HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1980-10405
7.
tI' .I~
RESOLUTION NO. 10405
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING PRIORITY PLAN FOR EXPENDITURES UNDER
THE PROVISION OF THE CALIFORNIA PARKLANDS ACT OF 1980
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the California Parklands Act of 1980 requires
that each county shall consult with all cities and districts
within the county which are eligible to receive grant funds under
provisions of Section 5096.156 of the Act and develop and submit
to the State for approval a priority plan for expenditure of the
county's allocation, and
WHEREAS, said priority plan shall reflect consideration
of deficiencies within the county in the preservation of histor-
ical resources and natural landscapes as well as in the provision
of recreational areas and facilities, and
WHEREAS, said priority plan shall also reflect regional
park or open-space needs as well as community and neighborhood
park and recreation needs in any county in which a regional park
or open-space district is wholly or partially located, and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista was consulted and aided
in the preparation of a priority plan for expenditure of the
county's allocation which reflects the deficiencies and needs
required by the Program and includes expenditures by eligible
cities and districts, said priority plan being attached hereto and
marked as Exhibit "A".
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the priority plan for
the expenditure of the county's allocation of funds under the
California Park lands Act of 1980.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk of the City
of Chula Vista be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to
forward a certified copy of this resolution to the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
~ti;;~C>
of Parks and Recreation
~
George D. Lindberg,
ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHUl.A VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 26th day of February
I~ 1 ,by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NAYES:
ABSTAIN:
councilmen
Scott. Gi11ow. HYo~
None
rcn( Mr.I.::Jnrll ~ c.:c:
,
Councilmen
Councilmen
Councilmen
None
None
6J~~{~
Mayor of the City of Chulo Vista
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) 55.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMt, CITY CLERK of the City of Chula Vista, California,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of
RESOLUTION NO. 10405
,and that the some has not been amended or repealed.
DATED
City Clerk
( seal)
CC-660
I OclO J)'
Percent of Based on Allocation % of Tota.l
Jurisdiction Population Base Population Total Allocation
Carlsbad 1.88 $75,000 $ 86,752 $ 161,752 2.52
Chula Vista 4.53 75,000 209,035 284,035 4.42
Coronado 0..98 75,000 54,222 120,222 1.87
Del Mar 0.28 75,000 25,000 100,000 1. 55
El Cajon 3.96 75,000 182,732 257,732 4.01
Escondido 3.51 75,000 161,967 236,967 3.69
Imperial Beach 1.21 75,000 55,835 130,835 2.03
La Mesa 2.71 75,000 125,052 200,052 3.11
Lemon Grove 1.13 75,000 52,143 127,143 1. 98
National City 2.57 75,00.0. 118,591 193,591 3.01
o.ceanside 4.16 75,0.0.0. 191,961 266,961 4.16
Poway 1.82 75,0.00. 83,983 158,983 2.47
San Diego 46.84 75,0.0.0. 2 , 1 61 ,40.8 2,236,408 34.86
San Marcos 0..92 75,0.0.0. 42,453 117,453 1.83
Santee 2.29 75,0.0.0. 10.5,671 180.,671 2.81
Vista 1. 94 75,0.0.0. 89,520. 164,520. 2.56
Subtota 1 Cities 80..73 1,20.0.,0.0.0. 3,737,325 4,937,325 77 .15
Uni ncorporated 19.27 75,000. 952,125 1 ,027,125 16.01
TOTAL 100.00 1,275,00.0 4,689,450 5,964,450 93.16
Helix Water District 75,000. 75,0.00 1.16
o.ceanside Harbor District 75,00.0 75,000 1.16
Padre Dam MWD 75,00.0. 75,000 1.16
Ramona MWD 75,00.D 75,000 1.16
San Diego Port District
Valley Center CSD 75,000. 75,000 1.16
Lake Cuyamaca Rec. & Pk.District 75,00.0.. 75,0.00. 1.16
Total District 450,000. 450,0.00 6.96
GRAND TOTAL 1,725,000 6,414,450 10.0..00 .
!6L{Gv)
-=#- 7
PETE WILSON
MAYOR
February 20, 1981
Dear Chairmen and Members, County Board of Supervisors; Mayors and
District Administrators of EI igible Jurisdictions in San Diego County:
Re: The Cal ifornia Parklands Act of 1980, Proposition 1
On Tuesday, February 17, 1931, the Ciiy Council of the City of San
Diego passed the attached resolution, unanimously, and expressed in
various individual ways its displeasure and consternation over the
Priority Plan for Expenditure proposed by the County Board of Super-
visors relative to local Entitlement funds due the area from the
Cal ifornia Parklands Act of 1980, Proposition 1.
The City Council, in taking this action, basically opposes any plan
which attempts to enrich other local agencies, beyond their fair
population ratio, at the expense of the City of San Diego.
The City Council was considerably disturbed at any plan which ignores
the disproportionate park and recreation burden, in terms of regional
parks, borne by the City of San Diego but enjoyed by everyone in the
region. Not only does the proposed plan ignore the burden, it proceeds
to exacerbate it by reducing the City's fair population ratio share by
nearly $800,000 in order to increase the amounts allocated to other
agencies b~~nd their fair population share.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
~~-
PETE vllLSON
.
~
A ttachmen t
cc: City Council
;(_10"/ tN.-
CITY ADMIN ISTRATlON BUI LDING, 202 C STREET, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 (714) 236-6330
..
