BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 429
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
429 (Dahle) - As Amended April 8, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Accountability and |Vote:|9 - 0 |
|Committee: |Administrative Review | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill requires state agencies, when purchasing lumber or
other solid wood products, to give a preference, and price and
quality are equal, to products harvested pursuant to California
statutes and regulations governing this activity-specifically
AB 429
Page 2
the Z'berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973.
FISCAL EFFECT:
The Department of General Services (DGS) indicates it would need
to conduct a rulemaking to modify existing preference program
regulations to reflect that other preferences do not operate
when they would result in Forest Practice Act-grown timber over
non-Forest Practice Act-grown timber. In addition, DGS would
need to update the State Contracting Manual and training
materials for the California Procurement and Contracting Academy
basic course to reflect the new requirement. These one-time
costs should be absorbable.
In individual cases where the harvesting practice for the timber
became a deciding factor in a contract award, a state agency
would need to be able to verify whether the wood products being
purchased were made from timber using harvesting practices in
compliance with the Forest Practice Act. The bill's provisions
would apply to only a very narrow range of state purchase
contracts, however. DGS indicates that annual direct spending on
lumber and wood products by the state is around $1.4 million, so
the cost impact of this bill should not be significant.
The requirement that the wood products be harvested consistent
with California law, assuming price is equal, could discourage
out-of-state suppliers from bidding, thus reducing competition
and increasing contracting costs for wood products.
COMMENTS:
1)Purchase. The author states this bill would simply encourage
state agencies to give preference to California lumber
products as long as the price, quality and fitness of products
are equal. The problem with existing law, the author
AB 429
Page 3
contends, is that there is no recognition of the higher
California standards of environmental compliance for
California timber companies. Production has fallen due to
timberland removals from production for environmental and
social benefit; high costs of compliance with regulations;
and, competition from out-of-state producers.
2)Prior Legislation. AB 994 (Parra) of 2007, a similar bill,
passed the Assembly, but was amended in the Senate to address
a different topic.
AB 2994 (Frommer) of 2004, another similar bill, was vetoed by
Governor Schwarzenegger, who was opposed another preference in
state contracts.
Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)
319-2081