BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1589
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1589 (Huffman, et al.)
As Amended May 25, 2012
2/3 vote. Urgency
WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE 12-0 REVENUE &
TAXATION 8-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Huffman, Halderman, Bill |Ayes:|Perea, Harkey, Beall, |
| |Berryhill, Blumenfield, | |Cedillo, Wagner, Fuentes, |
| |Campos, Fong, | |Gordon, Nestande |
| |Beth Gaines, Gatto, | | |
| |Hueso, Jones, Lara, | | |
| |Yamada | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fuentes, Harkey, | | |
| |Blumenfield, Bradford, | | |
| |Charles Calderon, Campos, | | |
| |Davis, Donnelly, Gatto, | | |
| |Ammiano, Hill, Lara, | | |
| |Mitchell, Nielsen, Norby, | | |
| |Solorio, Wagner | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Enacts the California State Parks Stewardship Act of
2012. Specifically, this bill :
1)States legislative findings and declarations regarding the
mission and importance of state parks to the quality of life in
California and the state's tourism economy, the lack of adequate
past funding for state parks, and the need for the state to
commit to a long-term goal of adequately and sustainably funding
and maintaining state parks in order to protect the resources of
the state and to preserve California's legacy for the benefit of
all Californians.
2)States legislative intent to encourage formation of a state
AB 1589
Page 2
compact that:
a) Commits the state to a long-term goal of adequately
funding and maintaining state parks by identifying new
revenues and funding strategies to sustain state parks, and
ensuring that those new sources are not used to supplant
existing state support or to justify further reductions in
General Fund support that would leave the park system
unsustainable;
b) Ensures that new revenues received from private donors for
state parks are used to supplement and not to supplant
existing state funding for state parks and are used only for
the purposes given;
c) Commits the state to a goal of greater efficiency in the
management of state parks, including maximizing collection of
fees and other revenue generating potential at state parks
while maintaining public access for all Californians; and,
d) Minimizes the number of parks subject to closure and
encourages creative partnerships to assist the state with
park operations and management.
3)Requires the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to develop
a prioritized action plan to increase revenues and the
collection of user fees at state parks, and to report to the
Legislature and Governor on the plan by January 1, 2013.
4)Creates a State Park Enterprise Fund, with monies in the fund to
be held in trust and used exclusively for construction and
installation of new revenue and fee collection equipment and
technologies, and other costs of restoring and rehabilitating
the state park system that enhance resources and visitation, and
provide opportunities to increase revenues. Requires that $10
million of the unexpended balance of bond funds made available
for state parks under Proposition 84 be transferred to the
Enterprise Fund for these purposes.
5)Allows taxpayers to voluntarily elect to direct a portion of
their tax refund to purchase a state park annual access pass
when they file their state tax return.
6)Authorizes the issuance and purchase of a state park
AB 1589
Page 3
environmental license plate bearing a full-plate graphic design,
that DPR determines in consultation with the California Highway
Patrol does not obscure the readability of the plate, depicting
a significant natural feature or features of the state park
system. Requires that the proceeds from sale of the license
plates, after deduction of the Department of Motor Vehicles'
(DMV) administrative costs, be deposited in a California State
Parks Account for expenditure for the exclusive trust purposes
of preservation and restoration of California state parks.
7)Requires DPR to document and publicly disclose the methodology,
rationale and scoring system used to evaluate and select parks
designated for closure.
8)Modifies the criteria which DPR is required to consider in
determining whether to close a park by requiring that DPR
consider additional factors, including the extent to which the
closure would impact local and regional economies or
disproportionately impact one region of the state over another,
the extent to which the closure would limit availability of
Americans with Disabilities Act compliant facilities, the extent
to which the closure would impact fire risk or other public
safety hazards, and the extent to which the closure would impact
the state's ability to protect iconic natural and historical
resources.
9)Clarifies that DPR achieve required budget reductions by
implementing efficiencies, increasing revenue collection, or
closing, partially closing, or reducing services at state parks.
States legislative intent that DPR implement full park closures
only as a last resort after other feasible alternatives,
including but not limited to operating agreements with
nonprofits and local governments, have been explored. Provides
that, with the exception of parks subject to operating
agreements with nonprofits or local governments, the number of
parks subject to full closure during the 2012 to 2016 calendar
years, inclusive, shall not exceed 25 state park units unless
expressly authorized by the Legislature on or after January 1,
2013.
10)Includes an urgency clause stating that it is necessary that
this act take effect immediately in order to protect state parks
that are threatened with imminent closure and to begin
addressing state park revenue shortfalls as soon as possible.
AB 1589
Page 4
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Appropriation of $10 million from Proposition 84 bond monies to
DPR to fund: a) the capital costs of construction and
installation of new revenue and fee collection infrastructure;
b) other physical upgrades to park lands and facilities; and, c)
development and implementation of the park action plan required
by this bill.
2)Potential cost pressure in the millions of dollars to implement
the park action plan, to the extent plan elements exceed
Proposition 84 bond monies appropriated for that amount (General
Fund, special fund and bond funds).
AB 1589
Page 5
3)Cost pressure of an unknown but significant amount, potentially
in the millions of dollars, to the extent the bill's
25-park-closure limitation prevents DPR making necessary budget
reductions (General Fund, special funds and bond funds.)
4)One-time costs of an unknown amount, but potentially in the low
hundreds of thousands of dollars, to DPR in 2012-13 to consider
additional criteria in selecting parks for closure (General
Fund, special funds or bond funds).
5)One-time costs to the Franchise Tax Board (FTB), in the range of
$400,000 to $600,000, in 2012-13 to make programming changes and
revise tax forms, to be reimbursed by DPR from the sale of state
parks passes (special fund).
6)Ongoing loss of an unknown but presumably minor amount of
personal income tax revenue, to the extent the bill results in
tax-deductible donations for state parks purposes (Personal
Income Tax Fund).
7)Potential one-time costs to the Department of Motor Vehicles
(DMV) in the range of $400,000 to $500,000, upon receipt of
7,500 applications for state parks license plates, to make
programming changes and design and fabricate specialized license
plates (MVA). These costs should be fully covered by fees paid
by applicants for the state parks plates.
8)Potential ongoing revenue of an unknown amount, possibly in the
millions of dollars and well in excess of the costs identified
above, to DPR, to the extent the revenue-generating activities
identified and required by this bill result in increased park
fees collection, park pass sales and state park license plate
issuance (special fund).
COMMENTS : The author indicates the purpose of this bill is to
enhance the capacity of the state to protect its valued state
parks and the natural and cultural resources they contain, and to
keep the parks open and accessible to the people of the state. To
make progress toward the long-term goal of a more sustainable and
well-maintained state park system, this bill promotes new revenue
enhancement opportunities, including enhanced fee collection and
other revenue generating opportunities at state parks, a new state
park environmental license plate, and tax incentives for purchase
of state park annual access passes. This bill also creates a
AB 1589
Page 6
state park enterprise fund and requires DPR to develop a revenue
enhancement plan for state parks, modifies the criteria and public
transparency required for state park closure decisions, states
that park closures should be implemented only as a last resort
after other feasible alternatives have been explored, places a cap
on the number of state parks that may be closed without
legislative approval, and states legislative intent regarding the
need for a multi-disciplinary independent assessment on ways to
provide for long-term sustainable management of California's state
parks.
In May 2011 DPR announced plans to fully close 70 of California's
state parks effective July 1, 2012. The announcement was made
following reductions in the General Fund budget of DPR proposed by
the Governor and approved by the Legislature. In order to prevent
some of the closures, the state in 2011 enacted AB 42 (Huffman),
Chapter 450, Statutes of 2010, which authorizes DPR to enter into
operating agreements with nonprofit organizations to keep open
some of the parks that would otherwise be subject to closure. To
date, DPR has indicated that as many as 16 of the 70 parks
proposed for closure will remain open at least temporarily through
operating agreements negotiated with nonprofits or local
governments, donor agreements, concession contracts, and other
partnership arrangements.
In November 2011 the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife and
Assembly Accountability and Administrative Review Committees held
a joint oversight hearing on the proposed state park closures. The
hearing examined, among other things, concerns over a lack of
information and clarity as to how DPR applied statutorily required
criteria in evaluating which parks to include on the closure list.
Other issues included concerns that the costs of closing state
parks may be higher than anticipated due to the physical inability
to close some parks on the list, existing problems with vandalism,
illegal marijuana growing and property destruction that could be
exacerbated if parks are closed, and potential litigation.
Concern that the park closures may have a disproportionate impact
on some local communities and regional economies, and result in a
loss of state tax revenue from local economic activity generated
by state park visitation, was also expressed. Questions were also
raised as to whether alternatives which might avoid or reduce the
necessity to close state parks had been fully explored, such as,
enhanced and modernized fee collection methods and other revenue
raising opportunities within some state parks, and potential
AB 1589
Page 7
untapped philanthropic support from private investors. Finally,
it was noted that the state could benefit from an independent
assessment of strategies for long-term management and sustainable
funding of California's state parks.
The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) released a report on March
9, 2012, entitled "Strategies to Maintain California's Park
System." Among other things, the LAO recommended increasing park
user fees and shifting toward entrance fees rather than parking
fees, and increasing the number of parks subject to operating
agreements. The LAO estimated that if just an eighth of the
people that currently visit day-use parks for free were charged an
entrance fee this would increase revenues by the low tens of
millions of dollars annually. Similarly, the LAO estimated that
raising the amount of fees that current visitors pay by $1 could
also increase revenues by the low tens of millions of dollars
annually. The LAO report noted the lack of certainty as to how
much funding can actually be saved from closing a given number of
state parks, noting that DPR is unable to provide information on
the cost of operating an individual park, and the various costs
associated with closure. The LAO also noted that since the
closure list was released, DPR has concluded that some parks on
the closure list are too costly to close because it would cost
more to close them in the near term because of the one-time costs
associated with closures. They further noted that since DPR will
only minimally maintain closed parks, the cost to reopen these
parks in the future will likely be substantial because the
infrastructure would not have been sufficiently maintained.
Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096 FN: 0003984