeting did not mention the Fire Assessment, only that the topic of the meeting was Expansion of FP-5.
That's all I have for now.
Laura Dyberg - Mountain Rim Fire Safe Council
(http://www.wrightwoodfsc.com/firefees/MD_SBCFD.Slide.deficit.breakdown.JPG)
-
For an expanded reading of Prop 218 go to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers site: www.hjta.org click on Propositions in the top bar .. scroll down to Prop 218. It includes the language of Prop 218 with comments. I found it informative. It took me about an hour. Understanding Prop 218 is important to this discussion because it controls whether a 'levy' is a tax, assessment or fee and how the vote/protest vote must be conducted.
After reading it, I still think the weighting of the protest vote ballot by value is not appropriate. That is appropriate when the assessment is proportional. In this case it is a flat rate for all. Therefore, it should be by parcel with each owner receiving a % of the vote according to the number of the owners.
I also clicked around and read their information on 'parcel taxes." That caused me to sign up for the hjta newsletter.
Wrightwood: Would you ask Asst. Chief Opliger why the county deduced that the assessment protest ballot should be weighted by value of the parcel? And, whom in the Fire Protection District/County Counsel/Assessor etc. office made that determination? And, ask her to clarify if this is considered an assessment, fee or what? They can't just call it a 'levy' without defining it. Thanks, Cheryl o7o
-
After reading it, I still think the weighting of the protest vote ballot by value is not appropriate. That is appropriate when the assessment is proportional. In this case it is a flat rate for all. Therefore, it should be by parcel with each owner receiving a % of the vote according to the number of the owners.
For what it's worth, the Chief said that they copied the LAFCO protest procedure, basically verbatim.
-
That doesn't make it right or fair. It's just and excuse for not thinking what would be fair to his "constituents!
-
Let me rephrase my earlier. I think the weighting of the protest ballot by value is not in compliance with Prop. 218. It specifies when you weight the vote. It is when the levy is proportional to value. That would be fair in that situation.
I'm also concerned that the community meetings did not mention the tax levy. I also don't like that the community meetings were not well publicized. There's no requirement for them in the law. But still.....
lwt42 .. I did find the language you were looking for - I'll dig it up and post it tomorrow.
Does anyone know someone at LAFCO? Cheryl o7o
-
After reading 218 again, I believe the county/fire district is using the 'protest vote' procedures for 'fees' rather than for 'assessments.' Both are defined in the state constitution.
CA Constitution, Art. XIIID
Sec. 3 (e) governs votes for assessments. I paraphrase: " ..the ballots are weighted according to the proportional financial obligation." It is a majority vote with both yes and no votes. The financial obligation is equal as the fire district/county is levying a rate that is equal for all property owners - therefore each parcel gets the same # of votes and not weighted by value.
Sec. 6 (5) governs votes for 'fees." It has the 25% of total'value' protest process. By my reading, fire districts may not levy 'fees' under the rules of this section. There are other rules that make me think the F.D. is not calling this a 'fee."
Somebody with fresh eyes should read this. I'm not perfect. (Please don't argue with me.)
https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_local_ballot_measures_in_California
lwt42 .. The language in 218 that I found regarding expansion, etc. seems to be limited to general or special taxes. It's at the top of 218. cheryl o7o
-
-
I heard through the grapevine that the County MUST fund our services, and that this annexation and new tax is a money grab to try to fill holes in the County budget and fund pensions. Comments? Laws? Message me privately if you wish to remain anonymous.
-
I heard through the grapevine that the County MUST fund our services, and that this annexation and new tax is a money grab to try to fill holes in the County budget and fund pensions. Comments? Laws? Message me privately if you wish to remain anonymous.
Preface of my comments below... I am not an expert and like most people I am trying to figure this out and analyze this like everyone else.
"If" the county "must" fund our services regardless of the new tax being approved or not... I believe it will come down to the level of service provided. For instance, the county could provide service for the entire Tri-Community from just one fire station. Let's say it is Station 10 in Phelan (most centrally located to Tri-Community), this could lead to long delays in service especially if the equipment and crews have multiple calls at the same time. Are people willing to accept these delays which could potentially be lengthy in a "perfect storm" of multiple calls and limited resources.
The Board of Supervisors has been providing the additional funding to maintain the current levels of service but what if revenue does not support this level of funding in the future?
Is this a scare tactic to get people to succumb to their "ask" for more funding, paid for by additional taxes? Are we (the people) willing to accept this possibility of a lower level of service in the event that revenue limits the level of services the county is able to provide given the costs of operation?
In my opinion this is the multi-million dollar question.
-
My source also mentioned that for Wrightwood (not the other areas being annexed) that Mountain High funds the local station to be staffed at its current levels. Does anyone know how to check this? And I'm going to say again, that I hate the idea of my taxes going up (especially at the same rate for vacant land with no need for services) if there are leaks in the budget that could be fixed, or bloated pension commitments that should be resolved. I would rather pay this type of tax for a local hospital district so we can have an emergency room and doctors nearby.
-
If the FP-5 funds are "destined" to the cty general fund they can be used for any purpose they deem necessary! If it is to make up the "short fall" in the pension programs they can do so. The funds should be designed to a fund to be used for fire protection for the area assessed.
-
-
If the FP-5 funds are "destined" to the cty general fund they can be used for any purpose they deem necessary! If it is to make up the "short fall" in the pension programs they can do so. The funds should be designed to a fund to be used for fire protection for the area assessed.
Doesn't matter.
Remember the California Lottery? We all voted for the Lottery to fund schools, and every dime of Lottery money goes to the schools.
... and while the state does spend money on Education, it would be spending a lot more if they didn't have the lottery money.
If the Fire Protection District gets their $26.9 million directly, that's $26.9 million that doesn't have to come from the County General Fund.
-
As for Mountain High paying for the WW station - they can't be taxed higher. That said, they may have to pay other types of fees that help fund that station. You'd have to check the line-item budget to find it. Or, call someone in the Fire District and ask.
Mountain High can't be taxed by San Bernardino County at all.
It's in Los Angeles County.
The Chief did talk about how Ambulance Calls from Mountain High are transported by the ambulance from our fire station, and the ambulance fee is paid to the serving agency (SBCFPD). The collected fees pay a good chunk of the cost of our ambulance and staff.
-
If the FP-5 funds are "destined" to the cty general fund they can be used for any purpose they deem necessary! If it is to make up the "short fall" in the pension programs they can do so. The funds should be designed to a fund to be used for fire protection for the area assessed.
Hank....Do your due diligence. The San Bernardino County Employees Retirement system is one of the best funded systems in the country and one of the highest rates of return for their investments. Don't confuse our well run system with Calpers or city systems that diverted Employer Contributions to other things and now face shortfalls. You're listening to too much John and Ken on KFI. They hate all public employees. 8)
-
Hank....Do your due diligence. The San Bernardino County Employees Retirement system is one of the best funded systems in the country and one of the highest rates of return for their investments. Don't confuse our well run system with Calpers or city systems that diverted Employer Contributions to other things and now face shortfalls. You're listening to too much John and Ken on KFI. They hate all public employees. 8)
Darn those short revise times. What I thought I posted below.
If the FP-5 funds are "destined" to the cty general fund they can be used for any purpose they deem necessary! If it is to make up the "short fall" in the pension programs they can do so. The funds should be designed to a fund to be used for fire protection for the area assessed.
Hank/KW....Do your due diligence. Where did you see that the County Fire has a pension shortfall? (Disclaimer-I was a elected Trustee for SBCERA for 15 years) The San Bernardino County Employees Retirement system is one of the best funded and best run systems in the country and one of the highest rates of return for their investments. Don't confuse our well run system with Calpers or city systems that diverted Employer Contributions to other things and now face shortfalls like Stockon and San Bernardino City.
The amazing part is I looked at my tax bills and there is no way to how much of my property tax is to pay for fire protection. I pay $159 to the County General Fund on the Wrightwood (pre-Prop 13) house and several thousand on my current house but absolutely no way to know how much comes back from the county for Fire/Rescue and Paramedics. That amount is always subject to change on the whims of the Board of Supervisors.
FYI-We have always billed for Ambulance service in Wrightwood. When I started in 72 it was around $35 and now is much more to the hospitals. In good years, we transport a lot of skiers and snow players and that can add up but Mountain High does not pay to have our station staffed. The Department has a very vigorous and aggressive cost recovery program for those that don't pay and have had for a number of years. I also believe we do not bill "SB County non-residents" for most emergency services (nor do LA or Riverside or San Diego counties) unless they result as a result a criminal act or outright neglect. We have been good stewards of the taxpayers money and I can assure you that the first 25 years of my career was spent in stations that were outfitted with military surplus furniture and very little regard to creature comforts. (The Phelan station was a single mobile home that was falling apart for years) We don't have a fleet of multi-million dollar helicopters. What we did stress was apparatus that working in our harsh and rugged environments.....Premier customer service....top quality patient care...aggressive firefighting and rescue and being there 24/7....in all kinds of weather and responding in minutes to any call for help. Today's department still stresses those and more. SBCOFD is now even better trained....better equipped and has such a multitude of services that add value to people's lives.
Am biased? Yup. I know the level of service that we have now and I remember what we could deliver for a lot of years. Now is definitely better. I will not be sending in a protest for my properties.
-
I agree 100% with Jim Wilkins, we have way better service today. I too will not be sending in a protest.
-
The amazing part is I looked at my tax bills and there is no way to how much of my property tax is to pay for fire protection. I pay $159 to the County General Fund on the Wrightwood (pre-Prop 13) house and several thousand on my current house but absolutely no way to know how much comes back from the county for Fire/Rescue and Paramedics. That amount is always subject to change on the whims of the Board of Supervisors.
I'm still trying to run all of the rules to ground, but exactly how the 1% general levy gets divided is a bigger mystery than it should be.
Because the SBCFPD is a (mostly) independent agency with the right to levy taxes, its' direct share of the levy appears to be set by the State Legislature. Then there is a roughly $26 million chunk that varies from year to year that is completely at the whim of the Board of Supervisors.
I called the tax collectors' office and asked for a detailed accounting. They said "no."
In an ideal world, the Board of Supervisors would honor their moral obligation and continue to fund the Fire Protection District.
In a just world, the Legislature would give the SBCFPD a bigger slice of the property tax pie (and take that percentage from the County's share, not from the other organizations who rely on property taxes).
But we don't live in an ideal world, or a just world. The FP-5 annexation is the easiest way to do this in the world we live in.
-
I am pretty disappointed in the County not being willing to share how our tax dollars are appropriated....but not surprised. I came from a background where we pretty much shared what we could and if we didn't know we bumped folks up to someone that did know.
Here's what you tax dollars do when it's on the line. Obviously the tax collector won't show you what they do
https://www.facebook.com/SanBernardinoCountyFire/videos/243373063031469/ (https://www.facebook.com/SanBernardinoCountyFire/videos/243373063031469/)
-
2 year old artical. Have things gotten better,worse. Maybe the artical is BS, I don't know,but it seems to be related.
http://inlandpolitics.com/blog/2016/11/28/san-bernardino-county-pension-system-shortfall-grows/
-
Another interesting link. You can search by job title, or even by name. https://transparentcalifornia.com/
-
2 year old artical. Have things gotten better,worse. Maybe the artical is BS, I don't know,but it seems to be related.
