HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08212012 - FPD SD.5RECOMMENDATION(S):
CONSIDER a position of "Support" for AB 1506 (Jeffries): State Responsibility Areas: Fire Prevention Fees, a bill
that would repeal, as of January 1, 2013, the fire prevention fee on structures located in State Responsibility Areas
(SRA), which is to be collected starting in the summer of 2012. (Director Piepho)
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact of this bill on the State Budget, as stated in the Assembly Appropriations Committee bill analysis is:
1) Forgone fee revenue of approximately $84 million in 2012-13 (SRA Fire Prevention Fund).
2) General Fund pressure of approximately $78 million in 2012-13 to fund fire prevention activities at the Department
of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) and the California Conservation Corps (CCC) that otherwise would be
funded by the fire prevention fee.
For more information on the fiscal impact of the bill, see
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 08/21/2012 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, Director
Candace Andersen,
Director
Mary N. Piepho, Director
Karen Mitchoff, Director
Federal D. Glover, Director
Contact: L. DeLaney,
925-335-1097
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board
of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: August 21, 2012
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc:
SD. 5
To:Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Board of Directors
From:Daryl L. Louder, Chief, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
Date:August 21, 2012
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:CONSIDER a Position of "Support" for AB 1506 (Jeffries): State Responsibility Areas: Fire Prevention Fees
FISCAL IMPACT: (CONT'D)
Attachment A.
BACKGROUND:
State statute makes the State responsible for wildland fire protection in State Responsibility Areas, which are
generally defined to include most nonfederal timberlands, rangelands and watersheds thinly populated and not
within the boundaries of a city. Over 31 million acres of state land, much of it privately owned, are located in the
SRA. In the past, SRA were largely unpopulated. In recent years, however, local governments have allowed
increased housing development in the SRA. The result is a greater number of houses in the SRA but at a level of
density that nonetheless maintains the State's obligation to provide wildland fire protection.
As housing development in the SRA increased, so did CAL FIRE fire protection costs. In 1996-97, the
department spent $475 million on fire protection; in more recent years, CAL FIRE's annual fire protection costs
neared or surpassed $1 billion.
The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) attributes much of the increase in CAL FIRE's fire protection costs to
increased housing development in the SRA. The LAO notes that as housing development in SRA has increased,
the department has spent greater resources responding to events other than wildfires for which the state is not
legally responsible, such as structural fires and medical emergencies. Because the LAO concludes that much of
CAL FIRE's nonwildfire activities provide private benefits, it has long recommended a fee on owners of private
land in the SRA to pay for a portion of CAL FIRE's fire protection costs.
The Legislature has made several attempts at imposing such a fee. In 2003, the budget bill included a $35 fee on
the owner of each parcel of land within the SRA. Many expressed concern that the per-parcel fee failed to reflect
the greater fire protection benefit received by those who own larger parcels of land. The following year, before the
fee was collected, the Legislature passed another bill repealing the fee. Other fire fee bills were introduced in
subsequent years.
Going into 2011, the state was facing a $25.4 billion budget deficit (which grew to $26.6 billion after the
Governor cancelled the sale of several state buildings) and an annual structural deficit of up to $21.5 billion was
projected into the future. In March 2011, the Legislature passed $13.4 billion in "solutions" (consisting mostly of
spending cuts) to address the deficit; however, there was still a shortfall of $10.8 billion. To help address the
budget shortfall, the Legislature passed, among other bills, ABX1 29, which required the Board to adopt
emergency regulations to establish a "fire prevention fee" not to exceed $150 for each structure on a parcel that is
within the SRAs. The fee was intended to fill a hole created by a $50 million General Fund cut directed at the
Department in the 2011 budget bill. It has been well documented that the Legislature was compelled to establish
the fee because it had to produce substantial General Fund cuts, and other budget options, such as increasing
revenues through additional sales and income taxes, were politically infeasible due to the two-thirds vote
requirement for such measures.
