Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-03-08; City Council; 12619; PROPOSED SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL PARK AND OPEN-SPACE DISTRICTPROPOSED SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL PARK AND OPEN-SPACE DISTRtCX 1. Prepare a letter to the County Board of Supervisors seeking postponement of the establishment of a Regional Park and Open Space District until there is consensus among local jurisdictions regarding the decision making authority as it relates to issues within the structure of the legislation. Develop revisions to the legislation which would allow local jurisdictions a choice of participation or exclusion from such a district. Return to the Parks and Recreation Commission for a recommendation on project selections and citizen advisory committee representation. 2. 3. would establish a county-wide benefit assessment district for acquisition and boards, commissions, and city councils. Local jurisdictions have also been asked to 0 _-~ - U PAGE 2 OF AB# /2;/,lq To date, department staff has kept the City Manager's office apprised of the county's efforts to facilitate AB 2007 (Exhibits 3 & 4). In addition, staff has submitted a preliminary list of projects to be funded with the caveat that the list is unofficial at this time pending endorsement by the City Council (Exhibit 2). The issue of AB 2007 and the preliminary project list has been presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission as an informational item only, and staff has continued to maintain a noncommittal posture towards support of AB 2007. However, the county's efforts to expedite the proposed legislation with or without the support of several jurisdictions throughout the county, is proceeding at an accelerated rate in order to guarantee placement on the November Ballot. 4 While from a staff perspective we are open to the concept of providing additional funding mechanisms to address park and open space issues hi San Diego, we have serious concerns as it relates to a binding assessment requirement upon independent jurisdictions. Currently, the legislation provides no veto power for local jurisdictions to opt out of the District. Notwithstanding a city's desire to participate, an assessment could be levied against all parcels in that city regardless of any benefit which may or may not be received. In other words, if a city chooses not to support or participate in the District, an assessment could be imposed anyway with no benefit gained in terms of local project funding. Furthermore, the decision making authority relating to issues in the structure of the legislation rests solely with the County Board of Supervisors. Staff would submit that perhaps a more prudent approach to the decision making authority for such things as program administration, administration cost recovery, allocation formula(s) etc. be expanded to include greater city involvement and control. Therefore, staff is recommending continued dialogue between local agencies and to encourage the Board of Supervisors to delay further processing of AB 2007 until issues relating to veto power and decision making authority can be further resolved. However, as a precautionary measure staff is recommending conceptual approval of a list of proposed city projects to include: x ! 1. City-Wide Trail System $3,600,000 2. Buena Vista Lagoon/Hosp Grove 3,900,000 Improvements/Trail System 3. Park Rehabilitation 445,000 Stagecoach Community Park $150,000 Holiday Park 50,000 Maxton Brown 25,000 Levante 40,000 Pine 180,000 4. Community Center/Gymnasium (NW Quad.) 3,000,000 - W PAGE 3 OF AB# /,2i/o[v FISCAL, IMPACT: The specific projects selected to appear within AB 2007 will be submitted by the local jurisdictions and will ultimately be selected by the Citizen's Advisory Committee. A Benefit Assessment Engineer will determine fees based upon those projects and other associated costs (i.e. maintenance, administration, etc.). The project selections and funding for those projects go to the County Board of Supervisors for a public meeting. The project package would then be placed on the Ballot. Although preliminary at this time, recent polling efforts have targeted a $12-$15 assessment per parcel per year for a period of approximately twenty (20) years. It is estimated that assessment would generate between $204-$250 million county wide. The exact benefit to Carlsbad in terms of project funding and maintenance dollars is unavailable at this time as project selection has not occurred and allocation formula(s) have not been determined. Exclusive of AB 2007, the City currently funds three (3) service programs through the assessment district funding mechanism at a cost of approximately $81 .OO per single family household per year (street lighting, median, and street tree maintenance). In light of existing and pending assessments, Council may wish to further evaluate the cumulative impact of additional assessments such as that proposed under the Regional Park and Open Space District. In conclusion, Carlsbad currently has an extensive fee program, and unlike many cities, based upon those fees, the City has a comprehensive park development program as outlined in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget. Any project funding made available by AB 2007 could serve to augment CIP funding or provide a source of funding for anticipated park, recreational and/or open space projects which have yet to secure funding. EXHIBITS: 1. 