You are very astute. The article is BS and a hit piece. Actually the letters in response are the only factual thing about the article. That site has been harsh critic of anything in any County or local City government...unions...government workers, etc. for years. Pretty biased and in this case, pretty misinformed. What it does point out is that you cannot count on the Board of Supervisors to fund their obligations if they don't want to. There are three things that make up the income that funds the Retirement system. 1) The County contribution 2) The Employee's contribution and the money made by prudently investing those two sources of money in a diversified portfolio of investments that adds even more value. It points out that the County didn't make their annual contribution for a number of years (while I was on the Board) because the fund was doing so well with investments. Instead of adding their contributions, they spent it on other pet projects around the county. The current rate of funding is substantially higher then the number they listed and our SBCERA is rated at the top of Employee retirement systems around the country.
-
Jim, you have just helped me make my point. "... They spent it on other pet projects around the county..."
As I previously wondered, where are the other holes in the budget? How has the money been handled? Was there something else that could have been done before coming to the tax payers for such a large increase? This tax will double my property taxes on my vacant lot, and will increase my home property taxes by 7%... And that's just the first year.
I fully support all fire departments and police and sheriff and am grateful for their valuable work. But I have a hard time with this new tax.
-
-
Quoting Jim Wilkins: "...the County didn't make their annual contribution for a number of years (while I was on the Board)" My pay stub is simple to read; a left column that shows deductions from my salary for various categories including retirement ("my contribution"), and a right column showing what my employer paid into each category. A county employee's pay stub is similar, yes? Are you saying the amount shown in the employer column wasn't actually paid? (I somehow find that difficult to believe)
-
I'll be sending in my petition, and urge everyone to do the same.doesn't mean you have to vote no. Just seems like the fair thing to do. It's the American way, what's left of it anyway.
-
I continue to have an internal debate of form over substance with myself. On the substance side, I'd pay more than the proposed $150+ to keep our fire dept. adequately funded. I think they do excellent and dangerous work. I'm very glad that they do it well.
On the form side of this debate, I'm really annoyed and p'od. To call this an annexation is akin to a minnow swallowing a whale. See map back in this thread. (lwt42 - you caught that sleight-of-hand early in this discussion.) Whomever realized that they could circumvent the regs of Prop. 218 - via this method - earned his or her salary that day. The taxpayers that voted for annexation in the very, small existing FP-5 areas were a different ballgame. Using the value of the property to weight the ballots is also disingenuous. The fee is flat. The weight of the vote should be flat as well. Gee, thanks for the opportunity for the Chief to "weigh the support..." for the expansion .. um, err.. annexation. This protest vote - it's form and it's substance - is not my idea of a transparent government.
My internal debate continues. But, I must now pay attention to the Fork Fire as well. Cheryl o7o
-
Quoting Jim Wilkins: "...the County didn't make their annual contribution for a number of years (while I was on the Board)" My pay stub is simple to read; a left column that shows deductions from my salary for various categories including retirement ("my contribution"), and a right column showing what my employer paid into each category. A county employee's pay stub is similar, yes? Are you saying the amount shown in the employer column wasn't actually paid? (I somehow find that difficult to believe)
[/i][/color]
Been since 2003 since I saw a paycheck so I honestly don't remember. I am saying that for a number of years when Retirement Board returns where much higher then normal, the county did not make it's annual contributions to the retirement fund as agreed upon. They took a payment holiday. I couldn't tell you where it was spent...that was way above my pay grade. We got the payments in lump sums that were owed on the county side....not individual amounts from employees. There was a lot of stuff like that going on back then. The money got spent....just not to pay what was owed those years on the county side.
-
On the form side of this debate, I'm really annoyed and p'od. To call this an annexation is akin to a minnow swallowing a whale. See map back in this thread. (lwt42 - you caught that sleight-of-hand early in this discussion.) Whomever realized that they could circumvent the regs of Prop. 218 - via this method - earned his or her salary that day. The taxpayers that voted for annexation in the very, small existing FP-5 areas were a different ballgame. Using the value of the property to weight the ballots is also disingenuous. The fee is flat. The weight of the vote should be flat as well. Gee, thanks for the opportunity for the Chief to "weigh the support..." for the expansion .. um, err.. annexation. This protest vote - it's form and it's substance - is not my idea of a transparent government.
Sadly, if you want to place blame, it goes to the City of Huntington Beach. The case law cited in the letter from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is from their annexation of Seal Beach.
The appellate decision in Citizens of Seal Beach vs OC LAFCO addresses Prop. 218, and goes beyond Prop. 218 to the campaign the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association ran to pass it.
The law does not address annexation, and the campaign to pass the law doesn't mention annexation, so the court ruled that Prop. 218 does not apply.
It's a flat fee for the existing FP-5, so a flat fee applies for the area annexed.
The appellate ruling goes on to cite the law for protests on an annexation (it's not a vote, it's a protest), and the 25% and 50% numbers, and the method of counting (by parcel and value) is set by statute.
So, there is precedent, and law, and it's all been tested by the courts, and it's all being done very strictly by the book.
We can argue that the law is wrong (I'm not happy), but it's all legitimate.
-
-
Does anyone knows how "guns and badges" pension compares to the military?
-
The link that Cheapskate provided and the pull quotes in his post are from a MOU between the County and the employees of the "Water and Sanitation" Special District. The MOU governs the union contract for that period of time for those employees. I don't read it as the County paying the employee share for pension. It discusses the discontinuation of the District's pickup of 7% of the employees share and the applicability of that towards taxes. There are other provisions. It begins on Pg. 42 of the document. You'd need to know what exactly they were changing to understand it. Whatever, it does not apply to the Fire Protection District or the fire employees unless their MOU has similar language.
Under ERISA (fed regs), employers are required to maintain the solvency of employee pensions. That is true for the private sector. I don't know if that requirement extends to the public sector. If a pension plan goes insolvent - the employer must make up the difference. This is an issue for numerous public employee plans around the state and likely the country. I recall that was a big issue for the City of San Bernardino and its fiscal problems. I do not recall such articles regarding the County's FP.
A lot of employer benefits - union or not - used to cover 100% for employee health benefits. That has changed overtime with the rise in health costs to employers and employees now splitting the costs. There was also a federal health law that allowed employees to 'bank' a portion of their pay for health costs and exempt those $$ from federal taxes. It sounds to me like the doc Cheapskate was quoting from was applicable to something similar on the retirement benefit side. I haven't had enough coffee this morning to figure that out.
IMHO .. safety personnel earn every dollar of their retirement benefits. Their work shortens their lives, impacts their long-term health and some give their lives. It is case closed for me on that question.
If you pause today to remember 9/11- remember the safety personnel that died that day too. cheryl o7o
-
To answer, in part, the question posed by Leftfield - I checked with my cousin who is USNCapt (ret) and was a jet fighter pilot in combat.
Their pensions depend on rank and years of service - so do most pension plans in the private/public sectors.
At 20-years-active - they receive 1/2 of their pay.
At 26-years-active - they receive 2/3 of their pay.
Approximately one-third of his fellow pilots lived to receive their pensions.
To me, this comparison is not pertinent to our discussion. Other than, military, fire fighters and police work in high-stress, dangerous, health and life threatening situations on behalf of all of us. cheryl o7o
-
I would suggest that the whole employee compensation question is not relevant to the FP-5 expansion.
For better or worse, it's subject to contracts between the Union(s) and the SBCFPD, and going back and reducing benefits or costs is just not likely to happen in any reasonable time frame. It may be possible to get a reduction for future hires -- to bring in new firefighters at a lower rate/cost, but it'll take a generation for that to make a difference.
It really comes down to this:
1) Do we pay $150 more per year to protect the fire service funding from the county?
- or -
2) Do we get a better County Government who will commit to fully funding this critical service?
We may actually need both.
-
Riverside County Fire contracts with CalFire for fire protection. Therefore, they don't need to re-invent the wheel. Many training, equipment, and other costs are part of pre-existing programs, saving the County a lot of money.
And, no, they don't all leave when there is a fire in another part of the state. Service remains the same. It's in the contract.
-
Nolena - That question was asked in one of the area information meetings. The answer was they couldn't as reported in the MP. I don't recall the reason for that.
Spent some time on some state sites. The LAO has an interesting report on how property taxes are collected and allocated.
The link is: https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/tax/property-tax-primer-112912.aspx
Schools K-14 are the largest recipient. Counties and cities are next. Then Special Districts and Redevelopment/Successor Agencies. Special Districts appear to be around 25 percent. They didn't give the numbers. Yes, it's 2012, but the basics haven't changed much. It's long. But, it's fairly comprehensive. Prop 13, 218 and AB 8 control most of the "how and if" the county receives these revenues. Revenue & Taxation Code, Sec. 99 has controlling language as well.
FP-5 (Helendale & Silver Lakes) was created in 2006. The fee then was $117 +3%. That fee was $157.26 in the 2018-19 budget and thus the reason of that fee basis for us. Whether that rate of increase slows down with the annexation remains to be seen.
The total county budget is $5 billion plus. Fire Protection is $260 million. North Desert (us) is $53.9 million. Of that, $8.4 million is in property taxes. A big part of revenues for Fire Protection are fees including ambulance fees. All of that varies by zone within the total FP District. All the expenditures are detailed in the budget... right down to the bathrooms for Station 14 in WW. (I personally think they deserve bathrooms.)
I agree with lwt42. (I find myself doing that a lot.) I remain perturbed about this process. I'm going with the substance and will not be sending in my protest vote. cheryl o7o
-
Received this today but no protest form was included. Didn't the Chief say a protest form would be included?
(http://www.wrightwoodfsc.com/documents/MD_FP5.Notice.9.15.18.JPG)
PDF: http://www.wrightwoodfsc.com/documents/FP5.Notice.9.15.18.pdf
-
Looks like they've made it less likely for property owners to protest by not including the protest form they promised to include. (At the conclusion of the meeting I specifically asked a Chief in attendance if the protest form would be included and he said yes)
Here's a link to the protest form:
http://bit.ly/FP5ProtestForm
-
Interesting to me that, in this mailing, they're referring to it as an "expansion" not an "annexation" (ala Sunset Beach). Expansions are included in Prop 218 and require a vote that is different in structure than a "protest vote." I just think this is no way to run an airline. Cheryl o7o
-
-
Good question. I'd add a note that states "vacant parcel no assigned street address." The parcel number should be sufficient. The P.O. Box should be sufficient too. After-all, that's where they mail your tax bill.
Just for the heck of it, I just called '211' as instructed on the form. It answers "United Way 211." After sitting through a lot of stuff non-related to a 'protest vote form' and the Spanish version of same - there is zero on the recording regarding a protest vote. Perhaps a human answers 211 during business hours. I do not know.