In January of this year, the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection issued its regulation, establishing a fee of $150
per habitable structure on a parcel located with the SRA, with a $35 exemption for each habitable structure that is
also within the boundaries of a local agency that provides fire protection services. On August 3, 2012 the State
began mailing invoices to those affected by the imposition of the fee. In Contra Costa County, there are apparently
4,336 feepayers in the County, according to data provided by CAL FIRE.
A provision of the law allows a person to petition for a redetermination of whether the fire prevention fee applies
to him or her within 30 days after being served with a notice of determination (i.e. the notice from the Department
stating that a person must pay the fire prevention fee).
State law requires the fire prevention fees to be deposited in the SRA Fire Prevention Fund (Fund), which is
available to the Board and the Department 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 SRAs shall be commensurate with the amount collected from the owners within that SRA.
At its August 13, 2012 meeting, the Advisory Fire Commission voted to oppose the fee imposed on Contra Costa
County residents in the SRA areas. Member expressed their beliefs that CAL FIRE does not do "Fire Prevention,"
and the fee (which they contend is a tax) is an excess burden on the residents. The Commission requested that the
Board of Supervisors and Fire Board oppose the already implemented AB 29 (ABX1 29) with a resolution and
announce the passage of a resolution with a letter to the state.
This bill, AB 1506, repeals the fire prevention fee, which would be collected to fund fire prevention activities in
areas where the financial responsibility of preventing and suppressing fires is primarily the responsibility of the
State. If this bill is enacted, ABX1 29 and its fire prevention fee will be repealed on January 1, 2013. Since the bill
does not apply retroactively, the fire prevention fee will still be collected for the 2011-12 fiscal year and
potentially the 2012-13 fiscal year.
See Attachment B for the text of AB 1506.
Related Legislation. AB 2474 (Chesbro) would require the board, by July 1, 2013, to amend its fire prevention
fee regulations so that the fee would be (a) discounted by the amount paid by a structure owner to a local agency
for fire protection services, up to $150, and (b) adjusted to account for the history of fire and fire severity in the
local area.
The bill is also pending action before the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Support . This bill is supported by the California Professional Firefighters, the California Fire Chiefs Association
and many other organizations who contend the fee represents double taxation for those who already pay local
governments for fire protection and may make voters less likely to approve future augmentations to local fire
protection funding.
Opposition. There is no opposition formally registered to this bill.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
If the Contra Costa County Fire Board of Directors does not take a position on AB 1506, there will be no official
policy from which to advocate on this matter.
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
Not applicable.
CLERK'S ADDENDUM
Speakers: Bill Granados, Contra Costa County Advisory Fire Commission.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A--DOF Analysis of AB 1506
Attachment B--AB 1506 Bill Text
Attachment C--Article of Interest
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE BILL ANALYSIS
AMENDMENT DATE:03/08/2012 BILL NUMBER:AB 1506
POSITION:Oppose AUTHOR:Jeffries, Kevin
BILL SUMMARY: State responsibility areas: fire prevention fees
Existing law requires the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to charge a fire
prevention fee, collected by the Board of Equalization (BOE),on each habitable structure on a parcel that
is located within the state responsibility area (SRA).The fee revenues are to be deposited into the State
Responsibility Area Fire Prevention Fund (SRA Fund).Existing law requires CAL FIRE to use the revenue
in the SRA Fund for specified fire prevention activities that benefit the owners of structures in the SRA.
This bill would repeal the fire prevention fee and all related provisions.
FISCAL SUMMARY
The bill would result in the annual loss of approximately $84.4 million in revenue from the collection of the
fire prevention fee.While the collection of the fee has yet to occur, the 2012-13 Governor ’s Budget
identified $84.4 million in implementation costs and fire prevention activities to be funded by the SRA
Fund.Absent the fee revenue, the General Fund would be required to permanently cover approximately
$68.6 million of identified fire prevention activities performed by CAL FIRE.Finance notes of the $68.6
million, $1.55 million would be for partial-year implementation costs as the bill would not be enacted until
sometime in September at which point the department would likely cease implementation.The California
Conservation Corps would require $1.5 million General Fund ongoing for base fire prevention activities
funded by the SRA Fund and the BOE would require funding for partial-year implementation costs.
To begin the identification of SRA structures and the collection of the fire prevention fee, CAL FIRE
received a $50 million cash flow loan from the General Fund to the SRA Fund in early 2012.If the fire
prevention fee is eliminated, CAL FIRE would have no revenue from which to repay the loan.
COMMENTS
The Department of Finance is opposed to the bill as it would result in the loss of $84.4 million annually in
revenue to the SRA Fund and require an ongoing General Fund backfill of $67.0 million for fire prevention
activities performed by CAL FIRE and the California Conservation Corps.Additionally, the bill would result
in a $50 million General Fund loan to the SRA Fund not being repaid.
Chapter 8, Statutes of 2011 (AB X1 29), required the California Board of Forestry (Board)to establish
regulations for the implementation of a fire prevention fee for every habitable structure located in the SRA.
The Board determined that a fee of $150 would be assessed on each structure, and structures within a
local fire district would receive a $35 discount.CAL FIRE estimates the fee would result in revenue of
approximately $84.4 million annually to the SRA Fund.CAL FIRE and BOE are currently implementing the
provisions of AB X1 29.
Staff at the author's office stated the intent of the bill is to repeal a fee for which they believe there is
no benefit as many of the structure owners already receive a prevention benefit from local fire districts.
Analyst/Principal Date Program Budget Manager Date
(0634) K.Gmeinder Karen Finn
Department Deputy Director Date
Governor's Office:By:Date:Position Approved
Position Disapproved
BILL ANALYSIS Form DF-43 (Rev 03/95 Buff)
COMMENTS (continued)
The author's office believes that most fee payers would be double taxed by the fire prevention fee and if it
is left in place, it would result in major difficulties for structure owners who pay both the fire prevention fee
and local fire district fees.As declared by the Legislature in AB X1 29, individual owners of structures
within SRA receive a disproportionately larger benefit from fire prevention activities performed by CAL
FIRE than that realized by the state’s citizens generally.Therefore, the intention of the fire prevention fee
is to provide funding to mitigate the risk and cost that structures within the SRA can cause.
SO (Fiscal Impact by Fiscal Year)
Code/Department LA (Dollars in Thousands)
Agency or Revenue CO PROP Fund
Type RV 98 FC 2011-2012 FC 2012-2013 FC 2013-2014 Code
1256/Othr Reg Fee RV No L --P -84,400 P -84,400 3063
3540/Forest&Fire SO No A --C 68,570 C 67,020 0001
3340/Cons Corps SO No A --C 1,500 C 1,500 0001
0860/Equalization SO No ----- See Fiscal Summary -----0001
Fund Code Title
0001 General Fund
3063 Responsibility Area Fire Prevention Fund
(2)
BILL ANALYSIS--(CONTINUED)Form DF-43
AUTHOR AMENDMENT DATE BILL NUMBER
Jeffries, Kevin 03/08/2012 AB 1506
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 8, 2012
california legislature—2011–12 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1506
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Introduced by Assembly Members Jeffries and Cook
(Principal coauthors: Assembly Members Nielsen and Olsen)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Conway, Donnelly, Beth Gaines,
Grove, Hagman, Harkey, Jones, Knight, Logue, Morrell,
Nestande, Silva, and Valadao)
(Coauthors: Senators Anderson, Berryhill, Cannella, Dutton, Fuller,
Gaines, Huff, La Malfa, Runner, Strickland, and Wyland)
January 12, 2012
1
2
3
An act to repeal Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 4210) of
Part 2 of Division 4 of the Public Resources Code, relating to fire
prevention.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 1506, as amended, Jeffries.State responsibility areas: fire
prevention fees.
