Welcome!


Taxpayer Alert Recent Shows

Below is the latest two episodes of the CCTA  PATV 30 minute program.

Featured  in the first show is Tim Lutz, County CAO

Tim discusses the complex challenges facing our local government and some of the unique approaches to improve communication and accountability. Time did not permit exploring the budget consequences of a possible cannabis ban or what would happen if FEMA does not fund as agreed due to the hurricane disasters.


Featured in the second show is Rebecca Callen, County Auditor/Controller

Rebecca discusses payroll issues in her department and the major problems facing the county due to unfunded liabilities, issues with cannabis, capital improvements and FEMA issues. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taxpayers Host Annual BBQ

 

The event was held on Thursday, August 10, 2017, 5 to 8:00 PM. 

The location was at The Pickle Patch, 577 W St Charles St, San Andreas, CA 95249. The restaurant is located near the intersection of HWY 49 and Poole Station Road.

Keynote Speaker was Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association who discussed the constant efforts to overturn Prop 13.

Also, Supervisor  Michael Oliveira shared his thoughts on county government and e presented the CCTA Award for Excellence in Public Service to Ed Lark, Manager of Calaveras Public Access TV.

There wase a moderated panel discussion with elected and appointed county officials. Vicky Reinke was the moderator.

There will be an exciting fund raising raffle. 

Jay Grimstead l played Reveille on his bugle, making the Vets feel right at home. 

There were about 50 people in attendance.

 



Questions for Supervisor Candidates

The Calaveras County Taxpayers Association invited 7 candidates to answer 7 questions of issues of concern which were not addressed in other forums.  All responded and 5 agreed to participate. The candidates provided Yes, No and Maybe answers and had the opportunity for short comments. The questions with background reasons for posting the question are below, followed by answers and brief comments from candidates.   

We also are conducting an online poll asking for public response to the questions as well.  The link is at the end below. 

1. Do you favor protecting Prop 13 in its present form?                                                                      

(This law protects all property owners from large tax increases, allowing for readjustments at time of sale. There is a constant effort in the legislature to increase taxes on commercial property.)

Edson: Absolutely.

Mills: Yes, but at some point we need to get another referendum on the ballot for further protections as Prop 218 and the fire tax have proven the state still is finding ways to circumvent the intent of Prop 13.

Radford: Yes.

Smith: Yes. I don't support an annual assessment of commercial properties.

Tofanelli: Yes.

2. Should property rights be a high consideration in the General Plan Update Process?     

(It is alleged that there is a successful movement to increase public control of private property using the land use planning process in California. In our county, almost all development has been denied, resulting in substantial negative economic consequences.)

Edson: Yes, property rights are my highest concern in the general plan.

Mills: Yes, to the extent all property owners can use their property as they see fit without government interference and as long as the use does not limit the neighboring properties from their full use as well.

Radford: Yes

Smith: Absolutely.  Property rights are guaranteed in the Constitution and are a distinctive feature of the American experience.

Tofanelli:  Yes.

3. Should all oath taking public officials take a course on the US Constitution?                                   

(It is alleged, that due to wide spread ignorance of the Constitution, the Federal Government has substantially extended its powers into local government creating dependency and loss of local control.   The Sheriff Richard Mack case is an example, whereby the court found that the Federal Government was not in control of local law enforcement, but subject to it. )

Edson: Yes, I read our Constitution before I took my oath of office as I promised to protect and defend our Constitution.

Mills: Yes, not only oath taking but having to pass a test as in the case of drivers licenses to prove a working knowledge of the rights of people.

Radford: Maybe a refresher Course.

Smith: Yes.

Tofanelli: Maybe.        

4. Do you support local implementation of UN Agenda 2030 (Formerly UN Agenda 21)?           

(This item is generally not known, however it is alleged to have a substantial influence in national, state and local public policies. Here is more information.)

Edson: No, I do not support UN Agenda 2030.

Mills: No, I do not support 2030 or any iteration of it as it is a forcing of people to live as the supreme government chooses, not as they desire. Elected people need to be vigilant as these controls arrive in many forms.

Radford: No.

Smith: No.  I do not support trying to implement state control over private property.  Who would be?

Tofanelli: No.

5. Do you support allowing return of the timber Industry?                                                                  

(It is alleged that the industry has been unfairly attacked by state and federal regulators resulting in massive reduction of timber harvesting and planting in the forests.   One unintended consequence is mismanagement of the lands resulting in increased loss due to fire.)

Edson: Yes I support the return of the timber industry. I agree strongly the forest and the watershed in general has been mismanaged.

