BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER
Senator Fran Pavley, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 1188 Hearing Date: April 12,
2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |McGuire | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Version: |February 18, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Matthew Dumlao |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Wildlife management areas: payment of taxes and
assessments
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
The Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) operates 11 wildlife
management areas covering over 700,000 acres throughout the
state. Typically wildlife management areas are located in rural
areas and they are designed to protect natural ecosystems (such
as wetlands) and improve habitat for fish and wildlife. Also,
these areas often provide hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing,
and outdoor education opportunities.
According to the California Constitution, state lands (including
wildlife management areas) are exempt from the property tax.
However, state law specifies that DFW shall provide those
counties containing wildlife management areas with payments from
funds available to the department. These "payments in lieu of
taxes" (PILT) are designed to offset lost property tax revenues
that counties and other local governments would be able to
collect on these properties if they were not state-owned.
PILT payments were made between 1957 and 2002 from the General
Fund. A partial payment was made in FY 2002-03. Since then the
state stopped providing PILT payments in the budget in order to
achieve cost savings.
The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) recently noted that some
local governments may be providing services (for example,
maintaining local facilities) on wildlife management areas that
SB 1188 (McGuire) Page 2
of ?
they do not receive property tax revenue from.
The state does not pay property taxes (CA Constitution, Article
XIII, §3.)) LAO also recently noted that no other state
department makes PILT payments to local jurisdictions for
state-owned lands.
In the budget for FY 2015-16, DFW received $644,000 from the
General Fund to resume PILT payments in 2015-16. The funding
was allocated to 36 counties containing wildlife management
areas with an average payment of just under $17,900.
Until 2015, the language of §1504 from the Fish and Game Code
(FGC) made PILT payments mandatory. Pursuant to SB 83 (Chapter
24, Statutes of 2015), PILT payments became optional. SB 83
also precludes counties from spending these payments on school
districts.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would amend FGC §1504 to change "may" to "shall" in
two locations.
As a result of this change, when income is derived directly from
real property acquired and operated by the state as wildlife
management areas, DFW will be required to pay annually to the
county in which the property is located. The amount owed to the
county will be equal to the county taxes levied upon the
property at the time title to the property was transferred to
the state.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author of the bill "While urban areas
throughout the state have mostly recovered from the impacts of
the Great Recession, rural areas of the state continue to
struggle to provide core services. SB 1188 seeks to provide
these much needed and duly owed, funds back to the affected
counties by reverting Fish and Game Code to the original intent
of the law by changing "may" back to "shall."
According to the sponsor of the bill, "While RCRC appreciates
SB 1188 (McGuire) Page 3
of ?
that the Brown Administration included funding in the State
Budget for PILT for the 2015-16 fiscal year after over a decade
of non-payment, and has proposed to fund PILT in the 2016-2017
fiscal year, future Administrations may well choose to simply
not make PILT payments - leaving counties without recourse due
to the now permissive nature of the language. SB1188 will help
ensure that PILT payments are made to counties both today and in
the future, honoring the implicit state commitment that began
over six decades ago."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
None received.
COMMENTS
Policy considerations in providing PILT. As the LAO recently
pointed out, PILT payments are in line with existing statutory
direction and longstanding historical practice before 2002. In
addition, some local governments might provide services on state
wildlife management areas from which they do not receive
property taxes. For example, some counties might incur costs to
maintain local facilities on DFW wildlife management areas, and
might step in to provide law enforcement services when
necessary.
That said, no other state department that makes PILP payments to
local jurisdictions for state-owned land. This includes other
state properties for which local governments might provide some
services, such as state buildings owned by the Department of
General Services and state parks. The administration has also
argued that the lost property taxes can be particularly
challenging for rural counties. While there is some variation,
on average, PILT payments to these counties would be a fraction
of a percent of their non-school property tax revenues.
Does not restore funding counties have not received since fiscal
year 2002-03. Unlike previous legislative efforts to make PILT
payments mandatory, there is no provision to repay counties for
the lack of payments that started in 2002-03. SB 1410 (Wolk,
2014) would have appropriated $19 million to pay the PILT
arrears and instituted a $2 million annual appropriation for
PILT payments (held in the Senate Appropriations Committee)
AB 1452 (Wolk, 2007) would have appropriated $7,415,000 from the
General Fund to DFW to pay PILT arrears (bill subsequently
SB 1188 (McGuire) Page 4
of ?
amended into a different subject area).
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
None.
SUPPORT
Alpine County Board of Supervisors
California State Association of Counties
Colusa County Board of Supervisors
Humboldt County Board of Supervisors
Marin County Board of Supervisors
Nevada County Board of Supervisors
Rural County Representatives of California (sponsor)
San Diego County Board of Supervisors
Sutter County Board of Supervisors
Yolo County Board of Supervisors
OPPOSITION
None received.
-- END --