HomeMy Public PortalAbout19730926 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meting 73-20
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
Board of Directors
Amended Minutes
September 26, 1973 Sunnyvale Community`
Center
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Vice-President Hanko called the meeting to order at 7 : 25 p.m.
Members present: Daniel Condron, Katherine Duffy, Nonette
Hanko, and William Peters. (Daniel Wendin arrived at 7 :30 p.m. )
Personnel present: Herbert Grench, Stanley Norton, Carroll
Harrington
Audience of 10 persons j
II . MINUTES OF AUGUST 22, 1973, MEETING
K. Duffy moved that the minutes of the August 22 meeting be
approved as mailed. D. Condron seconded, The motion was approved.
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 19 , 1973, MEETING
K. Duffy moved acceptance of the minutes of the September 19
meeting be approved as mailed. W. Peters seconded. The motion
was approved.
III. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
Resolution Authorizing Signing and Endorsing Checks and Other
Instruments
Motion: D. Wendin moved acceptance of Resolution 73-28 as stated
above. N. Hanko seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Motion: D. Wendin moved that Resolution 73-28 supercedes Resolution
73-15 adopted June 13, 1973 . W. Peters seconded. The
motion passed unanimously.
IV. CLAIMS
Motion: D. Wendin moved acceptance of the claims as submitted.
W. Peters seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
V. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
Land Acquisition Workshop
D. Condron requested that the minutes of this workshop be in as•
much detail as possible. The specific questions that each speaker
was requested to address are repeated later in the minutes.
Speakers for the Land Acquisition Workshop were Mr. Roy Cameron.,
Director of the Santa Clara County Planning Department; Mr.
• Lawrence W. Livingston, Jr. , Livingston and Blayney, San Fran-
cisco; and Mr. William Spangle, William Spangle & Associates,
Portola Valley.
I
Meeting -20 . . . page 2
W. Peters prefaced his introduction of the speakers for the
evening by stating that since the formation of the MRPD one of
the goals has been how to plan effectively to meet the principle
aim which is control of open space land in its natural state.
Policy and/or direction that the District might take has already
come from the East Bay Regional Park District, the enabling leg-
islation, and information used during the Fall 1972 campaign. The
fact that there would be no tax revenues for the District until
December 1973 has given the Board and staff an opportunity to
formulate a plan to achieve the goals. He requested that the
invited panelists carry on an open dialogue with the suggested
questions as a guideline. He also pointed out the necessity of
informing constituents of the direction which the District is
taking. He mentioned the July 15, 1973, Goals and Objectives
Workshop in which the preservation of open space land in its
natural state was considered a first priority for the District.
Introductory Remarks:
Mr. Livingston began the discussion by stating a few of his
basic thoughts. He took the campaign promises and literature
seriously. He feels that there is a clear mandate from the
voters, and the Board does have their charge about setting general
policy. It is his general view that as little time and as little
money as the law allows should be used for planning. Efforts
should be in the direction of developing an acquisition strategy.
If the constituents can be told that there are the general
boundaries (if the Board wants to draw them) that the District is
interested in, but it' s obviously not possible to acquire all
that land, in fee at least, for many years, then it's possible
to establish general intentions. Instead of making grandiose
plans, the approach should be in the direction of acquisition of as
much land as possible with as little money as possible. As an
example, he suggested reading the San Diego County Open Space
Element Plan.
Mr. Spangle agreed that the general policy for the District had
been clearly stated during the campaign and therefore the
District should move as expeditiously as possible to preserve
open space lands through all means available. In his opinion
the District would need to do considerable planning but this
should not be directed towards preparing a plan like a city
or county general plan.
In reply to a question from K. Duffy about strategy for acqui-
sition, Mr. Livingston said that land acquisition strategy is a
decision about which lands you are trying to acquire first with-
in the areas of interest. What means should be used, i.e. ,
options, life estates? There is also the possibility of advo-
cacy with local legislative bodies for preservation of open space
by means other than acquisition. As far as a specific plan is
concerned, he suggested waiting until after the 1974 Bond Measure
is passed before worrying about what kind of plan is needed to
apply for these funds.
Meetir 3-20 . . . page 3
W. Peters remarked that because the District does not yet have
tax revenues available, there has been an opportunity for both
the Board and the Legal Counsel to study the problems involved
in land acquisition. Mr. Spangle urged that the District have
a considerable amount of information available in a usable form
so that there can easily be an evaluation on the impact of an
acquisition. The District does not need to be in the business
of generating much new information, because most of this is
already available from other city and County sources. How this
information is put together for District use is important.
