REVITALIZING THE CALIFORNIA STATE PARK SYSTEM: A 21st Century Approach

7/29/2019 REVITALIZING THE CALIFORNIA STATE PARK SYSTEM: A 21st Century Approach

1/41

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Santa Barbara

REVITILIZING THE CALIFORNIA STATE PARK SYSTEM:A 21st Century Approach

Prepared by:Brian Gagliardi

September 14, 2012

Thesis Advisor:

Robert Wilkinson, Ph.D

Professor, UCSB


2/41

ii


3/41

ABSTRACT

REVITILIZING THE CALIFORNIA STATE PARK SYSTEM:

A 21st

Century Approach

ByBrian Gagliardi

The California Department of Parks and Recreations website explains that the

mission of the Department of Parks and Recreation is, To provide for the health,

inspiration, and education of the people of California by helping to preserve the states

extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most valuable natural and cultural

resources and, and creating opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation. With that

premise in mind, the purpose of this paper is to document the history of California State

Parks and call attention to the difficulties associated with the current system. After

documenting the history of California State Parks, the focus shifts to alternative strategies

that the Department of Parks and Recreation may want to consider. More specifically,

this paper focuses on the costs and benefits related to public-private partnerships.

Ultimately, by initiating the conversation as well as proposing several potential options

and opportunities for California State Parks, the goal of this paper is to provide a strong

foundation to build upon.

iii


4/41

Acknowledgements

As a child growing up, I loved being outside and getting to hike, bike, snowboard,

and ski. As I got older and traveled to other states and countries, I realized how lucky I

was to live in California. My childhood would have been completely different had I not

been able to wander and explore Californias state parks.

Thank you California, I hope that my generation can propose new innovative

solutions so that California state parks can provide for future generations, what it has

provided for me.

Mom, Dad, Dominic, and Brady Thank you for putting up with me this last year. Italked and complained about this project incessantly, and I truly appreciate your guyspatience and understanding.

Professor Graves Thank you for allowing me to bug you about my constantlychanging thesis topic. I truly appreciate your sense of calm and your wise advice.

Barbieri Family Thank you for providing me with food to eat, a bed to sleep, and adesk to write on as I started a new job and finished this paper. I cannot thank you enough.

Friends... Thank you all, I probably talked your guys ears off on too many occasionsand somehow you all still remain my friends today.

iv


5/41

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract...............................................................................................................................iii

Acknowledgments..............................................................................................................iv

1.0 California State Parks....................................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction to the Problem.....................................................................................1

1.2 Historical Background: California State Parks........................................................5

2.0 Strategies for California State Parks............................................................................14

2.1 Potential Solutions for California State Parks.......................................................14

2.2 Reducing the Size of State Parks...........................................................................16

2.3 Changing State Park Operations............................................................................20

2.4 Public-Private Partnerships....................................................................................23

3.0 Public-Private Partnerships as a Solution....................................................................28

3.1 Examples of Public-PrivatePartnerships...............................................................28

3.2 Public-Private partnerships and the U.S. ForestService.......................................29

3.3 Difficulties to Implementation...............................................................................31

4.0 Conclusion...................................................................................................................33

References.........................................................................................................................34

v


6/41

1.0 California State Parks

1.1 Introduction to the Problem

The California state park system is one of the largest and most notable state park

systems in the United States, if not the world. Beginning in the early 1970s, the

Department of Parks and Recreation became the main state department responsible for

managing and operating the entire California state park system. Currently, the California

Department of Parks and Recreation, manages more than 270 park units throughout the

state, spanning nearly 1.4 million acres. Within these 1.4 million acres are over 280 miles

of coastline, 625 miles of lake and river frontage, 15,000 campsites, and 3,000 miles of

hiking, biking, and equestrian trails.1 This large expanse of public land is an extremely

valuable asset to the state as well as to California residents and tourists; however, the

Department of Parks and Recreation has consistently struggled to manage, maintain, and

enhance the land and services in an economically sustainable way.

Over the course of the 20th Century, the California state park system expanded and

grew due to public grants, bonds, as well as private donations. Beginning in the early

1990s, however, most grants and bonds had been allocated or earmarked for different

park projects, leaving the Department of Parks and Recreation with a severe budget

shortfall. According to the California Outdoor Recreation Plan of 1993, grant

applications received under competitive programs consistently exceeded available

funding by 500 to 1,000 percent. Likewise, for only the second time in thirty years, a park

and recreation bond act failed to pass in a statewide vote.2

1 Department of Parks and Recreation. About Us.Accessed September 9, 2012,http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=91.2 California Outdoor Recreation Plan 1993: An Element of the California Outdoor

1


7/41

As park-funding issues began to arise, the Department of Parks and Recreation

had many decisions to make regarding how to properly fund many of the state parks and

associated services. The budget shortfall meant that the department had to work on a

limited budget and still maintain a pleasurable park experience for visitors. With the high

operational costs associated with running the parks, the Department of Parks and

Recreation decided that park maintenance would have to be a lesser priority compared to

operational expenses. By 1991, the department estimated that it had a $114.7 million

facility rehabilitation backlog, a $23.6 million deferred facility maintenance backlog, and

a $21.9 million deferred road maintenance backlog.

3

Unfortunately, deferred

maintenance problems intensify the longer they go unaddressed.

Today, many California state park facilities are in need of serious maintenance,

repair, or replacement. Due to continual budget restraints as well as poor financial

planning, many park and recreational areas are forced to allocate most of their funds to

basic operational costs rather than park maintenance and enhancements. According to the

Legislative Analysts Office, in 2012, two-thirds of the $500 million allocated to the

Department of Parks and Recreation was to be spent on park operations. This allocation

of funds means that the department continually defers costs of $120 million annually and

$1.3 billion in total to general park maintenance.4

To make matters worse, the California state population continues to grow,

meaning that there are more potential park visitors every year. More potential park

visitors creates even more of a strain on the already decaying park facilities. For instance,

Recreation Planning Program. (54).3 California Outdoor Recreation Plan 1993. (52).4 Legislative Analysts Office. Department of Parks and Recreation: Current FundingIssues. (1).