Existing law requires the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection,
on or before September 1, 2011, to adopt emergency regulations to
establish a fire prevention fee in an amount not to exceed $150 to be
charged on each structure on a parcel that is within a state responsibility
area, as defined, and requires that the fire prevention fee be adjusted
annually using prescribed methods. Existing law requires the State
Board of Equalization to collect the fire prevention fees, as prescribed,
commencing with the 2011–12 fiscal year. Existing law establishes the
State Responsibility Area Fire Prevention Fund and prohibits the
collection of fire prevention fees if, commencing with the 2012–13
fiscal year, there are sufficient amounts of moneys in the fund to finance
98
specified fire prevention activities for a fiscal year. Existing law requires
that the fire prevention fees collected, except as provided, be deposited
into the fund and be made available, to the board and the Department
of Forestry and Fire Protection for certain specified fire protection
activities that benefit the owners of structures in state responsibility
areas who are required to pay the fee. Existing law further requires the
board, on and after January 1, 2013, to submit an annual written report
to the Legislature on specified topics.
This bill would repeal the above provisions relating to the fire
prevention fees.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1
2
3
4
5
6
SECTION 1.It is the intent of the Legislature to repeal the fire
prevention fee imposed pursuant to Chapter 1.5 (commencing with
Section 4210) of Part 2 of Division 4 of the Public Resources Code.
SECTION 1.
SEC. 2.Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 4210) of Part
2 of Division 4 of the Public Resources Code is repealed.
O
98
— 2 —AB 1506
Courtesy
This map shows the areas of
Auburn that are in the state
responsibility area that will be
required to pay a $150 fee to the
state for fire prevention since
Assembly Bill 29X1 was passed
last year. The area shaded in
yellow is under state
responsibility. The area shaded in
blue is under local responsibility.
PRINT THIS · CLOSE WINDOW
4/4/12 | 1505 views
Rural Auburn residents speak out against $150 fire fee
Assembly Bill 1506 could repeal fee
By Sara Seyydin Journal Staff Writer
Placer County residents and officials are reacting to a controversial new $150 fee that will be
assessed by the state on rural properties to pay for fire protection.
Bills for the new fee could be sent by the end of summer.
Assembly Bill 29X1 was passed in June 2011 and mandates that all habitable structures in state
responsibility areas pay the fee that will go toward funding fire prevention services through Cal
Fire.
Some Placer County officials say the bill needs to be repealed or seriously amended to be
equitable to rural property owners, while some property owners say they believe the fee is actually
a tax that was unjustly imposed upon them. A statewide taxpayers association says it will likely
move forward with suing the state over the fee at some point.
Rural fire fee could fund fire prevention in Southern California
Rui Cunha, assistant director of emergency services in Placer County, said based on a simple
estimate Placer County could generate $6 million in revenue from the fee and may see only as
much as 10 percent, or $600,000, of that come back to the area to be spent on local fire
prevention. He said based upon the areas of most critical need in the state and past experience,
he believes the money will go predominately to fire prevention in high-risk areas of Southern
California.
“You, as a resident of unincorporated Placer County, are writing the check. Most of us, if we have
got to write a check, would prefer to see that revenue come back to us in the form of service,”
Cunha said.
Aside from how the funds could be distributed, Cunha said rural property owners are not the only
people who benefit from fire prevention and shouldn’t be singled out to foot the bill for it.
Cunha said many of the local fire protection districts will also suffer as a result of the state assessed fee because the only way they can
raise more revenue is by asking voters to raise taxes.
“It becomes very, very confusing for residents as they are looking at a tax that they vote on, yet they have this fee that is being imposed
on them and they are not always understanding the difference between the tax, which they vote on for fire protection, versus this fee
which is for fire prevention,” Cunha said. “They just think, ‘Gosh, we are double paying.’”
