Legislative Analyst's Office Analysis of the 2001-02 Budget Bill

Department of Parks and Recreation (3790)

The budget proposes $63 million for capital outlay for the Department of Parks and Recreation. This amount includes $11 million from the General Fund; $43 million from the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000; $65,000 from the California Wildlife, Coast and Parkland Conservation Fund of 1988; $4.7 million from the Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Trust Fund; $2.5 million from the Habitat Conservation Fund; $183,000 from the Environmental License Plate Fund; and $1.5 million in federal funds.

The budget also proposes $300 million in local assistance, which includes $270 million from the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000; $15 million from the OHV Trust Fund; $2 million from the Habitat Conservation Fund; $4 million from the Recreational Trails Fund; and $9 million from federal funds.

Projects Without Completed Preliminary Plans

We recommend deletion of $17.6 million for eight projects because preliminary plans are not complete. (Delete $2 million from Item
3790-301-0001 [2], delete $601,000 from Item 3790-301-0001 [3], delete $1.1 million from Item 3790-301-0005 [2], delete $2.7 million from Item 3790-301-0005 [10], delete $2.2 million from Item 3790-301-0005 [11], delete $1.7 million from Item 3790-301-0005 [16], delete $803,000 from Item
3790-301-0005 [20], and delete $6.4 million from Item 3790-301-0005 [24]).

Preliminary plans for the eight projects shown in Figure 1 (next page) are not scheduled to be completed until June 2000 at the earliest. We do not recommend the Legislature approve funds for working drawings and construction of projects until preliminary plans are available. These plans permit the Legislature to verify that projects are within scope and budget.

If preliminary plans and an updated cost estimate can be provided during budget hearings, these projects may warrant legislative consideration.

Most of Recent OHV Grants Have Gone to Federal Government

We recommend the department report at budget hearings on why such a large percentage of local assistance funds are being awarded to the federal government rather than local agencies.

Current law provides for the department to administer local assistance grants, as approved by the (OHV) Recreation Commission, ". . . to cities, counties, and appropriate districts . . ." for development and operation of facilities for the use of OHVs. The code further provides that any amounts appropriated for this purpose, but not allocated by the commission to local public agencies, shall be available to the department for cooperative agreements with federal agencies.

The 1999-00 Budget Act appropriated $16.6 million for local assistance grants for OHV recreation facilities, $15.8 million (95 percent) of which was allocated by the department, with the approval of the commission, to the federal government for facilities on federal land. Of this amount, $8 million was for operations and maintenance and $7.8 million was for capital outlay. A total of $744,000 was granted to local agencies.

The 2000-01 Budget Act similarly appropriated $13.5 million for local assistance for OHV facilities. The department reports that the commission has approved grants of $10.1 million to date from this appropriation, $7.9 million of which (78 percent) has been approved for allocation to federal agencies (such as the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service). Almost all of the amount allocated to the federal government is for operation and maintenance expenses. The department has also recommended to the commission that the remaining unallocated monies ($3.4 million) all go to grants to federal agencies.

We are concerned that the department and the commission are allocating such a high percentage of funds to the federal government, particularly for operation and maintenance. It is not clear to us that it was the intent of the Legislature that such a high percentage of these state funds be used to subsidize the federal government. We recommend the department report at budget hearings on why such a large percentage of local assistance funds are being awarded to the federal government rather than local agencies. If local agencies do not have sufficient need, we recommend the amount appropriated for this purpose be reduced.

Statewide Proposals Lack Necessary Information

We recommend deletion of $19.3 million in bond funds for three statewide proposals for opportunity purchases, redwood acquisition, and habitat acquisition because there is no information about how the department is spending funds appropriated in the current year for the same programs, and there is no information about what properties would be acquired with funds proposed in the budget year. (Delete $5 million from Item 3790-301-0005 [27], delete $4.3 million from Item 3790-301-0005 [28], and delete $10 million from Item 3790-301-0005 [29]).

The budget proposes a total of $19.3 million from the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Fund (Proposition 13) for property acquisition. This amount includes $5 million for statewide opportunity purchases, $4.3 million for statewide redwood acquisition, and $10 million for habitat acquisition. We are concerned with these proposals for two reasons.

First, the Legislature has no information about how the department has spent or intends to spend $20 million appropriated for the same programs—$5 million for opportunity purchases, $5 million for redwood acquisition, and $10 million for habitat acquisition—by the 2000-01 Budget Act. Without this information the Legislature does not know if the department's expenditure of funds from this earlier appropriation is in accordance with legislative intent and if there is a need for additional funds at this time.

Second, the Legislature has no information about how the department plans to spend the funds proposed for 2001-02. No information has been provided about which properties would be purchased other than the generic descriptions of redwood and habitat acquisition. When making funding decisions, we recommend the Legislature have information about the location of properties proposed for acquisition and an explanation of how those properties further the objectives of the program under which funding would be provided. Given the lack of this information, we recommend the Legislature delete the requested $19.3 million.

No Preliminary Plans for Three Projects

We withhold recommendation on $8.4 million for working drawings and/or construction for three projects because preliminary plans have not been prepared. (Delete $1.1 million from Item 3790-301-0005 [6], delete $850,000 from Item 3790-301-0005 [12], and delete $6.4 million from Item 3790-301-0005 [24]).

The budget proposes $1.1 million for working drawings and construction for Olompali State Historic Park, Rehabilitation of Frame House; $850,000 for construction for Morro Bay State Park, Natural History Museum Exhibit Rehabilitation; and $6.4 million for construction for Border Field State Park, Sediment Basins and Road Realignment.

It is not clear how preliminary plans and working drawings for these projects were financed because the projects have not been previously approved by the Legislature. Furthermore, the administration apparently has not reviewed these projects because it has proposed budget bill language (provisions 3 and 4 under Item 3790-301-0005) specifying that the State Public Works Board must approve the preliminary plans and working drawing before the requested funds can be spent. The Legislature also should have this information before approving working drawings or construction funds for these projects. We are particularly concerned about the proposal to provide $6.4 million for construction of the Border Field State Park project without any engineering studies or plans having been provided to verify the project's feasibility and provide a basis for the funding requested.

Accordingly, we withhold recommendation on these projects pending receipt of information that defines the scope of the projects and provides a basis for verifying the need and cost.