2


8/41

during the 2010-2011 fiscal year alone, more than 57 million people visited one of the

279 California State Parks.5 The growing state populationand thus, the increasing strain

on the state parks and their facilitiescompounds the maintenance issues and poses

many other problems for California State Parks moving forward.

Historically, in financial hardships such as these, the Department of Parks and

Recreation asks California residents to vote for a bond measure or tax increase in order to

allow parks to remain open and operational. In 2010, Proposition 21 was presented on the

ballot as an $18 annual vehicle license surcharge that intended to help fund state park and

wildlife programs. In a move rarely seen in state history, California residents voted

against Proposition 21 by a margin of 57.3% against to 42.7% in favor.6 The vote against

Proposition 21 signified a sentiment from the general public that California State Parks

needed to find alternative funding other than through public financial support. With the

failure of Proposition 21, the Department of Parks and Recreation faced severe budget

reductions, major maintenance deferrals, and a state park system in serious peril.

After the failure of Proposition 21, during the fiscal year of 2012-2013, the

Department of Parks and Recreation faced a $22 million budget reduction. In order to

reduce its budget, the department proposed closing certain state parks to help offset the

budget shortfall. According to California State Law, the parks slated for closure were

selected based on the following criteria:

State Law Specifies How Department of Parks andRecreation Selects Parks for Closure

5 Department of Parks and Recreation. California State Parks Quick Facts. (1).6 California Secretary of State. Proposition 21 State Park Funding & VehicleSurcharge.

3


9/41

Based

on the criteria

mentioned

above, the

Department of Parks and Recreation proposed closing 70 of the 278 state parksnearly

one quarter of all state parksdue to the $22 million budget shortfall. Fortunately,

partnerships with non-profits as well as private donors stalled the closure of all but one of

the parks set for closure.7While the near-term outlook has been somewhat stabilized for

California State Parks, there still is no reasonable long-term solution proposed. These

extreme circumstances highlight the need for California legislators, the Department of

Parks and Recreation, as well as the California general public to propose and create a

more sustainable system moving forward.

The California Department of Parks and Recreations website explains that the

mission of the Department of Parks and Recreation is, To provide for the health,

7 Department of Parks and Recreation. News Release: Lawmakers, State Parks, andPartners Give 69 of 70 Threatened Parks a Reprieve.

Criteria for Evaluating Each Park

Relative statewide significance.

Number of visitors.

Net savings from closure.

Physical feasibility of closing.

Potential for partnerships to support the park.

Operational efficiencies to be gained from

closing.

Significant and costly infrastructure

deficiencies.

Recent infrastructure investments.

Necessary, but unfunded capital

investments.

Deed restrictions and grant requirements.

Extent of nonGeneral Fund support.

Source: Legislative Analysts Office

http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis/2012/resources/state-parks-030212.aspx

4


10/41

inspiration, and education of the people of California by helping to preserve the states

extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most valuable natural and cultural

resources and, and creating opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation.8 With that

premise in mind, the purpose of this paper is to document the history of California State

Parks and call attention to the difficulties associated with the current system. After

documenting the history of the California State Parks, the focus will shift to alternative

strategies that the Department of Parks and Recreation may want to consider. More

specifically, this paper will focus on the costs and benefits related to public-private

partnerships. Ultimately, by initiating the conversation as well as proposing several

potential options and opportunities, the goal of this paper is to provide a strong

foundation to build upon.

1.2 Historical Background: California State Parks

The state of California is known around the world for its natural beauty,

ecological richness, and geographical diversity. This inherent natural beauty and rich

variety of open outdoor space allows local residents as well as travelers and tourists alike

take in and experience the picturesque landscape. Part of the lure of visiting California

and experiencing all of its natural beauty is the ease at which people can access so much

of the public land. The ability to wander and explore the vast terrain is due in no small

part to the establishment of the California Department of Parks and Recreation.

The establishment of the California Department of Parks and Recreation has a

long and storied history. The history originates in one of Californias most beautiful and

8 Department of Parks and Recreation. About Us.

5


11/41

treasured natural landscapes, the Yosemite Valley. While Yosemite is now famously

known around the world for its awe-inspiring natural beauty, few people realize that

before becoming part of the National Park system, Yosemite was actually the first

parkland managed by the state of California.

In 1864, during one of the United States most trying and difficult periodsthe

Civil WarPresident Abraham Lincoln authorized a federal grant of 20,000 acres to the

state of California.9In doing so, the first state park program in the United States was

officially created. While federal land grants to states and private corporations were not

uncommon during this time, the Yosemite land grant was unusual in that it was created,

upon the express conditions that the premises shall be held for public use, resort, and

recreation, and shall be inalienable for all time.10 For the first time in the United States,

public land was established, not for economic or developmental purposes, but rather, for

public use and recreation.

While Yosemite was the origin for the California state park program, political

differences as well as poor management by the state soon led California to return control

back to the Federal Government. Not long after the state receded control, the land

originally granted to the state of California became the centerpiece for Yosemite National

Park. Though the loss of Yosemite and the surrounding land was considered a major

disappointment for the state of California, it marked only the beginning for what would

soon be a new direction for the state and the country. Deeply ingrained in many

Californians minds was the premise that all citizens should have access to public space

and recreational opportunities.

9 Joseph Engbeck. State Parks of California from 1864 to the Present. (Oregon: C.H.Belding), 17.10 Yosemite Land Grant Act, (June, 30, 1864).

6


12/41

Throughout the late 19th and into the early 20th century, California and its

population experienced rapid growth. The growing population caused many citizens to

recognize the need to preserve the unique and beautiful California landscape. As

urbanization and industrialization expanded throughout the state, many Californians

began expressing the need for the state to protect natural habitats and landscapes. Most

notably, citizens began to speak out about the need to protect Californias unique

redwood forests. Many citizens recognized the value of the redwoods not only for

tourism and economic reasons, but also for scientific research as well as a long-term

investment in the education of present and future generations.

11

While the campaign to return Yosemite Valley to federal control was still

underway, the state of California seriously considered creating a new state park in the

forested area of the Santa Cruz Mountains. After much time and deliberation, on June 1,

1904, California Redwood Parklater renamed Big Basin Redwoods State Park

opened to the public for camping and other uses, officially becoming Californias first

state park.12As it turned out, this moment helped mark the beginning of a new park

movement and created a vision that eventually spread throughout California as well as

across much of the United States.

