HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-04-17; City Council; 10589; SENIOR CITIZEN NUTRITION PROGRAM4 4 .rl
3F:
2s so 0 -4
%!!-I u M3 I22 .A ~k
cc oa) m
4 .$
??a)
42
dC a)u M
rd
kO a)c
4 -4
urd u
sa u -4 L)
uu 0 ai-!
k
da a)@
P J; aw a) UU L)c ma) E hu ucd -rl a) rlk ou a
cdcd rl
su *rl
.rl a) uti
3k a) cw Ma)
ua 3k
a) km L) ob ua)
a *rl
a
ua) iJm
L)k a
*rl rd s4-d
2 Wd Q $
Wk WUM 2 .?I E rn MPI
0
\ m
r- rl \ 4-
CIMOF CARLSBAD - AGENWBILL ,, ,,X.
c I
AB# 1~5m
SENIOR CITIZEN NUTRITION MTG.-~LL~L
TITLE
DEPT. cc PROGRAM
DEPT. t
CITY A1
CITY M I I I
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Discuss non-resident participation in the Senior Citizen Nutrition Progr;
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Council Member Mamaux requested that this item be put on the agenda in or( to discuss non-resident participation in the Senior Citizen Nutrit. Program, and whether or not the City can restrict this service to Carlsl residents only, or give some type of preferential treatment to Carlsl residents.
EXHIBITS
1. Memo from City Attorney dated April 3, 1990. 2. Memo from Deputy City Attorney dated April 3, 1990.
3. Letter from Daniel Laver dated March 13, 1990.
z ..
2 5 a
5 -I
z 3 0 0
0
April 3, 1990
Mayor @? wis requested this
information from the City Atto be included with the agenda bi
TO : Mayor
FROM : City Attorney
RESTRICTING NON-RESIDENTS USE OF THE SENIOR CENTER
This is in response to your request that we look into the proble
at the Senior Center where the lunch program has attracted so mar
researched the law and her memorandum to me of April 3, 1990 :
attached. She concludes that we may take reasonable steps to tal care of our own people. I agree with her conclusion that sta:
should meet with the director of the county aging program * develop regulations acceptable to them that will protect 01 residents, I agree we should be able to allow our people to ma, reservations first and then fill in available space with no
residents. I also agree that the general problem of facility u by non-residents should first be addressed with a fee differenti and see how that works before considering stricter measures.
Please let me know if you need any further advice.
non-residents that our citizens have been excluded. Ms. Hirat
\ \/ VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR. City Attorney
nnh v
attac,hment
c: City council
City Manager
is 0 0
APRIL 3, 1990
TO : CITY ATTORNEiY
FROM : Deputy City Attorney
NON-RESIDENTS' USE OF THE SENIOR CENTER
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The City of Carlsbad owns the Senior Center, maintains it and pay:
the employees' salaries. In addition to providing senior citizen:
with recreational activities, the center provides meals an site
provides meals to seniors who are homebound and furnishe transportation to lunch at the center, grocery shopping an doctor's appointments.
The federal government provides funds for the center through tt County of San Diego Area Agency on Aging (A.A.A.) . One hundred ar forty-six meals are served Monday through Friday at lunch timc The A.A.A. pays for 110 of these meals and the City of Carlsbz pays for the remainder. The senior citizens are asked to donai
$1.25 toward the cost of the meal if they can afford it. TI proceeds from the donations are divided between the County and t! City according to the percentage paid by each entity.
The passenger van belongs to the City. The cargo van, which used to transport the food, belongs to A.A.A., but the city pa' for the maintenance.
Transportation services and home delivery of meals are limited Carlsbad residents, but there are no residency restrictions Itcongregate" meals on site. Use of the center's facilities restricted to seniors 8:OO a.m. to 5:OO p.m., Monday throu
Friday, but there is no residency requirement. Any person of a age can rent the ce.nter after 5: 00 p.m. or on any Saturday a Sunday.
Non-Carlsbad residents are using the center during the day. 1 instance, a large group of Oceanside residents play bridge Fridays. The staff is concerned about this, but the main prob:
is many Carlsbad residents cannot eat lunch at the center beta\ lunch resenations for the next day are sold out by 9 : 30 a Residents are turned away after they have stood in line
reservations for ovler an hour. There are a large number of n residents who eat lunch at the center, even though the same lu is catered at thei.r community center. The City Manager received many complaints about the problem.
