BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
SB 1249 (Wolk) - Department of Fish and Game: lands:
expenditures
Amended: April 17, 2012 Policy Vote: NRW 5-0
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: May 24, 2012 Consultant: Marie Liu
SUSPENSE FILE. AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED.
Bill Summary: SB 1249 would allow the Department of Fish and
Game (DFG) to enter into contracts with nonprofit conservation
groups for the management and operation of DFG-managed lands,
require that a fee be collected for the use of DFG-managed
lands, and require that the county's expenditures of Fish and
Game penalty revenues be expended for fish and wildlife
purposes.
Fiscal Impact:
One-time costs of $200,000 to $300,000 from the Fish and
Game Preservation Account (special fund) for the Fish and
Game Commission (FGC) to evaluate all DFG-managed lands for
appropriate entrance fees.
Unknown, but potentially tens of thousands of dollars,
from the Fish and Game Preservation Account (special fund)
for the collection and enforcement of entrance fees. These
costs may be fully offset by unknown fee revenues, but
potentially up to $7.5 million dollars.
Unknown, but likely minor and absorbable costs from the
Fish and Game Preservation Account for reimbursement of
board of supervisor meetings required to review proposed
expenditures of penalty revenues.
Background: DFG manages 711 properties throughout California,
encompassing more than one million acres, including 408 wildlife
areas, ecological reserves, hatcheries, and public access lands.
Entrance fees are only charged at 19 of these areas which result
in approximately $2.5M in use revenue annually. DFG is
significantly underfunded for the management of its lands with
some areas receiving very minimal management attention. Except
for the 19 areas which currently charge an entrance fee,
management costs are largely supported by hunting and licensing
SB 1249 (Wolk)
Page 1
fees, despite the fact that the lands are also used by
non-consumptive users (e.g. birdwatchers, hikers, campers).
Revenues from entrance fees are collected and deposited into the
Native Species Conservation Enhancement Account and used to
supplement the costs of wildlife management programs. According
to DFG, 100% of the entrance fees collected are returned to the
property at which they were collected for management of that
property. Entrance fees which are collected under the authority
granted to DFG under §1764 and 1765 of the Fish and Game Code
cannot be collected until that property has a management plan.
Counties currently receive a portion of all fines and penalties
generated from violations of the Fish and Game Code. A county is
required to deposit these funds into a county fish and wildlife
propagation fund and may only expend these monies for the
protection, conservation, propagation, and preservation of fish
and wildlife as specified in Section 13103 of the Fish and Game
Code. According to the author, in one county, it was found that
the revenues were being used to supplement salaries in its
sheriff's office, which is not consistent with §13103.
Proposed Law: This bill would allow DFG to enter into
agreements with non-profits for the management and operation of
DFG lands. This bill would also require an entrance fee be
charged on all users of DFG lands except if that user has a
valid hunting, sports fishing, or trapping license. The amount
of the fees would be determined by the Fish and Game Commission
(FGC); however, DFG may allow free access if it finds that it is
in the best interest of that area. Entrance fee revenues would
be deposited in to the Fish and Game Preservation Fund and
continuously appropriated to DFG for the management and
operation of the lands. At least 35% of the entrance fee would
be required to be spent on the lands from which the fee was
collected.
This bill would also require that any fee and penalty revenues
received by a county be expended only after the expenditure is
reviewed first at a regular meeting of the board of supervisors
or its designated county fish and game commission.
Staff Comments: This bill seeks to help remedy the unmet
management needs on DFG-managed lands by allowing DFG to enter
into agreements with non-profits for the management and
operation of DFG lands and by requiring an entrance fee be
SB 1249 (Wolk)
Page 2
charged on all users on the lands (hunters and fishers would be
paying the entrance fee in the form of the hunting or fishing
license). As there is a wide range of DFG properties, each
property must be examined individually to determine what level
fee, if any, should be charged. Thus, a fair amount of staff
time will be needed for this initial review at a likely one-time
cost of $200,000 to $300,000. These costs will not be offset by
fee revenues as the fees cannot be collected until this review
is completed. Staff recommends that this bill needs amendments
to (1) clarify that the fees are mandatory (the author's intent)
and (2) delineate the duties between DFG and the FGC in setting
and collecting the fees. Also, staff notes that the FGC is
currently developing a proposed regulation to establish entrance
fees at appropriate properties. This proposal is planned to be
before the FGC in June. However, until the proposed regulation
is presented to the FGC, it is unclear if their proposal would
satisfy the requirements of this bill.
Once the fees are established, DFG will need resources for
enforcement and collection of the fees. DFG estimates that 48
additional staff would be needed to facilitate fee collection at
408 properties at a cost of $6.3 million. DFG also estimates
necessary vehicle, equipment, and capital improvement costs for
fee collection costing over $3 million annually. These costs
would at least be partially offset by fee revenues, likely to be
around $7 or 8 million according to DFG. Staff agrees that, at
the very least to encourage user compliance with entrance fees,
feel collection necessitates some enforcement, such as an
occasional visit by a DFG employee to each of the properties
with an entrance fee. However, staff believes that DFG's
enforcement and collection costs seem high and that it would be
possible for DFG to reduce these enforcement costs with minimal
impacts on revenue collection.
Each of the properties which currently collect a use fee has a
management plan, as do approximately 65% of all DFG properties,
although some of the plans may be out of date. This bill would
continuously appropriate use revenue to DFG for the management
of its lands and require a minimum of 35% of the use fee be
returned to the property for which it was collected. Staff finds
a continuous appropriation unnecessary and potentially imprudent
given that not all properties have a current management plan.
Staff recommends removal of the continuous appropriation.
SB 1249 (Wolk)
Page 3
This bill seems to require DFG to attribute each collected use
fee to a particular property for the purpose of being able to
return a portion of the funds back to the property at which the
fee was collected. However, given that many of these passes are
likely to be purchased through the Automated License Data System
(ALDS) where it may be impractical to specify which property is
to be visited given the numerous properties managed by DFG, and
that many properties will not have the personnel to count
visitors, it is unclear whether DFG will be able to know which
properties generated which fees. Staff recommends that the
language requiring fees return to source only be applicable to
the extent that DFG can attribute the fee to a property.
In regards to the bill's authorization for DFG to enter into
agreements with nonprofit conservation groups for the management
and operation of DFG lands. Staff recommends that the nonprofit
be explicitly required to operate the park in a manner
consistent with DFG's mission. While such assurances could be
achieved in the language of individual contracts, statutory
language may prevent DFG from being unduly pressured to allow
incompatible activities on nonprofit-managed lands for the sake
of revenue generation.
This bill contains a reimbursable state-required mandate because
it requires a county to review proposed expenditures of penalty
revenue at a meeting of the county board of supervisors.
However, as this review must occur at a regularly scheduled
meeting, staff believes that likely reimbursable costs will be
minor and absorbable.
Proposed Author Amendments:
Fee revenues should be deposited into the Native Species
Conservation Enhancement Account rather than the Fish and Game
Preservation Fund.
Removal of the continuous appropriation.
Restrict the requirement that fee revenues "return to source"
only to the extent that DFG is able to identify the source of
the fee revenue.
Clarify that the FGC is responsible for setting the fee,
including where there should be free access.
Delay implementation of entrance fee requirements until
January 1, 2015.
Allow resource conservation districts to also manage DFG
lands.
SB 1249 (Wolk)
Page 4
Require that nonprofit or resource conservation district
operation of DFG lands be consistent with the management plan
for those lands.