BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2013-2014 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SB 1086 HEARING DATE: April 8, 2014
AUTHOR: De Leon URGENCY: No
VERSION: February 19, 2014 CONSULTANT: Bill Craven
DUAL REFERRAL: Governance and FinanceFISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: The Safe Neighborhood Parks, Rivers, and Coastal
Protection Bond Act of 2014.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
California voters have approved parks and resources bond
measures presented to them both through the citizen initiative
process and as proposals placed on the ballot by the
Legislature.
These bonds funded numerous other programs other than state and
local parks, but the total amounts of the most recent bonds
include:
$2.1 billion in Prop 12 in 2000
$2.6 billion in Prop 40 in 2002
$5.4 billion in Prop 84 in 2006 (through the initiative process)
Of these three bonds, the most recent postings on the "bond
accountability" website maintained by the California Natural
Resources Agency indicates that the Prop 12 funds are virtually
all unavailable for appropriation because they have been spent
or are allocated for projects. There is perhaps a total of $16
million for all the various categories of funding (not just
parks) remaining from Prop. 12.
For Prop 40, that same website shows a remaining unencumbered
balance of $37 million, which the bond requires to be allocated
across a broad range of programs.
Prop 84, the most recent of the resources bonds, as expected,
has the largest unencumbered remaining balance. About
1
$218,000,000 remains to be allocated across all of the programs
funded by that bond.
In general terms, the typical funding pattern of these bonds
allocated specific amounts for specific aspects of state and
local parks needs, as well as to state conservancies, coastal
and ocean programs, ag land conservation, and local assistance
grants from state parks to local and regional parks.
Some of the existing grants programs for local and regional
parks require a local match, others do not. Some are also based
on per capita population. All of these bonds provided a mixture
of funding based on these formulae, all of which are statutory.
In addition, Prop 84 in particular contained a more robust range
of funding that included several water and flood programs in
addition to its parks and resource funding. This pattern
originated to a narrower extent in earlier bonds. While none of
the bonds were completely identical in the categories that were
funded, it is safe to say that the following are the typical
categories that were funded:
California State Parks, for operations, capital projects, and
deferred maintenance, and cultural and historic preservation
needs
Local assistance grants to local and regional parks, based on
programs that include per capita funding and grants based on
need. Local matches are often required for these grants.
State conservancies and the Wildlife Conservation Board
Coastal and ocean programs
Urban forestry
California Conservation Corps and local conservation corps
funding
River parkways and urban rivers
Parks for disadvantaged communities
Most previous bonds had smaller categories of funding for
2
specialized programs and Prop 12 had identifiable earmarks. The
trend in recent bonds has been to avoid earmarks for specific
projects and instead to have most grants awarded on a
competitive basis. Obviously, that consideration does not apply
to block grants to local governments or allocations to specific
state agencies.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill proposes a future state parks and resources bond that
would be titled "The Safe Neighborhood Parks, Rivers, and
Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2014."
The bill contains numerous findings and definitions. General
provisions require state agencies to achieve wildlife
conservation objectives on public lands or through voluntary
projects on private lands. It authorizes the use of habitat
credit exchanges. It also establishes a priority for funding
projects that implement natural community conservation plans or
endangered species recovery plans.
It requires the Natural Resources Agency to develop and adopt a
statewide resources protection plan to reflect statewide and
regional resource protection priorities, including public access
and availability to underserved populations. Restoration
projects would include planning, monitoring, and reporting.
Although the bill is silent on specific allocations, it proposes
funds for creating and expanding local parks and restoration of
regional and state parks. Funds would be for new parks in
disadvantaged communities pursuant to AB 31 (de Leon), by per
capita bloc grants, for grants to regional and state parks that
are operated by other public agencies, and other parks operated
through cooperating agreements. Funds would also be available
for deferred maintenance at state parks.
Another category of funding is for "rivers, lakes and streams"
and eligible categories include the LA River Parkway and other
river parkways, wildlife habitat projects, watershed programs at
the Department of Conservation, and flood programs of DWR that
provide multiple benefits.
A separate category is proposed for funding coast and ocean
protection with funds proposed to the Coastal Conservancy and
the Ocean Protection Council.
Funds would also be allocated for forestry and working lands
programs to the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, the Wildlife
Conservation Board, and the Department of Conservation.
