Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19740518 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) ML Meeting 74-11 1141610f *Z=0 0M MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Special Meeting Board of Directors M I N U T E S May 18, 1974 745 Distel Drive Los Altos, CA I. GATHERING TIME Kay Duffy, Vice President of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District, welcomed participants to the First Annual Joint Regional Park District Conference. Attending the meeting were: Midpeninsula Regional Park District Herbert Grench, General Manager Edward E. Jaynes, Assistant General Manager Kay Duffy, Director Daniel P. Wendin, Director Nonette Hanko, Director Stanley Norton, Legal Counsel John Melton, Controller Anne Cathcart Crosley, Administrative Secretary Carroll Harrington, Public Communications Assistant Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District Gary Tate, General Manager Billie Beams, Director John Sigourney, Director Marin County Open Space District Pierre Joski, General Manager Brian Wittenkeller, Assistant to General Manager Gary Shanks, Acquisition Agent East Bay Regional Park District Mary Jefferds, Director Fred Blumberg, Director Doreta Chaney, Development Specialist Mike Manley, Legislative Representative Santa Clara County Planning Department Don Weden, Planner Herbert Grench, General Manager of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District, suggested the meeting be an informal one, and that district representatives ' reports indicate the status of each regarding financing, land acquisition, planning, etc. L-L AA. OF MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT 745 DISTEL DRIVE, LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717 Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Daniel S.Condron, Katherine Duffy, Nonette G.Hanko,William G.Peters,Daniel G.Wendin Meeting 74-11 Page three is trying to acquire the western portion of this property, the MPRPD is concentrating its efforts on the eastern por- tion. Mr. Tate added that his district was also interested in a joint effort to prepare a brochure explaining tax advantages of land gifts to property owners . Herbert Grench explained that his district had used the past year basically in an educational process , and had set up the goals and objectives of the MRPD. The MRPD is in- terested in acquiring all the open space it possibly can. Presently, efforts are being concentrated on parcels most immediately threatened by urban development. The District maintains a program of advocacy of its goals and policies before other agencies for the purpose of persuading them to plan for the preservation of open spaces. The MRPD master plan will be completed in approximately six months. Mr. Grench commented that the MRPD was being assisted in planning for trail development by a citizens group known as the Trails Task Force. The MRPD received $1.3 million in funding last year, and can expect to receive another $830,000 more if the Park Bond passes . Doreta Chaney, EBRPD, asked if any of the regional park dis- tricts had considered the effects of the energy crisis in their determination of planning for acquisition of properties close to, or farther away from, urban centers. Several par- ticipants responded that acquisition of parcels farther away from urban centers might tend to keep the spread of urban development in a concentrated area. III. TAXATION STRUCTURE WORKSHOP Lawrence Klein, Esq. , an attorney assisting the MRPD, presented information regarding taxation of owners of real property in the State of California, and explained advantages to real property owners in making donations to charitable institutions, including governmental units. Mr. Klein is in the process of preparing position papers on this subject which should be available to conference participants by the end of the summer. Mr. Klein noted there are seven taxes which an adviser to a landowner would consider: the Federal estate tax, California inheritance tax, Federal gift tax, California gift tax, Federal and California income taxes and the property tax. Until re- cently, California taxes had not been a factor. But they had increased greatly in the 1960 ' s and were now a factor. There are both similarities and differences in the tax laws for the Federal Government and for the State of California. Mr. Klein described how "death taxes" , the Federal estate taxes, work. Among other things, he stated that the Calif- ornia inheritance tax varies according to who the benefici- aries are. The closer the relationship, the lower the tax. Meeting 74-11 Page four The Federal estate tax is based solely on the amount of the taxable estate of the deceased. Some time way spent 4%01,- cussing community property and separate property and the death tax implications of each. Mr. Klein then explained some of the similarities and dif- ferences between the Federal gift tax and the California gift tax. During a lifetime, one may give $3,000 per per- son per year, tax-free, under both the Federal and State gift tax laws. For Federal gift tax purposes, every donor has in addition a life-time exemption of $30, 000 for gifts made. In California, the lifetime exemption depends upon who the recipient of the gift is (i.e. , a son pays less gift tax than a cousin or friend) . There may be situations in which it is desirable for an elderly person to make gifts to relatives to avoid death taxes. However, for both Fed- eral and State purposes, gifts made within three years of death may be disregarded for death tax purposes. Mr. Klein then moved to the income tax area. He first de- scribed the capital gains concept and then explained income averaging. Under the latter concept, a taxpayer may in ef- fect average his/her income over a five year period in the event that the