theSheetNews.com

Double taxation?

“Don’t close CAL FIRE’s budget on the backs of county residents,” said Amador County Supervisor and Regional Council of Rural Counties (RCRC) Board Member, Richard Forster during a media conference call on Monday, July 30, regarding the State Responsibility Area fire fee bills soon to be arriving in mailboxes up and down the Golden State.

The SRA fire fee is the result of budget bill AB 29X, enacted by the state Legislature and Governor Jerry Brown. It is to be imposed on “habitable structures” which do not include barns, detached garages, sheds, etc.

Bills were expected to start going out this week, alphabetically by county. However, Forster explained on Monday that the billing had been delayed a week.

Regardless of when the bills begin to flow into California resident’s mailboxes is a small issue in the grand scheme of the situation.

“This is not a fee but a tax,” said San Diego County Supervisor Dianne Jacob. She went on to say that San Diego County is poised to file a lawsuit against those imposing tax, but has to wait to receive the bills, first.

“This is so, so wrong,” Jacob said.

Napa County Supervisor & RCRC Immediate Past President Diane Dillon agreed. “This is not the way to deal with problems that exist,” she said. “Folks are not aware that the bills are coming.”

At the end of last year, CAL FIRE spokesman Daniel Berlant explained to The Sheet that typically CAL FIRE has received 90% of its funding from the state general fund. However, given the state’s current budget crisis, CAL FIRE now needs a more stable funding source. The state’s solution: an SRA “Benefit Fee” for rural residents living near wildland areas.

The new fee will be imposed on more than 825,000 homes and apply to almost all residents of Inyo County, as well as some in Mono County. All owners of “habitable structures,” which include both residential structures and non-residential structures like stores, warehouses, hospitals, libraries, museums, and government buildings, including jails, will pay the $150. Further, residential “habitable structures” with more than one dwelling unit will be charged $25 for each additional unit.

CAL FIRE regulation offers minimal fee exemptions for structures already covered by local fire districts. Property owners within an SRA and also within the boundaries of a local agency that provides fire protection services will only receive a reduction of $35 per habitable structure.

This was described as “double taxation” during Monday’s conference call since many rural areas in the state are so far from outside assistance that local fire departments are really the only chance they would have in an emergency fire situation.

“Volunteer fire departments take care of us, not CAL FIRE,” said one participant on the call.

These areas would be paying for a service they would not be utilizing.

“A fee comes with a service,” Dillon said. Without that service attached, it’s a tax.”

Another issue with the bill is that it is going to be sent to homeowners from July 2011 records. Since many of these homeowners have foreclosed since that time, the bills are going to be sent to people who don’t own the structures anymore.

“This is a potential disaster,” Dillon said.

According to the conference call documentation, California county supervisors and assessors had no role in developing this fee; have no role in collecting the money or enforcing payment; and will not receive any benefit from the payment of this fee.

Neither California counties nor assessors helped in compiling the list of names and addresses of persons for which the “fire fee” is to be imposed. CAL FIRE is responsible for providing the State Board of Equalization with this information.

State Senator Ted Gaines recently stated in his newsletter, “The tax will not provide any more fire protection and will actually make it harder for local fire agencies to raise the money they need to keep people safe. It’s a lose-lose proposition for the people in my district and for anyone concerned with public safety and the rule of law.

“This tax should have been subject to a 2/3 vote in the legislature just like every other tax, but the Democrats called it a fee to get around that requirement,” he continued. “The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association will file a lawsuit disputing the fee’s legality and I hope it gets overturned ASAP.”

In further comment on the tax, Gaines said, “It was, is and always will be a shakedown of rural property owners that takes their money every single year but gives them zero in the way of additional fire safety.”

Visit www.calfirefee.com to see if you live in a “State Responsibility Area” and will be paying this tax. For questions regarding bills, call 888.310.6447.

The controversial Rural Fire Fee appears to still have some spark to it, and doesn’t appear to be going away anytime soon for residents in counties across the state.

But it could be revised before fees are collected this August. The $150 annual fee has drawn fierce opposition from homeowners and county officials throughout rural parts of the state and it is slated to affect around 800,000 homeowners beginning this summer. Governor Jerry Brown signed the fee into law after state lawmakers passed the bill late last year,

Many Republicans and taxpayer advocate groups have called for the fee to be repealed, and lawsuits are expected once the first fees are assessed later this year. In light of that, Assemblyman Wes Chesbro (D-Eureka) is offering an alternative: modification to address some of the criticism directed at the fee.

Chesbro has retreated from an earlier position calling for the fee to be repealed because he argues the state cannot afford to lose out on the much-needed revenue; instead, under the terms of AB 2474, Chesbro says that property owners should be able to avoid the fee if they already pay $150 or more to a local fire protection district. In addition, the bill would take into account property size and fire risk when it comes to the amount that a property owner has to pay, instead of a flat rate of $150 for everyone.

Notably, representatives and residents in inland regions, such as Riverside and San Bernardino counties, probably won’t be pleased to learn they would have to pay more under Chesbro’s revision because those areas are described as having a “high or very high” fire risk.

The Assemblyman commented, “There are many members — probably every rural member — who would like to get rid of the fee. My challenge in attracting some Republican votes is finding some Republicans who are willing to say, I’m against it, I hate it, but like the Democrat from the North Coast, the next best thing is to try to make it fairer.”

Chesbro previously opined that the fee is “inequitable in places,” such as his rain-soaked district, where there are an estimated 85,000 housing units in that State Responsibility Area, the most in the state, based on census and CalFire data.

Chesbro might have trouble convincing some Republicans, who regard the fee as unconstitutional and believe a legal challenge will render the bill irrelevant. AB 1506, which would repeal the fee, is currently making its way through the legislature. AB 1506 has a fair amount of support from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and local lawmakers such as Mono County’s Senate representative Ted Gaines. It made it out of the Assembly Natural Resources Committee, according to the Press Enterprise but stalled last week in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

It will be evaluated later this spring, along with other bills that have an impact on the state budget, but its prospects are considered dim.

As Long Valley Fire Chief Fred Stump pointed out, even if the fee is somehow repealed, fees assessed this year would still have to be paid. A repeal would only go into effect as of Jan. 1, 2013.

This week Mono County Supervisor Larry Johnston threw his fellow Board members another curve ball by requesting that the Board review and discuss a 10 percent County fee decrease.

While the agenda stated it would save taxpayers up to $430,000, Johnston clarified on Tuesday that it would be more like “a $300,000 reduction to taxpayers.”

“It would not be a cost to the county because of the savings we have obtained from consolidation,” Johnston explained. The county has been consolidating many of its staff positions in an effort to stay fiscally sound.

“We should pass this savings on to the taxpayers and reduce County fees by 10 percent, excluding enterprise fees and state set fees [which the County has no control over],” he continued.

After his brief description, Johnston moved to approve this reduction and Supervisor Tim Hansen seconded.

Noting that making the motion so soon was a bit out of order, “I would have liked discussion before a motion,” Board Chair Vikki Bauer then moved the body into discussion.

Helen Nunn, representing local 39, the majority representative of Mono County Public Employees, requested that rather than reducing fees, the money saved from consolidation should be used to offset any budget imbalances in the future. She also requested that if fees were to be reduced that they be reviewed one by one rather than just a blanket reduction of all fees.

“Some fees are not even paid by county residents,” Nunn pointed out.

Mono County Finance Director Brian Muir agreed that each fee should be looked at individually.

“Not all fees are created equally,” Muir said. “A lot of fees are going down anyway.”

Bauer pointed out that the Board does review the fees each year anyway, and that the discussion should be held at the appropriate time.

Supervisor Hansen, however, was very much in favor of the idea.

“Is it a gift to the people?” he asked rhetorically. “Yes it is. It doesn’t mean that fees haven’t been kept equitable, it’s just a benefit to the people.”

“It’s a question of efficiency when providing services,” weighed in Supervisor Byng Hunt. “We should be efficient and save money. It’s not prudent to just drop fees across the board. It’s dangerous to give up our savings not knowing what type of emergency needs we’ll have in the next few years.”

Hunt was against dropping the fees at this time.

Bauer agreed and stated again that she would be open to discussing lowering or not increasing fees when the topic came before the Board in its usual fashion.

