BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 42|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 42
Author: Huffman (D), et al.
Amended: 8/30/11 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER COMM. : 9-0, 6/14/11
AYES: Pavley, La Malfa, Cannella, Evans, Fuller, Kehoe,
Padilla, Simitian, Wolk
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 9-0, 8/25/11
AYES: Kehoe, Walters, Alquist, Emmerson, Lieu, Pavley,
Price, Runner, Steinberg
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-1, 5/19/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : State parks
SOURCE : California State Parks Foundation
DIGEST : This bill authorizes the Department of Parks and
Recreation to enter into operating agreements with
non-profit entities to manage state parks or portions of
state parks, operating limits agreements for the management
of entire state parks, 20 in total, and states that they
may only occur if the operating agreement prevents the
closure of a park.
ANALYSIS :
Existing Law :
CONTINUED
AB 42
Page
2
1. Authorizes the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR)
to enter into operating agreements with local government
entities for the operation of a state park unit.
2. Authorizes DPR to enter into contracts with for-profit
companies for concession services in state parks.
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 and Marconi Conference
Center.
This bill:
1. Authorizes DPR to enter into operating agreements with
non-profit organizations for the operation and
maintenance or a park unit or a portion of a park unit.
If the operating agreement provides for operation of an
entire park unit, DPR may only enter into such an
agreement provided that the operating agreement will
eliminate the need to close the park unit, due to budget
reductions. In addition, DPR is limited to entering
into a total of 20 operating agreements for the
operation of entire park units.
2. Requires that revenues generated at a park, under an
operating agreement, be used for the operation,
maintenance, and improvement of the specific park unit.
In addition, the bill imposes public meeting and
legislative notification requirements on those operating
agreements.
3. Specifies that no General Fund subsidies will be
provided to non-profits.
4. Sunsets on January 1, 2019.
CONTINUED
AB 42
Page
3
Background
California's state park system is the largest in the nation
and includes 278 state parks covering over 1.5 million
acres of lands managed by the DPR for their natural,
cultural and historical values for present and future
Californians. Over the past several years, the General
Fund (GF) budget for state parks has decreased while user
fees have increased. Today the park system has a deferred
maintenance backlog of over $1 billion. Last year as a
result of budget reductions, hours of operation at many
parks were reduced, and a number of campgrounds, visitor
centers and other public services were closed. In November
2010, Proposition 21, a statewide ballot initiative which
would have provided ongoing dedicated funding for state
parks through a vehicle license surcharge failed passage.
This year the Governor has proposed, and the legislative
Budget Conference Committee approved, an $11 million
reduction in GF support to DPR in the proposed 2011-12
Budget. The Governor is also proposing an additional $11
million reduction in 2012-13, for an ongoing annual GF
budget reduction to DPR of $22 million. These cuts are
anticipated to necessitate the closure of a number of state
parks throughout the system.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13
2013-14 Fund
Development of operating Up to $500 Special *
agreements
Cost savings from entering Unknown
Special*
into operating agreements
* State Parks and Recreation Fund.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/29/11)
CONTINUED
AB 42
Page
4
California State Parks Foundation (source)
Audubon California
California League of Park Associations
California Park and Recreation Society
California State Park Rangers Association
California Travel Industry Association
Central Coast Natural History Association
Chino Hills State Park Interpretive Association
Friends of Pio Pico, Inc.
Friends of Santa Cruz State Parks
LandPaths
Members, First Congregational Church of Sonoma
Mendocino Area Parks Association
Monterey County Board of Supervisors
Mountain Parks Foundation
Mt. Tamalpais Interpretive Association
PAW PAC
San Mateo Coast Natural History Association
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
Santa Cruz Mayor and City Council
Sierra Club California
Stewards of the Coast and Redwoods
The Nature Conservancy
The Trust for Public Land
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/29/11)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees
California Parks Hospitality Association (concessionaires)
California Chamber of Commerce
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author states, "While the
search for stable funding �for the state parks system]
continues, it is critical that creative opportunities for
public/private partnerships be explored and encouraged in
order to minimize the impacts to state parks and, where
possible, maintain public access to park resources.
Nonprofits organizations can be important partners in
meeting those objectives, and where possible, should be
invited to assist the state with operating state parks
through negotiated agreements."
The California State Parks Foundation, in support of the
CONTINUED
AB 42
Page
5
bill, states, "Many nonprofit organizations are already
close partners with the state in providing visitor
services, resource protection, educational and interpretive
programs, land management expertise and/or financial
assistance. In some cases, such nonprofits may have
capacity and interest to take on operational roles,
particularly with the recent release of a list of 70 state
parks planned for closure."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Chamber of
Commerce is opposed unless the bill is amended to "allow
for-profit organizations to compete with non-profits on an
even playing field for State Parks' operational contracts."
They state, "For-profit companies usually pay the state in
exchange for the opportunity to provide visitor services
within the parks, while in some cases they have also
managed and provided maintenance. Allowing non-profit
organizations to manage and keep proceeds in the Parks
System would result in a loss of revenue for the state and
does not increase employment as they use volunteers for the
operations. Whereas, for-profit organizations pay taxes
and fees to the state to manage the parks, they create jobs
and thus contribute not only to the state parks but also
the state's economy as a whole."
The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees, in opposition to the bill, states, "Assembly
Bill 42 allows for an unlimited number of units and up to
20 entire state parks to be privatized." AFSCME further
states that this bill "provide�s] a blanket authority for
the �DPR] to enter into operating agreements with private
entities without ensuring the necessary safeguards to
preserve public access and the long-term interests of the
state."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-1, 5/19/11
AYES: Achadjian, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Carter,
Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson,
Donnelly, Eng, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani,
Beth Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Grove,
Hagman, Halderman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Roger
Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight,
CONTINUED
AB 42
Page
6
Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mansoor, Mendoza, Miller,
Mitchell, Monning, Morrell, Nestande, Nielsen, Norby,
Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel P�rez, Portantino, Silva,
Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Valadao,
Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. P�rez
NOES: Campos
NO VOTE RECORDED: Alejo, Gorell, Hueso, Lara
CTW:do 8/30/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED