Who pays?
After hearing from four speakers in favor, five against and one calling for more study, the City Council tonight approved by a 6-1 vote a new fee on business, residential and cell phones.
The "Emergency Communications Fee" was first proposed on December 10th. The Council asked for alternative revenue sources to fund additional police officers and fire fighters.
At the time, the Council selected the option of a monthly fee of $1.75 to recover the annual cost of providing a 24 hour/7 day a week state-of-the-art emergency dispatch center. This was reported in the Star in three different articles, but generated very little controversy.
This time, however, there was genuine howls of outrage. What changed?
The first time out, Councilmember Andrews spoke for many in the community by saying that while it may be called a "fee" -- the monthly charge looked to him like a tax. Given that the difference is often left up to the courts to decide, the City Attorney recommended including an alternative -- an "opt out" provision if, for example, residents or businesses only used a phone line for fax services. In that case, under the Attorney's suggestion, users could apply in writing to exempt that line -- but in that case, they would pay a "per call" use charge, estimated at $50 per call.
The Star's headline in Saturday's paper made no mention of the monthly charge. Instead, it gave many residents the impression that every time someone used 911 they would have to pay fifty bucks. No wonder there were howls of outrage. No one noticed the monthly fee had actually been adjusted downward from $1.75 to $1.49.
This is not to say that no one objects to a $1.49 a month fee per phone. Somewhere around a third of the voting population of Ventura are highly skeptical of paying more in fees or taxes, for a variety of passionately articulated reasons. Some object on principle to any new taxes by any level of government. Some feel the City's priorities are misplaced. Some feel the City is inefficient.
But clearly the spectre of charging people $50 to call the cops seemed like the height of bureaucracy run amok. Lost in the uproar was that NO ONE WILL EVER BE CHARGED SUCH A FEE unless they requested the opt out alternative in writing in advance.
After a thorough discussion, the Council majority decided that a $1.49 charge per phone line per month was a reasonable way to augment the budget for hiring more police and firefighters. After all, the reason people call 911 is not to have someone to answer the phone -- it is to get emergency response quickly. Phone bills in Ventura will be a little more expensive. And as a result, you can sleep easier that when you call 911, the response will be little quicker. The only way you will ever be charged for calling 911 is if you choose that alternative -- in writing, in advance. If you don't like that alternative, you will never have to worry about it.
The "Emergency Communications Fee" was first proposed on December 10th. The Council asked for alternative revenue sources to fund additional police officers and fire fighters.
At the time, the Council selected the option of a monthly fee of $1.75 to recover the annual cost of providing a 24 hour/7 day a week state-of-the-art emergency dispatch center. This was reported in the Star in three different articles, but generated very little controversy.
This time, however, there was genuine howls of outrage. What changed?
The first time out, Councilmember Andrews spoke for many in the community by saying that while it may be called a "fee" -- the monthly charge looked to him like a tax. Given that the difference is often left up to the courts to decide, the City Attorney recommended including an alternative -- an "opt out" provision if, for example, residents or businesses only used a phone line for fax services. In that case, under the Attorney's suggestion, users could apply in writing to exempt that line -- but in that case, they would pay a "per call" use charge, estimated at $50 per call.
The Star's headline in Saturday's paper made no mention of the monthly charge. Instead, it gave many residents the impression that every time someone used 911 they would have to pay fifty bucks. No wonder there were howls of outrage. No one noticed the monthly fee had actually been adjusted downward from $1.75 to $1.49.
This is not to say that no one objects to a $1.49 a month fee per phone. Somewhere around a third of the voting population of Ventura are highly skeptical of paying more in fees or taxes, for a variety of passionately articulated reasons. Some object on principle to any new taxes by any level of government. Some feel the City's priorities are misplaced. Some feel the City is inefficient.
But clearly the spectre of charging people $50 to call the cops seemed like the height of bureaucracy run amok. Lost in the uproar was that NO ONE WILL EVER BE CHARGED SUCH A FEE unless they requested the opt out alternative in writing in advance.
After a thorough discussion, the Council majority decided that a $1.49 charge per phone line per month was a reasonable way to augment the budget for hiring more police and firefighters. After all, the reason people call 911 is not to have someone to answer the phone -- it is to get emergency response quickly. Phone bills in Ventura will be a little more expensive. And as a result, you can sleep easier that when you call 911, the response will be little quicker. The only way you will ever be charged for calling 911 is if you choose that alternative -- in writing, in advance. If you don't like that alternative, you will never have to worry about it.
posted by Rick Cole at
10:24 PM
18 Comments:
Oh Contraire my Dear Rick, You say if a person does not opt out of the $1.49 per month charge they will not have to ever worry about the $50.00 charge for calling 911
If a person or a family has 4 phones in their household and are charged $1.49 per month for each one they will in reality be paying a 911 charge of $71.52 per yr. A bit more than $50.00.
Once again I have to say if the Gang in the Ivory Tower would only be truthful with the citizens perhaps they may want to go along with some of your money making schemes.
