BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                      



           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                    AB 42|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                                 THIRD READING


          Bill No:  AB 42
          Author:   Huffman (D), et al.
          Amended:  8/30/11 in Senate
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER COMM.  :  9-0, 6/14/11
          AYES:  Pavley, La Malfa, Cannella, Evans, Fuller, Kehoe, 
            Padilla, Simitian, Wolk

           SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE  :  9-0, 8/25/11
          AYES:  Kehoe, Walters, Alquist, Emmerson, Lieu, Pavley, 
            Price, Runner, Steinberg

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR :  75-1, 5/19/11 - See last page for vote


           SUBJECT  :    State parks

           SOURCE  :     California State Parks Foundation


           DIGEST  :    This bill authorizes the Department of Parks and 
          Recreation to enter into operating agreements with 
          non-profit entities to manage state parks or portions of 
          state parks, operating limits agreements for the management 
          of entire state parks, 20 in total, and states that they 
          may only occur if the operating agreement prevents the 
          closure of a park.

           ANALYSIS  :    

           Existing Law  :
                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                 AB 42
                                                                Page 
          2


          1. Authorizes the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 
             to enter into operating agreements with local government 
             entities for the operation of a state park unit.

          2. Authorizes DPR to enter into contracts with for-profit 
             companies for concession services in state parks.

          3. Authorizes DPR to enter into cooperative agreements with 
             nonprofit organizations to provide educational and 
             interpretive services in state parks.

          4. Authorizes DPR to enter into an operating agreement with 
             a qualified nonprofit organization for the development, 
             improvement, restoration, care, maintenance, 
             administration, and control of El Presidio de Santa 
             Barbara State Historic Park and Marconi Conference 
             Center.

          This bill:

          1. Authorizes DPR to enter into operating agreements with 
             non-profit organizations for the operation and 
             maintenance or a park unit or a portion of a park unit.  
             If the operating agreement provides for operation of an 
             entire park unit, DPR may only enter into such an 
             agreement provided that the operating agreement will 
             eliminate the need to close the park unit, due to budget 
             reductions.  In addition, DPR is limited to entering 
             into a total of 20 operating agreements for the 
             operation of entire park units.

          2. Requires that revenues generated at a park, under an 
             operating agreement, be used for the operation, 
             maintenance, and improvement of the specific park unit.  
             In addition, the bill imposes public meeting and 
             legislative notification requirements on those operating 
             agreements.

          3. Specifies that no General Fund subsidies will be 
             provided to non-profits.

          4. Sunsets on January 1, 2019.


                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                 AB 42
                                                                Page 
          3

           Background
           
          California's state park system is the largest in the nation 
          and includes 278 state parks covering over 1.5 million 
          acres of lands managed by the DPR for their natural, 
          cultural and historical values for present and future 
          Californians.  Over the past several years, the General 
          Fund (GF) budget for state parks has decreased while user 
          fees have increased.  Today the park system has a deferred 
          maintenance backlog of over $1 billion.  Last year as a 
          result of budget reductions, hours of operation at many 
          parks were reduced, and a number of campgrounds, visitor 
          centers and other public services were closed.  In November 
          2010, Proposition 21, a statewide ballot initiative which 
          would have provided ongoing dedicated funding for state 
          parks through a vehicle license surcharge failed passage.  
          This year the Governor has proposed, and the legislative 
          Budget Conference Committee approved, an $11 million 
          reduction in GF support to DPR in the proposed 2011-12 
          Budget.  The Governor is also proposing an additional $11 
          million reduction in 2012-13, for an ongoing annual GF 
          budget reduction to DPR of $22 million.  These cuts are 
          anticipated to necessitate the closure of a number of state 
          parks throughout the system.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  Yes   
          Local:  No

                          Fiscal Impact (in thousands)

           Major Provisions                     2011-12     2012-13    
           2013-14          Fund
           
          Development of operating      Up to $500          Special *
             agreements

          Cost savings from entering         Unknown              
          Special*
             into operating agreements

          * State Parks and Recreation Fund.

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  8/29/11)


                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                 AB 42
                                                                Page 
          4

          California State Parks Foundation (source)
          Audubon California
          California League of Park Associations
          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
          Monterey County Board of Supervisors
          Mountain Parks Foundation
          Mt. Tamalpais Interpretive Association
          PAW PAC
          San Mateo Coast Natural History Association
          Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
          Santa Cruz Mayor and City Council
          Sierra Club California
          Stewards of the Coast and Redwoods
          The Nature Conservancy
          The Trust for Public Land

           OPPOSITION  :    (Verified  8/29/11)

          American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
          Employees
          California Parks Hospitality Association (concessionaires)
          California Chamber of Commerce

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    The author states, "While the 
          search for stable funding Ŭfor 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 

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                 AB 42
                                                                Page 
          5

          bill, 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, 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 "provideŬs] a blanket authority for 
          the ŬDPR] 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."  
           
           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  75-1, 5/19/11
          AYES: Achadjian, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Bill 
            Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, 
            Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Carter, 
            Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson, 
            Donnelly, Eng, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, 
            Beth Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Grove, 
            Hagman, Halderman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Roger 
            Hernández, Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, 

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                 AB 42
                                                                Page 
          6

            Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mansoor, Mendoza, Miller, 
            Mitchell, Monning, Morrell, Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, 
            Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, Portantino, Silva, 
            Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Valadao, 
            Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez
          NOES: Campos
          NO VOTE RECORDED: Alejo, Gorell, Hueso, Lara
          CTW:do  8/30/11   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****
          
































                                                           CONTINUED