BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 317 (De León) - The Safe Neighborhood Parks, Rivers, and Coastal
Protection Bond Act of 2016.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: May 5, 2015 |Policy Vote: N.R. & W. 7 - 1, |
| | GOV. & F. 5 - 1 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: Yes |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: May 18, 2015 |Consultant: Marie Liu |
| | |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: SB 317 would put before the voters the Safe Neighborhood
Parks, Rivers, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2016
Fiscal
Impact: Estimated annual costs of $159 million for 30 years to the
General Fund for a total of $4.781 billion in current dollars.
Background: In 2000 and 2002, the Legislature passed two parks bond measures
that were subsequently ratified by the voters. Prop 12 passed in 2000
and Prop 40 passed in 2002. These bonds invested in state parks,
local parks, conservancies, and a variety of other resource programs.
These were the last two parks bonds that were approved by the voters
that focused exclusively on parks and resources funding. According
the LAO, 95% of Prop 12 has been expended; 88% of Prop 40 has been
expended.
Prop 84, passed by the voters in 2006 as a citizen initiative,
contained some funding for parks and other resource protection
programs but was primarily focused on water projects. All of the
remaining Prop 84 funds were later encumbered by the State Water
Resources Control Board.
Proposed Law:
SB 317 is an urgency measure that if approved by the Legislature
and signed by the Governor, would authorize the sale of general
obligation bonds in the amount of $2.45 billion. The bond is
presently divided into four areas of emphasis: (1) parks; (2) rivers,
lakes, and streams; (3) coast and ocean protection; and (4) climate
resilience as follows:
Parks ($1.45 billion)
$800 million to the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) for
the creation of neighborhood parks in park-poor communities
$200 million to the DPR for local park rehabilitation, allocated
on a per capita basis
$200 million to the DPR for restoration, preservation and
protection of regional parks
$200 million to the DPR for the restoration and preservation of
existing state parks
$50 million to the DPR for revenue generation activities at
state parks
Rivers, Lakes, and Streams ($370 million)
$100 million to the Natural Resources Agency for the protection,
restoration, and development of river parkways
$100 million for implementation of the Lake Tahoe Environmental
Improvement Program
$100 million for protection, restoration, and development of Los
Angeles River parkway projects
$50 million for the Salton Sea Restoration Fund
$20 million for urban stream restoration
Coast and Ocean Protection ($350 million)
$300 million to the Coastal Conservancy for protection of
beaches, bays and coastal watersheds, including protection of
coastal agricultural land and California Coastal Trail projects
$50 million to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy for the
protection of coastal watersheds of the Santa Monica Mountains
Climate Resilience ($280 million)
$100 million to the Strategic Growth Council for grants to:
o Develop or implement a regional or local greenprint or
climate adaptation plan,
o Update or add climate adaptation to a general plan,
o Protect agricultural and open-space resources that
support adopted sustainable communities strategies.
$150 million to the Wildlife Conservation Board for the
protection and expansion of wildlife corridors
$30 million for the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
for urban forestry grants
In its general provisions, the following criteria would apply to
all grants made with bond funds:
All funds would be required to promote the state's planning
priorities and the sustainable communities strategies.
The wildlife conservation objectives would occur on public lands
or through voluntary projects on private lands.
Allow funds to be used for habitat credit exchanges.
Priority would be given to wildlife and habitat projects that
SB 317 (De León) Page 4 of ?
implement natural community conservation plans or endangered
species recovery plans.
Restoration projects would include the planning, monitoring, and
reporting necessary to ensure successful implementation of the
project objectives.
Related
Legislation: SB 1086 (de Leon) would have enact the "Safe Neighborhood Parks,
Rivers, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2014," which authorizes
the sale of an unspecified amount of bonds for parks, state
conservancies, coastal and ocean programs, urban forestry, river
parkways and urban rivers, and other resource protection and
restoration efforts. SB 1086 died on the Senate Floor inactive
file.
Staff
Comments: Bond indebtedness: Assuming an interest rate of 5%, the debt
service as a result of this bond would be approximately $159
million annually for 30 years. This amount will vary depending on
when the bonds to fund this bill's programs are actually issued.
As noted by the Senate Governance and Finance Committee, this bond
is an in amount that is consistent with the last two legislatively
enacted park bonds and can be considered affordable by the state.
However, the committee noted that the more the state must spend to
debt service, there will be less funding available to other
priorities.
Furthermore, as noted by the Senate Governance and Finance
Committee, there are nearly $30.4 billion in bonds that have been
authorized but not issued. These previously approved bonds may
slow the availability of bond money for the purposes set by this
bill should it be passed by the Legislature and the voters.
Do the benefits of the project last the length of the bond?
Existing law (GOV §16727) essentially provides that general
obligation bonds, such as the one in this bill, are to be used for
capital purposes. This provision aims to ensure that the benefits
of a project at least roughly match the period during which the
bond must be repaid. Bonds are best used for large, discrete
capital projects that would ordinarily not be able to be supported
by ongoing funding mechanisms and that meet a need over several
decades. Using bond funds to pay for operations and maintenance or
SB 317 (De León) Page 5 of ?
for short-lived projects in essence dramatically increases the
cost of that project compared to using non-bond funds.
The useful life of resource investments are often more difficult
to project compared to other infrastructure projects (for example,
projecting the useful life of highway bridge is easier than
projecting the useful life of an urban forestry project). While
most of the funding categories in this bill appear to be for
capital projects, staff notes several provisions that merit
consideration on whether the useful life of the expenditure is an
appropriate use of bond funds, including:
"Habitat credit exchanges" - This bill would allow funds to be
used for payments for the creation of measurable habitat
improvements through the development of "habitat credit
exchanges." Staff notes that are no guiding state statutes
regarding such exchanges and no requirements that the
improvements be lasting.
Planning grants to the Strategic Growth Council - The $100
million allocated to the Strategic Growth Council could be used
to assist local governments in the development of a "greenprint"
(which is an undefined document with no existing guiding state
statutes), a climate adaption plan, or a general plan. Arguably
planning activities can have lasting impacts if they are
followed and implemented; however, with the exception of
Proposition 84, bond monies have not been used for planning
projects. Projects with planning as a component, on the other
hand, have been funded.
To some extent, ensuring that spending is limited to capital
outlay will be done in the Legislature's appropriation of these
funds. However, additional specificity could be added to this bill
to aid this process.
In this vein, in past park bonds, there have been discussions on
what should be considered a capital cost, specifically as it
relates to park revitalization. In many communities, there may be
an existing park that is either underutilized or not usable by the
community because of a multitude of issues such as deferred
maintenance needs. Presumably this bill speaks to this issue by
making a specific pot of money for local park rehabilitation,
though this term is not defined.
-- END --
SB 317 (De León) Page 6 of ?