By HOYT ELKINS

The Union Democrat

The fate of a West Point Fire District tax measure was taken under advisement Friday by assigned Calaveras County Superior Court Judge John Griffin Jr.

A decision on whether the district will be able to spend $137,000 in taxes collected after a successful benefit-assessment election in April 2007, is to be issued within 90 days.

Testimony during a two-day trial on the matter indicated the district may be broke by November because of a lawsuit against the tax measure filed by a group calling itself Concerned Citizens for Responsible Government. It has never been clear whether membership in the group extends beyond its founder, Bill Doherty.

The tax levy was approved by more than 60 percent of the property owners in the assessment district.

Concerned Citizens attorney Robert Reeve argued that the fire district did not properly follow up on the election by adopting a resolution to create an assessment district. He also claims that the district did not follow the law when it decided how much to assess each parcel, and violated the law when it gave Calaveras County 1 percent of the proceeds to pay for collecting the levy on county property tax bills.

West Point Fire attorneys argued that a formal resolution is not required to make the assessments valid. They also told the judge that Reeve was looking at the wrong sections of the government code when he said the county couldn't get more than a quarter of a percent payment for its services.

Reeve claimed in his argument that annual taxes of $87.58 for improved parcels and $45 for unimproved parcels were being imposed on some lands that are actually serviced by Cal Fire because they are in State Response Areas. Since Cal Fire is responsible for them, he claimed, they don't receive a benefit for paying West Point Fire to respond to their calls.

West Point Fire Chief Jim Carroll, a former battalion commander with Cal Fire, testified, however, that when Cal Fire is occupied elsewhere fighting wildfires, West Point is the first, and sometimes only, responder to fires in the State Response Area. The district, he noted, is not reimbursed by Cal Fire for fire suppression activities which last less than two hours.

Reeve also claimed that the assessments were unfair because all of the developed parcels were billed the same whether they contained a million-dollar mansion or a log cabin.

Carroll testified that the effort involved in fighting a structure fire was about the same no matter what size the structure might be or what use it might be dedicated.

Even a gas station fire has about the same level of risk, he said, because the gas tanks are underground and not likely to burn. Homes or structures adjacent to tinder-dry brush and trees can be just as explosive, he said.

Reeve's courtroom style led to an open court disclosure from Judge Griffin Friday afternoon. He told the attorneys that he had been approached by a courtroom observer while he was having lunch in a San Andreas restaurant.

The observer, Judge Griffin explained, had made a comment to him which included the words "patience of Job." Griffin offered attorneys on both sides an opportunity to question him about the encounter, but they both declined.

When Judge Griffin reported the incident, many in the audience chuckled. Outside the courtroom, observers had openly discussed Reeve's habit of slowly and silently shuffling through volumes of documents trying to find the appropriate one to call to the judge's attention.

"He spends more time trying to find his place than he does making his argument," one of the observers quipped.

Judge Griffin never cautioned Reeve about wasting court time, but did admonish him at one point during a lengthy and tedious cross examination that he was cutting into defense time. The judge had secured promises from both sides that they would complete their cases and finish oral arguments by 4 p.m. Friday. They closed out their cases just after 4 p.m. and the judge took the case under submission.

Defense Attorney Sophie-Nicole Froelich, of San Francisco, said the judge has 90 days to announce his decision.