I will be opting for the $51.62 charge and hope for the best. We will be very reluctant to call in for another persons problem anymore. Do the math, would you or anyone else call 911 for a car accident or fire on a distant hillside, etc. if the city was going to charge you 51.62? What ever happened to common sense. This makes the city of Ventura look stupid to the rest of the country. This looks very much like Ciy government out of control.

One thing that wasn't made clear at the council meeting last night was that the police department can always (24 hours a day) be reached by calling dispatch directly at 650-8010 to report emergencies.

The appalling part of this to me is that the City Council even considered the $50 waiver fee. At this point it became a public safety issue and the City Council was proposing something that would put at risk the public safety of it's citizens. I can see that they need money and want to tax city residents to pay for police and fire personnel, but putting the public safety at risk is appalling and unbelievable. Then they act surprised that people feel this way. It makes you wonder...

Hi all --

I understand the emotion contained in these comments but I'm not sure I understand the underlying arguments. robert, why would you simply not opt for the monthly fee of $1.49 and never worry about the cost? And Jon, would you rather that there be no option other than paying the $1.49 a month -- even for your fax line?

AVR, I am not sure what options there should be, but there in no way shape or form should've been an option on the table that placed the general welfare and safety of the public in harm. That is exactly what a $50 (possible) fee would've done. People would've thought twice about calling 911 on a fringe emergency situation, possibly putting somebody's life at risk. I am very upset that this was even considered. Rick Cole and the City Council sound so proud that they thouht outside the box and came up with that option. It's unbelievable. $1.49 monthly tax/fee, sure if I lived in Ventura I would be upset with it, like most people are with any nickle and dime tax/fee, but an option to put public safety in jeopardy? Whoever came up and supported that should be reprimanded.

Jon,

Nobody is required to pay $50 per call. Everybody has the option of picking either pay-per-month ($1.49) or the pay-per call ($50). The default is the $1.49; you don't go to the per-call fee unless you notify the city in advance that this is what you want.

The per-call fee is, among other things, a way to allow people to opt out for the phone lines they don't talk on, like data and fax machines.

Thus, the option is in the hands of the phone customer. So is the responsibility. Individuals already must exercise judgment about whether to call 911 in an individiual situation.

And the police department has the discretion to wave the $50 if you're helping out a neighbor or reporting a very serious crime.

The practical matter is that almost everybody is going to pay the $1.49. So it's not clear to me how public safety is jeopardized.

I watched the City Council meeting on TV last night and I think Neal Andrews really summed up the issue well. The 911 communication service is a "core service" the government should always provide out of general tax revenues. It is not an "elective service" like going to a camping park or going to an art show. It should never be framed as an "optional service" because it is not. It is an emergency service.

Once you start treating it as optional and charging a special fee for it, people will be less inclined to use it because it now becomes an economical decision for them.

Personally, I will be opting out of the monthly phone fee because I cannot envision using 911 more than once a year. Therefore, the most cost effective way for me to go is to pay the $50 once per year (if I even use it that often).

This was really bad policy decision by the City Council and is going to become more evident to them as time goes by...

Taxes vs. Fees? What is the difference? I'm not happy with any new tax or fee. This is just an attempt to get more funding for a city that should concern itself more with blancing it's buget on the funds it now collects! We the Tax Payers & Fee Payers "foot the bill" for MORE than our fair share, let the 911 calls generate their funding from those that precipitate the calls.

Dennis Perry --

It sounds then as though you would be perfectly fine with charging 911 callers a fee for every time they call 911 to cover the cost of the call. Yes?

AVR, I KNOW nobody is REQUIRED to pay the $50 if they choose to pay the $18 annual fee/tax. That is not the point. You are talking to a straw-man. I am appalled that there was even the $50 option and a little bit disgusted that there was a 911 tax at all. There is already a 911 tax on my bill.

These guys frighten me. What's next, a tax before they'll allow my dead body to be placed in the ground? When's the next election? Ridiculous...

