A controversial plan to alter a decades-old funding mechanism for recreation centers in San Diego failed to gain support Tuesday from the City Council, which referred it to a committee for further vetting.
The modification, which drew strong opposition from community volunteers during a council hearing, stemmed from a City Attorney‘s memorandum last month.
Under the current procedure, volunteer members of 52 recreation councils control money generated by programs and special classes at their individual facilities, but City Attorney Mara Elliott opined that the practice violates city rules.
Elliott said special use permits for every recreation council expire at the end of the year, and her office won’t sign-off on new ones, or extensions, putting the continuation of programming at the facilities in doubt beginning Jan. 1.
In reaction to the memo, the Parks and Recreation Department proposed bringing the collected dollars under control of the municipal government, while allowing the recreation councils to maintain their advisory roles.
“To take unelected citizens and put them in charge of the city’s budgetary process when it comes to rec councils, to me, violates the charter,” said Councilman Scott Sherman, in reference to the city’s primary governing document. “The charter says you’re supposed to deposit, directly, city money into the city treasury on a daily basis — that’s not being done.”
His motion to approve the department’s plan, however, appeared to fall short of the five votes needed for a council majority.
Instead, after listening to about 90 minutes of public testimony, nearly all in opposition, the council voted unanimously to direct the issue to the next meeting of the Public Safety and Livable Neighborhoods Committee, scheduled for Dec. 6. What comes out of the committee would go back before the full Council before its holiday recess.
Councilwoman Lorie Zapf said the plan to remove financial authority from the recreation councils felt like a punishment, “a slap in the face” for residents putting their own time into helping the community.
“I guess I’m not seeing the need for this fire drill,” Zapf said. “There are so many unanswered questions.”
Many of the public opponents said the fact that the money belonged to the city has never been in dispute. They asked the council to slow down and send the proposal to a committee first to iron out details.
The item had docketed straight to the full City Council.
— City News Service
