HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-08-07; City Council; 5940; PROPOSED COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATION, SOUTH SIDE OLIVENHAIN ROAD.. F 0 a
L
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Initial
..
L
AGENDA BILL NO: L yfo Dept. Hd.
August 7, 1979 Cty. Atty
DATE :
Cty. Mgr. DEPARTI4EXT : P1-7
..
.. - SUBJECT:
PROPOSED COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATION,
S/S OLIVENHAIN ROAD -
Statement of the Matter
In the current General Plan Amendment process of the County for the
Dieguito area (GPA 79-01), a group of property owners on the South s
of Olivenhain Road,got together and requested a "Limited Impact Indu
designation for their property,* The area involved is shown on.the a
exhibit, labeled 7B, 23A2, and 24B. County staff has recommended tk.
7B- Be designated as "Impact Sensitive" (Floodplain) and areas 24A2 E
be designated as "Urban Residentid1 #4" (2.0 du' s/acre) .
.The County Planning Commission has concurred with staff's recommend:
The San Dieguito Citizens Planning Group has also recommended agair!
industrial designation. The Rancho Ponderosa Homeowners Associati01
requested assistance in opposing the industrial designation at the 1
. of Supervisor's hearing to be held on August 9, 1979. Although-the
property is outside of the City's Sphere of Influence, industrial d . ment could have;an adverse impact within the City due to traffic, n
Exh2b i t s.
Exhibit showing location of property
Letter to Mayor Packard, dated July 11, 1979
' - RECOMMENDAT*ION
If 'the Counc'il concurs, direct staff to.prepare a letter for the Mz signature opposing the industrial'designation.
Counci 1 Acti on:
8-7-79 Council directed staff. to prepare a letter for the Mayor signature Opposing the industrial designation.
,I
.a .. ~
*
.#
I_ .? e a
,
I.
..
- -- - __ -
+.-t 0
Ti~;ich~ Pcxferosa ticrneowfiers Association
a,
.. - . . .. . .. . : . .. ,. . ..
Piz-yor Rcnald Packard
c/a Ci~y >Imager Pad- Bussey
1200 Elm Street
Carlsbad, Ca, 92C08
~:p,fe~~~~e; (i) ~znc%o ~cndnrsoa KOA kttar
-. .
@ e G
July 31, 1979
BORDER TASK FORCE
16 vacancies
Supervisor Hamilton - 3 nomin
Supervisor Moore - 3 nomin Supervisor Hedgecock - 3 nomin
Supervisor Bates - 3 nomin
Supervisor Eckert - 3 nomin SW Regional Border Commission
Must have the time necessary fc
tive service on a committee th
focus on the complex problems ( U.S./Mexico Border and advise of Supervisors on legal entry 4 a1 workers from Mexico, expand of Mexican Nationals who are a
seek legal residency in the Un
and improve trade and economic with Mexico.
No appointment will be made be
rn August 14, 1979.
m
FOR ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS OR INFORMATION, contact the Citizc
cipation Coordinator, 236-3234.
Date Supervisorial Dis
NLI
Home Address City Z iP
z iP Business Address city
Phone: Office Home
County Citizen Committees meet at times mutually satisfactory to the members.
are more common than evening meetings.
r
Will you be able to schedule your time i
What are your principal areas of interest in our County government?
List all County boards9 commissions or committees of which you are a current me COMMITTEE NAME DATE APPOINTED
On August 8, 1978, the County Board of Supervisors directed that the selection
committee appointees adhere to provisions of the Consent Decree with the federz
ment, if no legal restrahts exist. In compliance with this directive, please
following information: - AGE GENDER ETHNIC BACKGROUND
15 - 25 Female Caucasian Asian/Pilipint
26 - 50 Male Latino her, Indian
Over 50 Black Other
(Please complete reverse side.)
1
~~
What experience or special kwedge can you bring to your -1 of interest?
List past County appointments with dates served, and any other past or present community
or public service appointments.
Community organizations to which you belong:
Your current employer
Your title
Statement of Occupational Experience:
Signature
Please return completed form to:
Citizen Participation Coordinator
1600 Pacific Highway, Room 209,
San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: (714) 236-3234
* NOTE: NO APPOINTMENT WILL BE MADE BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WITHOUT A
CURRENT APPLICATION ON FILE WITH THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION OFFICE.
This application will remain in the Citizen Participation Resource File until 6/1/80.
