Home › News › County News
Inspection fee draws fire
Venturans upset by $99 charge to check for weeds
Download this story as a podcast!
Photo by James Glover II
Ventura Fire Marshal Brian Clark talks with property owner Beverly Townsend. Regarding a $99 fee for weed-abatement inspections, Clark said, "We need to recover our costs. We need a sustainable funding source for this program. That's the bottom line."
RELATED STORIES
STORY TOOLS
More from County News
Photo by James Glover II
Clark speaks with Via Cielito resident Mary Lory, who said she has taken proactive measures for 20 years to rid her backyard of weeds and brush.
The city of Ventura Fire Department has sent a bill along with its annual reminder to some 1,200 homeowners near brush-covered areas, notifying them that they owe a $99 fee for weed-abatement inspections, even if they do their own weed clearing.
The fee is necessary to pay for hundreds of hours of annual inspections that the department no longer can afford, Fire Marshal Brian Clark said.
"We need to recover our costs," he said. "We need a sustainable funding source for this program. That's the bottom line."
The inspection fee — another apparent first in Ventura County for the city — quickly drew fire from hillside homeowners like Mary Lory, who said she and husband Ernie have taken proactive measures for 20 years to rid their backyard on Via Cielito of weeds and unnecessary brush buildup.
She said she was aghast when she opened her city letter Tuesday — Tax Day — and discovered yet another fee placed on residents and an invoice stating that if she didn't pay by June 1, she would be cited, fined and face a lien placed against her property.
Ventura has also drawn fire for being the first city in Southern California to charge for 911 service.
Fire prevention is important, Lory said, but she's frustrated that city leaders didn't give residents any notice or a chance to comment before forcing them to pay for a basic government service.
"The city kept insisting it's not a tax and not a penalty," she said of a conversation she had with a Fire Department employee. "I told her, You can choose to call it what you want. I choose to call it extortion.' "
The Ventura County Fire Department charges only those homeowners who skirt or ignore the weed-abatement rules and annual reminders, Capt. Barry Parker said.
"We get 98 percent to 99 percent compliance," he said.
He couldn't think of any agency that charges a blanket fee for compliance inspections.
Nor could Daniel Berlant, information officer for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, which has responsibility for about 31 million acres, or about a third of the state.
In January 2005, a new state law took effect that extended the required brush-clearance space around homes and structures from 30 feet to 100 feet.
"We only fine those who are not in compliance," Berlant said. "Our preferred method is education. We go door to door doing inspections and talking to people. The inspections are built into our budget."
Ventura used to collect a small administrative fee in the early 1990s, Clark said, but it was suspended after concerns rose regarding compliance with statewide fee statutes.
Last year, the city hired an independent auditor, Maximus Inc., which suggested the costs of the fire prevention program could be passed on to property owners who benefit the most, Clark said. As a result, the fee was re-established at $99 by the City Council as part of the city's annual fee update in June, he said.
None of the 1,252 property owners sent bills this week were explicitly notified of the June public hearing outside normal postings, and there was no public comment on the fee, minutes of the City Council meeting show.
Asked if the city considered a public education campaign, Clark said there was little point.
"We considered a full-scale media campaign," he said. "But what's the difference between notifying people and sending a bill? It just adds to the cost."
The inspection fee comes on the heels of a controversial monthly charge imposed on residents' phone lines by the City Council this year for 911 dispatch services. Critics say the 911 fee is a tax that should go to voters for approval, and hillside resident Royce Townsend sees the inspection fee in the same vein.
He's not convinced that the inspection fee, projected to generate about $124,000 a year for the city, will provide greater protection to residents, many of whom already spend hundreds of dollars each year clearing brush from their properties.
"I haven't seen an inspector out here in 10 years," Townsend said from his manicured backyard, where he installed a chain-link fence with a gate to give firefighters easier access to a steep slope behind his home.
"If the City Council is so concerned with protecting its citizens, it would be better to levy everyone rather than a small group of people."
Records show that Ventura's hillside property owners are doing a good job complying with weed-abatement laws. For the past several years, the city has not had to directly abate vegetation on any properties that abut hillsides. In a few cases, citations were issued for failure to meet clearance requirements, Clark said. But the property owner quickly complied before the city had to take further action, he said.
"We've been real fortunate," he said. "Our property owners understand the importance of it."
Not a single home has been lost to a wildfire in recent years, something he credited to residents and successful fire deployment efforts.
Ventura Mayor Christy Weir said the fee is part of a city effort to recoup money for direct services when feasible. The city faces a $4 million deficit in the budget that begins July 1.
As for the homeowners who don't see anyone doing the inspections, "they don't see the whole bulk of the work that goes behind the scenes," Clark said, adding that the fee will help pay for administrative costs, including property records collection and mailings.
"I'm sympathetic to their concerns," he said. "But we have a duty and mission to verify everybody — despite how good their intentions may be and how well they have performed in the past — is in compliance."