W. Peters asked about the importance of acquiring information
about areas around a particular parcel of land or just consider-
ing the single parcel. Mr. Spangle .replied that it is necessary
to have certain information about all lands in the District,
but more detailed information will be needed about the particular
parcel, i.e. , character of the land, the nature of the land
ownership, and probable cost. He also stated that there are two
ways to look at the first acquisitions: 1. To focus on low cost
parcels even though this might not be strategic in a total
program (opportunity purchases) . 2. Scrutinize each purchase in
relation to impact on total program and purchase the parcel
giving greater strategic . advantage. There might be three oppor-
tunities coming up and there might not be ample funds available
for all three, therefore, a choice would have to be made.
W. Peters asked about the shortest time frame for responding to
an opportunity and what level of data collection should be
available. Mr. Cameron said that this would differ depending on
the situation. As an example, he cited the purchase of 3,600
acres by the Board of Supervisors only two weeks after learning
that it was to be up for auction, because they realized that it
was too good an opportunity to pass up.
H. Grench commented that one of the land strategies that has
been suggested is to spend the money on opportunity purchases in
order to get the land in the shortest amount of time. Mr.
Cameron stated his view that it is necessary to set up certain
criteria based on goals and policies of the District. The
critical parcels or areas need to be identified, then a priority
list developed so that when an opportunity arises, there can be
adequate information for an evaluation of the importance of the
parcel. Mr. Livingston suggested the development of a matrix
which would consist of setting up a list of all property that is
of interest to the District and this matrix would then be used
when making decisions about acquiring a parcel of land. There
would be weighted criteria by which the District could judge
every piece of property under consideration for possible purchase.
He further emphasized the important first step. The staff
should gather as much precise information as possible. Even-
tually there should be a file on every parcel, but it's more
important to start with the most important parcels of land.
Mr. Cameron said that he felt the District had been formed at
a very opportune time. The County was already working on open
Meeting .20 . . . page 4
space and recreational planning in the northern part of Santa
Clara County. In addition, there is the State law requirement
that open space and conservation elements have to be part of the
General Plan. This previous work can form a basis for the present
planning by the District. It is unnecessary to do another general
plan, because one is already available. The County General Plan
defines various categories of urban and open space areas. The
MRPD should be most concerned with the areas designated long
term open space. Once these are identified, it will be necessary
to go into an evaluation process to decide priorities and
which areas meet the most number of general criteria. He briefly
described the grid system used in the Santa Cruz Mountains study.
He reinforced Mr. Spangle's comments about the need to amass
as much information as possible. Most of this information is
already available from other agencies, but one thing that is
not generally known is the attitudes and intentions of the land-
owners about their property. A relationship has to be developed
between the District and the landowners to help them make
decisions about their land.
H. Grench asked about the problem of handling conflicts such as
when the goals of a community and of the District do not agree.
Mr. Livingston replied that a lot of the work that has pre-
viously been done by the County would be helpful for the District
in making decisions on priorities, but he added that it's also
important to balance the various interests. The situation of
the MRPD is different because the role of the District as seen
by the public is to keep all of the land in open space. W.
Peters commented about the urban service areas and the need to
begin to do some buffering in areas where the District does not
want development. This would be a factor in deciding what lands
to buy for the MRPD. Mr. Livingston said that conflicts between
the cities and the District are inevitable and compromises will
have to be worked out.
Mr. Spangle added that County and city plans predate the forma-
tion of the District, but with the District becoming operative,
there maybe a chance to modify land use within urban service
areas. Mr. Cameron said that urban service areas are to be re-
viewed each year by LAFCo. W. Peters asked if the District
should prepare a set of recommendations to have ready at the
time of LAFCo evaluations of urban service areas . Mr. Cameron
pointed out that urban service areas were determined by the
cities and they have legitimate goals and policies for urban
development, but just because it' s an urban service area
does not mean the land cannot be acquired for open space. Mr.
Livingston said that the Santa Clara County LAFCo has done the
most conscientious job in the State, and yet for good and suf-
ficient reasons LAFCo has left open space planning to the cities.
This could cause problems because the cities are interested
in growth.