/ 0 aD
HEALTH ti SOCIAL SERVICES ADVISORY
Supervisor Hamilton
(District 1)
- Must be a resident of San Diego C
Will not be made before August 1:
m unless an emergency exists. Per2 appointed to fill such a vacancy
only serve on an acting basis unt Term expires: 1/5/61 nal appointment can be made on tl
given above.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION concerning this vacancy, contact thc
nating Authority or Citizen Participation Coordinator, 236-323,
Room 375, County Administration Center, 1600 Pacific Hwy., S.D
L
e 8
’ OVERALL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRA
COMMITTEE
San Diego Clearinghouse Association
m Must represent the Financial Commun
Will not be made before August 1, 1 unless an emergency exists. Person
m appointed to fill such a vacancy shl
(I only serve on an acting basis, unti final appointment can be made on thl
Term; indefinite given above.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION concerning this vacancy, contact the Nominating Authority or Citizen Participation Coordinator, 236-
or Room 375, County Administration Center, 1600 Pacific Highway
San Diego, CA 92101.
* *
a July 18, 1979
PUBLIC WELFARE ADVISORY BOARD
Supervisor Moore
(District 2)
Must be a resident of the Count
0 Will not be made before August
m unless an emergency exists. PI
appointed to fill such a vacant
Term expires: 1-5-81 only serve on an acting basis 1 final appointment can be made 1 date given above.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION concerning this vacancy, contact th Authority or Citizen Participation Coordinator, 236-3234, or R
County Administration Center, 1600 Pacific Highway, San Diego,
i*
/
f
RCXC~O Ponderosa tiorneowners Association f
4 I
0
I
c:s AE.q - 5u:a :a - 127 YO<'
B
i
July 11, 1979
'- .i I 1200 Elm Screet i 1
Referwee; (3) ~ancho Pcncinrsoa EO4 letter i
Mzyor Rcnald Packard
C/O City Manager Pad ~ussey
Carlsbad, Ca, 92005
! i I
Enclosure: Resideat letters ccncerning item No f. belox. '
Dear Ykyor:
Tnis letter from residents of the CiCy of Carlsbad requests yc7.z zssistance
mtters which the County of Szn Clego 2iitezds to act OR.
Item, No, 1:
~n reference (a) , the ~acho ?OTI~CXOSZ ~oineowners Association GW providec
-j_f,dicatir,g that the CoGty KZS considering cFanges i?. the Land t'se Desip-zt; -.
tZle z~ea hc;i;t&cijcst Sou25 of Oliv2nhah Red, Residsnts of 25e City IPJLz;
horces just North of 922veAaiz Xoad are concerned abocz the proposal to chz:
fzcn ZesidentizL to lizited Xnpact Icdustrial, The CoEaty Plamz~-g CCEZ&SS-
unaiccmsly a-;aCiat the ~rxzstrlal park which would ein+loy4,000to 6,OCO ?e
issue still mzst go h,zt'i;re t3e Soard of Superrisms (August 9th).
Iten 30- 2:
Tao, Co~z~y fs also cmsiclz-rring plans to build a major hlgkway from 1-15 2r~
'to X-5 7511 Leucadia, The Cc:&ty Fntends to placz the highway (SA 680) on i? pz
.S?.<C.. 2 .T.&?;e 7, 1979
-.
-
eitke- io<zi in?~ C3Li*;n:i--Lz.i? F.226 or: yC:Q-?_ 1f~7~ pErall.el.. t:o the 20zd ~<itf;jn t - -- ~
3 akc,?p, ---I j.fiiS I 'iss'cl. . 5s SC~-Z~Ci~~ fcr p,;jpc ;;e:2-yj7-Lg .>@Grz t5.e Co.&-::g T1zjpLi
AI2g:LsC 8th,
Each of tha .. proposa& will kz:;~ a negative hpact on residents of f;he Cit:
of the H3Awould like to brief officials of the City oil these issues to ga:
SJe request your assistaiici L-, szhedul~Lng the appropriate 5earing for each :
above.
/. Respectfully, -
c_ - . ._ />' ( :<>.' ; : ;..- ,L-(
L
D. V. Srust
? z e s f 2 e=<, R212 CF:3 p Or- de XG S E?L T'_" .I,
Zrenarcd by:. S,R, xissick, j~.Tect~r, ~acho ??oderosa HO~
Ice: Supervj-scr Paul Eckere, ~rz2k szezz, Lisa S=<erson, Ron 'rfa~
' 4-3
BOAR
TO
Lt
RC
JIh
.- 1 id a ' L,c 0 e
CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERV1SOR-C e IECC PACIFIC . P ROGM3X
SAN DIEGO, CFrLiFORKlA 9210: @ '7 236-232' PO -
CHlE MRS. PORTER 3. CkEMANS ADMl
CL CLERK OF THE
BQARD OF SUPERVISORS
,u
i / /@ A!-,
T I--
/ ! I i
July 23, 1979
I rq-y L: e , \;<;
qt ( \ Paul D. Bussey, // City I'lanager
Ciry of Cstrlsbad
1209 Elrn Aveniie
//' Carlsbad, CA 92008 /'
/ // Dear Mr. Bussey: ,
Thaizk you for your leteer,concerning review of the draft
ecvFromental ippact report for the proposed reclassifi-
cation of the road S,A7680 in the County's Circulation
Elexent of Sen Diego General Plan 1990.
Ths matter 2.s being referred to the Department of Plannil
and Land Use for response to you.
I 7 Yours very zr--rl >>
PORTER D, C: 3s
Clerk of t'rte Soard of Supervisors
nLC 7 Je;t,
Deputy By r pr ct 1 %3.J. 3 ' 1.
PDC:LP: ncf
Y ,. 0 e
MEMORANDUM
DATE : July 3, 1979
TO : Paul Bussey, City Manager
FROM:
SUBJECT : WASTEWATER RECLA-MATION -_ & c__ SMALL TREATMENT FACILITI
James C. Hagaman, Planning Directorj
Enclosed herewith please find a recently received
memo from Paul Zucker, Department of Planning and
Land Use, regarding a Board of Supervisor’s draft policy
on wastewater reclamation and small treatment facilities,
which you may find interesting.
JCH : ms
9 * '' COUNTY OF SA DIEGO
Integrated PZanning Office
County Administration Center, 1600 Pacific Highway, San Diego, California 92101 . 9 . Teleph PAUL C. ZUCKER
Assistant Chief
Administrative Officer
Integrated Planning ,
June 22, 1979
TO: Interested Persons and Organizations
FROM : Paul C. Zucker, Director
Department of Planning and Land Use
Graft Board of Superv i sors I Poi icy ui: Wastevra Lei Reclamation and Srcall Treatment Fdcilities SiiBJECT:
. Attached is the draft of the Wastewater Reclamation and Small Treatrriet Facilities policy which has been approved by the Board of Supervisors public review. On August 15, 1979, at 9:00 a.m., the Board will hold public hearing to consider amendment and adoption of the policy,
This notice is being provided so thzt you ~~11 be assured of an oppori ,to cc;mrrient on this important polScy, I WCL!~~ ljkz to receive your wr- comnients on the Policy one week prior to the hearing, or an indicatio you intend to speak to the Board of Supervisors. Copies have also be distributed to Special Districts, the development Sndus-try and real to Coin:iiunity Planning Groups and the Planning Comrnissiori 9 pub1 ic intzres groups and other ymernment agencies.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact Dave Nielsen or Paul
PAUL C. ZUCKE
PCZ:DCN:PR:ek
Attachment
Capital Facilities Planning . . . Environmental Planning . . . Land Use Planning . . . Transportation Plan
--_.__ __ -4,
WASTEWATER RECLAMATION AN
To establish a policy for location and operation of new waste
treatment and reclamation facilities.
The Areawide Water Quality Management Plan (208 Plan) assesse
and prioritized the development of facilities involved in the
and generation of reclaimed wastewater. Lnpart, due to capac
straints of existing subregional treatment plants, and in par
the irrcreasing demand to conserve water, the number of reques localized public sewage treatment and reclamation facilities
creasing. Such requests were not anticipated in the 208 Plar
existing County land use policy. Local treatment and reclame
have one or more of the following results:
1, It may yield no productive use of the reclaimed water
Special District.
It may impact the General Plan by:
a) 'inducing growth expectations for adjacent properties;
b) allowing a different character and density of develop1 anticipated in the Community or Subregional Plan;
c) altering the habitat of the environment receiving the
6) diminishing the opportunity for such urban levels of ( ment to be annexed by an adjacent city.
&) contributing to exclusive, high-cost housing which co housing goals;
f) inducing unanticipated levels of demand for services, police, roads, flood control and fire protection.
If adequate provisions for continued operation and maint
not provided, system failure may cause the County to hav
ultimate responsibility.
Economic viability of agricultural production may be enh
the use of reclaimed water.
3.
I I 1
4.
5.
6. Water for greenbelts, lagoons, streams and other recreat
may become avail able.
De2endency on iKA2orkeG wr*",r may be reduced. 7.
i
1
!P----- '.
-9 , %mty of San Diego, Cali ornia
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICY
WASTEWATER RECLAMATION AND SMALL TREATMENT FACILITIES --
8. Capacity expansion of coastal disposal plants may be avoi
ocean discharges reduced.
9. The modular (incrementally expandable) design of a reclam
facility may create long-term growth pressures within an
10. The high costs of the system may create exclusive develop
which could disbalance the racial composition of pupils w
school district.
