BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2011-2012 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SB 356 HEARING DATE: April 26, 2011
AUTHOR: Blakeslee URGENCY: No
VERSION: March 25, 2011 CONSULTANT: Marie Liu
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: State parks: local operating agreements.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Section 5002.2 of the Public Resources Code requires the
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to develop a general
plan for each state park unit. The general plan is meant to
serve as the guide for future development, management, and
operation of the park unit and must have elements regarding
proposed land uses, facilities, concessions, operations, and
resource management. The general plan for each park unit must be
approved by the State Park and Recreation Commission
(commission).
Article 1 (commencing with Section 5080.30) allows DPR to enter
into an agreement with federal or local public agencies for the
care, maintenance, administration, and control of any state
parks. Any park unit subject to such an operating agreement must
have a general plan that specifically addresses how the unit is
to be operated. The commission must determine that, according to
the general plan, the unit will be operated in a manner that is
consistent with DPR's management of similar parks, provides for
satisfactory park resource management, and enhances the general
public use and enjoyment of recreational and educational
experiences at the unit. The public agency must use revenues
received at the park unit for the operation, maintenance, or
improvement of that park unit. Any excess revenues must be given
to DPR.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would require DPR to enter into an operating agreement
with a willing city or county for any park unit that is proposed
to be closed. Specifically, this bill would:
1
Require DPR to notify the appropriate county when the
DPR intends to close a unit. The county would have 15 days
to indicate whether it will consider voluntarily operating
the unit. The county would have 60 days to notify DPR its
intent to operate a park, as indicated by a majority vote
of the board of supervisors at a properly noticed meeting;
Require DPR to notify the appropriate city if the county
declines to voluntarily operate a unit proposed for
closure. The city would have 30 days to indicate whether it
will consider voluntarily operating the unit. The city
would have 60 days to notify DPR of its intent to operate a
park, as indicated by a majority of city council members at
a property noticed public meeting;
Require DPR to enter into an operating agreement with a
willing county or city. At a minimum, the operating
agreement would need to include:
o An exemption of prevailing wage requirements for
local government staff, volunteers, or cooperating
associations;
o Allowances for the city or county to temporarily
hire individual state park employees. Such employees may
be provided with a leave of absence from DPR and the
state would suspend its contributions to their salary and
benefits;
o A requirement for the county or city to operate the
unit consistent with the general plan;
o A requirement for DPR to approve any capital
improvements or changes in use of the unit;
o An allowance for the county or city to work
collaboratively with other local governments in operation
and maintenance of the unit;
Require that operating agreements for park units
proposed for closure be for one to five years with the
possibility of renewal.
Exempts operating agreements for park units proposed
from closure from existing law regarding operating
agreements.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, "California state parks generate value
revenue for our local communities. If the state cannot keep
2
parks open, local stakeholders deserve the chance to work
together to protect the jobs, economic activity, and
recreational opportunities offered by our local parks."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
The California State Parks Foundation, with an oppose unless
amendment position, states, "We appreciate and agree with the
intent to help keep California's state parks open, particularly
in these difficult economic times. However, we do not believe it
is appropriate for the Legislature to be mandating agreements be
entered into in advance of negotiations that must occur between
willing local and state parties in assessing the assets,
strengths, challenges and specific management, financial and
operational obligations of any such operating agreement. While
we agree with the intent to facilitate public access and
enjoyment of parks that may otherwise be closed, current Public
Resources Code Section 5080.30 already permits the state to
enter into such agreements with other governmental bodies.
Mandating an operating agreement for a park creates
inconsistency in the law. We believe agreements for local
governments to operate state parks should be made permissive,
instead of mandated, as the bill currently does?We are concerned
that SB 356 does not acknowledge that there may be partners
other than local governments that are willing and able to keep a
state park slated for closure open to the public and that this
bill may create a conflict with AB 42 (Huffman), which grants
DPR authority to enter into operating agreements with non-profit
organizations."
COMMENTS
Adopted budget cuts for 2011-2012 necessitate the closure of
state parks. The Legislature adopted and the Governor approved
an $11 million reduction in General Fund support to DPR in the
2011-2012 budget with an additional $11 million reduction in
2012-2013, for an ongoing annual General Fund reduction to DPR
of $22 million. Given that DPR has absorbed millions of dollars
of cuts in past budgets, these cuts are anticipated to
necessitate the closure of dozens of state parks. The
administration has not yet released a list of proposed parks.
