Ambulance parcel tax

inyosups4_15For the small areas of the Eastern Sierra, it’s sometimes tough providing ambulance service. At today’s Board meeting, Supervisor Matt Kingsley planned to bring up a resolution supporting Measure D on the November 4th ballot to provide funding for a parcel tax for Local Ambulance Service in Area 4 in the vicinity of Lone Pine. That area is the southern and southeastern part of Inyo.

Kingsley says that the Lone Pine Fire Department has struggled for many years to maintain local ambulance services for Area 4, which goes from Ash Creek on the south to George’s Creek on the north and Death Valley National Park on the east to the trailheads on the west. Kingsley says to continue to provide ambulance service, the Fire District has submitted a parcel tax to the voters. Measure D is this parcel tax. It is a special tax and requires 2/3s of the voters’ approval.

Kingsley says that without the parcel tax the Fire District has said thatlocal ambulance service in Area 4 will cease January 1, 2015. Kingsley asks that fellow-board members support the resolution for Measure D to give voters momentum to support it.

The tax rate would be $100 per year. The measure would sunset after 10 years. The measure would provide around $80,000 per year to the Fire Department.

In other Board matters, Supervisors will seek direction on Inyo-Los Angeles Standing Committee meeting agenda items. A meeting is scheduled for Wednesday at 1pm at DWP headquarters in LA.

The agenda includes a report on the dispute settlement of Blackrock 94, a report on operations and runoff, and discussion of the Owens Lake Master Project.

 

, , ,

20 Responses to Ambulance parcel tax

  1. Question October 14, 2014 at 9:06 am #

    $80,000 in ten years or per year?

     
  2. Bone October 14, 2014 at 10:57 am #

    What areas would the tax be paid by? The whole county? I dont think so. Only the area of service should pay this fee.

     
    • Mark October 15, 2014 at 8:32 am #

      Good luck with that. I think fire fees should be assessed on fire danger and defensible space. That doesn’t go over to well either with residence that seem to like to live in a tinderbox.

       
  3. Steve October 14, 2014 at 2:29 pm #

    Hold on a minute, we already place a burden on property owners. With Southern Inyo Hospital, Mosquito abatement and Cal Fire.

    These services are used by all, renters, tourist and property owners.

    We need the services but they should be funded by all.

    Just my 2 cents, before I have to pony up 1000 dollars in the next 10 years.

     
    • Rage October 14, 2014 at 4:37 pm #

      I think I read an article ( I don’t remember where or when now) that the LP fire commissioners(?) were considering some type of Transient Occupancy Tax as well.

       
      • sierraslugger October 15, 2014 at 7:39 am #

        Rage, You did read an article. It might be this one–

        http://www.inyoregister.com/node/5555

         
        • Rage October 16, 2014 at 10:12 am #

          Thanks. Brings a little more information to the article, I think.

           
  4. Wayne Deja October 14, 2014 at 7:01 pm #

    Haven’t looked this one over much,but it usually seems whenever a measure or a prop are put to a public vote,if it gets a “yes” vote,it’ll mean more money out of your pocket….

     
  5. Philip Anaya October 14, 2014 at 7:25 pm #

    While I share with many others an opinion about taxes in the USA, that being it is a gift of fate to live, work and pay taxes in the USA , I do not live in LP and will no doubt not be assessed if this measure passes. I know that every increase in property expenses effects each of us differently , for some another hardship for others another expense , but we all value the lives of folks and neighbors and I do value the LP Fire Services for all the good that they do. So to share the expense , I pledge to pay $50.00 annually for ten years to the LP Ambulance Parcel Tax if you folks in LP approve the measure .
    That being said sure would love to see some funds from the Feds , the State , any Agency or Entity that might benefit or need to utilizes these vital services.

     
  6. Trouble October 14, 2014 at 7:59 pm #

    I’m confused. What is 911 going to do if this gets shot down on Nov 4th?