Rellis
This is great. I don't see why Venturans aren't overjoyed at the tens of millions this will save them in other taxes. now that the City has adopted a policy of charging for police services they won't need to fund the department at all except for those functions they actually use. Now that arrestees are going to pay the entire cost of their arrest, processing and incarceration the rest needn't pay anything. you could even give criminals the option of a monthly charge or per arrest payment.
Enough snark, it has no effect on people who have already convinced themselves they can say "fee" with a straight face. Instead I'll bring up the one thing your staff couldn't identify; the inevitable unintended consequence.
What do you want to bet that tens of thousands of mobile numbers currently registered inside SBV suddenly move billing addresses to unincorporated areas or across the river? In fact I sense a business opportunity I'll look into providing a $1.48/mo P.O. Box storefront. I wonder if Oxnard would be interested in granting me a forms based zoning waiver on the basis of inter-city cooperation?
I don't think the taxpayers are confused about the issue. I believe they are upset about city officials finding a loophole with which they can increase taxes without obtaining consensus from the taxpayers. Taxation without representation is the same thing which put a boatload of tea at the bottom of Boston harbor. I notice that the city has yet to provide any mechanism for opting out of the tax.
I wholeheartedly agree with all the above. Assuming the city will really let us opt out. I plan to do it. I have called 911 5 times in the last 25 years and paying for it will be much more cost effective than paying for all 5 of our phones forever. I also hate the fact that the city is using public safety to raise revenue. Notice we don't get threatened that our park won't be mowed in a timely manner if we don't pay. Or our artwork will not be regularly maintained on the street. Emergency services have always been paid for out of our taxes since I moved here in 1964. Also, what happened to the utility tax?
Wow! Rick it looks like the Gang in the Ivory Tower, at least according to the comments and the letters to the editor, have finaly irritated a whole bunch of people. You guys may have to install a door gaurd on the Ivory Tower.
Rellis
I will definitely be opting out from paying the tax for my home and cell phone - I'll just refrain from calling 911; if i do need them, I'll just call them on their business line (which is a hop, skip and a jump next to the communications office - the 911 people - it's not like they'll respond any faster).
They say the tax will be used to hire more police and fire fighters for our benefit, BUT HOW MANY OF THOSE "additional personnel" WILL ACTUALLY BE ON THE STREET DURING ANY GIVEN PERIOD?!!! Because of existing union contracts (work schedules), maybe ONE if we are lucky. I am also tired of having fees/taxes levied on the citizens of ventura all for the sake of "public safety." This is not worth it, it is a tax!
This IS a tax as Councilman Andrews suggests. The "opt-out" suggested by noted constitutional lawyer Calonne is how the mind of a lifelong bureaucrat would address the issue. Reality is that 911 calls are fielded at the CHP offices - not at Ventura PD. They are not and should not be subject to any tax. Often the reason people call 911 is a direct result of flakiness and poor treatment of the public by interns at Ventura PD answering the phone who frequently exhibit more testasterone than brains when taking calls. The Police and Fire Chiefs have been looking for an angle for several years to get higher pay - this is their apparent perceived pot of gold. I thought Chief Pat was going to remove all the graffiti in town. I don't see his sorry butt up on the freeway railroad bridge addressing that issue yet. Maybe then I'll support his personal boondoggle.
"What do you want to bet that tens of thousands of mobile numbers currently registered inside SBV suddenly move billing addresses to unincorporated areas or across the river?"
Great idea, Rob Dawg! However, I've already beat you to the punch. I highly recommend that all cell users follow suit.
Also, if you do have to call 911, I suggest using a pay phone. The delay in response might be a bit more, but I'm really not willing to fork out $50 because some gang-bangers are killing each other.
I would suggest that Mr. Cole may well be the poster child for everything that is wrong with local government. He is charged with furthering the interest and wishes of the citizens, and should be working for them.
Instead, he is content to concoct this scheme to circumvent well settled taxpayer protections and impose a new tax on the citizens without their being given a vote. Even more egregious, is the attempt to impose "fees", for what he seems to believe, is the luxury of contacting the police during an emergency!
I find it interesting that he would say 70% of the voters "approve" of such a plan, even though they were not given an opportunity to vote? No doubt, the city commissioned a "consultant" to conduct a survey, costing tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars, to do the polling.....amazing.
Maybe if Mr. Cole more effectively reigned in the administrative costs of running the city, including the higher & higher salaries being paid over at city hall, we wouldn't be faced with the need to pay a tax for calling the police.
And of course, Mr. Cole is sticking us with this new hidden tax as he is headed out the door...
As he has admitted, he interviewed for the Texas post, and I suspect he has other prospects as well....
Maybe it is time we help him along...let your council know that you won't stand for this kind of unfair tax scheme. Tell them it is time to change their ways and that replacing Mr. Cole might be an excellent first step.
I have to agree with Neal Andrews who voted No on the proposal: Necessary government services should be supported by taxes and not optional fees. 911 is NOT optional.