It's interesting that nobody was protesting this back in December when the proposed monthly fee was $1.76. I even saw council candidate Mike Gibson on TV praising it to the skies. But when the city gave everyone a way to opt out for fax lines and lowered the fee to $1.49, then the protests came.

With this precedent, we can envision the logical next step. For $51.62 you can get emergency response with one hour; for $112 you can get it within one-half hour; etc. Or, for $51.62 you get a paramedic fresh out of training; for $112 you get one with 2 years of experience; etc.

The good news is that if we can establish a user fee for every public service, we can do away with property and sales taxes and city government.

If I have two land lines and four cell lines (family) can I opt to pay the $ 1.49 a month on just one line?
just wondering in ventura

Yes, you have a choice for each line.

Did anyone see the editorial is today's Star about the 911 tax? Ouch...

This is a work-around for the city since city hall failed to make a compelling enough argument to get the numbers needed to pass
P6. 911 is public safety - a core service. It should not be funded by a fee (really a tax...it's just semantics to call it a "fee"). People see waste (i.e., the transit center mess as public art) and don't want to fund addl things like that. Too bad only Neal Andrews saw it for what it was.

Yeah, and, speaking of wasteful spending, that Councilman Morehouse seems to conveniently forget whenever the subject arises, what about the $260,000 that was spent to "study" Victoria in the hopes of narrowing the largest thoroughfare in the City down to 2 lanes. When's the election again?

Skip, it doesn't surprise me that Gibson was on TV talking about the 911 fee. That guy never met a camera he didn't like.

It NEVER recommended 2 lanes in each direction. There are currently 4 lanes in each direction -- it recommended dividing the street into 3 express lanes on each side, plus a slip lane on the edges for "local" traffic (turning into businesses, allowing for parking and wider sidewalks, landscaping, etc.). It wouldn't have narrowed Victoria, it would have actually widened it. However, when more study was done (environmental review) it was determined that there are certain sections where this widening wasn't possible -- not enough right-of-way. So they scrapped that part of it.

Dude, get real here. Bill Fulton himself admitted publicly that he and the rest of the Council that were originally pushing this "narrowing" idea decided to back off when the public went ballistic about it (as right they should). It has nothing to do with a study, although they may have used this as a way to save face.

Staff often makes recommendations that are sent back by the council for more study; that, plus public comment, often determines the outcome.

But your two-lane contention is an urban myth.

Yeah, but in this case, it was all public outrage, er, I mean, comment.

I'm just wondering if the city is going to pursue legal action/collections against citizens who use 911 and don't pay the fee? I'm unclear how it would also work if there were say a house fire and 10 neighbors called 911? So that's $500.00 for the city? It just seems ridiculous and an insidious way to implement a tax unfairly. ...and won't we all just use our cell phones instead? What if we are on the State Hwys in Ventura and call 911? What a sham and shame on the city council for pulling a fast one of the citizens, especially those who are already struggling to pay bills and on a severely fixed income such as the poor and elderly.

Want to eliminate the 9-1-1 tax?
Let Wal-Mart build their store in Ventura. The added sales-tax dollars will more than cover what the city wants to tax.

Hi Adriane,

Thanks for posting. It is my understanding that exceptions would be made for multiple calls to report an incident. Also, cell phones would be included in this. You would only be charged if you were calling from your residence or business, not reporting an accident out on the road.

The simplest thing to do would be to accept the charge of $1.49 per line and not worry about the per-call charge. However, knowing how people are always keen to save money, many may indeed sign up for the per-call option thinking they will never use 911. I agree. The administration of this does indeed seem complex. I think people are very confused right now about how this will all work and the confusion will continue.

whoever thinks that walmart will collect enough taxes to beef up the city till is not informed. all the businesses that will fold up if they are allowed in, will create a washout. rick cole is pushing that mentality and it is falacious. wake up venturans,

I love it. Rick Cole is being blamed for pushing Walmart by some people and keeping it away by others. Which is it folks?

I don't blame him for looking at Austin. This town is crazy.

The city has adopted a new tax for more police and fire personnel disguised as a fee and without a 2/3 vote by the people as required by law.