2. San Diego County Regional Park and Open-Space District Fact Sheet Memo to Robert Copper, County Parks & Recreation Director - September 21, 1993 Memo to Assistant City Manager - December 20, 1993 Memo to City Manager - January 14, 1994 3. 4. - w 101 ILi93 aOLtMfD '9 nf J srrn L 3iep OBERT R COPPER OIRECTOR 3.?s fS.1-3020 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION --c. 34- auF-IL acio su ;E 3 3iv CIEr,3 Z3'L ;;qp, & 22-23 '899 SAN DISGO COt'PiTY XEGIONAL PARX AND 02EX-SPXCZ DISTXICT FACT SHEET Budget cuts have had a disproportionate impact on San Diego's local park agencies. Some parks could close unless additional funds are secured. Many parks have tremendous rehabilitation, restoration and development needs that will go unfunded. Park agencies are finding it exceedingly difficult to meet the needs of San Diego's growing population. In addition, the State's ability to fund local park projects has declined by 91% over the past five years. The need for new local funding options has never been greater. In September 1993, the State Legislature passed AB 2007 which was auchored by Assemblywoman Dede Alpert at the rsquest of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors. The purpose of the legislation was to provide a regional funding mechanism to address park and open space issues in San Diego County, and to preserve the opportunity for the region to use this funding source if we wish to do so. The role of San Diego County Department of Parks and Recreation is to act as facilitator and provide a framework in which to explcre the feasibility of developing the regional district. What is the proposed San Diego County Regional ?ark and Open-Space District? The San Diego Ccunty Regional Park an2 Opez-Space District is a counc;r,jide assessnent district that will provide a regional I-echanisn to address park and open space issues. The district will develop and improve recreational faciliti=s for sanior cicizins, creace qraffiti abatement programs, plant trees, build trails, prccect beach, park, open space and natural lands, and restore rivers and streams throughout the County. The funding xill cczs from bon2.s that are secured by a special benefit assesszent on ?rc?ercy levied under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. X special benefit assesszent is a charge which pays for a public izprovenent and which is levied in direct relacicnskip 'to t?-e special benefits the improvements confer on the property. -.._ Z4..c safsr recreation areas, clean up pzrks, redsc1- gang actiTritlr, EXHIBIT 1 1 - v W How would this be done? Assembly Bill 2007 is the enabling legislation that allows San i3iego Cowicy to place a measure on the Ploverher, 1994 ballct t=, establish a countywide benefit assessment district for acquisition and iaprovernent of land for park, open sgace and recreational purposes. The ballot measure requires a majority vote for approval. Prior to the measure being placed on the ballot, professional pollings will be conducted to determine citizen interest and community needs. A citizens advisory committee, from both public and private sectors, will develop the ballot measure which will include specific projects, as identified by each community, and a dollar amount to implement each project. The measure is prepared by citizens working together, not by politicians. Voters will know exactly where their money is going, and none of the funds can be spent at the discretion of elected officials. How much would it cost? The proposed park and open space district would create a countywide assessment district which would collect an assessment on all parcels in the County. An engineer's assessment report will be prepared by an independent firm to determine the assessment formula based on who would receive a direct and specific benefit. The average cost per parcel or per household has yet to be determined. It will depend on conducting a citizens' survey to determine the voters' interest in supporting a measure and how much they are willing to spend. For example, Prop A in Los Angeles County assessed a benefit fee of approximately $15 