BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 974|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 974
Author: Evans (D), et al.
Amended: 5/29/12
Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER COMM. : 7-2, 4/24/12
AYES: Pavley, Cannella, Evans, Kehoe, Padilla, Simitian,
Wolk
NOES: La Malfa, Fuller
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-2, 5/24/12
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Lieu, Price, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Dutton
SUBJECT : State parks: proposed closures
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill creates a process for the Department
of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to review the impact of
closed parks, determine whether future parks should be
closed, and plan for the reopening of closed parks.
ANALYSIS : Existing law authorizes DPR to enter into
agreements between DPR and the federal and local
governments and other public agencies for the care,
maintenance, administration, and control of lands under the
jurisdiction of any party to this agreement for the purpose
of the state park system, as prescribed.
CONTINUED
SB 974
Page
2
This bill requires DPR to:
1. Conduct a review of the parks closed or proposed to be
closed on July 1, 2012, that includes an examination of
how that park was chosen for closure, the impact of that
closure on the local economy, whether the closure
required action under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), and how much the closure itself
cost.
2. Conduct, by July 1, 2013, and annually thereafter, the
same review for any park that may be considered for
closure in the future.
3. Prepare a report to be posted on the DPR Web site that
explains the basis for choosing which parks to close.
DPR would be required to hold a public comment period
for 30 days after the release of this information and to
respond, in writing and on the Web site, to all comments
received within 60 days of the end of the comment
period.
4. Prepare, by July 1, 2013, for each closed park, a plan
for reopening of that unit that includes a description
of required work necessary to reopen the park and the
needs of the reopened park. This plan shall be updated
annually if needed.
5. Submit, by January 1, 2014, and annually thereafter, to
the Legislature a master parks reopening plan that
determines the process for reopening a closed park
including criteria to prioritize which parks should be
opened first.
This bill requires DPR conduct a closure impact analysis
for any future park proposed for closure. As there are no
additional parks proposed for closure at this time, this
requirement has no costs for fiscal year (FY) 2013-14, but
an unknown impact in the future.
This bill requires reopening plans to be developed for each
park closed as well as a master reopening plan. These
requirements reflect the widespread hope that the park
closures necessitated by budget cuts are temporary. When
CONTINUED
SB 974
Page
3
the budget allows parks to be reopened, the requirements in
this bill for the development of reopening plans and a
master parks reopening plan will be valuable and necessary.
This bill limits the report regarding impacts of park
closures to only apply to parks proposed for closure after
July 1, 2012, and reduces the information that must be
contained in the report, including an analysis of local
economic impacts.
Background
DPR is required to administer, protect and develop the
state park system, as well as ensure that the state parks
provide recreation and educational programs. DPR 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
five years.
Since FY 2006-07, General Fund support for DPR 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 DPR 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 Section 5007):
1. Relative statewide significance,
2. Number of visitors,
3. Net savings from closure,
4. Physical feasibility of closure,
5. Potential for partnerships to support the park,
6. Operational efficiencies to be gained from closure,
7. Significant and costly infrastructure deficiencies,
CONTINUED
SB 974
Page
4
8. Recent infrastructure investments,
9. Necessary, but unfunded, capital investments,
10.Deed restrictions and grant requirements, and
11.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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
One-time costs of approximately $250,000 and ongoing
costs of approximately $115,000 from the State Parks and
Recreation Fund (General Fund) beginning in 2013-14 to
develop a reopening plan for each closed park.
One-time costs of approximately $1 million and
approximately $150,000 in ongoing costs from the State
Parks and Recreation Fund (General Fund) beginning in
2013-14 for the development and annual update of the
master re-opening plan.
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/24/12) (per Senate Appropriations
Committee analysis - unable to reverify at time of writing)
Audubon California
California Hotel and Lodging Association
California State Parks Foundation
Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
Sierra Club California
Trust for Public Land
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 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
CONTINUED
SB 974
Page
5
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."
CTW:kcm 5/29/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED