BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2013-2014 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SB 147 HEARING DATE: April 23, 2013
AUTHOR: Gaines URGENCY: Yes
VERSION: January 31, 2013 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 (SRA) 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 SRA 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 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. SRA does 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 SRA
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 SRA,
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.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would exempt from the SRA fee those structures on
parcels owned by property owners who have an income of less than
200 percent of the federal poverty level as determined by the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Poverty Guidelines.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
El Dorado County supports the bill noting that there are 12,000
families earning less than 200% of the federal poverty level and
that a financial burden would be removed from whatever portion
of these families own structures in SRA.
Former Senator George Runner, now an elected member of the Board
of Equalization, supports the bill as a way to ensure that
low-income Californians are not forced to pay a tax, as he
frames it, that they cannot afford.
The County of Nevada considers the fee a tax that, regardless of
who wins the lawsuit about whether the fee is a tax or a fee,
should be reduced on the poor. Sacramento County supports the
bill but does raise the issue of whether the fee is a tax or a
fee.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
None received
COMMENTS
1. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services poverty
guideline figures for 2012 determine that for one individual in
the lower 48 states, the poverty level is $11,170. Doubling that
figure would result in an income level for the purposes of this
bill of $22,340.
These minimum incomes increase based on family size. For
example, corresponding numbers for a family of four are $23,050
and $46,100 if doubled.
2. El Dorado County acknowledges that the 12,000 families at or
below 200% of the federal poverty level may not own parcels that
are subject to the fee or may not live in SRA at all. The county
also does indicate the family size of these 12,000 families.
3. A significant lack of information is the major problem with
3
this bill-the author and supporters have not provided adequate
data to assess its impact, to quantify the recipients, to
determine the fiscal impact to the general fund, to determine
the cost of administering the bill, or even the most basic
question of how to direct the Board of Forestry to determine on
an annual basis which structures in SRA house families whose
income meets the 200% of federal poverty level income
guidelines.
4. 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, although not precisely
quantified, 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.
5. 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.
6. 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 Sacramento
County of El Dorado
County of Nevada
George Runner
Central Coast Forest Association
OPPOSITION
None Received
4