per year per household which generated $540,000,000. If a similar assessment were raised in San Diego County, it could generate $250,000,000 over a t-denty- two year period with a cost to the average single family homeowner of approximately $1.25 per month. The amount of the assessment cannot be increased during the duration of the measure. Who would pay? Each parcel of land in the District (single family residences, nultiple family residences, comrnercial/industrial parcels and vacant land up to 5 acres) would be assessed based on the direct and specific benefit to the parcel owner. This assessnent will be prepared by a qualified engineering firm and approved by the County Board of Superrisors after a public hearing detailing the engineer's results. Who would benefit? Each and every.resident of San Diego County. c -2- 5 ~ c w - Who would administer? In accordance with AB 2007, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors shall act, ex officio, as the governing body of the regional district. What are the benefits? Besides improving the quality of life by preserving and protecting the beach, wildlife, park, recreation and natural lands of the District, the Bond Act would: = * maintain sound economic conditions and high standard of livability in the District by increasing property values, economic activity and tourism throughout the District. * provide clean and safe parks which will increase public safety, reduce crime and increase attractiveness of the District as a place to live and locate businesses. * provide employment opportunities for community improvement pro j ects. * ensure citizens of all ages, as well as succeeding generations, better and safer recreational resources. * provide funds to establish gang diversion programs and provide employment of youth in the District by using funds from this act to employ youth to work on restoration or rehabilitation projects being carried out in their communities. Where has this been tried before? In November 1992, the citizens of Los Angeles County voted on a county-wide Parks and Open-Space District Bond Act. It promised to improve their quality of life and make their parks safer. Each. dollar was earmarked for specific neighborhood projects, more than one hundred of them. Because the voters knew what they were buying and how much it would cost them, the measure passed by an overwhelming 62%. -3- 10/ 14/93 ' ' 5201 Ruffin Road, Suite P San Diego, CA 92123-1699 AB 2007/CONCEPTUAL PROJECTS As per your direction at the last Director's meeting held Thursday, September 9, 1993, the following are projects our department feels would have a significant benefit if funded. It should be noted that the below listed projects do not have the endorsement or approval from the City Manager's office, Parks and Recreation Commission, and the City Council. In discussions with our City Manager's office, there are many questions that need to be answered before we can process this parks and open space needs l assessment through the City of Carlsbad for official authorization. .. *a - W THE CITY coL;rmL/ CITY MANAGER December 20, 1993 TO: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER VIA: FROM: Senior Management Analyst COUNTY DIRECTORS MEETING/AB 2007 On December 9, 1993, the Director and I attended the monthly county-wide Parks and Recreation Directors meeting. An agenda of the meeting is attached. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the results of a recent poll conducted by Decision Research for the County of San Diego regarding the proposed county-wide assessment ballot measure for parkland acquisition, development and maintenance (AB 2007). A synopsis of the polling results are also attached for your information. Essentially, the results, according to Decision Research, indicate a 50-61 % range of favorable response to such a ballot measure depending upon a number of factors. Therefore, the County Department of Parks and Recreation is still pursuing the placement of this initiative on the November 1994 ballot. Our position with regard to AB 2007 remains one of caution in terms of committing the City of Carlsbad to support such an initiative until the City Manager’s Office/City Council concurs. However, it appears momentum of the proposed ballot measure is continuing at a rapid pace with or without the support of several agencies within the County. We have been assured by the County Director (Bob Copper) that this issue has, and will, continue to be a subject of discussion at the monthly meetings of the County City Managers Association in an effort to inform and ultimately gain support of AB 2007. The next County Directors meeting will be held on January 13, 1994, and a five (5) hour workshop has been scheduled for February 10, 1994. The topics for discussion and action at these meetings will be: / Parks & Recreation Director 9 . The formation of a citizen advisory group in support of AB 2007 A listing of projects to be funded Determination of funding a I I ocat i o n form u I a (s) . 