BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                    SB 1188


                                                                    Page  1





          SENATE THIRD READING


          SB  
          1188 (McGuire, et al.)


          As Introduced  February 18, 2016


          Majority vote


          SENATE VOTE:  37-0


           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |Committee       |Votes|Ayes                  |Noes                |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Water           |15-0 |Levine, Gallagher,    |                    |
          |                |     |Bigelow, Dodd,        |                    |
          |                |     |Eggman, Cristina      |                    |
          |                |     |Garcia, Eduardo       |                    |
          |                |     |Garcia, Gomez,        |                    |
          |                |     |Harper, Lopez,        |                    |
          |                |     |Mathis, Nazarian,     |                    |
          |                |     |Olsen, Salas,         |                    |
          |                |     |Williams              |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Appropriations  |15-0 |Gonzalez, Bigelow,    |                    |
          |                |     |Bloom, Bonilla,       |                    |
          |                |     |Bonta, Chang, Eggman, |                    |
          |                |     |Eduardo Garcia,       |                    |
          |                |     |Jones, Obernolte,     |                    |
          |                |     |Quirk, Santiago,      |                    |








                                                                    SB 1188


                                                                    Page  2





          |                |     |Weber, Wood, McCarty  |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 


          SUMMARY:  Requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW),  
          when income is derived from wildlife management areas, to make  
          payments in lieu of taxes to the counties in which the state  
          wildlife management areas are located, subject to appropriation  
          by the Legislature.   Specifically, this bill:


          1)Requires, instead of authorizes, the DFW, when income is  
            derived directly from real property acquired and operated by  
            the state as a wildlife management area, to pay annually to  
            the county in which the property is located an amount equal to  
            the county taxes levied upon the property at the time the  
            property was transferred to the state.


          2)Requires, instead of authorizes, the DFW to also pay  
            assessments levied upon the property by any irrigation,  
            drainage, or reclamation district.  


          EXISTING LAW:  


          1)Authorizes the DFW, when income is derived directly from real  
            property acquired and operated by the state as a wildlife  
            management area, to pay annually to the county in which the  
            property is located, an amount equal to the county taxes  
            levied upon the property at the time the property was  
            transferred to the state.  


          2)Authorizes the DFW to also pay assessments levied upon the  
            property by any irrigation, drainage, or reclamation district.








                                                                    SB 1188


                                                                    Page  3







          3)Provides that these in lieu payments shall be made only from  
            funds that are appropriated to the DFW for these purposes.    


          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee, ongoing annual cost pressures of $644,000 (General  
          Fund) for annual obligations to counties for payments in lieu of  
          taxes.  Payments are required to be made from funds appropriated  
          to the DFW by the Legislature for this purpose.


          COMMENTS:  This bill amends existing law, which currently  
          authorizes but does not require the state to make payments in  
          lieu of taxes to counties for loss of property tax revenues  
          which would otherwise have been received for lands within the  
          county that are operated by the state as wildlife management  
          areas.  This bill requires rather than permits these payments,  
          but continues the condition that these payments shall only be  
          made from funds appropriated by the Legislature to the DFW for  
          that purpose.  


          State lands, including wildlife management areas, are exempt  
          from property taxes under the State Constitution.  In 1949,  
          California established a process to offset impacts to county  
          property tax revenues when the state acquires private property  
          for wildlife management areas, by requiring the state to make  
          payments to counties known as payments in lieu of taxes.   
          Payments in lieu of taxes help small and rural counties fund a  
          variety of programs and services that benefit county residents.   
          The in lieu program was established with the intention of  
          mitigating the effects of the state's land acquisition on county  
          revenue sources.  


          However, the state, from fiscal year 1998-1999 through  
          2002-2003, only made partial in lieu payments to counties, and  








                                                                    SB 1188


                                                                    Page  4





          suspended the payments completely after 2002-2003.  According to  
          the Legislative Analyst's Office, the amount of unpaid in lieu  
          payments in arrears is close to $8 million.  According to the  
          author and sponsor of this bill, the non-payment of these in  
          lieu payments has been particularly burdensome on small rural  
          counties.  Last year, $644,000 was included in the 2015-16 State  
          Budget to pay for the current year's in lieu payments.  Budget  
          trailer bill language included in SB 83 (Committee on Budget),  
          Chapter 24, Statutes of 2015, also made the payments permissive.  
           The State Budget for 2016-17 also includes $644,000 for the  
          next fiscal year's payment.  While the Governor's budget  
          includes funding for the annual in lieu payment for the upcoming  
          fiscal year, this bill seeks to ensure that counties in the  
          future are not left without recourse due to the now permissive  
          nature of the law.

          The state's failure to pay in lieu payments has been a subject  
          of contention for several years.  It is possible that continued  
          failure on the part of the state to pay counties the monies to  
          which they are entitled may create negative sentiment toward  
          existing and future wildlife management areas.

          Making the statute mandatory rather than permissive may not  
          totally solve the problem, since payment of the in lieu payments  
          is still dependent on the Governor and the Legislature including  
          the annual appropriations for the payments in the DFW's budget.   
          This is demonstrated by the fact that even when the payments  
          were mandated by statute, as they were prior to last year, the  
          state was not making them.     

          Supporters note that many of California's rural counties are  
          home to important state wildlife areas and also have other  
          federal and state owned lands within their boundaries.  In  
          either case, these lands do not generate property tax revenues,  
          an important source of funding for local programs and services  
          for county residents.  This bill reverses a change in statute  
          made last year that made the program permissive rather than  
          mandatory.  Many of the counties in support of this bill note  
          that they are owed significant amounts in arrears for unpaid in  








                                                                    SB 1188


                                                                    Page  5





          lieu payments.  This bill will help ensure the state honors its  
          commitment to make future in lieu payments to counties.



          No formal opposition to this bill has been received.



          Analysis Prepared by:                                             
                          Diane Colborn / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096     
                                                                  FN:  
          0004052