BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2011-2012 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: AB 42 HEARING DATE: June 14, 2011
AUTHOR: Huffman URGENCY: No
VERSION: May 16, 2011 CONSULTANT: Marie Liu
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: State parks.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Article 2 of Chapter 1.2 of Division 5 of the Public Resources
Code (commencing with §5080.30) authorizes the Department of
Parks and Recreation (DPR) to enter into an agreement with any
public agency for the care, maintenance, administration, and
control of a state park unit, subject to the following
restrictions:
Revenues received from a park unit may only be used for
the care, maintenance, operation, administration,
improvement, or development for that unit;
DPR must notify the members of the Legislature whose
districts include a park unit which DPR intends to enter
into an operating agreement; and
The Legislature has approved the lease or agreement as
part of the annual budget process or, if the timing is
incompatible with the annual budget process, the contract
has been approved by the State Public Works Board.
The public agency under an operating agreement may enter into
concession contracts for the park unit which it operates, so
long as the public agency complies with public bidding
procedures and DPR has approved the terms of the concession.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would give DPR explicit authority to enter into
operating agreements with qualified nonprofits for the
maintenance, administration, or operation of a park unit or a
portion of a park unit. Qualified nonprofits are those that are
tax exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code
and have a principle purpose to provide park services or
stewardship of natural, historic, or cultural lands and
1
resources.
At a minimum, such an operating agreement must:
Designate the district superintendent to be the liaison
between DPR, the operating nonprofit, and the public.
Require the operating nonprofit to annually submit a
written report to DPR regarding its operating activities
during the prior year including a full accounting of all
revenues and expenditures. Copies of the report shall be
available to the public upon request. Each year, the
nonprofit and the district superintendent must hold an
joint public meeting for the discussion of the report.
Require that all revenues from the park unit be used for
the care, maintenance, operation, administration,
improvement, or development of that unit.
Honor any existing concession contract for that unit.
Specify the nonprofit's responsibilities for the
management and protection of natural, historical, and
cultural resources. Any management duties that remain the
responsibility of DPR, if any, must also be specified.
Enable DPR to avoid closure of a park unit, if the
agreement is for the complete operation of a park unit.
If DPR intends to enter into such an agreement, DPR would be
required to notify the members of the Legislature whose
districts include that park unit. Furthermore, DPR would be
required to provide a biennial report to the Legislature on
DPR's operating agreements with nonprofits that includes an
assessment of the benefit to the state from these agreements.
The authority to enter into operating agreements with nonprofits
would sunset on January 1, 2019 and would be limited so that no
more than 20 park units could be completely operated by a
nonprofit.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
The author states, "While the search for stable funding Ýfor the
state parks system] continues, it is critical that creative
opportunities for public/private partnerships be explored and
encouraged in order to minimize the impacts to state parks and,
where possible, maintain public access to park resources.
Nonprofits organizations can be important partners in meeting
those objectives, and where possible, should be invited to
assist the state with operating state parks through negotiated
agreements."
The California State Parks Foundation, in support of the bill,
2
states, "Many nonprofit organizations are already close partners
with the state in providing visitor services, resource
protection, educational and interpretive programs, land
management expertise and/or financial assistance. In some cases,
such nonprofits may have capacity and interest to take on
operational roles, particularly with the recent release of a
list of 70 state parks planned for closure."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
The California Chamber of Commerce is opposed unless the bill is
amended to "allow for-profit organizations to compete with
non-profits on an even playing field for State Parks'
operational contracts." They state, "For-profit companies
usually pay the state in exchange for the opportunity to provide
visitor services within the parks, while in some cases they have
also managed and provided maintenance. Allowing non-profit
organizations to manage and keep proceeds in the Parks System
would result in a loss of revenue for the state and does not
increase employment as they use volunteers for the operations.
Whereas, for-profit organizations pay taxes and fees to the
state to manage the parks, they create jobs and thus contribute
not only to the state parks but also the state's economy as a
whole."
The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME), in opposition to the bill, states, "Assembly
Bill 42 allows for an unlimited number of units and up to 20
entire state parks to be privatized." AFSCME further states that
this bill "provideÝs] a blanket authority for the ÝDPR] to enter
into operating agreements with private entities without ensuring
the necessary safeguards to preserve public access and the
long-term interests of the state."
