BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE
Senator Robert M. Hertzberg, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Bill No: |SB 1027 |Hearing |3/30/16 |
| | |Date: | |
|----------+---------------------------------+-----------+---------|
|Author: |Nielsen |Tax Levy: |No |
|----------+---------------------------------+-----------+---------|
|Version: |2/12/16 |Fiscal: |Yes |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Favorini-Csorba |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Parks: property transfer
Allows the County of Tehama to transfer property previously
acquired with state bond funds.
Background
The Public Park Preservation Act of 1971 generally prohibits
public entities, including local governments, from acquiring
parkland for non-park purposes unless substitute parkland or
equivalent compensation is provided.
Parks Grant Programs. California voters have approved several
bond acts that provide funding for acquiring parkland. In June
1974, voters approved the State Beach, Park, Recreational, and
Historical Facilities Bond Act of 1974. Among other provisions,
the act provided $90 million for grants to cities and counties
for the acquisition and development of parkland through a grant
program administered by the state Department of Parks and
Recreation (DPR). Subsequently, voters approved Proposition 12,
the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal
Protection Bond Act of 2000, at the statewide primary election
in March of 2000. Proposition 12 made funds available to local
governments for the Roberti-Z'berg-Harris Urban Open-Space and
Recreation Program, which requires DPR to make annual grants to
cities, counties, and districts for recreational purposes,
open-space purposes, or both, on the basis of population and
SB 1027 (Nielsen) 2/12/16 Page 2
of ?
need.
Both the 1974 Bond Act and Proposition 12, as well as the
Robert-Z'berg-Harris program, require that grant recipients must
agree to use the property only for the purposes for which the
grant was made. The grantee cannot make any other use or sale
or other disposition of the property, except as authorized by a
specific act of the Legislature. If the use of the property
changes or the property is sold upon approval by the
Legislature, the grantee must either return the funds to the
state or use replacement funds for a purpose that is consistent
with the original grant. The replacement funds can equal the
amount of the grant, the fair market value of the real property,
or the proceeds from the sale of the property, whichever is
greater. Bond-funded grant programs incorporate these
requirements into their grant contracts.
The Legislature has allowed several local governments to
transfer park property acquired or developed with state bond
funds to other public entities for uses other than parkland on
the condition that the cities or entities provide replacement
property:
The City of Merced was allowed to transfer of up to 3
acres of park land to the Merced City School District (AB
1864, Matthews, 2006).
The City of San Bernardino was allowed to transfer up to
12.5 acres of park land to the city's redevelopment agency
(AB 1457, Baca, 2006).
The City of Huntington Park was allowed to transfer
parkland to the Los Angeles Unified School District (AB
123, Nunez, 2007).
The City of Los Angeles was allowed to transfer parkland
and facilities to the Los Angeles Unified School District
(AB 1732, Hall, 2010).
The City of Escalon was allowed to sell park facilities
after a proposed development did not occur, in order to
acquire parkland closer to the city (SB 829, Galgiani,
2014).
SB 1027 (Nielsen) 2/12/16 Page 3
of ?
The Legislature also authorized the City of San Jose to convert
to a different use a parcel of parkland acquired with state bond
funds on the condition that the city acquire another parcel of
land adjacent to the park (AB 730, Diaz, 2001).
Noland Park. In 1979, Tehama County received a grant of $29,425
from the 1974 Bond Act to acquire and develop Noland Park. The
county received a subsequent grant of $32,000 from the
Roberti-Z'berg-Harris program, funded by Proposition 12, to
remove and replace outdated playground equipment and make other
improvements to play areas within the park. Noland Park is
located directly between the elementary and middle schools for
the Evergreen Union School District, and in 1993 the county
leased the park to the district for 20 years. Under the lease,
the school district was responsible for all maintenance and was
allowed to make capital improvements to the site; in return, the
school district received the first right to use the facilities
and schedule activities. Accordingly, over the course of the
lease the district developed the park through upgrades of
fencing, sprinklers, a track and soccer field, spending more
than $189,000 in improvements and an additional $152,000 in
maintenance. Since the lease's expiration in 2013, it has been
renewed on an annual basis. Local officials want to transfer
the park to the school district so the district can continue to
invest in the property.
Proposed Law
SB 1027 allows the County of Tehama to transfer Noland Park to
the Evergreen Union School District, regardless of the
requirements of the Public Park Act of 1971, if two conditions
are met. First, the County and the district must enter into an
agreement with DPR that transfers any obligations of the county
under the 1974 Bond Act, Proposition 12, the
Roberti-Z'berg-Harris Act, and grants entered into under those
laws. Second, the district must ensure that the property is
maintained and operated in perpetuity for park purposes.
State Revenue Impact
No estimate.
SB 1027 (Nielsen) 2/12/16 Page 4
of ?
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill . Since 1993, the county and district
have cooperated to improve Noland Park and ensure that nearby
communities have access to safe and modern park facilities. The
district has invested over $360,000 in improvements and
maintenance expenditures, and in return, children at the
adjacent schools have access to the park, while the general
public continued to be able to access the facilities. The
school district has identified over $340,000 in additional
improvements it would like to undertake at the park in the next
20 years. Transferring ownership in the property would
encourage the district to plan for and make longer term capital
investments in the park, but state law only allows such a
transfer to occur if the Legislature specifically authorizes it.
SB 1027 provides the needed legislative authorization.
2. Public access . Under the current arrangement where the
district leases the park, the county sets the ground rules for
public access and use of the facilities. If the transfer
occurs, the school district will get final say. While the
county and the school district currently agree that public
access should remain the same if the land is transferred as
under the lease, opinions may differ in the future.
Transferring ownership to the school district raises questions
about whether the general public will continue to be able to
enjoy the use of the park as it has over the past 30 years.
3. Trust but verify . SB 1027 requires the district to ensure
that the property remains parkland in perpetuity, but it does
not provide a specific mechanism for doing so. SB 829
(Galgiani, 2014) authorized the City of Escalon to sell parkland
it had acquired using bond funds on the condition that it
purchase replacement parkland that is accompanied by a deed
restriction preventing the conversion of the land to other uses.
The Committee may wish to consider amending SB 1027 to require
the transferred property to contain a deed restriction-binding
on future owners of the land-that prevents conversion of the
land to uses other than parkland or open space.
4. Special legislation . The California Constitution prohibits
special legislation when a general law can apply (Article IV,
§16). SB 1027 contains findings and declarations explaining the
SB 1027 (Nielsen) 2/12/16 Page 5
of ?
need for legislation that applies only to the County of Tehama.
Support and
Opposition (3/24/2016)
Support : County of Tehama (co-sponsor); Evergreen Union School
District (co-sponsor).
Opposition : Unknown.
-- END --