Home › Breaking News
911 fee critic sees effort to expand enrollment options rejected
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from Breaking NewsVentura City Councilman Neal Andrews, an adamant critic of the city's controversial new 911 fee, did his best Monday to try give residents more leeway on how they choose to pay the monthly levy, but was overturned by his council counterparts.
Andrews wanted to amend the fee ordinance to let residents avoid the $1.49 monthly charge and instead enroll to pay $17.88 per 911 call at anytime throughout the year rather than during a two-week period each May.
His motion, however, was rejected on a 4-3 vote, with council members Jim Monahan and Carl Morehouse supporting Andrews and members Christy Weir, Bill Fulton, Ed Summers and Brian Brennan voting against it.The council ultimately voted 6-1 so residents would be given 14 days each year, May 1-15, to consider changing their fee plans.
The council also agreed new customers and those who add phone lines would be given 30 days, instead of the current 14, to avoid the monthly fee by enrolling in the per-call alternative. Andrews provided the lone no vote in both instances. The fee was back before the group for several technical changes to strengthen its constitutionality.
Ventura is the first city in Southern California to collect a monthly $1.49 fee on all cellular and land lines for emergency dispatch services. The revenue will help pay for the city's 911 call center and free up money to hire more police and firefighters.
The deadline to apply for the per-call option expired last week, and more than 27,000 phone numbers — about a sixth of the estimated cellular and land lines eligible for the fee — are registered for the exemption, according to an unofficial tally. Residents should see the $1.49 fees beginning on their July phone bills.
Andrews night was not a complete loss.
The two-term councilman, whose seat expires next year, was successful in a separate move, getting explicit language added to the ordinance so the first 911 call by someone enrolled in the per-call alternative would be free.
Adding language for a free pass was against the recommendation of City Attorney Ariel Calonne, who authored the ordinance and claimed the exemption could "impair the defensibility" of the fee in court. Opponents have said they will challenge the fee once it is collected, and the city's opt-out alternative — believed to be the first of its kind in the state — largely was crafted to strengthen the fee against the type of legal suits filed against other cities collecting similar 911 levies.
Calonne preferred the free pass be a council directive to staff, and
City Manager Rick Cole told the council he would make sure it was carried out.
But Andrews didn't see any offense to adding the explicit provision and believed the council had a responsibility to residents to follow through on its promises.
"I think we should be straightforward about these things," he said, testily, adding the city should not intentionally be vague "just so we can dance for the courts."
Summers, Morehouse and Monahan agreed in a 4-3 vote to add the provision.
Exemptions also are offered for those enrolled in the state's discounted Lifeline Service for low-income customers and to those reporting emergencies on behalf of someone else.
Posted by patticakepatti on May 13, 2008 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Rigid, sneaky, underhanded Ventura city council. Now why would a lone councilman feel the need to go against his fellow members all for the sake of making sure the first call is free. I'm sure it was for no other reason than the ordinance itself was not specific allowing the city to go to court and get their fee even on the first call, Mr. Andrews wanted to make sure this did not happen. Of course the author of the ordinance disputed it, it wrecks their sneaky underhanded ways! Mr. Andrews couldn't have said it better, "I think we should be straightforward about these things," he said, testily, adding the city should not intentionally be vague "just so we can dance for the courts." The city has a long standing history of underhanded tactics, Mr. Andrews would not have felt the necessity to do this otherwise.
It's very interesting the the city of Ventura is the first city in all of Southern California to institute this fee. Aren't always the first to "try out" new fees??? It would be nice if they were so aggressive on other "major" issues throughout the city, but they are not....look how they are trying to skate out of helping the pierpont residence clean up the sand....
Now why doesn't someone at city hall get creative on how to raise money??? For starters, let's put that rusted "eyesore", oops, I mean "art" up for auction on eBay, I'm sure they can create an auction to make it sound really good, after all, they got the city council to buy it and now look at it. Did anyone ever think of the upkeep on this atrocity??? One look at it will give you the answer.
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK CITY HALL!
Posted by NothingButTheTruth on May 13, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The good thing to come out of this is that now I know who I will NOT be voting for when they come up for re-election. This tax, disguised as a lawful fee, proves these councilmembers cannot be trusted and therefore don't represent this voting citizen of Ventura.
