just read the Appeal-Democrat???  http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/fire-109721-state-fee.html  I no they were gonna raise the fire tax but WOW!!!!! the article did not say if their is any meeting on schedule we can go to to protest. So does anyone have any ideas?? this is really gonna raise the fire tax on most of us a lot. their has gotta be a way to fight this!!!!

Okay, so as I understand it, the fire tax monies will not go to help "fight the fires" rather, it goes to pay for expenses involved in making sure everyone does the 100' fire circle around their property, not to support personnel and fighting the fires.

If we fight it, they will just do what they did last time and threaten to close the stations. :(

that is the way i understand it also. It goes towards preventive maintenance not towards fire fighting. they say it will take away from the general fund for fire fighhting. so we pay a lot more but less. The way i see it it is up to the home owner to clear their defensible space. If they fail to do so then the fire fighters should not waste the time if they feel they can not save it they should move on!! Failure to clear 100' space should be a healthy fine.

There you go, I couldn't think of "defensible space" for the life of me. I agree totally. I'm really tired of having to pay for everyone else who fails to take responsibility!

Although the original verbage signed by Gov. Brown when the budget was approved did state the funds would be used for preventative maintenance only, I believe there are amendments pending in both the Senate and Assembly to change the wording so it will cover protection and also administrative costs to implement the fees.

For every dollar colleted from this tax a dollar is taken out of the cdf budget and put back into the general fund.

I do believe the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association may be filing a lawsuit, though they may wait until the fees take effect and we start paying them. If I remember correctly, there was a similar fee imposed on residents in flood areas but it eventually was shot down too....so there is hope. In theory I do not see a problem with paying extra if it directly effects us, but if it is on forest service land then it should be state or federal funds involved. Also, I don't feel it is fair that someone from the city comes up to camp and inadvertantly starts a fire that people who live in the area must pay for. just sayin....

http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/bill-109743-repeal-fee.html
Looks like they are still trying to fight it. Don't really matter where the fire starts USForest land, public campground or our own back yard, were gonna pay for it. If i'm gonna pay for maintenance when are they gonna send the maintenance crew to our place??? I kinda liked the idea of a out of area emergency charge. In our area most of the 911 calls are for visitors = campers & boaters, but yet we pay the emergency services. If nothing else charge the establishment TT, Collins Lake ,Lake Franicis , Bullards Bar, they get paid to create the recreation that causes the 911, seems they should share in the cost of emergency services fire included. Why should all of that fall on the locals. how does this fire tax work on places like the campgrounds with hundreds of structures???? anyone???

Taxation without representation? Seems to be the new standard! I keep my place clean and I spend a lot of time and money doing it, Maybe we should receive a tax credit for doing a good job.

There is no free lunch. Pay me now or pay me later.

Enterprise activities might be better than general funds. General funds are divied out, for the most part by non elected officials. Think Robert Bendorf and buying Sycamore Ranch.

Water is measurable, but not always in a suitable method of measurement. Miners inch a flow or gallons, a volume?

There is more discussion in California about something for nothiing. MOre about fixing the blame rather than fixing the problem.

When an agency identifies a means to pay for its services and tries to fence the money, as in a special district, two factions appear.

One faction is the public that believes government is evil and government should not do anything.

The other faction is the policy wonks who don't believe a government agency can tend to their own budget unless the policy wonks have first cut at spending it.

In either case there is no cost benefit analysis such as Federal Executive Order 12866. Even the Legislative Analysts Office has a tendency to lean toward the policy wonks when reviewing cost impact.

Maybe a snitch line would work better. From what I've seen of "annual inspections", there aren't any. Even then, the inspectors miss access, like trees overgrown to the point that fire trucks don't have access until they clear the brush. Or overgrown brush on absentee owners' land. Or lack of policy in County Service Areas for roadside fuels treatment.

As long as someone else pays for brush clearing, it MIGHT get done. If the landowner has to pay to clear the brush, it probably won't happen.

What was learned from the Caldecot fire in Oakland in regard to fuels reduction around homes? Let each landowner take care of his own property? Economists call this situation an externality. The cost is external to the discussion.

Oh, did I mention Measure F and the Loma Rica Fire Department. Even if the people decide to tax themselves, they won't be able to get taxing power on the first several go rounds. The forces of evil will arise from the grave to fight ANY tax. The Powers of Darkness will keep the taxpayers in ignorance about the value received for taxes collected.

