|
|
|
|
|
|
State of
|
|
|
JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM governor |
DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES |
K. L. COOL director |
|
|
|
|
|
|
State of
|
|
|
JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM governor |
DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES |
K. L. COOL director |
BILL
NUMBER: SENATE BILL 969 (2004) AS
INTRODUCED
TOPIC: This bill would amend sections
503 and 1907 of 1994 PA 451
SPONSOR: Senator
McManus
CO-SPONSORS: Senators
Jelinek, Cropsey, Birkholz, Kuipers, Allen, Hardiman, Goschka, Garcia, Prusi,
Stamas, Barcia and Cherry
COMMITTEE: Natural
Resources and Environmental Affairs
Analysis Done:
POSITION
The Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) opposes this legislation.
PROBLEM/BACKGROUND
See Summary of Arguments
below.
DESCRIPTION OF BILL
The
bill provides a requirement for a cost analysis and justification to be done
prior to the purchase of any land by the Department, in consultation with the
Department of Management and Budget (DMB).
It
also requires the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF) Board to
prepare, and annually review, a long-term spending plan for money from the
trust fund. Additionally, it requires
the MNRTF Board, in consultation with DMB, to do a similar cost analysis and
justification as identified above.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Pro
None.
Con
The
bill requires an estimate of the long-term costs of maintaining any land
purchased. There could be an estimate
of future State Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) obligations based on an
inflation factor. Such an estimate would
not necessarily be reliable or accurate.
Other potential costs would not be foreseeable.
Additionally,
there is no provision to consider the benefits that might accrue to the State,
either directly or indirectly, from the purchase of land. Examples might be tourism, timber, or
revenues from fees.
The
MNRTF is established constitutionally.
There would be a question as to the constitutionality of this bill in
relation to the MNRTF. Additionally, the
decisions of the MNRTF Board are currently subject only to legislative and
Governor approval, and do not require approval or justification to DMB.
Finally,
the bill requires the DNR to determine the State’s ability to pay any
identified costs into the future. Given
the current state of the budget, predictions into the future are tenuous at
best. The language of the bill is also
vague as to what constitutes an appropriate justification for acquiring land.
The
DNR is currently undergoing a review of all of its land ownership to determine
which lands will be a part of its ongoing management into the future, and which
lands will be disposed of because they do not fit into that future. This will result in a long-term land
ownership strategy, which will take into account PILT obligations incurred as a
result of land acquisitions, as well as current PILT obligations.
FISCAL/ECONOMIC
IMPACT
Are there revenue or
budgetary implications in the bill to the --
Budgetary:
None.
Revenue:
None.
Comments:
None.
Budgetary:
None.
Revenue:
None.
Comments:
None.
Comments:
None.
OTHER STATE DEPARTMENTS
None.
ANY OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE
RULES IMPACT
None.
_______________________________
K. L. Cool
Director
_______________________________
Date
OLAF/GCCS
