New Jersey Assembly Bill A2521

New Jersey 2026-2027 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/13/26
• Refer: 1/13/26
• Failed: 1/13/26
• Passed: 1/13/26

Caption

Directs Garden State Preservation Trust to perform audit of State's land preservation programs, authorizes local governments and nonprofit organizations to utilize certain constitutionally dedicated CBT revenues for administrative expenses; appropriates $150,000.

Summary

Assembly Bill 2521 would require the Garden State Preservation Trust (GSPT) to conduct, or have conducted, a comprehensive audit of the State land preservation programs it oversees, including Green Acres, Blue Acres, farmland preservation, and historic property preservation. The audit must provide a formal accounting of those programs, identify inefficiencies, and recommend reallocating funds where appropriate. The bill also requires State agencies involved in these programs to cooperate with the audit and directs the GSPT to submit and publish the final report to the Governor, the Legislature, and the public. In addition to the audit requirement, the bill amends farmland preservation statutes to allow local governments and qualifying nonprofit organizations receiving constitutionally dedicated corporation business tax revenues to use up to 3 percent of the value of an acquired development easement or fee simple title for administrative expenses. It also requires uncommitted allocations from the Preserve New Jersey Farmland Preservation Fund to be returned to the fund if they are not tied to an active transaction within 18 months, subject to an exception for properties under legal review. The bill appropriates $150,000 from the General Fund to implement the audit provision and takes effect immediately.

Impact

The bill would affect the statutes governing the Garden State Farmland Preservation Trust Fund and the Preserve New Jersey Farmland Preservation Fund, as well as the administration of State farmland preservation grants. It expands permitted uses of certain dedicated CBT-derived farmland preservation funds by expressly authorizing administrative expenses for local governments and nonprofits, defines those expenses as labor costs capped at 3 percent of property value, and adds a recapture mechanism for dormant local allocations. It also creates a new audit mandate for the GSPT covering multiple land preservation programs and requires interagency cooperation and public reporting.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text, the measure appears framed as an oversight and efficiency proposal, with a focus on transparency, accountability, and better use of preservation dollars. The inclusion of administrative-expense authority suggests an effort to make preservation transactions easier to complete, while the return-of-funds provision indicates concern about slow-moving or unused allocations.

Contention

The main potential points of contention are likely to be the audit mandate, the new administrative-expense allowance, and the 18-month return requirement. Supporters may view the audit as a way to identify inefficiencies and improve stewardship of preservation funds, while opponents could see it as duplicative oversight or an added administrative burden. The 3 percent administrative-expense cap may be welcomed by local governments and nonprofits that incur transaction costs, but it could also draw scrutiny from those concerned about diverting dedicated preservation dollars away from direct land acquisition. The requirement to return uncommitted funds may be seen as promoting accountability, though local program administrators may argue it reduces flexibility for complex land deals.