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