BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 64
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 5, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Jared Huffman, Chair
AB 64 (Jeffries) - As Introduced: December 9, 2010
SUBJECT : State Parks: California Citrus State Historic Park:
Operating Agreement
SUMMARY : Requires the Department of Parks & Recreation (DPR)
to enter into an operating agreement with the City of Riverside
for the California Citrus State Historic Park. Specifically,
this bill :
1)States legislative findings and declarations regarding the
California Citrus State Historic Park located in the City of
Riverside, and the City's desire to enter into a 25-year
operating agreement for the park.
2)Mandates DPR enter into an operating agreement with the City
of Riverside for development, improvement, restoration, care,
maintenance, administration, and control of the California
Citrus State Historic Park.
3)Requires the operating agreement to include all of the
following:
a) Grant control of the park to the city for payment of
$1 per year, for an initial term of 25 years, with
automatic renewal after each 25 year period unless DPR or
the city gives 6 months prior notice of a decision not to
renew.
b) Imposition on the city of full and complete
responsibility for all costs of maintenance.
c) A requirement for the city, DPR and the California
Citrus State Historic Park Nonprofit Management
Corporation to collaborate on programming at the park.
d) A requirement that the city obtain DPR's approval
before making a capital improvement to or change in the
physical space of the park that is inconsistent with the
park general plan.
AB 64
Page 2
e) Reciprocal indemnifications.
f) A requirement that the park continue to be
designated and promoted as a unit within the state park
system.
g) A requirement that the city not charge a fee for
general admission to the park.
4)Requires that, notwithstanding the operating agreement, the
park would continue to be eligible for grants or funding for
which the park was eligible prior to the agreement when it was
operated by the state.
5)Requires the city and DPR to consider the impact on park
vendors of a proposed closure or a proposed alteration in the
operating agreement.
6)States that the operating agreement does not affect the
classification of the park as a unit of the state park system,
and that signs for the park shall continue to reflect the
state park nature of the park.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Gives DPR control of the state park system. Requires DPR to
prepare general plans for operation of state park units, and
to submit the plans to the State Park and Recreation
Commission for approval. Requires DPR to administer, protect,
develop and interpret properties under its jurisdiction for
the use and enjoyment of the public.
2)Requires the State Park and Recreation Commission to classify
units of the state park system and to approve general plans
for state park units.
3)Authorizes DPR to enter into operating agreements with local
governments and other public agencies for operation of state
parks.
4)Authorizes DPR to enter into an operating agreement with a
qualified nonprofit organization for the California Citrus
State Historic Park, consistent with the general plan for the
park and at no cost to the state, for purposes of managing
agricultural production, leasing groves, and selling fruit,
AB 64
Page 3
with proceeds to be used for the park, and to accept
donations.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : This bill would legislatively mandate that DPR enter
into a 25 year operating agreement with the City of Riverside to
operate and manage a state park. The findings in this bill
include concerns that the California Citrus State Historic Park
is anticipated to be on a list of proposed state park closures,
and indicate that the City of Riverside is willing to assume
responsibility for operation of the park to prevent a closure.
The author and sponsor also assert that they have made numerous
unsuccessful offers over the past few years to enter into an
operating agreement with DPR but that those offers were rejected
by the previous administration. They indicate they have been in
contact with the new administration and are hopeful of being
able to successfully negotiate an operating agreement outside of
the legislative process, but until a decision is made urge that
this bill move forward. The sponsors also assert that with the
failure of Proposition 21 last November, and another round of
budget cuts looming, the time to enter into operating agreements
with willing and capable partners has come.
In light of the budget action reducing DPR's budget by $22
million, it is anticipated that DPR will be required to close a
significant number of state parks and the Legislature has been
anticipating, but has not yet received, a list of the specific
parks slated for closure this year.
Existing law already authorizes DPR to enter into operating
agreements with local governments and other public entities for
the care, maintenance and administration of state park lands for
the purpose of the state park system. DPR currently has in
effect over 20 operating agreements with local governments to
manage state parks. However, this bill represents a significant
departure from existing practice, by mandating that DPR must
enter into operating agreements with a particular entity. The
Legislature in the past has generally not mandated with whom or
under what specific terms DPR must contract. In general, the
Legislature establishes policy and the executive branch
administers those policies. However, it is also a new situation
for the state to be facing the imminent threat of a large number
of state park closures, and this situation has prompted renewed
interest in the merits of expanding partnerships to assist the
AB 64
Page 4
state in operating state park units.
The Legislature has delegated to DPR control over the state park
system, and has established a process for classification and
management of state park units. In several cases, the
Legislature has approved and encouraged public private
partnerships to assist DPR in the management of state park
resources. For instance, the law allows DPR to enter into
concession contracts with private entities, to enter into
agreements with non-profit cooperatives, and to negotiate
operating agreements with local governments and other public
entities. In a number of specific instances, the Legislature
has authorized DPR to enter into operating agreements for other
state parks, such as El Presidio de Santa Barbara State Historic
Park and Marconi Conference Center, but such grants of authority
have been permissive.
Related Legislation : AB 2660 (Jeffries), legislation
substantially similar to this bill, was introduced by Assembly
Member Jeffries in 2010 but was not heard in committee.
Assembly Member Jeffries also introduced AB 135 in 2009 which
was held in the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee.
AB 135 would have required DPR to enter into an operating
agreement with the City of Riverside, but for a period of 40
years.
As an alternative approach to this bill, which focuses on a
single park, and in light of the fact that multiple parks across
the state are facing potential closure, the Legislature may wish
to consider a declaration of legislative intent that DPR be
encouraged to negotiate operating agreements with any local
government that has the interest and capacity to assist the
state in operating a state park that would otherwise be subject
to closure.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
City of Riverside
Opposition
None on file.
AB 64
Page 5
Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096