N. Hanko asked for comments about the ultimate size of the MRPD.
Mr. Livingston replied that the north boundary of the MRPD should
be contiguous with the south boundary of the San Francisco water-
Meetinu' -20 . . . page 5
shed lands in San Mateo County because that iand is considered
the Midpeninsula foothills. Mr. Spangle feels that right now
it would be premature to consider this question because the
District is still in the process of being organized, no funds
have been spent, and no land has been acquired. Mr. Cameron's
opinion was that once the District record is established and
there has been success and accomplishment, there would be more
interest by residents of other areas in annexing to the District.
H. Grench added that the District may have to face this question
in the near future. For example, there is presently a group
in San Jose that is investigating both annexation to the MRPD
and the creation of an open space district in that area.
W. Peters turned to the questions that had been submitted to
the speakers in advance and summarized the previous comments as
follows:
1. Should the MRPD develop a general plan which includes
general land acquisition goals?
W. Peters stated that the general feeling was that
there was not a need to do a general plan comparable to
a city or county general plan, but that it is necessary
to plan strategy for land acquisition.
2. How should the land use and land acquisition policies
of the cities, other districts, and the county(s) be
utilized in planning the land acquisition activities
of the MRPD? How should this information be collected?
W. Peters said that Mr. Cameron in particular had in-
dicated that the District should start by collecting all
the open space and conservation elements from the cities
and the County. This information would provide the
data base for the initial planning. W. Peters asked for
other major sources of information. Mr. Spangle replied
that the County Planning Department has a publication
that identifies many of these sources. N. Hanko said
that she felt there was not a consensus that these plans
collected from the cities and County should be used as a
basis for District strategy, but instead thd information
would be used as input for planning. Mr. Spangle sug-
gested that the County Planning Department could act as
a liaison in the collection of this information.
In response to a question from H. Grench about the. utili-
zation of this information, Mr. Livingston said that
there are information specialists who can advise on how
to organize this information so that it can be easily
retrieved. Mr. Spangle described two kinds of informa-
tion: 1. basic land condition, i.e. , water, vegetation,
etc. , and 2 . dynamic information, i.e. , status of owner-
ship, land costs, land use. Mr. Livingston said the
District shouldn't avoid talking to landowners, but this
information isn't reliable for the data base because it
is constantly changing.
D. Wendin asked if after the collection of the infor-
mation, should the District plan to hire an assistant
Meetin,_ j-20 . . . page 6
general manager whose skills are in the area of infor-
mation use, and, if so, what else should he do. Mr.
Spangle replied that the way that the collected infor-
mation is used by the staff is central question, and
it may be necessary to use outside services from time
. to time. Mr. Livingston added that technical questions
will arise that could be answered by other public
agencies at no cost.
D. Wendin concluded the discussion about this question
by stating that it will be necessary to get information
specialists to advise on the classifying and retrieving
of the collected data.
3. Should data be collected on the entire District regard-
less of potential for acquisition? If not, which por-
tions of the District should be included or excluded,
e.g. currently developed areas, properly belonging to
other governmental agencies, etc.?
Mr. Livingston advised that the District start with the
areas which the criteria indicate are the most important
ones, and the gathered information should be as specifia
as possible. Mr. Spangle added that this specific data
should include information about the tax base, possible
changes in the tax base, things that will affect the tax
base, changes in zoning, etc.
4. What are the variables which should be considered by the
MRPD in evaluating a parcel of land? Which of these are
essential and which are desirable?
Mr. Livingston again suggested the use of a matrix. Mr.
Spangle added that this could be done by the staff, and
then studied at a later time by the Board. The following
studies were recommended as examples : the Santa Crux
Mountains Study, the Santa Clara County Urban Development
and Open Space Study, and the open space and conservation
plans developed by the cities.
Mr. Livingston suggested another approach. He recommended
Professor Robert Twiss, University of California at
Berkeley, and Professor James Pepper, University of
California at Santa Cruz, as outstanding authorities
on the classification of lands. Professor Pepper is
presently working on a study of the north coast of Santa
Cruz County and would be helpful in finding the best
system of decision making as far as environmental factors
are involved.
W. Peters stated that questions #5 and #6 were not particularly
relevant at this time.
7. Based upon your knowledge of available information, will
it be necessary for the MRPD to do original data collec-
tion, e.g. mass assessments of selected areas, rating of
aesthetic features of parcels, etc.? If so, which data?
Mr. Cameron described a grid system with overlays as used
Meetq 73-20 . . . page 7
by the County in its study on the Santa Cruz Mountains.