-
One would hope that the APN would supersede all else. That's pretty unambiguous.
-
Looks like they've made it less likely for property owners to protest by not including the protest form they promised to include. (At the conclusion of the meeting I specifically asked a Chief in attendance if the protest form would be included and he said yes)
Here's a link to the protest form:
http://bit.ly/FP5ProtestForm
Yes. This is a disappointment. I have printed out my copy to send in and an extra to reproduce for others.
It would be good if several of us printed them out and distributed them.
-
Some of the mailing had prepaid $.42 postage applied and others were postage paid by permit. Looks like all were sent presorted 1st class mail.
323,000 mailings x $.42 = $135,660 for postage alone
-
An editorial from the Press-Enterprise : https://www.pe.com/2018/09/15/parceling-out-the-economics-of-the-san-bernardino-county-fire-district-expansion/ (https://www.pe.com/2018/09/15/parceling-out-the-economics-of-the-san-bernardino-county-fire-district-expansion/)
-
Free riding? The author of the editorial appears to live in the city of Claremont and is not affected by this tax. It's interesting how people often change their tunes when they ARE affected. (Not saying the author would). I am still very irritated at how this is being handled. I don't like that my vacant lot is taxed at the same rate as my developed lot. Someone on here said if my lot catches on fire it could then burn their house. I sort of get their thinking, but there IS less concern and response when a fire burns through acres of vacant land, and since I'm never there I don't think I'd need medical aid either. Plus, there's nothing on my lot to cause or start a fire.
Also, as Wrightwood pointed out, they have already spent $135,000 on postage, plus paper, printing, envelopes, meeting time etc. And if it gets to an election, consider those costs. The CSD was only supposed to be $46,000 and the true cost was significantly higher.
I was not able to attend any of the meetings, but the public was told there would be a protest form in the mail and apparently there's not. Also as someone else mentioned, it appears to be difficult to get questions answered by phone. I just feel the whole thing is being handled poorly, like a lot of government money is handled. A retired County employee previously posted here that money gets spent on other things than the fire budget. It comes down to choices, and SB County officials made choices to use the money on things like more jails or more public assistance programs or more whatever that we didn't get to have any say about, yet now we get taxed to make up the shortfall.
-
A variety of viewpoints and articles...
http://m.hidesertstar.com/mobile/opinion/letters_to_editor/article_d340ca9c-abe4-11e8-b69c-8ff916f9d159.html
http://m.mountain-news.com/mobile/news/article_790f00a0-9a66-11e8-a1db-ebeb1a7696ce.html
https://www.dailybulletin.com/2017/07/17/what-upland-can-and-cant-learn-from-san-bernardinos-fire-annexation/amp/
http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/20180625/on-proposed-county-fire-parcel-tax-there-are-exemptions
https://www.dailybulletin.com/2018/08/28/san-bernardino-county-fire-moves-to-expand-coverage-property-owners-could-pay-157-a-year-in-new-tax/amp/
-
All of Wrightwood is within the SRA.
CAL FIRE is responsible for prevention and suppression of the land in the SRA.
SBCFD is responsible for structure protection.
Empty lots are CAL FIRE's financial responsibility
What is the State Responsibility Area (SRA)?
The State Responsibility Area (SRA) is the area in the state where the State of California has the primary financial responsibility for the prevention and suppression of wildland fires. The SRA forms one large area over 31 million acres to which the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) provides a basic level of wildland fire prevention and protection services. http://www.fire.ca.gov/firepreventionfee/sra_faqs#basiclaw
-
So if we are talking about structure protection and medical aid, then the tax should not apply. Or should be much less than on an improved parcel.
But I guess we know that all of our taxes go to many programs that we never use. Our taxes have always paid for the programs and services of non tax payers.
I do have a question, maybe someone can clarify? One of those links I posted had a comment about .64 cents from every fire dollar goes to pay the pensions. Someone else had previously posted here that we should consider the pensions a non issue. Will some of this additional tax go to pay pensions?
-
KW - I think it was my post you may be referring to regarding pensions being a "non-issue." By that I meant I have zero problem with paying fire/ambulance personnel a pension. I wasn't stating that those costs don't contribute to the overall cost of the District. Salary/pension/health benefits etc. all contribute to the overall fire budget. I don't recall the percentage. Such costs are usually the major cost of most budgets whether you're a private business or a public service.
Most counties/districts have mutual aid agreements. We saw that here during Blue Cut two years ago. If a fire is big enough - other agencies send personnel to help. There are CA rescue personnel in NC/SC now to aid with Florence victims. I think this is a very good thing. I do not know whether it's CalFire or SBDFire that would respond to your vacant lot.
There is a vacant parcel immediately adjacent to my property. It is a mess. Thankfully, I can't see it unless I walk over there to my property line. It is a fire hazard that could impact my property. So, yes I think that vacant parcels should be covered as well. My two calls to SBD fire and a CalFire posting have resulted in zero action on that lot. I understand your rationale for a sliding scale on how this new tax should be levied. I don't disagree with you at all on that. But, this tricky action by the County is not taking that into consideration.
I was not going to protest the tax. The omission of the protest form has me back on the fence about that. Tomorrow, during business hours I'm going to call 211 again.. just for sport. I am then going to call the Fire Marshall AGAIN about that lot next to me. btw.. SBDFire did not tell me that I should call CalFire about that lot. Cheryl o7o
-
I do have a question, maybe someone can clarify? One of those links I posted had a comment about .64 cents from every fire dollar goes to pay the pensions. Someone else had previously posted here that we should consider the pensions a non issue. Will some of this additional tax go to pay pensions?
If it's .64 cents (half a cent of every dollar) that might make sense. If it's 64 cents on payroll, maybe.
I can't see nearly two-thirds of the fire budget going to pay pensions.
Several here have commented that salaries and pensions are out of control and that may be true.
The problem is that is all subject to union contracts and/or commitments that really can't be changed. You can't go to a retired firefighter and say "well, we're going to unilaterally reduce your pensions by 30%" or somesuch.
You can try to renegotiate pensions going forward, and in 20 or 30 years when the new firefighters are retiring (and the older firefighters pass on and stop drawing pensions) it'll make a difference.
Doesn't solve the problem now.
Reducing actual firefighters will impact service levels.
I think the Board of Supervisors has an obligation to maintain the level of service, and I think they could make funding the Fire Protection District a priority.
I have to weigh the impact of an under-funded fire service against some politicians realizing that this is an easy cash grab that will free up $26.9 million in the County budget.
-
So if we are talking about structure protection and medical aid, then the tax should not apply. Or should be much less than on an improved parcel.
I have a couple of vacant lots next to me.
If there is a fire on one of those lots, and San Bernardino fire comes and puts it out, they're protecting my home.
So, while it's true that it may be ultimately up to CalFire to pay, I want SB Fire here to put the fire out. They can (and probably do) haggle later.
-
Here is where I am right now, personally.
Deeply offended by our County Supervisors for shirking their responsibility to the residents and visitors who may need EMS or Search and rescue. I hate that.
I'm bothered that an expanded FP-5 releases them for their moral obligation.
I very much want the services that are at-risk. I don't have a big problem with paying for services county-wide. I may be paying for services that will be used by a resident of L.A. County, and that's fine because I could need help when I'm in L.A.
I am undecided at this time.
I don't believe that the SBCFPD is trying to "game" the law to make protests unreasonably difficult.
-
I did read the Fire budget. And, I went through the per-hour-costs for various ranks of firefighters and ambulance, etc. personnel. I didn't think they were overpaid at all. I was shocked at what they were paid and thought it was low for what they do. A big part of their revenue is fees. That includes all fees (inspections, permits, etc.) and ambulance services. I know, from my own experience, that they could improve collections for ambulance services. That was a target in previous budgets. So, they are taking steps there to improve collections.
If the 64 cents of every dollar includes payroll, pension, health, sick leave, vacation (both the latter are factors in calculating payroll costs) - it would make sense to me. It is a staff-intensive service.
SBD County is supposedly the largest county in the country. Distance in the hinterlands is a big issue. I'd rather they staff for the 'what-ifs' than not enough. Cheryl o7o
-
In San Bernardino County Search and Rescue is the responsibility of the Sheriff's Department
-
In San Bernardino County Search and Rescue is the responsibility of the Sheriff's Department
I see "Swift Water Rescue" and "Urban Search and Rescue" listed on SBCFire.org, and I think I saw "Search and Rescue" listed in the Fire budget.
I seem to remember the Fire Department staffing paramedics on Sheriffs' helicopters.
Not sure where the line is drawn, only that the Fire Department seems to have some role.
-
If the 64 cents of every dollar includes payroll, pension, health, sick leave, vacation (both the latter are factors in calculating payroll costs) - it would make sense to me. It is a staff-intensive service.
To me, this feels like one of those numbers that started out as one statistic, and through reporting errors and over-zealous editing became a different number entirely.
This is why I try to fact-check things in general, and especially when the number seems out of reason.
It could be correct.
The other part of this, as I understand it, the SBCFPD pays into the County retirement system, they don't pay retirement directly, which means they don't pay the benefit out of the fire budget, so it's not exactly a Fire District liability.
-
-
FP-5 Information Request
I would imagine we are not the only individuals who hold their properties in a trust so this email--and their reply, if timely?--may be of interest to other folks on the forum.
I would welcome any information others may have on the subject that can be verified and insure my/our protest form is submitted properly.
My wife and I hold all our properties in our family trust and both she and I are the trustees.
What specifically do we have to do to sign the protest form?
As trustees, are we considered--for the purpose of the protest--as owners or agents.
If as a trustee, I/we considered an owner, will one protest form be sufficient or must both trustees file separately?
If as a trustee, I/we are considered agents, must we file information from the trust to verify that we are indeed trustees?
Also, if 1/we are considered agents, are we both required to file individual protest forms?
Are we as trustees allowed to sign as owner of the properties or do we both have to sign a protest form individually?
As you are aware, time is of the essence!
Thank you for your assistance!
Hank Hallmark
760-249-3069
thehallmarks@verizon.net
-
FP-5 Expansion
Here is the initial response!
It's a mea culpa directing me back to the original information which is--IMHO--wholly inadequate!
On 9/16/2018 3:48 PM, Tracy, Steven wrote:
Dear Mr. Hallmark,
Thank you for interest in the FP-5 Expansion process. We encourage you to visit our website at www.sbcfire.org and navigate to the FP-5 Expansion tab. Most, if not all your questions can be answered on the site. If for some reason, the information and or explanations to the frequently asked questions on the site do not satisfy your concerns than please feel free to write us back.
Respectfully,
Public Information Office
My response:
I have researched the information on the website without any success!
My purpose in sending my email was the protest form does not offer any explanation for properties held in trust an I feel it is only proper for a definitive explanation to be provided for clarity.
If the information I am requesting IS on your referenced website and I have overlooked it please refer me to it's location.
Thanks for your prompt response.
Hank Hallmark
-
FP-5 Expansion
Here is the initial response!
