|
|
|
|
State of
DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES |
|
|
JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM governor |
REBECCA A. HUMPHRIES director |
|
|
|
|
State of
DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES |
|
|
JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM governor |
REBECCA A. HUMPHRIES director |
|
BILL NUMBER: |
SB
1037 (AS INTRODUCED) |
|
TOPIC: |
Relinquishment
of reverter on municipal forest prime lands |
|
SPONSOR: |
Senator
Prusi |
|
CO-SPONSORS: |
Senators Jelinek, Jansen, Van Woerkom, Barcia,
Olshove and Cherry |
|
COMMITTEE: |
Natural Resources and
Environmental Affairs |
|
Analysis
Done: |
|
POSITION
The
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) opposes this legislation since it will
further reduce and dilute protections to forest lands acquired by
municipalities and school districts under the Municipal Forests part of 1994 PA
451.
PROBLEM/BACKGROUND
The
original 1931 PA 217 was enacted to provide for the establishment of municipal
(county, township, city, village or school district) forests including the
acquisition of State lands by municipalities to be managed for forestry
purposes. It provided specific guidance
as to how such lands were to be managed on a long term basis and provided for
the reversion of the lands back to the State when the lands were no longer used
for forestry purposes. Approximately
75,000 acres of State land were deeded to municipalities throughout the State
under this Act. Most of these lands were
deeded prior to 1960 and were actively managed as forests for many years by the
municipalities. The Act was incorporated
into 1994 PA 451 with little change from the original Act, and the language
remained the same until 2004.
In 2004, the DNR opposed the original introduced version of
HB 5313 which would have removed reverter language from all property deeded to
municipalities and schools for forestry purposes. The bill was amended to address some of the DNR's
concerns but still provided for the removal of the reverter language from
deeded properties which were not "prime lands," as defined in the
subsequently approved legislation, 2004 PA 377.
To clarify the intent and correct language in the 2004 Act, it was
subsequently amended by 2006 PA 179. In addition to making corrections to the
2004 Act language, 2006 PA 179 also weakened the definition of “prime lands” and
allowed the State’s reverter interest to be removed from municipal forestlands that
are “not prime.”
This new 2008 legislation will further weaken and dilute the
protections afforded to municipal forests under the prime lands criteria by
providing for splitting or partitioning of
prime lands, which may eliminate the prime land protection for the resulting
splits or parcels.
DESCRIPTION OF BILL
The
bill will amend Part 527, Municipal Forests, 1994 PA 451, Section 52706 (MCL
324.52706) by adding a new subsection (12):
“If prime land is partitioned or split, a resulting parcel shall not be
considered prime land under subsection (11)(c)(i) or (ii) unless that resulting
parcel independently meets the requirements of subsection (11)(c)(i) or (ii).”
As
an example: An existing 40-acre municipal
forest parcel contains a stream on the edge of the parcel. It is currently classified as prime land
under 11(c) (ii), “provides access to a public body of water.” If the municipality split the parcel into two
parts, one containing the stream and the other not, the parcel without the
stream would no longer be considered prime land under the proposed amendment
subsection (12) and the reverter would be eligible to be released.
If
it was a 35-acre parcel, the carved-out, leftover five-acre parcel containing
the stream would still be municipal forest land. Public access to that remaining five acres
may be cut off by the conversion of the 35 acres to private lands. The municipality could also then decide to
deed the then unmanageable small parcel back to the State of
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Pro
None
Con
The bill
will provide for even more municipal forest lands to be converted to other non-forest uses than the 2006 amendment. The intent of the original Community Forest
Act, 1931 PA 217, will be further diluted.
FISCAL/ECONOMIC
IMPACT
Are there revenue or
budgetary implications in the bill to the --
Budgetary:
Some additional staff time will be incurred in
reviewing new applications to release reverter clauses received as a result of
this amendment.
Revenue:
None
Comments:
There are no funds provided
to the DNR to administer this program.
The bill will not change that.
Budgetary:
This may result in a slight increase in revenue if
more parcels are eligible for sale.
Revenue:
An estimate of several thousand dollars per year
through 2010 from the 50 percent of land sale proceeds received by the State; distributed
first to the General Fund, and then possibly the Fire Protection Fund (only
after the first $18,000,000 is deposited into the General Fund).
Comments:
Cost to State to review may be greater than funds received.
Comments:
Some municipalities will be
able to sell additional forest lands and retain 50 percent of the proceeds for
local use.
However, municipalities that change the use of their
municipal forest land, either by sale or conversion to another use, will forgo
their opportunity for long-term revenues from sustainable forest management
activities.
OTHER STATE DEPARTMENTS
None
ANY OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
If
the bill moves forward, it should specifically include language prohibiting
municipal forest lands which have been split or partitioned, from changing
their pre split or pre partition classification under the “prime land”
definition requirement (11) (c) (iii): “Is not less than 121 acres in size and, at
any time during the preceding 10 years, had a basal area of not less than 90
square feet per acre.”
ADMINISTRATIVE
RULES IMPACT
Rules are not necessary to administer this Act.
_______________________________
Rebecca A. Humphries
Director
_______________________________
Date
FMFM/OLAF