His example was done on an area by area sampling, but
this same approach could be used on a parcel by parcel
sampling (including assessment and other data) . Mr.
Cameron said that there is also information regarding
the Baylands that is available from the County.
W. Peters summarized by saying that there is fixed in-
formation available in the District's area of concern,
and it can be generalized to parcels that the District
may be interested in. Changing information can be
collected and updated as needed.
8 . How should the secured infoimation be stored and what
type of data retrieval system should be developed,
e.g. , computerized, microfiche, etc.?
Mr. Spangle advised that the District not hire an ex-
pert in this field until the nature of information
needed and its application to the MRPD program is better
defined. W. Peters asked about the availability of
computer time from the County. Mr. Cameron replied
that this might be available, but it has to be negotiated.
Mr. Livingston said that the District should get pro-
fessional assistance (i.e. , a computer specialist)
from public agencies whenever possible.
9 . What is a reasonable time frame (within which adequate
information can be collected and analyzed) to initiate
acquisition or other steps to gain interest? What
level of manpower is assumed in this calculation?
Mr. Livingston said that the amount of time needed has
to do with the availability of manpower. Mr. Spangle
added that it is also necessary to consider the form
the information is in and how much time it will take
to put it in a form that is usable for the District.
He urged that the time frame be kept reasonably short
so that the District can take advantage of any oppor-
tunities that arise. The District should plan to be
operational in 3-6 months with the amount of information
that is presently available. There may be mistakes,
but the District can learn from these.
W. Peters asked the speakers to comment on the kind of
staff and the skills that are needed for planning and
negotiating for the District. Mr. Spangle said that
experts will have to be consulted, i.e. , appraisers
and people skilled in land negotiations. Mr. Living-
ston said that assessors can give a large amount of
information about land values. Mr. Cameron commented
that the County has computerized information about
land in the County, but it's out of date. The County
Assessor has current information about the assessed
valuation, area of the lot, name of the property owner,
etc. The County Assessor' s office updates and controls
Meeting 73-20 . . . page 8
this information. Mr. Spangle suggested that the
Board be aware of Tax Code Areas. These are sub-areas
of the County within which the tax rate is identical
for all properties. The Boundaries of each Tax Code
Area reflect boundaries of combinations of taxing agen-
cies, i.e. , city, school districts, and special districts.
10 . Should the MRPD undertake the development of the land
acquisition program as an in-house project? If not,
what aspects of it should be contracted for?
Mr. Livingston reiterated that the development of such
a program must be done in-house. The Board had pre-
viously agreed that the land acquisition program will
be the single most important job to be done, and it will
be an ongoing task as the District continues to update
the information. Mr. Spangle agreed that it has to be
ongoing and assistance may be needed at the beginning.
A concise work program is needed when making decisions
about the additional staff for the District.
N. Hanko asked about a general plan versus a strategy
plan. Mr. Spangle said that a plan for action is what
is needed. In reply to a question from N. Hanko about
the need for other consultants, Mr. Livingston said
that there may be a need for a consultant in land ac-
quisition strategy. He cited as an example the planning
done for the development of the State Capitol complex
in Sacramento. Mr. Cameron stated that there are special-
ists who are concerned primarily with the planning for
the preservation of open space. Mr. Spangle added that
a land acquisition strategist has to be knowledgeable
about land value, land acquisition strategy, and alterna-
tives (in addition to full fee acquisition) available
for the preservation of open space. Mr. Livingston
suggested Mr. Huey Johnson, Trust for Public Land, as a
consultant, and N. Hanko replied that a representative
of Trust for Public Land will be invited to speak at a
future workshop.
N. Hanko suggested the difference between someone who
knows the best methods to go about acquiring the land
and someone else who knows how to put together the ac-
quisition strategy of one parcel of land vs. another.
Mr. Livingston said that. the latter is the responsibil-
ity of the General Manager. D. Wendin defined strategy
as the way in which the District plans how to go about
deciding on the lands to be purchased and tactics is
how to go about buying it. Professor James Pepper was
suggested as the expert for the former (strategy) , and
a representative from Trust for Public Land for the
latter (tactics) .
Mee,. g 73-20 . . . page 9
11. What are possible sources of funding for this effort
and what might be a reasonable budget?
Mr. Livingston advised that the District do as much as
possible within the budget to cooperate with the County
Planning Department. Mr. Spangle said that there is
already good information available from the County, and
since they are developing new data, it will be possible
for the District to utilize this.
