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

ii

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

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. I talked and complained about this project incessantly, and I truly appreciate your guys patience and understanding. Professor Graves Thank you for allowing me to bug you about my constantly changing 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 a desk 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 occasions and somehow you all still remain my friends today.

iv

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-Private Partnerships...............................................................28 3.2 Public-Private partnerships and the U.S. Forest Service.......................................29 3.3 Difficulties to Implementation...............................................................................31 4.0 Conclusion...................................................................................................................33

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

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

2 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 Funding Issues. (1).

3 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 and Recreation Selects Parks for Closure

5 6

Department of Parks and Recreation. California State Parks Quick Facts. (1). California Secretary of State. Proposition 21 State Park Funding & Vehicle Surcharge.

Criteria for Evaluating Each Park

closing.

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

Significant and costly infrastructure deficiencies.

Based on the criteria mentioned above, the

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

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.7 While 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, and Partners Give 69 of 70 Threatened Parks a Reprieve.

5 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

Department of Parks and Recreation. About Us.

6 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.9 In 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).

7 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.12 As 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 12

Engbeck. State Parks of California, 29. Engbeck. State Parks of California, 29. 13 Building Californias State Parks, accessed May 25, 2012, http://www.tikitoki.com/timeline/embed/28258/9811588144/.

8 organizational structure. One such issue was that: As a whole, the state parks and historical monuments were inadequately funded and inadequately administered by a steadily increasing number of uncoordinated and unrelated boards, commissions, and state agencies. There was no fundamental policy or statewide plan for acquisition or administration of 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 15

Engbeck. State Parks of California, 47. Engbeck. State Parks of California, 52.

9 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 California State Park Commission. (California, 1929), 15. 17 Engbeck. State Parks of California, 54. 18 Engbeck. State Parks of California, 95.

10 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.19 In 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 20 21

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

11 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.24 As 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 23 24 25 26

Engbeck. Engbeck. Engbeck. Engbeck. Engbeck.

State State State State State

Parks Parks Parks Parks Parks

of of of of of

California, California, California, California, California,

105. 107. 112. 113. 113.

12 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 28

Engbeck. State Parks of California, 118. Engbeck. State Parks of California, 119.

13 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 whether people, and the kind of practical idealism that created the park system in the first place, can form new alliances and create new governmental mechanisms that 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.

14

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.

15 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.

(Source: California State Analysts Office)

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 California Park System.

16 While there are inherent tradeoffs associated with each option, the Legislature will want to consider those that will (1) minimize the impact on visitor experience and access, (2) provide a longterm funding source for the parks, (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.33 In 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 California Park System. 33 Department of Parks and Recreation. California State Parks Quick Facts. (1).

17

(Source: California State Analysts Office)

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 from closing a given number of state parks. This is because the department is unable to provide information on the cost of operating an individual park. Moreover, there are some costs associated with closing a park, such as the cost of packing up artifacts and shipping them to DPR's central administration office for storage.34 While the closure of certain state parks may appear to help alleviate the shortterm 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
34

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

18 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
35

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

19 reduced its budget by $175,000 as well as reduced its workforce by 3.5 full-time employees.36 If 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 Commission Transfers Wenberg State Park to Snohomish County Parks, 2009. 37 Legislative Analyst's Office. The 2012-13 Budget: Strategies to Maintain California Park System.

20 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:

(Source: California State Analysts Office)

According to the Legislative Analysts Office, roughly 40 percent of funding provided to California State Parks is spent on maintaining park facilities. Maintenance
38

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

21 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 California Park System. 40 Department of Parks and Recreation. State Park Peace Officer and Cadet Minimum Requirements, 2012.

22 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.
(Source: California State Analysts Office)

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 nonpeace 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

23

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. Publicprivate 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 Guide for Local Government. (5).

24 relationships.43 By 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 the PublicPrivate 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 Guide for Local Government. (5). 44 Klaus Felsinger. Public-Private Partnership Handbook. (1). 45 Klaus Felsinger. Public-Private Partnership Handbook. (1).

25 welcoming to visitors because more park visitors mean more potential revenue. As explained in Public-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.46 This 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 Guide for Local Government. (12) 47 Recreation Resource Management. How Is Your Recreation Fee Used. http://camprrm.com/how-is-your-recreation-fee-used/.

26

(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

27 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 in Innovative 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 Guide for Local Government. (12). 49 Thomas Cellucci. Innovative Public-Private Partnerships: Pathway to Effectively Solving Problems. (11).

28

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 20102011http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/22374/files/annual_report_2010-2011.pdf, 3.

29

(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.

30

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).53 The 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 Recreation Partnerships: Institutional and Relational Interactions, 5. 53 Seekamp and Cerveny. Examining USDA Forest Service Recreation Partnerships, 5.

31 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.

32 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.55 The 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 nonprofits, 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 Guide for Local Government, 15-17.

33 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.

34 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.tikitoki.com/timeline/embed/28258/9811588144/ California Outdoor Recreation Plan 1993: An Element of the California Outdoor Recreation Planning Program. Sacramento, California. 1994. California Secretary of State. Proposition 21: State Park Funding & Vehicle License Surcharge, 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: California State 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

35 %205-4-12.pdf Department of Parks and Recreation. Concessions Annual Report: Fiscal Year 20102011. 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, and Partners 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 Minimum Requirements, 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. Asian Development 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." The California Parks Company. http://www.calparksco.com/Documents/state_parks_closures.pdf (accessed Mar 15, 2012). Legislative Analyst's Office. Department of Parks and Recreation: Current Funding Issues, 2012. Sacramento, California: Legislative Analyst's Office, 2012. http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/resources/2012/DPR_Current_Funding_Issues_0 8_09_12.pdf Legislative Analyst's Office. The 2012-13 Budget: Strategies to Maintain California Park 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 Guide for Local Government. Victoria, British Columbia: Canadian Cataloguing, 1999. http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/policy_research/library/public_private_partnership s.pdf (accessed Jul 28, 2012). 1999.

36 National Parks System. Yosemite Land Grant Act, 1864. Washington, D.C., National Park System, 1864. Olmsted, Frederick Law. California State Park Survey: Prepared for the California State Park 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 Southern California, April 19, 1966. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/742041/posts. Seekamp, Erin and Cerveny, Lee. Examining USDA Forest Service Recreation Partnerships:Institutional and Relational Interactions. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. Volume 28, Number 4. Winter 2010. 1-20. Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. State Parks Commission Transfers Wenberg State Park to Snohomish County Parks, 2009. Olympia, Washington: Washington State Parks Commission, 2009. http://www.parks.wa.gov/