Existing law authorizes the Department of Parks and Recreation to enter into an operating agreement with a qualified nonprofit organization for the development, improvement, restoration, care, maintenance, administration, or operation of a unit or units, or portion of a unit, of the state park system, as provided. Existing law repeals this authorization on January 1, 2025.

This bill would indefinitely authorize the Department of Parks and Recreation to enter into operating agreements with a qualified nonprofit organization, as provided.

Existing law authorizes the Department of Parks and Recreation to enter into an operating agreement with a qualified nonprofit organization for the development, improvement, restoration, care, maintenance, administration, or operation of a unit or units, or portion of a unit, of the state park system, as provided. Existing law repeals this authorization on January 1, 2025.

This bill would indefinitely authorize the Department of Parks and Recreation to enter into operating agreements with a qualified nonprofit organization, as provided.

Existing law authorizes the Department of Parks and Recreation to enter into an operating agreement with a qualified nonprofit organization for the development, improvement, restoration, care, maintenance, administration, or operation of a unit or units, or portion of a unit, of the state park system, as provided. Existing law repeals this authorization on January 1, 2025.

This bill would indefinitely authorize the Department of Parks and Recreation to enter into operating agreements with a qualified nonprofit organization, as provided.

Date of Hearing: August 16, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 668

Author:(Dodd) – As Introduced Ver:February 16, 2023

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

SUMMARY:

This bill removes the sunset date on the Department of Parks and Recreation’s (State Parks) authority to enter into operating agreements with qualified nonprofit organizations for the development, improvement, restoration, care, maintenance, administration, or operation of a unit or units, or portion of a unit, of the state park system, as agreed to by the director of State Parks.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Minor and absorbable costs to State Parks to indefinitely maintain its exiting authority to enter into operating and co-management agreements with nonprofits.

COMMENTS:

1) Purpose. According to the author:

We’ve seen how valuable partnerships between State Parks and nonprofits can be in terms of providing much need investments and improvements that ensure parks are accessible and enjoyable for Californians for generations to come. These partnerships have also freed up the precious and finite resources of State Parks to allocate towards other critical needs. Allowing State Parks to continue these partnerships is a win-win.

2) Background. Since California created its first publicly funded park in 1902, the state has relied on partnerships to help raise money needed to protect lands and promote conservation. Local and federal government agencies, Native American tribes, nonprofit groups and foundations, local businesses, volunteers, and private companies have augmented services and provided programs and amenities at a number of parks throughout California.

In the 2000s, and especially with the onset of the Great Recession, the budget for State Parks failed to keep pace with growing demand. In particular, State Parks struggled to maintain sufficient funding for stewardship and management of the state park system. General Fund revenue for State Parks declined by over 37% between fiscal years 2007–08 and 2012–13. This resulted in a deferred maintenance backlog of over $1.3 billion by 2010, inadequate staff to protect park resources and maintain public access and safety, and partial closures of some state parks.

The Legislature and Governor responded with multiple policy and budget solutions. One of these solutions was AB 42 (Huffman), Chapter 450, Statutes of 2011, which authorized State Parks, until January 1, 2019, to enter into operating agreements and co-management agreements with qualified nonprofits for the development, improvement, restoration, care, maintenance, administration, or operation of a unit or units, or portion of a unit, of the state park system. This authority helped to avoid park closures in certain areas.

Operating agreements allow the nonprofit to operate all or a portion of a park unit with minimal involvement by State Parks’ staff. State Parks is authorized to enter into an operating agreement that involves the operation of the entirety of a park unit for no more than 20 park units. Co-management agreements allow the nonprofit to share responsibility for operations of a park unit or portions of a park unit with State Parks. Legislation in subsequent years extended the sunset to January 1, 2025, and revised and updated this authority over time.

Existing law requires each nonprofit organization with an agreement with State Parks to annually submit a written report to the department regarding its operating activities during the prior year, including “a full accounting of all revenues and expenditures for each unit of the state park system that the nonprofit organization operates pursuant to an operating agreement.” Existing law also requires State Parks to biennially report to the Legislature on the status of its agreements with nonprofits.

Existing law prohibits General Fund moneys be provided to a nonprofit to subsidize the operation or maintenance of a park unit. This prohibition, however, does not apply to or preclude the department from entering into agreements with nonprofits to operate a portion of a state park unit, or from entering into co-management agreements with nonprofits that involve the sharing of operational and financial responsibilities for the park unit and that have the effect of reducing state costs.