Posted by patticakepatti on May 13, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Is Neil Andrews running again? He's got my vote if he is, he's the only one with b@77s and isn't afraid to stand up to the bullies!
Posted by keem_s on May 13, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
About 2 weeks ago on a Saturday I was driving on the 118 Fwy West bound and just after the Madera exit there was a bail of hay between the #2 and #3 lanes. I mean a complete bail of hay, probabaly weighed 40 lbs. If a car doing 65 mph hit that there would be some serious damage to the car. If a motorcycle hit it it might be fatal. So I wiped out my cellphone to call 911 and thought Oh wait, I am going to be charged about $20 to do this and I put the phone away and kept on driving. Sad isn't it?
Posted by keem_s on May 13, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
About 2 weeks ago on a Saturday I was driving on the 118 Fwy West bound and just after the Madera exit there was a bail of hay between the #2 and #3 lanes. I mean a complete bail of hay, probabaly weighed 40 lbs. If a car doing 65 mph hit that there would be some serious damage to the car. If a motorcycle hit it it might be fatal. So I wiped out my cellphone to call 911 and thought Oh wait, I am going to be charged about $20 to do this and I put the phone away and kept on driving. Sad isn't it?
Posted by patticakepatti on May 13, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, and the city of Ventura is going to wonder why crime reporting is going to go down. Glad the weather is nice here, it's beginning to be the only reason to stay!
Posted by JohnDoe on May 13, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What is troubling is the lack of education regarding this. keem_s seems to think that s/he would be charged to call about a traffic hazard. Every thing that I have read tells me that if
I am calling FOR MYSELF, then I may get charged the $17.88 (the SECOND time - remember, the first one is free). If I am calling on behalf of someone else or reporting a hazard then I would NOT be charged.
I have called to report drivers that appear drunk, road hazards, traffic accidents (that I was not involved in) and such. Even after the fee starts to apply, I will continue to do the same.
Posted by Split on May 13, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
keem_s....I would've done the same thing
Posted by SoCalArmyBrat on May 13, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm a resident of Oxnard, but even I hesitate to call Ventura 911 when I'm within Ventura city limits.
Question: If the residents of Ventura called the police business office, instead of 911, to report non-violent crime would they be charged the fees for circumventing the 911-system? Honestly, if I lived in Ventura, I'd be calling the mayor's office, the council members, the city manager, and the city attorney to report crime. Let them handle the calls and earn the money Ventura residents are paying them.
Posted by curious1 on May 13, 2008 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
JohnDoe,
Your comment demonstrates a fundamental flaw in the system. The city has had plenty of time to educate the citizenry of Ventura about the ordinance… yet confusion still exists.
If what you read here is true, and people aren’t calling 911 because of the costs associated with it, whether their decisions are cost based, or from a lack of understanding, there exists the possibility that a percent of the population paying the monthly fee, will share the same confusion and have second thoughts about calling 911, even though they shouldn’t. No one should ever have to think twice about calling 911, and no matter how much effort the city puts forth to educate the community, that confusion will always exist.
This is a bad and desperate idea to generate income. The city knows that the minute the first fee is collected, it’s going to be litigated. And, because it’s a fee, the city can adjust it as they see fit. So, imagine that $1.49/mo turning into lets say….$3.49/mo, or $5.49/mo. And for the people that have opted out, that $17.49 to lets say $50.00, the original cost recommended by the city when the ordinance was being drafted. And, don’t forget, the language in the ordinance can amended also.
Posted by JohnDoe on May 13, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree that this is a disguised tax and that is why I opted out, but what I've read in this newspaper and on the city's website is that if you call for someone else, you won't get charged. It is in every story. Is it up to the city to whack the uneducated up side their head to get it through to them?
Reference (page 2):
http://www2.cityofventura.net/bridge/...
--------------
Q. Will I be charged to make an emergency call
if I see an accident or fire that I am not
involved in?
A. If you're on the monthly plan you can use the
Emergency Communications System as often as
needed at no additional charge. If you're on the
per-call plan, the City can waive "good Samaritan" calls when appropriate. The City's goal is not to discourage legitimate Emergency Communications System use.
