BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  AB 2207
                                                                  Page  1

          CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
          AB 2207 (Gordon)
          As Amended  July 5, 2012
          Majority vote.  Tax levy
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |ASSEMBLY:  |75-0 |(May 29, 2012)  |SENATE: |37-0 |(August 22,    |
          |           |     |                |        |     |2012)          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
            
           Original Committee Reference:    REV. & TAX.  

           SUMMARY  :  Clarifies the scope and application of the welfare 
          property tax exemption, by providing that certain revenues and 
          uses of property, which is otherwise dedicated to open-space and 
          natural resource preservation, will not cause the property to 
          lose its tax exemption.

           The Senate amendments  identify and further limit the types of 
          activities that shall be disregarded by county assessors in 
          determining whether the property qualifies for the welfare 
          property tax exemption. 

           AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY,  this bill:

          1)Provided that, commencing with the 2013-14 fiscal year (FY), 
            for purposes of determining whether the property is used for 
            the actual operation of the exempt activity, consideration 
            shall not be given to the use of property for the following 
            activities:

             a)   Activities resulting in direct or in-kind revenues, but 
               only if those activities further the conservation 
               objectives of the property as provided in a qualified 
               conservation management plan for the property; and,

             b)   Any lease of the property for a purpose that furthers 
               the conservation objectives of the property as provided in 
               a qualified conservation management plan for the property. 

          2)Stated that the direct or in-kind revenues may include 
            revenues derived from grazing leases, fees for events or 
            recreational activities, or fees for permits. 

          3)Specified that the activities and lease of the property may 








                                                                  AB 2207
                                                                  Page  2

            not generate unrelated business income.

          4)Defined a "qualified conservation management plan" as a plan 
            that satisfies all of the following requirements:

             a)   Identifies that the foremost purpose and use of the 
               property is for the preservation of native plants or 
               animals, biotic communities, geological or geographical 
               formations of scientific or educational interest, or as 
               open-space lands used solely for recreation and for the 
               enjoyment of scenic beauty; 

             b)   Identifies the overall conservation management goals, 
               including identification of permitted activities, and 
               actions necessary to achieve the goals; 

             c)   Describes the natural resources and recreational 
               attributes of the property and potential threats to the 
               conservation values or areas of special concern; and, 

             d)   Contains a timeline for planned management activities 
               and for regular inspections of the property, including 
               existing structures and improvements. 

          5)Became operative beginning with the lien date of the 2013-14 
            FY. 

          6)Stated that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines 
            that this bill contains costs mandated by the state, 
            reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those 
            costs will be made pursuant to Government Code Part 7 
            (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2. 

          7)Provided that no appropriation is made by this act and the 
            state shall not reimburse any local agency for any property 
            tax revenues lost by it pursuant to this act. 

          8)Would take effect immediately as a tax levy. 

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Senate Appropriations 
          Committee, this bill is expected to result in an annual 
          statewide property tax revenue reduction of approximately 
          $225,000 (foregone revenues).  Assuming 50% of the statewide 
          property tax revenues offset General Fund (GF) obligations to 
          schools pursuant to Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantees, 








                                                                  AB 2207
                                                                  Page  3

          the GF impact would be approximately $113,000 due to increased 
          state backfill provided to schools.  Staff notes that actual 
          state impacts may vary as the school share of property tax is 
          typically in the range of 45% to 60% in most parts of the state. 
           In addition, the staff estimates minor reimbursable mandate 
          costs related to the imposition of new duties on local tax 
          officials since this bill revises the criteria that assessors 
          would use to determine eligibility for the welfare exemption 
          that applies to property dedicated to open-space and natural 
          resource preservation (General Fund).


           Analysis Prepared by  :  Oksana Jaffe / REV. & TAX. / (916) 
          319-2098 


          FN: 0005159