11. Small plants could reduce the viability of larger propose plants by fragmenting the effluent generation sources and
areas for reclaimed water.
Policy
It is the policy of the Board of Supervisors to encourage the
mation of sewage and reuse of reclaimed water which will reduc
region's dependence on imported water. Development proposals
employ wastewater reclamation shall comply with the following
(This Policy does not affect individual septic systems.)
1. The character of any improvements proposed shall be consis
the County General Plan and other applicable land use obje
The water reclamation facility shall meet the standards of
County Zoning Ordinance and Major Use permit process.
2.
3. The facility's location and potential capacity should allc maximum use, consistent with this policy; particularly It€
4. The proposal shall include an adequate means whereby the c
and proper operation and maintenance of the facility can k reasonably assured. Operation and maintenance by homeowne
associations will not be acceptable, nor is it the intent
Policy to encourage activation of latent powers of special
or expand County sanitation districts for such purposes.
5. The system shall be certified by the Director of Sanitatic
Flood Control and the Health Department as an acceptable d
6. Security will be required to insure compliance with Count)
lations at project completion and during operation. (Zoni
Ordinance Section 7362.)
7. The facility will be compatible with and will not adverse1
adjacent land uses. (Zoning Ordinance Section 7358.)
'rhe czpp~L:c:,tnt c3n 1w-t t'.:e roqu ;rcm-nts of t~ie zecjionz 1 I.;?
Quality Control Board for the facility. i s B I
w
GXYP 21 vrw,z
0 7a
0 rtmrtrtD,
om? rtt-h- 5 IIwe
W g 0°F M 0 m JrF5 r. so
01 "W m. rt rr Y corn0
m z YrtOD, ? 85 o
q 85 ti 0
QOZ
7 . (I m
m rto. Ea 0 PJ II
m m OIOOO P mvr V5rtrrrt 0 G
r(
(3 .177:Yn a a IQ QQQ 3 Pi
0)
ort Q n c ti ztrz-- Y I-.
r. w, < Y Y P.
mr
Ye
a ma
co 0 A<< r rt
m m y. m P. P. P. 5. ",p
g ", ; ", ", 0: $ ;;" 2
2. E, zm tr
c L!IDP$S 8 rg z 21
rt Y .. Y Y 1-
rt)r
Loo
wr WP rtn, ls a
::
ft
0 rn .ttOGO (Do
W0CD-Y o3m 0 l-0 0 pt a0 7 . 3lOO 9-4- . rr'4 FU 3.
c)o tt 10 UUq cl P. PJ ti t+
n LnrtornF on orlldwm
PP ir d J Z?L!$Vrrt-' 5H
\DYrTtIOr(If e
.Ma WwmocJ~ rn 01 $:E;. rt cf 3 0 'u (f W z 9 TIOIQPJWX srnm ~mm~u1 0. wm Qt-h
t-' W rt .fOPvF r 0 CDOON.! tl artowrn w P. :s >I :r ID J . 0
not1 0 OTO
,A. 0 P. io a 3 u 0 c. N r, m (5 Dl 0 m c: (Dm Lo ri rlu ,n vi a 2 P. o v) 7 0 WcsF0C.L 0 rt <t :I mV o 0 ro m d u Y ,t CLnTJmw wow 0
a r. 13 m Y l-.. F VYC 0-0 h, m F(D vo .
014 D-
LC PJrr- m 0 0 0 CLm OD F os a oeP.lIlh t-h
93 0 Ph
4 s n 5 ,m 0lniDom
wwmw:.% c P W 4 \D d (E n
v)
0 2r
Wa” ,8 i5
20 $ !2%
O<$m
:E:P
:?go
BiE:
YzOm a 2: 5
A;
DO
mi=x
-OD<m
E2 n
za -n -Do
mog-0
n-wO
zw
am
o+n e, p3 p. Y bc p QY
em0 G?
$E“
y 3s
I ?P g
n=4 Y *rD r 3m C@
0 0 a,
TOM I
LUCII
ROGE
& w FI
SE
TI-
e
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS . 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY JIM B
SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92101 * (714) 236-3800 PAEL
FI -
BEN G. CLAY
DIRECTOR
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFF41RS
January 8, 1979
Paul 0. Busscty City Manager City of Carlsbad
120.3 Elm Ave . Carlsbad, CA 92008
At the City Hanagers meeting held December 5, questions were asked concerning the Board of Supervisors' policy on Proposition 13 re- lief.
For your files I an sending you a copy of the policy as adopted,
together with zxplanatory material from the County Office of Man- agement and Budget.