--------------
How much clearer does it have to be?
OR... are people so afraid that the city will come after them that they won't call for someone else. If that is the case, God help us all.
Posted by curious1 on May 13, 2008 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
JohnDoe
That's my point. It's going to be impossible for the city to educate everyone. Confusion will always exist. A major flaw in the ordinance.
And, you'll get your money back, that's after they've collected the fee and you've had to ask for it back. And maybe you can answer this for me. Will it be refunded as a credit on your phone bill, or will the city retain it as a credit towards future charges? Not arguing here, just feel like venting a bit.
We shouldn't have to consider costs when calling for emergency services. The only factors related to the decision to call 911 should be based on the nature of the emergency itself.
Posted by Comments on May 13, 2008 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well JohnDoe it has to be a lot clearer. The info is quite ambigious and does not clearly state that good samaritan calls are exempt from the fee. What it says is that, "The City CAN wait good samaritan calls WHEN APPROPRIATE." Tons of ambiguity in that statement. First of all they "may" waive the fee, not they WILL waive the fee. Secondly, who is going to deem what calls are appropriate? Sorry, there's absolutely no guarantee in that statement that the poster above wouldn't have been charged. I'm not sure that that call warranted a 911 use, but how many of us have the actual phone #s of individual cities at our disposal in the car? I personally wouldn't stop from calling in something that I thought was an emergency, but I would probably stop and think a minute.
Thankfully I don't live in Ventura. If I did you can be sure I'd be putting up a huge stink about this. This fee is absolutely a tax and the city did not do much at all to let its citizens know about their options to opt out. It's disgusting.
Posted by iam_caine on May 13, 2008 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I seem to remember seeing a 911 tax on my landline telephone bill, as well as on the bills for each of the cell phones on my account. Why am I going to be taxed AGAIN for 911 service? There is something rotten in Denmark, and I can smell it all the way over in Ventura.
Posted by JohnDoe on May 13, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is my understanding that the _City_ will bill you if you are on the Opt-Out plan. They don't get their money until I pay them. If I make a call for someone else and they bill me, you can be sure that I would dispute it.
To the poster from Oxnard, do you really think it matters that you are within the city limits? Is your phone number billed to Ventura? No, then you won't be charged.
I agree that this is a tax and is one of the stupidest moves that the City Council has made, but what is even more stupid is the people who haven't taken any time to learn about it.
Posted by Robert_Worthley on May 13, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you, Councilman Andrews, for bringing some sanity to the council chambers.
I would like to know in detail the mechanics of billing for calls from those of us who opted out, and how the city will ensure that we aren't billed when calling in as a Good Samaritan.
Mr. City Attorney, can you enlighten us?
Posted by bugmenot on May 13, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
JohnDoe,
When you report drunk drivers, at least you hope the operator checks the little box "do not bill this guy". If there can be human error there will be.
Posted by patticakepatti on May 13, 2008 at 5:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
per-call plan, the City can waive "good Samaritan" calls when appropriate. The City's goal is not to discourage legitimate Emergency Communications System use.
Key words here are "can" and "appropriate." You can bet your bottom dollar there will be plenty more about this....should be interesting.
Posted by Adam_Monroe on May 13, 2008 at 5:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OxnardArmyBrat,
I and others have been telling the citizens of Ventura since the very beginning, to opt out, and call 805-650-8010 for any and all emergencies.
Yes, you will be circumventing the 911 system and going straight to the Ventura PDs dispatcher who will then dispatch the appropriate services for you.
Posted by JohnDoe on May 14, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"When you report drunk drivers, at least you hope the operator checks the little box "do not bill this guy". If there can be human error there will be."
First off, if I'm reporting Drunk drivers it is usally on my cell phone and may or may not go through the City of Ventura dispatch system.
Secondly, I'm more than ready to fight any and all 911 calls I make as a good samaritan.
Posted by ffemt2018 on May 15, 2008 at 9:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I just hope that you didn't leave that bail of hay in the road and someone died. I think it is stupid when someones life is on the line for you to be worried about 20 dollars. Hopefully you being an idiot won't kill someone.
(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.