BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 988 (Mark Stone) - Outdoor Environmental Education and
Recreation Grants Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: June 30, 2015 |Policy Vote: N.R. & W. 8 - 1 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: August 17, 2015 |Consultant: Marie Liu |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: AB 988 would create a new grant program to increase
the ability of underserved and at-risk populations to
participate in outdoor recreation and educational experiences.
Fiscal
Impact:
Initial costs of $230,000 and ongoing annual costs of $216,000
to the General Fund to develop the required grant program.
Unknown ongoing costs, likely in the hundreds of thousands of
dollars, to the General Fund to administer the required grant
program.
Cost pressures in the millions to tens of millions of dollars
to the General Fund to fund outdoor recreation and education.
Background: The State Urban Parks and Healthy Communities Act established
a competitive grant program at DPR to assist state parks,
AB 988 (Mark Stone) Page 1 of
?
certain state conservancies, urbanized and heavily urbanized
local agencies, and community-based organizations within those
jurisdictions to provide outdoor educational opportunities to
children. At least one-third of any funds appropriated for this
program were to be prioritized for increasing access for
elementary school-age children to conservancy or state,
community and regional park priorities. In signing SB 359
(Murray) Chapter 877, Statutes of 2001, Governor Davis included
a signing message indicating that there would been no General
Fund allocations to support the program in the following budget
year due to a decrease in state revenues. Additionally, Governor
Davis noted that Proposition 40, should it pass, would make $350
million available for various local assistant grant programs for
the development of neighborhood, community, and recreational
parks and recreation lands and facilities in urban and rural
areas, but that these funds cannot be used for non-capital
outlay programs such as outdoor education curriculum
development. Instead, these programs require General Fund
appropriations.
Proposition 40, approved by the voters in March 2002, made
available $2.6 billion for various purposes, including $23.337
million for the acquisition and/or development of properties for
active recreational purposes under the State Urban Parks and
Health Communities Program. No Proposition 40 monies were made
available for programmatic outdoor education purposes.
Government Code §16727 provides that general obligation bonds
are to be used for capital purposes. This provision aims to
ensure that the benefits of a project at least roughly match the
period during which the bond must be repaid.
Proposed Law:
This bill would create the Outdoor Environmental Education and
Recreation Grants Program at DPR aimed to increase the ability
of underserved and at-risk populations to participate in outdoor
recreation and educational experiences.
Eligible entities would be public organizations including local
governments, local education agencies, and nonprofit
organizations. Priority would be given to fund programs that
AB 988 (Mark Stone) Page 2 of
?
primarily provide outreach to and serve students who are
eligible for free or reduced-priced meals, foster youth, or
pupils of limited English proficiency, and have at least one of
the following attributes:
Demonstrate partnerships between public, private, and
nonprofit entities
Contribute to health lifestyles, sound nutritional habits, and
improved outdoor educational and recreational experiences
Maximize the number of participants that can be served
Commit in-kind resources
Have a curriculum that is aligned to the science content
standards for California Public Schools
Foster stewardship of the environment
Integrate instruction in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics
Include service learning and community outreach components
DPR would be authorized to develop an advisory task force to
assist in the development of the grant program.
If a grantee meets the requirements of this program and the
criteria specified in the State Urban Parks and Healthy
Communities Act, the grant may be funded by Proposition 40
monies that have been reverted and unencumbered. The author
intends to amend the bill to also require that the Proposition
40 be spent on grants for capital outlay. The program would also
be authorized to receive private donations.
All funding for this program would be deposited into the
California Youth Outdoor Education Account within the State Park
and Recreation Fund (SPRF), which would be created under this
bill. All monies in the account would be continuously
appropriated to DPR for this program.
DPR would be required to gather information from applications
each award year for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness
of outdoor environmental education and recreation programs. This
information would be summarized and reported annually to the
Legislature.
AB 988 (Mark Stone) Page 3 of
?
This bill would also amend the State Urban Parks and Healthy
Communities Act to specify that programs on public properties
within the coastal zone are included in the programs that are
prioritized for funding.
Staff
Comments: The author intends to submit amendments to the bill
that specify that any funds from Proposition 40 received by this
program must be spent on capital outlay. This analysis considers
this future amendment.
To develop the required grant program, DPR anticipates needing
two PYs at a first-year cost of $230,000, and $216,000 ongoing.
Additional staff would be needed to implement the program
depending on how much money is allocated to the program. As a
general indicator, grant programs usually require about 5% of
the total amount for administration. Thus, a $10 million grant
program would need approximately $500,000 for administration. As
this bill does not make an appropriation to this program and it
is unknown how much private donations DPR would receive for this
purpose, the ongoing administrative costs are unknown but likely
to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars
This year, through SB 83 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review)
Chapter 24, Statutes of 2015, the Legislature made available $10
million of Proposition 40 monies that have been reverted, upon
appropriation, for outdoor environmental education and
recreation programs that are consistent with the Proposition 40
guidelines for local assistance grants. These funds could be
distributed under the grant program outlined in this bill, to
the extent that the program is funding capital outlay projects.
In addition to the possibility of Proposition 40 monies, this
bill would also allow DPR to receive private donations to fund
the program. The bill is silent on whether this restriction
applies to other funding sources.
Staff notes that because the two potential funding sources for
the grant program have different requirements, DPR would either
have to administer two grant programs with slightly different
AB 988 (Mark Stone) Page 4 of
?
criteria- perhaps one program for operational costs and another
for capital outlay - or design the program so that all projects
meet the more stringent requirements of the two funding sources,
that is, in the case of this bill, all grants would be
restricted to capital outlay. Staff recommends that the bill
specify whether the whole program is to be for capital outlay or
whether DPR should run two grant programs.
This bill would continuously appropriate funds in the California
Youth Outdoor Education Account. Presumably this provision is to
allow private donations to flow to the program without
legislative action. However, while a continuous appropriation
might be appropriate for private donations, continuously
appropriating state funds restricts legislative oversight of the
programs. Staff recommends that the special fund be limited to
only receive funds from private donations.
Proposed Author
Amendments: The author intends on amending this measure to
require that all Proposition 40 monies expended by this program
be for the purpose of funding capital outlay projects.
-- END --