If you need further information, please call me at 236-3800. *;J\
THOXAS R. PARKS Execu ti ve Assi s tant
TRP : wl
Attachment
5. The requirement that counties proviae a 10% match for cost
mental healtn, alcohol, and drug abuse programs was waived
1978-79 only.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICY
Po icy Number . Subject
PROPOSITION 13 RIXIEF
6. Under SB 154, $125 million Statewide was allocated to Boar Supervisors for distribution to Special Districts, accorai
guidelines which favored pGlice and fire districts, an2 di
heavily reliant on property taxes without alternative sour revenue. Districts with large "general fund reserves" wer
I 5, Support a permanent rebate of an additional portion of sa:
to counties, in lieu of State revenue sharing, on the bas population.
Subject
PROPOSITION 13 RELIEF
Policy , - Number
-
0 0
C:QUWIT 0x7 SAN XIXECO
IrdTER-DEPARrMEN'iAL CORYESPONDENCE
November 2.8, 1978
TO : Board of Supervisors
, FROM: Elmer Keshkci
Office of Plcrtnagenent and i3a;dget
STATE LEG1SL-TF.c PC)I,IcY : POST 1E3psITIcx 13 S'ZATir". ASSX:ST
I
On June 24, 1975 Governor Brown signed into law Senate Rill
This legislatio!? provided assistance to local governments i coping with the efrects of Proposition 13, The State ailoc
$436 million to counties in revenue sharing and assumed cos
certain health and welfare programs {SSP, Medi-Cal, WDC, B
Food Stamps, and non--custodial parents) . Because SB154 tjil
in effect for only 1 yearp adbitional legislation krill have
be enacted during the upconing legislative session to alllow
the a3_1scsticr, cf the 1% property tax within each county, F tionally, leqislation is expected to be enacted to continut
State financial assistance.
I am anticipating numerous proposals from various governmer
agencies and intercs Led groups on how the State Legislaturc might best approach these issues, Xn order to assEre the C
interest is represented in the development of these proposz
it is my
.
RECOWWNDATION -- :
Establish legislative policy guidelimes which:
1- Oppose any conditions attached to any allocatic
Sta.te surplus funds which would lessen local dc
mak.ing prerogatives and control,
That your Board
., .r 8% 'I 0 0
2, Oppose any peaalties which would lower the Cot '" sharc, of State surplus funds. (e-y., penaltic
general fund rcservcs) -
Support a State bq--cjut of all State mandated
gr-arns on the following priority basis, using '
same formillas as provided for in 1378-79 unde;
a. Medi-Cal
b. Aid to Families with Dependent Childrer? c.. State Supplem2ntary Program
d., Boarding Hones and Institutions e#, Food Stamps
Additionally support State assistance in the
ing program areas -
a. Courts (adzitional mandated costs which 2
h. General Relief
S.Jpport: a permanent rebate of an additional- p
of sales tax to counties, in lieu of State re
sharing, on the basis of population.
3-
~C:UK~CX~ in the 1978-79 base year).
4.
5, Support allocation of Property tax rcvenccs i
t~ Local gcvernments in the same amounts ac, i
allocations; support allocation of additional tax revenue according to a forniula based or, r
such a:; population and clients, and equity fr
as assessed value; support County deterrainat2 formula, unless a Statewide formula is prop05
would be equitable and reasonable when applic
San Diego County.
Support legislation which would authorize her
charges for fire protection and lighting and
special districts.
Support increasing the allocatkn to the Cour
revenues derived from the collections of fin<
forfeitures-
6 -
7,
..
Discussion
Senate Bill 154 was enacted to provide for the implementa
changes in the State Consiitution nade by Proposition 13. in this legislation was finaricial assistance to local gove
along with certain restrictions on those governments acce
the State aid. Counties statewide received $436 million
from the State- Additionally, the State assumed certain w
costs includiilg:
Boarcl 0:. Scpervlsors - 3- IYUV$-flllUl=!~ La , ,
.I ,* 0. 0
1. Stat-e Supplementary Program $167,575,400
3. AFDC - Aid Benefits 257,002,000
4- BHI 32,304,000 5, Child Support Enforcement 24,450,000 6, MiX - Administration - 63,233,309 7. Food Stamp Administration 21,466,000
2 - Mecli-Ca L 41 8,000,000
Frovisions of SI3154 will only be in effect for Fiscal Year
The State is expected tu enact ac?dFtional legislation to a
local governments for the upcoming fiscal year and beyond-
lative policy areas impacting the COuTJty whicli will most, 1
discussed during the 1979 legislative session include:
1, Conditions _--__ attached to any allocation of State -_ -_I_ sur&
V~HLL~L woulii lessen local decision-:naking yreroqativcs __
control.
