HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-10-28; City Council; 6407; Proposition 1 California Parklands Act of 1980<.!ITY. OP CART,~il3AI}
'AGENDA DXT,L NO ._ .... 6.._(J _t./'-'CJ:::-...i7,.__ ______ _
DATE: October,28, 1980
rmPARTMENT; ------------------Parks and Recreation
Initial: fJffi
Dept.ltd.-"-_
C. Atty.}[m
C. Mgr. a-6=-
StlbJect: Proposition l -California Parklands Act of 1980
st~atem~mt: of the 1•!ai:ter
Proposition One, on the NOVember 4, 1980 ballot, provides for the sale of
general obligation bonds in the all'0unt of $285,000,000 to finance l)arks
and recreation acquisition ,develcpment and reh;i.h:il i.ta'f'ion of existing par½s-.
The 1980 Bond Act: if passed, is quite similar to the 1974 and 1976 Bond
Acts which provided funding as follows:
Proposed
1974 1976 1980
Issued 250,000,000 36U,OOO,OOO 285,000,000
Local Entities ~o ,ooo ,ooo 85,000,000 85,000,000
San Diego Ar'ea 6,655,630 6,338,308 6,4111,450
City of Carlsbad 83,048 136,322 136,000 + (est.)
The state has indicated tha~ the cost of Proposition One will be $1.17 per
person annually, incl-1ding bond interest and redemption. The o•:>st t" -the
city will be largely administrative time, which will be 11 absorbecl".
The demand for parks and recreation facilities in Carlsbad 1 as in a11'• of
California, is greater than the supply. As gasoline becomes more scarce
and expensive, people will be driving less to find r~creation. The City
Counc~l is urged to support Proposition One.
Fiscal Impact
Support of this initiative will have no direct fiscal impact, however if
it passes, the city will have grant funds available for park development.
Exhibit
1. Proposition One -Fact Sheet
2. Resolution No. ui33S, suppor1-ing Propos;i.tion One.
Recommendation
That Council adopt Resolution No. &33.S-in support of Proposition One.
Cou~,,:il Action:
10-28-80 Council adopted Resolution 6335, supporting Proposition One.
Proposition 1
THE CALIFORNIA PARKLANDS ACT OF 1980 ON THE NOVEMBER 4th
STATEWIDE BALLOT
Facts About Parks and Recreation
The following information has been compiled by th<} California Department of Parks and
Recreation to answer frequently asl:ed questions about Proposition 1.
What is Proposition 1?
Proposition 1 is the CALIFORNIA PARKLANDS ACT OF 1980. As a measure on the California
ballot in November, Proposition 1 provides for the sale of general obligation bonds in the amount
of $285 million to finance new parks and development and rehabilitation of existing parks.
Proposition 1 will provide funding for neighborhood parks, city parks, county parks, regional
parks, and state parks. It also includes funds for new public access to the coastline and for preser-
vation of historical resources.
How will the $285 million for parks be spent?
California's cities, counties, and special park districts will receive $85 million directly for local
and regional parks, swimming pools, and other neighborhood and community recreation facilities.
These grants will be distributed on the basis of population, but no county will receive less than
$100,000. Park development grants will cover 100 percent of total project costs, while grants
made for land acquisitions will cover 75 percent of project costs.