When the sales tax ballot measure was turned down by the voters, we told the council to set priorities and hire new police and fire personnel within existing appropriations. And, they did which I am sure was a slap in the face for all of those who voted for the tax increase. Now, they are at it again by adopting an ordinance which will require every individual in the city to either pay $1.49 monthly for every land-line and cell phone they have, or in lieu of the monthly charge, the council will allow people to opt out of the monthly amount by agreeing to pay $50 for every non-emergency 911 call. Apparently, this $50 amount was added to the ordinance at the recommendation of the city attorney to make it challenge proof in the courts. The Council was almost giddy in its praise of the city attorney for coming up with a way to screw the taxpayers and eliminate any defense against such arrogance.

Frankly, we should all thank the city attorney for adding this to the ordinance because, if we all opt out, the ordinance will die a natural death do to the lack of funding. And, do we run the risk of having to actually pay the $50? It's unlikely because the council directed the police department to give 911 callers the benefit of the doubt when they review the calls for a possible $50 charge. So, unless someone blatantly makes a non-emergency call, we have nothing to worry about. At the council meeting, the Assistant Police Chief indicated they receive very few non-emergency calls. So, we just have to keep doing what we are doing.

The only one that knows if a 911 call is an emergency call is the person making the call. I am sure no court in this land would allow some bureaucrat to second guess anyones state of mind in making an emergency call.

Now, if the city continues to indicate they cannot find additional money for police and fire, and they feel so confident that the taxpayers will endorse their action for this fee, then put it to a 2/3 vote as required by law. If the ballot measure fails again and the council remains adamant about its inability to find the funds for additional personnel within existing appropriations, we taxpayers have two choices: First, we live with the level of police and fire personnel we have or second, comes election time, we support candidates who can find the funds. It's that simple.

Want to raise the necessary 911 revenue through Wal-Marts instead? Tell me where you're going to put all six of them. A Wal-Mart will net the city, maybe, $400,000 a year. The 911 access fee is expected to raise $2-2.5 million a year.

I think this fee is ridiculous. The City will now be charging us to call 911? Are you serious?

I said who elected these horse's patuties!!!

We run a kinder, gentler family blog here!

I agree with you Jack; however, I bet those with all of their cell phones for family members, etc. won't even notice the $1.49 charge. But, I will because we are having a hard time making it with the increased gas prices, mortgage and the price of groceries these days.

If we let this unconstitutional ordinance get by, I bet it's just the beginning with our city leaders. We will get many more of these type of schemes. I hope the Taxpayer Association will take this on. And, by the way, I seem to recall that the City Council stuck us with the cost of street sweeping when they approved a new contract with Harrison. Our trash fees went up at the time. What did the City do with the money it used to spend on street sweeping?

I am going to join with you in opting out. There are six of us with cell phones at home and two landlines. If I don't opt out, the City will have stuck us with nearly $145 a year in charges.

I'm for opting out too. It makes the most sense financially. Hopefully, a lot of folks will make this choice and send these arrogant, so-called leaders a unified message. We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore!!!

And that's all great, folks. But when you call 911, you want somebody to come, right? You'd like nothing better than to save a $1.49 a month on your phone, but you don't look at the bigger picture: our emergency workers are not always able to always meet their mandated response times for getting to an emergency within five minutes. Adding more police and fire will help do this. This will generate $2.5 million a year. It will pay for your safety. How much is that worth to you? $1.49 a month is a bargain.

Can't you see Reagan rolling over in his grave after hearing the end run theese idiots are trying. Please just send in your recall petitions.

Yeah, Reagan's a great example. He presided over the largest tax increase in U.S. History when he doubled the Social Security tax. The largest burden of that fell on the middle class. He was allowed to run up a $3 trillion federal deficit with no trouble. The average family pays $1,000 a year in taxes just to pay the interest on the money that Reagan didn't pay back.

Bush has followed in this great economic "wisdom."

The city has to have a balanced budget and they're not asking to fund frivolous things here. It's public safety.

