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