State Parks notes that absent the authority to enter into agreements with nonprofit partners, the department’s costs would likely increase because it would need to resume operation of the park units, or portions of the park units, that are presently operated or co-managed by a nonprofit partner. Conversely, if a nonprofit walks away from or is financially unable to fulfill its responsibilities under a co-management or operating agreement, State Parks would similarly need to resume operation and management of the park. For example, State Parks resumed operations of the Standish-Hickey State Recreation Area in 2008, costing the department approximately $350,000 in operating costs in fiscal year 2019-20.

3) Support and Opposition. Writing in support, the California State Parks Foundation (CSPF) states:

The original legislation grew out of necessity when up to 70 state parks were threatened to be closed to budgetary restrictions over a decade ago. Partnerships with nonprofits have provided important, stable funding to California Parks allowing parks to remain open and allow continued public access. A recent study released by Parks California with support from the California League of Park Associations and California State Parks Foundation, found that partners contribute over $15 million annually to California state parks. Without these partnerships, the state may be forced to cut the funding of a number of parks with the potential of ultimate closures to reduce costs.

Writing in opposition, the California State Park Rangers Association (CSPRA) argues:

Passage of SB 668 will allow for the flawed elements of AB 42 to continue to the detriment of the people of California and their State Park System. Despite the requirements for oversight, in some cases there has been a lack of public transparency, lack of financial oversight and disclosure, lack of fair and competitive bid processes with other potentially qualified parties, poor visitor experiences, special events with high fees that price out lower income visitors, degraded resources and facilities, and lack of accountability measures.

In a subsequent letter, CSPF responded to the criticisms raised in CSPRA’s letter, arguing, among other things:

Every nonprofit operator agreement contains detailed provisions, requirements, and duties assigned to the nonprofit and the park agency. We have no concerns about the safeguards that the agreements impose on partners with respect to protecting and preserving the park assets they operate on California State Parks’ behalf…The idea that somehow AB 42 operators are evading public scrutiny is absurd. The statute requires nonprofit operators to annually report on their activities and submit audited financials and 990s as part of that report. As public charities, these organizations are also subject to IRS, California Secretary of State, California State Attorney General, and charity rating agency oversight on top of what the Public Resources Code requires.

Analysis Prepared by: Nikita Koraddi / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 6, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE

Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 668

Author:(Dodd) – As Introduced Ver:February 16, 2023

SENATE VOTE: 36-0

SUBJECT: State parks: operating agreements

SUMMARY: Indefinitely authorizes the Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks) to enter into operating agreements with qualified nonprofit organizations for the development, improvement, restoration, care, maintenance, administration, or operation of a unit or units, or portion of a unit, of the state park system, as agreed to by the director.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes State Parks within the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) under the control of the director and vests State Parks with control of the state park system [Public Resources Code (PRC) § 501, § 5001].
2. Authorizes State Parks, through January 1, 2025, to enter into an operating agreement with a qualified nonprofit organization for the development, improvement, restoration, care, maintenance, administration, or operation of a unit or units, or portion of a unit, of the state park system, as agreed to by the director (PRC § 5080.42).
3. Defines “qualified nonprofit organization” for the purpose of this authority (PRC § 5080.42).
4. Requires an operating agreement with a qualified nonprofit organization to:
   1. Include specified conditions, including that the nonprofit must annually report to State Parks regarding its operating activities, including a full accounting of all revenues and expenditures, as specified;
   2. Specify the duties that the nonprofit organization shall be responsible for and those management duties that State Parks shall continue to conduct so that all core operations of the park are delineated, as specified. The agreement may not eliminate any jobs maintained under a memorandum of understanding between the state and the represented bargaining units; and
   3. Honor the existing term of any current concession contract for the state park unit subject to the operating agreement (PRC § 5080.42).
5. Specifies that all revenues that the qualified nonprofit organization receives from a unit be expended only for the care, maintenance, operation, administration, improvement, or development of the unit (PRC § 5080.42).
6. Prohibits the use of General Fund moneys to subsidize a nonprofit organization’s operation or maintenance of a park unit in cases where the nonprofit provides for the full operation of the park unit (PRC § 5080.42).
7. Limits State Parks’ authority to enter into an operating agreement that involves the operation of the entirety of a park unit to no more than 20 park units (PRC § 5080.42).
8. Requires State Parks biennially to report to the Legislature on the status of operating agreements, as specified (PRC § 5080.42).

