BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de León, Chair
SB 1405 (DeSaulnier) - Pesticides: school facilities.
Amended: April 21, 2014 Policy Vote: Ed 8-0, EQ 7-0
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: May 12, 2014 Consultant: Marie Liu
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: SB 1405 would require any person who applies
pesticides at a schoolsite to annually complete a training
course to be created and provided by the Department of Pesticide
Regulation (DPR). This bill would also require a schoolsite to
have an integrated pest management (IPM) plan and to disclose
pesticides used should that school decide to use certain
pesticides.
Fiscal Impact:
Ongoing annual costs of up to $290,000 from the Department
of Pesticide Regulation Fund (special) to DPR for the
increased database, IPM plan development support, outreach
workload, and development of a training course.
Ongoing contract costs of $125,000 from the Department of
Pesticide Regulation Fund (special) to administer an online
training course.
Background: The Healthy Schools Act (HSA) of 2000 (Education
Code §17608 et seq. and Food and Agriculture Code §13180 et
seq.) requires schools to annually provide a written notice to
staff and parents with the name of all pesticide products
expected to be applied during the upcoming year. When the
pesticides are applied, schools must post a warning sign at each
area. Schools must keep a record of all pesticides used at the
schoolsite for four years. Section 17610.5 of the Education Code
specifies that these requirements to not apply to a pesticide
product deployed in the form of a self-contained bait or trap,
to gel or paste deployed as a crack and crevice treatment, to
any pesticide exempted from regulation under federal law, or to
antimicrobial pesticides, including sanitizers and disinfectants
(the §17610.5 list). Section 13186 of the Food and Agricultural
Code requires licensed certified pest control operators to
report to DPR when they apply any pesticide at a schoolsite.
SB 1405 (DeSaulnier)
Page 1
DPR is required to promote and facilitate the voluntary adoption
of integrated pest management programs for schools and child
daycare facilities. As required by law, DPR currently offers an
IPM training program to school officials on the adoption of a
model integrated pest management program and least-hazardous
pest control practices by schools.
Proposed Law: This bill would require a schoolsite to annually
report to DPR all the pesticides used at the schoolsite if it
uses any pesticides not within the §17610.5 list, using a form
prepared by DPR.
This bill would allow a school designee to develop and post on
the school's website an integrated pest management (IPM) plan
for the schoolsite or district. The school designee would be
required to develop, and post on its website, an IPM plan if the
schoolsite chooses to use a pesticide other than those included
within the §17610.5 list. This bill provides for alternative
notification if the schoolsite does not have a website.
This bill would require a person, including a hired pest control
applicator or a schoolsite employee, to annually complete a
training course provided by DPR, or an agent authorized by DPR,
if he or she intends on applying a pesticide at a school site
that is not on the §17610.5 list. The training course would be
developed by DPR, or an agent of DPR, and must include IPM and
the safe use of pesticides in relation to the unique nature of
schoolsites and children's health. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in a civil penalty levied by DPR of no
more than $5,000 for each violation.
This bill would require DPR to develop a template for an IPM
plan to be used by schoolsites.
Related Legislation: SB 394 (DeSaulnier, 2011) would have
prohibited the use of any pesticide, except those on the
§17610.5 list, and required all schools to send at least one
person to one DPR training on IPM at least once every three
years. (Held on the Senate Appropriations Suspense File)
SB 1157 (DeSaulnier, 2010) would have required the adoption of
an IPM program by all schools and would have required DPR to
reimburse school districts for the costs of IPM training.
SB 1405 (DeSaulnier)
Page 2
(Vetoed)
Staff Comments: This bill would substantially increase the
pesticide application information being sent to DPR. Currently,
DPR is only receiving information on pesticides applied by a
licensed certified pest control operator. This bill would
require reporting of all pesticide usage at schoolsites, except
those on the §17610.5 list, regardless of who applies the
pesticide (though pesticide applications by a licensed operator
would continue to be reported separately). DPR would incur costs
to manage the significantly enlarged database. Staff notes that
the bill does not require DPR to take any specific actions with
this data.
This bill would likely substantially increase the number of IPM
plans developed by schoolsites because such a plan would be
required if the school site chooses to use a pesticide not on
the §17610.5 list. DPR would be required by this bill to develop
a template for an IPM plan for schoolsites to aid this effort.
While the development of the template itself is anticipated by
DPR to be minor and absorbable, an increase in the number of IPM
plans being developed may increase the demand for DPR support in
plan development and potentially participation in its existing
IPM plan training course.
Both the reporting and the IPM plan development requirements in
the bill will likely lead to DPR activities that are not
explicitly required in the bill. For example, gaining a better
understanding of pesticide usage at schools will likely compel
DPR to update the pesticide hazard information provided to
school sites and to update pesticide information in the school
IPM guidebook. Staff notes that while these activities are not
mandated by the bill, they will enhance DPR's IPM program in
manner that furthers the intent of the bill.
DPR anticipates needing three positions at an annual cost of
approximately $290,000 annually for increased workload related
to the reporting and IPM plan development requirements in the
bill. Because these costs include some activities that will
enhance the bill's implementation but are not explicitly
required by the bill, staff characterizes these costs as a
maximum.
This bill would require DPR to develop a new training course
SB 1405 (DeSaulnier)
Page 3
specific to the safe use of pesticides in relation to the unique
nature of schoolsites and children's health. This training would
be less extensive than the training course that DPR offers
geared to assist in the development of IPM plans. Because of the
vast number of people who would be required to annually take
this course throughout the state, DPR anticipates needing to
offer this training online. While DPR will incur costs to
develop the material for this training course (included in the
ongoing costs discussed previously), putting the course online
and administrating the course will likely be handled by a
third-party through an IT contract. DPR anticipates incurring
contract costs of $125,000 ongoing.
Staff notes that this bill is not a mandate because if a
schoolsite does not apply any pesticides on the grounds, then
there is no requirement for staff training, reporting, or IPM
plan development. If a schoolsite only apply pesticides within
the §17610.5 list, then the schoolsite would incur costs for
staff training, but not for reporting or IPM plan development.
However, if a schoolsite decides to use pesticides beyond those
within the §17610.5 list, then the schoolsite is likely to incur
measurable, and perhaps significant local costs, for staff time
to attend training, comply with reporting requirements, and
develop a IPM plan.