Between my family and business we have 9 phone lines. This law will increase my monthly phone cost by $13.41 or over $160/year!
If I opt-out on any of these lines I will have to be careful in an emergency to call on the correct line. If not it could cost me $50!
There must be a better way to "find" the money to support this necessary governmental service
I am not unsympathetic to the anger in these posts. Government does rest with the consent of the governed.
That's why I welcome the scrutiny to our budget. It is easy to read the papers, slam down the coffee cup and fire off an e-mail to the newspaper or the city. But this week it isn't just the people furious at the idea of paying more on their phone bills for improved police and fire protection.
We are also hearing from the beachfront owners outraged that the City is working with the Coastal Commission on a solution to the very real problem of blowing sand. They are demanding, quite reasonably, a direct say in how this issue is addressed. But what about representation from everyone else in the City who will be paying to deal with the problem of blowing sand at the beach?
The reality is that most people would like us at City Hall to handle all these issues competently and professionally -- until it directly affects them, then they want to demand it go their way.
It's hard to have it both ways. We can't please all the people all the time. If people want to see things come out differently, it's hard to do that without doing the work of becoming informed and active.
My job -- and the government of the City -- would be greatly improved if more people were more involved on a regular basis -- not just when the City does something that gets their blood pressure up. We have both great challenges and great opportunities for Ventura -- and neither the staff nor the City Council are wise enough to solve them all. The more people who take an active and positive approach to making Ventura a better city, the better we will all be.
The majority of voters did support P6. The majority of these comments seem to complain about "What it will cost me."
"Ivory Tower." "Poster child for everything wrong with local government." You have the right to your vitriol and your ad hominem arguments. But I would rather hear from those who argue the substance of the issue.
I, for one, am happy to pay for a better Ventura.
"... It's hard to have it both ways. We can't please all the people all the time. If people want to see things come out differently, it's hard to do that without doing the work of becoming informed and active."
Mr. Cole, please help me stay informed. Are there any other fee's, taxes, assessments etc that the City is consididering at this point in time?
There is a glass wall between city staff and the taxpayers. In New England there are town hall meetings where the air is regularly cleared. Here we receive Rick's laundered version of whatever the issue is. If the city PD is providing crummy service when people call in, admit it Rick and deal with that reality. That's called transparency - we don't get transparency - we get rickspeak.
Don't you guys get the message??? Quit using public safety as a cloak to fund your pet projects. I already pay a 911 fee on my phone bill and I'm not going to pay another. Public safety is a primary service that has been and should always be provided by the city. We already pay enough in taxes.......
There are two threads that run through many of the comment posts both here and on the VC Star site:
1) The city should provide all the services I demand
and
2) The money for those services should come from anyone but me
Sit through any council meeting and you'll find plenty to disagree with on both sides of the dais. But one thing is clear as day -- this city council does a very good job balancing citizen demands for quality services with fiscal realities.
Whatever you feel about the 911 fee itself, keep in mind that the impetus behind the fee is to improve emergency response times.
The city has been forthcoming about current emergency response statistics and it is striving to improve those stats from merely adequate to excellent. The 911 fee is one way of moving toward that goal.
$1.50 per month for a 5-minute response to my emergency 24/7 call? -- that's a rare bargain -- and I'll gladly pay it on every phone line I own.
When I look at the amount of money many of us pay every month for decidedly non-essential products and services (cable/satellite; broadband; gasoline; coffee; cell phone insurance!), I wonder where the real fiscal irresponsibility lies.
Police Officers and Fire Fighters are the real heroes here, let's not forget. They risk their lives to protect ours.
In an emergency, 5 minutes either way can mean the difference between life and death.
Literally.
You don't think you should pay a monthly amount that is less than my mother used to tip the paper boy? Think you've got the perfect plan for avoiding paying anything at all? Fine, opt-out; call a direct number. But when that team of emergency responders saves your life, make sure to hide your face.
I'll take as serious the question from anonymous about what other fees/charges etc. are being considered.
None. On December 10th, we presented a range of choices to the Council for funding additional police officers and firefighter paramedics. You can make your own judgement about that list at:
http://www.cityofventura.net/newsmanager/articlefiles/3396-item%2009.pdf
The Council selected the Emergency Communications Fee.
As for the 911 fee, we registered our landline phone (ATT) and two cell phones (Verizon) for Opt Out. Apparently Verizon understood our option and we've not seen a billing based on not opting out. Quite the contrary with ATT! Our bill arrived today (8 Sept) with the $1.49 charge. My wife contacted ...attempted to contact!... ATT and was on hold for about 45 minutes, never receiving an adequate explanation, other than they did not have the information; that makes me think there is a data base problem. By the way, ATT considers the $1.49 a TAX. When I filed our opt out choice with the City, I made a copy of it and the file number, but have misplaced it. Please tell me how I can get a copy to aid in our communication with ATT (incidentally, the phone contact was in Pennsylvania!
Post a Comment
<< Home