BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2011-2012 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SB 974 HEARING DATE: April 24, 2012
AUTHOR: Evans URGENCY: No
VERSION: April 11, 2012 CONSULTANT: Katharine Moore
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: State parks: proposed closures.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
The Department of Parks and Recreation (department) is required
to administer, protect and develop the state park system, as
well as ensure that the state parks provide recreation and
educational programs. The department is also required to help
preserve the state's most valued natural and cultural resources,
and protect and preserve the state's biological diversity.
California's state park system includes 278 state parks located
throughout the state and visited by over 70 million visitors in
the last 5 years.
Since FY 2006 - 07, General Fund support for the department has
decreased, although this has been at least partially offset by
bond sales to keep overall funding to the state park system
roughly stable. The recent financial turmoil coupled with the
state's budget deficit led to the Governor's proposal last year
to cut $22 million in General Fund support for state parks from
FY 2012 - 13. Half of the savings will come from service
reductions. The other half of the on-going reduction will come
from closing 70 parks, which the department believes will result
in "negative effects on our mission and on local communities."
The statutory criteria used to evaluate state park closure
include the following (Public Resources Code (PRC) �5007):
Relative statewide significance,
Number of visitors,
Net savings from closure,
Physical feasibility of closure,
Potential for partnerships to support the park,
Operational efficiencies to be gained from closure,
1
Significant and costly infrastructure deficiencies,
Recent infrastructure investments,
Necessary, but unfunded, capital investments,
Deed restrictions and grant requirements, and
Extent of non-General Fund support
The closures will occur by July 2012. The 70 parks selected
represent about eight percent of system-wide attendance and six
percent of system-wind revenues with relatively little impact on
uniquely significant parks.
The announcement of the closure list resulted in considerable
public outcry and various entities stepped forward to help keep
specific parks open. The department has approximately 50
existing operating agreements with public agencies for the
partial or full operation, maintenance and/or care of state
parks. There are two existing statutory agreements with
nonprofit organizations. The total number of agreements is
expected to increase given recent changes in state law (PRC
�5080.42). As of the end of February 2012, 10 of the 70
designated state parks had reached agreements with a variety of
cities, community groups, and the National Park Service to
remain open for varying lengths of time. (At least 12 state
parks have now reached agreement.) The department held 5 public
meetings around the state in February and March 2012 to search
for community partners for parks designated for closure.
Discussions are underway exploring the potential to reach
operating agreements with partners to enable approximately 20
more parks to stay open. The department also plans to explore
concessions at another 11 parks. The department views
concessions as a "contingency option," should no other present
itself.
There are numerous concerns related to the potential closure of
state parks, even for a limited period of time. Approximately
40% of on-going park expenses are for maintenance which would
not be entirely reduced by park closure. Further, vandalism is
a concern given the reduced presence of rangers once a park has
been closed. Approximately $100,000 in infrastructure damage
occurred recently at the Providence Mountain State Recreation
Area by thieves stripping copper due to its high salvage price.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would:
State legislative intent to facilitate reopening state
parks temporarily closed due to the state's budget deficit
Require that the department by July 1, 2013 review the
2
basis for the parks closed by July 1, 2012 or proposed to
be closed in the future. The review includes:
o previously established closure criteria,
o the economic impacts of closure on local
communities,
o what, if any, California Environmental Quality
Act process is required for closure,
o closure's impact on the future costs to the
department for deferred maintenance, liability and
security,
o whether the closure is consistent with federal
agreements,
o a public process including meetings held in
both southern and northern California to provide an
opportunity for public input on existing closures, and
o consideration of other options to reduce
department costs other than closing parks.
Require that the department issue a report on any park
that may be closed in the future that includes the criteria
described above. The report shall be issued on July 1,
2013 and annually thereafter.
Require that the department issue a plan for the
reopening of any closed park or its transfer to a public
agency that could reopen the closed park. The plan should
include appropriate information, as specified, to support
the basis for reopening the park, including, for example,
recommendations for staffing, expected park usage, and
maintenance work that would need to be performed. The
first reopening plan is due on July 1, 2013 and annually
thereafter.
Require that existing operating agreements reached with
others to keep a state park open will be honored.
Require the department, so long as a park remains
closed, to annually provide to the Legislature a master
park reopening plan in order to prioritize and facilitate
the reopening of closed state parks. Prioritization shall
include, for example, factors such as community and donor
support, benefit to the local economy, and the potential to
reduce illegal activity and resource degradation. The
first report is due January 1, 2014 and annually thereafter
as long as a park remains closed due to state budget
restrictions.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, "state parks are crucial to
California's environmental legacy and they are of vital
historic, cultural, and economic significance to the state. If
3
closures are considered, there must be a formal, transparent and
inclusive process to confirm that these closures are well
thought out and have the least negative impacts on the
environment, economy and community, as possible. Nor should
parks be closed indefinitely. There must be a process in place
for reopening parks when the means become available, and the
Legislature should be made aware of the status of the closing
and reopening of parks on an annual basis."
The Sierra Club California adds that "our state parks are
important natural resources that we need to protect and maintain
accessibility �to] for Californians. Local communities,
businesses, and families rely on state parks for visitors,
income and inexpensive, but enjoyable, vacation options. We need
to do all we can to keep the parks open and provide a safe and
healthy outdoor space for visitors."
