Home › News › Local News
911 charge may face a legal challenge
Court rules on similar fee
STORY TOOLS 
More from Local NewsVentura's controversial new 911 fee could be vulnerable to a legal challenge after a state appeals court ruled this week that a similar fee in the Bay Area is actually a special tax needing voter approval.
The decision by the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco applies only to the $3.22-a-month charge that Union City adopted in 2003 to pay for maintaining and upgrading its 911 dispatch system. But similar fees in about 20 other California cities, including Ventura, could be susceptible under Tuesday's ruling.
In February, Ventura became the first city in Southern California to approve a fee levied on all land-line and cell phones for 911 service. The fee is set to take effect Tuesday.
Ventura's fee, however, was crafted somewhat differently than Union City's to strengthen it against possible legal challenges.
Ventura residents can either pay a monthly $1.49 fee on each phone line or sign up to pay $17.88 every time they call 911 for a personal emergency, with the fee waived for the first call. Union City phone customers have no such option.
"The element of customer choice has proven to be a significant and winning distinction in my opinion," Ventura City Attorney Ariel Calonne said Wednesday.
The appellate court judges said throughout their 3-0 opinion that Union City was trying to charge for access to the phone system, as opposed to elected use, Calonne said.
"The case doesn't make (Ventura's fee) any easier politically," he said. "But by adding a per-call choice and being upfront and clear about it, the city has followed the constitution."
To date, residents have filed applications to exclude more than 17,200 phone lines from the monthly fee — about 11 percent of the estimated 158,000 lines subject to the fee.
City officials say the revenue will pay for existing dispatch services and free money to hire additional public safety personnel.
Attorneys who argued against Union City's fee are not convinced that Ventura's opt-out clause is enough to make it a fee the city can impose without voter approval, vs. a special tax that needs to go to the ballot.
"That is not sufficient to distinguish them from the law," said David Colker, a partner at DLA Piper in Palo Alto.
David Kline, a spokesman for the California Taxpayers Association, agreed. "We don't see how it will work," he said of the opt-out provision and questions over its implementation. "We think the Union City case demonstrates that the courts and the public are not confused at all; that this is a tax."
Now that Union City's fee has been ruled illegal, the attention on Ventura's version is likely to intensify.
"If other cities see Ventura is successful in getting away with it, then they will all flock to the Ventura model," said Tim Bittle, legal director for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, an anti-tax organization.
Two-thirds voter approval required
Proposition 218, approved by state voters in 1996, requires a two-thirds voter approval for all new local taxes but does not cover user fees.
The appellate court said Union City's levy is a tax, not a user fee, because it applies to all customers regardless of whether or how often they call 911. Union City still could decide to appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Union City began charging its fee in 2003. It was challenged in 2004 by wireless phone companies AT&T, Verizon and Cingular as well as two individuals.
An Alameda County Superior Court judge ruled the fee invalid in May 2006, and the appellate court upheld that decision.
Not all 911 fees have been overturned. The Sixth District Court of Appeal upheld Santa Cruz County's 911 fee.
AT&T spokesman H. Gordon Diamond said the company is pleased with the Union City ruling but would not comment on whether the telecommunications giant might pursue legal action against Ventura. Neither would a Southern California spokesman for Verizon.
Council considered plan the most fair
A statewide telephone surcharge partially pays for local 911 systems, but local government officials say it only covers a small fraction of the cost.
Trying to find more money to hire police and firefighters after voters failed to approve a sales tax measure, Ventura leaders looked at various ways last year to generate revenue — a tax district, another sales tax proposal, real estate transfer tax on home sales, and an increase to the Transit Occupancy Tax collected on hotel rooms.
The City Council supported the 911 fee proposal as the most fair, uncomplicated option. The city expects to recoup at least $2 million of the $3.3 million it currently pays annually to provide 911 service.
Paul Masi, a Ventura resident who contacted the Jarvis Association about challenging the local fee, said the Union City case offers further proof the fee is best put to a citywide vote, despite the city's good intentions.
"The city should withdraw its 911 fee now," he said. "Why go through the expense of hiring attorneys to try to litigate this, knowing full well they could lose?"
Download this story as a podcast!
Posted by goldeneye on May 1, 2008 at 6:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm as pro cop as you can get but this outrageous tax is an insult to taxpayers who have a right to expect minimum basic services from any city government. City of Ventura you have played with semantics with your "fee" vs. "tax" lingo. City leaders should be ashamed of themselves. You should never create a feeling in the back of the mind of a citizen that it is against their financial interests to call for police or fire services.
Posted by lrgvanman on May 1, 2008 at 6:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why should there even be a comment section? I read 15 comments in the previous article that this one has replaced and I still don't understand the spring cleaning by replacement of the article. The Star has done it again. We have been stifled!
Posted by lrgvanman on May 1, 2008 at 6:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news...
Posted by mmshoot on May 1, 2008 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Comments
Posted by mmshoot on April 30, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The fee is invalid.
What moron could think otherwise?
Posted by bugmenot on April 30, 2008 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
city of ventura: open mouth. insert foot.
Posted by Pogmothoin on April 30, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Guess it's a tax after all. Nice try suckers.
Posted by smithjc on April 30, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
fee, involuntary contribution, mandatory donation; whatever you call it, it's still a tax.
Posted by goldcoaster on April 30, 2008 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Damn City of Ventura tries to get the tax passed and fails. Then they circumvent the system by passing the tax anyway, regardless what the voters say. I say, every councilperson that voted for this tax should be votes out of office. Do I hear any, "Amens?"
Posted by mmshoot on April 30, 2008 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Amen, goldcoaster.
Posted by thegreatpumpkin on April 30, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
HARUMPH!
Posted by TimeArrow on April 30, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm doing some work for a company that is in a growth mode. A high tech manufacturer with real jobs that have real benefits (employer paid health insurance, 401(k) plan, good bonus plan, etc.), we are looking to relocate from Camarillo to either Oxnard or Ventura sometime next year. We'll need around 50,000 sq. ft. and project a head count of around 100, up from 40 at present. We have zero debt ... and expect to stay at zero debt even with the expansion.
Problem: The primary decision maker says that Ventura's city council, city attorney and city manager have evidenced extremely poor judgment and management skills. Moreover, they ignore the will of the people. Their handling of the 911 tax and their handling of a forecasted budget shortfall have been unacceptable. That may be enough to keep us from even considering Ventura ... at a time when Ventura needs the kind of tax revenue that manufacturing generates as it creates real wealth.
Enough said.
Posted by mmshoot on May 1, 2008 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by Common_Sense on April 30, 2008 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oxnard on the other hand frequently caters to business, etc...a reason that while times are tough, they are in better overall financial shape than Ventura. If I was you, I would look there....
Posted by mmshoot on April 30, 2008 at 5:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think you can still get around Ventura's current governance.
Posted by NothingButTheTruth on April 30, 2008 at 6:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Okay, SOMEONE admit that you voted for those Ventura City Council bozo's in the last election. The only people THEY are business friendly to are their friends / contributors. Their bureaucrats are arrogant, uncooperative and unfriendly people who offend people who apply for permits and desire business growth.
People, you better ask HARD questions come next election instead of choosing people who do NOT represent voters wishes.
Posted by mmshoot on April 30, 2008 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I voted for the guy who objected to the 9-11 fee all along and then apologized for acquiescense to the overwhelming majority of the City Counsil. I can't remember his last name and I think it begins with an M.
Beyond that, I did not vote for Mayor Weis or Rick Cole supporters.
Posted by lrgvanman on April 30, 2008 at 7:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Like I said earlier...double taxation...and why not let citizens have a say as well?
Posted by robert_s_hunter on April 30, 2008 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"why not let citizens have a say as well?"
Where do you think you live? The USofA? Oh, wait a minute...
/sarcasm
Posted by goldeneye on April 30, 2008 at 11:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
City of Ventura - You can't get any more pro-law enforcement than this red blooded American - but you have stuck a thumb in the eye of taxpayers by trying to make residents pay for a basic service that any good government offers for free.
Posted by mmshoot on May 1, 2008 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry, Star Staff. I know that took up some of your server space. But I think it is worth it.
Posted by numonics on May 1, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ventura County is out of control with their fees. This fee and the fire brush clearance fee. I can't wait to vote all those tax happy people out of office.
Posted by ministep3 on May 1, 2008 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Think of the ramifications. If your in trouble and ask someone to call 911 for you, they will now ask you for $20 before placing the call. On the highway, late at night and you spot a drunk driver. Is it worth $17.50 to you to call 911 and report ? Its not your property or family that drunk driver may damage, so do you really feel like spending the money.
Posted by numonics on May 1, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Found this blog, here is one of the A-holes backing this measure and his email address,
Bill Fulton, Ventura City Council
fulton4ventura@gmail.com
http://fulton4ventura.blogspot.com/20...