SB154 placed the following conditions oil the receipt (
surplus funds by local governments-
a. 'No local agency or school district receiving Statc
funds were allowed to provide its employees a cos
increase greater than that provi-ded for State ernp
the 1978-73 State Budget. (State employees did ni a cost of l2ving increase for 1978-73) - This con abrogcited agreements and memoranda of understand:
ated be tween local governments and thekr employee
b- Increases in SSI-SSP and AFDC grants E~~SG co-illd n
the State employees ' cost-of-living incxease, wiii
e, Cities and ccrunties were required to use tkelr 21
of State surplus funds first to ensure the saxe 1.
police, sheriff ar,d fire protection as was provid
78, Cost savings could be imFlenented if they di
I pair the level of protection provided,
- -1 : -L -- _I_x-
These conditions inhj-bit the ability of government to rei
to the needs of its citizens and employees, wh<.r,h may vai 3~cal.e to another- Accordingly, any conditions on Prop05
relief which would take decision-making authority away fi
level should be resisted,
Penalties vhich would lower the County's share -___ of St;
funds (e-g., penalties for general -- furid reserves),
SB154 and Si32212 required the distribution of State :
local governments to be reduced by one-third of the '
fund reserves" in excess Of 5% of its 1977-71 revenut
2- __--
I- DUaLU UL LIU~JC-L V L3VI LI -_
-'I .> *. * b e 0
"General. Fund R:?serve" is not a standard accounting term no
does it have a sin5le unambiguous meaning to a lay person.
There is reasonable disagreement as to whether it rncans one
or a combination, of the following:
a- Fund Ealance - The amount of appropriated but unspent a unencurbered funds carried over to finance the budget i
the following year,
8-
b-- Contingency Reserve - An amount appropriated for expend tures for which the timing or amount of expense has not heen specified,
c- Unappropriated Reserve - An amount held in reserve for
unspecified purpose.
d, Xcserve for Future Emergencies - An amount heid in rese
for wlforseen emergency expenditures -
e. General. Reserve - An amount held in reserve in lieu oE
anticipaticln notes to provide cash on hand during the a
spell" befctre the proceeds from taxes are available- :
fund can orLly he approprizted upon determination by t:h(
gcverning kody that an emergency requires its expenditi
The State Contr-oller has tentatively accepted our Auditor' :
pcsition that there should be no reduction in the County's
of State surplus funds,pending audit, However, it is stil:
clear how this general fund reserve penalty will finally bc
p1emen"Ld. Accordir.gly, the County should resist any chiin(
the State which would lower the Countyts share of state su
funds.
However, much of the confusion surrounding this penalty co'
be avoided if the penalty on all local governments were drl
completely. As stated above, any conditions upon the recc of State surpliis funds inhibit Sovermients' ability to res
to citizens' needs, which vary from one locale to another,
Financial prac::ices of local governments are under local c
trol, and generally reflect local needs. The term "genera
serve" is a good ex;tmple of a financial practice which has specific State of California meaning, yet is eIn2loyed by I
governments (specia:L districts, especially) in a variety c
Any penalty on .loca:L financial practices, no matter how we
fined, appears like:Ly to fail to treat each locale equitak
reasonably-
State buy-out of all State - mandated programs on a permaner 3.
Senate Bill 154, provided for the assumptions by the Statc
1978-79 only - of certain costs former1.y borne by counties- of these programs were SLate mandated.. The programs incl~
4
ixuveitwer ~6, 0 Board OZ Superv?~soxs -5- 0 . .. * ..
t, -
c a- State _1_- Supplenentary _._ Program (SSP), The Statepicke total. County share.
1978-79 1978-79 Projected I! County Cost County Cost 1979-80 Cost PI
- SB 154 - Assistance -
cc
SI
Prior to . After Passage without Passage of of SB 154 State
$9.4 m -0- $10.8m
b. Medi-C'al - - The State picked up the entire County :
$17. Irn -0- $19 . 7m
c, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) aic
The- State EXiTthF mandated : * mmrinistration.
$22. Im $813,377 $23- 3m
d. Board;-ny ___L___ Hornes and Institutions (BHT.). The State
af the non-Federal share of payments for foster c
. State dld not pay for any rate increases negotiat
say b:~trdTng .hone or institution subsequent 'io Ju
unless the increased payment was authorized by th Director of Social Services-
$5 . 31n $1. Om $5,5m $-
e. Food _____ !;tamp ______- Progrzm. The State paid the total cost
admin istration -
$349,400 -0- $349,400
X€ the State LzgLslature does not pass legislation similar
this year to assist the County in funding these Social Ser
grams for 1379-80, the cost to the County would be approxi
$6G million, If the State doss pass sirnllar legislation t
the cost would be appxoximztely $2 million- This would a?n additional $58 million in revenue awardable to the County.