3
Regional state conservancies and the California Conservation
Corps and local conservation corps would be funded. Urban
forestry, urban greening, and greenprint projects would also be
funded.
The remainder of the bill contains the usual fiscal provisions
about the application of the state's bond laws, and procedural
provisions for the sale of the bonds.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
Although the bill is far from its final form, numerous
supporters have emerged: Many point to the over-subscribed
dollars available from previous bonds, especially for local and
regional parks needs and needs in disadvantaged communities.
Others point to the ecosystem restoration projects that require
funding all across the state, from the Salton Sea to the Klamath
River. Several regional groups are pointing to the funding
shortfalls they are experiencing in developing innovative
approaches to conserving working landscapes for agriculture and
forested lands. Several organizations involved in multi-benefit
projects state that their funding has been cut or eliminated.
Groups have indicated support both from urban as well as rural
areas of the state, from large cities to small suburbs, and
large statewide nonprofits to local organizations.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
None received.
COMMENTS
1. This bill is clearly a work in progress and needs significant
amendments assuming it moves forward. It is not clear that the
author intends for this measure to be presented to the voters in
2014 or at a subsequent election. In 2013, an earlier version of
this bond was SB 783 (de Leon).
2. There are many blank lines in the bill representing dollar
amounts for various programs. At this time, staff suggests to
the Committee that the author commit to working with the
Committee on future amendments and to agree to bring the bill
back to the Committee at the appropriate time. It may be useful
to bring the bill back to the Committee before it leaves the
Senate in order for the Committee to assist in the final shape
of the bill before it leaves the Senate.
3. There are several technical and definitional issues that will
4
need ongoing discussion (examples include definitions of
"greenprint" and "restoration." In addition, the Committee would
respectfully offer comments thus far that the author may wish to
consider as the bill moves through the legislative process:
(a) A provision similar to the language on page 4, line 31 was
considered and rejected in recent actions on a proposed water
bond. This Committee felt strongly that the relationship between
regional conservancies and the Natural Resources Agency should
be handled with great respect for the regional priorities
identified by the conservancies. While it is quite possible to
work out a provision that increases accountability, which seems
to be impetus of this provision, the current language could be
interpreted to impose centralized control over conservancies by
the agency.
(b) The pending water bonds by Senator Wolk and Assemblyman
Rendon contain allocations to the state's regional
conservancies, the Wildlife Conservation Board, and the Ocean
Protection Council. If a water bond and this measure are
presented to the voters, some sort of accommodation in these
allocations will need to be made. The water bonds are
appropriately focused on water quality and water supply
projects. Most parks bonds have different criteria and emphases.
This is mentioned as an item that will need further refinement
and in which this Committee will be involved.
(c) The reference to habitat credit exchanges on page 4, line
26, will require direction to the Department of Fish and
Wildlife. This would be a new program intended to create
economic incentives for private landowners to manage their
working landscapes in ways that benefit wildlife, especially
listed species. One option, at least for listed species, is that
this concept could be linked to the existing safe harbor
provisions of the state endangered species act.
(d) The reference to "planning, monitoring, and reporting" on
page 4, line 38, currently applies only to restoration projects.
Funding for other programs may also independently require
similar activities, but if not, these sorts of accountability
measures should be made explicit in the bond.
SUPPORT
Audubon California
Big Sur Land Trust
California Association of Local Conservation Corps
5
California Park and Recreation Society
California Releaf
California State Parks Foundation
California Urban Forests Council
California Watershed Network
City of Encinitas
City of Hawaiian Gardens
City of Torrance
City of Westminster
Conejo Recreation and Park District
El Dorado Hills Community Services District
Endangered Habitats League
Environmental Defense Fund
Fair Oaks Recreation and Park District
Hesperia Recreation and Park District
Highlands Recreation District
LA Conservation Corps
Lafayette Parks, Trails, and Recreation Department
Livermore Area Recreation and Park District
Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority
Pacific Forest Trust
Paradise Recreation and Park District
Peninsula Open Space Trust
Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District
San Jose Conservation Corps & Charter School
Santa Ana River Trail and Parkway Partnership
Sequoia Community Corps
Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District
The Nature Conservancy
The Trust for Public Land
Wasco Recreation & Parks
One individual
OPPOSITION
None Received
6