BILL ANALYSIS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2009-2010 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: AB 94 HEARING DATE: June 23, 2009
AUTHOR: Evans URGENCY: No
VERSION: April 20, 2009 CONSULTANT: Marie Liu
DUAL REFERRAL: Revenue and TaxationFISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Natural Heritage Preservation Tax Credit Act of 2000.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
The Natural Heritage Preservation Tax Credit Act of 2000
(Section 37000 of the Public Resources Code et seq.) aimed to
foster public/private partnerships to resolve land use and water
disputes, assisting habitat stewardship, and demonstrating the
state's commitment to protect natural resources by rewarding
landowners who perceive habitat as an asset rather than a
liability. To this end, the Natural Heritage Preservation Tax
Credit Program (tax credit program) provided a state tax credit
for donations of water rights or qualified land (fee title or
easement) equal to 55 percent of the appraised market value. The
donation had to protect wildlife habitat, parks and open space,
archaeological resources, agricultural land, or water. The
donation could have been to any department within the Resources
Agency, a local government, or a qualified non-profit. The
donation had to receive approval from the Wildlife Conservation
Board in order to be eligible for the tax credit. There was a
$100 million cap on total tax credits granted under this
program.
The tax credit program was first implemented in 2001 but was
suspended in 2002 because of pressures on the General Fund. In
2005, an amended version of the program was reinstated. Under
the amended program, a donation was only be eligible for a tax
credit if all the lost revenue resulting from the tax credit
could have been reimbursed to the General Fund from another
source, such as state bond funds including Proposition 40 and
Proposition 50.
The tax credit program was sunset on June 30, 2008.
1
Section 7260 of the Government Code requires that relocation
benefits be given to individuals that are displaced by the sale
of private land to a public entity for public use.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would renew the Natural Habitat Preservation Tax Act
for 10 years with the following changes:
Requires that all tax credits approved under this program to
be reimburse the General Fund. Reimbursements can come from
state bonds, court settlements, private or public donations,
local government funds of any type, and federal funds
available for this purpose.
Allows local governments to be the sole recipient of an
eligible land or water right donation.
This bill would also exempts individuals affected by voluntary
conservation land sales and donations from receiving mandatory
relocation benefits.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, "[T]his voluntary program allows
California to acquire $18 million of land for every $10 million
of bond funding, while providing fair value to the landowner,
and keeping the General Fund whole. During its previous
authorization period, the Natural Heritage Preservation Tax
Credit saved California approximately $40 million in the
acquisition of more than 8,000 acres of land in Calaveras, Lake,
Los Angeles, Madera, Marin, Monterey, Sacramento, San Luis
Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tehama, and Ventura Counties. This bill
would allow the state to once again work with interested
landowners to provide a legacy for future generations of
Californians."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
None received
COMMENTS
Past and Potential Future for the Natural Habitat Preservation
Tax Act: Before the program expired in 2008, $48.6 million
dollars in tax credit had been granted, of which $15.3 million
was reimbursed to the General Fund with bond monies. Should this
program be reinstated, there are bond funds available to fund
this program, including most recently Proposition 84.
Proposition 84, passed by the voters in 2006, allowed for the
funds in scheduled in Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the proposition
to be available for reimbursing the General Fund pursuant to the
Natural Habitat Preservation Tax Act, so long as the funds are
2
not designated for competitive grant programs (75073 of the
Public Resources Code). These sections of Proposition 84 are
dedicated to: the protection of rivers, lakes, and streams;
forest and wildlife conservation; the protection of beaches,
bays, and coastal waters; and parks and nature education
facilities. These sections collectively schedule approximately
$2.4 billion of bond funds.
SUPPORT
Agricultural-Natural Resources Trust of Contra Costa County
Alameda County Resource Conservation District
American Farmland Trust
American Land Conservancy
Audubon California
Butte County Resource Conservation District
California Association of Recreation and Park Districts
California Cattle Women's Association
California Cattlemen's Association
California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance
California Council of Land Trusts
California League of Conservation voters
California Outdoor Heritage Alliance
California Rangeland Trust
California Sate Parks Foundation
California Special Districts Association
Central Valley Land Trust Council
Central Valley Program Director Trust for Public Land
Chevron
Colusa County resource Conservation District
Defenders of Wildlife
Land Trust for Santa Barbara County
Middle Mountain Foundation
Natural Resource Defense Council
Nevada County Resource Conservation District
Planning and Conservation League
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Sacramento Valley Conservancy
San Benito Cattlemen's Association
Sempervirens Fund
Sierra Club California
Sierra Foothills Audubon Society
Southern California Edison
Sustainable Conservation
The Nature Conservancy
The Trust for Public Land
3
The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation
1 Individual
OPPOSITION None Received
4