Estimated grant allocations to counties, cities, and districts:
t
~ .\MOUNT COUNTY AMOUNT COUNTY AMOUNT -------Alameda 3,696,850 MarlpoQ $ 100,000 Santa Clara $ 4,488,206
Alpine 100,000 Mendocino 236,613 Santa Crui 632,506
Amador 100,000 Merced 456,554 Shasta 409,373
Butte 500,891 Modoc 100,000 Sierra 100,000
Calaveras 100,000 Mono 100,000 Si~klyou 143,139
ColuQ 100,000 Monterey 997,892 Solano 799,94S
Contra Costa 2,298,155 Napa 331,330 Sonoma 1,008,888
Del Norte 100,000 Nevada 174,1188 Stanislaus 904,950
El Dorado 309,690 Orange 6,726,633 Sutter 178,790
Fresno 1,741,078 Placer 411,856 Tehami 135,511
Glenn 100,000 Plumas 100,000 Trinity 100,000
Humboldt 381,348 Riverside 2,307,957 Tubre 832,936
Imperial 335,232 Sacramento 2,732,229 Tuolumne 125,224
Inyo 100,000 San Beniu, 100,000 Ventura 1,810,253
Kern 1,359,729 San Bernardl110 2,9S7,490 Yolo 391,636
Kings 2S4,351 San Diego G,414,450 Yuba 175,420
Lake 124,869 San Franc!sco 2,280,641 82,000,000 Lanen 100,000 San Joaquin 1,153,269 Conllnsencles Los Angeles 25,410,583 San Luis Obispo 530,695 & Admln. (3,5%) .... ,3,000,000
Madera 211,072 San Mateo 2,090,145
Marin 798,881 Sa:,tl Barbara 1,046,846 $85,000,000
An additional $30 million will be provided as 75 percent matching grants in urban areas of the
state, and $30 million will be available to local agencies along the coast for implementation of
local coastal plans for coastal access and open space.
The State Park System will receive $60 million for statewidt; park acquisition or development of
recreation facilities (with a minimum of $30 million for development of facilities), $60 million for
acquisition or development along the coast, and $10 million for acquirnion or development of
historical resources.
The State Coastal Conservancy will receive $10 million.
What is our need for more parks?
The demand for parks and recreation facilities in California is greater than the supply. Last year,
the State Park System alone turned away more than 1,000,000 visitors from parks and camp•
grounds. This figure does not include private, local, and nat:onal parks in California.
State ~tudies show that the use of the State Park System is growing faster than California's
population. Since 19~6, the population has more than doubled, while visitor attendance has
increased twentyfold, to nearly 60,000,000 visitor days last year.
Funds from previous park bond acts approved by the voters are almost entirely gone, but the
great demand for more parks remains and is increasing annually.
The "recreation year" is now 123 days long, one-third of the calendar year ... including seven
three-day weekends and an average ot 16 days vacation per worker. The age distribution of the
population is changing. An increase in the number of young adults (22-33 years) is predicted. This
is the prime purchasing age group for recreation goods and services. Similarly, there will be far
more older citizens retiring earlier, in better health, and many with better retirement pensions.
These Californians will want recreation places; however, millions will be turned away if more
land and facilities are not provided.
Why the emphasis on local parks and coastal areas?
As gasoline becomes more scarce and expensive, people will be driving less to find recreation.
Ninety-five out of every 100 Californians are urban residents; nearly 80 percent of all Californians
live in 15 coastal counties; and 60 percent of all attendance in tiie State Park System occurred at
state beaches la,t year.
If people are to have attractive parks available for frequent use, it will be necessary to expand and
improve our i,arks close to home in our communities, and along our coastline. This urban emphasis
is a major policy of the California Department of Parks and Recreation.
Are there enough publicly owned lands to meet recreational needs?
The State Park System manages only about one percent of California's land, and local recreation
agencies occupy only about one-half of one percent of the entire state. The vast federal ownerships
in California are generally remote from our population cente:s, in the desens and high mountains.
Proposition 1 will allow state and local government to purchase ano .;~velop additional open lands
close to home, within the reac!i of an energy-short popu!?.li<>n.
What is the status of development on park land?
Most State Park System units are developed for their intended purposes. Some units are intensively
developed to provide for popular recreation activities, while other units, whose purpose is to
preserve ex:.mples of California's natural heritage, contain less intensive development. However, a
number ot recently acquired lands which have no public facilities need recreation devdopmcnt. In
addition, many established State Park System units need new rer.reation facilities and r~habilitation
and reconstruction of old, run-down areas.
Recent trends In the use of park grants to local government show that nearly 90 percent of the
money is being spent on development of recreation facilities and only about 10 percent is being
spent on new land. About 75 percent of these development funds are used to redevelop and
rehabilitate existing p;1rks where operation .1nd maintenance staffing is already available. Our
stuciics indicate that this trend will definitely continue.
ls recreation important to the economy?
