City Council Rescinds $13 Brush Fee

In a dramatic turnabout, the Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously Friday to rescind the controversial $13 brush-clearance inspection fee it had imposed earlier this year and to return $930,000 already collected.

Most of the money came from San Fernando Valley residents, who protested the threatening language and early deadline of a notice the Fire Department mailed to 180,000 property owners.

“It seems to me that the best way to deal with this, colleagues, is to wipe the slate clean and start all over from scratch,” Councilwoman Laura Chick said.

Observers cited the furious opposition to the fee as a reason for the defeat of a police and fire bond at the polls in April, and Mayor Richard Riordan stepped in two weeks ago to halt the mailing of a revised notice just before this month’s charter reform election.

Inspections have been completed for this year, according to the Fire Department. About 73,000 property owners have paid the fee, while more than 100,000 have not. The Fire Department has already sent out 31,000 letters advising landowners of noncompliance.

The fee was suspended in March by the council in response to public outcry over the abrupt and confusing notice sent to homeowners by the Fire Department. The council reinstated the fee and ordered a new, friendlier, more comprehensive letter with a June 30 deadline.

The revised letter remains in mayoral limbo, Chick told the council.

“The reasons the council mentioned today are the reasons [why] the mayor held up the letter--the length and the substance,” said Steve Rubin, the mayor’s budget director. Riordan at first supported the fee, but it wasn’t his intent that it be “so poorly executed,” Rubin said.

*

On Friday, the council, on a 10-0 vote, instructed the city administrative officer to work with the Fire Department and to submit a report with detailed recommendations on how the program can be better handled next year, including a public education plan. The report will be used to review the fee’s necessity and will detail which neighborhoods need to be part of the brush-clearance program.

“It’s even possible that, in terms of policy, it could be determined that the [noncomplying] property owners should be bearing the cost of the program and not the compliant ones,” Chick said.

The council, as yet, has no plan for plugging the $2 million for fire safety operations that the fee would have generated.

“It could possibly impact the year-end reserve balance, but it’s too early to tell,” Rubin said.

Many residents complained that the inspection fee had not been charged before, and that they did not feel they lived in a fire-danger area.

Fire officials are reviewing the areas that were covered by the fee, and reconsidering how to measure the fire risk, said Michael Fulmis, assistant fire marshal.

Officials plan to work with community groups and elected officials on the new standards.

*

Factors such as the amount of brush, the slope of the property, whether the area experiences high winds, and the number of homes in an area will affect who might pay a fee in the future, Fulmis said.

“In some areas, it may eliminate some homes. In some areas, it may include some homes,” Fulmis said.

Chick expressed satisfaction that the council voted to begin anew.

“I think that, even though there have been mistakes made, it’s always better to make it right, and go from there,” she said. “No more mistakes.”