On our bill, we are responsible for our land line, our computer line, 3 phones for our immediate family in Ventura and we have two phones for our elderly parents in LA. Who is to say who will need to call 911 some day for themselves or others?-- Paying a monthly fee for 6 lines is absolutely atrocious -- it isn't just $18 a year. And how will an officer or our city determine that the call you make for someone else was indeed for someone else (even if you call about an accident from home that occured down the street- because it is a land line they assume it is for you??) Will we have to argue each time with the folks that bill us?. I also agree that we already are taxed for this service, and we voted against a new tax because many of us want to see the city better manage the funds they already have-- that was the point of our vote anyway. The city will have to make hard decisions-- about our libraries, about our parks, about our streets. Fees for a vital service are counter productive and can be confusing (even if they pay the monthly fee some residents will think the $50 will be added on-- you know it's true). Fees for mis-use of vital services should exist and be high. I'd rather them start charging for parks which are optional, than a service fee that might loose a life if misunderstood. Better yet: manage responsibly!!

There will be a segment of the population who just doesn't want to pay any more for government service and that's that. Even though what they're paying for are the services that are most critical to their daily lives. The city already runs pretty lean; they just did a round of cutbacks last year. And the city is well below average in the area in comparison to other cities in collection of fees.

Oxnard is looking at raising its sales tax 1/2 cent. All cities are strapped.

Hey, Skippy, do you work for the City, or something? You seem to be rushing to their defense at every given opportunity. This was a bad idea, plain and simple. It was an end run around the voters and it will come back to bite this Council hard in the a**. There is no way to put a positive spin on trickery of this nature.

If the City Council wanted to impose a tax, why didn't they just put it to the voters, like they did with P-6, which came within a hair of passing? When you do something as underhanded as this, no matter the good intentions, people will remember - every time they look at their monthly phone bills!

I'm hoping this issue will spur on some good challengers in the next election. Halter and Gibson are you listening?

So what kind of guy uses Mongo Flamo as a blog name? And you expect us to take you seriously dude? Do you object to sewer fees too? Liquor license fees? Building permit fees? But you don't think the city has the right to charge a fee for public safety services?

This is hardly without precedent. Other areas charge 911 fees too.
County of Santa Cruz $7.47
San Francisco $2.75
San Jose $7.75
Santa Cruz $3.49
Stockton $1.70
Watsonville $2.17

Yes, and some of them are being contested in court, Skipster! We'll see if Ventura's withstands the legal challenges that are certain to come. The Ventura County Taxpayers' Association is already considering legal action.

Gibson favors the 911 fee. It was in the story the Star wrote in December. I don't know about Halter.

"Resident Mike Gibson applauded city leaders for being creative and following through on a pledge to provide greater safety resources. Officials estimated the revenue would allow the city hire six police officers and three firefighters and buy necessary equipment.

"The fee is the most palpable and acceptable approach," said Gibson, who ran unsuccessfully for a city council seat last month. He said the roughly $20 annual cost per phone line "is a small price to pay to add six officers and three firefighters on the street."

Clearly, Gibson is trying to woo the police & fire unions to get their support for another run at Council. He didn't get it last time because of his vocal opposition to P-6.

I see where the City Council will be doing their performance evaluation for City Manager, Rick Cole, on Wednesday. I hope they take into account some of his recent lousy recommendations, such as the 911 tax and limiting Wal-Mart's size, when they're deciding if he deserves a raise or not.

I saw also that he interviewed recently for a City Manager job in Austin, Texas (that he supposedly wasn't interested in). I think the City Council should open a recruitment for a City Manager that they're not interested in hiring.

Skip, my beef is with the City gleefully adopting this fee without a vote of the people. I remember reading an important document somewhere; the sentence started with the "We the people. . ." We are the City government, and when the City Council abuses its authority and sticks us taxpayers with a new tax, or fee as they call it, without our vote, it's a violation of the State Constitution. Doesn't that bother you?

The other thing that bothers me is having one to three police officers tied up at high school campuses without full reimbursement to the City. I know when the City of Camarillo contracted with the Sheriff's Department, Camarillo paid 100% of the cost of that deputy. Now, if the schools do not want to pay, fine; then they can do without or rent a cop. Nowhere in the law does it say the City has to provide schools with police officers. So, there's part of the problem in regard to response time as it now stands.

