New state fire-prevention fee raises unanswered questions
By Timm Herdt
Ventura County Star
Posted July 18, 2011 at 4:31 p.m.
© 2011 Ventura County Star. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. 
SACRAMENTO — As part of the just-enacted state budget, lawmakers established a fire prevention fee "not to exceed $150" to be levied on owners of structures "used or intended to be used for human habitation" that are located in areas in which the state has primary responsibility for fighting fires.
So, who exactly has to pay, precisely how much will they be charged, and on what services will the money be spent?
Those are among a number of unanswered questions that will be addressed beginning next week when a group of legislative staffers, Finance Department officials and fire agency administrators including Ventura County Fire Chief Bob Roper get together to try to sort through the confusion.
"Can it work? Will it work? There's no definitive information I can give anybody," Roper said. "There are just many questions."
In Ventura County there are about 6,250 parcels in state responsibility areas that could potentially be subject to the fee. They are sparsely spread out in areas of mountainous terrain that separate the cities in populated valleys.
The establishment of such a fee has been advocated for years by state fire officials and budget policy analysts who argue that a boom in urban development in wildland areas has fundamentally shifted the mission of CalFire, the state firefighting agency. Its focus has evolved from battling brush fires in the wild to having to defend life and property imperiled by the fires — a much more costly endeavor.
"The costs of fire prevention activities aimed at reducing the effects of structures in state responsibility areas should be borne by the owners of these structures," the legislation says.
The situation in Ventura County is different from many other areas in the state, Roper said. Because local land-use policies have largely directed new development to take place in urban areas, there are relatively few homes — and no large subdivisions — in the wildlands areas of state responsibility.
By way of comparison, the fee is expected to apply to more than 70,000 homes in San Diego County, or more than 10 times the number of homes affected in Ventura County.
Ventura County is one of six in the state in which the county fire agency contracts with the state to provide fire protection in state responsibility areas. Roper will represent those six contract counties in next week's discussions in Sacramento on how to implement the fee.
"Here in Ventura County, we do a pretty darned good job," Roper said. "The number of structures lost in Ventura County vs. all the structures lost in other counties, it speaks for itself."
Roper credits not just land-use policies, but also county building codes and vegetation-management programs that create defensible space around structures.
Since such programs are already being provided, Roper said he would "like to show the public what the value added" would be as a result of the new fee.
State fire officials say it's not a question of adding value, but rather one of providing a stable funding source that would insulate fire safety from further budget cuts and shift a portion of fire-prevention costs away from the general public and onto the property owners who most directly benefit.
"The state has long been looking for a stable source of funding for fire protection and public safety," said CalFire spokesman Daniel Berlant. "State government as a whole has taken spending reductions at every level, including CalFire."
Berlant said the approximately $900,000 in fees that would be paid by Ventura County property owners would replace a like amount of funding that now comes from the state general fund, which consists of general tax revenue paid by all individuals and businesses and used to pay for the entire range of state services, including K-12 education.
The six contract counties including Ventura would continue to receive the same amount of money from the state, Berlant said.
By directing that the money be spent on fire prevention programs — clearing brush from around structures, creating fire breaks in wildland areas and such — state officials believe they can show a direct connection that links the benefits funded by the fee to the property owners who pay it.
Without such a connection, the fee would be considered a tax and would thus have required a two-thirds vote of the Legislature, which it did not receive.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has said it intends to file a lawsuit asserting that the proposed fee is in fact a tax, and was thus illegally approved by lawmakers.
So, who exactly has to pay, precisely how much will they be charged, and on what services will the money be spent?
Those are among a number of unanswered questions that will be addressed beginning next week when a group of legislative staffers, Finance Department officials and fire agency administrators including Ventura County Fire Chief Bob Roper get together to try to sort through the confusion.
"Can it work? Will it work? There's no definitive information I can give anybody," Roper said. "There are just many questions."
In Ventura County there are about 6,250 parcels in state responsibility areas that could potentially be subject to the fee. They are sparsely spread out in areas of mountainous terrain that separate the cities in populated valleys.
The establishment of such a fee has been advocated for years by state fire officials and budget policy analysts who argue that a boom in urban development in wildland areas has fundamentally shifted the mission of CalFire, the state firefighting agency. Its focus has evolved from battling brush fires in the wild to having to defend life and property imperiled by the fires — a much more costly endeavor.
"The costs of fire prevention activities aimed at reducing the effects of structures in state responsibility areas should be borne by the owners of these structures," the legislation says.
The situation in Ventura County is different from many other areas in the state, Roper said. Because local land-use policies have largely directed new development to take place in urban areas, there are relatively few homes — and no large subdivisions — in the wildlands areas of state responsibility.
By way of comparison, the fee is expected to apply to more than 70,000 homes in San Diego County, or more than 10 times the number of homes affected in Ventura County.
Ventura County is one of six in the state in which the county fire agency contracts with the state to provide fire protection in state responsibility areas. Roper will represent those six contract counties in next week's discussions in Sacramento on how to implement the fee.
"Here in Ventura County, we do a pretty darned good job," Roper said. "The number of structures lost in Ventura County vs. all the structures lost in other counties, it speaks for itself."
Roper credits not just land-use policies, but also county building codes and vegetation-management programs that create defensible space around structures.
Since such programs are already being provided, Roper said he would "like to show the public what the value added" would be as a result of the new fee.
State fire officials say it's not a question of adding value, but rather one of providing a stable funding source that would insulate fire safety from further budget cuts and shift a portion of fire-prevention costs away from the general public and onto the property owners who most directly benefit.
"The state has long been looking for a stable source of funding for fire protection and public safety," said CalFire spokesman Daniel Berlant. "State government as a whole has taken spending reductions at every level, including CalFire."
Berlant said the approximately $900,000 in fees that would be paid by Ventura County property owners would replace a like amount of funding that now comes from the state general fund, which consists of general tax revenue paid by all individuals and businesses and used to pay for the entire range of state services, including K-12 education.
The six contract counties including Ventura would continue to receive the same amount of money from the state, Berlant said.
By directing that the money be spent on fire prevention programs — clearing brush from around structures, creating fire breaks in wildland areas and such — state officials believe they can show a direct connection that links the benefits funded by the fee to the property owners who pay it.
Without such a connection, the fee would be considered a tax and would thus have required a two-thirds vote of the Legislature, which it did not receive.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has said it intends to file a lawsuit asserting that the proposed fee is in fact a tax, and was thus illegally approved by lawmakers.
No comments:
Post a Comment