Posted by Tom_Johnston on April 21, 2008 at 5:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So..the system is working fine, most of the homeowners get it, and comply....but still a $99 dollar fee.
Telling people about it in advance...just adds to the cost? That's just sneaky.
First the 911, now this...what's the next surprise?
Posted by dcsfancy on April 21, 2008 at 6:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The city is getting out of control.
Posted by GDO on April 21, 2008 at 7:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Seems like we're on a sinking ship here, and these are last ditch efforts to save it. The County Fire dept. does their inspections with the on duty Engine crews. Besides this being no added cost, it gives them valuable preplan info for when the fires do come. What happened to the study of the Fire Dept merging with the County Fire Dept? Seems to work well for Thousand Oaks, Simi, Moorpark, Camarillo, Ojai....and so on. Makes you wonder what bill we're going to get next...At least we could opt out of the 911 tax. This one is getting forced on the unlucky few. We all need to resist this, because who knows who will be next.
Posted by scott on April 21, 2008 at 7:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
instead of walking at the beach everyday on our dime the fire dept should start walking the hills on our dime . revamping of the city council is coming I hope you rubber stamps have enjoyed your stay.
Posted by JProsserSr on April 21, 2008 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ventura used to be known as "The Poinsettia City by the Sea." Now it's "The City with a Fee (for everything)." It's incredible that a member of the Council actually defended this practice.
Next on the list is the business license reminder notice, sent out 60 days before the renewal is due, charging $25 just so you remember to get your business license on time.
Posted by firehd1992 on April 21, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with GDO above. This is a tax without a service. We already pay taxes for the Fire Department services. I sent an e-note to Christy Weir and she did not respond back to me from a week ago.
There are statistics that show 98-99% compliance, so-what is the fee for? Definately making up for mismanaging the budget. It's those of us that are good neighbors who do comply that get penalized! I've seen this program work well without the fee. The penalties and fees need to be charged for the non-compliant inspections, which is where the cost is associated with.
I hope the City looks at this a little closer, listens to their constituents and reconsiders this taxation without representation and rescinds it!
Submitted by a 30 year veteran Fire Department employee....
Posted by RelaxPeople on April 21, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I like how they just coincidentally chose $99 as the fee. Sounds so much better than $100!?!?!
Posted by shaver_one on April 21, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They COULD charge $1.49 per individual weed to be pulled.
"The City With A Fee" sounds appropriate.
Posted by shaver_one on April 21, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have an idea. Build a Wal-Mart in Ventura. THAT will generate revenue for the city. And, it will give employment possibilities for the City Council...once they're voted out of office.
Posted by Jacksprat on April 21, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Folks this is just thestart, when the city hires a MBA to look over thing you can be assured that he care less about anything but collecting money. First the 911 fee now this, all of which should not happen, but this is what has happened to this country. They have brought in MBA and they ruined all the insustries, and have u=our goverment all the way to Washington screwed up. All they do is sit in their office and try to figure ways to get more money from the people and ways to cut back on cost, lay off workers. Don't need workers they cost money. The business closed and theyhave their money.
Posted by numonics on April 21, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have lived in Ventura County for a few years and you all are correct. Ventura charges fees for everything. This 911 fee is a tax and they are using it for more things than you can with a tax. For example they are fixing the 911 communication center, ok but you can't hire more cops and firefighters on this tax. They found a loop hole and are ruining the relationship they have with the community. You can bet I will be ousting all those idiots when I vote.
Posted by Ventura22 on April 21, 2008 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This won't last, like the lame 911 idea they concocted. What an embarrasment.
Posted by RelaxPeople on April 21, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
i cant wait to vote these scammers out of office. they produce no jobs but they create "fee" after "fee."
Posted by yani_chingas on April 21, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Very interesting....a picture of the Battalion Chief doing an inspection, or whatever he was doing on that hill. No wonder they are charging the $99. How prudent is it to send one of the highest paid Department employees to do an inspection? Does the City have documentation of each and every inspection; dates, time, etc. from the last few years or are the inspectors just doing a drive-by inspection?
It is very apparent that the property owners are already doing their part in fire prevention-how many homes were lost from the School House fires a few years ago? ZERO. If one took a look at the fire's path you would have to scratch your head as to why no homes were lost. Yes, the air and ground units were and are key, but without weed abatement it would have been catastrophic. Next they will be charging admission into City Hall.
Posted by thebioniccow on April 21, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My house is not located where I would be impacted by the $99.00 Inspection fee/charge -
if it was I can imagine I would not be thrilled upon being informed of this charge. HOWEVER
I will note that it is important our city do an improved job of recapturing the true cost of services provided. And they are now doing exactly that - this involves change and we are all resistant to change. Our city is obligated to we the taxpayers to attempt to have fees that reflect the actual cost or services provided. In some cases (as I have seen with fees charged for block party/street closures) this may result in fees that are increased a good deal from what they were a few years ago. IF the increase in the fees are based on the actual cost I support those increases even it that results in more dollars being extracted from my wallet. I do think clear explanations of how the fee or charge is calculated would benefit all involved.
