s
s
Sections
Sections
Subscribe
You've read 5 of 15 free articles this month.
Get unlimited access to PressDemocrat.com, the eEdition and our mobile app starting at 99 cents per month.
Already a subscriber?
You've read 10 of 15 free articles this month.
Get unlimited access to PressDemocrat.com, the eEdition and our mobile app starting at 99 cents per month.
Already a subscriber?
You've read all of your free articles this month.
Get unlimited access to PressDemocrat.com, the eEdition and our mobile app starting at 99 cents per month.
Already a subscriber?
We've got a special deal for readers like you.
Get unlimited access to PressDemocrat.com, the eEdition and our mobile app starting 99 cents per month and support local journalism.
Already a subscriber?
Thanks for reading! Why not subscribe?
Get unlimited access to PressDemocrat.com, the eEdition and our mobile app starting 99 cents per month and support local journalism.
Already a subscriber?
Want to keep reading? Subscribe today!
Ooops! You're out of free articles. Starting at just 99 cents per month, you can keep reading all of our products and support local journalism.
Already a subscriber?

A Santa Rosa man who mistakenly received several hundred calls from residents frustrated with a new fire prevention fee says the state not only botched its mailers by sending appeals to his personal phone number, but appears to have used a faulty billing list.

George Macauley says he's heard from more than 200 callers, many of them senior citizens, saying they've been charged the $150-a-year fee even though one of their properties is vacant, their house long ago burned down or they live in city limits, for instance.

Many others claim the fee is an illegal tax that should have been subject to voter approval, he said.

"It's a very poorly managed program," Macauley said, "and I've told Mr. (David) Gao (a deputy director with the state Board of Equalization) up in Sacramento: This program should be brought to a screeching halt until you've got your act together."

The phone calls began going to Macauley after the Board of Equalization published correspondence with a number to call to appeal the tax. The BOE omitted the numeral "1" before the toll free 888 area code.

The missing "1" caused some local callers to dial Macauley's cell phone number, which has an 888 prefix. BOE personnel said the agency has never used used a "1" in publications because 888 had not been used as prefix until recently. New mailers have been printed and the agency website corrected, they said.

But with the bills going out at a rate of about 10,000 a day, county-by-county alphabetically, since Aug. 13, Macauley found himself inundated with calls from Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino and Napa counties in recent weeks. Close to 27,000 Sonoma County residents are to be billed some time after Nov. 8.

Macauley, who lives in Santa Rosa and is not subject to the fee, says his experience exposes the fee rollout as "a fiasco" and was very disturbed to know the phone number error would mean citizens on fixed incomes incurred toll charges they shouldn't have to pay.

But state officials say what's illuminated are the challenges and controversial nature of the new assessment, enacted by state lawmakers to fund fire prevention efforts in Cal Fire's State Responsibility Area.

It also highlights the existence of a waiver process built into the system precisely because some mistakes were anticipated, state officials said.

Cal Fire has jurisdiction over about 31 million acres of land for fire prevention and wildfire suppression.

Just under 800,000 residents have been deemed eligible for the fee, aimed at generating about $84 million a year to prevent the kind of wildfires that have cost Cal Fire more than $148 million since July 1, Upton said.

The department had to determine which properties fell within those jurisdictional lines, and whether those who owned the parcels were already paying into a local fire district, entitling them to a $35 discount. Mobile homes and modular units count as "habitable structures" triggering the fee, though who pays it depends on whether the residents own or rent it, said Cal Fire Deputy Director of Communications Janet Upton.

The process required overlays of data from different agencies that virtually guaranteed some duplication, error and outdated information, Upton said. Since the initial billing is retroactive to the 2011-2012 fiscal year, it also needed to reflect ownership as it existed July 1, 2011, further complicating the matter.

"We expected to have to do some fine tuning on the data," she said, noting the appeal rate was projected at 1-to-2 percent.

With about 300,000 statements sent out so far, the appeal rate is actually closer to 4 percent, she said Monday.

But about 60 percent of those are from residents claiming the assessment is an illegal tax -- some of them part of an organized movement to overturn it, saying the fee should have been subject to a statewide vote and received approval by two-thirds of voters before it could be collected.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association vowed to challenge the fee in court even before the notifications went out to property owners alerting them that bills were on the way.

The organization has since contacted the Cal Fire legal department saying it plans to follow through with a lawsuit, Upton said.

Macauley, meanwhile, said Monday that the calls to his cell phone had begun tapering off. But he's still disturbed by what he's heard from callers along the way.

One of them, 81-year-old Fort Bragg resident Joyce Dempsey, told The Press Democrat she wasn't even sure how she'd pay her taxes on her fixed income before the "double whammy" of the fire fee.

"I'm really upset about it," she said.

You can reach Staff WriterMary Callahan at 521-5249 or mary.callahan@pressdemocrat.com.