After the successful establishment of Big Basin State Park, there soon began a

rapid growth in the number of state parks and historical monuments. By 1927, nearly

twenty state parks and historical monuments were recognized by the state.13 With the

rapid growth of state parks and monuments, many issues came about due to a lack of

11 Engbeck. State Parks of California, 29.12 Engbeck. State Parks of California, 29.13 Building Californias State Parks, accessed May 25, 2012,http://www.tikitoki.com/timeline/embed/28258/9811588144/.

7


13/41

organizational structure. One such issue was that:

As a whole, the state parks and historical monuments were inadequatelyfunded and inadequately administered by a steadily increasing number ofuncoordinated and unrelated boards, commissions, and state agencies. There

was no fundamental policy or statewide plan for acquisition or administrationof state parks and monuments.14

Thus, it was proposed that a unified park commission be created in order to help

provide organization and structure to the growing park system. The main idea behind this

new park commission was to provide a centralized administration that the general public

could look towards and hold accountable. The administration was solely dedicated to

developing and maintaining park and historical areas. In particular, the commission

would assess new areas for potential state park sites as well as make established state

parks more easily accessible and usable. By the end of 1927, due to the increasing

demand for state parks as well as the need for a representative body to manage and

maintain these state lands, the Governor and California Legislature enacted and created

the first California State Park Commission.15

One of the first tasks the newly appointed State Parks Commission had to address

was how to create and implement a land survey for the entire state. The land survey

needed to be conducted in order to help generate locations that had the highest potential

for possible state park sites. To accomplish this monumental task, the State Park

Commission persuaded Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr.the world-renowned landscape

architectto conduct and direct the State Park Survey. With limited time and money,

Olmsted solicited and utilized a tremendous amount of public input and published the

final report in December of 1928. In his final report, Olmsted explained, The magnitude

14 Engbeck. State Parks of California, 47.15 Engbeck. State Parks of California, 52.

8


14/41

and importance, socially and economically, in California, of the values arising directly

and indirectly from the enjoyment of scenery and from related pleasures of non-urban

outdoor lifeare incalculably great.16

While Olmsted conducted the State Park Survey, another momentous step for

California State Parks was also taking place. The State Park Bond Act of 1928 was a

bond measure supported by the State Park Commission that proposed generating $6

million of state funded money, matched by another $6 million of privately donated gifts,

to allow the state to acquire 12 million dollars worth of park land.17 The bond passed

overwhelmingly and allowed the State Parks Commission to begin the process of

building the foundation for what would become one of Californias most treasured and

valuable resources.

Although the results of the Great Depression as well as World War II would

slightly alter public opinion, the California state park system was still able to grow and

thrive. After the end of World War II, public interest shifted back towards the need for

public recreational areas. During this time, the State Parks Commission not only acquired

more parkland, but it also tried to make the parks more usable and accessible for the

general public. By the end of the 1950s, the California state park system included 150

parks, beaches, and historical monuments comprising roughly 615,000 acres at an

estimated value of 73 million dollars.18

The 1960s proved to be a turning point in the way that the California Department

of Parks and Recreation operated. With the election of Ronald Reagan as Governor in

16 Frederick Law Olmstead. California State Park Survey: Prepared for the CaliforniaState Park Commission. (California, 1929), 15.17 Engbeck. State Parks of California, 54.18 Engbeck. State Parks of California, 95.

9


15/41

1966, the newly elected Governor expressed his desire to encourage a more Creative

Society. In this type of society, Governor Reagan proposed that the need was not for

more government, but rather, the need was for a better government that was more

efficient and effective.19In order to create a more effective and efficient government, in

1967, Governor Reagan enlisted William Penn Mott, Jr. to lead and direct the Department

of Parks and Recreation.

William Penn Mott, Jr. was a firm and enthusiastic believer in public parks and

recreational areas, but he also believed that the Department of Parks and Recreation could

enhance the recreational opportunities even with a limited budget. As soon as Mott

became Director, he faced retrenchment, hiring freezes, and budget cuts of 10 percent

across the board.20 While this situation and the resulting budget cuts complicated Motts

job, he believed that it provided him and the department with a tremendous opportunity.

As a keynote point Mott expressed, We will not compromise quality for quantity, or

excellence for mediocrity. Creativity and imagination will be stressedin all functions of

the Department.

Mott strongly believed that the general public would not accept second-rate parks

or second-rate park programs. In order to make the governing body more efficient and

effective, Mott merged the Division of Beaches and Parks and the Division of Recreation

to form the modern Department of Parks and Recreation.21 While Mott operated the

Department of Parks and Recreation on a tighter budget, he also implemented a strategy

that enhanced the park experience to urban dwellers. As Mott explained, the objective of

the park system was to build a bridge between the world of the park and the world of the

19 Ronald Reagan: The Creative Society Speech, April 19, 1966. USC.20 Engbeck. State Parks of California, 104.21 Engbeck. State Parks of California, 104.

10


16/41

visitor.22

During his time as Director, Mott enhanced the state park system by replacing

seasonal paid naturalists with full-time park system employees. He then established and

created a training facility for park rangers and staff at no additional cost to the

taxpayers.23 Mott strongly believed that one of the main objectives of California State

Parks was to build a connection between the citizenry and the natural environment. It is

no wonder that during Motts time as Director, citizen volunteerism in state park matters

reached unprecedented levels.24As volunteerism steadily grew throughout the state, the

Department of Parks and Recreation was able to strengthen the relationship between paid

and unpaid staff, and improve the overall park quality for visitors.

In order to handle and facilitate donations for California State Parks, Mott also

proposed creating a non-profit and private corporationthe State Parks Foundationto

better handle gifts and donations. With the establishment of the State Parks Foundation

the corporation was able to accept gifts and use them in any way it saw fit, subject to any

special conditions imposed by donors.25 By creating such an organization, Mott bridged

the gap between public government and private donors and improved the overall

organization of the park system. By the end of 1979, gifts to the park system amounted to

over 14,000 acres of land at an estimated value of more than $18 million.26

During the 1970s the Department of Parks and Recreation expanded into a

relatively new and controversial outdoor recreational arena. In 1971, the Chappie-Zberg

Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Law was approved and enacted. The law created a $15

22 Engbeck. State Parks of California, 105.23 Engbeck. State Parks of California, 107.24 Engbeck. State Parks of California, 112.25 Engbeck. State Parks of California, 113.26 Engbeck. State Parks of California, 113.