income received in the present year is dra- matically higher than income received in the four previous years. Mr. Klein noted that no taxes are payable when a person ex- changes a piece of property for another of like kind (true of real property but not of stocks) . Mr. Klein advised that charitable contributions can be de- ducted for up to 30% of one ' s income for Federal tax pur- poses. In California, no more than 20% of one' s income may be utilized for charitable deductions. Under Federal law if the amount of charitable contributions in one year ex- ceeds the allowable deduction, the excess may be used over the next five years as a deduction. California does not allow this "carryover." Mr. Klein explained the concept of "bargain sale, " whereby a taxpayer may deduct, as a charitable contribution, the difference between the value of property sold and the price received for the property. The Unitrust concept, he said, might be a popular means for a person wishing to donate land to a park district, but at the same time requiring an income for living expenses . The donor could give land in exchange for the annual payment of a specified sum of money to the donor (i .e. , $15, 000) . When the donor dies, the property would belong to the park dis- Meeting 74-11 Page five trict without further annual payments. The donor also re- ceives a charitable deduction in the year of the transaction equal to the difference between the value of the property and the value of the district' s promise to pay an annual amount. Mr. Klein added that the "gift and leaseback" concept is similar to the Unitrust, whereby land may be donated (to a park district) in exchange for the right of the donor to continue to live on and use the property donated for either a specified period of time or until the donor's death. The Unitrust and the gift and leaseback alternatives are attrac- tive for people wishing to guarantee that their properties will be well taken care of after death, but who also need an income and/or residence until their death. IV. DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE CHANGES IN ENABLING LEGISLATION Stanley Norton, Legal Counsel to the Midpeninsula Regional Park District, distributed copies of his letter of March 6 , 1974 to Mr. Donald D. Gralnek of the Assembly Select Com- mittee on Open Space Land. Discussions followed on the items enumerated in the letter, with the following conclu- sions: 1. It was agreed there should be changes in the statutes clarifying the duties of the Director-Secretary And Director-Treasurer, and the functions performed by the "administrative secretary" or secretary to the Board. Drafting of appropriate language for consideration was requested. 2. The consensus was that Section 5552 should be amended to be permissive with respect to the use of a warrant or check system. 3. Representatives from the districts asked that appropri- ate language concerning an amendment to Section 5547 be prepared for submission to the various district Boards of Directors. It was felt that the language should be permissive. 4 . It was agreed that Section 5553 be amended to permit payment of particular recurring items (e.g. , salaries) without Board approval for each instance of payment. Drafting of appropriate language for consideration was requested. 5. Participants agreed that Section 5554 be left as is un- til future needs necessitated a change, Meeting 74-11 Page six 6. Regarding the conflict of interest restrictions in Section 5567, the opinion of some participants was that recent legislation had superseded these, and that amendment of that section would be unnecessary. Marin County Open Space District representatives asked for an analysis from the MRPD Legal Counsel. 7. Most participants said Sections 5523 and 5533 regard- ing elections would not apply to their districts any longer; however, an opinion and possible amendment language from the MRPD Legal Counsel was requested for consideration by the Boards of Directors of the districts. 8 . Regarding the extension of district indebtedness from two years to five years, the consensus was that each district should discuss this proposal and make recom- mendations . 9. It was agreed that an amendment should be requested so regional park districts could change their names if desired. 10. It was agreed that the park districts would discuss the desirability of increasing the present 62-% interest rate limit to provide greater flexibility. V. DISCUSSION OF OTHER AREAS OF POSSIBLE COOPERATION It was suggested that AB4062, introduced by Assemblyman Alister McAlister, should be amended to provide that school districts make surplus lands available to regional park districts as well as cities and counties . Several representatives asked if the attorneys for the districts could draft an amendment providing that police enforcement of district lands be permissive rather than mandatory. There was supportive discussion about the possibility of establishing a Regional Park District Association in order to foster cooperation and maintain an information clearing house for the use of all regional park districts. The possibility of having another joint regional park dis- trict conference was discussed. Because the State legis- lature is scheduled to convene on December 7 , 1974, a num- ber of participants indicated they would like to hold such a meeting prior to that date. There was some discussion of the possibility of park dis- trict cooperation in maintaining a legislative analyst in Meeting 74-11 Page seven Sacramento. MRPD representatives indicated that for the present time, their district would like to continue its good working relationship with the incumbent legislators. The meeting adjourned at 4:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Anne Cathcart Crosley Administrative Secretary