Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution - 877 - Supporting a Full Expenditure of Funds Authorized by the U.S. Congress - 08/06/1974 CITY OF _E D E PRAIRIE_E_ R E S O L U T I O N N 0 8 7 7 A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AN INCREASED AUTHORIZATION TO THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND Whereas , legislation has been introduced in the U. S. Congress to amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and increase its author- ization; and Whereas , leasing by the Federal Government of oil rights on the Outer Continental Shelf has been greatly accelerated, resulting in a substantial increase of -funds now partially earmarked for the LWCF; and Whereas , the needs of the country for open space and recreation opportunities have increased greatly in the past decade; and Whereas , these changed needs should be met by appropriate changes in the LWCF legislation; Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City Council urges the U . S. Congress to: 1 . Annually appropriate the maximum amount of LWCF authorized under law and insure expenditures of that amount. 2. Revise the Federal/State matching formula -to reflect a priority for acquisition and with a varying percentage for acquisition, development and planning. 3. Encourage the distribution of state allocations to localities based on population densities and economic need in order to address the needs of impacted urban areas ; 4. Allow up to 25% of the state's allocation for indoor recreation facilities ; 5. Provide incentives for meeting the special needs of the handicapped; 6. Support the use of less-than-fee acquisitions including scenic and conservation easements ; and 7 . Permit that portion of a state' s LWCF allocation which is not obligated during the authorized three-year period to revert back into the LWCF rather than into the general Treasury. 9' Further, it is the position of 'the City Council that the ratio of Federal/State apportionments remain as presently authorized and that operation and maintenance activities continue to be ineligible for assistance. Further, it is the position of the City Council to support efforts to make all Federal receipts from the sale or disposition of non-renewable natural resources available for the conservation of renewable natural resources. ADOPTED by the City Council on August 6, 1974. David W. Osterholt, Mayor SEAL ATTEST: Jonfj 1). Frane , Clerk 1 Summary of Land and Water Conservation Fund Meeting On June 10 -11 , 1974 , 22 people representing a cross -section of the NRPA membership , including representatives of state and local governments , met to discuss legislative proposals to amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund and other aspects of LWCF use and administration . The discussion was spirited and reflected the diversity of NRPA ' s membership and its needs . Recommendations were not unanimous , and it was understood that the discussion and sugges - tions would be advisory to the NRPA Board of Trustees and staff. It was recognized that the recommendations would be interpreted and implemented in light of future BOR proposals , Congressional support and directions , and NRPA policy . The following topics were discussed : 1) Level of Funding- it was the consensus of the group that the authorized levelof the LWCF should be increased to $1 billion per year . This is the 'Level of funding proposed by Congressman Alan Steelman in H . R . 14999 . The question of whether the states could "gear up" to effectively spend such a large increase was raised . While recognizing that some states would have a problem , most participants felt that the funds could be fully utilized because of the backlog of applications , the increased needs for park and recreation opportunities , the proposed increase in the federal matching share , and the probable 6 months to 1 year notice to the states that more money would likely be forthcoming . 2) Federal Share of Eligible Activities -after much discussion on all of the proposed activities and their relative priorities , the following matching schedule was generally endorsed : 70 % federal share for acquisition Up to 60o federal share for development Up to SO% federal share for planning Included in this recommendation is the group feeling that acquisition is the highest priority activity , due to escalating land costs , rapid commercial and residential development on de - sirable acreage , and the relatively greater costs of land versus development costs in urban areas . The ratios reflect the com- promise betweeen those representing local governments who wanted maximum grants and those representing the states who wanted to maintain maximum flexibility . 3) Grants to Local Units of Government -in an effort to assure that a portion oF each state s allocation goes to units of local government , (including special districts) , and in an attempt to address the great needs of urban impacted areas , the group recom- mended by a vote of 12 -6 - 2 that a minimum of 50% of the state ' s .g allocation be earmarked for grants to local units of government (including special districts) . The group further stipulated that population density and economic factors should also be taken into account . If those funds earmarked for local grants are not obli - gated within two years , they should revert to the state to be used by other units of local government . An alternative provision for special LWCF earmarking to assist impacted urban areas was considered and had some support , but because of the demographic differences of the states , no acceptable proposal could be agreed upon . There was agreement , however , that these needs should receive further atten- tion . 4 ) EliRibility of Indoor Recreation. Facilities -after consider - able debate about t e in s of facz ities which s ould be permitted for indoor recreation , and recognizing each state ' s discretion , the group endorsed the concept of permitting a state to use up to 2So of its allocation for indoor recreation facilities . They felt that the present limitation to covering facilities for activities "normally held outdoors'' was overly restrictive , but felt that the definition should exclude coliseums and other highly commercial facilities . The group voted 11 - 5 to endorse the original language in S . 2661 rather than the amended language in the bill as cast by the full Senate . 5 ) Consideration for the Handicapped- it was agreed that the present laws requiring that all public facilitiesbe accessible to the handicapped should be more strictly enforced and that there should be more emphasis , short of a special allocation , on meeting the needs of special populations (particularly the handicapped and aging) . 6 ) Federai/State Split of the LWCF - it was agreed that the present 4 - e era -late apportionment ratio was reasonable and there should no attempt to change it . 7 ) Reversion of Unobli gated Funds After 3 Years - it was unani - mously agreed that any unobi-igated state FunJs remaining after the present 3 -year obligation period should revert back to the LWCF rather than into the General Treasury . Although to date no state has had part of its allocation revert , it is likely that it will happen this year or next in at least one state . There was no consensus as to whether the reverted money , upon reverting to LWCF , should go into the Secretary ' s Discretionary Fund , be earmarked for some high priority special use (urban impacted areas , coastal areas , etc . ) , or should be redistributed to the states on the basis of the exist - ing allocation formula . Ar, 8 ) State Allocation Formula -no recommendation for change . However, the possibility oF e : minating the arbitrary 7o maximum that any state can receive was raised but not discussed . 9) Other Eligible Activities - it was agreed that operation and maintenance should e 1ne lgi le for LWCF grants . Some of the reasons given were : there is money available for 0 & M from general revenue sharing ; capital funds are hardest to get ; 0 $ M should represent the local commitment ; such a change could cause great administrative problems ; large cities might "eat up" huge quantities of state funds for 0 & M ; not enough money is in the fund for eligible activities without adding others . There was also some discussion of administrative changes which would be helpful , such as making all costs of acquisition eligible (appraisal fees , legal fees , condemnation fees , etc . ) .