It's a mea culpa directing me back to the original information which is--IMHO--wholly inadequate!
On 9/16/2018 3:48 PM, Tracy, Steven wrote:
Dear Mr. Hallmark,
Thank you for interest in the FP-5 Expansion process. We encourage you to visit our website at www.sbcfire.org and navigate to the FP-5 Expansion tab. Most, if not all your questions can be answered on the site. If for some reason, the information and or explanations to the frequently asked questions on the site do not satisfy your concerns than please feel free to write us back.
Respectfully,
Public Information Office
My response:
I have researched the information on the website without any success!
My purpose in sending my email was the protest form does not offer any explanation for properties held in trust an I feel it is only proper for a definitive explanation to be provided for clarity.
If the information I am requesting IS on your referenced website and I have overlooked it please refer me to it's location.
Thanks for your prompt response.
Hank Hallmark
-
If you want to protest this, please follow the link below.
If 25% of property owners protest this, we will get to vote on it.
Please print and distribute protest forms to those impacted, but who may not be computer literate.
https://sbcfire.org/Portals/58/Documents/FP-5/ServiceZoneFP-5Expansion_ProtestForm.pdf?utm_source=SBCFireWebsite&utm_medium=Button&utm_campaign=FP5
This would be a good cause for the Wrightwood Property Owners Association. Maybe the WWPOA could send out print outs of this item to property owners via USPS.
-
All of Wrightwood is within the SRA.
CAL FIRE is responsible for prevention and suppression of fire on the land in the SRA.
SBCFD is responsible for structure protection.
Empty lots are CAL FIRE's financial responsibility
What is the State Responsibility Area (SRA)?
The State Responsibility Area (SRA) is the area in the state where the State of California has the primary financial responsibility for the prevention and suppression of wildland fires. The SRA forms one large area over 31 million acres to which the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) provides a basic level of wildland fire prevention and protection services. http://www.fire.ca.gov/firepreventionfee/sra_faqs#basiclaw
This is important.
Does the County want money for fire protection on land that is not even in County Fire jurisdiction?
We already pay for that through the state.
-
This is important.
Does the County want money for fire protection on land that is not even in County Fire jurisdiction?
We already pay for that through the state.
It is important. It's also incorrect.
Currently the San Bernardino County Fire department covers 19,278 square miles. Part of our property taxes go to pay for that.
CalFire and the US Forest Service also cover much of those areas, through other taxes.
Out of that 19,278 square miles, there are a dozen or so small special tax districts that assess a special tax.
The change is to make one of those special tax districts (FP-5) cover the whole 19,278 square miles, raising another $26.9 million dollars.
The total area that is covered by San Bernardino County Fire does not change.
-
lwt42 you've taken Nolena's quote out of context. She quoted my statement that Empty lots are CAL FIRE's financial responsibility and she is correct.
This issue has been discussed many times at Fire Safe Council meeting over the years with Chiefs from both agencies in attendance.
CAL FIRE is responsible for prevention and suppression of fire on the land in the SRA.
SBCFD is responsible for structure protection.
Chief Hartwig was asked at the Wrightwood meeting if the FP-5 passes what fire protection will it provide for vacant parcels in the SRA. He answered that maybe someone would get hurt on that vacant land and need medical attention.
-
I wonder why it was SB Fire that came out here for my complaint about the vacant lot next to me? They didn't refer me to CalFire.
Meanwhile, I did call 211 again today. After six minutes on hold, the young woman that answered had no idea about a protest form and told me to call the County or go to the library. I pointed out that the letter said to call 211. She checked and gave me the # for the Clerk of the Board. Called that number. After another period on hold that young woman told me the Fire District was handling the mailing. She was very nice and said she'd call around to see who to direct me to rather than me doing it. I appreciated that. It took her seven tries. She did connect with a Fire Capt. and said he would call me back. That was only around 20 minutes ago.. so I'll be patient.
However, I repeat.. this is no way to run an airline.. much less an election. Cheryl o7o
-
lwt42 you've taken Nolena's quote out of context. She quoted my statement that Empty lots are CAL FIRE's financial responsibility and she is correct.
This issue has been discussed many times at Fire Safe Council meeting over the years with Chiefs from both agencies in attendance.
CAL FIRE is responsible for prevention and suppression of fire on the land in the SRA.
SBCFD is responsible for structure protection.
Chief Hartwig was asked at the Wrightwood meeting if the FP-5 passes what fire protection will it provide for vacant parcels in the SRA. He answered that maybe someone would get hurt on that vacant land and need medical attention.
I agree with your comments, but that wasn't the point I was making.
If you own a parcel in the current San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (and Wrightwood is in the district), part of your general levy property taxes go to SBCFPD now. I may be a couple of percentage points off, but I think the Chief said 24% of the 1% general levy.
That's true for developed and undeveloped parcels.
If this goes through, the same parcels will have an additional special levy.
-
Thanks for that update. So seniors or others without the internet and transportation won't have the patience to do what you're doing - they won't be able to easily protest this tax. With all the prep they put into meetings, you would think they would have someone to respond to questions; plus the promise of the protest form to be included with the mailing and it wasn't, and so many answers that are missing, this should just go away. This is not being handled efficiently, which underscores my original thought that our tax dollars (wherever they are spent!) are also not being handled efficiently.
-
-
Update on calling 211 and obtaining a protest form. I spoke with a Fire Capt. who was very nice. These are his responses.
- They will not be mailing out protest forms. You either have to get the form off the website or go to a library to obtain the form. I told him that I wasn't going to protest the expansion but I was now and that this was a pr mistake on their part. He continued being nice.
-The % rule will be applied to the total value of the property, land & improvements. He really didn't have an answer when I pointed out that the language of the motion only said "land." He said that's how the assessor defines it. I pointed out that the assessment is for both "land" and "improvements" that equal the 'total." But, my point was going nowhere.
-You can contact them at www.sbfire.org - go to the SP5 expansion link.. there's a place there to send a message. Capt. Kyle will be 'personing" the response there today and tomorrow. Hank - I was asking about trust questions and since I didn't know your specifics I just
-On the issue of vacant lots. In the instance of a vacant lot in WW it is SBFire that will likely respond initially. If CalFire is closer - they will respond. That makes total sense to me. He did go into a larger explanation regarding protecting watershed/timber etc and the various agencies involved CalFire, U.S. Forest Service, BLM, etc.
-On my concern about the vacant lot next to me. He gave me the number for the SB Fire Marshall's office.
-I did tell him that 211 had no idea about the protest forms. He was going to correct that. How he will do that eludes me as they're not mailing out the forms. They could have just said 'go to the library' instead of putting people through hoops.
-Interesting factoid: there are 813,482 parcels in SB County. The value is $211 billion. I read that while I was sitting on hold. Cheryl o7o
-
-
tcaarabians said: Hank - I was asking about trust questions and since I didn't know your specifics I just
I would be interested in what you were planning to say about the questions you did ask
Hank
-
-
Clarification lwt42: the total number of parcels is 800k+ . I believe the number of parcels in the expansion is a lot less. The total includes incorporated cities that have their own fire depts.
Hank: Not sure if I understand your question. I told the Capt. that someone had a question about how trusts fill out the protest form. He started going into a lengthy explanation. I didn't know enough about your specific situation to ask an informed question for you. He will be at the email link tomorrow and will answer questions directly via email. I did tell him you tried that and just got a referral to the website. I did expand with him on my concerns about how the vote was being conducted. I'm positive I was polite. He is just enforcing what he was told to do. Oddly, they all say that. He was just so nice about it all... it took all the fun out of it.
I guess that the Fire Protection District with the County Board of Supervisors wearing that hat.. can qualify as 'one local government annexing territory' .. even though the territory is one and the same under the larger umbrella... and the property owners are already paying taxes to the 'Big Hat' and receiving service from the "Little Hat." As far as I'm concerned.. whoever dreamed up this process is 'all hat and no horse."
cheryl o7o
-
Clarification lwt42: the total number of parcels is 800k+ . I believe the number of parcels in the expansion is a lot less. The total includes incorporated cities that have their own fire depts.
That's part of why I rounded down. If we assume that half of the parcels are in incorporated cities with their own fire function, we still have 400k parcels, and that gives a feel for the magnitude of the problem.
The necessary number of protests to trigger a vote is probably somewhere between 50,000 and 200,000. It's not an exact number by any means, but it does give one a feel for the number of protests that it'd take to get this on the ballot.
-
On the issue of the # of votes to trigger a majority vote election: I get around 167k parcels are affected. It's the value of the parcels that determine the 25 percent. Trying to estimate that is near on impossible. The Assessor's office likely already has that figure. There is no noticeable campaign against this. There are social media sites and Letters To the Editor. The letter itself is about as nondescript as you can get. And, obtaining the information for a protest vote requires Internet access. This puppy is going to pass. Cheryl o7o
-
-
Hank.. thanks for posting the link to the Sentinel piece. I found it very informative on the evolution of the creation of the current FP-5 and the proposed expansion.
I took away a couple of points. The Chief stated that property taxes are the major portion of the fire budget. My read of the budget is that was not an accurate statement. He also expanded that some areas do not have sufficient property taxes to offset the cost of services. He mentioned the stations in WW & Phelan among others. I'm not sure I agree with that cost/benefit analysis. The service areas seem to be designed based on what makes sense geographically. To me at least, extending that geographic analyses to budget revenues shouldn't be a determining factor.
An initiative was also mentioned. It is not on the Nov. ballot. Reading a fuller rendition of the various Supervisor's comments was informative. Cheryl o7o
-
Just received a yearly Ambulance Subscription renewal form. It says to make checks payable to Wrightwood Fire District.
I didn't think Wrightwood Fire District still exists?
(http://www.wrightwoodfsc.com/documents/MD_SBCFD.AmbulanceForm.JPG)
-
Semantics at this point....There is the Lucerne Ambulance....Lake Arrowhead....Yucca Valley ....I believe just identifies where the ambulance you use is located. We've had it for years. There is now also similar "insurance" for air ambulance transport that limits the amount that can be billed.
-
I was digging around in county budgets yesterday and do recall an annotation regarding Wrightwood being transferred into North Desert. Maybe fiscal 2010-11?? I didn't make a note of it. It may be a rose by any other name. Or, it's a way to properly allocate subscriptions - which are counted as revenue - to the North Desert budget. Cheryl o7o
-
Wrightwood was in the North Desert Div from late 90's....maybe early nineties. A way to break up the Department into logical geographic divisions. I transferred back up from the Central Valley Division (called something else now) in early 90's and my BC's and DC was running the North Desert Division who I reported to. I had five different names for the department since I joined in 1972 and as many patches and uniform color changes.
-
There is reference to the formation of the various Service Districts (North Desert, etc.) as having been formed in 2008. That was with LAFCO. Whether it was just a reformation of what had been before - I do not know. I'm still looking at that. I'm doing this for my own edification. If I come up with something interesting, I'll share it.
