The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSRA Fee Reg - AB 29Xo~uTr~o 0 0 0 n a rJ o = -, o couN~ BUTTE COUNTY .ADNIINISTRATION 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE, BUTTE 200 OROVII.LE, CALIFORNIA, 95465-33841 Telephone: (53(1) 538 7631 Fax: (530) 538-71241 PAUL IiAT~IN Chief Administrative Officer August 9, 2011 Stan Dixon, Chair Board of Forestry and Fire Protection P.O. Box 944246 Sacramento, CA 94244-2460 RE: SRA Fee Regulations -AB 29X {Blumenfield) Dear Chair Dixon: MEMBERS OF THE BOARD BILL CONNELLY LARRY WAHL MAUREEN KQiK STEVE LAMBERT KIWI K YA,MAGIJCHI On behalf of the Butte County Board of Supervisors I am writing to voice our concerns over the SRA Fee contained in AB 29X {Blumenfield). There are a number of reasons this fee is flawed and should not be implemented. First and foremost, the SRA fee is extraordinarily unfair. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is not just about fire-fighting. The Department's mission statement declares: The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection protects the people of California from tires, responds to emergencies, and protects and enhances forest, range, and watershed values while providing social, economic, and environmental benefits to rural and urban citizens. As stated in the Department's mission, all California residents -~ rural and urban - benefit from CAL FIRE's work. It is inequitable to require a subset of rural residents to pay the SRA fee for work that is done on behalf of all California residents. In addition to the inherent unfairness of the fee, there are a number of other flaws with the law, which are outlined below. • .-This law was passed by the legislature as part of alast-minute deal to finish the budget. As a result, there was no opportunity for input by fire services organizations, or any other public discussion of the fees. • The law requires residents to pay for a service that they already pay for through their taxes. They will be paying more, yet not receiving any additional benefit. The law does not take into account the benefit the State receives from locally- funded fire protection services. Butte County expends a substantial percentage of its discretionary general funds on a county-wide fire protection system. In many instances, alocally-funded fire engine is first due on SRA fires. Requiring our residents to pay an additional fee to maintain existing CAL FIRE services may strain the cooperative relationship the County and CAL FIRE have fostered over the years. • The fee could impact mutual aid response. if individuals in SRA are required to pay an additional fee, there will be resistance to having "their" local engine leave the station to help on another incident, with the belief that they paid for the right to have an engine at that station at all times. • The timetable to implement the law is not realistic. The timetables set by the law may result in additional problems being created. • The lack of definition as to how the fee applies is very problematic. What is a "structure intended for human habitation"? Does it include commercial property? Out-buildings used as remote outposts by businesses with a large presence in SRAM such as Sierra Pacific? Will it include church camps or non-profit camp with numerous cabins? • The math does not compute properly. The fee is set to be $150, with an assumption of $200 million revenue from the fee. However, there are less than 850,000 parcels with structures on them, which would optimistically result in $'127 million in revenue, or $72 miQion short. This suggests that the fee would either have to be higher than $150 across the board, or that some parcels may pay many multiples of the $150 fee. • Lastly, the law requires the funds to be~ deposited in a new "State Responsibility Area Fire Prevention Fund", and puts restrictions on the uses of the funds, which may negatively impact other departmental activities by being too narrow in the allowed uses. Additionally, the fund is allowed to be used for administrative costs, including the costs of the Board of Equalization, with no cap on how much can be spent for these purposes. Many ofi these flaws are carried over from previous attempts to implement such a fee. In 2003 a similar fee was adopted by the legislature, which was eventually repealed due 2 to a number of administrative and legal issues. We appear to be beading down a similar path. For these reasons, the Butte County Board of Supervisors opposes the implementation of this .fee, and requests the opportunity to engage in an open and public discussion on solutions to the State's budget challenges. Sincerely, oL/~ Steve Lambert Chair, Butte County Board of Supervisors cc: `/embers, Butte County Board of Supervisors The Honorable Governor Jerry Brown The Honorable Senator Doug LaMalfa The Honorable Assemblyman Jim Nielsen The Honorable Assemblyman Dan Logue GMs. Ana Mantosantos, Director of the Department of Finance ~ hief Ken Pimlott, Director of CAL FIRE ~aul Yoder, Shaw Yoder 3