11


17/41

annual vehicular registration fee in exchange for motorists ability to use specific state

park land for recreational uses. The Department of Parks and Recreation was designated

to administer the new program and develop a statewide plan for the acquisition and

development of areas designated for off-highway vehicular recreation.27

With off-road vehicular use rapidly increasing during this time, the Department of

Parks and Recreation devised a plan that provided more recreational opportunities, while

also enacting a financial plan that assisted with the acquisition and maintenance of new

parkland. Initially there was disagreement from both the off-road enthusiasts as well as

the natural conservationists. In the end, however, both sides came to an agreement and

the Department of Parks and Recreation was able to utilize the additional funding to

create more usable recreational opportunities.

The Department of Parks and Recreation continued its expansion throughout the

early 1980s due to the state bond measure of 1974Proposition 1. With a plurality of

over 60 percent, California voters approved Proposition 1, which provided $250 million

for acquiring more state park land and recreational opportunities.28 Proposition 1

provided the California State Parks with adequate funding for most of the 1970s and early

1980s. However, as has so often been the case, beginning in the middle of the 1980s and

continuing now into the present, the Department of Parks and Recreation once again

faced severe budget issues.

Currently, the Department of Parks and Recreation faces maintenance and

operational issues as well as a major budget shortfall. The Department of Parks and

Recreation is attempting to create a plan that provides quality outdoor recreation in an

27 Engbeck. State Parks of California, 118.28 Engbeck. State Parks of California, 119.

12


18/41

economically sustainable way. In order to fulfill the mission statement set by the

Department of Parks and Recreation, California State Parks needs serious reorganization

and repair.

While serious problems remain, the California state park system is still considered

one of the most beautiful and expansive park systems in the world. Many strategies and

options are still possible that could provide financial support as well as revitalize the

decaying park system. The decisions will not be easy, nor will one solution make every

individual happy, but the survival California State Parks truly depends on collaboration

from both public and private enterprises. In the end, a new approach to the state park

system will lead to more innovative park management, provide better parks and services,

and create a more economically sustainable future for the Department of Parks and

Recreation. As Joseph Engbeck, Jr. concludes at the end of his book documenting the

history of California State Parks,

The real question, then, about the future of the State Park System is whetherpeople, and the kind of practical idealism that created the park system in thefirst place, can form new alliances and create new governmental mechanismsthat will adequate to the needs of our democratic society.29

2.0 Modern Strategies for California State Parks

29 Engbeck. State Parks of California, 128.

13


19/41

2.1 Potential Solutions for California State Parks

The California state park system is in need of serious reorganization and repair if

the Department of Parks and Recreation hopes to continue to provide California residents

as well as tourists from around the world with a pleasurable park experience. The current

state park model and approach is not only unsustainable, but it also fails to provide

adequate services for the millions of visitors each year. The margin by which Proposition

21 was defeated, highlights the sentiment of California voters and their opposition to

increasing taxes to maintain state parks as they are today. According to the California

Parks Foundation, actual park use as well as countless surveys, explain that while

Californians love their state parks, they also want them managed within available

resources.30 As the state of California attempts to solve its $16 billion deficit, it appears

to be clear that California has exhausted all governmental solutions to the State Parks

problem.

(Source: California State Analysts Office)

Based on the figure above, government funding to California State Parks has

remained fairly consistent throughout the last decade and has leveled off since 2006.

With that being said, due to the budget deficit in California, it is likely that funding for

30 Koeberer, John.A Message Regarding Alternatives to State Park Closures.

14


20/41

California State Parks will decrease, or at best, remain fairly unpredictable. While public

financing does not look like a likely resource, there are other alternatives that may

provide the Department of Parks and Recreation with opportunities to keep state parks

open and operational. As has been the case throughout the history of the California state

park system, the long-term survival of the park system will be directly tied to both public

support and private investment.

According to the Legislative Analysts Office (LAO), there are a variety of

different options that may help sustain California State Parks. The available policy

options fall into three main categories: reducing the size of the state park system,

changing and modifying state park operations, and/or figuring out ways to increase state

park revenues.31 To assist all interested parties, the Legislative Analysts Office detailed

different strategies to help address park closures.

Strategies and Options to Address Park Closures

Reducing the Size of the State Park System

Close state parks.

Transfer ownership of parks.

Change Park Operations

Limit use of sworn staff.

Allow for forprofit operation of state parks.

Increasing Park Revenues

Raise additional revenue from fees.

Incentivize revenue generation at the district level.

Expand concessions.

Provide a dedicated revenue source.


In order to properly assess the different strategies and options, a few major considerations

must be taken into account. Specifically, the Legislative Analysts Office explains,

31 Legislative Analyst's Office. The 2012-13 Budget: Strategies to Maintain CaliforniaPark System.

15


21/41

While there are inherent tradeoffs associated with each option, theLegislature will want to consider those that will (1) minimize the impact onvisitor experience and access, (2) provide a longterm funding source for theparks, (3) build upon existing and successful programs within the park system,and (4) not restrict legislative oversight or flexibility.32

2.2 Reducing the Size of State Parks

At the beginning of 2012before the proposal to close 70 state parksCalifornia

State Parks consisted of 279 parks, monuments, and historical sites.33In times of budget

deficit, one of the first ways a government reduces spending is through restrictive funding

for governmental programs. Presently, the current California budget deficit has forced

lawmakers to reduce the Department of Parks and Recreations budget by $22 million

over the last two years. One way to stabilize the park system during budget shortfalls is to

reduce park hours or temporarily close down certain parks. Some people argue, however,

that the current state park system is too large to sustainably maintain and operate in the

long-term. As deferred State Parks maintenance continues to grow, the current park

system either needs to reduce its size or adjust the way that state parks are managed and

operated. As the next figure shows, deferred park maintenance will reach nearly $2

billion by the year 2020.

