BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 429
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
429 (Dahle)
As Amended April 8, 2015
Majority vote
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+---------------------+---------------------|
|Accountability |9-0 |Salas, Lackey, | |
| | |Brough, Burke, | |
| | |Frazier, Beth | |
| | |Gaines, Irwin, | |
| | |Medina, Rodriguez | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+---------------------+---------------------|
|Appropriations |17-0 |Gomez, Bigelow, | |
| | |Bloom, Bonta, | |
| | |Calderon, Chang, | |
| | |Daly, Eggman, | |
| | |Gallagher, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, Holden, | |
| | |Jones, Quirk, | |
| | |Rendon, Wagner, | |
| | |Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AB 429
Page 2
SUMMARY: Directs state agencies to provide a preference when
acquiring or contracting for lumber or other solid wood products.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires price, fitness and quality to be equal among bidders
for the preference to apply.
2)Requires lumber or other solid wood products to be produced
consistent with the Z'berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973
(Act) of the California Public Resources Code.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Declares in the Act that forest lands are among the most
valuable natural resources in the state.
2)Recognizes that the state's forests currently are an annual net
sequester of five million metric tons of carbon dioxide.
3)Expresses legislative intent to achieve the goal of maximum
sustained production of high-quality timber products while
giving consideration to values relating to sequestration of
carbon dioxide, recreation, watershed, wildlife, range and
forage, fisheries, regional economic vitality, employment, and
aesthetic enjoyment.
4)Provides for the regulatory review and approval of timber
harvest plans.
FISCAL EFFECT:
AB 429
Page 3
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, 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 Act-grown timber over non-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 Act. This 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: The state has various programs that provide bid
preferences to specific types of contractors or for projects in
certain areas. Generally, various Government Code sections
establish the programs and the DGS' State Contracting Manual
specifies program parameters and compliance requirements.
The two main bid preference programs are the Disabled Veteran
Business Enterprise Program and the Certified Small and
Microbusiness Program. DGS oversees these programs and certifies
AB 429
Page 4
these businesses so they are eligible for the preferences when
bidding for state contracts. Additional smaller bid preferences
are also overseen by DGS.
This bill would add a preference for lumber or other solid wood
products that are produced in an environmentally preferred process
as set out in the Act. 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 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.
Analysis Prepared by:
William Herms / A. & A.R. / (916) 319-3600 FN:
0000356