BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  SB 974
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   August 16, 2012

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                  Mike Gatto, Chair

                     SB 974 (Evans) - As Amended:  July 5, 2012 

          Policy Committee:                             Water, Parks and 
          Wildlife     Vote:                            10-0

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program: 
          No     Reimbursable:              No

           SUMMARY  

          This bill requires the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 
          to review, using a specified methodology, state park units 
          proposed, or to be proposed, for closure and requires DPR to 
          plan for the reopening of state park units that have been 
          closed.  Specifically, this bill:

          1)Codifies the intent of the Legislature that DPR should achieve 
            budget reductions through implementing efficiencies and 
            increasing revenue collection or by reducing services at 
            selected state parks units, and that full park unit closure 
            should be a last resort.

          2)Requires DPR, for any park proposed or designated for closure 
            as of July 1, 2012, to document and publicly disclose the 
            methodology, rationale and scoring system used to evaluate and 
            select park units for closure, and prescribes criteria upon 
            which DRP is to select park units for closure.

          3)Requires DPR to prepare a report to support the basis for park 
            closure for any park unit proposed, as of July 1, 2012, or 
            thereafter, for closure. 

          4)Requires DPR, by July 1, 2013, for any park unit that is 
            closed for budgetary reasons as of July 1, 2012, or 
            thereafter, to prepare a plan for reopening that park unit 
            within one year of the date of its closure, and, by January 1, 
            2014, and annually thereafter, to prepare a master parks 
            reopening plan so long as any unit of the state park system 
            remains closed or is designated for closure for budgetary 
            reasons. 








                                                                  SB 974
                                                                  Page  2


           FISCAL EFFECT  

          1)Significant one-time GF costs, likely in the hundreds of 
            thousands of dollars, to DPR to reassess, according to the 
            criteria provided by this bill, parks currently designated for 
            closure, and to report and publicly disclose its reassessment. 
             (DPR assumes the reassessment, which the department would 
            contract for with an outside source, will cost $50,000 for 
            each of the 70 parks proposed or designated for closure prior 
            to July 1, 2012.)

          2)Potential GF costs, possibly in the low-to-mid hundreds of 
            thousands of dollars, to DPR, to the extent units of the state 
            park system are closed for budgetary reasons, to prepare 
            park-unit-specific reopening plans.    (DPR assumes $3,000 to 
            $5,000 per park reopening plan.)

          3)Potential GF costs, possibly in the hundreds of thousands of 
            dollars, to DPR, to the extent units of the state park system 
            are closed for budgetary reasons, to prepare a master parks 
            reopening plan (GF).  (DPR assumes $25,000 per closed park 
            unit.)

           COMMENTS  

           1)Rationale.   The author intends this bill to provide a 
            comprehensive, transparent process by which DPR considers and 
            designates state park units for closure to ensure DPR plans to 
            quickly reopen park units that may be closed.

           2)Background.   The state park system includes 278 parks and 
            serves over 70 million visitors a year. The system is 
            supported by the GF, park fees and special funds, including 
            bond funds.  In recent years, DPR has experienced repeated, 
            significant reductions to its support from the General Fund.  
            Most recently, the 2011-12 budget reduced GF support by $11 
            million, to be followed by an additional $11 million reduction 
            in 2012-13.

            The 2012-13 Governor's Budget proposed to address the parks 
            funding reduction by closing up to 70 state parks by July 
            2012.  In keeping with this proposal, DPR, working off 
            criteria provided in legislation, identified 70 state parks 
            for closure.  Many stakeholders, including members of the 








                                                                  SB 974
                                                                  Page  3

            Legislature, have criticized of DPR's process, describing it 
            as opaque, insensitive to public and private costs associated 
            with closure of particular park units, and inflexible in its 
            consideration of alternative cost savings measures.  In 
            addition, DPR recently revealed it has had $54 million in 
            unreported reserve funds, a revelation that has led to 
            top-level resignations and dismissals and increased skepticism 
            of the park closure nomination process.

           3)Particularly Loose Statement of Legislative Intent.   Existing 
            law directs DPR ("the department shall?") to achieve budget 
            savings by closing park units. This bill amends this section 
            of existing law to change a legal requirement of the 
            department to a statement of the Legislature's intent that the 
            department should ("It is the intent of the Legislature that 
            the department should?") achieve budget savings by closing 
            parks only as a last resort and after it has taken other 
            specified actions.  The conditional phrasing of this intent 
            language seems to provide DPR with an unusual amount of 
            discretion in choosing to follow legislative intent.   It may 
            make more sense simply to require certain actions of the 
            department.

           1)Bill Thwarts Its Own Exemption.   The bill explicitly exempts 
            state park units proposed or designated for closure prior to 
            July 1, 2012, from the requirement that DPR document and 
            publicly disclose the methodology, rationale and scoring 
            system used to evaluate and select park units for closure and 
            the prescription of criteria upon which DRP is to select park 
            units for closure.  A later section of the bill, however, 
            requires DPR to examine the exempted parks by using the 
            criteria from which the bill exempts those very parks.  The 
            effect seems to be that the bill's requirements do apply to 
            park units proposed or designated for closure prior to July 1, 
            2012, despite the exemption provided by the bill.

           1)Support.   This bill is supported by the California State Parks 
            Foundation and other park supporters.

           2)There is no opposition formally registered against this bill.  

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081 











                                                                  SB 974
                                                                  Page  4