And, finally, we need to elect leaders that follow the law and put police and fire at the top of their priority list just as we want them to do. If that means closing parks, the new swim facility, etc. then too bad since I am sure we all agree that none of those things matter if we can't feel safe as a society.

I don't know how this will play out, but I have three lines and I am opting out. I'll take my chances with the $50; however, my state of mind will determine what I feel is or is not an emergency. If the Treasurer's Office tries to bill me for something that is clearly an emergency then I will appeal that decision to whomever the City designates or look to the courts for a remedy. However, at the first hearing on the ordinance, one of the folks with the City, said our Police Department will "scrub" the calls to make sure they are or are not an emergency. I'll put my trust in the Police Department to do the right thing.

I hear you, Jack, but I do know that the School Resource Officers really are needed in the high schools, and on the middle school campuses for that matter. We had a great program, but they were pulled out of the schools in 2004 and put back on patrol to help meet the response times for 911 calls. And we lost the state grant that paid for them, too. Since that time, the School District has agreed to pay for half the costs of each officer. (They are looking at cuts this year, too, though.) Of the 6 officers the city is looking at adding with the 911 fee, three are SROs. (Those 3 officers will be paid half with School District money, and half with City money).

I sat on two task forces that looked at this problem. The SROs were instrumental in helping to cut down on gang crime, and graffiti, as well as drug use. They were also useful in solving other crimes committed by teens. Plus, prevention is really key here. If you can get to these kids before they start on the wrong path it makes a huge difference.

The other thing we lost in our schools was the fire safety program. The firefighter that used to do that was put back in the station, again to meet 911 response times.

I'm sorry Marie, but I don't feel as sorry for the schools as you do. When I was in middle and high school, we didn't have cops on campus. When my 2 children were in middle and high school, they didn't have cops on campus. Now, don't tell me it's different these days, I don't buy it. Yeah, they have problems, but so did the schools in our day, and we lived through it.
I too, will opt out of this illegal tax on the people of Ventura. I've got 6 lines that will be charged $1.49 each, a month. I'll take my chances with the pay per call. I'll just be more selective...

I'm sorry to report that, yeah, things are different these days. But please don't take my word for it, call the principals at Buena and Ventura HS, or ask the principals at Deanza or Balboa if you want proof. Ask my kid who smells pot being smoked nearly every time she uses the restroom of her school! Ask my neighbor's kid who has had these gang thugs threaten him.

I agree with the Barbie doll. I think this cops on campus thing is another effort by the school district to grab money from another entity, in this case, the city, for a really unneeded service.

Mongo, School Resource Officer programs exist on campuses across the nation. They are a true partnership between cities and schools. One of our local officers told me that through the SRO program they used to solve a lot of property theft crimes and nailed the drug dealers, too.

We also have had an explosion in tagging in Ventura since the SRO program went away. These tagger kids write the same symbols on their notebooks; it was pretty easy for the SROS to pick up on this and make a little visit to the parents.

They also conducted extensive education for parents. I attended one of these programs and it was a real eye opener. Have you seen our Gang Task Force's PowerPoint presentation? You will never forget it once you've seen it. It's terrifying.

These officers need our support. They're keeping our kids safe and they're keeping us safe. No doubt about it.

We can all disagree about how to pay for the SRO program, but do not tell me it's unnecessary.

I don't have a problem with the SRO program; however, the schools should pay 100% of the cost. As for "children" who act up at school such as with dope, property crimes, etc., they should be thrown out of school forever or for a very long time. When you think about it, it's the parents who need to control their "kiddies," and if they can't or won't, then out you go. Fortunately, most of the kids at school are there to learn but can't with all of the disruption from hoodlums.

I'll have to side with Barbie's comments. We too had two children in high school without cops. Plus, my wife and I didn't have cops on campus either. Our daughter went to Bonaventure. Do they have cops on campus? They didn't when our daughter went there. If they don't have cops, what are they doing better than public schools?

I agree with you about the parents. Some just aren't there for their kids and don't value education. I've seen it plenty on the elementary level, too. But even those who are good parents can miss important clues that their children are using drugs. We had an SRO at Balboa who conducted "wakeup" seminars for parents. It was very enlightening.

I've been involved with both Save Our Schools and the Ventura Education Partnership. (This year I'm VEP co-president.) SOS raised the money privately to pay for one of the SROs for one year. VEP raises and gives in excess of $100,000 a year to our schools.

The Chamber graciously hosted a School-Business task force last year to look at all the issues surrounding the SROs. I am very grateful to our partners in the business community for all they do.

As to Bonaventure, they're a private school. If they need something, all they have to do is raise the tuition parents pay. And they do. Same with Villanova and Thacher in Ojai.

Our public schools are looking at some pretty draconian cuts in their budgets from Schwarzenegger's proposed budget.

Oh don't worry Marie, props 93 thru 97 will take care of school budget cuts...right?
The council says that this will cut down response time. I've got news for you. Three police (because 3 will be SRO's) and 3 firefighters are NOT going to cut the response time to 5 minutes or as close as can be.
BTW, Rick Cole stated tonight that even he thought the legality of this TAX is neither black or white....it's more gray...
OPT OUT PEOPLE!! It's illegal and the city council needs to be sent a message!

I hear you, Barbie Doll. I have chosen to opt out myself and I've asked about 45 of my neighbors so far it they would do the same thing. I got 43 yes's so far. On with the campaign...

So you went door-to-door and canvassed 45 of your neighbors, Mongo? How civic minded of you!

I actually did, Marie, so stop with the patronizing tone! If more people got out and conversed with their fellow citizens on issues of local importance, such as this, we would have a much more engaged citizenry. A lot of the folks I spoke with had absolutely no idea that this new phone fee was being approved by the Council, so it was quite gratifying to help bring them up to speed on it. Most felt that while the fee may be justified, the City definitely went about imposing it the wrong way.

Maybe the City Council should take a cue on what I did and actually engage their constituents on issues like this instead of back-dooring new fees on them because the City Manager and City Attorney told them it is legal to do so. It may be legal, but it is not right, and it is going to cost all six of them in future elections!

Why, Mongo, old friend, what makes you think I doubt your sincerity?

Oh, just a little note of sarcasm in your previous post - that's all!

I listened to the City Council meeting last night, February 4. I am more confused than last week. Last week the Assistant Chief and other Council members talked about those opting out. The Assistant Chief said his office would "scrub" the 911 calls, and for those that were clearly non-emergency, a list would be sent to the Treasurer's Office for collecting the $50. However, in listening to last night's gobbledygook, Council members focused on fax lines, computer lines, etc. when discussing the opt out provision. I think the Mayor even said the $50 opt out amount was put in for those who have lines they will never use to call 911. I guess I'll have to wait for more information before finally deciding what to do.

Now, one gentleman who spoke last night asked if we even needed more police and firefighters. With the three each they apparently added after the sales tax increase failed, do any of us know if we need more sworn officers? I mean anyone's first response when asked that questions would naturally be yes, but I would like to know how we measure up to other cities in Ventura County? What it sounded like to me is the Council arbitrarily set themselves a response time, saw that we didn't meet it, and then decided to stick the taxpayers for the bill.

The last time I got anywhere close to being involved in an issue like this was over the trash rate hike to pay for street sweeping. I contacted the Howard-Jarvis organization, and they told me to gather up the resolution or ordinance and a copy of the minutes plus some other items I can't remember right now, and send it to them for review. For a $2 increase in rates, it didn't seem worth it at the time. However, now it does given that this is the second time that I know of that the Council will be having us pay for services previously paid from the General Fund. Does anyone know if the Taxpayers Association or some other entity is pursuing anything with Howard-Jarvis or a lawsuit?