Posted by firehd1992 on April 21, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Does the City charge for Police responses, when they do house calls for violations of the law? Do they charge and get cost recovery for Driving under the influence convictions and cost recovery? Do they charge for all code violations, regardless if guilty or not? Does the City make money from these camera lights? Has the city hired and paid an individual to figure how to charge people for more services, and are we all created equal and charged equally and fairly?
Has the city thoroughly prioritized what is essential services and scaled back on other pet peve projects in order to manage their budget? If you were going broke, would you keep spending or figure out how to live within your means?
I don't mind paying for services, but what service are we getting for $99.00? Prove it to us all!
Posted by m2oore on April 21, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lets just remember all of this Ladies and Gentlemen. The next election for the council I hope will be a CHANGE from what we have now.
Posted by fritojn on April 21, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is starting to sound like a Beatles song, The Tax man.
Posted by michael on April 21, 2008 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's interesting that for the past 4 years I have alerted the Fire Dept. to the tall growth of chapparel immediately up against my property line, left to grow and be a better source of combustion by my neighbor to the west, while I carefully plant indigenious, drought tolerant, fire resistant ground cover over my entire site. Yet they do nothing to enforce the necessary weed abatement along my property line; a threat caused by my neighbor ignored by the Fire Dept. When (not if) the next fire comes down Aliso Canyon, we'll see what happens. Fortunately, I designed this home with zero combustible materials and sprinklers..... how can I expect the city to protect this structure when they selectively choose to ignore their own rules??
Posted by KatieTeague on April 21, 2008 at 8:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Coincidently, this article appeared in the Colorado Senate News today
GOP chides Dems for going on a 'fee spree'
Monday, 21 April 2008
Exasperated Republicans accused Democrats on the Senate floor this morning of raising wide-ranging fees on ordinary Coloradans in order to avoid seeking voters' permission for a tax hike.
<snip>
The Republicans point to numerous fee hikes authored by Democrats during the 2008 session alone, ranging from Keller's and Morse's to one that would assess higher fees on ozone-depleting compounds.
"When do we stop the fees? We have a fee on marriage, we have a fee on weddings--did we forget caskets?... I'm sure that's coming before the end of the session," Penry said. "There is no end to the appetite to spend more money."
Republicans, however, said the measure represented yet another attempt this session to enact a new tax in the guise of a fee, sidestepping the constitutional requirement to seek voter permission.
"Some people around here think that taxpayers just have a lot of extra money in their pockets that is not really being used for anything useful," McElhany said. "Probably a lot of the people who think that are sitting across the aisle."
Added McElhany, "Let's face it, they're going on a fee spree--from fee to shining fee."
Posted by Rob_Dawg on April 22, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You have to understand what runs City Hall. Rick Cole, the Solimar Group and the elitist planner cabal on the council and in the administration hate automobiles and suburbia. They see nothing wrong with punishing people who live on the fringes of the city just like they see nothing wrong with multimillion dollar subsidies for urban development experiments.
Posted by bugmenot on April 22, 2008 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I live in this area and in a house affected by this fee. However I am a renter and have not seen the letter. I am also very vocal regarding the 9-1-1 fee.
I don't know how I feel about this $99 fee.
There seems to be confusion. This fee isn't for anybody from the fire dept to come by behind my house to inspect the brush. I live in a house that can be seen from Arroyo Verde park (you'll notice I always comment on the mountain lion articles). Behind our house is about a 20-30 foot wide dirt patch that leads up to a 10 foot hill. About once a month during spring, summer and fall a couple guys come out from the city.
They weed wack or mow down any growth, then spray down a green liquid over the weeds. Usually within a week everything will be dead. There's a good 20+ feet behind my house of just dirt, if this service was not performed it would be overridden with brush before summer could get here.
I always thought this was done by the city and was one of the differences between Ventura and where i grew up in Oxnard. Thought maybe in Oxnard, once a decade somebody would come through the alleys and clean them up, but in Ventura they make sure the homes in the hills are well taken care of.
Ultimately this helps the homeowner as it would help to prevent a loss of property in a wild fire. The rest of Ventura doesn't benefit directly and I'm not too sure why they would have to pay for the costs to clean up the weeds behind MY house.
Now i haven't looked into the people that made these decisions and what their agenda might be, but it makes sense for this to be a cost to the homeowner.
I don't like the part of a homeowner taking care of it themselves, but being forced to pay.
Posted by Face on April 22, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is how they do it in the V.C.
Posted by yani_chingas on April 22, 2008 at 9:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
One thought came to mind as far as how they came up with the dollar amount to assess. It had to be less than the $100/ month start-up rent the City Council initially charged the Aloha restaurant.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.