32 Legislative Analyst's Office. The 2012-13 Budget: Strategies to Maintain CaliforniaPark System.33 Department of Parks and Recreation. California State Parks Quick Facts. (1).

16


22/41


If the park system size were reduced, proponents argue that more funding and

resources could be allocated to the remaining park establishments, allowing the state to

focus on maintaining the reduced park infrastructure. While this option appears to be a

viable option, in reality, there are major issues that make this strategy much less enticing.

As the Legislative Analysts Office explains,

It is uncertain at this time how much funding can actually be saved fromclosing a given number of state parks. This is because the department isunable to provide information on the cost of operating an individual park.Moreover, there are some costs associated with closing a park, such as thecost of packing up artifacts and shipping them to DPR's central administrationoffice for storage.34

While the closure of certain state parks may appear to help alleviate the short-

term funding issues due to the reduced operating costs, a great deal of effort and funding

would still be needed to enact the park closures. Similarly, in addition to the money

needed to close down the parks, much public funding would still be necessary in order to

provide basic security so that park vandalism and other illegal behavior would not


17


23/41

become an issue.

Although closing state parks does not appear to be a viable long-term strategy,

one important fact does present itself. The fact being, the Department of Parks and

Recreation lacks proper management and operational abilities. It is no wonder that the

park system has funding problems considering the Department of Parks and Recreation

cannot provide information on the actual cost of running a given park establishment. If

the governmental department responsible for running the park system cannot assess the

necessary budget to properly operate, maintain, and enhance the park system, how can

accountability and economic sustainability ever be addressed?

Transferring ownership from state control to local governments or non-profit

organizations is another option that could reduce the size and scope of the California

State Parks. While the Department of Parks and Recreation needs to protect many state

parks that have statewide natural or historical significance, many state parks primarily

provide local benefits. For parks that are not considered naturally or historically

significant to the entire state, one option that should be considered is transferring

ownership to local authorities in exchange for a promise to operate the designated land as

a park.35

By transferring state parks to local governments or non-profits, the Department of

Parks and Recreation would be able to shed operational expenses as well as reduce paid

staff. In the state of Washington, for example, the Washington State Parks and Recreation

Commission has transferred a number of state parks to local or regional authorities. By

transferring Wenberg State Park to Snohomish County Parks, the State Parks Department


18


24/41

reduced its budget by $175,000 as well as reduced its workforce by 3.5 full-time

employees.36If local governments or non-profit organizations are capable of taking

ownership, the Department of Parks and Recreation could focus on the parks that truly

have statewide significance. By finding local entities to manage and operate the parkland,

the Department of Parks and Recreation could enhance the remaining state park sites,

even with a more limited budget. In contrast to closing a state park, transferring

ownership of a park to a nonstate agency releases the state from all financial

responsibility and the park remains publicly accessible.37 In this situation, all sides would

win.

Although ownership transfers are a great solution when possible, a variety of

issues restrict this option from actually occurring. The major problem that arises with

ownership transfers centers on the basic structure of government. In tough economic

times, state as well as local governments and non-profits all experience similar budgetary

and financial hardships. During these times, state governments typically have much

larger budgets than do local governments. As such, if the State of California cannot

afford to operate a park, it is likely that most city and county governments would not be

able to either.

When possible, transferring of parklands to local entities is a great option;

however, due to funding issues within all forms of government, many city and county

governments cannot afford to allocate enough funding or resources to parklands. Overall,

while reducing the size of the California state park system appears to help California

36 Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. State Parks CommissionTransfers Wenberg State Park to Snohomish County Parks, 2009.37 Legislative Analyst's Office. The 2012-13 Budget: Strategies to Maintain CaliforniaPark System.

19


25/41

systematically and financially, in reality, this sort of strategy is difficult to implement.

2.3 Changing State Park Operations

Another strategy under consideration relates to the way state parks are currently

managed and operated. Until recently, state parks were managed and operated primarily

by the Department of Parks and Recreation. With current budgetary constraints, many

people have targeted this area in particular, as a way to improve the financial future for

California State Parks. Besides deferred maintenance costs, the other main expense for

State Parks is labor costspaying state staff to operate and manage many aspects of the

parks.38 By focusing on maintenance and operational efficiency, the Department of Parks

and Recreation could drastically impact the long-term sustainability of the park system.

The figure below illustrates the breakdown of costs associated with maintaining the

current park system:


According to the Legislative Analysts Office, roughly 40 percent of funding

provided to California State Parks is spent on maintaining park facilities. Maintenance


20


26/41

costs entail routine park maintenanceremoving trash and cleaning bathroomsas well

as major infrastructural repairs. Another 20 percent of the annual budget is spent on

public safety, primarily for park rangers.39 Overall, nearly 60 percent of the annual budget

for the Department of Parks and Recreation is spent on operational expenses. With that

statistic in mind, it appears that improving maintenance and operations provides the

highest potential for improving long-term sustainability for California State Parks. In

order to make lasting and sustainable change within the state park system, the

Department of Parks and Recreation must acknowledge that the current management

system is not effective or sustainable. More specifically, California State Parks must

seriously consider hiring private partners to manage and operate many of the state parks.

To properly assess the current operations for California State Parks, it is important

to first look at the internal structure before considering external assistance. Presently, the

Department of Parks and Recreation must manage and maintain state parks as well as

provide adequate services and public safety. In order to provide these services, California

State Parks hire park superintendents and park rangers. A major issue that arises,

however, is park rangers and superintendents must be sworn peace officers.40 One

logistical problem associated with this requirement is these employees demand higher

compensation. While having a well-trained and well-paid workforce is not a bad thing,

the problem for State Parks is many tasks asked of park rangers and superintendents do

not require safety officer training. By requiring all rangers to be sworn peace officers,

operational costs are much higher, while many of the tasks do not require advanced

39 Legislative Analyst's Office. The 2012-13 Budget: Strategies to Maintain CaliforniaPark System.40 Department of Parks and Recreation. State Park Peace Officer and Cadet MinimumRequirements, 2012.

21


27/41

training. To explain this idea more clearly, the Legislative Analysts Office examined

current duties of park rangers and separated the duties according to those tasks that

required peace officer training from those that did not.

Current Ranger Duties

Peace Officer Related Duties

Patrol parks and campgrounds.