Posted by whatsup805 on May 1, 2008 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I see crime going up! Buy gas or report a break-in to my vacationing neighbor or their car? Bad for people in Ventura great for crackhead thieves. THUMBS WAY UP City Coucil!
Posted by jake425 on May 1, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There is a Good Samaritan clause in the ordinance in which you will not be charged if reporting a crime or emergency on behalf of someone else. Note that you will only be charged the $17.88 per-call free if you opt out. Otherwise it is a flat $1.49 per month. Get your facts straight folks.
Posted by mmshoot on May 1, 2008 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I stand corrected. Replace all previous statements made about money with "around 18 bucks" or "around a buck fifty per month" as seems appropriate.
Posted by jake425 on May 1, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The point was that NOBODY will be charged for calling to report a crime on the highway or anywhere else on behalf of someone else. You won't even be charged the first time if it's for yourself and even then you will only get a charge if you opt out. I repeat, get your facts straight.
Posted by mmshoot on May 1, 2008 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jake425, I have already opted out of the charges by not opting out of anything. I am saying the charge is unjust. I will pay it if I have to and I will not like that added expense.
Then, lawsuits will prove me right and the telephone companies and the City Cousil will have to refund the money I spent. That process will benefit no one in the long run.
Posted by readerone1 on May 1, 2008 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
lrgvanman, the reposting of articles under new titles just makes it seem they are reporting something new, then you open it and it's the same ole stuff. Tricky lil guys.
Posted by mgibson on May 1, 2008 at 8:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, it looks like the fee will be challenged in court. The City should not waste any more taxpayers' funds defending it. It was a bad idea to begin with.
Posted by keepin_it_real on May 1, 2008 at 8:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks Ventura, you did it again. I am so tired of getting taxed to death!!! You want to charge us to flush our potty, now this? I think if you could, you would try to figure out how to charge for the air we breathe. Hope you don't figure that one out. If Ventura gets away with this, then other cities will follow suit. Cut out the FAT so to speak, then you may find more $$$ to fund the 911 system.
Gas is almost $4.00/gal, is bad enough, and because of that everything else is going up. I am lucky I have a good job. What about the elderly and disabled who barely get buy, some can't even pay their phone bills as it is and are even on a low income rate anyway. Shame on you Ventura.
Unless a person feels a personal threat, some crimes will not be reported, fires may not be called in or a person who may need help will not get help because a passer-by won't want to call it in.
I think this will do more harm than good. Shame on you Ventura. This service is needed, yes, but find your funds somewhere else, I'm sure you can.
Posted by lrgvanman on May 1, 2008 at 9:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you, mmshoot, for reposting and doing what I attempted to do this morning. I believe it was the right thing to do.
Posted by shaver_one on May 2, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Whether or not there is a 'good samaritan' rule is irrelavant. Whether or not there is an exclusion for low-income people is irrelavant.
The fact that there IS a fee/tax, will dissuade people from using 9-1-1. The new tax is so convoluted, that nobody really knows what's going on. So, they will choose not to use 9-1-1, and crime/fire will not be reported. That is human nature. We don't fully understand something, we ignore it all-together.
If you use 9-1-1 for a 'good samaritan' call, will you NOT be charged? Or, will you be charged, and then be reimbursed by the city? The new tax doesn't specify. It only says there are certain calls that won't be charged...decisions to be made on a call-by-call basis. Sounds like reimbursment.
And if it is reimbursment, how long will it take the city to return your money? And, how many hoops will you be forced to jump through, to get your money back? Will it be so much trouble trying to get your money back, that most people will finally give up?
Is THAT what the City of Ventura is really hoping for?
They make this tax an 'opt-out' plan, instead of an 'opt-in' plan. People can't figure out how to 'opt-out'. People stop using 9-1-1 for emergencies. When they do use 9-1-1 for 'good samaritan' calls, it's too complicated of a process to get your reimbursment.
The City wins either way.
The citizens lose.
BTW: Since 'opting-out' requires the citizen to give all telephone account information, on all telephones in that residence, to the City of Ventura, will response time to those citizens 'opting-out' be as quick as those citizens who decided to bite the bullet and pay the monthly charge? Remember...They know who you are, where you live, and whether you chose to accept this new tax.
Be careful, citizens of Ventura.
(Requires free registration.)
Comments on this site are to be used for the discussion and/or debate of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Comments should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We don't allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete comments and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Comments 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.