BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 594
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 594 (Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee)
As Amended May 24, 2013
Majority vote
WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE 15-0
APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Rendon, Bigelow, Allen, |Ayes:|Gatto, Harkey, Bigelow, |
| |Blumenfield, Bocanegra, | |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian |
| |Dahle, Fong, Frazier, | |Calderon, Campos, |
| |Beth Gaines, Gatto, | |Donnelly, Eggman, Gomez, |
| |Gomez, Gray, Patterson, | |Hall, Ammiano, Linder, |
| |Yamada, Williams | |Pan, Quirk, Wagner, Weber |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Clarifies the Department of Parks and Recreation's
(DPR's) authority to enter into operating agreements with
nonprofit organizations during the time period of the current
moratorium on state park closures, and modifies existing law
relating to the process required for any future proposed park
closures. Specifically, this bill :
1)Clarifies that the two-year moratorium on state park closures
enacted in 2012 does not limit or affect DPR's authority to
enter into operating agreements with qualified nonprofit
organizations for the purpose of operating a state park.
2)Requires DPR, in the event any parks are proposed for closure
in the future, to document and publicly disclose the
methodology, rationale and scoring system used to evaluate and
select parks for proposed closure, and modifies the criteria
DPR must consider. Requires the State Park and Recreation
Commission to hold a public hearing on any proposed park
closures.
3)Clarifies legislative intent that DPR achieve any required
budget reductions by implementing efficiencies and increasing
revenue collections, and that full park closures be considered
only as a last option after other feasible alternatives,
including but not limited to, operating agreements with
qualified nonprofits and local governments are explored.
AB 594
Page 2
4)Clarifies that funds in a subaccount continuously appropriated
in last year's budget to provide incentives for revenue
generation in park districts may be used for capital outlay
projects.
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. DPR's 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, but places a
two-year moratorium on park closures for the 2012-13 and
2013-14 fiscal years.
6)Creates the State Parks Revenue Incentives Subaccount within
the State Park and Recreation Fund and provides that funds in
the subaccount are continuously appropriated to DPR until June
30, 2016, to create incentives for revenue generating projects
in state parks.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, increased potential costs to DPR of less than
AB 594
Page 3
$100,000 per park closure.
COMMENTS : In 2011 DPR proposed to close 70 state parks as a
result of budget reductions. The Legislature responded by
enacting AB 42 (Huffman), Chapter 450, Statutes of 2011, which
authorized DPR to enter into operating agreements with nonprofit
organizations in order to keep some of the parks open to the
public. A number of nonprofit groups, local governments and
other donors contributed funds to DPR and entered into operating
agreements to keep parks from closing. In July 2012 it was
revealed that DPR had failed to disclose a $20 million reserve
in the State Parks and Recreation Fund to the Legislature and
the Department of Finance. After that disclosure, the
Legislature enacted AB 1478 (Blumenfield), Chapter 530, Statutes
of 2012, which, among other things, placed a two-year moratorium
on all state park closures. The enactment of the moratorium
under AB 1478 created a potential legal ambiguity as to whether
DPR still had the authority to enter into operating agreements
for the full operation of a state park while the moratorium was
in effect. Partial closures were not affected. This bill
clarifies that the existence of the moratorium is not intended
by the Legislature to limit or affect DPR's authority to enter
into operating agreements for the operation of a state park
unit.
The Legislature's intent in authorizing DPR to enter into
nonprofit operating agreements was to give DPR additional tools
to avoid park closure. Facilitating such collaborative
partnerships is a key strategy in enabling DPR to keep the parks
open and accessible to the public. The operating agreements
allow DPR to avoid closing state parks, which is also the
purpose of the moratorium.
This bill also modifies and updates existing law relating to
proposed park closures, which was enacted prior to the
revelation of the undisclosed reserve funds last year, and prior
to other budgetary and policy actions taken by the Legislature
in 2012 which, among other things, provided DPR with additional
funding flexibility, required the development of revenue
targets, and created incentives for entrepreneurial revenue
generating activities at the state park district level. This
bill requires that such strategies as improved efficiencies,
increased revenue generating activities, and partnerships be
explored first before park closures are considered. It also
AB 594
Page 4
requires DPR in the event any park closures are proposed in the
future to document and publicly disclose the methodology used in
selecting parks for closure, and requires that a public hearing
be held by the State Park and Recreation Commission.
Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096
FN: 0000860