0 Although this memo is meant to keep you informed, if you should have further direction for us, please respond accordingly. Pending further advice from your office, our position remains one of caution and non-commitment towards AB 2007. We will continue to keep y u informe km e KEITH BEVERLY Attachment C: AB 2007 file EXHIBIT 3 City Manager - - AGENDA COUNTY PARK AND RECREATION DIRECTORS MEETING DEPARTMENT OB PUBLIC WORKS CONFERENCE ROOM8 2 C 2 5201 Ruffin Road, Ban Diego, CA 92123 December 9, 1993 2:OO - 4:OO P.M. SAN DIEGO COUNTY PARK AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT I. RESULTS OF POLL 11. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? A. Needs Assessments (Projects) B. Users and Sponsors -. Contact Anne Rast at 694-3034 or Elayne Ortiz at 694-3041 for additional information. > e> w 0 :<a8 - .; ;<.I. Mountg af Ban piep ROBERT R. COPPER OIRECTOR 18191 894-3030 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 5201 AUFFIN ROAD. SUITE P. SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123-1699 December 9, 1993 TO: Parks Directors FROM : Robert R. Copper, Director SUBJECT: San Diego County Bond Survey Report This is a summary of the polls conducted by Decision Research which were financed by the County of San Diego Parks and Recreation Department. The sample consisted of 500 complete interviews with registered voters by telephone in the County of San Diego. The sample is derived by a computer-generated cluster sample of likely voters. 1) By a small margin, voters indicate they would vote for a parks, beach and wildlife preservation measure. About 50% would favor a park preservation measure with 33% opposed and 17% undecided. More voters would favor a measure worded to focus on park safety and gang prevention, with 53% in favor and 32% opposed and 15% undecided. When an election is this close to 50%, every vote will count, so the Pollster recommends that the ballot measure should be a safety-oriented measure. The Pollster believes a November election offers the best chance of success. When asked preference after the measure was explained, support for the safety/gang preventrcn measure rose to 61% and to 53% for the park preservaticn version. 2) It is clear throughout the survey that a measure focused cn park safety and gang prevention does better than a measure centered on park improvements or beach restoration. Voters are more likely to say that providing a safe place fsr children to play and providing gang prevention programs is more important than cleaning up beaches, providing more parks, or building more ballfields. 3) The estimated annual cost of $15 is about right. Althouah support is higher at lower levels, support does not fall substantially until that amount is $21 a year or more. Parks & Recreation Department 0 w w -2- 4) San Diego voters are regular users of the local and regional parks, with less than one quarter saying they never use the parks, one quarter using the parks between once and five times yearly, 27% using the parks from six to 24 times a year, and 26% using the parks 25 or more times per year. 5) Although most voters think the county is on the wrong track, they think their own community is on the right track. This has implications for the level of support for county- administered versus locally-administered programs. 6) Voters who favor the I'gang preventionuu measure focus on the need to fight gangs and crime more than on the need for open space, beaches or park maintenance and improvement. Those favoring the "parks" measure focus on the need for open space and parks, and to combat development. Opponents of both versions tend to express anti-tax attitudes or to have other. spending priorities. 7) Voters generally agree that they have a responsibility to future generations to set parkland aside, but they do tend to say that parks currently are adequate. Combined with little enthusiasm for tax increases, support for the bond measure is limited. 8) The specific expenditures about which the voters are most enthusiastic focus on park policy, programs for at-risk youth, and beach and sewage cleanup. There is considerably less . support for park improvements (including neighborhood parks and ballfields), as well as improvements for outdoor enthusiasts. 9) Support for the bond measure is enhanced by assuring that the money goes where it is supposed to go, including assuring local funding, guarantee by an audit, and limited administrative costs. Voters do not like the idea of a tax based on proximity to the parks. 10) There are no strong message carriers identified who would/ could influence the voters on the bond measure. Voters are most receptive to endorsements by public safety officers, the Friends of the San Diego Zoo, and taxpayer and good government groups. - - v4 -3- 11) Overall, the data show that a park bond measure would face a close election. Voters are not feeling generous with tax dollars at present, and they feel that park facilities are already good. Voters are concerned, however, with public safety issues, and they are more willing to fund a measure with a strong public safety component. Any measure must not only focus on public safety, but must have guarantees so that the voters can be assured the funds will be well-spent. Any campaign for the m asure must take into account the different degrees of suppor among different demographic groups. &fL _r” ROBER R. PPER, Director Parks & Recreation Department - - - ~- January 14, 1994 TO: CITY MANAGER VL4: FROM: Senior Management Analyst AB# 2007 In response to a request for a recommendation relative to the,proposed placement of a Regional Open Space and Park District Assessment (AB# 2007) on the November 1994 Ballot, the following comments are offered for your consideration. Parks and Recreation Department staff has been reluctant to support AB# 2007 for the reasons as listed below. The proposed Assembly Bill has failed to gain support of the City Managers’ Association at a recently held meeting in January 1994 (Attachment 1). The Department believes that before staff can support the measure, the issue should have a full understanding, support and direction of the City Manager’s office and Council. Staff believes there are problematic issues in the structure of the legislation as proposed (Le., who administers the program, at what cost, allocation formula(s) etc.). The timing of such legislation is questionable in terms of successful passage and is considered ill advised at this time. Local agencies appear to have no veto power and could be included within the Assessment District regardless of their position. Local agencies may have their own needs which they may wish to assess, independent of this proposed legislation. The ability for local agencies to maintain an effective working relationship with the county is ambiguous at best, due to several other pending issues (Le., trash, airport, jails, vector control). Carlsbad has an approved park development program with a funding plan as outlined in the City’s Capital Improvement Program. Although AB# 2007 could conceivably augment development funding, operational and maintenance costs for any project developed outside of the approved CIP at this time is a concern given the current budgetary constraints. Parks and Recreation Director 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXHIBIT 4 w w 1- Page Two As outlined in a December 20, 1993 memo (Attachment 2) to the Assistant City Manager, to date, staff has and will continue to maintain a cautious and non-committal posture towards supporting AB# 2007. Staff will continue to monitor its progress through the monthly County Parks and Recreation Directors’ meetings and keep the Manager’s office informed. As of this date, it appears that the proposed initiative is proceeding with or without the support of local agencies. Department staff has submitted a preliminary list of projects for funding (Attachment 3) with the caveat that they have not gained the approval of the City Manager’s office or the City Council and are unofficial. Although, the project list was purely informational, the City may wish to include this list if the initiative progresses to a higher level. - 4chyza KEITH BEVERLY Attachments: Attachment 1 - Letter to Mr. David Janssen, dated 1/10/94 Attachment 2 - Letter to Assistant City Manager, dated 12/20/93 Attachment 3 - Letter to Robert R. Copper, dated 9/21/93 c: Assistant City Manager Assistant to the City Manager Financial Management Director CKeithW2007.Mern cl~l a- iwiui - - ..- y-L-0, @& 16191 753- ':bd) CIW OF SOLANA BEACH !'fee** m mNS AVENUE --. SUTrr: .. - SOLANA - -- e== c-n - ku/ ,y ' January 16,1994 : -* J4Nl21ggq #&$$h ,p' Mr. David Ianssen a<;:- J* ', Chief Administrative officer - r.) * Room 209 County Administration Center 1600 Pacific Highway i San Diego, California 92101 Dear David: I am writing on behalf of the Ci Managers in San Diego Couaty to express ow co- over the direction the County h taking vb-a-vis the developmeat of a Regional opm $pw and Park Db~ict ballot measure. In his December 14,1993, tatet to individual City Managera, Robert Copper, bnty Directoc of parb an4 Recreaion, reported on the results of a poll you recentiy ~~mmisPiOned to deterrmrae - theextentof voter support. The City Managers' interpretation of &a! poll lead w to coocbde that voter suppon t very tenuous, unless as Mr. copptr poinu out, tho hue is wrapped in a public &ety cloak. We believe pursuing a measure for tbe November 1994 ballot is misconceived aad M ndvked at this tlme. Therefore, our Parks and Recreation D'uecton will no longer be aztndhg the pllaaiog meetbgs lad we wili not be asking ow City Cowcils to appoint rqprewmtives to a cb &~~SOIY commirrp1'- ai Mr. Copper baa suggested. me City Migm wcm le& with the Impression after a presentadon of d~tt &sue was made at OW December meetiog tbat fhae would be an opprtunity to discuss this aftet the poll results were bwn. However, Mr. Copper's letter leads us to conclude !