BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de León, Chair
AB 594 (Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife) - State parks:
operating agreements: park closures.
Amended: July 1, 2013 Policy Vote: NR&W 9-0
Urgency: Yes Mandate: No
Hearing Date: August 12, 2013 Consultant:
Marie Liu
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: AB 594 would add to information that must be
considered should a state park be closed and makes a number of
clarifying and technical changes regarding park operations.
Fiscal Impact:
One-time minimum costs, likely in the hundreds of thousands
of dollars, from the State Parks and Recreation Fund
(General Fund) for the additional analysis necessary to
close a park unit.
Background: DPR is required to achieve budget reductions through
park closures, partial closures and service reductions at park
units based on specified factors such as minimal impacts on park
visitation, physical ability to close a park, and applicable
deed restrictions. However, no closures may occur in FY 2012-13
or 2013-14.
DPR is authorized to enter into operating agreements with
qualified nonprofit entities that will enable DPR to keep parks
open that would otherwise be subject to closure.
The State Parks Revenue Incentives Subaccount within the State
Park and Recreation Fund is continuously appropriated to DPR
until June 30, 2016 to create incentives for revenue generating
projects in state parks. At least fifty percent of any new
revenues raised are required to be expended in the park district
in which the revenues were earned.
Proposed Law: This bill would delete the requirement for DPR to
close, partially close, and reduce services in order to achieve
budget reductions. However, should DPR elect to close a park
AB 594 (Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife)
Page 1
unit on or after July 1, 2014, it must document and publically
disclose the methodology and rational used to select park units
proposed for closure. This bill would add to the factors that
must be used to park units to be closed to include the extent to
which the park unit closure would impact local and regional
economies, the extent to which the closure would limit the
number of parks that are compliant with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), the extent which the closure would
increase fire risk and other public safety hazards. Furthermore,
the Parks and Recreation Commission (commission) would be
required to hold a public hearing on closures proposed after
July 1, 2014 before final closure decisions are made.
This bill would also make a number of clarifying including that
the two-year moratorium on state park closures does not limit
DPR's ability to enter into operating agreements with qualified
nonprofit organizations for the purpose of operating a state
park and that the State Parks Revenue Incentives Subaccount may
be spent on capital outlay projects.
Related Legislation: SB 974 (Evans, 2012) would have required
DPR to document how decisions were made if a state park was to
be closed and would have required an analysis of multiple
factors regarding impacts of state park closures. SB 974 was
held on the Assembly Appropriation's suspense file.
AB 1478 (Blumenfield) Chapter 530/2012 established the t2-year
moratorium and the State Parks Revenue Incentives Subaccount.
AB 107 (Budget) Chapter 134/2011 required DPR to establish
budgetary savings through park closures and specified the
factors which must be used in selecting units for closure.
Staff Comments: This bill would add to the list of required
factors that must be considered when selecting park units for
closure, should any closures be necessary. The additional
factors are essentially identical to the factors that were
proposed to be added in SB 974 (Evans, 2012). Staff estimates
that that the additional factors to be considered under this
bill and the associated public meetings would likely result in a
minimum of several thousand dollars in staff workload per park.
Costs could be higher if DPR finds it necessary to contract out
some of the analysis, particularly analyzing the economic impact
to the local and regional community. Given that the State Park
AB 594 (Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife)
Page 2
system has over 270 parks, this bill would likely add hundreds
of thousands of dollars in analysis should DPR propose that a
park unit be closed.