There are some interesting stats in our Sample Ballot for the Nov. election. They're on page 62 for Prop 11. That measure addresses private ambulance companies and on-call EMTs, Paramedics. In the LAO's analysis are these stats:
-private companies operate most ambulances in CA (75%-25% f.d.);
-two-thirds of trips are for patients with Medicare or Medi-Cal;
-twenty percent are for patients with private insurance;
-the rest (14%) are patients with no insurance;
-average ambulance trip is $750 (we are a good bit higher here);
-Medicare and Medi-Cal pay a fixed amount (about $450/$150 respectively). Private companies lose money on those pts. We can likely assume that fire departments do too.;
-Average commercial insurer pays $1800.
What these numbers tell me is that there isn't a lot of room to increase revenues from ambulance services. And, there may not be the ability to even break even. That's ok to me. It's not a for-profit service. I did find some language that seems to be in conflict. One stated that the county could charge more for out-of-county patients. Other language stated that they can only bill the cost of providing the service. I don't know which would govern those fees.
So far, I have not found anything about serving Mountain High. I do know that at some horse shows - it is required to have an ambulance present. The show pays for that. Whether M.H. does something similar - I do not know. And, I do not know if we have any sort of agreement with LA County for the service provided by SB Fire.
(Sidenote to Jim: I really enjoyed your pieces in NewsPlus about how it used to be in WW before the Station was built.) cheryl o7o
-
We respond (and have since 1972 that I know) to the Ski areas and Camps in LA County because it's a 45 minute response time on a perfect day for LA County Fire and private ambulance providers. There was a time when we responded to the tunnels on Highway 2....Valeryermo....as well as to the top of cajon pass....blue cut down by devore...Lake Silverwood and Baldy Mesa as part of our first due area. There may be some exchange of tax money for the LA County WW houses but not sure. Mountain High is not required to have ambulances standby like a concert. On busy weekends we might have sent one up there to standby for the inevitable multiple medical responses and transports. If we were running multiple calls, LA County 79's would come up and run calls with us. We provide initial attack for all fires/rescues on the LA side of WW and LACOFD will respond if needed or to follow up. Much of what we do is covered by mutual aid, I would think. The mountain and snow players has provided us with substantial income over the years which has helped fund the service. We finally have a fully staffed Paramedic Ambulance with a fully staffed Paramedic engine. Beats the years I would sit in the station and respond alone while the rest of our 3 man crew was down
at the hospital.
-
-
Your protest forms must be mailed soon to be received by Oct 15th
Here's a link to the protest form:
http://bit.ly/FP5ProtestForm
-
Send in your protest forms if you want to be able vote on this issue. It costs you nothing but a stamp.
To find your parcel number, put your street address in this form:
https://assr.parcelquest.com/Home
-
Just received this by email and includes Supervisors phone numbers
A new website has been created (not by me) on October 10, 2018:
www.sbcfireprotest.org
This website contains the Protest Form itself as well as a Legal Brief prepared by someone anticipating a potential lawsuit, and also Letters of Protest.
Spread the word, people must call the supervisors, especially Hagman (4th District), at 909-465-5265. Rutherford # 909-387-4833, Lovingood # 909-387-4830.
Supervisors Rutherford and Lovingood voted against this. Rutherford stated she felt it should be a vote of the people. I agree!
Perhaps Supervisor Hagman can be persuaded to changed his vote once he hears how wrong we believe the process to be, regardless of what one feels about the fire department or the amount.
-
Oops. Nevermind.
-
-
Additional information is available at www.youturnradio.com episodes 19 through 24
https://www.youturnradio.com/2018/09/02/episode-19-county-fire-i-protest-part-1-podcast/
https://www.youturnradio.com/2018/09/09/episode-20-county-fire-i-protest-part-2-podcast/
https://www.youturnradio.com/2018/09/16/episode-21-the-out-of-control-fire-at-county-fire-podcast/
https://www.youturnradio.com/2018/09/23/episode-22-how-an-expanded-fire-zone-effected-my-business-podcast/
https://www.youturnradio.com/2018/09/30/episode-23-county-fire-solution-part-podcast/
https://www.youturnradio.com/2018/10/07/episode-24-county-fire-solution-part-2-podcast/
-
I've given this fee a lot of thought. I am not going to send in a protest vote. I agree with the Red Brennan group that the vote is being held in a way that isn't in compliance with state law.
I do not agree with them when they say "... runaway fire spending... ." My two cents. Cheryl o7o
-
-
I wonder why the suit didn't also name the Fire District??
-
-
I've given this fee a lot of thought. I am not going to send in a protest vote. I agree with the Red Brennan group that the vote is being held in a way that isn't in compliance with state law.
I do not agree with them when they say "... runaway fire spending... ." My two cents. Cheryl o7o
Trying to figure out how you respond to a quarter million emergencies a year and (demand growing every year) in the largest contiguous county in the nation .....cheaply.
-
The writ of mandate in Austin v Fire is an interesting read and pretty much addresses the issues we've raised in this thread. I'm still not going to send in my protest vote. And, if it goes to a 2/3 ballot vote I will vote yes. It will likely not pass if that happens. We will then be looking at 'what next?" and debating that.
Jim - You're right. With a few exceptions, I thought the Fire budget was reasonable. I'm not going to list those exceptions because I prefer to find out why those costs seem so high before I make that assertion.
Cheryl o7o
-
Cheaply? CA residents pay among the highest taxes in ALL areas except property. So, because Prop 13 fixes that particular tax, we should feel "guilty", "undertaxed"?
Consider perhaps that we are taxed sufficiently, and it's the gov't and their employees that need to make the tough choices, not the public at large.
-
Not what I said. Sorry to confuse. Point was....if you provide services which require certain levels of staffing and response time and have sophisticated training and equipment (both of which are expensive) and you do it over a 19,000 square mile area....it is expensive by it's very nature. I only pay taxes on three properties here in Wrightwood so I am not impacted like some with many more. I also have a property that is lower because of Prop 13. I voted for it.
It is expensive to have quality...provided around the clock and on demand.
-
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING
Tuesday, October 16, 2018
http://www.sbcounty.gov/Main/Pages/ViewMeetings.aspx
Supporting Materials Acting as the governing body of the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District:
Conduct a public hearing regarding the expansion of the Service Zone FP-5.
Receive report on tabulation of protests.
Find that the expansion of Service Zone FP-5 is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15061(b)(3), 15273(a) and 15320 and direct the Clerk of the Board to file and post a Notice of Exemption.
In the event that the report on the tabulation of protests indicate that the threshold for calling for an election has not been met pursuant to the protest procedures adopted by the Board, adopt the Resolution to expand the boundaries of the Service Zone FP-5.
http://cob-sire.sbcounty.gov/sirepub/view.aspx?cabinet=published_meetings&fileid=2312331
http://cob-sire.sbcounty.gov/sirepub/view.aspx?cabinet=published_meetings&fileid=2312332
http://cob-sire.sbcounty.gov/sirepub/view.aspx?cabinet=published_meetings&fileid=2312333
-
I can't see anything... either they haven't started, or they're still in closed session or they aren't broadcasting it as of 0933
-
-
The FP-5 portion of the meeting is now on a lunch break until 1pm
-
OMG.. these meetings are SOOOOO long. Must. Keep. Eyes. Open
(https://horrorfreaknews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/CO.jpg)
-
Public comments still going
-
Last 10 public comments
-
Last public comment being made.
Hearing closed. Brief recess while counting the protest forms turned in today.
-
"Brief recess"
?? We will see just how brief it is. Sounds like it may take a bit of time to finish tabulating the numbers based on the comments by a clerk when asked by Lovingood.
-
"Brief recess"
Tick, tock, tick, tock... 45 minutes and still waiting...
-
This could stretch out a lot further. They have to calculate the "value" of the property, the proportion of that value per vote, verify, etc. etc. Cheryl o7o
-
Restarted the hearing 5 min ago
-
Supervisors voted 3 to 2 in favor
-
Not going to a vote? Really appreciate the day-long updates.
-
3.8% protests after calculations and needed 25%
-
Thank you to the 3.8% that took the time to send in a protest. To the others - No more complaining about any new taxes/fees. Period.
-
Process was rigged to produce a low percentage. Funny how the majority of Supes that voted to impose this don't represent the residents affected. I won't complain, but I will hope a legal challenge succeeds and I will vote against Lovingood (I'm aware he voted against it, but he's the only Supe I can punish at the polls. And I can do it without having to download a form)
-
Process was rigged to produce a low percentage.
Exactly, no form in the mail like promised.
It's the same with prop 6. The crooks worded it in their favor. All you have to do is look at the organizations that support these taxes and "fees" and it becomes obvious what the money will be used for. Follow the money.
-
I don't know how much you all dig into this stuff, and certainly IANAL.
I don't think the procedure was rigged, because it was done as required by state law.
Several of the documents that have been posted lately suggest that the procedure applies to Local Area Formation Commissions only. As the SBCFPD isn't a LAFCO type agency, they may have chosen the wrong process -- and if the process was incorrect, the result is moot.
That's something for the courts to decide.
There are at least two cases that are ongoing. Seems that the San Antonio Heights case has merit, and there is a hearing in December. I don't know if they're arguing that the original Helendale FP-5 vote included "no expansions" but if San Antonio Heights was annexed and the judge rules, then it follows that the rest of us are out of reach.
The Red Brennan Group and their case has also been discussed here. I also don't know what the basis of their case might be.
It will be interesting to see how these two cases move forward.
-
I agree with lwt42 and also think the Austin v case was interesting. A lot of jurisdictions will be looking at this decision as guidance for their own efforts to increase taxes/assessments. If Austin prevails, it would likely be appealed. Regardless of how it all falls out - the question of sufficient budget allocations remains. Let's not lose that fact in the mix. Cheryl o7o
-
lwt42, while it may not have been rigged, it was not handled in the way we were promised at the multitude of meetings. They said a protest form would be included and it was not. That in itself was probably the biggest factor in producing so few protests. If it's not easy, people won't do it....and they knew that.
-
lwt42, while it may not have been rigged, it was not handled in the way we were promised at the multitude of meetings. They said a protest form would be included and it was not. That in itself was probably the biggest factor in producing so few protests. If it's not easy, people won't do it....and they knew that.
There were mistakes in how the process was handled. The question is, would it have changed the result? We needed 8 times the number to trigger a vote.
Let's say they provided a form, filled out. People would still need an envelope and a stamp. I don't know about you, but it always takes me time to find a stamp.
The question is: did they follow the relevant law?
I believe they followed the statute, and it produced the result that is always produced -- historically, these types of protests nearly always fail.
There are three lawsuits that I know about. The lawyers and backers believe that the law behind the protest was mis-applied -- that the protest method isn't available to SBCFPD because they aren't SBLAFCO, or because FP-5 is too specific to Helendale, or possibly because this is a "new tax" -- which pretty much would void decades of annexation law in California.
It's going to be interesting, and it's not over.
-
However the whatever - I say we should start looking into annexing Vegas. That would solve our budget problems too.