&at the train has already left the station. At this point, we are not willing to get on board. If we have misundetstood the County's intent or dirdon on tbk, please let me how, Sincerely, Y& Mtchael W. Hw City Manager MWHllP CCI Robert R. Copper, Director of County Parks and Recreation San Diego County City Managers AlTACHMENT 1 PAINT60 ON ACCVCLLiO PAaA - - December 20, 1993 TO: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER VIA: Parks & Recreation Direct= FROM: Senior Management Analyst COUNTY DIRECTORS MEETING/AB 2007 On December 9, 1993, the Director and I attended the monthly county-wide Parks and Recreation Directors meeting. An agenda of the meeting is attached. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the results of a recent poll conducted by Decision Research for the County of San Diego regarding the proposed county-wide assessment ballot measure for parkland acquisition, development and maintenance (AB 2007). A synopsis of the polling results are also attached for your information. Essentially, the results, according to Decision Research, indicate a 50-61 % range of favorable response to such a ballot measure depending upon a number of factors. Therefore, the County Department of Parks and Recreation is still pursuing the placement of this initiative on the November 1994 ballot. Our position with regard to AB 2007 remains one of caution in terms of committing the City of Carlsbad to support such an initiative until the City Manager’s Office/City Council concurs. However, it appears momentum of the proposed ballot measure is continuing at a rapid pace with or without the support of several agencies within the County. We have been assured by the County Director (Bob Copper) that this issue has, and will, continue to be a subject of discussion at the monthly meetings of the County City Managers Association in an effort to inform and ultimately gain support of AB 2007. The next County Directors meeting will be held on January 13, 1994, and a five (5) hour workshop has been scheduled for February 10, 1994. The topics for discussion and action at these meetings will be: The formation of a citizen advisory group in support of AB 2007 A listing of projects to be funded Determination of funding allocation formula(s) Although this memo is meant to keep you informed, if you should have further direction for us, please respond accordingly. Pending further advice from your office, our position remains one of caution and non-commitment towards AB 2007. We will continue to keep y u informe KEITH LJ BEVERLY w Attachment C: AB 2007 file ATTACHMENT 2 City Manager - - .. AGENDA COUNTY PARK AND RECREATION DIRECTORB MEETING DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORM CONFERENCE ROOMS 1 C 2 5201 Ruffin Road, 8an Diego, CA 92123 December 9, 1993 2:OO - 4SOO P.M. SAN DIEGO COUNTY PARK AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT I. RESULTS OF POLL 11. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? A. Needs Assessments (Projects) B. Users and Sponsors . .. . --_ .. Contact Anne Rast at 694-3034 or Elayna Ortiz at 694-3041. for additional information. - a - :p,;.i 4% -4qgh Mountg of 2an piep ROBERT R. COPPER OIAECTOR IO1 91 0943OJO DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 8201 RUFFIN ROAD. SUITE P. SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123-1699 December 9, 1993 TO: Parks Directors FROM : Robert R. Copper, Director SUBJECT: San Diego County Bond Survey Report This is a summary of the polls conducted by Decision Research which were financed by the County of San Diego Parks and Recreation Department. The sample consisted of 500 complete interviews with registered voters by telephone in the County of San Diego. The sample is derived by a computer-generated cluster sample of likely voters. 