Make arrests.

Respond to emergencies.

Enforce park rules and state laws.

NonPeace Officer Related Duties

Give tours.

Train and manage volunteers and seasonal staff. Create park programming.

Manage resources.

Provide visitor information.

Host campgrounds.

Explain exhibits, local ecology, and history.


As the figure above details, many of the daily duties that park rangers fulfilltour

guiding, park programming, resource managing, etc.do not require any sort of peace

officer training. This means that the Department of Parks and Recreation employs many

state employees and park rangers that demand higher compensation, even though many

of the day-to-day tasks require no such skills or training. While public safety has to be a

top priority for all state parks, based on the park rangers work tasks, there does not

appear to be any logical reason that all park rangers need to be sworn peace officers. If

the internal structure of the DPR modified the requirements for park rangers so that non-

peace officers could also be hired as park rangers, the operational costs would be reduced

by tens of millions of dollars every year.41

41 Legislative Analyst's Office. The 2012-13 Budget: Strategies to Maintain California

22


28/41

2.4 Public-Private Partnerships

Although the internal management structure of California State Parks needs

serious modification and reorganization, utilizing private management and

concessionaires may provide the state park system with a more sustainable long-term

solution. Throughout the history of California State Parks, the Department of Parks and

Recreation has continually struggled to adequately fund, manage, and maintain the park

system. Many park management issues arise due to the basic structure of governmental

systems as well as the bureaucratic nature associated with running government sponsored

departments or organizations. While governmental systems complicate and over-burden

park operations, state parks will always need strong and effective governance. Public-

private partnerships (PPPs) are not created to advocate for or against government. Rather,

the underlying logic in establishing partnerships is to maximize the effectiveness and

efficiency of both public and private sectors in order to provide for the public good.42

The keyword in the phrase public-private partnership is not public or private,

but partnership. While both sectors try to convince the general public that the decision is

between either being pro-business or pro-government, the truth remains that neither

sector would be effective without the other. Often times, the most successful results occur

when the two sectors draw on each others strengths to form complementary

Park System.42 Ministry of Municipal Affairs, British Columbia. Public-Private Partnership: A Guidefor Local Government. (5).

23


29/41

relationships.43By utilizing public-private partnerships, the Department of Parks and

Recreation can optimize the strengths of both the public and private sectors to enhance

the overall park experience.

Shifting many California state parks to public-private partnership agreements

could provide the state park system with increased revenue as well as improve the overall

quality of the parks themselves. Typically, effective PPPs recognize that both public and

private sectors have advantages in performing certain tasks. As explained in thePublic-

Private Partnership Handbook, a government often contributes capital investment

(available through tax revenue), a transfer of assets, or other commitments or

contributions that support the partnership.44 In the case of the Department of Parks and

Recreation, the department provides certain state park land and allows private

management or private concessionaires to assist with maintenance and operations. Rather

than concentrating on basic maintenance and operational duties, the Department Parks

Recreation could focus its attention and resources on more important issues related to

state parks.

When operational and maintenance tasks are provided by the private sector, often

times, the overall quality of the park experience improves. This potential improvement

occurs because the private sector must make a profit in order to remain in business. In

most PPPs, the private sectors main role is to use its expertise in commerce,

management, operations, and innovation to make the operation run as effectively and as

efficiently as possible.45 Private businesses are incentivized to make public spaces more

43 Ministry of Municipal Affairs, British Columbia. Public-Private Partnership: A Guidefor Local Government. (5).44 Klaus Felsinger. Public-Private Partnership Handbook. (1).45 Klaus Felsinger. Public-Private Partnership Handbook. (1).

24


30/41

welcoming to visitors because more park visitors mean more potential revenue. As

explained inPublic-Private Partnership: A Guide for Local Government, it is in the

private partners best interest to enhance the quality of service and become more efficient

because that will attract more customers. As customer attendanceand thus, more

revenue is generatedprivate partners are able to invest more in improvements and

provide additional services that will attract more park visitors.46This self-perpetuating

cycle provides park visitors with a better park experience and also increases government

revenue, while reducing the governments risk overall.

Many opponents of PPPs argue that private companies do not reinvest additional

revenue back into the state parks. By examining Recreation Resource Managementa

private park management company that operates and manages parks in 11 different states

throughout the United Statesit is apparent that private park operators actually invest

quite a bit of money back into the parks. As shown in the graph below, Recreation

Resource Management reinvests 92% of all park related fees to benefit the public .47

46 Ministry of Municipal Affairs, British Columbia. Public-Private Partnership: A Guidefor Local Government. (12)47 Recreation Resource Management. How Is Your Recreation Fee Used.http://camprrm.com/how-is-your-recreation-fee-used/.

25


31/41

(Source: Recreation Resource Management)

http://camprrm.com/how-is-your-recreation-fee-used/

While Recreation Resource Management is only one example, the fact remains that

private partners are actually incentivized to improve services and maintain affordable

prices in parks. Considering the business will fail if customers do not return, park

management must reinvest substantial revenue back into the park to ensure visitors want

to come back.

Utilizing PPPs allows the government to reduce operating costs as well as share

the inherent risks between partners. Although the Department of Parks and Recreation

loses day-to-day control of some services and operations, California State Parks still has

the ability to demand and enforce certain requirements set by the department. While

maintenance and operations are outsourced to private partners, the parkland is still owned

by the State of California. Similarly, the Department of Parks and Recreations continues

to be the governing body responsible for providing park areas to the general public. The

main difference between the traditional system and the public-private partnership model

is that in PPPs, the public sector focuses more energy and resources on social,

environmental, and political issues within the park system, rather than day-to-day

26


32/41

operations.48

Unlike privatization, in public-private partnerships, the Department of Parks and

Recreation still maintains ownership. Since the parkland is still owned by the State of

California, California State Parks has the power to demand certain requirements from

private partners. By entering into public-private partnerships, the Department of Parks

and Recreation lets the private partner make operation and management decisions, while

the government maintains responsibility for general park oversight. In this case, the

Department of Parks and Recreation provides the general framework and private

contractors figure out how to create unique and sustainable business models that meet the

requirements set by the state.

