BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1086|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1086
Author: De León (D)
Amended: 5/27/14
Vote: 27 - Urgency
SENATE NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER COMMITTEE : 7-1, 4/8/14
AYES: Pavley, Evans, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Monning, Wolk
NOES: Fuller
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cannella
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE : 5-2, 4/24/14
AYES: Wolk, Beall, DeSaulnier, Hernandez, Liu
NOES: Knight, Walters
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-2, 5/23/14
AYES: De León, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Gaines
SUBJECT : The Safe Neighborhood Parks, Rivers, and Coastal
Protection Bond
Act of 2014
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill proposes a future state parks and resources
bond that will be titled The Safe Neighborhood Parks, Rivers,
and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2014" (Act), which authorizes
the sale of an unspecified amount of bonds for parks, state
conservancies, coastal and ocean programs, urban forestry, river
parkways and urban rivers, and other resource protection and
CONTINUED
SB 1086
Page
2
restoration efforts.
ANALYSIS : Under existing law, various measures have been
approved by the voters to provide funds for park, river, and
coastal protections and programs.
This bill:
1.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.
2.Requires the Natural Resources Agency (Agency) to develop and
adopt a statewide resources protection plan to identify
priorities for expending funds provided in this Act that
reflects statewide and regional resource protection and public
access and availability to underserved populations.
Restoration projects will include planning, monitoring, and
reporting.
3.Proposes, although the bill is silent on specific allocations,
funds for creating and expanding local parks and restoration
of regional and state parks. Funds will be for new parks in
disadvantaged communities pursuant to AB 31 (de Leon, Chapter
623, Statutes of 2008) by per capita block grants, for grants
to regional and state parks that are operated by other public
agencies, and other parks operated through cooperating
agreements. Funds will also be available for deferred
maintenance at state parks.
4.Specifies that another category of funding is for "rivers,
lakes and streams" and eligible categories include the L.A.
River Parkway and other river parkways, wildlife habitat
projects, watershed programs at the Department of
Conservation, and flood programs of the Department of Water
Resources 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.
CONTINUED
SB 1086
Page
3
5.Provides that funds will also be allocated for forestry and
working lands programs to the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, the
Wildlife Conservation Board, and the Department of
Conservation.
6.Provides that regional state conservancies and the California
Conservation Corps and local conservation corps will be
funded. Urban forestry, urban greening, and greenprint
projects will also be funded.
7.Specifies the remainder of this bill contains the usual fiscal
provisions about the application of the state's bond laws, and
procedural provisions for the sale of the bonds.
8.Specifies that this Act must be submitted to the voters at the
November 4, 2014, statewide general election, as specified.
Background
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 Proposition 12 in 2000;
$2.6 billion in Proposition 40 in 2002; and
$5.4 billion in Proposition 84 in 2006 (through the initiative
process).
Of these three bonds, the most recent postings on the "bond
accountability" Web site maintained by the Agency indicates that
the Proposition 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
Proposition 12.
For Proposition 40, that same Web site shows a remaining
unencumbered balance of $37 million, which the bond requires to
be allocated across a broad range of programs.
CONTINUED
SB 1086
Page
4
Proposition 84, the most recent of the resources bonds, as
expected, has the largest unencumbered remaining balance. About
$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, agricultural 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, Proposition 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; and
Parks for disadvantaged communities.
Most previous bonds had smaller categories of funding for
specialized programs and Proposition 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
CONTINUED
SB 1086
Page
5
apply to block grants to local governments or allocations to
specific state agencies.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, fiscal impact
unknown, but presumably in the millions of dollars annually from
the General Fund for debt service.
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/27/14)
Audubon California
Big Sur Land Trust
California Association of Local Conservation Corps
California Park and Recreation Society
California Releaf
California State Parks Foundation
California Urban Forests Council
California Watershed Network
Cities of Encinitas, Hawaiian Gardens, Torrance, and 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 and Park District
CONTINUED
SB 1086
Page
6
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, this bill "is
an effort to fund local, regional and state parks and protect
waterways, mountains and beaches. There has not been a true
park and natural resources bond for over a decade, since the
passage of Proposition 40 in 2002. Unfortunately, there remains
a large unmet need to improve and expand parks and protect
natural resources. Although Proposition 84 in 2006 contained
$400 million for state parks and $400 million for a local
competitive grant program, pursuant to AB 31 (De León), park
specific dollars represented only 15% of the funds available in
the $5.1 billion bond. The local competitive grant program
established by AB 31 awarded $368 million in grants representing
126 park projects in underserved neighborhoods across the state
- from Eureka to El Centro. However, the program received $3
billion in requests - a ratio of eight project applications for
every one application awarded. Additionally, recent years of
budget deficits at the local and state level have impacted
existing park and natural resources infrastructure, including
limiting the ability to expand and build more park projects to
better serve California's park-poor neighborhoods."
RM:nl 5/27/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED