BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2011-2012 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: AB 1589 HEARING DATE: June 26, 2012
AUTHOR: Huffman URGENCY: Yes
VERSION: May 25, 2012 CONSULTANT: Bill Craven
DUAL REFERRAL: Rules FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: State parks: sustainability and protection.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
1. The California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR)
operates and maintains the state park system and is responsible
for administering, protecting, developing and providing visitor
interpretation and other services for the use and enjoyment of
the public. The system currently has 279 state parks. DPR also
has law enforcement responsibility at state parks.
2. DPR has authority 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. DPR may collect fees, rents and other returns for the use of
state parks with amounts to be determined by DPR.
4. DPR may enter into operating agreements with qualified
nonprofit entities that will enable DPR to keep parks open that
would otherwise be subject to closure.
5. DPR is required to achieve required budget reductions by
closing, partially closing, and reducing services at selected
units of the state park system based on specified factors. This
requirement was contained in a trailer bill to the 2011-12
budget bill.
6. The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) released a report on
March 9, 2012, entitled "Strategies to Maintain California's
1
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.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill has an urgency clause and would do the following:
1. Require 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. The
plan could include consideration of any of the following, and
any additional concepts.
A. Installation of modern fee collection technologies such
as kiosks that accept credit
cards.
B. Peak demand pricing at popular campgrounds and other
high-demand park facilities.
C. Development of other revenue generating activities such
as additional RV spaces,
campgrounds, cabins, and facility rentals.
D. Develop new state, regional, or seasonal state park
passes.
E. Explore park sales opportunities through retailers.
2. Create 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
2
technologies, and other costs of restoring and rehabilitating
the state park system that enhance
resources and visitation, and provide opportunities to increase
revenues.
3. Require 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.
4. The urgency clause is based on the necessity that this act
should 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.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According the author, General Fund support for DPR has decreased
37% in the last 7 years. In the past two budgets DPR faced $11
million reductions in general fund support. The administration
proposed complete closure of 70 state parks effective on 7/1/12,
a process that DPR is continuing to implement. 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.
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 state park enterprise fund and requires DPR
to develop a revenue enhancement plan for state parks.
In order to prevent some of the proposed state park 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.
Other supporters are in support of the new entrepreneurial
activities that DPR will initiate to help generate revenues.
3
Others, such as 2 wineries, commented that the closures are
adversely affecting their businesses. However, the most
frequent comment from supporters is that they and their
constituent members simply refuse to accept the notion that
California is unable or unwilling to keep all of its state parks
open.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
None received.
COMMENTS
The author has joined with Senators Evans and Senator Simitian
on a proposed package of policy bills and funding measures that
have been proposed for inclusion in a budget trailer bill that
has not passed as this is being written, but that has been
approved by both Budget Committees. By agreement between
Assemblyman Huffman and Senator Evans, this bill will primarily
focus on revenue generation activities of DPR. The policy
questions about park closures will be contained in SB 974
(Evans) and the first proposed amendment deletes that topic from
this measure.
It should be noted that this bill contains provisions that
overlap with the proposed trailer bill. Assuming the trailer
bill is chaptered and signed, the author would remove the
provisions that establish the California State Park Enterprise
Fund and that authorize a specialized state parks license plate.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
In discussions with the author and the committee, agreements
have been reached on the following amendments.
AMENDMENT 1
Delete Section 1 of the bill.
AMENDMENT 2
Page 8, line 34, change "shall to should" and on page 9,
line 33, change January 1, 2013 to July 1, 2013.
AMENDMENT 3
Delete Section 10 of the bill.
SUPPORT
PawPac
State Park Partners Coalition
4
California Outdoor Recreation Partners
Family Winemakers of California
Sierra Club California
California Travel Association
Born Free USA
California Hotel and Lodging Association
California Outdoor Recreation Partners
California State Parks Foundation
County of Mendocino
County of Santa Cruz, Supervisor Neal Coonerty
Golden Gate Audubon
Humane Society of United States
State Controller John Chiang
State Parks Partners Coalition
Trust for Public Lands
OPPOSITION
None Received
5