1
.. 0 0
9UESTIONS PRESENTED
1) Can the City of Carlsbad legally discriminate against non- residents by restricting or excluding their participation ir the lunch program?
2) Can the City of Carlsbad legally discriminate against non-
residents by restricting or excluding their use of the seniol center facilities?
DISCUSSION
The resolution of these issues requires a complicated analysis o
federal and state statutory and case law. The distribution o A.A.A. funds for the lunch program is governed by the Olde Americans Act of 1965 and the Code of Federal Regulations. 42 U
S. C. S 3001 et sea.: 45 C. F. R. Parts 1321, 1326, and 1328 Section 307 (a) of the code requires that in order to be eligibl for grants, each state must submit a state plan which provide
that:
in the case of meals served in a congregate setting, the site for such services and for comprehensive supportive services is furnished in as close proximity to the majority of eligible individuals' residences as feasible, with particular attention upon a multi-purpose senior center, a school, a church, or other appropriate
community facility, preferably within walking distance
where possible, and where appropriate, transportation to such site is furnished. 45 C. F. R. 3 307(a) (13) (0).
Therefore, the legislative intent of the federal act is * establish numerous programs throughout the state which would ser the immediate surrounding community.
The director of the County of San Diego A.A.A., Daniel L. Lave responded to an inquiry on this subject by our City Manage Raymond Patchett, Mr. Laver replied that "there are targeti requirements in the law that would allow for the development of
policy that would address the concerns of [the] city and its seni residents. I! As administrator of the program, Mr. Lave1 interpretations of federal law carry significant weight and ci officials should meet with him as soon as possible to clarify 1 position.
Although Mr. Laverls opinion is important, there are otl
significant legal consideratiens, Mast attempts by municipalit:
to exclude non-residents from the use of their facilities have bc blocked by the courts. 57 A. L. R. 3d 998, 1001-1002. However,
McClain v. South Pasadena, 155 Cal. App. 2d 423 (1957), the co1 allowed the city to limit the use of a municipally-owned swimm
2
.. e 0
facility to residents of the city. The court pointed out that not all differentiations by municipalities between residents and non- residents are constitutionally prohibited.
The McClain court said the test is whether the differentiati01 creates an unreasonable discrimination. The court noted that tht facility was maintained by the taxpayers of the city and the sma1. size of the ggplungetl naturally limited the number of persons whl could use it at any one time. The court held that a reyulatio
which is designed to prevent congestion in a facility maintaine
and operated primarily for the benefit of inhabitants of th
municipality constitutes a valid exercise of the city's polic power. There are also some New York decisions which reach the sarr
result. 57 A. L. R. 3d 998, 1002. The New York cases involve municipal facilities which had not been dedicated to general publi use, Therefore, the nature of the facility was an important factc
in both jurisdictions.
There are a series of cases which discuss the right of municipality to restrict non-resident parking or charge high€ fees. Generally, these decisions upheld the right of a city t control non-resident parking with restrictions or higher fees j the parking lot was on city owned off.-street sites. The COUI struck down attempts to limit public parking on streets t residents only. 70 A. L, R. 3d 1323; Countv Board of Arlinqtc Countv v. Richards, 54 L. Ed. 2d 4, 98 S. Ct. 24, reh. den., 54 I
453 n.9, 37 L. Ed. 2d 63, 93 S. Ct. 2230 (1973) [upheld high{ tuition for out-of-state college students].)
Perhaps the most serious legal challenge the City of Carlsbad wi face is an allegation that its policies violate the Equ Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitutio
The court will then determine whether a similarly situated group persons is treated differently and to their detriment by the Cit If the discrimination involves a fundamental right such as freed of speech, conferred upon a citizen by the Constitution, or uses classification which is suspect, such as race, the discriminati must be justified by a compelling state interest and the means US to advance that interest must be the least restrictive necessary accomplish the goal.
If the right infringed upon involves economics or social welfar the City's action must only be reasonable or rationally related
471, 90 S. Ct. 1153/ 25 L. Ed. 2d 491 (1970). Any discriminat:
in the distribution of the lunch program would have to meet ti rational basis test rather than the compelling state interest tr discussed above.