“This is an incomplete effort,” she criticized.

Supervisor Hap Hazard was also uncomfortable using the county’s savings at this time.

“Giving money to people who are using the [county] services, not just taxpayers, while holding employee salaries frozen doesn’t sit well with me,” Hazard said. “I would be more supportive of spreading it out across property taxpayers instead.”

CAO Jim Arkens stated that he was scared by the fee reduction proposal.

“The savings [from consolidation] were used to balance last year’s budget,” he explained. “I don’t know what it [budget] looks like now.”

The motion to support the fee reduction failed with a 2-3 vote. Only Johnston and Hansen voted in favor.

A bill that would repeal the rural fire fee for homeowners in rural counties cleared its first hurdle last week, winning approval in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee on a 7-1 vote. While few seem to believe that AB 1506 will get very far in the state legislature, there was some level of surprise that it had even managed to find strong support in its first committee test. It moves next to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, but it remains to be seen whether there are enough Democrats who have misgivings about the fee to actually send it packing. Democrats who sided with Republicans in the first committee test represent districts that have plenty of houses that will be impacted by the fee since they fall under State Responsibility Areas. Assemblyman Wes Chesbro (D-Eureka) has said the fee is “inequitable in places,” such as his rain-soaked district, where there are an estimated 85,000 housing units in the responsibility area, the most in the state, based on census and Cal Fire data.

The new $150 annual fee has drawn fierce opposition from homeowners and county officials throughout rural parts of the state and it is slated to affect around 800,000 homeowners beginning this summer. Governor Jerry Brown (D) pushed the fee as a way to generate $85 million annually for the state and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection starting in fiscal 2012-13.

One amended change to the fee is offering a $35 discount for structures in local fire districts, but the token gesture has done little to assuage critics. -Geisel/California County News

The Inyo County Board of Supervisors expressed concern at Tuesday’s meeting in Independence about a new law that will require Inyo County residents to pay a $150 State Responsibility Area (SRA) fee beginning this fiscal year. The law, passed as part of the state budget, requires the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) adopt emergency regulations to establish and implement the SRA fee in order to fund state fire prevention.

Cal Fire spokesman Daniel Berlant explained that typically Cal Fire has received 90% of its funding from the state general fund. However, given the state’s current budget crisis, Cal Fire now needs a more stable funding source. The state’s solution: an SRA “Benefit Fee” for rural residents living near wildland areas.

According to an August 23 story in Tehachapi News, the new fee will be imposed on more than 846,000 homes and apply to almost all residents of Inyo County, as well as some in Mono County. All owners of “habitable structures,” which include both residential structures and non-residential structures like stores, warehouses, hospitals, libraries, museums, and government buildings, including jails, will pay the $150. Further, residential “habitable structures” with more than one dwelling unit will be charged $25 for each additional unit. “What about a garage or bathroom?” asked District 4 Supervisor Marty Fortney. “If all of the sudden your garage becomes habitable, it’s another $25.”

Another point of contention for the Board: the Cal Fire regulation offers minimal fee exemptions for structures already covered by local fire districts. Property owners within an SRA and also within the boundaries of a local agency that provides fire protection services will only receive a reduction of $35 per habitable structure.

“The state wants to tax Inyo County residents whether they have fire protection or not,” said District 1 Supervisor Linda Arcularius. “But that $150 won’t even provide fire protection.” Instead, the money generated by the fee – as much as $200 million in years to come – will go toward fire prevention.

According to Tehachapi News, in August state fire officials noted that because the law requires the fee revenue go to state fire prevention efforts, Cal Fire will be losing between $50 million to as much as $200 million for firefighting efforts. Said Supervisor Fortney, “This makes no sense.”

The regulation promises that some revenue will be transferred into grants to local agencies, including Fire Protection Districts, Fire Safe Councils, and California Conservation Corps, but these grants will also focus on fire prevention rather than firefighting.

Forest Service fee free day

The U.S. Forest Service will waive fees at hundreds of recreation sites across the country on Saturday, Sept. 24, in recognition of National Public Lands Day.

In our area locally on the Inyo National Forest day-use fees will be waived at South Tufa in the Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area, Reds Meadow and Devils Postpile, and Schulman Grove in the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest.  Fees regularly collected at these sites contribute significantly to improving facilities and vistor services in the specific area where the fees are collected.

Fees remain in place for camping and wilderness permit reservations.

High Country Harvest Dinner

Celebrate this year’s harvest at the Inaugural High Country Harvest Dinner, hosted by Sierra Bounty. The locally harvested supper, served on site at one of the Eastern Sierra’s loveliest small farms, located beneath the striking Wheeler Crest on Thursday, Sept. 29, at 5 p.m.

A $100 donation (per person) includes a four-course, wine-paired dinner, prepared by local culinary experts — including Jesse Romero and Matt Panigada of Petra’s in Mammoth Lakes, Linda Dore, Dan Molnar and the Stellar Brew bakers. Wine paired by Petra’s sommelier Nik Schuhl, and it will all be served in exceptional ambiance and company.

More info/RSVP, contact Kim Stravers at sierrabounty@gmail.com or phone 949.632.7882.

Sounds good to us

Celeberate the inauguration of the new Bishop High School Theater Sound System on Wednesday, Sept. 28, from 6:30-8:30 p.m. Thanks to a grant from the local Deininger Foundation, the theater now has a state-of-the-art sound system rivaling those found in Las Vegas. Playhouse 395 will host a reception to show off the sound now available with songs and acts from the upcoming Playhouse Broadway Revue Fundraiser and the Fall Youth Production of “Bye Bye Birdie,” as well as other local artists. Info: 760.920.5259.

Be like Mike

The City of Bishop wishes to participate in setting a world record – by dancing to Michael Jackson.

“Thrill the World” is an annual worldwide simultaneous dance to Michael Jackson’s Thriller video.

The event is a fundrfaiser for the Bishop Union High School dance team. The dance team will be teaching the moves every Saturday from 1-3 p.m. at the Bishop City Hall gym. The actual event will take place Oct. 29 @ 7 p.m.

For more information, email: TTW11Bishop@gmail.com.

California’s controversial rural fire fee that was enacted in the 2011-2012 state budget earlier this summer met with huge resistance and calls for its repeal almost immediately upon signature into law by Governor Jerry Brown.

Last week, however, Brown and many Democratic lawmakers said they are pushing for even higher rates than originally predicted in Brown’s budget.

Most recently the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection had revised the law’s fee structure so that rural residents can only be charged a maximum of $90 (as opposed to $150). However, this change certainly affects the amount of revenue the state can hope to take in, as previous estimates projected $50 million in funds for the state.

The law was supposed to bring in $200 million annually after the first year.

The change did not sit well with the Governor.

According to a report in The Sacramento Bee, “[Brown’s] new proposal would impose a minimum of $175 on the first building and $25 on each additional structure. It would also assess a land fee starting at $1 per acre for the first 100 acres. Homeowners who live in fire districts, which includes 94 percent of the roughly 730,000 rural structures being charged, qualify for a $25 discount. When Brown signed the original plan, ABX1 29, he signaled it was flawed because it didn’t allow the state to use fee dollars to fight wildfires.”

But all that effort could come to naught if some legislators are successful at stalling the fees at the collecting stage.

According to the Regional Council for Rural Counties (RCRC), as of Wednesday, the Assembly version of the new State Responsibility Areas (SRA) fire fee bill, AB 24X, was heard in the Senate Budget Committee, but was not voted on, and set aside.

Meanwhile, in the Assembly, its companion measure, SB 7X, essentially the funding mechanism for the original bill, was scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Budget Committee, but was tabled, with the Chair citing “numerous concerns as cited by the Senate Budget Committee.”

In other drama, Assemblyman Kevin Jeffries (R-Riverside) made an attempt to offer amendments to an unrelated budget bill, AB 45X, which would repeal the existing statute sanctioning the SRA fee. The Budget Committee immediately moved to block the Jeffries amendment. All Republicans voted against the motion. But while most Democrats voted “aye,” a pair of Democrats, Assemblyman Wes Chesbro (D-Humboldt) and Assemblyman Jared Huffman (D-Marin) voted “no,” which analysts interpreted as a willingness on the part of some Democrats to consider a repeal of the SRA fee.

Representatives from numerous rural counties and supervisors, including Mono County, have been harshly critical of the fee. “It’s a lot of bullsh*t,” Supervisor Tim Hansen remarked.

Homeowners affected by the fee can expect to receive a bill in spring of 2012, but the dust is far from settled. Activist groups such as the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association have vowed to fight the fee “to the death” in the courts, should it be allowed to stand.

State Senator Ted Gaines (R-Roseville) has already filed a referendum to repeal the law. Jeffries was also expected to insert his AB 45X repeal language into other vehicles over the remaining two days of the legislative session. If none of the new bills are passed by the legislature by Friday, which isn’t seen as being likely, the fee’s collection mechanism could find itself essentially dead in committee, opening the door for a full repeal of the initial fee law.

-Additional sources: California County News, Sacramento Bee

In less than two weeks, the Mono County Board of Supervisors will hold an April 19 public hearing and make its decision on a fiscal plan to rescue its Solid Waste Enterprise Fund. At its most recent meeting Tuesday, the Board put in some final streamlining on the proposal the public will consider.

Tipping fee revenue has faltered recently due to plummeting disposal amounts from the recent crash in construction. That, coupled with general cost of operations, has left the County’s Solid Waste program running in the red. Earlier this year, a series of intensive workshops with staff, the Town of Mammoth Lakes-County Liaison committee and private contractors yielded a 10-year solution to get the fund “back in black,” as it were.

Board Chairman Hap Hazard started things off on a stern note, taking issue with staff’s recent series of public meetings, only one of which was held in his district. He also thought himself a bit out of the loop on the specifics of the proposal, and floated the idea of delaying the hearing and vote pending a “full review of the figures.” Supervisor Larry Johnston, however, pointed out that, “We lose $3,000 every day we don’t take action,” an observation that wasn’t lost on Hazard, who quickly abandoned any thoughts of delay.

Much of the County’s plan is still open for discussion, but one item taken off the table was a proposed $9.25/ton additional fee beyond whatever was needed to break even that would have been banked for future use, potentially to fund creation of a long-haul transfer station in Mammoth. The additional fee, which would have boosted tipping fees from its current $50/ton to as much as $77.75/ton, met with only tepid Board support. Most supervisors were reticent to get behind it, saying they preferred keeping the cost increase lower. Johnston also was skeptical of the long-haul transfer concept, suggesting it could be a money pit (pun intended) if operational costs of hauling several hours away ran into the $80-$100/ton range.

The Board in turn set a limit on the amount of tipping fee increase. Originally, Johnston suggested a $70/ton cap “until we get in the black and the Solid Waste Task Force can resume its work.” No one wants a change in levels of service, but at the same time no one wants more fees, either, he said, bringing up that the Task Force hadn’t envisioned tipping fees going any higher than $70/ton. Supervisor Byng Hunt said he wasn’t willing to go to the $77.75/ton figure, and instead wanted to hold the increase to staff’s base proposal of $68.50, which was what the Board settled on.

Apart from the obvious fee hikes, another hot button topic during the hearing is likely to be level of service, particularly when it comes to days of operation at the various facilities. Supervisor Tim Hansen was critical of some aspects of the present plan. As put forth, the Benton Crossing Landfill site, which takes in all the county-generated household hazardous waste, will close on all County-observed holidays. And the Walker, Bridgeport and Pumice Valley site would reduce its days of operation to 2 per week. The Benton and Chalfant sites would remain unchanged.

“You can’t expect one part of the county to have solid waste operations 7 days a week and another part to only have them 2 days a week. It’s simply not fair,” Hansen remarked.

Solid Waste Superintendent Matt Carter said changes could certainly be instituted, but would have an impact on the fiscal part of the plan. Leaving closing days and hours of operations the same would mean adding $1/ton to the tipping fee increase. Not closing all the facilities on all County-observed holidays would mean an additional $1.25/ton on top of that.

The Board is scheduled to open the public hearing as part of its April 19 regular meeting, which will be held in Mammoth Lakes on the 3rd floor of the Sierra Center Mall.