PPPs allow California State Parks to implement policies and regulate service

provisions. As explained inInnovative Public-Private Partnerships: Pathway to

Effectively Solving Problems, the public partnerin this case, the Department of Parks

and Recreationhas the power to shape the partnership through broad objectives,

policies, and regulations in order to represent the general publics best interests.49 This

type of partnership creates checks and balances ensuring that the public welfare is always

protected and valued. Altogether, PPPs allow government to oversee the direction of state

parks, while private contractors manage the day-to-day services and operations. This type

of system provides collaborative solutions where both public and private sectors utilize

their respected strengths to benefit the general public.

48 Ministry of Municipal Affairs, British Columbia. Public-Private Partnership: A Guidefor Local Government. (12).49 Thomas Cellucci. Innovative Public-Private Partnerships: Pathway to EffectivelySolving Problems. (11).

27


33/41

3.0 Public-Private Partnerships as a Solution

3.1 California State Parks and Public-Private Partnerships

The California Department of Parks and Recreation does use outside operational

management as well as private concessionaire agreements to provide services to the park

system. According to California State Parks annual report, during the 2010-2011 fiscal

year, the Department of Parks and Recreation provided 193 concessionaire agreements

while also utilizing outside management in 54 state park areas.50

50 Department of Parks and Recreation. Concessions Annual Report: Fiscal Year 2010-2011http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/22374/files/annual_report_2010-2011.pdf, 3.

28


34/41

(Source: California Department of Parks and Recreation, Concessions Annual Report 2010-2011)

(http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/22374/files/annual_report_2010-2011.pdf)

Although public-private partnerships are used by California State Parks in certain

instances, there are many more opportunities for partnerships still available. As the

Department of Parks and Recreation faces a $22 million General Fund budget reduction,

California State Parks must seriously consider expanding partnerships with non-profit

operators and private concessionaires. In order to encourage more partnerships,

California State Parks needs to expand its operating partnerships and also consider

allowing private park management companies bid for management leases.

Opponents of private management argue that private firms will alter the feel of

state parks. While this is a common misperception, Roy StearnsDeputy Director of

California State Parks explains, the parks will, no matter what, still be owned by the

state and management companies would be forced to abide by the rules. As noted by the

Deputy Director, public-private partnerships allow public parkland to be managed and

operated by non-profit and for-profit companies and organizations. While day-to-day

operations are ran by outside contractors, the Department of Parks and Recreation would

have oversight and approval power to protect the interests of the general public. Overall,

partnership agreements between public and private entities generally allow for a more

effective and efficient park system, save public money, and improve the quality of parks

for all state park visitors.

29


35/41

3.2 Public-Private Partnerships and the U.S. Forest Service

Public-private partnerships have been used extensively in the United States as

well as throughout much of the world. While private concessionaire agreements have

been used for many years, private management of public lands is a relatively new

concept, although its use is growing rapidly.51 As public-private partnerships continue to

grow, it is important to look at successful partnerships, while also considering some of

the difficulties associated with implementing partnerships. One of the most successful

public-private partnerships in the United States involves the U.S. Forest Service.

The U.S. Forest Service has been participating in partnerships with non-profit and

private agencies since the 1880s, beginning with a collaboration with the Appalachian

Mountain Club.52 Similar to the situation that California State Parks now faces, during the

1980s the U.S. Forest Service experienced high demand for recreational opportunities

and a shrinking overall budget. Due to increased demand and a decreased agency budget,

partnerships became the major tool used by the U.S. Forest Service. Public-private

partnerships have been so effective that the Forest Service continually supports initiatives

and legislation to promote more public-private partnerships. In recent years, the U.S.

Forest Service has supported the Recreation Agenda (2000) as well as the Forest Service

Partnership Enhancement Act (2005).53The U.S. Forest Services continual support for

public-private partnership initiatives highlights how effective partnerships can be for

51 Meyer, Warren. Essay Response: Should National Parks Be Privatized?http://parkprivatization.com/

52 Erin Seekamp and Lee Cerveny. Examining USDA Forest Service RecreationPartnerships: Institutional and Relational Interactions, 5.53 Seekamp and Cerveny. Examining USDA Forest Service Recreation Partnerships, 5.

30


36/41

government agencies. Public-private partnerships provide a new opportunity for state and

local governments struggling to maintain existing park systems.

Over the last fifty years, the U.S. Forest Service has shifted its management

strategy towards a more public-private partnership model. Currently, the U.S. Forest

Service allows private companies to manage many of the campgrounds. As of 2012,

nearly half of the Forest Services campgrounds were operated by private entities. 54 In

transferring park management over to private companies, the Forest Service reduces

government expenditures and receives a portion of the revenue. In essence, the agency

nets a positive return, while also enhancing the quality of the park experience through

private investment and management.

The example set by the U.S. Forest Service provides a perfect example for

California and the Department of Parks and Recreation. Although the U.S. Forest

Systems approach is far from perfect, the agency continues to support new legislation

that improves public-private partnerships and creates a more sustainable future. The

Forest Service decided that non-profit and private companies could better handle

management and operations, allowing the agency to focus its attention and resources on

more long-term goals and objectives. Overall, the U.S. Forest Service provides California

State Parks with a successful model that can be duplicated. If the Department of Parks

and Recreation uses the partnership template set by the Forest Service, the park system

can provide quality stewardship while also becoming more economically sustainable.

3.3 Difficulties to Implementation

54 Holly Fretwell. Funding Parks: Political versus Private Choices, 4.

31


37/41

Public-private partnerships provide a great option for California State Parks in

addressing park closures, budget deficits, park quality, and the overall long-term

sustainability of the park system. While partnerships are a great option for the

Department of Parks and Recreation, there are potential downsides and difficulties

associated with implementing public-private partnerships. Similarly, partnerships cannot

be looked at as the only possible solution; rather, PPPs should be considered one of many

tools that California State Parks can utilize when evaluating how best to move forward.

Implementing public-private partnerships within the state park system poses many

difficulties and risks. According to British Columbias Ministry of Municipal Affairs

Public-Private Partnership Guide, risks of partnerships include: Loss of control by

government, Increased costs, Unacceptable levels of accountability, Unreliable service,

Inability to benefit from competition, Reduced quality or efficiency of service, Bias in the

selection process, and Labor issues.55The potential risks listed above help highlight the

difficulties associated with implementing a public-private partnership. As is so often the

case, no difficult problems ever have simple or easy answers.

