Fire District Held Subject to Prop. 218

In a potentially precedent-setting decision, a judge ruled Monday that the Los Angeles County Fire Department is not exempt from provisions of a recently passed state initiative, Proposition 218, which gave voters the right to approve any “special purpose tax.”

If the ruling withstands appeal, it could jeopardize $52 million a year in firefighting services, county officials said.

Within hours of the decision by Superior Court Judge Richard Kalustian, county officials said they will ask voters in a special June 3 election to approve paying for the services, which have been levied as part of a special “fire suppression benefit assessment” district. Proposition 218 requires that two-thirds of the voters approve such assessments.

“That is the last option we have available to us or we have to cut $52 million from the Fire Department,” said Board of Supervisors Chairman Zev Yaroslavsky. “That is a step I hope we never have to take. I think it would be a mortal blow to fire safety in every part of the fire district, especially our ability to fight wildfires.”

The legality of the county’s fire assessment district, which has provided about 17% of the department’s budget since the supervisors created it in 1991, was thrown into question with the passage of Proposition 218. That ballot measure, passed in November, bans most such assessment districts July 1.

The county had sought an exemption, saying its 20-year fire assessment district is not a tax, but rather a contract with voters that was the result of public hearings and other input from voters. Kalustian swept aside that argument, saying that the anti-tax Proposition 218 makes it clear that such levies must be approved by the two-thirds majority.

The supervisors are expected to approve placing such a measure on the ballot at their weekly meeting today, in which they will also discuss appealing Kalustian’s ruling.

Already, they have directed county Fire Chief P. Michael Freeman to prepare for the worst, and to start identifying nonessential services and employees that could be cut.

“We certainly had our hopes up that we could do a little better in court,” Freeman said. “We just can’t tighten that much without noticeable reductions in life-and-death services, not only in fire situations but on every medical call.”

Freeman said the ruling could eventually force him to lay off as many as 300 firefighters and emergency-response paramedics, eliminate 34 engine companies and close about 20 of the county’s 100 or so fire stations. The district covers the county’s unincorporated areas and 48 of the 52 cities served by the department.

If such services are cut, Freeman said, the department’s response to fires and injuries could take minutes longer, which could mean the difference between life and death in the case of heart attack and accident victims, and the difference between stopping a brush fire at its origin or watching it consume entire communities.

The county’s lease of two Super Scooper planes, which attack brush fires by dropping huge amounts of water, would probably have to be discontinued, Freeman said.

County officials said they hope to launch a full-scale campaign, urging voters to make a trip to the polls to support such a ballot measure restoring the funds. Internal polls by the Fire Department indicate, however, that voters are not inclined to support such a tax by the necessary two-thirds margin, according to Freeman and Yaroslavsky.

“The two-thirds vote in any circumstances is a major hurdle. In a special election in an off year, with no other elections on the ballot, it makes it almost impossible,” said Yaroslavsky. He hastened to add that because Proposition 218 eliminated such taxes, voters would only be voting to restore a tax that they were already paying if they lived within the assessment district.

The judge’s ruling was hailed by anti-tax groups, including the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Assn., which opposed the Fire Department in court.

“This was the first challenge to Proposition 218, but it won’t be the last,” association President Joel Fox said. “It’s an important victory, because there will be other challenges, and this affirms the meaning of the proposition, which is that the people have the right to vote on taxes.”

Fox stressed that his group opposed the assessment on purely ideological grounds, even though it supports the county’s efforts to fight fires with as much of an arsenal as possible.

“It is definitely a service that people respect and appreciate,” he said. “We just believe people have the right to vote on taxes, and we believed that these assessment districts were end runs around Proposition 13.”

Many county officials have decried Proposition 218, saying it will jeopardize important municipal services. Yaroslavsky said the ballot measure gives voters the last word in issues that should be decided by elected officials.