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose of this bill. This bill deletes the sunset on State Parks’ authority to enter into operating agreements with nonprofits, thereby extending this authority indefinitely. According to the author, “We’ve seen how valuable partnerships between State Parks and nonprofits can be in terms of providing much need investments and improvements that ensure parks are accessible and enjoyable for Californians for generations to come. These partnerships have also freed up the precious and finite resources of State Parks to allocate towards other critical needs. Allowing State Parks to continue these partnerships is a win-win.”
2. Background. Since California created its first publicly funded park in 1902, the state has relied upon partnerships to help raise money needed to protect lands and promote conservation. Local and federal government agencies, Native American tribes, nonprofit groups and foundations, local businesses, volunteers, and private companies have augmented services and provided programs and amenities at a number of parks throughout California.
   
   In the early and mid-2000s, and especially with the onset of the Great Recession, the budget for State Parks failed to keep pace with growing demand. In particular, State Parks struggled to maintain sufficient funding for stewardship and management of the state park system. General Fund revenue for State Parks declined by over 37% between Fiscal Years 2007–08 and 2012–13. This resulted in a deferred maintenance backlog of over $1.3 billion by 2010, inadequate staff to protect park resources and maintain public access and safety, and partial closures of some state parks.
   
   The Legislature and Governor responded with multiple policy and budget solutions. One of these solutions was AB 42 (Huffman), Chapter 450, Statutes of 2011, which authorized State Parks, until January 1, 2019, to enter into operating agreements and co-management agreements with qualified nonprofits for the development, improvement, restoration, care, maintenance, administration, or operation of a unit or units, or portion of a unit, of the state park system. This authority helped to avoid park closures in certain areas.
   
   Operating agreements allow the nonprofit to operate all or a portion of a park unit with minimal involvement by State Parks’ staff. Co-management agreements allow the nonprofit to share responsibility for operations of a park unit or portions of a park unit with State Parks. Legislation in subsequent years extended the sunset to January 1, 2025, and revised and updated this authority over time.
   
   Existing law requires State Parks to biennially report to the Legislature on the status of its agreements with qualified nonprofit organizations. State Parks has released reports covering Fiscal Years 2012–13 through 2019–20. This includes reports that cover all of the nonprofit operators in one report, or individual reports specific to each nonprofit operator. State Parks also maintains information available upon request for later years.
   
   According to the reports, State Parks has previously or is currently entered into operating agreements and/or co-management agreements with the following nonprofit organizations to operate the following state park units (organized alphabetically by unit):
   

For the operating agreements, the responsibilities of the nonprofits vary slightly, but generally they provide for basic park operation services, including visitor services, fee collection, volunteer recruitment and coordination, fundraising, special events, trail maintenance, and housekeeping. State Parks typically retains responsibility for managing and preserving the unit’s natural and cultural resources; conducting environmental reviews; maintaining sewer lift stations and connections to water mains; conducting tree hazard inspections; training partner staff and volunteers; supervising State Parks staff, partner staff, and volunteers; overseeing public safety; providing a partnership liaison; and providing administrative oversight.

For the co-management agreements, the nonprofits provide more limited services, like operating a visitor center, co-managing select natural resources within a unit, or supporting events within park units.

The listed benefits of these partnerships included keeping parks, campgrounds, and other areas within parks open more often or year round, increasing the number of volunteer hours, completing deferred maintenance projects, and increasing interpretive programs and special programs and events.

Operating agreements with public agencies. While this bill relates to operating and co-management agreements with qualified nonprofits, it is worth noting that existing law (PRC § 5080.30) also authorizes State Parks to enter into similar agreements with public agencies. According to State Parks, it has entered into operating agreements with:

• The cities of Benicia, Carlsbad, Carpinteria, Colusa, Encinitas, Grover Beach, Huntington Beach, Los Angeles, Manhattan Beach, Monterey, Morro Bay, Newport Beach, Pacifica, Pismo Beach, Santa Monica, and Woodland.
• The counties of Los Angeles, Mendocino, Sacramento, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, and Santa Cruz.
• Local park agencies and districts, including East Bay Regional Park District, Napa County Regional Park & Open Space District, and Sonoma County Regional Parks.
• Utility districts, including Johnsville Public Utility District and Tahoe City Public Utility District.
• Educational agencies, including California State University Sacramento; San Diego County Board of Education; and the Southwest Community College District.
• Other public agencies, including the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• The Yurok tribe.

