BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 356 Page 1 Date of Hearing: August 17, 2011 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Felipe Fuentes, Chair SB 356 (Blakeslee) - As Amended: June 30, 2011 Policy Committee: Water, Parks and Wildlife Vote: 7-2 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No SUMMARY This bill requires the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), in the event the state proposes to close a unit of the state park system, to notify local government so it may consider taking over park operation and maintenance. Specifically, this bill: 1)Requires DPR to notify local governments that a park unit is scheduled for closure. 2)Requires DPR to negotiate with a local government that is interested in taking over operation and maintenance of a park unit scheduled for closure. 3)Specifies that state funding shall not be provided to a local government that takes over all operation and maintenance of a state park unit. 4)Subjects to approval by DPR all capital improvements and changes in the use of the park unit by the local government. 5)Sets the amount of time that an agreement that a local government operate and maintain a state park unit to no less than one year and no more than five years. FISCAL EFFECT Minor, absorbable ongoing costs to DPR to communicate with local governments. (Special fund.) COMMENTS SB 356 Page 2 1)Rationale . This author intends this bill to prevent the closure of state parks. The author contends ensuring local governments are aware of plans to close a unit of the state park system will better allow them to develop a plan to avoid such a closure or to minimize the closure's harm. 2)Background . The 2011-12 Budget Act includes a $22 million General Fund reduction to DPR's budget. The administration anticipates closing 70 of the 278 park units in the state park system. 3)Current law authorizes DPR to allow a county or city to operate a state park unit. The department has done so in the past and is actively seeking public and private partners to operate state park units scheduled for closure. Closing state park units is controversial. Closure can harm local economies and is generally unpopular with nearby residents. It seems unlikely a local government would be unaware that a state park unit within its jurisdiction is scheduled for closure. 4)Related Legislation. a) AB 42 (Huffman) authorizes DPR to enter into an operating agreement with a qualified nonprofit organization to prevent closing of a state park unit. The bill passed the Assembly 75-1 and is pending action before the Senate Appropriations Committee. b) SB 386 (Harman) requires DPR to post on its website specified information prior to closing a unit of the state park system. The bill passed the Senate 33-1 and is pending action before this committee. 5)Support. This bill is supported by several local governments on the Central Coast that benefit from tourism at local units of the state park system. 6)There is no formal opposition registered to this bill. Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081 SB 356 Page 3