R-81-1481
RESOLUTION NO. R- 253642
FE8 1 7 1981
WHEREAS, the people of the State of California approved
Proposition 1, the California parklands Act of 1980, at the
November 4, 1980 general election by a considerable margin;
and
WHEREAS, Proposition 1 approved $285 million in state
general obligation bonds for park and recreation purposes
including $85 million for city, county and district parks to
be distributed to counties on a population basis; and
WHEREAS, the Bond Act requires that each county shall
consult with cities and districts within the county and shall
submit a priority Plan for Expenditure of total county funding
to the state for approval; and
WHEREAS, said Priority Plan for Expenditure may include
a list of projects for each jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, said Priority Plan for Expenditure shall be
approved by at least half of the eligible jurisdictions in
the county, representing half or more of its population and
by the Board of Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, the emphasis on distribution of funds under
the Act is on the basis of population; and
WHEREAS, urban emphasis is a major policy of the Cali-
fornia Department of Parks and Recreation administrators of
the Bond Act; and
(CJt{O Ij-
;;
WHEREAS, The City of San Diego provides more local,
regional and beach park and recreational amenities and
facilities, enjoyed by all County residents, than any other
agency in San Diego County without fiscal support from any
other area agency; and
WHEREAS, of the amount of $6.4 million available to the
County area, approximately $3.0 million would be the population
basis for the City of San Diego; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding these facts, the County Board of
Supervisors, at their meeting of February 10, 1981, took
unilateral action to endorse a plan which would result in
approximately $2.2 million being allocated to The City of San
Diego, a loss of approximately $800,000; and
WHEREAS, this plan was submitted to the local jurisdic-
tion committee organized by the County to approve a priority
distribution plan, without prior discussion with The City of
San Diego, and passed upon despite The City of San Diego's
objection; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of The City of San Diego,
that the City Council of The City of San Diego register their
strong protest to the County Board of Supervisors for failing
to recognize where the largest burden of operating and main-
taining local and regional recreational facilities rests
and for failing, at a minimum, to assure The City of San
Diego's fair share under population guidelines.
-2-
(6c{ 0 ~
./
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of The
City of San Diego strongly urges the County Board of Super-
visors to reconsider their action, to correct the inherent
inequity, and that they endorse, at a minimum, that share
due The City of San Diego on the basis of population, re-
cognizing that, by any standards, even this minimum fails to
address the many regional facilities enjoyed by all County
residents that are operated and maintained by the City without
assistance.
APPROVED: JOHN W. WITT, City Attorney
By
~-*.~
Stuart H. Swett
Chief Deputy City Attorney
SHS:rc:263
2/12/81
Or. Dept.: Park & Recreation Dept.
-3-
! Cf-[ 00)-
,"
"
Possed and adopted by the Council oE The City oE Son Diego on
February 17, 1981
by the following votes:,
YEAS:
Cleator, Golding, Williams, Schnaubelt, Cotch
Murphy, Killea, Wilson.
NAYS: None.
NOT PRESENT: Hitchell.
AUTHENTICATED BY:
PETE HILSON
Hayor of The City of San Diego, CaliEornia
CHi\RLES G. ABDELNOUR
City Clerk of The City of San Diego, CaliEornia
(SEAL)
By
BARBARA BERRIDGE
Deputy
1 HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full, true and
R - ?S~h4Z
passed and adopted
correct copy of RESOLUTION NO.
by the Council of The City of San Diego, California, on
2-17-8]
CHARLES G. ABDELNOUR
City Clerk QE T118 City of S3n Diego, California
(SEAL)
By
(Rev. 5/79)
bb
20401{
Percent of Based on Allocation % of Total
Jurisdiction Population ~ Population Total Allocation
Carlsbad 1.88 $75,000 $ 86,752 $ 161,752 2.52
Chula Vista 4.53 75,000 209,035 284,035 4.42
Coronado 0.98 75,000 54,222 120,222 1.87
De 1 Ma r 0.28 75,000 25,000 100,000 1. 55
El Cajon 3.96 75,000 182,732 257,732 4.01
Escondido 3.51 75,000 -- 161,967 236,967 3.69
Imperial Beach 1.21 75,000 55,835 130,835 2.03
La Mesa 2.71 75,000 125,052 200,052 3.11
Lemon Grove 1.13. 75,000 52,143 127,143 1.98
National City 2.57 75,000 118,591 193,591 3.01
Oceanside 4.16 75,000 191,961 266,961 4.16
Poway 1.82 75,000 83,983 158,983 2.47
San Diego 46.84 75,000 2,161,408 2,236,408 34.86
San Marcos 0.92 75,000 42,453 117,453 1.83
Santee 2.29. 75,000 105,671 180,671 2.81
Vis ta 1. 94 75,000 89,520 164,520 2.56
Subtotal Cities 80.73 1,200,000 3,737,325 4,937,325 77 .15
Uni ncorpora ted 19.27 75,000. 952,125 1,027,125 16.01
TOTAL 100.00 1,275,000 4,689,450 5,964,450 93.16
Helix Water District 75,000 75,000 1.16
Oceanside Harbor District 75,000 . 75,000 1.16
Padre Dam MWD 75,000. 75,000 1.16
Ramona MHD 75,00n 75,000 1.16
San Di ego Port Di's tri ct
Valley Center CSD 75,000 75,000 1.16
Lake Cuyamaca Rec, & Pk.District 75,000 75,000 1.16
Total District 450,000 450,000 6.96
GRAND TOTAL 1,725,000 6,414,450 100.00 '
..
..
let{ CJI?'
_.~