1. Arguments in support. Several organizations write in support, with the California State Parks Foundation stating that “Partnerships with nonprofits have provided important, stable funding to California Parks allowing parks to remain open and allow continued public access. A recent study released by Parks California with support from the California League of Park Associations and California State Parks Foundation, found that partners contribute over $15 million annually to California state parks. Without these partnerships, the state may be forced to cut the funding of a number of parks with the potential of ultimate closures to reduce costs.”
2. Arguments in opposition. California State Park Rangers Association (CSPRA) writes in opposition, recognizing the value of partnerships but stating that “The proper way to manage parks is with dedicated, trained park professionals operating the units of the State Park System.” CSPRA maintains that “Passage of [this bill] will allow for the flawed elements of AB 42 to continue to the detriment of the people of California and their State Park System. Despite the requirements for oversight, in some cases there has been a lack of public transparency, lack of financial oversight and disclosure, lack of fair and competitive bid processes with other potentially qualified parties, poor visitor experiences, special events with high fees that price out lower income visitors, degraded resources and facilities, and lack of accountability measures.”
   
3. Related legislation. SB 1111 (Pavley), Chapter 540, Statutes of 2016, added a January 1, 2025, sunset to State Parks’ authority to enter into operating agreements with qualified nonprofits for the development, improvement, restoration, care, maintenance, administration, or operation of a unit or units, or portion of a unit, of the state park system. SB 1111 also authorized State Parks to enter into a statewide agreement with a park support organization to facilitate the implementation of reforms recommended by the Parks Forward Commission and to develop and secure expertise, services, resources, and projects that are not readily available to the state park system, as specified.
   
   SB 204 (Pavley), Chapter 573, Statutes of 2015, eliminated the January 1, 2019, sunset on State Parks’ authority to enter into operating agreements with qualified nonprofits for the development, improvement, restoration, care, maintenance, administration, or operation of a unit or units, or portion of a unit, of the state park system.
   
   AB 549 (Levine), Chapter 559, Statutes of 2015, authorized State Parks to enter into agreements with qualified nonprofit organizations for acquisition, installation, and operation of camping cabins or parking facilities for recreational vehicles within units of the state park system.
   
   AB 594 (Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee), Chapter 407, Statutes of 2013, clarified State Parks’ authority to enter into operating agreements with qualified nonprofit organizations when there was a moratorium on state park closures.
   
   AB 42 (Huffman), Chapter 450, Statutes of 2011, authorized State Parks, through January 1, 2019, to enter into an operating agreement with a qualified nonprofit organization for the development, improvement, restoration, care, maintenance, administration, or operation of a unit or units, or portion of a unit, of the state park system, as identified by the director.
   

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Association of Local Conservation Corps
California Mountain Biking Coalition
California State Parks Foundation
South Yuba River Citizens League

Opposition

California State Park Rangers Association

Analysis Prepared by: Keith Cialino / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096

 CONSENT  

Bill No: SB 668

Author: Dodd (D)

Introduced: 2/16/23

Vote: 21

SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 10-0, 3/28/23

AYES: Min, Seyarto, Allen, Becker, Eggman, Grove, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, Padilla

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

SUBJECT: State parks: operating agreements

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill eliminates the sunset on the Department of Parks and Recreation’s authority to enter into an operating agreement with a qualified nonprofit organization for the development, improvement, restoration, care, maintenance, administration, or operation of a unit or units, or portion of a unit, of the state park system, as agreed to by the director.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law

