Sierra Nevada ConservancyState legislation has been introduced to again attempt to create a Sierra Nevada Conservancy. Two bills are now pending in the State Assembly, with a hearing on both set for April 19 in Sacramento with the Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Assemblyman Tim Leslie (R-Tahoe City) introduced AB 1788 on January 5.
Assemblyman John Laird (DSanta Cruz) introduced AB 2600 on February 20. Both bills establish a new state agency known as the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, covering numerous counties but excluding the Lake Tahoe region (it already has a conservancy). The Conservancy would have powers to acquire private land or interests.
In AB 1788, the Conservancy’s operations would be funded either as part of the State Budget or as bond acts allocate monies. In AB 2600, $30 million from Prop 50 would be its funding source. Another notable difference between the two bills is that AB 1788 requires “a resolution in support of that acquisition and the land management plan applicable to the acquisition has been approved by the county or city that exercises general planning authority and jurisdiction over that parcel.” (Section 33351 (c)) CABPRO asked for that when the first Sierra Nevada Conservancy bill was working its way through Sacramento in 2002! However, AB 2600 does not seek support from the local jurisdiction. There are other differences as well. These differences will be presented in the next issue of our newsletter.
Partly as a result of increasing acquisitions for open space and other preservation purposes, Field Director Pat Davison has written a discussion draft supporting property tax reimbursement back to the counties when these private parcels or development rights are taken off the tax rolls. The concept entails adding an additional amount onto the purchase price that represents a one-time lump sum to be given to the affected county.
Although the federal government has a program in place to “pay” counties an amount per acre of federal lands (i.e. PILT = Payment In Lieu of Taxes), the state has no such program. So when expansion of Donner State Park or South Yuba State Park occurs, the state pays the property owner for the land but there is no payment or consideration given to the county that had previously received property tax income from the land.
Some opposition to that concept has arisen, based on the potential that the neighboring property tax value increases because the adjacent property now abuts open space.
No quantification of that potential increase has been done in Nevada County. Also, the suggestion that increased tourism, and more tax revenue, will result from more open space has not been quantified at the local level either.
Your CABPRO Board will be discussing our position on both Conservancy bills and the “property tax reimbursement” concept at future meetings.
Contact the office if you want a copy of the “property tax reimbursement” discussion draft, or download it from our website.