This is only the beginning if they get away with this again. Do they even need the money? You'd never want to ask a bureaucrat that question because you would already know the answer. City Manager Cole said he would be bringing the City Council a $95 million proposed budget. If they set priorities, they could find the money. They just don't want to make the hard decisions like closing parks, the swim facility, etc. We all know setting priorities is hard, but don't we do it everyday in our personal lives? I heard once that taxes and fees were a bureaucrat's cocaine. Once they start, they can't stop.

But, on the other hand, few people know about these shenanigans. There were very few people at last night's meeting. And, even when the tax is added to the phone bills, I bet few people will notice. I mean who could figure out their phone bill anyway, right?

Really good points, Jack. Your question about whether we really need additional police officers and firefighters in an excellent one. I know there was a study several years ago (The Belknap Study) that supposedly proved that the City was something like 25 police officers short of where it should be for a city of its size.

I know that we haven't added any police or fire staffing in many years even though the population and crime rate have both gone up. But, where is the break even point? If we added 10 cops instead of 25, wouldn't that be enough to make a significant dent in the problem. You'd have to think so. Like you said, it comes down to difficult decisions and tough choices. We can only do what we can do given the resources available. The budget needs greater scrutiny to see if there is money elsewhere that can be diverted to meet some of the higher priority needs.

Also, whatever happened to economic development? I know the economy has taken a downward turn, but I recall a couple of vocal candidates in the last election - Doug Halter was one, Mikey Gibson was another, that were talking about improving the City's economic vitality. This Council seems to have let that fall completely by the wayside in favor of imposing underhanded fees. Talk about taking the easy way out.

I had gotten a mobile broadband card from sprint-it is not a phone it is a card to use for Internet. When I got first monthly bill I disputed the city 911 taxes which was a total of $2.80 with sprint they said that the city was charging them and that I had to pay. I told them that the card could not make 911 calls. I call the city
and they told me that they do not regulate every 911 fee customer
pay to the companies they just collect certain percent of the revenue. and then they sent me this letter.
is a racket on the people
We should a Co.(private company elected by the community) manage the revenue-so we can know how the money is being use.
I further call the P.U.C and they do not deal with city taxes.
so no one knows who is in charge of the 911 tax here in sf?

Dear Customer,

Thank you for contacting the San Francisco 311 Customer Service Center.
Below is the information you requested.

As outlined in the Emergency Response Fee section of the Business & Tax Regulations Code,
the purpose of the ordinance is to require subscribers to telephone service in the City
and County to pay a fee which is directly related to the benefit subscribers derive from
the improvements to and operation of the 911 system. Furthermore, Section 750 of the
Business & Tax Regulations Code states that the fee is intended to recover all costs
related to the benefits the improved system will provide to nonexempt telephone
subscribers. Benefits provided to exempt telephone subscribers will be financed through
other revenue mechanisms. Because of these Code provisions, the costs associated with
exempt lines cannot be shifted or charged to nonexempt users, and must be removed before
calculating the per line fee for nonexempt subscribers.

California: Public Utilities Commission Contact:

If you have any additional requests or questions, you can call us 7 days a week, 24 hours
a day at 311/TTY: 415-701-2323. If calling outside of San Francisco, please dial
415-701-2311/TTY: 415-701-2323.

SBC California has filed a lawsuit to prevent the city of Stockton from collecting an emergency-911 fee.

The suit, joined by two residential customers of SBC, asks the San Joaquin Superior Court to invalidate the city ordinance, which imposes a charge on telephone customers to fund emergency services.

"The state already assesses a tax for E-911 services," Richard Parr, an attorney for SBC California, said in a release. "Local governments should not be instituting E-911 taxes to fund facilities, salaries or other general city purposes."

The Stockton ordinance is one of several being contemplated or enacted by cities around the state that are attempting to raise revenues through charges on telecommunications services.

Parr said that, if the suit succeeds, it should serve as a warning to municipalities that the charges could result in substantial liabilities for local government.

"Our customers should make decisions on what services to buy based on value and quality, not on how much the city will charge them in E-911 fees," Parr said. "We're filing this suit because SBC needs to protect the interests of its customers and its shareholders. This ordinance clearly violates both the letter and the spirit of law regarding voter approval of taxes, and how E-911 fees are supposed to be spent."