Mills: Yes, our timber industry could easily become one of our greatest job resources…...Whether the carbon footprint is created by the burning of bio-mass or the burning of our forests, it still happens.

Radford: Yes.

Smith: Yes.

Tofanelli: Maybe.

6. Do you support a local public referendum on the question of our county joining 22 other rural counties forming a 51st state?                                                                                                                              

(It is alleged that rural counties are not properly represented in the State Senate resulting in control of our rural county by high population counties. The controversial Fire Fee" is an example of this problem.

Edson:  I support taking a look at a referendum. We are under-represented in the rural counties. I would have to dig into the specifics before making a choice.

Mills:  Yes.  I am concerned others do not understand the lack of representation and the resulting taking of our tax dollars, our resources, and our way of life by those that can out-vote us.

Radford: No.

Smith: Maybe

Tofanelli: Maybe.

7. Shall HUD money be rejected unless our county is made exempt from the Affirmative Fair Furthering Housing Act?                                                                                                                                         

(Recently, the Federal Government is extending its control into the local land use planning process by the Affirmative  Furthering Fair Housing Rule. Colorado has rejected the HUD money.  Here is more information.)

Edson: Yes, as I have read more on HUD I have found the rules and requirements have changed. HUD should be rejected.

Mills: Yes, Not just HUD but Community Development Block Grants, FEMA, and others that seem to have strings attached to the cash….

Radford: Yes, as the act stands now.  It would cost too much money to implement. 

Smith: Maybe.  The true solution requires more investigation.

Tofanelli: No.


----------------------------------------------


Taxpayers Urge Fire Fee Protest
The Calaveras County Taxpayers Association is urging those being billed the questionable fire fee to appeal within 30 days from mailing of the bill. This information was provided by George Runner, Board of Equalization Member.
The law that created the Fire Fee also established the appeals process;
Time is Critical!
§ The Fire Fee bill must be paid and/or appealed within thirty days of the billing date (which is when the bill was sent, not when you received it). Late petitions are generally not accepted. This means that if a petition is not filed within the thirty days, the bill becomes due at the end of the period. (14 CCR Chapter 13, Section 1665.5(a)(4))
The Petition
§ The petition must be in writing. CALFIRE has provided a form that can be used to appeal. It can be downloaded at: http://firepreventionfee.org/PetitionForm.pdf
The Process
§ The law requires that the petition be mailed to the California Department of Forestry’s Fire Prevention Fee Service Center;
P.O. Box 2254, Suisun City, CA 94585
§ Each petition is required to include:
1) The specific grounds upon which the appeal is being contested (see next bullet point);
2) Evidence supporting the claims made in the appeal.
Grounds for Appeal
Grounds for appeal can include (but are not limited to) any of the following:
§ The structure is commercial (not residential). The regulation developed by the Forestry Board defines “dwelling unit” as including “provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation.” (14 CCR Chapter 13, Section 1665.2)
§ I was not the owner in July 2013. The property owner is defined as the individual, company, corporation, or other entity that was the owner of record of the property on July 1. (14 CCR Chapter 13, Section 1665.2)
§ The structure is not within the SRA. Be sure to go to: http://www.calfirefee.com/where-are-the-sras/ to make sure that your home is within the SRA. If it’s not, the fee doesn’t apply to you. (14 CCR Chapter 13, Section 1665.5 (a)(3))
§ This bill is an unconstitutional tax. The California Constitution requires that new taxes be approved by 2/3rds of the membership of both houses of the Legislature. Because many homeowners will not see a direct benefit from their payment of the bill, this charge is a tax (and not having been properly approved by the Legislature) is illegal. Note: Cal-Fire will reject appeals filed on these grounds, but the appeal is vital to ensuring you remain eligible for a refund should the lawsuit prevail.

Once You File
Once CALFIRE has received your petition, they will have sixty days to review the petition and issue a decision in your case.

For more information go to http://www.calfirefee.com/

==========================






Quick Links:
--------------

-------------------------------------

----------------------------
----------------------------
-----------------
Our local booklet

15 Minute 


-----------------
-----------------
--------------
California Common 
Sense  
-----------------
----------------------
by Frederick Bastiat
The definitive classic
on the proper purpose
 and role of government
-----------------

-------------
----------------  
-----------------
----------------

-----------------------
-----------------
-----------------
Michael Shaw
of
Freedom Advocates
on
Globalism vs. America:

Video Here

© Calaveras County Taxpayers Association
Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software