SACRAMENTO – Staring at an empty emergency firefighting account, lawmakers are being urged to revive a controversial fee on rural property protected by the state, including broad swaths of San Diego County.
“There is a direct benefit to the property owner. It's a service,” said Mark Newton, a resources specialist with the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office.
The office issued its recommendation to impose a fire-protection fee yesterday as part of a bleak fiscal outlook projecting a $10 billion state budget shortfall through 2008-09.
Fighting last month's devastating infernos alone cost state taxpayers $138 million – far more than the $82 million in emergency funds set aside for the 2007-08 fiscal year, the analyst reported. Local firefighting expenses are not included in that figure.
Lawmakers imposed an annual $35 per parcel tax in 2003, but quickly repealed it the following year before collecting a dime. Fee proposals again will meet stiff resistance from fiscal conservatives in the Legislature and San Diego County.
“It's a way for the state to go after the same people who just suffered losses,” said San Diego County Supervisor Dianne Jacob. “It would be double-taxation.”
Even some leading San Diego Democrats are not rushing to embrace a new fee.
Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, suggested that the community and state explore cost-savings, such as consolidating fire departments into one countywide agency, before looking to raise revenues.
Kehoe said the explosive growth in wild-land areas and rising costs of fighting more frequent firestorms might leave the state with little choice.
“When we put million-dollar homes in the backcountry, there are water fees, sewer fees. Maybe it's time to look at fire-protection fees,” she said.
Republicans are unswayed, particularly because state revenues still are growing, albeit slower.
“The problem with surrendering to a fee approach, which is really a tax, is you're denying the fact that we're spending more than we're taking in,” said Assemblyman Roger Niello, R-Fair Oaks.
Countering arguments for a fee is the fact that the federal government is expected to eventually reimburse at least 75 percent of the state's firefighting costs. The check could take several years to arrive, officials agree.
“It (a fee) is something to look at, but we also need to see what kind of reimbursement we get from the federal government,” said Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles.
Unlike general taxes that require a two-thirds vote, only a simple majority vote is needed to approve fees related to services and send them to the governor's desk.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not ruled out any budget strategy, and has not been averse to fees to pay for some services, although he repeatedly has rejected general tax increases. In a statement, Schwarzenegger said balancing the budget will be a tough challenge.
“I have not made any decisions yet, but it's clear that the decisions that will be involved will be tough,” he said.
The state has spent $191 million fighting fires, including the $138 million for the Southern California battle.