COMMENTS
Adopted budget reductions for 2011-2012 fiscal year necessitate
the closure of state parks . The Legislature adopted and the
Governor approved an $11 million reduction in General Fund
support to DPR in the 2011-2012 budget with an additional $11
million reduction in 2012-2013, for an ongoing annual General
Fund reduction to DPR of $22 million. These cuts culminate over
two decades of budget cuts to DPR. Previous cuts have resulted
in a deferred maintenance backlog of over $1.3 billion and
reduced hours of operation and services at parks throughout the
system. The most recent cuts are anticipated to necessitate the
closure of 70 of the state's 278 state park units.
Nonprofits are currently involved in many aspects of park
3
operations : Many state parks are currently operated with the
assistance of nonprofits, especially "friends of" organizations
for specific park units. A few parks units are currently being
operated by nonprofits, such as El Presidio de Santa Barbara
State Historic Park, whose agreements are specifically
authorized in statute. At an informational hearing of this
committee on August 28, 2009 titled "Our State Parks: Budgets
and Mitigation Closures," speakers discussed options to keeping
parks open, including through operating agreements with
nonprofits. Dr. Jerrell Jackman, the Executive Director of the
Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation (the nonprofit
that operates Presidio de Santa Barbara) testified that
operating agreements with nonprofits was a viable alternative
for some state parks. Evaluating this potential, however, needs
to happen on a case-by-case in order to address the unique
nature of each state park, as well as the specific resources and
capabilities of each nonprofit.
This bill generally does not set specific requirements for
nonprofit operating agreements. The committee may wish to find
that this flexibility is necessary to allow DPR to craft
agreements that are appropriate for each specific situation.
What is the most effective and efficient way of providing
Legislative oversight over operating agreements with nonprofits?
This bill requires DPR to notify any member who has a park unit
in their district that DPR is considering allowing a nonprofit
to partially or completely operate. Additionally, the bill has a
Legislative reporting requirement. This bill does not require
that operating agreements be approved by the Legislature, as is
required under existing law for similar agreements with public
agencies. However, this committee may wish to find that first,
legislative approval as part of the annual budget process may be
impractical if these agreements are meant to help prevent
pending park closures, and second, that proper legislative
oversight can be achieved without legislative approval. To
ensure a more thorough oversight without requiring legislative
approval, the committee may wish to include more information in
the bill's notification requirement when the department indents
to enter into an agreement. (See amendment 1)
Other amendments : The committee may wish to amend the bill to
require and clarify that:
The co-operating nonprofit's annual report be available
on DPR's and nonprofit's website. (See amendment 2)
All core operations will be delineated in the operating
agreement between the nonprofit and DPR. (See amendment 3)
4
A qualified nonprofit is registered with the California
Attorney General (See amendment 4)
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT 1
On page 4, line 35, delete "intention." and insert
"intention, the chair of the Senate Natural Resources
Committee, the chair of the Assembly Water, Parks, and
Wildlife Committee, and the chairs of the Assembly and
Senate Budget committees. The notification shall include
estimated operating costs and revenues and core duties and
responsibilities which are likely to be assigned to the
nonprofit and the department."
AMENDMENT 2
On page 3, line 38, after "request." insert "The report
shall be available both on the department's website and the
nonprofit organization's website."
AMENDMENT 3
On page 4, line 17, delete "department." and insert
"department, so that all core operations of the park are
delineated."
AMENDMENT 4
On page 5, line 6, insert "(3) In compliance with the
Supervision of Trustees and Fundraisers for Charitable
Purposes Act (commencing with Section 12580 of the
Government Code)."
SUPPORT
California State Park Foundation (Sponsor)
Audubon California
California League of park Associations
California State Law Enforcement Association (if amended)
California Park and Recreation Society
California State Park Rangers Association
California Travel Industry Association
Central Coast Natural History Association
Chino Hills State Park Interpretive Association
Friends of Pio Pico, Inc.
Friends of Santa Cruz State Parks
LandPaths
Members, First Congregational Church of Sonoma
Mendocino Area Parks Association
5
Monterey County Board of Supervisors
Mountain Parks Foundation
Mt. Tamalpais Interpretive Association
Paw Pac
Santa Cruz Mayor and City Council
Sierra Club California
Stewards of the Coast and Redwoods
The Nature Conservancy
The Trust for Public Land
Numerous individuals
OPPOSITION
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
California Parks Hospitality Association
California Chamber of Commerce
6