And, we should all realize that if this matter went to a full vote of all affected - it would likely fail. Soft as our hearts are towards the fire dept. I'd like to focus on the budget and how revenues could be enhanced or various other changes. Example: Does the allocation process for ambulance services spread the costs of those services appropriately across all populations served? Cheryl o7o
-
-
-
Hank,
Do you know the date of the article and the source?
-
It was sent to me today by the RBG.
I got his permission to repost it!
BTW In the interest of transparency, I need to disclose that I am one of the plaintiffs in the Red Brennan Group's lawsuit against SB Cty pertaining to FP-5!
How do I edit my original post to insert this "disclosure"?
-
Your post just disclosed that and should be fine.
-
This website has been updated
www.sbcfireprotest.org
Complaint Filed in Court by Red Brennan Group (http://www.sbcfireprotest.org/Complaint%20Filed%20by%20Red%20Brennan%20Group.pdf)
Ex Parte Application in Court by Red Brennan Group (http://www.sbcfireprotest.org/Ex%20Parte%20Appl%20by%20Red%20Brennan%20Group.pdf)
Ron M. Austin Petition in Court for Writ of Mandate (http://www.sbcfireprotest.org/Ron%20M.%20Austin%20Petition%20for%20Writ.pdf)
-
-
October 24, 2018
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association RE SBCFD FP-5 expansion (http://www.wrightwoodcalif.com/sbcounty/FP_5.HJTA.LetterOct24.2018.pdf)
-
The final affirmative vote was cast by Supervisor James Ramos.
In consequence, the supervisor earned a formal complaint to the California Fair Political Practices Commission. Based on a reported $7,800 in campaign contributions received from various organizations associated with the fire suppression industry, campaign watchers claim Mr. Ramos, acting as County Supervisor, should have recused himself from the vote.
Formal complaint to the California Fair Political Practices Commission (http://www.wrightwoodcalif.com/sbcounty/EnforcementDivisionFairPoliticalPracticesCommission.pdf)
-
Formal complaint to the California Fair Political Practices Commission (http://www.wrightwoodcalif.com/sbcounty/EnforcementDivisionFairPoliticalPracticesCommission.pdf)
October 30, 2018
Darrel Pague
Re: Sworn Complaint Against James Ramos (COM-10172018-02300)
Dear Mr. Pague:
This letter is in response to the sworn complaint you submitted to the Enforcement Division of the
Fair Political Practices Commission regarding the above-named individual. Based on a review of
the complaint and documentation provided, the Enforcement Division found insufficient evidence
of a violation of the Political Reform Act, and will not pursue an enforcement action in this matter.
If you have any questions, please contact Chris Holm at cholm@fppc.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
GWest
Galena West
Chief, Enforcement Division
-
The complainant likely felt the campaign contribution was a violation. I don't see why it would have been under the law. Cheryl o7o
-
-
-
County Response of November 5, 2018 to Public Records Act Request by Fred Stearn for all E-Mails received and sent by the Fire District re the FP-5 Expansion (http://www.sbcfireprotest.org/pdf)
EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS OUTSTANDING LEGAL BRIEF FILED BY RED BRENNAN GROUP. Sincere thanks from the citizens of San Bernardino County to the Red Brennan Group and its President Tom Murphy for championing the cause of freedom in their court case. (Large file has been compacted to 6MB for easier loading)
(http://www.sbcfireprotest.org/The%20Red%20Brennan%20Group%20Motion%20for%20Preliminary%20Injunction%20Filed.pdf)
-
Case CIVDS1826559 - RED BRENNAN-V-BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Case report as of 12-6-18 (http://www.wrightwoodcalif.com/sbcounty/CIVDS1826559.Case.Report.pdf)
-
As an update...The Red Brennan Group was scheduled to be in court yesterday (20th of December) to address a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. That court date has slipped to the 16th of January.
Merry Christmas to all!
-
Thank you for the update, TomM! There are many people in this community who appreciate your and your organizations efforts on this topic. We will look forward to updates as you proceed.
As an update...The Red Brennan Group was scheduled to be in court yesterday (20th of December) to address a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. That court date has slipped to the 16th of January.
Merry Christmas to all!
-
-
-
I wonder how much of our money the Supervisors are going to spend on attorneys to defend this unconscionable tax
-
I wonder how much of our money the Supervisors are going to spend on attorneys to defend this unconscionable tax
If I understand the budget process, none at all.
The Fire Protection District Board will be spending the money out of the Fire Protection District budget.
The Fire Protection District has separate funding, and much like schools get supplemental money from the State Legislature the FPD should get supplemental money from the County -- but the County Board of Supervisors consistently threatens to stop.
Presumably, financing is saner in Santa Barbara County.
-
I've yet to figure out why fire departments were separated into Fire Protection Districts and why there would be any prevailing thought as to why they should be treated differently as regards General Fund distributions.
Anyone know the answer to those questions? I also think that creating service areas makes sense. That is how the District is structured now. But, the current method of assigning revenue/expenditures to those areas does not make sense. The largest, rural areas have lower property values thus lower property tax receipts, lower just about everything that brings in revenue. By definition, those zones are less likely to break even.
The lawsuit is based on the constitutional question of how the vote was handled. If the County prevails, we're still going to have to deal with the shortfall one way or another. A new ballot measure that requires the 2/3's majority is going to be a hard sell. I think a good campaign could swing it. That will cost $$. If it fails, then what? Home sales are dipping. I hope the current budget projections aren't too optimistic about that part of the revenue projections.
I also wonder how many FPD's around the state are having the same problem.
As for spending money on the lawsuit. It doesn't matter which pocket the money is coming out of - it's our pair of pants.
-
I wonder how much of our money the Supervisors are going to spend on attorneys to defend this unconscionable tax
Just like Moonbeam's Fire Prevention -Fee- Tax.
-
As for spending money on the lawsuit. It doesn't matter which pocket the money is coming out of - it's our pair of pants.
You and I are focused on the pants. Politicians are all about the pockets.
-
It may be time to "pants" a few of them. I could not resist that one. Sorry. Cheryl o7o
-
-
-
Does anyone know if SBCoFD had actually imposed the parcel tax on Upland/San Antonio Hghts? The argument by the County in the Red Brennan case hinges largely on the Constitutional requirement that taxpayers can only sue after they've paid the tax. Thus, they maintain there is no standing for the Red Brennan suit. I hope you'll be able to post the final decision in the Upland case.
Does anyone know the status of Austin v San Bernardino County Fire? The Writ of Mandate is posted in this thread on Oct. 13, 2018. I thought it was a well-written brief. My non-lawyer read of it anyway. Cheryl o7o
-
SBC Board action on FP-5
Not only did they approved it they have already raised the amount for for next year.
Action on Item 134.
Acting as the governing body of the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District, adopt resolution for Service Zone FP-5 (expanded area is shown in Attachment A to the resolution) that:
Sets the amount of the existing special tax for 2019-20 at $161.98 per parcel (3% increase from the 2018-19 special tax rate of $157.26).
Directs the Secretary of the Board of Directors to publish a copy of the resolution once in a newspaper of general circulation within Service Zone FP-5.
Directs the Auditor-Controller/Treasurer/Tax Collector to place the special tax for Service Zone FP-5 on the 2019-20 tax roll.
(Presenter: Don Trapp, Interim Fire Chief/Fire Warden, 387-5779)
-
Given the likelihood of a worse fire season this year due to the growth from all the rain and the new challenge from the Trump administration to CA's billing for costs incurred for firefighting on federal lands - I will pay this tax.
-
A solid win in today's FP-5 vote of the SB Cty Board of Directors meeting!
I was viewing the on-line discussions of item 96, the FP-5 issue, which has a couple of lawsuits one waiting to be appealed--however, it may be a "mute" issue given the board's vote today.
If I heard the chairman correctly the vote was 4-1 on Supervisor Rutherford's motion! I believe Chairman Hagman was the NO vote?
If I recall the motion correctly, they approved the lower amount of the new FP-5 tax however the original fees stayed in place due to the timing of fp-5 going on the tax roles. That means some of the existing FP districts and CSA's will be double billed for fire service.
The county staff has 90 days to come back to the board with alternatives to fp-5 and the board will schedule a workshop to decide what funding mechanism will be proposed to fund "equitable" fire service in all areas--Supervisor Gonzales was adamant about that!
That proposal should be put before the voters 11/20--let's hope so as the turnout will be greater than 11/21. If the voters don't approve the tax, the board will have to address a county wide measure to provide funds ostensible to get the fire funding out of the general fund.
In any case, FP-5 will sunset sometime in the future!
However, if Supervisor Gonzales gets her way there will be a future ballot measure for establishing a stable fire funding source with different tax levels depending on the cost of providing fire protection to the different--and unique--cities, districts and unincorporated areas which the voters will be given the opportunity to approve or disapprove!
I don't think Supervisors Lovingood or Gonzales support the fire funding being totally removed from the general fund.
-
A solid win in today's FP-5 vote of the SB Cty Board of Directors meeting!
I was viewing the on-line discussions of item 96, the FP-5 issue, which has a couple of lawsuits one waiting to be appealed--however, it may be a "mute" issue given the board's vote today.
If I heard the chairman correctly the vote was 4-1 on Supervisor Rutherford's motion! I believe Chairman Hagman was the NO vote?
If I recall the motion correctly, they approved the lower amount of the new FP-5 tax however the original fees stayed in place due to the timing of fp-5 going on the tax roles. That means some of the existing FP districts and CSA's will be double billed for fire service.
The county staff has 90 days to come back to the board with alternatives to fp-5 and the board will schedule a workshop to decide what funding mechanism will be proposed to fund "equitable" fire service in all areas--Supervisor Gonzales was adamant about that!
That proposal should be put before the voters 11/20--let's hope so as the turnout will be greater than 11/21. If the voters don't approve the tax, the board will have to address a county wide measure to provide funds ostensible to get the fire funding out of the general fund.
In any case, FP-5 will sunset sometime in the future!
However, if Supervisor Gonzales gets her way there will be a future ballot measure for establishing a stable fire funding source with different tax levels depending on the cost of providing fire protection to the different--and unique--cities, districts and unincorporated areas which the voters will be given the opportunity to approve or disapprove!
I don't think Supervisors Lovingood or Gonzales support the fire funding being totally removed from the general fund.
-
-
This is an Update!
A solid win in Tuesday's FP-5 vote of the SB Cty Board of Directors meeting!
I was viewing the on-line discussions of item 96, the FP-5 issue, which has a couple of lawsuits-- one waiting to be appealed--however, it may be a "moot" issue given the board's vote Tuesday.
http://www.sbcounty.gov/Main/Pages/ViewMeetings.aspx
If I heard the chairman correctly the vote was 4-1 on Supervisor Rutherford's motion! I believe Chairman Hagman was the NO vote? [Update! That is an error, Supervisor Lovingood was the NO vote!]
If I recall the motion correctly, they approved the lower amount of the new FP-5 tax however the original fees stayed in place due to the timing of fp-5 going on the tax roles. That means some of the existing FP districts and CSA's will be double billed for fire service.
The county staff has 90 days to come back to the board with alternatives to FP-5 and the board will schedule a workshop to decide what funding mechanism will be proposed to fund "equitable" fire service in all areas--Supervisor Gonzales was adamant about that!
That proposal should be put before the voters 11/20--let's hope so as the turnout will be greater than 11/21. If the voters don't approve the tax, the board will have to address a county wide measure to provide funds ostensible to get the fire funding out of the general fund.
In any case, FP-5 will sunset sometime in the future!
However, if Supervisor Gonzales gets her way there will be a future ballot measure for establishing a stable fire funding source with different tax levels depending on the cost of providing fire protection to the different--and unique--cities, districts and unincorporated areas which the voters will be given the opportunity to approve or disapprove!
I don't think Supervisors Lovingood or Gonzales support the fire funding being totally removed from the general fund. [Update! I think I recall Supervisor Rowe also expressing support for this issue!]
The vote takes place at approximately at the 2 hours mark. Josie is very "loquacious" btwn 38 minutes and the vote.
She seems "equivocating" on the vote and I didn't hear anything "supportive" from Hagman.
Supervisor Lovingood "disappointingly" didn't vote for the motion even though his attempt at an amendment didn't get a second and he knew that if Rutherford's motion passed, FP-5 would "sunset" at the latest by 2021!
I'm disappointed because the only apparent yes votes were Rutherford and Rowe--we could have lost by a 2 to 3 vote--unless the outcome of the vote was a "given," however, it did not appear so due to the amount of discussion and exchange--it seemed extemporaneous!
I really wasn't expecting Hagman to be a yes vote and if he and Josie didn't support the amendment we would have lost!
-
Quoting thehallmarks: "In any case, FP-5 will sunset sometime in the future!" My reading is that the sunset is contingent on a DIFFERENT tax being approved Nov 2020. If they measure fails, the expanded FP-5 remains. Quote below is from this link: http://z1077fm.com/county-supervisors-vote-to-end-controversial-fire-tax/
"FP-5 sunsets after the vote AND the solution approved by voters is implemented" (emphasis on "and" is mine)
-
If you watch the discussion before the vote, you will hear Supervisor Rutherford adamantly state that "FP-5" will sunset!
-
If the link I posted accurately reflects the text of the actual resolution that passed 4-1 it doesn't matter what an official says, folks commit honest mistakes and misspeak all the time. Written trumps oral.
-
It took me a second to realize that was a lower case "t."
-
https://redbrennan.org/fire-prevention-zone-five-expansion/
Dated July 23, 2019
Click on the top link called:
Motion for Relief from Order
-
Just another tax in the socialist republic of California. Spreading fear to raise taxes.
-
-
In June the county supes gave staff 90 days to draft recommendations on what is to be put on the Nov. 2020 ballot, so we'll soon know what we'll be voting on. I thought the court found until we actually pay the parcel tax we don't have "standing" to bring a suit. (which is why Red Brennan group's suit was dismissed).
-
-
When did a judge order that the state fee be refunded (did you get a check?)
In April, Judge Alvarez already definitively refused an injunction. Did HJTA appeal? If not, it will be on the November tax bill.
The supes probably realize the FP-5 expansion is unlawful, I suppose we'll find out which variation of it they will put on the Nov 2020 ballot. The good news is it will be hard for them to craft something that can avoid the 2/3 requirement.
-
Unless of course they do the same as the statewide fire safe fee folks who billed us, required payment, allowed us to protest--each year--and then refused to refund the fee until it was determined by the courts that it must be refunded. That after they decided to put the collection of the fee in "abeyance"
It will take a court decision to mandate a total refund to the monies paid--that's why I protested each year! Just in case....
-
I too have a folder of appeal forms and rejections from each year I paid.
-
-
The way I understand it, the county supes should inform us during an October meeting what version of the parcel tax for fire protection they intend to put on the Nov 2020 ballot.
If they don't (thinking we'd forget), your repeal initiative will be useful. https://www.vvdailypress.com/news/20190613/county-board-votes-down-parcel-tax-hike
-
Case CIVDS1826559 - RED BRENNAN-V-BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Action:
RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER
09/10/2019 - 4:10 PM DEPT. S23
DONALD ALVAREZ, JUDGE
CLERK: MONICA REAL-RAMOS
-
COURT RULES AS FOLLOWS ON SUBMITTED MATTER:
THE COURT NOW RENDERS ITS RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER AS FOLLOWS:
-
MOTION
THE RED BRENNAN GROUP'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL IS DENIED.
DEFENSE EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS 1 THRU 3 ARE SUSTAINED, AND THE COURT GRANTS DEFENSE REQUEST
FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AS TO EXHIBITS 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, AND 8.
CORRESPONDENCE COVERSHEET GENERATED TO MAIL COPY OF MINUTE ORDER/RULING TO COUNSEL OF RECORD.
NOTICE GIVEN BY JUDICIAL ASSISTANT
ACTION - COMPLETE
=== MINUTE ORDER END ===
-
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting
Meeting date/time: 9/24/2019 10:00 AM
San Bernardino County Fire Protection District Funding
https://sanbernardino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7727822&GUID=2B288CB7-524D-446C-8236-430E83DCF954
-
So possibly recommendations for the Nov 2020 ballot will come this Tuesday. Thanks.
-
Rumor has it that there is a petition circulating to repeal the FP-5 fee/tax. Does anyone know about this? I'd like to read it. thx. Cheryl
-
There is one at the Village Grind in Wrightwood.
-
There was a guy at Stater Bros. in Phelan collecting signatures over the last few weeks as well.
-
Thanks. If anyone knows of an online site - please advise. Cheryl o7o
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA4mlNk6C4M
-
Thanks for this. I also checked the Red Brennan website. They do not have information regarding a petition. It appears that the Supes will be putting the fee/tax to a vote prior to Jan. 2021. In the meantime, it has been implemented and appears on our property tax bill. I will pay it without protest. Cheryl o7o
-
Thanks. If anyone knows of an online site - please advise. Cheryl o7o
I doubt there is such a thing. Those typical "change dot org" type sites don't mean anything
-
-
Didn't the Supes already vote to put the FP-5 expansion on the Nov 2020 ballot? I'm confused what signing this group's petition does that won't happen already.
-
-
What about this story is false? http://www.hidesertstar.com/news/article_6cd0f11c-dff3-11e9-8b9e-cbd6aa6416bf.html
-
I'm interested to know that too Cheapskate. Dawn Rowe has been removed as a Supervisor by the Court. That due to an illegal appointment process held behind closed doors vs in an open meeting.
Where I am on this is that I didn't like the process for the vote. I want the F.D. to be fully funded. I did not protest the vote. I will vote for it if it's on the ballot. Cheryl
-
Where I am on this is that I didn't like the process for the vote. I want the F.D. to be fully funded. I did not protest the vote. I will vote for it if it's on the ballot. Cheryl
There are two sides to this, certainly.
One side is fully funding agencies like law enforcement and fire. These are critical, and our Supervisors should make sure this happens. They've covered the shortfall before, and there is nothing wrong with the County continuing to do so.
I'm for funding, and I'm not opposed to a properly enacted tax or fee to do so, if needed.
That's what happened when FP-5 was formed originally, by a vote of the people of Helendale, to better fund their service. (There are zones named FP-1 through FP-6).
We didn't get to vote on FP-5.
This was all caused by the County Board of Supervisors threatening the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District Board (also the Board of Supervisors) to cut their supplemental funding.
-
When you look at the Fire District budget - an enormous piece of it is for paramedic and ambulance services. An enormous part of those services are paid via Medicare & Medi-Cal at lower reimbursement rates. A lot of cost-shifting goes on to balance that part of the fire budget. Lovingood was correct when he raised that issue in the Supe/Fire District discussions. I don't know if there was any discussion about an increase in the sales tax to cover a part of that cost. It should be looked at a long with other ideas. I do know there is no way I am going to support anything that cuts the F.D. budget at a time when wild fires are a more serious threat than ever before and insurance companies are cancelling policies and jacking their rates up. If the Red Brennan Group's petition makes it to the ballot - we'd better be discussing offsetting the budget loss at the same time we're casting our ballots.
-
And my key point is you didn't refute anything in the linked story, something similar was also reported in the VV Daily Press last Sept., http://www.hidesertstar.com/news/article_6cd0f11c-dff3-11e9-8b9e-cbd6aa6416bf.html
A vote on FP-5 is already going to happen. Not sure what your angle is with the petition.
-
Cheapskate: My interpretation of his response is that there is a constitutional issue here. That would be the State of Ca. Constitution as amended by Prop 13 and likely Prop 218. Not the U.S. Constitution.
I haven't read the petition or seen any language as to a ballot measure placed by the Supervisors/Fire District. If that one sentence in his post is the full text of the proposition - it repeals the tax. It doesn't preclude the Supervisors from doing the same thing again. I do agree that the way the FP-5 protest vote was handled was poor. I also agree that using a "protest vote" procedure in this instance was highly questionable. I didn't disagree with the need to address the fire budget. I do hope the Supes look at a possible sales tax increase. It could exempt a variety of sales to mitigate a regressive impact on lower income residents.
The article was wrong on one point: It stated that .."in the past funding for fire services came out of the general fund." Only a portion of that funding was General Fund monies. A larger portion was from property taxes.
-
Well I tried to sign the petition on Friday but since I am registered in another county I could not. As an out of county registered voter it appears that I have no say in this. How many others are in the same situation?
-
But as an out-of-county voter you are also not paying the fee, ha ha!
-
If Yodeler owns property here - Yodeler is paying the fee.
-
Good point! I clearly forgot that important detail.
-
Yes, The Sentinel article is enlightening. It says the signature requirement is based on the 73,500 folks who live in the unincorporated FP-5 that cast a vote for governor in the last election. If RBG is turning in 34,000, common sense says most of those will be found invalid (45% of the district signed? No way. Most initiative campaigns struggle mightily to get 10%) RBG got rejected in court, now they'll be rejected by the Registrar of Voters.
-
I just want to know if a lawsuit wins or the petition results in a vote that overturns the fee - how are we going to pay for the services we need? What then?
-
how are we going to pay for the services we need? What then?
It either comes out of existing county budgets, or... the County needs to learn the lesson that you don't impose taxes illegally. Let the voters speak.
I'm not even at the point where I feel I need to decide whether or not to support an additional tax. Maybe I would. Who knows. But I'll never support an effort to illegally ram something like this down my throat. The same goes for politicians who try to ram taxes, mislabeled as "fees" down my throat. Our constitution has very strict rules about imposing taxes. I don't appreciate politicians trying to get around those rules.
-
Bob C. Fair enough. The protest tax process used and the way it was run angered me too. In the end, I want to see the F.D. budget adequately funded.
-
I just want to know if a lawsuit wins or the petition results in a vote that overturns the fee - how are we going to pay for the services we need? What then?
In the same way it has always been done: a portion of our property taxes goes directly to the SBCoFPD, just like a portion of our property taxes goes to the local School District, and a portion to the County for the general fund (and others).