     
  7. upthecreek October 14, 2014 at 8:31 pm #

    Call it what it is..

    “Public Pension parcel TAX”.

    Govt gone WILD….

     
    • Desert Tortoise October 15, 2014 at 3:28 pm #

      No public pensions to volunteer fire departments or the private amublance services funded by your taxes. The only paid professional fire fighters are paid for by the state and Federal governments. The rest are volunteers, but you begrudge them every cent they receive. I cannot for the life of me understand people like you.

       
  8. Mongo the Idiot October 14, 2014 at 8:57 pm #

    When I’m in Inyo county I don’t expect ambulance service. When I’m in LA and I call for ambulance service I get a bill for it. When I pay a tax I have no idea where the money goes, except out. besides, where did the funds go that got us ambulance service to begin with? Did we vote on reallocating those funds to some other gub-mint slushie? How about a lazy bum tax, or a smack talker tax, I’ll be your biggest customer. Or how about a takin’ water out of the county tax?
    I’d vote for that…

     
    • Philip Anaya October 15, 2014 at 7:04 pm #

      All those images, all those survivors that we hope for, including ourselves, getting good ,kind ,reliant rescue from neighbors ,volunteers, for you and me Mongo, maybe that’s wildlife rescue, oh yeah send a bill to who? , invest in a the future of a LP neighbor, resident ,guest ,visitor, passerby ,commuter, whoever, what image is worth our while , What contribution to this is not worthy? EMT’s and EMT services are worthy of all our support .
      No Ignacio is necessary. Vital Services need a vital resource.

       
  9. earl duran October 15, 2014 at 7:27 am #

    I agree with Steve 100% Lower Inyo is getting taxed to death.

     
  10. 911 October 15, 2014 at 12:38 pm #

    I hope you know in inyo county that ambulance service is provided by volunteer fire deptaements except in Bishop. You try to have two budgets to support each side. The ambulance side never makes enough money to support just basic budget items. They have to borrow money out of the fire budget. The depts. are not trying to make a profit, just trying to cover expenses. Property tax goes towards fire service not ambulance.
    I’m proud to say that each fire dept. That provides this service does it with pride and integrity. It’s a great feeling to help people. None do it for the money, because it’s not much for how much each one of these volunteers give.
    I’m in favor of this ambulance parcel tax and I hope it passes or the members of the Lone Pine community will lose a great service.

     
  11. Propery owner October 15, 2014 at 1:49 pm #

    Is it not to help pay salaries and benefits ? Southern Inyo Hospital, Cal Fire, Mosquito Abatement and now Ambulance. Why do we buy Insurance policies?

     
  12. Bone October 15, 2014 at 3:51 pm #

    So is it ok for the area with the most of the areas population to have to pay for ambulance service and a $100.00 per year tax per parcel to give free ambulance service the rest of one of the largest counties in the country? These areas also do not have a large chain grocery store, should we pass a tax so they can have free food also?

     
  13. Mongo The Idiot October 16, 2014 at 8:27 am #

    Ok so it’s a parcel tax. Does that mean a 100,000 acre DWP parcel pays $100? What about those useless parcels in south county that people paid $500 for? I say the biggest tax Inyo pays is that of largely uncompensated water extraction. The residents of Inyo pay taxes that provide government and services that DWP, Inyos biggest land owner, business and county services user benefits from. The liquid solution to this problem is a water removal tax that benefits all county and volunteer services and salaries. Or at least a tax that takes into consideration the size of a parcel and its use (watershed vs. AG exempt or residential.) This measure benefits the county with adequate and fair compensation while also providing incentive for conservation. At the same time actual residents, ranchers, and volunteers are treated fairly and compensated for their loss instead of being billed for it.

     

Leave a Reply



KSRW · 1280 N. Main St. Suite J · Bishop, CA 93514 · 760-873-5329
Positive Projections Web Design