Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 5 CA PARKLANDS ACT 10-06-80DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: September 30, 1980 CONSENT CALENDAR~  No. 5 10-6-80 Inter- Corn Honorable Mayor and City Council ' ' Royleen A. White, Director of Community Services~ PROPOSITION 1, THE CALIFORNIA PARKLANDS ACT OF 1980'-"1 './ BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: Proposition One, on the November 4, 1980 ballot, will provide $285 million to develop and acquire local, regional, and state parklands. It will emphasize parks in our heavily populated areas, and will provide new recreation opportunities close to home for millions of Californians. The program will provide $85 million for city, county, and regional parks and recreation, distributed on the basis of population; $30 million for urban open space and recreation block grants to cities, counties, and park districts; $70 million for the State Park System; $90 million for projects on or near the coast; and $10 million for grants to state and local agencies and for state coastal conservancy projects. The California League of Cities Board of Directors has voted unanimously to support Proposition One. As Council is aware, Tustin has benefitted greatly from the last two State Park Bond issues in 1974 and 1976. With those monies, a great deal of the development of Columbus Tustin Park was accomplished, and the county contributed a portion of their share to the project. The funds expended toward Columbus Tustin from these two previous State Park Bond Acts totals $231,091, and the facility is very heavily utilized. The passage of Proposition One will enable us to develop additional needed facilities in the community. The $85 million grant portion will be distributed to each county in proportion to the state population. Funds will be then internally distributed within each county. Distribution of the $30 million will be expended in accordance with existing Roberti-Z'berg Open-Space and Recreation Grant guidelines. (Utilizing these guidelines, staff anticipates the CitY of Tustin will receive approximately $25,300 from the $30 million portion, Guidelines regarding the $85 million portion are not yet available, but we estimate ~ Orange County will receive approximately $6,726,633.) This latest proposal drops the controversial portions on renewable resources from the earlier proposal, which still came close to passing in June of this year. This Proposition is crucial to the future of open space, parks, and recreation in the. state of California. Proposition One will be financed by the sale of general obligation bonds; the California Department of Finance estimates its total cost to be about $1.17 per person, annually, or less than a dime a month. PROPOSITION l, THE CALIFORNIA PARKLANDS ACT OF 1980 Page Two September 30, 1980 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 8o-lol , supporting Proposition One, The California Parklands Act of 1980. RAW:ss Attachments: Resolution Additional Infomation 1 2 3 4 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 RESOLUTION NO. 8o-to] A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY C~UNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 1 WHICH PLACES BEFORE THE VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA A BOND MEASURE TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PROGRAMS WHEREAS, parks and recreation programs vastly enhance our urban environment; and WHEREAS, leisure and open spaces in both urban and rural areas 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 amelioration of problems such as juvenile delinquency and senior citizens in transition; and WHERE, Proposition 1 would place before the voters of California a measure to provide funding for acquisition and development of parks, recreation programs, conservation of natural resources, and access to popular recreation areas; and WHEREAS, the proposed parklands program will make available additional recreation areas in and near population centers, which is particularly important as transportation and fuel become more expensive; and. WHEREAS, enhancement of parks and other natural resources will have a direct economic benefit to our communtiy and the state as a whole; and moreover, will benefit the health and well-being of Californians. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the Tustin City Council goes on record in support of Proposition 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held the 6th day of October, 1980, by the following vote, to wit: ~' Mayor City Clerk - 29 Proposition THE CALIFORNIA PARKLANDS ACT OF 1980 ON THE NOVEMBER 4th STATEWIDE BALLOT Facts About Parks and Recreation The following information has been compiled by the California Department of Parks and Recreation to answer frequently asked questions about Proposition 1. What is Proposition 17 Proposition 1 is the CALl FORNIA PARKLANDS ACT OF 1980. As a measure on the California ballot in November, Proposition 1 provides for the sa~e 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. Flow 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, ~nd 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 acqnisitions will cover 75 percent of project costs. Estimated grant allocations to COUNTY AMOUNT Alameda $ 3,896,850 Alpine 100,000 Amador 100,000 Butte 500,897 Calaveras 100,000 Colusa 100,000 Contra Costa 2,298,155 Del Notre 100,000 El Dorado 309,690 Fresno 1,741,078 Glenn 100,000 Humboldt 381,348 Imperial 335,232 Inyo 100,000 Kern 1,359,729 Kings 254,351 Lake 124,869 Lassen 100,000 Los Angeles 25,410,583 Madera 211,07:2 Matin 798,881 counties, cities, and districts: COUNTY AMOUNT COUNTY AMOUNT Mariposa $ 100,000 Santa Clara $ 4,488,206 Mendocino 236,613 Santa Cruz 632,506 Merced 456,554 Shasta 409,373 Modoc 100,000 Sierra 100,0OO Mono 100,000 Siskiyou 143,139 Monterey 997,892 Solano 799,945 Napa 331,330 Sonoma 1,008,888 Nevada 174,888 Stanislaus 904,950 Orange 6.726.633 Sutter 178,790 Placer 411,856 Tehama 135 ,511 Plumas 100,000 Trinity 100,000 Riverside 2,307,957 Tulare 832,936 Sacramento 2,732,229 Tuolumne 125,224 San Benito 100,000 Ventura 1,810,253 San. Bernardino 2,.957,490 Yolo 391,636 San Diego 6,414,450 Yuba 175,420 San Francisco 2,280,641 82,000,000 San Joaquin 1,1 $3,269 Contingencies San Luis Obispo 530,695 & Admin. (3.5%).....3,000,000 San Mateo 2,090,145 Santa Barbara 1,046,846 $85,000,000 additional $30 million will be provided as 75 percent matching grants in urban areas of the tare, and $30 million 'will be available to local agencies along the coast for implementation of ocal coastal plans for coastal access and open space. The State Park System will receive $60 million for statewide 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 acquisition 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 national parks in California. State studies show that the use of the State Park System is growing faster than California's population. Since 1946, the population has more than doubled, while visitor attendance has increased twentyfo]d, 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 of 16 days vacation per worker. The age distribution of the population is changing. An increase in the number of young adults (9_2-33 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 the State Park System occurred at state beaches last year. If people are to have attractive parks available for frequent use, it will be necessary to expand and improve our parks 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 centers, in the deserts and high mountains. Proposition 1 will allow state and local government to purchase and develop additional open lands close to home, within the reach of an energy-short population. What is the status of development on park land? Most State Park System units are developed for their inte.n, ded purposes. Some units are intensively developed to provide for popular recreation activities, while other units, whose purpose is to preserve examples of California's natural heritage, contain less intensive development. However, a number of recently acquired lands which have no public facilitiesneed recreation development. In addition, many established State Park System units need new recreation facilities and rehabilitation 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 parks where operation and maintenance staffing is already available. Our studies indicate that this trend will definitely continue. Is 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, cottages, 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 approximately 6 million people were employed in the leisure industry in 1976, representing 7 percent of the employment 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 and 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 camper spends more than $10.00 a day in the local community. This translates into jobs for the people who supply goods and services; their spending, in turn, 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 leave~ decisions about the $85 million in grants to cities 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. ........................ ~/hat ere general 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 authorized 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 annual state budgets approved by the Le§islature 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 interest on outstanding bonds. Bonds are redeemed once a year, and interest is paid twice a year. How much will the bonds cost? · The Department of Finance has estimated that the total cost of the bond authorization in Propo- sition 1 will be $509,437,500, using a 7¼ percent interest factor with a 20-year maturity. This figure includes the $285,000,000 total redemption value of the bonds plus a total interest figure of $224,437,$00.