There is no question Cal Fire’s firefighting planes and helicopters are a welcome sight when a wildland fire is raging. For those in harm’s way of the flames, the state’s $117-per-year fire prevention fee is a small price to pay.
Technically, from Sacramento’s point of view, the fee levied to 12,000 Marin County property owners is for Cal Fire’s fire prevention programs, not for the state’s aerial firefighting force or its wildland fire crews.
The fee — which to critics is a semantic dodge for what is really a tax — was levied by state lawmakers as an emergency measure during the state budget crisis as a way to backfill the fire prevention budget after it was drained to limit cuts to Cal Fire’s firefighting efforts.
Lawmakers, in approving the fee in 2010, determined that owners of homes within Cal Fire-designated “State Responsibility Areas” should bear the cost for fire prevention to help protect their properties.
Bills for the fee were mailed out last month to Marin property owners whose homes are within the “State Responsibility Area,” acreage that either borders or is close to open lands.
These property owners already are paying for fire protection in property taxes and special local taxes.
The fee has been controversial since it was first levied.
Initially, state lawmakers and Cal Fire heard a chorus of protests from local fire boards and chiefs who argued that residents were getting double-taxed. There was concern that the state fee could undermine public support for extending and increasing local fire taxes.
Tiburon Fire Protection District Chief Rich Pearce says his taxpayers already are paying for fire protection. He called the state fee “a double ding.”
Cal Fire agreed to reduce the statewide tax by $35 for property owners who already were paying local taxes for fire prevention efforts.
That was a wise political gesture, but it didn’t address the long-term fairness of the fee.
Cal Fire also is required by the 2014-15 state budget to send $10 million of its fee revenue back to local agencies for fire prevention efforts.
That’s another political gesture, but one that also dodges the issue of fairness.
At what point, if ever, will the state, with its budget now in much better shape than during its dire crisis, re-evaluate the state fee that lawmakers passed in 2010 as an emergency measure?
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has filed a class-action lawsuit challenging the legality of the tax, contesting that the state is calling the levy a “fee” in order to sidestep the constitutional requirement to win two-thirds approval from the Legislature.
Even critics of the fire fee concede the legal fire could take years.
At some point, the state’s justification for the charge will be questioned by state lawmakers.
At a time when the state’s drought-parched landscape already is under the threat of a frighteningly long fire season, it is unlikely many politicians feel the political timing is right to end or reduce the scope of the fee.
Now is not the time to be cutting back on either firefighting response or fire prevention efforts.
Cal Fire should, however, provide homeowners with a taxpayer-friendly process to appeal their inclusion in the State Responsibility Area.
We also would hope local fire agencies strive to make sure that their boundaries make sense and help homeowners with their appeals.
At the very least, lawmakers should annually decide whether the emergency on which the fee — or tax — is based is still present and valid.
