House approves optional county conservation fund but limits deposits to 30% of rollback taxes

The Utah House on Monday approved House Bill 115, a permissive measure that allows county legislative bodies to deposit up to 30% of five-year Greenbelt ‘‘rollback’’ taxes into an optional County Conservation and Preservation Fund for uses such as parks, trails, watershed protection, agricultural land preservation and critical wildlife habitat.

Sponsor Representative Jack Drexler said the bill ‘‘enables but does not require’’ counties to establish a fund tying Greenbelt rollback revenues to land-conservation purposes and that the measure was suggested by a county extension agent. ‘‘This idea was brought to me by our county extension agent who is very, very involved every day…The beauty of the bill is that it allows a direct connection between greenbelt land that goes out of agricultural production and the acquisition of other land to compensate for that land going out of production,’’ Drexler said during his presentation.

The House adopted an amendment offered by Representative Noel that replaced the bill’s original language allowing counties to deposit ‘‘the entire amount’’ of rollback taxes with a cap of ‘‘30%’’ of those revenues. ‘‘The motion to amend is to, on line 35, remove the 3 words, the entire amount and replace it with 30%,’’ Representative Noel said when proposing the amendment; the amendment passed on a recorded division vote of 38 yes, 30 no and 7 absent.

Debate reflected two consistent themes: local control and concern for agricultural producers. Supporters argued the change clarifies and highlights a funding option counties have said they want, and noted the measure is optional. ‘‘This bill absolutely does not impose or require any kind of fund,’’ Drexler said in summation. Proponents added the fund could be used to seek matching grants and would be one tool among many to preserve open space.

Opponents said Greenbelt rollback taxes were designed chiefly to mitigate the fiscal effect when farmland leaves agricultural production, and warned that setting aside rollback dollars for conservation could divert resources away from agriculture. Representative Ferry argued that ‘‘agriculture cannot compete with the public tax dollar’’ and cautioned that moving funds toward conservation purchases could disadvantage farm operators. Representative Mascaro urged leaving decisions to local officials: ‘‘...I trust our county officials. And anytime that I can support legislation that moves decisions closer to the people, I think that’s good legislation.’’

Lawmakers also pressed technical questions about who pays rollback taxes and how much money could be available locally. Drexler said the five-year rollback amounts are almost always paid by the purchaser converting Greenbelt land from agricultural to developed use, not the farmer, and cited his county’s most recent county portion as about $140,000 in one year as an illustrative figure. ‘‘When a parcel of land goes out of agricultural production, someone is required to go back and pay the previous 5 years...That is almost always paid by the purchaser of the property who is converting it,’’ Drexler said.

After the amendment and additional floor debate, the House passed HB115 as amended and returned it for filing. The bill is permissive and does not change the school or city shares of rollback taxes or require counties to create a fund.

What happens next: HB115, as amended, was referred for filing and may be taken up or implemented by interested county legislative bodies; because the statute remains permissive, any county that wishes to establish such a fund would still need to act locally under the procedures the bill would enable.