CITY'S FEE PLAN CALLED ILLEGAL COUNTY SAYS PROP. A PREVENTS DUAL SYSTEMS.

Byline: Naush Boghossian Staff Writer

SANTA CLARITA - The city would be in violation of an agreement it signed in applying for county parks bond funding if it decides to charge nonresidents higher fees or give city residents priority for registration at some city parks, Los Angeles County officials said.

County officials have told city officials that park facilities built partly or wholly with voter-approved Proposition A county parks bond funding must not discriminate against nonresidents.

According to the county's interpretation of the bond contract, if a pool at a city park was built or even renovated with Proposition A funds, fees and registration systems must be the same for city residents as for people from outside city limits.

Different fees and registration systems can be imposed if a pool is built without Proposition A funds, county officials said.

``In 1998, the Board of Supervisors agreed to maintain the current policy that a city cannot charge a differential fee for any city park project that is funded with Proposition A,'' said Tim Gallagher, the county's director of parks and recreation.

However, an attorney hired by the city offered a different interpretation of the Proposition A provision - one that could lead to a legal wrangle between city and county.

The city's attorney said the provision prevents Santa Clarita from discriminating against people using the facilities, but there is no wording preventing the city from giving city residents priority in registration.

Other cities including Burbank have had to tip-toe around the provision.

Burbank, for example, is able to use Proposition A funds to improve specific facilities at its McCambridge Park while continuing its current policy of charging differential fees for nonresidents at its tennis courts because the courts were not improved with Proposition A money.

Before the City Council votes to change registration or fees, City Manager Ken Pulskamp said attorneys will consider further whether or not the bond financing forbids the council from doing so.

Already, the city cannot impose differential fees and registration at parks that were deeded over by the county when Santa Clarita incorporated, so any final determination that the city cannot have different systems at particular facilities could lead to a bureaucratic nightmare.

At Central Park, for example, the city used grant money to fund the construction of two softball fields, two sports fields and athletic fields.

The resources it would take to manage different systems at different parks and facilities could end up costing the city more than it would make in charging nonresidents more for the program, officials said.

For more than one year, the cash-strapped city has been considering any combination of plans that include charging higher fees for nonresidents or allowing city residents priority registration. City officials say Santa Clarita residents' tax dollars subsidize the programs and the city can't afford to accommodate people from the rapidly growing areas outside the city.

At least 27 percent of the people using the city's programs live outside Santa Clarita, city officials said.

The issue has incited people in Stevenson Ranch.

After four of the five City Council members indicated on April 1 that they were inclined to support some sort of change to the current parks system, the West Ranch Town Council voted to arrange a boycott of city retailers, including Auto Row.

Both city and county officials agree that the issue requires further discussion.

``We'll be dealing with all of the county staff in trying to come up with a solution that works for both entities,'' Pulskamp said. ``Best-case scenario, we come up with a solution that's best for everybody, but we need to come up with something that's fair for the citizens of Santa Clarita, too.''

Bob Haueter, senior deputy for 5th District Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich who opposes a two-tiered system, said he hopes the county and the city can work together to avoid any change that would give priority to city residents.

``The county is not looking to fight or cause a problem with the city,'' Haueter said. ``We believe that all residents of the valley should have equal access to recreational facilities and we're throwing all of the resources of the county parks department into the mix in order to be a partner in this process.''