BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �





           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |                                                                 |
          |         SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER         |
          |                   Senator Fran Pavley, Chair                    |
          |                    2013-2014 Regular Session                    |
          |                                                                 |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 

          BILL NO: SB 125                    HEARING DATE: April 23, 2013   

          AUTHOR: Gaines                     URGENCY: No  
          VERSION: As Introduced             CONSULTANT: Bill Craven  
          DUAL REFERRAL: Rules               FISCAL: Yes  
          SUBJECT: State responsibility areas: fire prevention fees. 
          
          BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
          1. In 2011, AB X1 29 directed the California Board of Forestry  
          and Fire Protection (Board) to assess a fee on structures in  
          state responsibility areas (SRAs) for the purpose of helping  
          defray the enhanced costs of fire suppression in wildland and  
          watershed areas that, over the years, became increasingly  
          populated and developed. From 2000-2010, for example, the number  
          of houses in SRAs grew by 16% according to census numbers. 

          AB X1 29 directs that the fire prevention fees must be deposited  
          in the SRA Fire Prevention Fund (Fund), which is available to  
          the Board and the California Department of Forestry (CDF) to  
          expend for fire prevention activities that benefit the owners of  
          structures within the SRAs who are required to pay the fire  
          prevention fee. These fire prevention activities are limited to  
          the following: (a) local assistance grants established by the  
          Board; (b) grants to Fire Safe Councils, the California  
          Conservation Corps, or certified local conservation corps for  
          fire prevention projects and activities in the SRAs; (c) grants  
          to a qualified nonprofit organization with a demonstrated  
          ability to satisfactorily plan, implement, and complete a fire  
          prevention project applicable to the SRAs; (d) inspections by  
          the department for compliance with defensible space requirements  
          around structures in the SRAs; (e) public education to reduce  
          fire risk in the SRAs; (f) fire severity and fire hazard mapping  
          by the Department in the SRAs; and (g) other fire prevention  
          projects in the SRAs that are authorized by the Board. The  
          amount expended to benefit the owners of structures within an  
          SRA shall be commensurate with the amount collected from the  
          owners within that SRA.
                                                                      1








          2. State responsibility areas are those areas of the state  
          designated by the Board of Forestry where the State of  
          California is financially responsible for the prevention and  
          suppression of wildfires. SRAs do not include lands within city  
          boundaries or in federal ownership. The Board has on its website  
          a "viewer" that can identify whether a parcel is or is not  
          within a state responsibility area. SRA lands have important  
          watershed values for the entire state. On the other hand,  
          structural fire suppression is supposedly handled by local  
          agencies or by reimbursing CDF for its costs associated with  
          structural fire suppression. There are numerous agreements and  
          contractual arrangements that exist among fire agencies across  
          the state. 

          3. In a rulemaking procedure, the Board established an annual  
          rate of $150 per habitable structure, which is defined as a  
          building that can be occupied for residential use. Owners of  
          habitable structures who are also within the boundaries of a  
          local fire protection agency will receive a reduction of $35 per  
          habitable structure. The fee will be paid by approximately  
          800,000 landowners who own structures in state responsibility  
          areas. 

          4. According to the findings and declarations in AB X1 29 as  
          well as the regulations adopted by the Board, this fee will fund  
          a variety of important fire prevention services within the SRAs  
          including defensible space inspections around structures,  
          fuelbreaks for staging firefighting equipment, brush clearance  
          around communities, along roadways and evacuation routes; and  
          activities to improve forest health to improve resiliency to  
          wildfires. 

          5. An appeals process has been established for landowners who  
          wish to contest the fee. About 87,000 appeals have been filed. 

          6. CDF has asked the Board of Equalization for a delay in  
          sending out additional fire fee billing statements while some of  
          the appeals are resolved. The department has raised $73 million  
          from the fee and hopes to raise $89 million. 

          7. Some opponents of the fee contend that the delay was actually  
          caused by erroneous billings to owners of structures not in  
          SRAs, a claim disputed by the department. 

          8. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Organization has filed suit  
          against the state alleging that the fire prevention fee is a  
                                                                      2







          tax, not a fee. 

          9. CDF has stated that more than 95% of parcels in SRAs are also  
          in a local fire district. 

          PROPOSED LAW
          This bill would exempt from the SRA fire fee established in AB  
          X1 29 owners of those habitable structures that are also within  
          the boundaries of a local fire district that provides fire  
          protection service in such district. 

          ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
          According to the author, the fee is a tax and should have been  
          passed by a 2/3 vote. 

          El Dorado County states that this bill would benefit  
          approximately 66,000 parcels that are in both an SRA and a local  
          fire district. Sacramento County considers the bill an unfair  
          burden on local property owners. Nevada County believes it is a  
          tax and that it hinders the ability of local fire districts to  
          pass special tax increases. 

          California Professional Firefighters is concerned that there is  
          inadequate documentation of the services provided by the fee and  
          that it may impair the ability of local districts to initiate  
          assessments for those districts. 

          ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
          None received. 

          COMMENTS 
          1. This bill is practically identical to SB 17 which the  
          Committee did not approve and for which reconsideration was  
          granted at the April 9, 2013, hearing. While SB 17 would have  
          repealed the SRA fee entirely, this bill would repeal the fee on  
          more than 95% of the structures in SRAs, according to numbers  
          provided by CDF.  SB 17 has been amended into an intent bill  
          that would declare the intent of the Legislature to repeal the  
          SRA fire fee and to add co-authors. 

          2. The comments on SB 17 are equally applicable here. The  
          committee may choose to consider this bill premature until the  
          lawsuit brought by Howard Jarvis Association is determined. The  
          committee may also wonder whether as a fiscal matter the loss of  
          these fee revenues, estimated at $80 million, is a reasonable  
          loss to CDF since it is not likely that these revenues could be  
          backfilled by restoring revenues from the state general fund. 
                                                                      3








          3. The chair communicated to the author that the bill could be  
          presented in committee as a courtesy to the author who is deeply  
          committed to this issue, but that no vote would be taken and the  
          bill would be held here. 

          4. Two bills that would repeal the SRA fee were approved in the  
          Assembly Natural Resources Committee on April 15, 2013. They are  
          AB 124 (Morrell) and AB 23 (Donnelly). Also, Assemblymember  
          Wesley Chesbro, who chairs that committee, has introduced AB 468  
          which would repeal the SRA fee and create a statewide emergency  
          response fund for fire, flood, earthquake, and other events  
          funded by a surcharge on all home insurance policies. 

          SUPPORT
          County of El Dorado
          County of Nevada
          County of Sacramento
          Central Coast Forestry Association
          California Professional Firefighters

          OPPOSITION
          None Received
























                                                                      4