BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
Senator Isadore Hall, III
Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 18 Hearing Date: 6/29/2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Dodd |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |3/12/2015 Amended |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |Yes |Fiscal: |Yes |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Felipe Lopez |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Disaster relief: South Napa Earthquake
DIGEST: This bill adds the August 24, 2014, South Napa
Earthquake, to the list of events for which the state share of
state eligible cost is up to 100% under the California Disaster
Assistance Act (Act).
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Establishes the Act which generally provides that the state
must pay 75% of the non-federal share of eligible costs for
any state declared emergency.
2)Prohibits the state share for any eligible project from
exceeding 75% of total state eligible costs unless the local
agency is located within the city, county, or city and county
that has adopted a local hazard mitigation plan, in accordance
with the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, as part of
the safety element of its general plan, as specified.
3)Provides for certain disasters that allow the state to cover
up to 100% of the non-federal eligible costs.
This bill:
1)Adds the August 24, 2014, South Napa Earthquake, to the list
AB 18 (Dodd) Page 2 of ?
of events for which the state share of state eligible cost is
up to 100% under the Act.
2)Contains an urgency clause.
Background
Purpose of the bill. According to the author, "on August 24,
2014, a 6.0 magnitude earthquake hit South Napa and created
significant damages. The City of Napa estimates the earthquake
caused at least $300 million in damage to privately owned homes
and commercial properties, and $58 million in damage to public
infrastructure. Damage is expected to exceed $5 million in
Vallejo and $4.5 million in Sonoma County. That same day,
Governor Brown issued an emergency proclamation for the
continued aftershocks that have damaged critical infrastructure,
homes and other structures."
The author further states that, "on September 11, President
Obama declared an earthquake emergency that made federal dollars
available to public agencies for earthquake damage. The federal
government will pay 75% of eligible costs. Of the remaining
25%, the state is to pay 75% and local agencies 25%."
According to Napa County officials, the remaining 25 percent of
non-federally reimbursed costs to Napa and Solano Counties, as
well as the cities of Vallejo and Napa, could approach $5
million. The author argues that "without disaster relief
assistance it will be difficult for the impacted cities to pay
for damage repairs that was not covered by federal and state
disaster assistance."
The California Disaster Assistance Act. The Act is
California's state disaster assistance program. The Act
reimburses local governments for debris removal, emergency work,
and repair or replacement of public facilities damaged by a
disaster upon a Governor's proclamation. The state share of
eligible expenses is 75%, and local jurisdictions are
responsible for the remaining 25%. When there is a federal
declaration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) pays
75% and the state pays 75% of the remaining 25%. In recent
federally declared disasters, it has been the Legislature's
practice to increase the Act funding to 100% so that the state
would pay the entire remaining 25% nonfederal share of eligible
costs.
AB 18 (Dodd) Page 3 of ?
In 2006, the Legislature passed AB 2140 (Hancock, Chapter 739,
Statutes of 2006) which was designed to promote the adoption of
local hazard mitigation plans (LHMP) that meet specified federal
standards. Under this provision, a local jurisdiction is not
eligible for the 100% cost share under the Act unless it is
located within a city and/or county that has adopted a LHMP as
part of the safety element of its general plan.
According to the author's office, Napa and Sonoma County have
adopted an LHMP pursuant to existing law, and are eligible to
receive the full 100% share of costs.
Prior/Related Legislation
AB 1429 (Chesbro, 2011) Would have added the Tsunami that
affected Del Norte County in March 2011 to the list of disasters
eligible for full state reimbursement of the local agency costs
under the act. (Vetoed by Governor Brown)
SB 1537 (Kehoe, Chapter 355, Statutes of 2008) added the
wildfires that occurred in southern California, commencing on or
about October 20, 2007, to the list of disasters eligible for
full state reimbursement of local agency costs under the Act.
SB 1764 (Kehoe, 2008) would have required a local agency, on or
after January 1, 2010, to obtain an annual certification by the
State Fire Marshal (SFM) to be eligible to receive a percentage
for a state share in excess of 75%. (Vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger)
SB 1308 (Cox, Chapter 400, Statutes of 2008) added the Angora
Fire, which occurred in the Lake Tahoe Basin commencing June 24,
2007, to the list of disasters eligible for full state
reimbursement of local agency costs under the Act.
AB 49 (Arambula, 2007) would have added the extreme cold weather
that occurred throughout California during the month of January
2007 to the list of specific events eligible for full state
reimbursement of local agency costs under the Act. (Held in the
Assembly Appropriations Committee)
AB 18 (Dodd) Page 4 of ?
AB 1798 (Berg, Chapter 896, Statutes of 2006) added the severe
rainstorms that occurred in selected counties in Northern
California from December 17, 2005 to January 3, 2006, to the
list of disasters eligible for full state reimbursement of local
agency costs under the Act.
AB 2140 (Hancock, Chapter 739, Statutes of 2006) prohibited the
state share for any eligible project from exceeding 75 percent
of total state eligible costs unless the local agency is located
within a city, county, or city and county that has adopted a
local hazard mitigation plan as part of the safety element of
its general plan, as specified.
AB 2735 (Nava, Chapter 897, Statutes of 2006) added the severe
rainstorms that occurred in selected counties in Northern
California from December 17, 2005, to January 3, 2006, to the
list of disasters eligible for full state reimbursement of local
agency costs under the Act.
AB 164 (Nava and Bass, Chapter 623, Statutes of 2005) added the
severe storms, flooding, debris flows, and mudslides that
occurred in the Counties of Kern, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and
Ventura in December 2004, January 2005, February 2005, and March
2005, to the list of disasters eligible for full state
reimbursement of local agency costs under the Act.
SB 457 (Kehoe, Chapter 622, Statutes of 2005) added the severe
rainstorms, floods, mudslides, and other events that occurred in
the Counties of Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego
during December 2004, January 2005, February 2005, March 2005,
and June 2005 to the list of disasters eligible for full state
reimbursement of local agency costs under the Act.
AB 1510 (Kehoe, Chapter 772, Statutes of 2004) added the
Southern California wildfires that occurred during October and
November 2003 and the San Simeon earthquake that occurred during
December 2003 to the list of disasters eligible for full state
reimbursement of local agency costs under the Act.
SB 438 (Soto and Hollingsworth, 2004) would have added the
wildfires that occurred in Southern California beginning October
21, 2003, and the December 22, 2003, San Simeon earthquake to
the list of disasters eligible for full state reimbursement of
local agency costs. (Vetoed by the Governor Schwarzenegger)
AB 18 (Dodd) Page 5 of ?
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.: Yes Local: No
SUPPORT:
Napa County Board of Supervisors (Source)
Solano County Board of Supervisors (Source)
Association of Bay Area Governments
California Professional Firefighters
California State Association of Counties
City of Napa
Napa County Transportation Planning Agency
Napa Valley Vintners
OPPOSITION:
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the Napa County Board of
Supervisors, "this urgency statute will continue a
well-established practice of the state that has been in place
after previous major disasters, such as the Loma Prieta and
Northridge earthquakes, as well as the 1991 East Bay Fire.
Without disaster relief assistance it will be incredibly
difficult for Napa County to pay for damage repairs that are not
covered by federal and state disaster assistance."