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

[KW]

And this is in addition to the current fire fee we pay?

[Jim Wilkins]

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.

[thehallmarks]

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!

[Wrightwood]

[Cheapskate]

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. 

[jwhays661]

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.

[tcaarabians]

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

[Elk]

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&timestamp=1533147830585

Which was found here: http://www.sbcfire.org/ServiceZoneFP-5.aspx

[lwt42]

Found here: http://www.sbcfire.org/Portals/58/Documents/FP-5/RES_2018-100_BOS_PROTEST_PROCEDURES.pdf?ver=2018-08-01-112017-193&timestamp=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.

[tcaarabians]

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

[thehallmarks]

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"!

[thehallmarks]

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!

[Jim Wilkins]

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. 

[lwt42]

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.

[lwt42]

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

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.

[tcaarabians]

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

[thehallmarks]

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.

[thehallmarks]

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?

[Wrightwood]

Hank I changed your original post to 25%

[Cheapskate]

"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...