1. Establishes the Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks) with the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) under the control of the director. Public Resources Code (PRC) section (§) 501.
2. Vests State Parks with control of the state park system (PRC §5001) and directs State Parks to:
   1. Administer, protect, develop, and interpret the state park system for the use and enjoyment of the public. PRC §5003.
   2. Protect the state park system from damage and preserve the peace. PRC §5008.
3. Authorizes State Parks, through January 1, 2025, to enter into an operating agreement with a qualified nonprofit organization for the development, improvement, restoration, care, maintenance, administration, or operation of a unit or units, or portion of a unit, of the state park system, as agreed to by the director. PRC §5080.42.
   1. Defines “qualified nonprofit organization” for the purpose of this authority.
   2. Requires an operating agreement with a qualified nonprofit organization to:
      1. Include specified conditions, including that the nonprofit must annually report to State Parks regarding its operating activities, including a full accounting of all revenues and expenditures, as specified.
      2. Specify the duties that the nonprofit organization shall be responsible for and those management duties that State Parks shall continue to conduct so that all core operations of the park are delineated, as specified. The agreement may not eliminate any jobs maintained under a memorandum of understanding between the state and the represented bargaining units.
      3. Honor the existing term of any current concession contract for the state park unit subject to the operating agreement.
   3. Generally requires all revenues that the qualified nonprofit organization receives from a unit to be expended only for the care, maintenance, operation, administration, improvement, or development of the unit.
   4. Generally prohibits the use of General Fund moneys to subsidize a nonprofit organization’s operation or maintenance of a park unit in cases where the nonprofit provides for the full operation of the park unit.
   5. Limits State Parks’ authority to enter into an operating agreement that involves the operation of the entirety of a park unit to no more than 20 park units.
   6. Requires State Parks biennially to report to the Legislature on the status of operating agreements, as specified.

This bill eliminates the sunset on State Parks’ authority to enter into an operating agreement with a qualified nonprofit organization for the development, improvement, restoration, care, maintenance, administration, or operation of a unit or units, or portion of a unit, of the state park system, as agreed to by the director.

Background

Since California created its first publicly funded park in 1902, the state has relied upon partnerships to help raise money needed to protect lands and promote conservation. Local and federal government agencies, Native American tribes, nonprofit groups and foundations, local businesses, volunteers, and private companies have augmented services and provided programs and amenities at a number of parks throughout California.

In the early and mid-2000s, and especially with the onset of the Great Recession, the budget for State Parks failed to keep pace with growing demand. In particular, State Parks struggled to maintain sufficient funding for stewardship and management of the state park system. General Fund revenue for State Parks declined by over 37 percent between fiscal years 2007–08 and 2012–13, inclusive. This resulted in a deferred maintenance backlog of over $1.3 billion by 2010, inadequate staff to protect park resources and maintain public access and safety, and partial closures of some state parks.

The Legislature and Governor responded on many fronts with multiple policy and budget solutions over several two-year legislative sessions. One of these solutions included AB 42 (Huffman, Chapter 450, Statutes of 2011), which authorized State Parks, until January 1, 2019, to enter into operating agreements and co-management agreements with qualified nonprofits for the development, improvement, restoration, care, maintenance, administration, or operation of a unit or units, or portion of a unit, of the state park system, as specified.

Specifically, operating agreements allow the nonprofit to operate all or a portion of a park unit with minimal involvement and oversight by State Parks’ staff. Co-management agreements allow the nonprofit to share responsibility for operations of a park unit or portions of a park unit with State Parks.

Legislation in subsequent years extended the sunset to January 1, 2025, and revised and updated this authority over time. This authority was instrumental in helping to avoid park closures in certain areas.

Comments

This authority has been instrumental in helping avoid park closures and expand park services. Existing law requires State Parks to biennially report to the Legislature on the status of its agreements with qualified nonprofit organizations. State Parks has released reports covering Fiscal Years 2012-13 through 2019-20. This includes reports that cover all of the nonprofit operators in one report, or individual reports specific to each nonprofit operator. State Parks also maintains information available upon request for later years.

According to the reports, State Parks has previously or is currently entered into operating agreements and/or co-management agreements with the following nonprofit organizations to operate the following state park units (organized alphabetically by unit):

For the operating agreements, the responsibilities of the nonprofits vary slightly, but generally they provide for basic park operation services, including visitor services, fee collection, volunteer recruitment and coordination, fundraising, special events, trail maintenance, and housekeeping. State Parks typically retains responsibility for managing and preserving the unit’s natural and cultural resources, conducting environmental reviews, maintaining sewer lift stations and connections to water mains, conducting tree hazard inspections, training partner staff and volunteers, supervising State Park staff, partner staff, and volunteers, overseeing public safety, providing a partnership liaison, and providing administrative oversight.

For the co-management agreements, the nonprofits provide more limited services, like operating a visitor center, co-managing select natural resources within a unit, or supporting events within park units.

