BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 356
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 28, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Jared Huffman, Chair
SB 356 (Blakeslee) - As Amended: June 22, 2011
SENATE VOTE : 39-0
SUBJECT : State Parks
SUMMARY : Requires the Department of Parks and Recreation
(DPR), if it proposes to fully close a state park unit with no
planned public access, to notify the county or city in which the
unit is located and give the county or city an opportunity to
take over operation of the park. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires DPR if it proposes to close a state park unit with no
public access to notify the county in which the unit is
located of DPR's intent to close the park.
2)Gives the county 30 days to respond in writing to DPR whether
it will consider voluntarily taking over operation and
maintenance of the unit proposed for closure. Authorizes the
county to take over operations of the park if a majority of
the board of supervisors votes to do so at a properly noticed
public hearing with opportunity for community stakeholders to
be heard. Requires the county after approval at the hearing
to provide written notice to DPR of its decision within 75
days after receiving the notice.
3)Requires DPR, if the county declines to take over operation of
the park, to notify the city in which the unit is located of
DPR's intent to close the unit. Gives the city 30 days to
respond in writing to DPR whether it plans to consider taking
over operation of the park. Authorizes the city to elect to
take over operation and maintenance of the park if a majority
of the city council votes to do so at a properly noticed
public hearing with opportunity for community stakeholders to
be heard. Requires the city to provide written notice to DPR
of its decision within 75 days after receiving the notice.
4)Requires DPR if it receives written notice from the county or
city of its intent to take over operation and maintenance of
the park, to enter into negotiations to transfer full
responsibility for operation and maintenance of the unit to
SB 356
Page 2
the county or city.
5)Requires an agreement for a county or city to operate a park
to contain all of the following provisions:
a) That state funding shall not be provided to
subsidize operating and maintenance costs for the unit.
b) That the county or city shall operate and maintain
the park consistent with the park general plan.
c) That capital improvements or changes in use shall be
subject to DPR approval.
d) That the agreement shall not limit or impair the
county or city's ability to work collaboratively with
other local governments to operate and manage the unit,
subject to approval of DPR.
e) That DPR and the county or city shall agree on the
length of term for the operating agreement, which shall
not be less than one year nor more than five years.
Authorizes extension of the agreement for another term if
DPR and the county or city so agree.
EXISTING LAW : Authorizes DPR to enter into operating agreements
with local governments for the operation and maintenance of a
state park unit, subject to review by the Legislature as part of
the annual budget process or review and approval of the State
Public Works Board.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, up to $300,000 in one-time costs after 2012 to DPR
for contract negotiation costs.
COMMENTS : Last month the Governor announced the planned
closure of 70 of the state's 278 state parks, following on the
Legislature and Governor's approval in March of a $22 million
reduction in General Fund support for DPR. DPR has indicated
its intent to seek out public and private partners who may be
interested in taking over operations of a state park in order to
enable the park to remain open. In a press release issued with
the announcement of the planned park closures, Director Ruth
Coleman stated: "With this announcement, we can begin to seek
additional partnership agreements to keep open as many parks as
possible?We already have 32 operating agreements with our
partners - cities, counties and non-profits - to operate state
parks, and will be working statewide to expand that successful
template."
SB 356
Page 3
The author indicates the purpose of this bill is to allow
counties and cities an opportunity to take over operations and
maintenance of a state park that has been identified for
closure. This bill would require in the unique and unfortunate
circumstance that a park is proposed for closure that prior to
closure DPR must solicit interest from the county and city in
which the park is located. The author notes in many cases state
parks serve as critical components of local and regional
economies. As a result, a local government may wish to
voluntarily take over operation and maintenance of a park for a
period of time until the state is able to resume operation and
maintenance responsibilities.
Under current law, DPR has authority to enter into an operating
agreement with a county or city to operate and maintain a state
park, subject to review by the Legislature or approval of the
Public Works Board, and has done so in a number of occasions.
This bill would require DPR to proactively notify and enter into
negotiations with any county or city that is interested in
taking over operation of a state park on the closure list.
This bill specifically prohibits state funding from being
provided to subsidize the operation and maintenance costs of a
state park being operated by a city or county. In light of the
fact many local governments are currently struggling with their
own fiscal challenges and budget shortfalls, it is unclear how
many local governments will be in a position to assume the full
costs of operating state parks. The committee may wish to
consider whether the provision prohibiting any state funds from
being used to subsidize a state park being operated by a local
agency will serve as a disincentive to local governments to
enter into partnerships or co-management agreements with the
state for the operation of state park units. To address this,
the committee may wish consider an amendment clarifying that
this restriction only applies to state parks the full operation
of which are turned over to a local government agency, but does
not apply to or preclude DPR from entering into agreements with
local governments to operate a portion of a state park unit, or
from entering into co-management agreements with local
governments that involve the sharing of operational and
financial responsibilities for the park and have the effect of
reducing state costs.
Related Legislation : AB 42 (Huffman) would authorize DPR to
enter into operating agreements with a qualified nonprofit
SB 356
Page 4
organization to prevent the closure of a state park. SB 386
(Harman) would require DPR to post on its Internet Web site
information regarding its intent to close a state park. AB 42
passed this committee on a 13-0 vote. SB 386 is also pending in
this committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
City of Morro Bay
City of Lompoc
Economic Vitality Corporation
Lompoc Housing and Community Development Corporation
County of Santa Barbara
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096