Local fire districts call for funding, too
Placer Hills Fire Protection District and North Auburn- Ophir Fire both have initiatives on the June ballot asking voters to raise taxes and
fees for fire protection in their service areas. Placer Hills’ Measure E calls for a special tax to maintain the current level of service and
equipment and replace essential equipment. North Auburn- Ophir Fire’s Measure D calls for an ordinance increasing direct charges for
residential development by $40 per unit, $20 per mobile home, and 4.6 cents per square foot of commercial/industrial development for
fire protection, emergency medical services and equipment replacement. Many of these fire agencies have seen declining revenues over
the past several years as property taxes have declined, Cunha said.
Bob Stearns serves on the board of the Newcastle Fire Protection District. He went to testify in favor of Assembly Bill 1506 at the capitol,
which was introduced by Assemblyman Kevin Jefferies (R-Lake Elsinore) to repeal the $150 fee.
“It’s unfair to our taxpayers and our residents,” Stearns said. “I believe it was a tax and not a fee, but a lot of other people believe the
same thing. It’s obvious that they want to get back some of the money they took from Cal Fire.”
Local elected officials, taxpayer association oppose fee
Senator Ted Gaines has also been working to advocate for Assembly Bill 1506 and repeal the fire tax.
“This $150 fire tax is illegal and unfair – plain and simple,” Gaines said in a press release earlier this month. “Many rural property owners
already pay local fire agencies for protection so it is clearly double-taxation and it is being dumped on the backs of rural Californians
when the state has 11-percent unemployment and families are struggling just to make ends meet.”
Jennifer Montgomery, Placer County District 5 Supervisor, said the state redirected funds usually set aside for Cal Fire to other areas and
is now looking for a way to make up the deficit. She said she strongly opposes the fee and believes it should be repealed.
Page 1 of 2Rural Auburn residents speak out against $150 fire fee - Auburn Journal
8/14/2012http://auburnjournal.com/detail/204499.html?sub_id=204499&print=1
“I am pretty appalled that this is being proposed. It basically targets one small group of people that has a higher risk, but it leaves out
all the other groups that also have a high risk,” Montgomery said. “It’s kind of like telling people who drive on the freeway that because
you drive on the freeway you have a higher potential for an accident. You need to pay $150 to the CHP.”
Montgomery said she has been lobbying elected officials to get the fee repealed and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association will also
likely bring a lawsuit against the state.
Tim Bittle, director of legal affairs for the association, said while the association is likely to sue, it hasn’t decided if it will do that before
the first bills go out or after.
“Our consensus is that it’s not really a fee, it’s a tax,” Bittle said. “Because it’s a tax it needed a two-thirds vote of each of the legislative
houses to pass, which it did not get, so it’s not a valid law.”
Bittle said fees are paid in exchange for consumption of materials or services, which many people living in rural areas would never get in
exchange for paying the $150 fee if they didn’t have a fire at their home in a given year.
One Auburn resident could pay $600 in fees
Jim Taylor, who owns Mt. Vernon Winery in Auburn, lives in the state responsibility area and will have to pay the fee. In addition, Taylor
said he owns four other properties in rural areas in California, which would bring his projected total bill for the fees to $600.
“I don’t mind paying my fair share as long as it goes to our benefit, but I don’t want to pay for Southern California’s share,” Taylor said.
“They end with up with our money toward fighting fires, just like our water goes toward feeding them.”
Taylor said many of the homes considered to be in rural areas in Auburn are just outside of the city limits and shouldn’t have to pay
extra fire fees. He said one solution might be to have each area pay based on the percentage of fires that actually occur in their area.
“I’m probably not the only one paying it, so I’m probably not the only one upset,” Taylor said.
Reach Sara Seyydin at saras@goldcountrymedia.com, or follow her on Twitter @AJ_News.
Page 2 of 2Rural Auburn residents speak out against $150 fire fee - Auburn Journal
8/14/2012http://auburnjournal.com/detail/204499.html?sub_id=204499&print=1