BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2011-2012 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SB 386 HEARING DATE: April 26, 2011
AUTHOR: Harman URGENCY: Yes
VERSION: April 25, 2011 CONSULTANT: Marie Liu
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: State parks: proposed closures: public notice.
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 post on its website, at least 30
days before closure, the name of a park intended to be closed,
the approximate date of closure, and DPR contact information for
1
any organization who may be interested in a contract to lease,
operate, maintain, or provide a concession at park listed for
closure. DPR would be required to respond to the inquiry in
writing. This bill is an urgency measure.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
The author stated in regards to a previous version of the bill,
"The Department has alternative mechanisms to keep state parks
open and operating other than closure. SB 386 requires the
Department to explore these options fully before a single park
closes its doors." In regards to the recent amendments, the
author intends to increase public notification of proposed park
closures to solicit potential interest in operating and
maintaining parks that are slated for closure.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
None received
2
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.
Related legislation: SB 356 (Blakeslee) would require DPR to
enter into operating agreements with willing counties or cities
for the operation of units that are proposed to be closed. 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.
SUPPORT
None Received
OPPOSITION
None Received
3