In addition to areas bought-out by the State this year, tl
various program areas which because of needed Statewide cc
OK lack of local kontrol should 'ne fundzd or fully admin?:
the State. These program areas include:
a. General Relief
Currently there are rm Statewide standards for tl tration of General Relief programs, Eligibility
and standards vaiy greatly from county to county
consistency of standards has caused recipients ti
count:ies with more liberal standards, thereby en
counties to exclude "undesirable" individuals th clusj-onary welfare practi-ces - A State buy-out o
Relief in San Diego Courlty would save the County
million a year-
. Board of Silpervisors -6- . ~overr-~ler 28, 0 -* .. . .' 0.
b. Courts --- Many coclz t functions within the County are mandate
controlled by the Stclte. These mandates include s
things as requirements for staffing of offices and
actual salary levels of certain employees- The to
cost of providing direct court services in San Die
County exceeds $23 millhn annually, If the State
'were to take r'inancial responsibilities for the co
this money could be used Eor other County program
If the State assumption of court financing cannot
ali.zed consideration siould he given to increased
control of the courts, specifically in those areas
rapidly increasing costs. Local government should given the opportunity to streamline court process
order to make them TIG~~ effective and sesponsive t cormunitjj needs - Counties have the best perspecti
making decisions on what changes can be made in th
areas -
~ One area in which counties should have nore contrc
the allocation of revenue derived from fines and f
Fines and forfeitures are currently collected and
tributcd to local agencies using widely varyin.; €c
develcped by the State. The imposition of fines E
feitures has a direct effect on increasing Overz113
ccsts.: Therefore, the fornula for distribution of
should take into account each agency's cost incar.
imposition of the Sines ad forfeitures -
4, Rebate an additional portion of the State Sales Tax tc
and cities, and base the apportionment of zny sales tq
to local. qovernment on a formula based on population: -I
The San D:-ego County Region received approxfnateiy $
million For its share of sales tax rebate in fiscal. y (IC of the 6@ sales tax), Froiz this total San Diego ceived $7.4 million OK 10.8% of the total regiorl's re5
However, i;he populatLon fcr the unincorpora.ted area o
is 392,800 out of a tokal population of 1,694,800 or
23% of the total. County population, If the 1C sales
were to be returned to cities and counties based on p San Diego County's share for FY 1977-78 would have in
from $7.4 million to $15.7 million.
In calendar year 1973, transactions subject to sales to $99 billion. The State collected $5-9 bi-llion in
for this period, and rekurned $995 millian to local 5
If the State were to returr, an additional 1C of sale:
local governments, the San Diego region would recei VE
tional $68.3 million, This extra IC of sales tzx would State Over $1 billion in revenue.
The amount of increased revenues lerorn this additlisna: . which would be available to the County would depend I
* This figure doesn't incluck ciga-ctts ta;: or ma^ trc~qm-tation
-- _--._-_c_--c_
.
L~UVtfltlAJCL L 0 BoasTu 01 sc+rvisurs - 1- 0 -, a' .. -' 8 -.
F - f0Kmuh used fcr apportionment- Because Sari Diego
provides services to both unincorporcited and incorp
areas, any formula for distribution should provide
with a percentage of appropriations larger than the
age of population in the unincorporated areas alone
5, Allocation of 1% Woperty Tax to the County, cities districts, and special districts
A Project Report to the Commission on Government RE
1-7 Analysis of the Allocation of the 1% Property 'I
Pines property tax allocation fornmlas which take i one or more of the following need factors:
Property Tax Reliance in a base year or prior years
Changes in:
Population
Assessed Valuation Average Daily Attendance (for school district5
.~ Specia1 Districts Service Indicators (i .e. c dp
unit increases for fire districts; miles of for maintenance districts, etc.j
Armexations/Incorporations
Creation of I?ew Special Districts
The replort recormen3is the development and testin5 c wide fclrmula which xould be applied in each County
a, All property tax collections in 1979-80, ar1d.e; year; or
Only the increase in propecty tax cclle6tlons z
1978-79 level, (The amount of property taxes c in 1978-73 would continue to be distributed to
government without being subjected to a need fc
The formulas outlhed in the report are not overly con] testing then involves several assumptions vith local p
implications. For example, one assunption used in tes formulas was whether it would hzlve replicated the prop
reliance anong local governments in the past few years
testing of the formuls depends on the adequacy of the ( The report itself mentioned the problems in obtaininc; .
data on special districts- This js why we wocld prefe
formula be subject to local deternination, As an alte
would intend to look closely at the effects of any Fro
formula on San Dieyo county, before recommending suppo
opposition to your Zoard-
However, too much uncertainty and instability would re
developing a formula for allocation of all property ta Countywide, not to inention Statewide, All Local gover
should be 2ble to count on the same amount of property allocated in 1378-79- In addition, they shoulc: have a
expectation that the foMnuh for alloc&tioz of increas
tax collections will remedy their specia.1 problems due
b,
- -- . -I . 0' 0 *I .* ..
