Rules and Regulations of the State Properties Committee
220-1383 INACTIVE RULE
Title | 220 | Department of Administration |
Chapter | XXX | Old Regulations Which Were Not Assigned Chapter-Subchap-Part |
Subchapter | XX | Old Regulations Which Were Not Assigned Chapter-Subchap-Part |
Part | 1383 | Rules and Regulations of the State Properties Committee |
Type of Filing | Amendment |
Regulation Status | Inactive |
Effective | 12/08/2010 to 03/27/2018 |
Regulation Authority:
RIGL Sections 37-6-2 and 42-17.9-1
Purpose and Reason:
These rules and regulations amend the Rules and Regulations of the State Properties Committee by adding a new Article, which would establish procedures for the consideration of integrated standards and guidelines for preserving and protecting the State’s interest in open space values. In addition, Rule 107 had been amended to include minor changes to Definitions. As a result of a comment made at the public hearing held October 22, 2010, the State Property Committee voted at its meeting on November 9, 2010 to further amend proposed Rules 807 and 808. This revised section of Rule 807 now reads: If the Committee, in consultation with the DEM and the Division, determines that the proposed Action would have an adverse affect on Open Space Values for State-owned property acquired and/or dedicated to, and managed for, open space purposes, the Agency shall be required to demonstrate an acceptable plan for the acquisition, for conservation purposes, of a new and not yet conserved parcel at least equal reasonably equal in open space value, fair market value, and acreage. This revised section of Rule 808 now reads: If it has been determined that the proposed Action has an adverse impact on Open Space Values, a final approval shall not be issued unless the Agency has demonstrated an acceptable plan for the acquisition, for conservation purposes, of a new and not yet conserved parcel at least equal reasonably equal in open space value, fair market value, and acreage. The "fair market value" criterion was added to ensure that the actual market value of open space that was found to be adversely affected was reflected in the plan for replacement of that open space. The phrase "at least equal" was replaced by "reasonably equal" in recognition that adding an additional criterion (i.e. fair market value) could make it difficult to find replacement open space that exactly met all of the criteria.