The listed benefits of these partnerships included keeping parks, campgrounds, and other areas within parks open more often or year round, increasing the number of volunteer hours, completing deferred maintenance projects, and increasing interpretive programs and special programs and events. Further, according to State Parks:

“These agreements allow the Department to reach and exceed visitor expectations while conserving valuable Department resources, which can be utilized in other park units with less partner support. The Department depends on nonprofit operators to engage communities in valuable educational experiences such as Star Parties and exposing students to local ecology at summer camps at Sugarloaf Ridge State Park. Partners have found new and creative ways to attract visitors to State Parks, including the operation of the Old Sacramento Visitor Center in Old Sacramento State Historic Park.

The value these partners add to the Department is almost immeasurable. The connections they have developed with local communities and the new programs they have provided have made a positive impact to visitors’ experiences that may not otherwise have been achievable without these partnerships. These impacts have been especially important during the substantial increase in visitation to State Parks during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 1111 (Pavley, Chapter 540, Statutes of 2016) added a January 1, 2025, sunset to State Parks’ authority to enter into operating agreements with qualified nonprofits for the development, improvement, restoration, care, maintenance, administration, or operation of a unit or units, or portion of a unit, of the state park system. Further, authorized State Parks to enter into a statewide agreement with a park support organization to facilitate the implementation of reforms recommended by the Parks Forward Commission and to develop and secure expertise, services, resources, and projects that are not readily available to the state park system, as specified.

AB 549 (Levine, Chapter 559, Statutes of 2015) authorized State Parks to enter into agreements with qualified nonprofit organizations for acquisition, installation, and operation of camping cabins or parking facilities for recreational vehicles within units of the state park system.

SB 204 (Pavley, Chapter 573, Statutes of 2015) eliminated the January 1, 2019, sunset on State Parks’ authority to enter into operating agreements with qualified nonprofits for the development, improvement, restoration, care, maintenance, administration, or operation of a unit or units, or portion of a unit, of the state park system.

AB 594 (Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee, Chapter 407, Statutes of 2013) clarified State Parks’ authority to enter into operating agreements with qualified nonprofit organizations when there was a moratorium on state park closures.

AB 1589 (Huffman, Chapter 533, Statutes of 2012) clarified allowable uses of revenues by a qualified nonprofit organization under an operating agreement with State Parks. Also established the Legislature’s policy (in findings and declarations) to promote formation of an advisory council to assess and make recommendations on future management, planning, and funding proposals to ensure the long-term sustainability of the state park system.

AB 1478 (Blumenfield, Chapter 530, Statues of 2012) stated the Legislature’s intent to encourage formation of an advisory council to assess and make recommendations on future management, planning, and funding proposals to ensure the long-term sustainability of the state park system.

AB 42 (Huffman, Chapter 450, Statutes of 2011) authorized State Parks, through January 1, 2019, to enter into an operating agreement with a qualified nonprofit organization for the development, improvement, restoration, care, maintenance, administration, or operation of a unit or units, or portion of a unit, of the state park system, as identified by the director.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 4/10/23)

California Mountain Biking Coalition

California State Parks Foundation

OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/10/23)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “We’ve seen how valuable partnerships between State Parks and nonprofits can be in terms of providing much need investments and improvements that ensure parks are accessible and enjoyable for Californians for generations to come. These partnerships have also freed up the precious and finite resources of State Parks to allocate towards other critical needs. Allowing state parks to continue these partnerships is a win-win.”

Prepared by: Catherine Baxter / N.R. & W. / (916) 651-4116

4/12/23 14:04:26

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER

Senator Dave Min, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: SB 668 Hearing Date: March 28, 2023