9.
'- in population, averaje daily attendance, dwelling units, e
The Task Force Report does mentior. one alternative which ki
inconsistent with the positions we have discussed- This F would subtract the savings froin any Stnte buy-out from the
property tax share and add it to the amount to be distribL
need r'orrnula to the County, cities and school districts,
Counties have already suffered property tax Losses due to
13- Currently they do not have alternative sources of reT
do some special districts and cities., The coxsties share sales tax is r,ot as lucrative as cities, The counties ha1
used local prciperty taxes to support these State programs pense of local. region-wide priorities. It seems unreason;
further cut into the property tax base of counties in a sf. will primarily benefit cities.
6, Support lc~jislation F;hi.ch would authorize benefit rha~
fire and 1.ighting and other special. districts __ _--___-- and str
the processes for the establishment of such charqes,
SB154 prwrided $5-6 million to Special Districts, a11
was dFstr.ibuted to Fire Districts. SB2212 provided a amourkt foj: fire protection plus $73,280 for other spe
tricks (1 ighting and lighting maintenance dijstricts;
Mosquito Abatement Districts) which were heavily rcli property taxes and wi thoiut viable altexnativc sources
The purpose of this funding was to ecise the transitic
reliance 3n property taxes to reliance or? chrges ani well as other sources of revenue- Accoxdinqly, legi:
allowing these districts to establish benefit chdryez
2s Guickly as possible should be supported,
In some cases, the transition to reliance OR benefit
may not be timely enough to provide adeqEate levels c - services in 1979-80. Allocations of State surplus fi
counties to deal with these continuing special distrj
should be supported on a case-by-case basis, Your 3~
be kept informed of legislative proposals rLn this 3r1
zs the identified needs of bath independent and depe
cia1 districts.
c_-
I - /@?- ELMER KESHKA c)- L?
Assistant Ch:.ef Administrative Officer (Acting]
EK: JR: eh
Attachment
cc: CAO
. -f-
Ass&itant CAOs
ab. e) i, -*J' TOM<
FIR
LUCl COUINTY OF SAM QBEGO Rr: THli
CHIEF ADWINISTRATIVE OFFICE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 0 TE FIF
-
CLIFFORD W. GRAVES
CHI E F ADM I N ISTR AT1 V E OFF1 CEFl
I
August 30, 1978
City Council City sf Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92808
Yesterday, the Board of Supervisors asked the San Diego Supe Court to determine the applicability of Proposition 13 tax r limitation to unsecured property this year. The Board's pol is that the rate limitation of Proposition 13 applies to bot secured and unsecured rolls, as intended by the voters last However, certain legal ambiguities nust be resolved before t tax bills are mailed.
The lawsuit filed yesterday in San Diego Superior Court soug
resolution of this matter by requesting that the Treasurer-'I Collector and the Auditor & Controller be compelled to use t
Proposition 13 unsecured rate and to collect the lower level taxes. Today, the Superior Court granted, at the Board's re a temporary restraining order which enjoined the Treasurer-? Collector and the Auditor t Controller from computing and se any unsecured 1978-79 property tax bills until September 7, at which time a hearing on this matter will be held. All pa are seeking an early determination to avoid further delays i mailing the tax bills.
The Supervisors invite your support on this issue, through E statements or other actions, in response to the strong voter
statement of June 6, 1978.
Chief Adrninis1;rative Officer
CWG : be
*.
, 4j BOARD OF SUE’””ITISORS - AGENDA ITEM
FOR THEIR MEmNG, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1978
Q PENI)ING/REPORTS DUE THIS DATE - Continue3
3. Alternative methods of euthanasia of surplus pet populi
Community Services Agency recommendation: direct Depai
of Animal Control to adopt method of use of pentobarbil
sodium injectible as primary method of euthanasia; and
increase final approved budget of Department of Animal
Control prorated amount of $45,000 for remainder of Fi
1978-79 from General Fund for three Animal Health Tech
and related drugs and equipment to implement said prog
(8/1/78, No. 14, considered recommendation of Vice Cha
Hamilton; and directed Department of Animal Control
report 9/5/78 with results of investigation on such
program)
’
-
--
.P--