BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1589
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 20, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Jared Huffman, Chair
AB 1589 (Huffman) - As Amended: March 1, 2012
SUBJECT : State Parks
SUMMARY : Enacts the California State Parks Stewardship Act of
2012. Specifically, this bill :
1)States legislative findings and declarations regarding the
mission and importance of state parks to the quality of life
in California and the state's tourism economy, the lack of
adequate past funding for state parks, and the need for the
state to commit to a long-term goal of adequately and
sustainably funding and maintaining state parks in order to
protect the resources of the state and to preserve
California's legacy for the benefit of all Californians.
2)States legislative intent to encourage formation of a state
compact that:
a) Commits the state to a long-term goal of adequately
funding and maintaining state parks by identifying new
revenues and funding strategies to sustain state parks,
and ensuring that those new sources are not used to
supplant existing state support or to justify further
reductions in General Fund support that would leave the
park system unsustainable.
b) Ensures that new revenues received from private
donors for state parks are used to supplement and not to
supplant existing state funding for state parks and are
used only for the purposes given.
c) Commits the state to a goal of greater efficiency in
the management of state parks, including maximizing
collection of fees and other revenue generating potential
at state parks while maintaining public access for all
Californians.
d) Minimizes the number of parks subject to closure and
encourages creative partnerships to assist the state with
park operations and management.
1)Requires the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to
develop and implement a prioritized action plan to increase
revenues and the collection of user fees at state parks, and
AB 1589
Page 2
to report to the Legislature and Governor on the plan by
January 1, 2013.
2)Creates a State Park Enterprise Fund, with monies in the fund
to be held in trust and used exclusively for construction and
installation of new revenue and fee collection equipment and
technologies, and other costs of restoring and rehabilitating
the state park system that enhance resources and visitation
experiences and provide opportunities to increase revenues.
Requires that $25 million of the unexpended balance of bond
funds made available for state parks under Proposition 84 be
transferred to the Enterprise Fund for these purposes.
3)Allows taxpayers to voluntarily elect to purchase a state park
annual access pass when they file their state tax return, and
to claim a tax deduction for the payment.
4)Authorizes the issuance and purchase of a state park
environmental license plate bearing a full-plate graphic
design depicting a significant natural feature or features of
the state park system. Requires that the proceeds from sale
of the license plates, after deduction of the Department of
Motor Vehicles (DMV) administrative costs, be deposited in a
California State Parks Account for expenditure for the
exclusive trust purposes of preservation and restoration of
California state parks.
5)Requires DPR to document and publicly disclose the
methodology, rationale and scoring system used to evaluate and
select parks designated for closure.
6)Modifies the criteria which DPR is required to consider in
determining whether to close a park by requiring that DPR
consider additional factors, including the extent to which the
closure would impact local and regional economies or
disproportionately impact one region of the state over
another, the extent to which the closure would limit
availability of Americans with Disabilities Act compliant
facilities, the extent to which the closure would impact fire
risk or other public safety hazards, and the extent to which
the closure would impact the state's ability to protect iconic
natural and historical resources.
7)Clarifies that DPR achieve required budget reductions by
implementing efficiencies, increasing revenue collection, or
AB 1589
Page 3
closing, partially closing, or reducing services at state
parks. States Legislative intent that DPR implement full park
closures only as a last resort after other feasible
alternatives, including but not limited to operating
agreements with nonprofits and local governments, have been
explored. Further provides that, with the exception of parks
that are subject to operating agreements with nonprofits or
local governments, the number of parks subject to full closure
during the 2012 to 2016 calendar years, inclusive, shall not
exceed 25 state park units unless expressly authorized by the
Legislature on or after January 1, 2013.
8)Includes an urgency clause stating that it is necessary that
this act take effect immediately in order to protect state
parks that are threatened with imminent closure and to begin
addressing state park revenue shortfalls as soon as possible.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the California State Park system and vests DPR
with control of the state park system and responsibility for
administering, protecting, developing and interpreting state
parks for the use and enjoyment of the public. Requires DPR
to protect the state park system from damage and to preserve
the peace therein.
2)Authorizes DPR to enter into agreements with private entities
to assist DPR in securing long-term private funding sources
for units of the state park system, and to ensure that the
parks are preserved and open to the public for their use and
enjoyment. That authority includes but is not limited to
securing donations, memberships, corporate and individual
sponsorships, and marketing and licensing agreements.
3)Authorizes DPR to collect fees, rents and other returns for
the use of state parks with amounts to be determined by DPR.
4)Authorizes DPR to enter into operating agreements with
qualified nonprofit entities that will enable DPR to keep
parks open that would otherwise be subject to closure.
5)Requires DPR to achieve required budget reductions by closing,
partially closing, and reducing services at selected units of
the state park system based on specified factors.
AB 1589
Page 4
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. Creates a state park enterprise fund
and requires that $25 million from the unexpended balance of
bond funds made available to DPR for state parks under
Proposition 84 be transferred to the fund and expended upon
appropriation for specified purposes related to enhancing
revenue generating capacity at state parks. Enacts other
provisions with potential for increasing revenues to state
parks.
COMMENTS : The author indicates the purpose of this bill is to
enhance the capacity of the state to protect its valued state
parks and the natural and cultural resources they contain, and
to keep the parks open and accessible to the people of the
state. To make progress toward the long-term goal of a more
sustainable and well-maintained state park system, this bill
promotes new revenue enhancement opportunities, including
enhanced fee collection and other revenue generating
opportunities at state parks, a new state park environmental
license plate, and tax incentives for purchase of state park
annual access passes. This bill also creates a state park
enterprise fund and requires DPR to develop a revenue
enhancement plan for state parks, modifies the criteria and
public transparency required for state park closure decisions,
states that park closures should be implemented only as a last
resort after other feasible alternatives have been explored,
places a cap on the number of state parks that may be closed
without legislative approval, and states legislative intent
regarding the need for a multi-disciplinary independent
assessment on ways to provide for long-term sustainable
management of California's state parks.
Background
In May 2011 DPR announced plans to fully close 70 of
California's state parks effective July 1, 2012. The
announcement was made following reductions in the General Fund
budget of DPR proposed by the Governor and approved by the
Legislature. Specifically, General Fund support for DPR in
fiscal year 2011/12 was reduced by $11 million, with an
additional $11 million reduction to take effect in the 2012/13
fiscal year, for an ongoing annual reduction of $22 million in
General Fund support for state parks. These cuts come on top of
previous reductions in General Fund support for state parks,
which has declined by 37% in the last seven years. DPR has
estimated that the closures would produce a net savings for DPR
AB 1589
Page 5
of $11 million.
In order to prevent some of the closures, the state in 2011
enacted AB 42 (Huffman) which authorizes DPR to enter into
operating agreements with qualified nonprofit organizations to
keep open some of the parks that would otherwise be subject to
closure. As of the date of this writing, DPR has received 14
proposals for operating agreements from nonprofit entities. In
addition, several parks have been removed from the closure list
as a result of temporary agreements with the National Park
Service, local governments, private donors, or other partnership
arrangements.
In November of 2011 the Assembly Water, Parks & Wildlife and
Assembly Accountability and Administrative Review Committees
held a joint oversight hearing on the proposed state park
closures. The hearing raised, among other things, concerns over
a lack of information and clarity as to how DPR applied
statutorily required criteria in evaluating which parks to
include on the closure list. Budget trailer bill language
enacted in the Spring of 2011 identified criteria DPR was to use
in evaluating parks for closure. DPR indicated they applied the
criteria in an iterative process but did not use a scoring or
weighting system, and did not maintain documentation of the
process. The list was developed through internal, nonpublic
meetings of select DPR park professionals, and no notes of the
process were kept. The committees questioned why many of the
parks on the closure list did not appear to fit the criteria
identified in the budget trailer bill language. For instance,
the criteria included avoiding, to the extent possible, parks
identified as "Outstanding or Representative" state parks, yet 9
parks on the closure list fit that definition. Another criterion
was the estimated net savings from closures so as to maximize
savings to the system, but DPR provided the Legislature only
with operational cost data for the 70 parks on the closure list,
and not for the other parks in the system that were not
selected, indicating that they did not have park specific
operating costs for the other parks.
Other concerns raised by the hearing included:
concerns that the costs of closing state parks may be higher
than anticipated due to the physical inability to close some
parks on the list, existing problems with vandalism, illegal
marijuana growing and property destruction that could be
exacerbated if parks are closed, and potential litigation;
AB 1589
Page 6
risks to public safety and increased pressures on local law
enforcement to fill the gap left by the absence of a state
presence;
concerns that future federal funding could be jeopardized by
closing parks that received federal Land & Water Conservation
funding;
concerns that closure of parks within the Coastal zone may
violate the state Coastal Act;
concerns that the park closures may have a disproportionate
impact on some local communities and regional economies, and
result in a loss of state tax revenue from local economic
activity generated by state park visitation. Of particular
concern was the anticipated impact on small businesses located
near state parks.
Concerns were also expressed as to whether alternatives which
might avoid or reduce the necessity to close state parks had
been fully explored. Examples of such alternatives include
enhanced and modernized fee collection and other revenue raising
opportunities within some state parks, and potential untapped
philanthropic support from private investors. With regard to
the latter, it was noted by some witnesses at the hearing that
there may be greater interest in private philanthropic support
for state parks if contributors had greater confidence that
their contributions would go to enhance the state park system
and not be diverted to other purposes by the state. Finally, it
was noted that the state could benefit from an independent
assessment of strategies for long-term management and
sustainable funding of California's state parks.
The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) released a report on
March 9, 2012 entitled "Strategies to Maintain California's Park
System." Among other things, the LAO recommended increasing
park user fees and shifting toward entrance fees rather than
parking fees, and increasing the number of parks subject to
operating agreements. The LAO estimates that if just an eighth
of the people that currently visit day-use parks for free were
charged an entrance fee this would increase revenues by the low
tens of millions of dollars annually. Similarly, the LAO
estimates that raising the amount of fees that current visitors
pay by $1 would also increase revenues by the low tens of
millions of dollars annually.
In addition, the LAO report noted the lack of certainty as to
how much funding can actually be saved from closing a given
AB 1589
Page 7
number of state parks, noting that DPR is unable to provide
information on the cost of operating an individual park, and the
various costs associated with closure. They also note that
since the closure list was released, DPR has concluded that some
parks on the closure list are too costly to close - meaning that
it would cost more to close them in the near term because of the
one-time costs associated with closures. They further note that
since DPR will only minimally maintain closed parks, the cost to
reopen these parks in the future will likely be substantial
because the infrastructure would not have been sufficiently
maintained.
It should also be noted that the Little Hoover Commission is
beginning an in-depth study on state parks with the first
hearing of the commission scheduled for March 27, 2012. The
Little Hoover Commission is an independent state oversight
agency that was created in 1962. The Commission's mission is to
investigate state government operations and - through reports,
recommendations and legislative proposals - promote efficiency,
economy and improved service. The Commission's creation,
membership, purpose, duties and powers are enumerated in
statute, which provides that the Commission be a balanced
bipartisan board composed of five citizen members appointed by
the Governor, four citizen members appointed by the Legislature,
two Senators and two Assembly members.
This bill is double-referred to the Assembly Revenue & Taxation
Committee which will hear this bill next if it is passed by this
committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Born Free USA
California State Park Foundation
California Travel Association
Family Winemakers of California
Humane Society of the United States
Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
Paw Pac
Sierra Club California
Trust for Public Lands
AB 1589
Page 8
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096