President Wendin recessed the meeting at 9 :15 p.m. , and the
meeting was reconvened at 9 :30 p.m.
The discussion turned to a question from N. Hanko about how the
District should decide on which lands to acquire and in what
priority. After the establishment of a matrix, Mr. Livingston
suggested that the next step would be a chart that would list
all the criteria by which the actions of the District would
be gauged. There would be assigned weights which would enable
the District to make decisions. He gave as examples Part I of
the Palo Alto Foothills Study and the Santa Cruz Mountains Study.
Mr. Spangle cited the open space study of Woodside as another
example. It also is a multiple factor type of study. The next -
effort, according to Mr. Livingston, would be to learn where the
critical areas are in the County. The County Planning Department
could be of assistance here. Mr. Cameron said that the District
would have to define those factors which are the critical ones.
Usually different weights are given to different factors. One
factor to consider is closeness to urban areas. Perhaps the
District would want to give greater weight to these parcels.
Some of the other factors would include preservation of scenic
quality, vegetative cover, etc. Maps are available from the
County showing these factors.
D. Wendin expressed his concern for identifying parcels as
special interest areas as soon as possible. Some of these are
obvious areas,
but there are others not as obvious. He is con-
vinced that the Board and staff can work out a system for deter-
mining which areas are most important for the District.
Mr. Livingston suggested a game playing method by which all par-
cels would be listed and then weights would be assigned to them.
This would help formulate policy for the District.
Mr. Spangle added two major factors to consider in the categories
open space lands that are already defined in the County and
cities open space elements. These are: 1. valuable resources
on the land that need to be protected, and 2. land that should
be kept in open space because of geologic features or hazards.
W. Peters described another type of strategy which would be to
identify and area ( i.e. , a two-mile strip down the base of the
foothills) and then attempt to acquire all of the property within
this strip. Mr. Livingston questioned whether this type of design
Meeting 73-20 . . . page 10
kind of strategy would work. W. Peters suggested as another
strategy the acquisition of lands near other recreational areas
(i.e. , Foothill Park) thereby eliminating the possibility of
developments near these lAnds. Mr. Livingston replied that in
some cases this may be an excellent strategy, and other times it
wouldn't work at all'.
He furbher stated that strategy approaches
consider that every parcel is a special case and requires spe-
cific decisions. Mr. Spangle said that it may be necessary to
run through a number of trial-and-error games on strategy and
from these develop a set of strategies and sub-strategies. Then
generalizations can be made about the next step.
i
N. Hanko asked for opinion on joint acquisition with other
agencies. Mr. Cameron pointed out the possibility of working
with the County in the development of a trail system. Mr. Liv-
ingston reminded the Board that the campaign literature had
promised cooperation with the County Department of Parks and
Recreation. Mr. Spangle mentioned the following ways of working
with other agencies: 1. act as an acquisition agent for other
agencies as the Nature Conservancy does; 2. purchase-lease
agreement or other specific kinds of operating agreements.
In discussing the preservation of prime agricultural lands, it
was agreed that this is a low priority for the District because
of the absence of such lands within the District. The County
presently implements the preservation of agricultural lands in
the conservation element of the General Plan by zoning and is
considering the use of land banking.
K. Duffy asked the speakers about policy on responding to op-
portunities or creating these opportunities. Mr. Livingston
said that after the criteria is set, then it will be possible
to act quickly if there is an opportunity in a critical area.
He also pointed out the importance of keeping some reserve funds
in the budget at all times. W. Peters said that 10% of the
budget has been reserved for opportunities and emergencies. N.
Hanko pointed out that the District's borrowing powers could be
used as a reserve fund.
Concluding Remarks:
Mr. Cameron stressed the idea of cooperation and coordination.
He offered the services of the County and is willing to help in
an advisory capacity. The staff and the Board can explore these
possibilities.
Mr. Spangle said that it' s important to become operational and
develop the criteria and strategy as soon as possible. Land
acquisition and management is the real key to what the District
is doing. Decisions about land management will also be impor-
tant. The initial thrust has to be to keep as much as possible
Meeting 73-20 . . . page 11
in the budget for land acquisition. The District also needs to
have information about plans and trends in the areas surrounding
the MRPD in Santa Cruz and San Mateo Counties.
