BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2013-2014 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SB 1410 HEARING DATE: April 22, 2014
AUTHOR: Wolk and Nielsen URGENCY: Yes
VERSION: April 21, 2014 CONSULTANT: Toni Lee
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Wildlife management areas: payments
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Existing law (Fish and Game Code (FGC) §1525) allows the
Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) to acquire and operate
real property as wildlife management areas. These areas include
waterfowl management areas, deer ranges, upland game bird
management areas, and public shooting grounds.
Existing law (FGC §1504) requires DFW to pay the county in which
the property is located an amount equal to the county taxes
levied on the property when the title to the property was
transferred to the state and any assessments levied upon the
property by any irrigation, drainage, or reclamation district.
These "Payment In Lieu of Taxes" (PILT) payments transfer funds
from the state to local governments to help offset losses in
property taxes due to non-taxable state lands within their
boundaries. Ongoing annual payments should be made as specified.
The department previously paid PILT fees to counties with budget
funds available for that purpose. The funds were eliminated from
the DFW's budget in FY 2002-03 in response to statewide economic
hardship, and no payments have been made since then.
According to DFW, about $17.5 M in PILT funds are currently due
in arrears to 36 counties with an annual accrual of about $1.6 M
(total of ~$19 M) (see comments). Rural counties are
disproportionally affected.
In November of 2013, the Regional Council of Rural Counties
(RCRC) sent a bipartisan letter to Governor Brown signed by 23
1
California state legislators urging that funding be included in
the FY 2014-2015 budget.
In February of 2014, RCRC and the California State Association
of Counties (CSAC) sent a letter to the chairs of the Senate
Budget & Fiscal Review Subcommittee #2 (Beall) and Assembly
Budget Subcommittee #3 (Bloom), urging the legislature to fund
annual state PILT payments through the DFW budget.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would:
Appropriate $19 M from the General Fund to DFW to make
payments to counties for the obligations incurred pursuant
to FGC §1504.
Annually appropriate $2 M beginning with FY 2014-15,
from the General Fund to DFW to continue these payments.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to RCRC and CSAC, the non-payment of PILT by the state
has rendered it difficult for counties to provide for needed
services, many of which are state-mandated. Both groups contend
"for the first time in many years our state is expected to have
a healthy State Treasury and there are demands to restore many
state programs at funding levels that occurred several years
ago." These groups believe the law clearly indicates that the
state owes counties for the loss of local property taxes
resulting from the state taking ownership of private lands.
Appropriating funds into the DFW baseline budget would ensure
timely future payments.
The Nevada County Board of Supervisors adds that the state has
not made any PILT payments to counties in over a decade. These
funds are a critical part of the County's General Fund budget
that funds public safety and other needed programs for
residents. The Inyo County Board of Supervisors reports that as
98% of the county's land is publicly owned "every revenue stream
is important to the County's General Fund."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
None received
COMMENTS
1.The state debt to counties owed PILT monies is substantial.
This debt will continue to grow until it is settled and an
ongoing source of funding is established.
2.Previous attempts to pass similar legislation have failed. In
2
2007, AB 1452 (Wolk) would have allocated $7.415 M from the
General Fund to the Department of Fish and Game and would have
provided for a yearly appropriation to pay counties for
past-due property tax obligations. (AB 1452 was subsequently
amended to a different purpose.)
3.It is possible a failure to pay these entities monies to which
they are entitled may create negative sentiment toward
existing and future wildlife management areas.
4.PILT-related debt may increase if the state acquires
additional lands. The bill does not specify what would happen
to excess funds should the annual $2 million appropriation for
PILT payments exceed the debt obligation or if the $2 million
appropriation is inadequate.
5.The Legislative Analyst's Office reports in "The 2014-15
Budget: California's Fiscal Outlook" a projected state surplus
of $5.6 billion. However, the report also stresses that the
volatility of capital gains taxes could alter the statewide
financial situation in coming years by billions of dollars.
3
6.Table I. DFW Estimates for Current Unpaid In-Lieu Fees by
County (does not include annual accrual of $1.6 M)
----------------------------------------------------------
| County | Unpaid | | County | Unpaid |
| | In-Lieu | | | In-Lieu |
| | Fees | | | Fees |
|----------+-----------+-----------+------------+----------|
|Alpine |$514,696 | |Nevada |$539,745 |
|----------+-----------+-----------+------------+----------|
|Butte |$1,232,369 | |Placer |$204 |
|----------+-----------+-----------+------------+----------|
|Colusa |$41,120 | |Plumas |$71,377 |
|----------+-----------+-----------+------------+----------|
|Del Norte |$619,672 | |Riverside |$2,698,009|
| | | | | |
|----------+-----------+-----------+------------+----------|
|Fresno |$201,100 | |San |$69,970 |
| | | |Bernardino | |
|----------+-----------+-----------+------------+----------|
|Glenn |$706,257 | |San Diego |$770,276 |
|----------+-----------+-----------+------------+----------|
|Humboldt |$437,381 | |San Luis |$542 |
| | | |Obispo | |
|----------+-----------+-----------+------------+----------|
|Imperial |$106,515 | |Shasta |$105,930 |
|----------+-----------+-----------+------------+----------|
|Inyo |$10,298 | |Sierra |$696,751 |
|----------+-----------+-----------+------------+----------|
|Lake |$199,579 | |Siskiyou |$615,131 |
|----------+-----------+-----------+------------+----------|
|Lassen |$782,447 | |Solano |$567,354 |
|----------+-----------+-----------+------------+----------|
|Madera |$32,499 | |Sonoma |$278,632 |
|----------+-----------+-----------+------------+----------|
|Marin |$371,825 | |Stanislaus |$11,185 |
|----------+-----------+-----------+------------+----------|
|Merced |$1,095,779 | |Sutter |$247,772 |
|----------+-----------+-----------+------------+----------|
|Modoc |$539,745 | |Tehama |$95,526 |
|----------+-----------+-----------+------------+----------|
|Mono |$337,634 | |Tulare |$7,104 |
|----------+-----------+-----------+------------+----------|
|Monterey |$124,597 | |Yolo |$1,418,638|
| | | | | |
|----------+-----------+-----------+------------+----------|
4
|Napa |$1,440,002 | |Yuba |$566,310 |
| | | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------
SUPPORT
Board of Supervisors of Butte County
California State Association of Counties
County of Colusa
County of Humboldt
County of Nevada Board of Supervisors
County of San Bernardino
Del Norte County Board of Supervisors
Fresno County Board of Supervisors
Imperial County Board of Supervisors
Inyo County Board of Supervisors
Merced County Board of Supervisors
Modoc County Board of Supervisors
Monterey County
Napa County Board of Supervisors
Regional Council of Rural Counties
Rural County Representatives of California
San Diego County Board of Supervisors
Solano County Board of Supervisors
Yolo County Board of Supervisors
OPPOSITION
None recorded
5