BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 386
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 24, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Jared Huffman, Chair
SB 386 (Harman) - As Amended: April 25, 2011
SENATE VOTE : 33-1
SUBJECT : State Parks: proposed closures: public notice
SUMMARY : Requires the Department of Parks & Recreation (DPR)
to post specified information on its website prior to closing a
state park. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires DPR, at least 30 days prior to the date it plans to
close a state park to public access, to post on its Internet
Web site the name of the park, the approximate date of
proposed closure, and information about how to contact DPR in
writing if an individual or other party is interested in
entering into negotiations with DPR for a contract or
agreement to lease, operate, maintain, or provide concessions
at a unit of the park system that is proposed to be closed.
2)Requires DPR to respond in writing to any inquiry received in
connection with the information that is posted regarding the
proposed park closure.
3)Contains an urgency clause providing that in order to require
DPR to provide timely notice to the public on its Web site of
proposed park closures, it is necessary that this act take
effect immediately.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes DPR to enter into operating agreements with local
government entities for the operation of a state park unit.
Requires that operating agreements be reviewed by the
Legislature as part of the annual budget process or be
reviewed and approved by the State Public Works Board, with
specified exceptions.
2)Authorizes DPR to enter into contracts with for-profit
companies for concession services in state parks, subject to
specified criteria.
SB 386
Page 2
3)Authorizes DPR to enter into cooperative agreements with
nonprofit organizations to provide educational and
interpretive services in state parks.
4)Authorizes DPR to enter into an operating agreement with a
qualified nonprofit organization for the development,
improvement, restoration, care, maintenance, administration,
and control of El Presidio de Santa Barbara State Historic
Park.
5)Authorizes DPR to enter into an operating agreement with a
qualified nonprofit organization for the development,
improvement, restoration, care, maintenance, administration,
and control of the Marconi Conference Center.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : The author of this bill notes that California's
state parks are an important part of the economy and culture of
California's communities. These areas of wilderness and open
space are treasured resources that should be protected. This
bill would require DPR to explore other options for operating
parks, such as local, federal, or private sector operators,
before closing a park. The author's goal with this bill is to
add transparency to the park closure process and allow other
groups that might be interested in operating a state park to
have the opportunity to indicate their interest to DPR to do so.
The Governor proposed and the Legislature approved an $11
million reduction in General Fund support to DPR for fiscal year
2011/12, to be followed by another $11 million reduction in the
following fiscal year. The Governor has indicated that he
intends for this to be an ongoing $22 million reduction in
General Fund support to DPR. On May 13, 2011 the Governor
announced the Administration's intent to close 70 of the 278
parks in the state park system as a result of the budget
reductions.
Support Arguments : The author asserts this bill will increase
transparency and provide other potential park partners with an
opportunity to indicate their interest in operating or
maintaining a state park before the park is closed by DPR to
public access. The Orange County Taxpayers Association believes
SB 386
Page 3
this bill would ensure that park users have the benefit of full
public consideration of alternative park management
possibilities.
Opposition Arguments : The American Federation of State, County
and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO, opposes this bill
because they feel that the bill is vague and therefore unclear
as to whether the notice will be limited to concession
activities within closed state parks or if it will allow for
non-governmental entities to take over operation of a park.
They assert that under current law non-governmental entities are
limited to concession activities. AFSCME asserts that rather
than trying to contract out our state parks, the Legislature
should focus its efforts on providing state funding to keep
state parks open.
The committee may wish to consider that this bill does not
require DPR to enter into an operating agreement with any
non-governmental entity that would otherwise not be authorized
by law, but does require DPR to respond in writing to any
inquiry received in connection with the information provided by
DPR on its Internet Web site relative to planned park closures.
Related Legislation : AB 42 (Huffman) would authorize DPR to
enter into an operating agreement with a qualified nonprofit
organization if the operating agreement would avoid a park
closure. AB 42 passed this committee earlier this year on a
vote of 13-0. SB 356 (Blakeslee) requires DPR to notify
counties and cities of planned park closures and to enter into
negotiations with a county or city that is interested in
operating a state park that is planned for closure. SB 356 is
also pending hearing in this committee.
Potential Amendments for consideration : This bill currently
requires DPR to notify the public of its intent to close a state
park to public access, and to provide information on how to
contact DPR if an entity is interested in entering into
negotiations with DPR to lease, operate, maintain, or provide a
concession at the park. While there has been a great deal of
focus recently on the Governor's proposal to close 70 state
parks, what has sometimes been lost in the discussion is the
fact that many state parks are already subject to functional
closures in the form of limited hours of operation, closed
campgrounds, seasonal closures, weekday or weekend closures,
locked restrooms and other reductions in services. The author
SB 386
Page 4
and committee may wish to consider an amendment expanding this
bill to apply to both full and partial closures of a state park,
with closures defined to include any significant reduction in
public access to all or a substantial portion of a state park
unit.
Technical Amendment : Committee staff recommends a technical
amendment to this bill to avoid chaptering out problems with SB
356 (Blakeslee) and AB 42 (Huffman) as follows:
On page 2, line 1, strike "5080.42" and insert "5080.44."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support Opposition
Orange County Taxpayers AssociatonAFSCME
Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096