Mr. Livingston stated that grand strategy is more important than
grand design. He pointed out the importance of gifts of land
and the necessity of informing landowners about the MRPD. It's
vital to have something that shows and operates. After the
critical areas have been decided upon, the District should meet
with the Board of Supervisors and the cities councils and become
more informed about their plans. A liaison system should be
worked out with them. In addition, since the MRPD is a govern-
ment agency, it should work closely;with other agencies at the
policy making levels.
W. Peters and the other Board members thanked the speakers for
their presentation.
IV. REPORTS
Open House
H. Grench referred to the memorandum of September 141 1973, about
having an open house in November at the new office. After brief
discussion, it was decided the proposed date of November 11
would be too soon because the office would be only sparsely
furnished.
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the General Manager be given the
discretion to have an open house when the office is
furnished. N. Hanko seconded. D. Condron amended the
motion to leave the date entirely to the discretion of
the General Manager and omit the portion about waiting
until the office is furnished. K. Duffy seconded. The
amendment failed. Ayes : Condron, Duffy. Noes: Hanko,
Peters, Wendin. The original motion passed. Ayes :
Condron, Duffy, Hanko, Wendin. Abstention: Peters.
President Wendin left for the evening. Vice-President Hanko
continued the meeting.
VII.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Elizabeth Kniss presented information about Proposition 1 on
the November 1973 ballot. After brief discussion, N. Hanko
stated that the Board had been advised by Attorney Norton that
there was no problem for the MRPD if Proposition 1 passes, and
that the Board had agreed that unless there was a problem
directly affecting the District that no position would be taken.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
The Board recessed to Executive Session to discuss personnel
matters and reconvened to adjourn at 11:00 p.m.
Carroll Harrington
Secretary
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
Memorandum October 16 , 1973
To: Board of Directors
From: C. Harrington, Administrative Secretary
Subject: Minutes of September 26 , 1973, Meeting
Since there was some question about the accuracy of the minutes
of the September 26 meeting in the discussion regarding Proposition 1,
and in the intent of the Board regarding Proposition 1, 1 have re-
viewed the tape recording in greater detail, as follows :
Kniss: I have passed out some information on Proposition 1. 1
think it could have some long range implications for any
government agency that is particularly new to the state. . . .
Hanko: We have already been alerted to Proposition 1 and we've
received recommendations and exposition of the problems
at our last meeting. I believe that the consensus of the
group at that time was that there was no problem for us,
and we therefore have no reason to take a position on
this particular measure except as individuals . In the
fact that it did not affect the District, it would be
unwise for us to do so.
Kniss: In that case I would suggest that some ramifications might
affect you in the long run even though it may seem a bit
circuitous. If this were indeed to pass, you realize
that certain programs will probably not be cut off, but
probably can ng longer be funded through State funds. . . .
This means most probably. . .that most likely what will occur
is that taxation would become regressive and start falling
on the property tax and sales tax areas of the County.
When this happens, the County tax rate will go up as such
a rate that things that we thought of as very desirable
types of programs may not be thought of as so desirable. . . .
Hanko: I ' ll have Mr. Norton address himself to that but my under-
standing is that the District was founded by the voters
and we can't be disbanded. The District Directors have
the power to levy up to 104� and this isn't going to change
unless the State legislature destroys our ability to tax. . . .
Stan Norton said that Liz was saying that a lot of things unforeseeable
-could happen and there would be problems for cities, counties, and districts-)
Page 2
He further said that he had given the Board his appraisel of the
legal implications of the measure and that as of today there didn't
seem to be any problem. He mentioned his discussion with Bill
Siegel, County Counsel.
Liz Kniss said that she felt there might be long-range implications
for the MRPD.
Stan Norton reminded that right now the legislature is authorized
to raise the tax rate 20G, 30�, whatever. If Proposition 1 passes ,
they would not have that power.
Nonette Hanko said that she felt the Board didn't have a basis for
taking a position. . . . She would like to have some solid reasons for
taking a position.
Brief discussion between Liz and Nonette about State parks system.
Bill Peters said that there had been a clear division among the Board
members on whether the Board should take positions that are not
directly related. Have to look out for the voters of the District
because it is a special purpose district. . . . That' s not to say
that from time to time the Board won't take positions.
End of discussion.
Recommendation:
That the minutes of the September 26, 1973, meeting be changed to
read: "Elizabeth Kniss presented information about Proposition 1
on the November 1973 ballot. Vice-President Hanko stated that
the Board has previously discussed this proposition and the consensus
at that time was that there was no need for the Board to take a posi-
tion on this particular measure except as individuals. "