HomeMy WebLinkAboutS05-City Administrator
o
o
o
.
o
CITY OF
HEC'D.-;\D:tIH. eFF. .
, '"' ... ,,--, I (",'"
.~..,,.., I' l,. < '_" ',. of
kf':, [ thf\ - _~ : ;-, . \,; v
March 2,1992
Dear City Manager:
A task force has been appointed to consider the bounlwries of the Inland Division of the
League of California Cities. The task force has decided to take an advisory vote of the cities
in the district to detennine further action. We ask that the issue be placed on your council's
agenda ",ith a response to the task force by March 27, 1992.
The questions for the councils are as foUo",s:
~
ShaU the Inland Empire Division of the League of California Cities retaill the existing division
boundaries? Yes or No
If the boulldaries are changed, II'hich lieII' district boundaries 1I'0uld you favor?
A. San Bernardino (except the upper desert) as one division and Riverside Coumy as the
other; or
B. Western Riverside County cities (WRCOG) and Western Sail Bernardino County cities
(aU cities other than TlI'enty Nine I'alms, Yucca VaUey, and Needles) as one division;
Eastern Riverside County (CV AG cities and Blythe) as the other division lI'ith
discussions to consider the possibility of TlI'enty Nine Palms, Yucca VaUey, and
Needles leaving the Desel1 Mountain Division to join this one.
The study arises from a proposal1ast year to split the division in half ",ith Riverside County
becoming one division, and San Bernardino, except the upper desert (lI'hich is in the Desert
Mountain Division) becoming another.
34272 YUCAIPA BLVD" YUCAIPA, CA 92399. PHONE (714) 797-2489. FAX (714) 790-9203
5,S
o
o
o
o
o
The task force consists of three council members and one city manager from each county, and
a representative of the League (names attached). It has identified the pros and cons of
creating new district boundaries (attatched). There appear to be no overriding advantages or
disadvantages to any of the options and the taskforce has decided that its recommendation wiU
be based primarily on the preferences of the individual cities.
If it is detennined to split the division, the proposal will go to the State League Boundary
Committee consisting of all IS division presidents, in July. If approved, it will be presented
as a resolution at the annual conference.
Please contact any of the task force representatives for further infonnation or clarification.
Sincerely,
~~7 aLe:;
Gary Pitts
League President
Attachments
o
o
Q
PROS AND CONS OF LEAGUE DIVISION SPLIT
Advanta/!es of Division SDlit Alon/! County Lines
1. Would provide greater representation on League Board and on policy committees.
2. Would offer greater opponunities for local officials to hold League leadership
positions.
3. Would provide an oppol1unity to discuss common county problems.
4. Would offer an opponunity to develop a unified county-wide position on Stale and
Federal legislation.
Note: Items 3 and 4 can now largely be accomplished through SANBAG in San
Bernardino County. The Mayors' and Council Members Conference would be the mechanism
in Riverside County.
Disadvanta/!es of Division Solit Alon/! County Lines
1. Would reduce the opponunity to discuss regional (inter-county) issues.
2.
Would reduce the opponunity for officials from adjoining cities in different counties
to interact and discuss common problems (e.g., Rialto and Riverside, Calimesa and
Yucaipa, etc.)
o
3. Would encourage other League divisions (esp. Los Angeles County) to split perhaps to
the point that any additional League representation gained would be dUuted to the point
of ineffectiveness.
4. Would leave a remnant of San Bernardino County which would consist of 14 cities
(absent the mountain and desen communities) as a separate League Division.
5. Would reduce the opponunity for city managers of the two counties to interact (unless
the managers of both counties continue to meet jointly).
Alternatives
1. Riverside County, could attend a bi-monthly Mayors' and CouncU Members' meeting
to discuss Riverside County issues and use the alternating bi-monthly Inland Empire
League meeting to discuss inter-county issues and issues of statewide concern.
2. The bi-monthly Inland Empire League meeting could be preceded by separate county
caucuses to discuss topics of interest to only Riverside County or San Bernardino
County.
3.
Rather than split the Division along county lines, split off the lower desen from the rest
of the Division.
o
. " ..
o
o
o
o
o
INLAND EMPIRE DIVISION LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
TASK FORCE COMMIITEE ROSTER
Council Member Gary Pitts
City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Blvd.
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Council Member Gary Boyles
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Ave.
Fontana, CA 92335
City Manager Joseph P. Guzzetta
City of Hemet
450 E. Latham Ave.
Hemet, CA 92343
Council Member Bill Franklin
City of Corona
815 W. Sixth Street
Corona, CA 91720
Mayor Byron Matteson
City of Grand Terrace
22795 Barton Road
Grand Terrace, CA 92324
Mayor Richard S. Kelly
City of Pabn Desert
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Pabn Desert, CA 92260
City Manager Gerald F. Johnson
City of Rialto
150 S. Pabn Ave
Rialto, CA 92376
Council Member William Arestein
City of Indian Wells
44-950 Eldorado Drive
Indian Wells, CA 92260
League of California Cities
602 E. Huntington Drive, Suite C
Monrovia, CA 91016
Attention: Ms. Kim Chudoba