1) By a small margin, voters indicate they would vote for a parks, beach and wildlife preservation measure. About 50% would favor a park preservation measure with 33% opposed and 17% undecided. More voters would favor a measure worded to focus on park safety and gang prevention, with 53% in favor and 32% opposed and 15% undecided. When an election is this close to 50%, every vote will count, so the Pollster recommends that the ballot measure should be a safety-oriented measure. The Pollster believes a November election offers the best chance of success. When asked preference after the measure was explained, support for the safety/gang prevention measure rose to 61% and to 53% for the park preservation version. Parks & Recreation Department 2) It is clear throughout the survey that a measure focused on park safety and gang prevention does better than a measure centered on park improvements or beach restoration. Voters are more likely to say that providing a safe place for children to play and providing gang prevention programs is more important than cleaning up beaches, providing more parks, or building more ballfields. 3) The estimated annual cost of $15 is about right. Although support is higher at lower levels, support does not fall substantially until that amount is $21 a year or more. - w -2- 4) San Diego voters are regular users of the local and regional parks, with less than one quarter saying they never use the parks, one quarter using the parks between once and five times yearly, 27% using the parks from six to 24 times a year, and 26% using the parks 25 or more times per year. 5) Although most voters think the county is on the wrong track, they think their own community is on the right track. This has implications for the level of support for county- administered versus locally-administered programs. 6) Voters who favor the "gang prevention1' measure focus on the need to fight gangs and crime more than on the need for open space, beaches or park maintenance and improvement. Those favoring the glparksll measure focus on the need for open space and parks, and to combat development. Opponents of both versions tend to express anti-tax attitudes or to have other. spending priorities. 7) Voters generally agree that they have a responsibility to future generations to set parkland aside, but they do tend to say that parks currently are adequate. Combined with little enthusiasm for tax increases, support for the bond measure is limited. 8) The specific expenditures about which the voters are most enthusiastic focus on park policy, programs for at-risk youth, and beach and sewage cleanup. There is considerably less support for park improvements (including neighborhood parks and ballfields), as well as improvements for outdoor enthusiasts. 9) Support for the bond measure is enhanced by assuring that the money goes where it is supposed to go, including assuring local funding, guarantee by an audit, and limited administrative costs. Voters do not like the idea of a tax based on proximity to the parks. 10) There are no strong message carriers identified who would/ could influence the voters on the bond measure. Voters are most receptive to endorsements by public safety officers, the Friends of the San Diego Zoo, and taxpayer and good government groups. ., - - t* . -3- 11) Overall, the data show that a park bond measure would face a close election. Voters are not feeling generous with tax dollars at present, and they feel that park facilities are already good. Voters are concerned, however, with public safety issues, and they are more willing to fund a measure with a strong public safety component. Any measure must not only focus on public safety, but must have guarantees so that the voters can be assured the funds will be well-spent. Any campaign for the m asure must take into account the different degrees of suppor among different demographic groups. KL- 1 ,. ROBER R. UPPER, Director Parks & Recreation Department 2 - itember 21, 1993 iert R. Copper ks and Recreation Director inty of San Diego 11 Ruffin Road, Suite P I Diego, CA 92123-1699 2007/CO N C E PTU A L PRO J ECTS per your direction at the last Director's meeting held Thursday, September 9, 1993, following are projects our department feels would have a significant benefit if funded. hould be noted that the below listed projects do not have the endorsement or roval from the City Manager's office, Parks and Recreation Commission, and the City Jncil. In discussions with our City Manager's office, there are many questions that d to be answered before we can process this parks and open space needs essment through the City of Carlsbad for official authorization. Laested Proiects (No formal approval) .. 1. City-Wide Trail System $3,600,000 2. Buena Vista Lagoon/Hosp Grove lmprovementsflrail System 3,900,000 3. Park Rehabilitation 445,000 Stagecoach Community Park $1 50,000 Holiday Park 50,000 - Maxton Brown 25,000 Levante 40,000 Pine 180,000 y rcnyL&iI(J'+ 3, c3 0 u, a03 IU have any questions, please call me at 434-2825. :erely, w id Bradstreet (s and Recreation Director Assistant City Manager Sf. Management Analyst - P&R - -A -----_ I A~ACHMENT :