Assembly Panel Approves Lid on Firefighting Costs for Young Cities

Without a dissenting vote, the Assembly Natural Resources Committee on Monday approved a bill designed to keep the lid on firefighting costs of such proposed new cities as Santa Clarita and Calabasas during their infancy.

As it now stands, the state reimburses Los Angeles County to fight fires and otherwise protect the wildlands in these communities. But, as an example, if Santa Clarita becomes a city, it will be required to pay the county for the services.

Sen. Ed Davis (R-Valencia), fearful that the county will levy a higher fee for the services, sought the legislation, which would require the county to charge cities, in the first three years after their incorporation, the same amount that the state now pays to fight fires.

The legislation was triggered by cityhood drives in the Santa Clarita Valley and Calabasas areas. In both cases, the wildland-protection fee has been so high that it has prevented the would-be cities from including within their boundaries all the rural land they had sought at first.

Indeed, the county Fire Department determined that the fee for the city of Santa Clarita would be $1.8 million. As a result, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), which oversees incorporation of cities, cut the proposed municipality’s size in half to reduce the fee for fire protection.

Smaller Calabasas Boundaries

A proposed $1.6-million fee in Calabasas for 15,714 acres also prompted LAFCO to draw smaller boundaries there. In contrast, in the just-completed fiscal year, the state paid the county $5.1 million a year to protect more than 500,000 acres in the entire county.

Davis labeled his proposal “an equity bill” because “people trying to seek their independence . . . have been thwarted by these huge costs.” After a short discussion, the Natural Resources Committee approved the measure on a 10-0 vote and sent it to the Assembly Ways and Means Committee. In June, the Senate overwhelmingly approved the measure 35 to 0.

If the measure is approved by the full Assembly and signed into law by Gov. George Deukmejian, it will take effect Jan. 1.

Davis asserted that, “if you have to exclude the undeveloped area because of the cost of fire protection,” new cities will be unable to control development in surrounding areas--one of the primary reasons for incorporating.

Enactment of the legislation would have little effect on the Santa Clarita cityhood movement, but could mean the difference between success and failure for the Calabasas incorporation bid.

“What it amounts to is that, if it becomes law in a hurry, the city could be financially viable,” said Robert Hill, chairman of the Calabasas Cityhood Study Committee.

LAFCO is scheduled to vote on the Calabasas cityhood effort July 22. The commission will consider three proposed boundaries that would entail budget deficits ranging from $613,508 to $1 million.

The wildlands fire-protection fee is “the thing that throws us out of whack,” said Dennis Washburn, a committee vice chairman.

Wildlands fire-protection fees estimated by the LAFCO staff in the three Calabasas boundary proposals are between $1.1 million and $1.2 million, he said.

Challenge Possible

The bill’s becoming law would give the committee the opportunity to challenge the LAFCO staff’s budget figures, Washburn said.

If the Board of Supervisors allows a November election in Santa Clarita, the bill will not apply to that city because it will be incorporated before Jan. 1, the law’s effective date.

Supervisors Pete Schabarum and Deane Dana oppose the November date because it would cost the county about $3 million in sales-tax revenue.

If the Santa Clarita election is not held until April or June of next year, as Schabarum has suggested, it would mean that the new city would have a larger budget surplus and make it more feasible for the newly incorporated municipality to annex adjacent undeveloped land, said Connie Worden, a vice chairman of the Santa Clarita City Formation Committee.

“We look at the bill with favor,” she said. “It would mean there would be a modest monetary gain for the city.”