The City could make a strong argument in favor of Some type discrimination against non-residents if the discrimination *
Ed, 468, 98 S, CL 535* (See Vlandis v, Kline, 412 U, S, 441, 45;
a legitimate government interest, Dandridqe v. Williams, 397 U.
3
.- e 0
aimed at ensuring that elderly Carlsbad residents were not prevented from participating in the lunch program by non-residents who had the opportunity to eat the same lunch at their owr community center. The City should argue that the community based lunch program was designed to meet the needs of elderly citizens who stay close to home due to lack of mobility caused by illness,
lack of income, or fear.
If the City tried to restrict the recreational use of the facility, the action might be subjected to the stricter "compelling state interest test", because recreational use may involve twr
fundamental rights, the right to travel and freedom of association
However, if overcrowding at the facility was preventing elderl: Carlsbad residents from using it, the City could argue that 4 compelling state interest was involved and, therefore, the City'; action would be permissible. But, the Center has not experience(
the problem at this level yet and it probably would not b permissible to discriminate in anticipation of a problem.
There are cases that use a compelling state interest analysis fo welfare benefits which were distributed on the basis of a residenc requirement. ShaDiro v. Thornwon, 394 U. S. 618, 89 S.'Ct. 1322
22 L. Ed. 2d 600 (1969); Memorial HosDital v. MaricoDa County, 41
that the states violated the citizens' fundamental right to trave
by imposing durational residency requirements for benefits. Thi analysis should not apply to the City, however, because those case involved travel between states for the purpose of establishir permanent residency. In our situation, the non-residents are on1 visiting for a few hours. The Supreme Court has uphel distinctions based on continuing residency in a city. McCarthv t PhiladelPhia Civil Service Commission, 424 U. S. 645 (1976) [uphel requirement that city emFloyees be residents of the city].
In any event, the actions of the City cannot be arbitrary c capricious and the classifications used to distinguish betwet groups of people must not be over-inclusive or under-inclusivc when the purpose of the discrimination is considered. Also, : would be best to use the least restrictive means possible 1
accomplish the goals in case the City is subjected to the strict1 compelling state interest test.
U. S. 250, 94 S. Ct. 1076, 39 L. Ed. 2d 306 (1974) . The court he1
CONCLUSION
To avoid expensive litigation, a conservative approach is bes First, city officials should meet with Mr. Laver in an effort solve the problem within the guidelines of the federal progra The city should be able to legally give priority to Carlsb residents in making reservations for the lunches. Perha residents could be allowed to make reservations two days in advan and non-residents could make reservations one day in advance. T use of the recreational facilities could also be regulated with
4
.. 0 0
Carlsbad resident priority list.
If this method does not work, the City should consider a me&ershiF
program in which residents are charged a nominal fee and non- residents are charged a higher, but not unreasonable fee. The court would consider total exclusion of non-residents as a hard measure and the City should consider this option only as a last resort because it would be difficult to justify if the City': action was challenged in a lawsuit. +
KAREN Jo HIRATA
af d
5
.a
I) 0 e&!+ pg*"&j:T-a;
+Qp+? e .4@gjj% ccc.>
aounig af $an piego
DANIEL L. UVER
I81 9) 236-3472
DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING
4161 MARLBOROUGH AVENUE. SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92,05-14,2
March 13, 1990 .* :rj .-
Raymond R. Patchett, City Manager
City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, Ca 92008-1989
Dear Mr. Patchett:
I am sending you a copy of the Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended in 1987, and a copy of the Code of Federal Regulations, developed as a result of the 1987 amendments to the Act that you requested. I don't think you will find them helpful, as they do not address the concerns expressed in your letter or in the letter sent to me by one of your residents.
The nutrition program is open to any senior 60years of age or older and the seniors s owe re ardless of age. There are targeting requirements in the law that wou P d allow f or the development of a policy that would address the concerns of your city and its seniorresidents. I would be most willing to meet with you to discuss this issue and to assist in the development of a policy that meets your needs, yet addresses the requirement of the law.
Sincerely. 1
Daniel L. Laver, Director
Attachment: Older Americans Act
Code of Federal Regulations
Letter from a resident of Carlsbad