I do understand the concern about new fire taxes that don't support the local areas. Measure F was a good deal for us and allowed continuation of our current fire protection. I was on the measure F committee and am very familiar with that situation. Still, some people don't understand what we could have lost if the vote, yes we did all vote it in, had gone the other way.

From what I've heard, the powers that be are still waiting on legislation to be interpreted and for Cal Fire to compile a list and then the fire fee will be implemented. Keep in mind that it won't be done this year, but this years bill will be in included with next years bill, so the first bill will be a double whammie.

You could classify it as smoldering, without a fire.

Smoldering would refer to the deep dislike many Yuba County foothills residents have for a new state fee, which could go into effect next year, on those whose properties are protected by CalFire.

Though offered in the 2011-12 state budget package as a way to keep funding for fire protection stable, the fee strikes those affected as another government pocket raid to no good end.

"I think it's an absolute farce," said Tom Richards, whose family owns 6,500 acres in Oregon House. "The money won't go anywhere to suppress fire."

Under the latest proposal for the fee, which is still in a temporary phase and is still being revised, property owners would pay $150 annually for every habitable structure.

But the fee isn't official until the state Department of Forestry's board adopts it, which could happen next month. Even then, the board would also have to eventually adopt a permanent resolution for the fee, said CalFire spokesman Daniel Berlant.

Defining what constitutes a habitable structure is only one of several fine points to be determined before then. In one change already made, those who pay for local fire service, as with residents in five fire districts in the foothills, receive a $35 cut on their state fee.

But Yuba County Supervisor Hal Stocker, who represents the foothills, said the discount doesn't make the fee any easier for his constituents to swallow.

"It's still too much. And I don't have great faith about where that money will go," said Stocker, who began the Yuba Fire Safe Council in the late 1990s after a series of devastating fires.

Berlant said the $85 million the fee money will produce will go into a special fund, from which $50 million will cover CalFire activities.

The rest, as envisioned now, will come back to communities in the form of grants to pay for fire prevention efforts by such entities as the Yuba Fire Safe Council, Berlant said.

Richards, who has been involved with the council, said any upside from such grants will disappear in bureaucracy. Ongoing bans on controlled burns have made it impossible to use the most effective techniques for prevention, he said.

"We've just been lucky," he said, of why the hills haven't had any huge fires in recent years.

When it was first announced, the fee drew strident condemnation from representatives in rural areas, including one bid to put it before voters. Though that didn't gain enough traction, Stocker said, he believes the state will face a lawsuit once the first bills go out.

A suit could contend the fee isn't legal because it wasn't passed by two-thirds of the Legislature.



Read more: http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/fee-112599-fire-state.html#ixzz1i3LpeyNh

If the numbers were available on the cost for fighting a fire, one could take a guess at how much protection $150 per structure per year buys.

The Colgate Fire(s) cost somewhere in the ten million dollar range. Stattion Fire, Field Fire, at least in the millions of dollars.

Are there numbers available on how much CDF/CALFIRE/Special Distircts/Fire Departments of all shapes and sizes spend on fighting fire?

I haven't seen such a list. I doubt if the Legislative Analyst's Office or the LAO counterpart of Offices for Administrative Law or the Commission that tracks insurance losses has numbers that are public information.

I haven't been able to find them.

Here's a challenge. Find the cost of California Fire losses for any specific year. Find the amont of money spent on fire prevention in California.

"Defining what constitutes a habitable structure....."

That we really need to know clearly in writing. Would my kids treehouse count? a 10'x14' shed count? Dog house? (it is a nice doghouse I built)...I suppose if I were "in the dog house," I could sleep comfortably....

Any takers at all for my challenge at message 16?

I haven't been able to find anything definitive Dick. I'm sure there is a number warehouse somewhere, but it is likely in a paper file somewhere.

I wonder about the fire tax within existing fire districts. When we formed the Loma Rica Browns Valley CSD for fire protection it was acknowledged that CDF protected the wild lands but that the LRBV district had the legal responiblity for house fires and medical aid. Given that, It makes me wonder how the state can collect a fee( fire tax) on structures that they don't have the legal authority over? LRBV residents already pay a special tax seperate from their property taxes for fire protection and medical aid. If the state wants the responiblity for protecting the homes and is going to collect a fee to do so why not stop paying the fee to the district. We as district residents already pay for CDF to protect our homes and provide medical aid through the Amador Plan. The LRBV District pays in excess of $157,000 for the Amador contract with CDF. We should have have to pay two fees for the same protection.