COMMENTS
A transparent and accountable process for park closures . The
statutory criteria to be considered by the department in
evaluating state parks for closure have been known since March
24, 2011 when the budget bill, AB 95, was chaptered. In May
2011 the list of 70 state parks to be closed was released. Only
recently, however, has the department released information on
the particular reasons why each of the 70 state parks was slated
for closure. While acknowledging that the selection of parks
for closure is a difficult, qualitative and iterative process,
and that the department had not had to perform this task before,
the lack of available information and public opportunity for
comment did not serve to build support for the process. This
bill seeks to provide transparency to the process through the
production and dissemination of park closure and reopening
plans. It also provides for formal public input (Amendment 1
clarifies public input and provides for the report on park
closure).
Does considering the local economic impacts of park closures
change the park closure list? It is unclear if the
modifications proposed by this bill to the existing statutory
criteria would result in a different list of parks for closure.
Many of the existing criteria focus on savings to the state.
Arguably, however, there is no factor in the existing criteria
that would necessarily provide a good surrogate for local
economic impacts.
Reduce the number of state parks ? The department has repeatedly
transferred real property from the state park system to the
4
control of local governments and other public agencies. In many
cases statutory restrictions require the recipient to maintain
public access and the property's use as a park (see, for
example, PRC �5002.6 transferring beach lands to the City of Los
Angeles). The deferred maintenance balance of $1.3 billion for
the state park system - as well as the needs for park closures
themselves - suggests that insufficient state funds are
consistently available for the system. Significant budget
shortfalls, however, currently exist at all levels of
government. It is not clear that other appropriate public
agencies or governments would have the available resources to
reopen a closed state park. It is appropriate to include the
transfer of a closed state park unit outside of the state park
system to another public entity as one park reopening option
(Amendment 2).
Does closing selected state parks violate federal law ? In 1964,
the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund was created which
provided for revenue from offshore oil drilling to be used to
purchase land for national parks, forests and wildlife refuges.
The fund also issues grants, for example, to states to purchase
park lands, as well as to help pay for park infrastructure.
California has received $287.3 million from the fund since 1965.
A condition of the funding is that public access be maintained.
Recent newspaper reports suggest that California's move to
temporarily close some parks that received funds from this
program is illegal. The department is working with the
Department of Interior to ensure public access is maintained,
while a park is officially closed. According to the department,
this complies with the conditions of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
This bill is a work-in-progress . While the overarching goals of
the bill are clear, the specific language is still under
development. Several minor clarifying changes are needed,
including specifying the reporting requirements to the
Legislature and not requiring a report on park closures when no
parks are either closed or designated for closure (Amendment 3).
Related legislation .
AB 95 (Budget Committee, c. 2, Statutes of 2011) provided
criteria for determining which state parks should be closed.
AB 42 (Huffman, c. 450, Statutes of 2011) authorizes the
department to enter into operating agreements with qualified
nonprofits to operate state parks.
5
SB 1078 (Evans, 2012) would provide incentives and a framework
to promote revenue generation in order to provide financial
support through a variety of mechanisms for state parks.
Currently before the Senate Natural Resources and Water
Committee.
AB 1589 (Huffman, 2012) would limit the number of state parks
closed and provide a suite of means of revenue generation to
provide financial support for state parks. Currently before the
Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT 1
Page 3, line 20: following "meetings" add "or submitted in
writing within 30 days of the meetings"
Page 3, lines 22 - 24: delete lines, inclusive
Page 3, line 25: delete "(8)" and replace with "(7)"
Page 3, insert between lines 37 and 38: "The department
shall prepare a report that includes, for each park
proposed for closure, information supporting the basis for
that recommendation pursuant to the criteria referenced in
subdivision (b) and any other relevant factors considered.
The closure report shall be posted on the department's
Internet website and there shall be a public comment period
of 30 days after the report's release. The department shall
respond in writing to all public comments within 60 days of
the close of the public comment period. The response shall
also be posted on the department's Internet website."
AMENDMENT 2
Page 3, line 40: delete "or a transfer"
Page 4, delete line 1
Page 4, line 2: delete "and operate the park."
Page 4, line 9: add "potential operating partners" after
"resource restoration,"
Page 4, between lines 10 and 11: add "(D) a consideration
of alternative strategies that may facilitate reopening the
unit including the transfer of the unit to another public
entity."
6
AMENDMENT 3
Page 2, line 18: delete "on the basis of a decision matrix
developed"
Page 3, line 7: following "including," add "but not limited
to,"
Page 4, line 12: add "if needed," following "subdivision,"
Page 4, line 26: after "thereafter" add "so long as any
unit of the state park system remains closed or is
designated for closure due to budgetary restrictions,"
Page 4, line 38: following "had" insert "prior to closure
or may have in the future"
Page 4, line 39: delete "prior to closure"
Page 5, delete lines 12 - 14, inclusive
Page 5, after line 18: add "(d) the report shall conform to
the requirements of section 9795 of the Government Code."
SUPPORT
Audubon California
Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
Sierra Club California
Trust for Public Land
California State Parks Foundation
California Hotel & Lodging Association
OPPOSITION
None Received
7