Subject: State parks: operating agreements

BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW

Existing law

1. Establishes the Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks) with the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) under the control of the director. Public Resources Code (PRC) section (§) 501.
2. Vests State Parks with control of the state park system (PRC §5001) and directs State Parks to:
   1. Administer, protect, develop, and interpret the state park system for the use and enjoyment of the public. PRC §5003.
   2. Protect the state park system from damage and preserve the peace. PRC §5008.
3. Authorizes State Parks, through January 1, 2025, to enter into an operating agreement with a qualified nonprofit organization for the development, improvement, restoration, care, maintenance, administration, or operation of a unit or units, or portion of a unit, of the state park system, as agreed to by the director. PRC §5080.42.
   1. Defines “qualified nonprofit organization” for the purpose of this authority.
   2. Requires an operating agreement with a qualified nonprofit organization to:
      1. Include specified conditions, including that the nonprofit must annually report to State Parks regarding its operating activities, including a full accounting of all revenues and expenditures, as specified.
      2. Specify the duties that the nonprofit organization shall be responsible for and those management duties that State Parks shall continue to conduct so that all core operations of the park are delineated, as specified. The agreement may not eliminate any jobs maintained under a memorandum of understanding between the state and the represented bargaining units.
      3. Honor the existing term of any current concession contract for the state park unit subject to the operating agreement.
   3. Generally requires all revenues that the qualified nonprofit organization receives from a unit to be expended only for the care, maintenance, operation, administration, improvement, or development of the unit.
   4. Generally prohibits the use of General Fund moneys to subsidize a nonprofit organization’s operation or maintenance of a park unit in cases where the nonprofit provides for the full operation of the park unit.
   5. Limits State Parks’ authority to enter into an operating agreement that involves the operation of the entirety of a park unit to no more than 20 park units.
   6. Requires State Parks biennially to report to the Legislature on the status of operating agreements, as specified.

Background

Since California created its first publicly funded park in 1902, the state has relied upon partnerships to help raise money needed to protect lands and promote conservation. Local and federal government agencies, Native American tribes, nonprofit groups and foundations, local businesses, volunteers, and private companies have augmented services and provided programs and amenities at a number of parks throughout California.

In the early and mid-2000s, and especially with the onset of the Great Recession, the budget for State Parks failed to keep pace with growing demand. In particular, State Parks struggled to maintain sufficient funding for stewardship and management of the state park system. General Fund revenue for State Parks declined by over 37 percent between fiscal years 2007–08 and 2012–13, inclusive. This resulted in a deferred maintenance backlog of over $1.3 billion by 2010, inadequate staff to protect park resources and maintain public access and safety, and partial closures of some state parks.

The Legislature and Governor responded on many fronts with multiple policy and budget solutions over several two-year legislative sessions. One of these solutions included AB 42 (Huffman, Chapter 450, Statutes of 2011), which authorized State Parks, until January 1, 2019, to enter into operating agreements and co-management agreements with qualified nonprofits for the development, improvement, restoration, care, maintenance, administration, or operation of a unit or units, or portion of a unit, of the state park system, as specified.

Specifically, operating agreements allow the nonprofit to operate all or a portion of a park unit with minimal involvement and oversight by State Parks’ staff. Co-management agreements allow the nonprofit to share responsibility for operations of a park unit or portions of a park unit with State Parks.

Legislation in subsequent years extended the sunset to January 1, 2025, and revised and updated this authority over time. This authority was instrumental in helping to avoid park closures in certain areas.

PROPOSED LAW

This bill would eliminate the sunset on State Parks’ authority to enter into an operating agreement with a qualified nonprofit organization for the development, improvement, restoration, care, maintenance, administration, or operation of a unit or units, or portion of a unit, of the state park system, as agreed to by the director.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT

According to the author, “We’ve seen how valuable partnerships between State Parks and nonprofits can be in terms of providing much need investments and improvements that ensure parks are accessible and enjoyable for Californians for generations to come. These partnerships have also freed up the precious and finite resources of State Parks to allocate towards other critical needs. Allowing state parks to continue these partnerships is a win-win.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION

None received.

COMMENTS

This authority has been instrumental in helping avoid park closures and expand park services. Existing law requires State Parks to biennially report to the Legislature on the status of its agreements with qualified nonprofit organizations. State Parks has released reports covering Fiscal Years 2012-13 through 2019-20. This includes reports that cover all of the nonprofit operators in one report, or individual reports specific to each nonprofit operator. State Parks also maintains information available upon request for later years.

According to the reports, State Parks has previously or is currently entered into operating agreements and/or co-management agreements with the following nonprofit organizations to operate the following state park units (organized alphabetically by unit):

For the operating agreements, the responsibilities of the nonprofits vary slightly, but generally they provide for basic park operation services, including visitor services, fee collection, volunteer recruitment and coordination, fundraising, special events, trail maintenance, and housekeeping. State Parks typically retains responsibility for managing and preserving the unit’s natural and cultural resources, conducting environmental reviews, maintaining sewer lift stations and connections to water mains, conducting tree hazard inspections, training partner staff and volunteers, supervising State Park staff, partner staff, and volunteers, overseeing public safety, providing a partnership liaison, and providing administrative oversight.