Here is the most recent on the fire legislation

Legislation Introduced to Repeal SRA Fire Tax

I am co-authoring legislation authored to repeal the State Responsibility Area (SRA) Fire Fee approved by the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection late last year. The manner in which this fee was implemented may not have been illegal, but it was certainly questionable.

Under Proposition 13, any new tax imposed by the Legislature must be approved by a two-thirds vote. Under Proposition 26, any fee that does not provide a direct service to the payer also requires a two-thirds vote. But this Legislature has found a loophole to get around that. Rather than the Legislature and the Governor legislatively imposing the tax or fee and obtaining the required two-thirds vote of support, in this case they simply pushed through legislation that requires another state department to impose the fee. Such was the manner in which the SRA fire fee was effected.

The statute created by AB X1 29 (a bill I opposed) required the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (Board) to establish a fee of “up to $150” on inhabited structures within State Responsibility Areas. Given this mandate, the Board originally proposed a sliding fee scale that included a maximum $90 fee, with exemptions that could have reduced the fee to as little as $25 for some property owners.

Clearly dissatisfied with the modest approach of the Board, in October Governor Brown appointed four members to fill vacancies on the nine-member Board, and at a November hearing, the Board subsequently approved a $150 fee with a maximum $35 discount for properties in a fire district. The four newest members, together with two current members of the Board supported the new plan, while two voted in opposition, and one member abstained in protest. Under the Board’s action, those affected by the fee will pay no less than $115.

The Office of Administrative Law approved the regulations on January 23. Property owners will be billed $150 for fiscal year 2011-12 and $150 for fiscal year 2012-13 (not withstanding the $35 exemption). The projected $84 million collected will replace $55 million Cal Fire now gets from the General Fund and is marked for fire-prevention activities like brush clearing and education in the State Responsibility Areas. The balance will pay for administration and grants for fire prevention.

Largely rural communities should not be targeted for an additional fee (that is really a tax) under a state mandate approved by a simple majority vote and imposed by an unelected bureaucracy. For this reason, I am co-authoring Assembly Bill 1506, a bill being carried by Assembly Member Kevin Jeffries to repeal the fee. While I know that this will be an uphill battle, I also hope that Californians will make note of other attempts by this Legislature to grant broad fee- and tax-imposing authority to unelected boards and commissions. I doubt this will be the last time this strong-arm tactic will be employed.

The emergency regulations may be accessed here: State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection: Emergency Regulations

A viewer and address finder to confirm whether a property is located in a State Responsibility Area can be accessed here: State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection: State Responsibility Area Viewer


BACK TO TOP

Oh, this was from Sentator Amalfa.

My opinion? Non governing government. Freeloaders.

 

Is the CALFIRE effort necessary? If so, who benefits? Who pays?

 

Instead of a discussion, we get a reaction of no one has to pay since we are already paying something. Even though we don't know if it is enough or if it is being spent correctly.

 

We just don't want to spend anything and we elect people to ensure that someone else pays.

 

We get what we deserve and if you do what you did, expect to get what you got.

 

So in hte next big fire, what is the reaction?

 

Is this short enough bvjack? Is there a freeloader reading this that a haven't insulted?

DickBoyd
I think you missed my point. Its not that LRBV District residents are free loaders. All the home owners already pay twice. We all pay fire district fees that we voted for. In addtion we pay county property taxes. Since our district was formed after prop 13 we as a district are not able to get a piece of our property tax monies for fire protection. If our district was formed before prop 13 we would be entitled to a piece of our property taxes for fire protection. The district residences voted a special tax for fire protection and ALREADY contract with CDF for fire protection. The District pays CDF in excess of $157,000 per year for that protection. When we started the contract with CDF we paid $12,000 per year. It would seem that if we have to pay a new tax then we should either get a reduction in the Amador contact fees that the district pays to CDF or that we should not be charged the new fee at all. CDF does not have the legal authorty over the house protection. That legal authority belongs to the district who then contracts with CDF to fulfill the district legal responiblity. You can't charge a tax unless you have the legal authority to provide the service. CDF doesn't have that authority to provide fire protection within the CDF district. That doesn't mean we don't want their help. We already pay for the help and we feel we should not have to pay twice for the same service.

It seems to me that CDF is out of control in its spending. They seem very top heavy in Sacramento and a under staffed in the field.
Maybe what we need is an audit to see where CDF can be cut. Maybe we could start by cutting their lobbyist. No state agency should have their own lobbyist.

odomk, thanks for pointing out LRBV Measure F.

 

Who are the freeloaders? In my opinion, people who want to get a benefit for doing nothing.

 

 

Like people who get elected to public office on the plaform of no taxes. Which I take to mean "let someone else pay".

 

Like people who do not clear the fuels from tneir property.

 

Like people in public office who don't have a clue as to what services they are expected to perform. Like the elected few who I expect to collect the taxes and decide what is to be proviced as a public service. Then once in office promptly say "that's not my job."

 

CALFIRE identified, mapping, for instance, as a vital task. What other task does CALFIRE give up in order to do mapping?

 

Maybe Oakland fuels would get visibility. Or southern California fuels? Or zoning based on fuels hazard?

 

Not to worry, a freeloader will protect the developer under the quise of free enterprise. Build where you want. Someone else will pick up the bill.

Just a brief note to thank “odomk” for his 100% accurate information regarding the Loma Rica / Browns Valley fire department and CalFire situation.  I would also like to offer a small clarification – the money paid to CalFire under the Amador contract is paid to keep the CalFire station open and staffed during the late Fall, Winter, and early Spring months when, under normal circumstances (i.e. no contract), the CalFire station would be closed.  The monies paid under the contract actually pay for personnel expenses, barracks, etc. associated with keeping the station open.  The district does not pay CalFire for “fire season” (Summer) operations.  Additionally, the amount paid each year changes based on the official opening and closing of fire season by the state.  The longer the fire season, the less the district pays and vice versa.

iNSURANCE RATING

 

An offsetting cost (pay me now or pay me later) in LRBV Fire Distirct is a better insurance rating. I won't quote numbers. Maybe someone else will.

 

I live just outside LRBV Fire District. The rating of the Fire District I live in is about 3 numbers worse than LRBV's. I don't know how that translates into dollars and cents.

 

In a sense, I freeload on LRBV. Under mutual assistance, LRBV will in all likelihood respond to a fire where I live. I am closer to LRBV than some of the people who live in LRBV Fire District.

FIRE INSPECTIONS

 

One of the CALFIRE tasks is property inspecitons. As I understand.

 

Inspections are annual, as I understand.

 

We have lived here 12 years. Last year, 2011, was the first "annual" inspection.

 

 

The "Notice of Defensible Space Inspection" CALFIRE form LE-100 cited the need for fuels reduction. Six weeks and $500 later a second inspection cleared all the violations.

 

In a sense, I was freeloading on my neighbors by having a fire hazard. Now, I feel my neighbors are freeloading on me because they still have fire hazards on their property. The neighbors were not inspected.

 

I did check with my insurance company on the meaning of a citation on the LE-100. The insurance company said the LE-100 citation had no effect on paying a claim or on my rates. The insurance company said they base my risk on inspection by people that work for them, the insurance company. Other insurance companies may have a different policy.

 

It might pay to check with your insurer on the meaning of an LE-100 citation.

 

My understanding is that ABX1 29 funds would pay for the "annual" inspections.

 

What would be the return on investment? Would insurance costs decrease? Woulod loss from fire decrease?

WATERSHEDS

 

 

My undrstanding is that reservoirs are an important reason for CALFIRE. If the forest were to burn, the land would erode. The erosion would fill the reservoir and displace the water.

 

CALFIRE protects the watersheds to some level. Probably based on the risk from fire.

 

No houses, no people, no power lines in the watershed would be less risk than houses, people and power lines.

 

As houses, people and power lines come into the watershed, more and different fire fighting is needed.

 

As houses, people and power lines come into the watershed, they freeload on existing fire fighting. There was no increase in fire fighting to cover the increased risk.

 

Not to worry, houses can be sold cheaper if they don't have the burden of paying for firefighting. Home buyers don't bother with those details.

 

People who buy the water from the reservoirs don't worry about erosion details. Water Agencies are paid big bucks to handle the nitty-gritty.

 

People who buy houses are paying some taxes. They don't know and don't care where that tax money goes. So the house buyers think they are paying for fire protection.

 

Too long? OK, I'll quit for today.