Howard Jarvis association formally opposes Salida fire assessments

The taxpayer group that wrote California’s Proposition 218 is formally opposing the special assessments proposed in the Salida Fire Protection District.

In a letter Wednesday to Fire Chief Dale Skiles and district board members, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association said the $156-per-home fire suppression assessment violates the state constitution. The letter also claims the district’s method of apportioning the assessments to parcels was flawed.

The taxpayers group cites legal arguments and warns that if a court were to overturn the property assessments, the district board would be required to pay the plaintiffs’ legal fees and refund property owners.

“In sum, HJTA urges this board to reconsider the wisdom of proceeding with the proposed assessment,” says the letter signed by Timothy Bittle, legal affairs director for the Howard Jarvis group, and litigation attorney J. Ryan Cogdill.

Skiles said Wednesday afternoon he had not seen the letter and could not comment because it raises legal issues. He said he planned to refer the four-page letter to the district’s legal counsel.

The Salida Fire Protection District has a week remaining in a Proposition 218 ballot process, which asks property owners if they support the assessments to provide full-time staffing for a second fire station.

Besides charging about $156 a year to average-size homes, the district would assess $195 for homes larger than 3,000 square feet, $117 per apartment unit, 5 cents a square foot for commercial businesses, $1.58 per acre for farmland, and $264 for school and church parcels. The fire district would take in about $800,000 from the annual assessments.

Property owners are expected to return the mail ballots by Wednesday. The levies will be approved if more than 50 percent of ballots weighted by assessed value are marked “yes.”

The Howard Jarvis group said the Salida district could ask voters to approve a special tax for emergency services, which would require two-thirds approval.

Bittle said at least three people from the Salida area have asked the statewide association to get involved. He would not say whether the taxpayers group plans to file litigation.

“We have no idea how they are going to react,” Bittle said. “We have had some success in convincing other (fire) districts to just drop the assessment proposals and move to a special tax.”

In April 2014, the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District dropped its proposed fire suppression assessment after a Sacramento taxpayers group and the Howard Jarvis association opposed it.

Kurt Henke, who was Sacramento Metro’s fire chief, explained the decision in a statement: “While our legal counsel disagrees with their position, we have to consider the impact protracted litigation would have on Metro Fire’s ability to deploy these funds.”

According to the Howard Jarvis group, the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996 meant that government can impose special parcel assessments only if it shows there’s a special benefit to taxpayers and proportionality. The assessments cannot exceed the cost of the proportional benefit to each parcel owner.

The group points out that the Legislative Analyst’s Office opined in voter guides that year that fire, park, ambulance and mosquito control assessments provided for general benefits. The LAO also advised local agencies a month after the election that fire assessments were not likely to be exempt from Proposition 218 and would need to be replaced with special taxes.

The Howard Jarvis group maintains that fire suppression services must be funded by property taxes and other general taxes. It prevailed in a 1998 lawsuit against Los Angeles County, which had claimed its voter-approved fire assessments were lawful. After that case, counties and special districts put special taxes before voters and most were approved, the letter says.

Bittle also challenged the engineer’s report for Salida’s Proposition 218 ballot process. While the document says 12 percent of calls for service each year were for property-related fires, the report goes on to claim that 86 percent of the proposed assessments are for the “special benefit” of fire protection for property.

Bittle maintains that a large percentage of fire service calls are for car fires, vehicle accidents and medical emergencies, which may involve people who don’t pay property assessments or live in the district.

“To me, the most unfair thing about it is that the percentage of calls for property fires is very small,” Bittle said.

William Ross, a Palo Alto attorney who represents the fire district, did not return a call from The Modesto Bee seeking his legal interpretation.

Salida resident Tom Burns said the Howard Jarvis group was responsible for Proposition 13, which capped property taxes but also resulted in unfair distribution of tax revenue to counties. The Salida district needs special assessments because Stanislaus County has received 11 percent of local property taxes but many other counties get double or triple that, he said.

“I don’t like taxes any more than the next person, but you have to pay for necessary services,” Burns said. “I think (the proposed assessments) have been done fairly and in accordance with Prop. 218.”

The Woodland Avenue Fire Protection District also is proposing a special assessment for fire services through a Proposition 218 ballot.

The Burbank Paradise Fire District has scheduled a mail election in August on a special tax of $75 a year for homeowners. The tax will require two-thirds approval.

This story was originally published June 10, 2015 at 6:54 PM with the headline "Howard Jarvis association formally opposes Salida fire assessments."