BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 974
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 26, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Jared Huffman, Chair
SB 974 (Evans) - As Amended: May 29, 2012
SENATE VOTE : 30-3
SUBJECT : State Park Closures
SUMMARY : Requires the Department of Parks & Recreation (DPR)
to conduct a review of parks that are proposed as of July 1,
2012 or thereafter for closure, and requires DPR to prepare
plans for reopening parks that have been closed. Specifically,
this bill :
1)States legislative intent to enact legislation to facilitate
reopening of state parks that have been temporarily closed as
a result of California's fiscal crisis at the earliest
possible time.
2)Requires DPR to conduct a review of parks that are proposed
for closure as of July 1, 2012, or thereafter, for future
closure. Requires the review to include examination of
proposed closures recommended by DPR based on the criteria
mandated by Section 5007.
3)Requires DPR to prepare a report for each park proposed for
closure containing information supporting the basis for the
closure recommendation based on the criteria in Section 5007
and any other relevant factors considered, and to post the
report on DPR's website. Requires DPR to invite public
comments on the report for 30 days. Requires DPR to submit a
copy of the report and any public comments received to the
State Parks Commission and the Legislature. Requires the
State Park Commission to review the reports at regularly
scheduled meetings as an agenda item.
4)Further requires DPR by July 1, 2013 to prepare a plan for the
reopening of any park that is closed on or after July 1, 2012
within one year from the date the park is closed to public
access or the ending of all DPR support. Requires that the
plan include specified information. Requires DPR to annually
update the plans if needed and to post the plans on its
Internet Website.
SB 974
Page 2
5)Requires DPR no later than January 1, 2014, and by January 1
annually thereafter so long as any park remains closed or is
designated for closure due to budgetary restrictions, to
prepare and submit to the Legislature a master parks reopening
plan. Requires the plan to include specified information,
including consideration of ways to facilitate the reopening of
any closed park through use of DPR staff and resources, or
operating agreements with nonprofit organizations or other
public agencies, and to consider specified criteria in
prioritizing parks for reopening. Requires that the plan be
posted on DPR's website.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the California State Park system and vests DPR
with control of the state park system and responsibility for
administering, protecting, developing and interpreting state
parks for the use and enjoyment of the public. Requires DPR
to protect the state park system from damage and to preserve
the peace therein.
2)Authorizes DPR to enter into agreements with local governments
for operation of state parks and to enter into concession
contracts. Authorizes DPR to enter into operating agreements
with qualified nonprofit entities that will enable DPR to keep
parks open that would otherwise be subject to closure.
3)Requires DPR to achieve required budget reductions by closing,
partially closing, and reducing services at selected units of
the state park system based on specified factors.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee analysis:
1)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.
2)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.
SB 974
Page 3
COMMENTS : The author has introduced this bill to establish
policies needed to protect and restore state parks facing
proposed closures. This bill would require greater transparency
and public input of proposed park closures, and require the
state to develop plans and priorities for reopening parks that
are closed or designated for closures after July 1, 2012. The
author emphasizes that this bill seeks to provide assurances to
the Legislature and the public that state assets are being
protected, that the park closures are not permanent, and that
the parks will be reopened when certain conditions are met.
In November of 2011 the Assembly Water, Parks & Wildlife and
Assembly Accountability and Administrative Review Committees
held a joint oversight hearing on the proposed state park
closures. The hearing raised, among other things, concerns over
a lack of information and clarity as to how DPR applied
statutorily required criteria in evaluating which parks to
include on the closure list. Budget trailer bill language
enacted in the Spring of 2011 identified criteria DPR was to use
in evaluating parks for closure. DPR indicated they applied the
criteria in an iterative process but did not use a scoring or
weighting system, and did not maintain documentation of the
process. The list was developed through internal, nonpublic
meetings of select DPR park professionals, and no notes of the
process were kept. The committees questioned why many of the
parks on the closure list did not appear to fit the criteria
identified in the budget trailer bill language. For instance,
the criteria included avoiding, to the extent possible, parks
identified as "Outstanding or Representative" state parks, yet 9
parks on the closure list fit that definition. Another criterion
was the estimated net savings from closures so as to maximize
savings to the system, but DPR provided the Legislature only
with operational cost data for the 70 parks on the closure list,
and not for the other parks in the system that were not
selected. Because no records were kept it was difficult to
discern whether other criteria in the budget trailer bill were
met. DPR also indicated that they did not consider local
economic impact and other criteria important to local
communities.
Support Arguments : Supporters express significant concerns about
the impacts of park closures. The author asserts that if park
closures are considered there should be a formal, transparent
and inclusive process to confirm that the closures are well
SB 974
Page 4
thought out and have the least negative impacts on the
environment, economy and community as possible. Nor should
parks be closed indefinitely. This bill establishes a process
for reopening parks when the means become available, and would
ensure the Legislature is kept informed on the status of
closures and reopening of parks on an annual basis to provide
oversight and insight into what funding assistance may be
needed.
Proposed Amendments : This bill and AB 1589 (Huffman) which
passed this committee earlier this year both address the issue
of park closures and the process and criteria the state should
follow in recommending park closures. AB 1589 also contains
revenue enhancement provisions and requires DPR to develop a
prioritized action plan for collecting fees and generating
revenues in state parks that would assist in making the state
park system more fiscally sustainable in future years. The
authors have discussed amendments that would incorporate
provisions of AB 1589 on closure criteria into SB 974.
Specifically, amendments to Section 5007 of the Public Resources
Code requiring DPR to follow a public process for recommended
closures, specifying that closures should be considered only as
a last resort to achieve required budget reductions, and
requiring that additional criteria such as local economic impact
and impact on natural resources be considered, would be added to
SB 974.
In addition, committee staff suggests a clarifying amendment to
SB 974 on page 5 line 19 so that Section 5080.46 (a) would read
as follows:
5080.46. (a) No later than January 1, 2014, and by January 1
annually thereafter so long as any unit of the state park system
remains closed or is designated for closure due to budgetary
restrictions, the department shall prepare and submit to the
Legislature a master parks reopening plan, which shall be
compiled from park reopening plans or updated park reopening
plans, and shall set out priority actions and determine a
process for reopening any park that has been closed, to the
extent that circumstances permit. The plan shall consider ways
to facilitate the reopening of any closed park through the use
of department staff and resources, or operating agreements with
nonprofit organizations or public agencies, or other means
available to the department under its existing authority . The
SB 974
Page 5
plan prepared pursuant to this subdivision shall be posted on
the department's Internet Web site.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Audubon California
California Association of Museums
California Hotel & Lodging Association
California State Parks Foundation
County of Mendocino Board of Supervisors
Sierra Club of California
Solano County Board of Supervisors
Trust for Public Land
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096