Should DPR be required to enter into operating agreements with a
city or county? Existing law gives DPR the authority to enter
into an agreement with cities and counties for the operation of
a state park unit. This bill however would require DPR to enter
into such an agreement if a county or city is willing. DPR would
not have discretion to reject a city or county's contract
demands, even if they are unreasonable. For example, a city or
3
county could insist on receiving financial assistance from the
state for the operation of the unit or refuse to report to DPR
on its operating activities or finances, yet DPR would still
have to enter into the contract. According to the author, the
intent of this bill is to ensure a response by DPR to a willing
city or county regarding operation of a park. The committee may
wish to instead require that DPR enter into negotiations with
the city or county, as not to prejudice the outcome of
negotiations. �See amendment 1]
Does this bill unnecessarily constrain local governments? This
bill establishes a short timeline for a county or city to
indicate to DPR its intentions. This timeline may be
insufficient for the city or county to gather the data to fully
understand the implications of assuming operation of a state
park or to establishing the necessary budgeting. Thus, the city
or county may be required to make a decision about its intent to
operate a park unit with incomplete information. According to
the author, the short timeline is proposed to reduce the
likelihood that a park unit is temporarily closed while an
agreement is crafted. However, the bill proposes no timeline for
reaching the operating agreement, only for the city or county to
notify its intent to operate a park. Under existing law, a city
or county can enter into an operating agreement with DPR with no
such time restrictions. Also, it is unclear why the timeline
should be different for cities and counties, as currently
proposed in the bill, and whether a county should be given first
right of refusal over a city. The committee may wish to leave
open the timeline so that author can have discussions with
stakeholders on appropriate limits. �See amendment 2]
Also, this bill prohibits an operating agreement from being
longer than five years. However, a local government may desire a
longer operating period in order to justify the substantial
efforts necessary to assume operation of a park unit.
What is "closed" park? According to DPR, budget reductions are
likely to be made with a combination of parks which are fully
closed with no public access, partial closures where the unit
may be open to the public with reduce hours, and seasonal
closures. This bill applies to any unit that is proposed for
"closure." Since it is unclear how an operating agreement would
work for a park which is partially or seasonally closed, the
committee may wish to limit this bill to parks which are
proposed for full closure with no planned public access. �See
amendment 3]
4
Should the operation of parks that are proposed for closure be
exempt from prevailing wage requirements? This bill would exempt
local government staff, volunteers, or cooperating associations
from prevailing wage requirements. This exemption would only
apply to those persons who are working at a park unit which is
being operated by a city or county because it was proposed for
closure by the state. If such an exemption is desirable, it is
unclear why the exemption should only apply to a subset of units
under operating agreements and not the entire state park system.
The committee may wish to delete the prevailing wage exemption.
Also, while it may be desirable for a local government to hire
state park employees that perform critical or specialized
functions in a park proposed for full closure, allowing DPR to
put such an employee on a leave of absence implies that DPR must
hold a position open for that employee, thus preventing DPR from
achieving its required budget reductions. Thus, the committee
may also wish to delete these hiring provisions, noting that
even without this language, a city or county could hire
desirable persons who were employed by the state when the state
operated the unit. �See amendment 4]
Other amendments: It is unclear why the provisions of this bill
should be exempted from existing requirements for operating
agreements. The committee may wish to delete the
"notwithstanding" provision in the bill. Also, the committee may
wish to specify that DPR must approve any agreements that the
city or county establishes with other local governments for the
operation of the unit. �See amendment 5]
Related legislation: SB 386 (Harman) would require DPR to post
on its website the name of any park intended for full closure at
least 30 days before closure. AB 42 (Huffman) would allow DPR to
enter into operating agreements with nonprofit organizations. AB
64 (Jeffries) would express Legislative intent to minimize park
closures by actively negotiating operating agreements with local
governments.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT 1
On page 3, line 23, delete "an agreement" and insert
"negotiations"
AMENDMENT 2
On page 2, line 11, delete "15" and insert "___"
5
On page 2, line 19, delete "60" and insert "___"
On page 3, line 3, delete "15" and insert "___"
On page 3, line 9, delete "30" and insert "___"
On page 3, line 16, delete "60" and insert "___"
AMENDMENT 3
On page 2, line 6, delete "close." and insert "fully close
with no planned public access."
AMENDMENT 4
Delete all lines from page 3, line 27 through page 4, line
6, inclusively.
AMENDMENT 5
On page 2, line 3, delete 'Notwithstanding this article, a"
and insert "A"
On page 4, line 14, delete "unit." And insert "unit, with
approval of the department."
SUPPORT
None Received
OPPOSITION
State Parks Foundation (unless amended)
6