BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 386 Page 1 Date of Hearing: June 24, 2011 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE Jared Huffman, Chair SB 386 (Harman) - As Amended: April 25, 2011 SENATE VOTE : 33-1 SUBJECT : State Parks: proposed closures: public notice SUMMARY : Requires the Department of Parks & Recreation (DPR) to post specified information on its website prior to closing a state park. Specifically, this bill : 1)Requires DPR, at least 30 days prior to the date it plans to close a state park to public access, to post on its Internet Web site the name of the park, the approximate date of proposed closure, and information about how to contact DPR in writing if an individual or other party is interested in entering into negotiations with DPR for a contract or agreement to lease, operate, maintain, or provide concessions at a unit of the park system that is proposed to be closed. 2)Requires DPR to respond in writing to any inquiry received in connection with the information that is posted regarding the proposed park closure. 3)Contains an urgency clause providing that in order to require DPR to provide timely notice to the public on its Web site of proposed park closures, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately. EXISTING LAW : 1)Authorizes DPR to enter into operating agreements with local government entities for the operation of a state park unit. Requires that operating agreements be reviewed by the Legislature as part of the annual budget process or be reviewed and approved by the State Public Works Board, with specified exceptions. 2)Authorizes DPR to enter into contracts with for-profit companies for concession services in state parks, subject to specified criteria. SB 386 Page 2 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. 5)Authorizes DPR to enter into an operating agreement with a qualified nonprofit organization for the development, improvement, restoration, care, maintenance, administration, and control of the Marconi Conference Center. FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs. COMMENTS : The author of this bill notes that California's state parks are an important part of the economy and culture of California's communities. These areas of wilderness and open space are treasured resources that should be protected. This bill would require DPR to explore other options for operating parks, such as local, federal, or private sector operators, before closing a park. The author's goal with this bill is to add transparency to the park closure process and allow other groups that might be interested in operating a state park to have the opportunity to indicate their interest to DPR to do so. The Governor proposed and the Legislature approved an $11 million reduction in General Fund support to DPR for fiscal year 2011/12, to be followed by another $11 million reduction in the following fiscal year. The Governor has indicated that he intends for this to be an ongoing $22 million reduction in General Fund support to DPR. On May 13, 2011 the Governor announced the Administration's intent to close 70 of the 278 parks in the state park system as a result of the budget reductions. Support Arguments : The author asserts this bill will increase transparency and provide other potential park partners with an opportunity to indicate their interest in operating or maintaining a state park before the park is closed by DPR to public access. The Orange County Taxpayers Association believes SB 386 Page 3 this bill would ensure that park users have the benefit of full public consideration of alternative park management possibilities. Opposition Arguments : The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO, opposes this bill because they feel that the bill is vague and therefore unclear as to whether the notice will be limited to concession activities within closed state parks or if it will allow for non-governmental entities to take over operation of a park. They assert that under current law non-governmental entities are limited to concession activities. AFSCME asserts that rather than trying to contract out our state parks, the Legislature should focus its efforts on providing state funding to keep state parks open. The committee may wish to consider that this bill does not require DPR to enter into an operating agreement with any non-governmental entity that would otherwise not be authorized by law, but does require DPR to respond in writing to any inquiry received in connection with the information provided by DPR on its Internet Web site relative to planned park closures. Related Legislation : AB 42 (Huffman) would authorize DPR to enter into an operating agreement with a qualified nonprofit organization if the operating agreement would avoid a park closure. AB 42 passed this committee earlier this year on a vote of 13-0. SB 356 (Blakeslee) requires DPR to notify counties and cities of planned park closures and to enter into negotiations with a county or city that is interested in operating a state park that is planned for closure. SB 356 is also pending hearing in this committee. Potential Amendments for consideration : This bill currently requires DPR to notify the public of its intent to close a state park to public access, and to provide information on how to contact DPR if an entity is interested in entering into negotiations with DPR to lease, operate, maintain, or provide a concession at the park. While there has been a great deal of focus recently on the Governor's proposal to close 70 state parks, what has sometimes been lost in the discussion is the fact that many state parks are already subject to functional closures in the form of limited hours of operation, closed campgrounds, seasonal closures, weekday or weekend closures, locked restrooms and other reductions in services. The author SB 386 Page 4 and committee may wish to consider an amendment expanding this bill to apply to both full and partial closures of a state park, with closures defined to include any significant reduction in public access to all or a substantial portion of a state park unit. Technical Amendment : Committee staff recommends a technical amendment to this bill to avoid chaptering out problems with SB 356 (Blakeslee) and AB 42 (Huffman) as follows: On page 2, line 1, strike "5080.42" and insert "5080.44." REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support Opposition Orange County Taxpayers AssociatonAFSCME Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916) 319-2096