For the co-management agreements, the nonprofits provide more limited services, like operating a visitor center, co-managing select natural resources within a unit, or supporting events within park units.

The listed benefits of these partnerships included keeping parks, campgrounds, and other areas within parks open more often or year round, increasing the number of volunteer hours, completing deferred maintenance projects, and increasing interpretive programs and special programs and events. Further, according to State Parks:

“These agreements allow the Department to reach and exceed visitor expectations while conserving valuable Department resources, which can be utilized in other park units with less partner support. The Department depends on nonprofit operators to engage communities in valuable educational experiences such as Star Parties and exposing students to local ecology at summer camps at Sugarloaf Ridge State Park. Partners have found new and creative ways to attract visitors to State Parks, including the operation of the Old Sacramento Visitor Center in Old Sacramento State Historic Park.

The value these partners add to the Department is almost immeasurable. The connections they have developed with local communities and the new programs they have provided have made a positive impact to visitors’ experiences that may not otherwise have been achievable without these partnerships. These impacts have been especially important during the substantial increase in visitation to State Parks during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Operating agreements with public agencies. While this bill relates to operating and co-management agreements with qualified nonprofits, it is worth noting that existing law also authorizes State Parks to enter into similar agreements with public agencies. According to State Parks, it has entered in operating agreements with:

• The cities of Benicia, Carlsbad, Carpinteria, Colusa, Encinitas, Grover Beach, Huntington Beach, Los Angeles, Manhattan Beach, Monterey, Morro Bay, Newport Beach, Pacifica, Pismo Beach, Santa Monica, and Woodland.
• The counties of Los Angeles, Mendocino, Sacramento, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, and Santa Cruz.
• Local park agencies and districts, including East Bay Regional Park District, Napa County Regional Park & Open Space District, and Sonoma County Regional Parks.
• Utility districts, including Johnsville Public Utility District and Tahoe City Public Utility District.
• Educational agencies, including CSU, Sacramento; San Diego County Board of Education; and the Southwest Community College District.
• Other public agencies, including the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• The Yurok tribe.

Previous legislation.

AB 42 (Huffman, Chapter 450, Statutes of 2011) authorized State Parks, through January 1, 2019, to enter into an operating agreement with a qualified nonprofit organization for the development, improvement, restoration, care, maintenance, administration, or operation of a unit or units, or portion of a unit, of the state park system, as identified by the director.

AB 1478 (Blumenfield, Chapter 530, Statues of 2012) stated the Legislature’s intent to encourage formation of an advisory council to assess and make recommendations on future management, planning, and funding proposals to ensure the long-term sustainability of the state park system.

AB 1589 (Huffman, Chapter 533, Statutes of 2012) clarified allowable uses of revenues by a qualified nonprofit organization under an operating agreement with State Parks. Also established the Legislature’s policy (in findings and declarations) to promote formation of an advisory council to assess and make recommendations on future management, planning, and funding proposals to ensure the long-term sustainability of the state park system.

AB 594 (Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee, Chapter 407, Statutes of 2013) clarified State Parks’ authority to enter into operating agreements with qualified nonprofit organizations when there was a moratorium on state park closures.

SB 204 (Pavley, Chapter 573, Statutes of 2015) eliminated the January 1, 2019, sunset on State Parks’ authority to enter into operating agreements with qualified nonprofits for the development, improvement, restoration, care, maintenance, administration, or operation of a unit or units, or portion of a unit, of the state park system.

AB 549 (Levine, Chapter 559, Statutes of 2015) authorized State Parks to enter into agreements with qualified nonprofit organizations for acquisition, installation, and operation of camping cabins or parking facilities for recreational vehicles within units of the state park system.

SB 1111 (Pavley, Chapter 540, Statutes of 2016) added a January 1, 2025, sunset to State Parks’ authority to enter into operating agreements with qualified nonprofits for the development, improvement, restoration, care, maintenance, administration, or operation of a unit or units, or portion of a unit, of the state park system. Further, authorized State Parks to enter into a statewide agreement with a park support organization to facilitate the implementation of reforms recommended by the Parks Forward Commission and to develop and secure expertise, services, resources, and projects that are not readily available to the state park system, as specified.

SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS

None.

SUPPORT

None Received

OPPOSITION

None Received

-- END --