Schools don't get what they need to operate, so the State of California supplements the property tax.
The Fire District also falls short, so the County of San Bernardino supplements their budget.
We got the FP-5 fee because the County Board of Supervisors told the SBCoFPD Board that they make no promises on future funding, so the SBCoFPD went after other sources.
If the County Board of Supervisors and the SBCoFPD can't come to an agreement we should throw them out of office.
Seems easy enough for the two boards to work it out, since the SBCoFPD Board is the County Board of Supervisors, just wearing different hats.
Short answer: the Board of Supervisors needs to continue their traditional role. There may need to be an initiative to force the County to do so.
-
How about we do what Calimesa did and separate our share of the Fire Protection funds out of the county purse and back into Wrightwood ? Even if we vote down FP-5, the funds allocated to our specific needs would be ours NOT the county's general funds. And spent as we need them for our unique area.
-
How about we do what Calimesa did and separate our share of the Fire Protection funds out of the county purse and back into Wrightwood ? Even if we vote down FP-5, the funds allocated to our specific needs would be ours NOT the county's general funds. And spent as we need them for our unique area.
Before we get too excited about this, we need to find out the size of the purse and the cost of running a separate agency.
-
How about we do what Calimesa did and separate our share of the Fire Protection funds out of the county purse and back into Wrightwood ? Even if we vote down FP-5, the funds allocated to our specific needs would be ours NOT the county's general funds. And spent as we need them for our unique area.
Before you vote to cancel the FP-5, folks need to do due diligence on just how expensive it is to have a staffed Paramedic Fire Engine and staffed non-firefighter Paramedic Ambulance on duty 24/7 for a year. There is not remotely enough locally generated funds to keep a single sheriff assigned to Wrightwood and hasn't been for years. We complained and championed for fully staffed station with highly trained professional firefighters and state of the art equipment for years. We finally got them. Folks need to be careful what you wish for.
-
Perhaps you know something I don't. Is there an upcoming vote to cancel the FP-5 expansion?
-
Perhaps you know something I don't. Is there an upcoming vote to cancel the FP-5 expansion?
My understanding was that there was a ballot petition that had enough signatures to force a county wide vote submitted.
-
The real question is: how do we fund essential services?
The 2018-2019 proposed budget says the SBCoFPD gets $23.7 million dollars: $10.8 from property taxes, $7.8 million from the County General Fund, and $4.0 million from fees. The budget tapped the agency reserves for $873 million.
Reserves are necessary for events like the Blue Cut Fire.
The Fire Protection District does not get a portion of other taxes going to the County, like Sales Tax.
I don't have a problem with the County contributing 20% of their taxes and fees to the Fire Protection District, but apparently, our elected County Supervisors like to keep saying "we won't always kick in."
Passing a new tax (or tax increase) for Fire isn't easy, we don't like to add to our tax burden,
So, that's how we got the FP-5 expansion. Changing boundaries is easier than enacting a new tax.
I'd like to see a statutory minimum reserve that the SBCoFPD must maintain, and statutory requirement that the County contribute to maintaining that reserve.
-
My understanding was that there was a ballot petition that had enough signatures to force a county wide vote submitted.
I hope that's the case, but I won't believe it until the signatures are actually verified.
-
I agree with lwt42 - The question is funding for essential services. I do not know why California broke off its local fire department services into the Fire District entities. That action, more or less, gave our fire departments the status of step-children in the budget consideration process.
I was surprised at how large the portion of the budget is that pays for ambulance/paramedic calls. The majority of those calls are either Medicare or Medicaid/Medi-Cal and reimbursed at those rates - which are far lower than insurance rates and likely lower than the cost of the service. State law prohibits charging more than the cost-of-the-service. Fair enough. But, it is a portion of the budget that is not bringing in enough in revenue to offset expenditures. It is also a portion of the budget that provides service to X number of people annually that are not paying property taxes in SB County. Lovingood was correct about that. I don't know what the answer is to balance that problem. Would a 1/4 or 1/2 cent sales tax be passed? Would an increase in the bed tax help?
The Fire District is broken up into "service areas." That makes sense. The budget then lays out the costs of those service areas and shows the property taxes that contribute to that area. By definition, the High Desert is never going to have sufficient property tax revenues to pay for its service costs. It's mostly vacant desert land. Thus, we now have the FP-5 fee. That aspect of allocating revenues needs to be looked at whether the fee stays or goes.
I believe the petition that was turned in is still in the signature-verification process. I do agree that the 'protest vote' process was inappropriate and handled poorly. I do not mind paying that fee to ensure we have sufficient revenue to pay for our fire and paramedic services. Do we honestly think that wild fires are going to go away or that our "boomer" population is going to use fewer paramedic services?
-
I agree with lwt42 - The question is funding for essential services. I do not know why California broke off its local fire department services into the Fire District entities. That action, more or less, gave our fire departments the status of step-children in the budget consideration process.
The idea was that each special district (schools, water, sewer, lighting, transit, fire, etc.) had an elected Board (who got paid) and administrative staff (who got paid) and each one had costs. Merge two into one, and the costs should go down.
Should.
In the extreme case, dozens of Fire Protection Districts merged into one covering San Bernardino County.
That's not the problem.
The problem is that property taxes only pay about 1/4 of the Fire budget. Reinstate every small Fire District, and they'd each be scrambling for the missing money.
I'm not advocating against the 1978 Proposition 13, but it cut property taxes in half, and sent special districts scrambling to find the money they need to operate, with the Counties and State kicking in to make up the shortfall.
That has been the status quo post Prop. 13. My question continues to be why isn't the County Board of Supervisors willing to continue their traditional role.
-
I'm pretty sure that Fire Districts preceded Prop 13. I've tried to find the reason why they were created. I agree that cities and counties have tried any number of creative workarounds since the passage of Prop 13 in 1978. I also agree that Supervisors have to approve any shortfalls with a transfer from the General Fund.
-
I'm pretty sure that Fire Districts preceded Prop 13.
Proposition 13 fundamentally changed how special districts are funded, regardless of size.
I also agree that Supervisors have to approve any shortfalls with a transfer from the General Fund.
Actually, they don't have to fund the SBCoFPD at all, which would slash the budget by 25%. Traditionally, the Board of Supervisors have done so, but the whole FP-5 expansion started with the Supervisors saying "don't count on this in the future."
Seems foolish and shortsighted, but it is politics.
-
I agree with you lwt42: The Prop 13, that we all would die to keep, not only changed funding for special districts - it changed funding at the county and city level as well. You add in the Gann Amendment and Prop 218 and local governments are squeezed. While the Supervisors don't "have" to fund the FD to its current level - it would be political suicide not to do so. Or, at least I hope it would be.
-
Here are some questions to the SBC FD presentation on this Tuesday at 5:30 pm--the Mt. Progress printed it incorrectly at 6pm!
FYI: Article XIII C, section 2, subsection d, of the Constitution of the State of California states: No local government may impose, extend, or increase any special tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote.
The SBC FD expanded Fire Protection Zone 5 (FP-5) to include all unincorporated communities in the county.
This would result in an annual fee of $157.26 on each parcel, with an annual increase of 3 percent a year, per parcel, vacant or not.
The Board directed the CEO and fire chief to determine a date upon which FP-5 will sunset." It was my understanding that motion required a sunset date to be set by the Board!
There was not a sunset clause passed by the Board therefore it could continue until repealed!
The FP-5 fee compounds at 1.03 % of the previous years fee.
In 2021 the FP-5 fee on my Secured tax bill was $161.90, in 2023 the FP-5 fee was $171.85--an increase of $9.95 in 2 years.
Does the SBC FD have a current deficit?
Does the Board of Supervisors still have funding responsibility for the SBC FD or do they just "rubber stamp" your FP-5 budget?
It was stated in the past that the revenue would be used solely to maintain existing services, and not to create new ones! Is this still the case and if not what additional services have been implemented.
This question was asked before, are any of the FP-5 fees being used to fund retirement and health services cost?
Q: Is this expansion and the FP-5 property assessment due to rising pension cost?
A: No, this is about the total cost of providing fire and emergency medical services. Those costs include facilities, vehicle replacement, equipment, salaries, pensions, etc.
-
Hi Hank, Hope you're well. I'm going to take a stab at some of the questions you posed here for the sake of discussion.
Yes, the state constitution requires a vote - it also allows for certain fees to be conducted by a 'protest vote." The so-called 'fire tax' (which is really a fee for service) was approved when the protest vote failed. That process has been upheld in the courts In addition, when the voters approved Measure K in 2022 - that included a vote for any FP-5 or related fees.
The Board of Supervisors also serves as the Board of the Fire Protection District. There is an additional seat on that Board. I'm not familiar with a 'sunset clause' in any of the actions.
Yes, the FP-5 district without the FP-5 fee runs a deficit. You can see that in the county budget which is available online.
You can compare the "proposed budget" to the "final budget" to see if the Supes, sitting as the Fire Protection District Board, made any changes. I've looked at the budget. I see no fat. If anything, I'd support more resources going into the SB fire budget. I'm not sure what you mean by 'new services." We need more abatement - not less. Is that a new service? We need to get tough on property owners that never clear their brush. Is that a new service? The monies raised by the FP-5 fee go into services for the district. The new off-road fire truck is an example of that expenditure. The fee doesn't go towards p&h directly. Course, I think our firefighters deserve p&h and it should be part of the expenditures in the budget.
I plan to Vote NO on Measure W - again. It costs the fire district around $400k each time this is on the ballot. I'd rather see that money go to fire fighting.
-
Does the SBC FD have a current deficit?
Does the Board of Supervisors still have funding responsibility for the SBC FD or do they just "rubber stamp" your FP-5 budget?
The SBCOFD is funded from property taxes and a supplement from the County. Their statutory "cut" of property taxes isn't quite enough.
The argument is that the San Bernardino Fire Protection District Board (who happens to also be the Board of Supervisors) cannot rely on the Board of Supervisors (also the SBCFPD board) to provide any kind of consistent funding.
So, FP-5 monies bypass the Board of Supervisors budget. It also means that for every dollar of FP-5 money, the Board of Supervisors can reduce the annual supplement.
I'd say it was a conspiracy between the SBCOFD board, and the SBC Board of Supervisors, but they're the same, so I'm not sure that's a conspiracy.
-
LWT42 - Right. And they don't have to approve either cuts in the fire budget or cuts elsewhere in the budget to cover the deficit - whichever hat they're wearing when they do.
-
LWT42 - Right. And they don't have to approve either cuts in the fire budget or cuts elsewhere in the budget to cover the deficit - whichever hat they're wearing when they do.
Not quite the point. Increased funding for SBCOFD is arguably an increase in the County General Fund, because what the County does not have to pay the SBCOFD can be spent on other things.
-
The county does not "have to pay the SBCOFD." They could make cuts in that service. If the county has to make cuts, I'd prefer it come out of another department's budget. In the absence of the FP-5 fee - the county either has to cover the deficit or make cuts.