For the Department of Parks and Recreation, the question still remains, is the

current system sustainable for the long-term and do other opportunities exist that provide

California State Parks with a better future? Though there are many difficulties associated

with public-private partnerships, California State Parks needs the assistance of non-

profits, private parties, and volunteers. In order to maintain and enhance the rich variety

of state parks that currently exist, the Department of Parks and Recreation must look at

partnerships as an important tool moving forward. While PPPs may not be feasible within

55 Ministry of Municipal Affairs, British Columbia. Public-Private Partnership: A Guidefor Local Government, 15-17.

32


38/41

all state parks, there are plenty of parks that could utilize partnership agreements. If done

correctly, public and private entities can innovative, collaborate, and compromise to

make long-lasting positive change in California. Shifting management and operational

tasks will not be easy, but anything worth doing takes hard work.

4.0 Conclusion

The California state park system is one of the crowning achievements manifested

by the state of California and will forever be the greatest gift passed along to each new

generation. While all Californians love and believe in the need to protect state parks, a

growing public sentiment has arisen because the state park system has become ineffective

and unsustainable. As the debate about state parks continues, all California residents must

recognize the need to seriously discuss the long-term strategy for California State Parks.

If the state park discussion fails to provide new solutions, all Californians may one day

look back with disappointment at the missed opportunity to create lasting positive

change. To provide the necessary improvements for the park system, the state of

California must create, evaluate, and utilize all options and strategies.

33


39/41

Public-private partnerships are one important tool that the Department of Parks

and Recreation must use and take advantage of. While public-private partnerships will

not work for all state parks, when possible, PPPs provide a unique way to capitalize on

the inherent strengths of private enterprise. Incorporating PPPs allows California State

Parks to minimize risk and financial burdens, while improving the quality of parks.

Public-private partnerships provide a long-term strategy for California State Parks

because PPPs maximize the strengths of both public and private entities in order to

provide the best park experience possible.

The state park system is not dead, but is in need of immediate repair and

improvement. The problems are many and none have an easy or simple answer; however,

if Californians come together and critically examine the difficult questions, innovative

long-term solutions can be developed. The possibilities are limitless, lets get to work.

References

Building Californias State Parks, accessed May 25, 2012, http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/embed/28258/9811588144/

California Outdoor Recreation Plan 1993: An Element of the California OutdoorRecreation Planning Program. Sacramento, California. 1994.

California Secretary of State.Proposition 21: State Park Funding & Vehicle LicenseSurcharge, 2010. Sacramento, California: Secretary of State Debra Bowen, 2010.

Cellucci, Thomas.Innovative Public-Private Partnerships: Pathway to Effectively

Solving Problems. Department of Homeland Security, 2010.

Department of Parks and Recreation. About Us. Sacramento, California: CaliforniaState Parks, 2012. Accessed May 12, 2012.

Department of Parks and Recreation. California State Parks Quick Facts, 2011.Sacramento, California: California State Parks, 2012. Accessed May 12, 2012.http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/23509/files/parks%20by%20the%20numbers

34


40/41

%205-4-12.pdf

Department of Parks and Recreation. Concessions Annual Report: Fiscal Year 2010-2011. Sacramento, California: California State Parks, 2012.http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/22374/files/annual_report_2010-2011.pdf

Department of Parks and Recreation.News Release: Lawmakers, State Parks, andPartners Give 69 of 70 Threatened Parks a Reprieve, 2012. Sacramento,California: California State Parks, 2012.

Department of Parks and Recreation. State Park Peace Officer and Cadet MinimumRequirements, 2012. Sacramento, California: California State Parks, 2012.http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21268

Engbeck, Joseph. State Parks of California: From 1864 to the Present. Portland, Oregon.C.H. Belding, 1980.

Felsinger, Klaus.Public-Private Partnership Handbook. Manila, Philippines. AsianDevelopment Bank, http://www.apec.org.au/docs/ADB%20Public%20Private%20Partnership%20Handbook.pdf

Fretwell, Holly.Funding Parks: Political versus Private Choices. Bozeman, Montana.Property and Environment Research Center, 2012.

Koeberer, John. "A Message Regarding Alternatives to State Park Closures." TheCalifornia Parks Company.http://www.calparksco.com/Documents/state_parks_closures.pdf (accessed Mar15, 2012).

Legislative Analyst's Office.Department of Parks and Recreation: Current FundingIssues, 2012. Sacramento, California: Legislative Analyst's Office, 2012.http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/resources/2012/DPR_Current_Funding_Issues_08_09_12.pdf

Legislative Analyst's Office. The 2012-13 Budget: Strategies to Maintain CaliforniaPark System, March 2, 2012. Sacramento, California: State Analyst's Office,2012. http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis/2012/resources/state-parks-030212.aspx

Meyer, Warren. Essay Response: Should National Parks Be Privatized?http://parkprivatization.com/

Ministry of Municipal Affairs, British Columbia.Public-Private Partnership: A Guidefor Local Government. Victoria, British Columbia: Canadian Cataloguing, 1999.http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/policy_research/library/public_private_partnerships.pdf (accessed Jul 28, 2012). 1999.

35


41/41

National Parks System. Yosemite Land Grant Act, 1864. Washington, D.C., National ParkSystem, 1864.

Olmsted, Frederick Law. California State Park Survey: Prepared for the California StatePark Commission. California State Printing Office: Sacramento, California. 1929.

Recreation Resource Management. How Is Your Recreation Fee Used.http://camprrm.com/how-is-your-recreation-fee-used/

Reagan, Ronald. The Creative Society. Speech given at the University of SouthernCalifornia, April 19, 1966.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/742041/posts.

Seekamp, Erin and Cerveny, Lee.Examining USDA Forest Service RecreationPartnerships:Institutional and Relational Interactions. Journal of Park andRecreation Administration. Volume 28, Number 4. Winter 2010. 1-20.

Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. State Parks Commission TransfersWenberg State Park to Snohomish County Parks, 2009. Olympia, Washington:Washington State Parks Commission, 2009. http://www.parks.wa.gov/

36