In 1977, $160 billion was spent for recreation in the United States. This expenditure is more than
the country spent on home construction or national defense. The total includes expenditures for
recreation equipment, sporting goods, admissions and dues, vacations and travel, cottag~~. second
homes, vacation lots, and land. It represents $ 1.00 of every $7 .00 spent for personal consumption.
The U.S. Travel Data Center estimates that approximatelv 6 million r,eople were employed in the
leiSl're industry in 1976, representing 7 percent of the emp "',':-:.a;;: in the United States.
According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, every dollar in public construction
generates about three to four times as much in economic activity :ind 35 to 40 cents in taxes.
Attendance in the State Park System was nearly 60 million last year, which means money is
pumped into the economies of towns and businesses near the parks. For example, an average
overnight ,amper spencls r.,ore than $10.00 a day in the local community. This translates into
jobs for the peorle who ,upply goods and services; their spending, in tum, creates still more
local employment.
Proposition 1 will finance extensive park design and construction statewide. This work will create
many new jobs in the construction industry for consulting services, contracting, materials, and
maintenance.
Will private citizens have a voice in selecting new projects?
Absolutely. Proposition 1 leaves decisions about the $85 million in grants to citie~ and special
districts to those who will be most immediately affected. Selection of projects must occur at the
local level. Each county will submit a list of priorities by January 1, 1982, and that list must be
approved by at least half of the cities and districts in the county, representing half or more of
its population, and by the Board of Supervisors.
In addition, the California Department of Parks and Recreation and the State Park and Recreation
Commission have held three public hearings to establish a list of State Park System acquisition and
development projects for submission to the Legislature. This list will be re-evaluated each year.
What are ger.:ral obligation bonds and how are they repaid?
After a general obligation bond issue is passed by a majority of the voters, the State Treasurer is
wthorized to print and sell these bonds to investors to raise money to finance the bond program.
Like a mortgage on a home, these bonds are held for either 20 or 30 years.
General obligation bonds are repaid from the State General Fund, which is the repository for all
state taxes collected. The General Fund provides the revenues to cover anm•~I state budgets
approved by the 1.egislature and the Governor. Each year after bonds are sold, money from the
General Fund is included in the state budget to pay a portion of the principal and intP.rest on
outstanding bonds. Bonds are redeemed once a year, and interest is paid twice a year.
Huw much will the l,unds cost?
The Department of Finance has estimated that the total cost of tJ1e bond authorization ir: Propo•
sition 1 will be $509,437,500, using a 7½ percent interest factor with a 20.year mawrity. This
figure includes the $285,000,000 total redemption value of the bonds plus a total interest figure
of $224,437,500.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
~7
28
-
R~SOLUTION NO. 6335
A RESOLU'l'ION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY or Cl1RL$BAD, CALIFORNIA SUPPORTING
PROPOSITION ONE WHICH PLACES BEFORE '£HE
VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA A BOND MEASURE 'i'O
PROVIDE FUNDING FOR ACQUISITION AND
DEVELOPMEN'l' OF PARK AND RECREATION FACI-
LITIBS.
WHEREAS, the California Parklands Act of 19 80 will provide
funds locally and statewide for Parks aP.1 Recreation facilities
which enhance our urban environment; and
WHEREAS, leisure and open spaces are a necessity to life,
since they have a substantial effect on mental and physical health,
economic productivity and social problems; and
WHEREAS, recreation programs can particularly aid in the
problem areas of juvenile delinquency and senio1' citizens in
transition; and
WHEREAS, Proposition One would place before the voters a
measure to provide funding for acquisition and development of
parks, conserva'tion of natur•al resources, and access to popular
recreat:i.on areas ; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad will receive direct economic
and community benefit from the California Parklands Act.
NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad endorses the California Parkla~~s Act of 1980 and
encourages all citizens to vote affirmatively for the initiative
on November 4, 1980.
l
2
3
\ 4
J 5
' 6
I
f 7
~ -.,_ -. -0
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
,21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
•PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the
adjourned
City of Carlsbad at cl regular meeting of th City Council held on
the 28th day of . October , 1980, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Council Members Packard, Casler, Anear, Lewis and Kulchin
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
y;Z:~0✓
RONALD C. PACKARD, Mayor
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
;
.1 i