Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19750202 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) 1 Meeting 75-3 , MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Special Meeting Goals Workshop Board of Directors M I N U T E S February 2, 1975 745 Distel Drive Los Altos, CA I. ROLL CALL President Duffy called the meeting to order at 10: 07 A.M. Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Barbara Green, Nonette Hanko, Edward Shelley and Daniel Wendin. Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Edward Jaynes, Jon Olson, Anne Crosley, Stanley Norton, Carroll Harrington, Jennie George, Norma Kelly and John Melton. Audience of four persons at opening of meeting, up to 35 persons during the day. II. INTRODUCTION H. Grench reviewed the last District Goals Workshop of July, 1973 and reported that since that time the District has acquired five parcels of land totaling 1600 acres and that progress in all goal categories was evident. Today' s workshop was intended to review the goals adopted by the Board with consideration of possible revision for the coming year, and to update the Action Plan. Budget implications would follow from these re- visions. H. Grench stated that he saw the day's discussion as informal with freedom for public participation. III . LAND ACQUISITION D. Wendin led the discussion of the land acquisition policies. He stated that the Board at a previous meeting had tentatively adopted most policies as outlined, but had agreed to discuss the following today in more detail: 1) Open Space for the Protection of Agriculture 2) Trails (to be discussed under the Land Management agenda item) 3) Gifts of land which did not fulfill general open space requirements but had limited or specific re- sources, such as possessing only historical or archeological significance Meeting 75-3 Page two He expressed the hope that, in addition, the term "regional significance" would be discussed at some point during the day. There would also be discussion of Short-term Financial Manage- ment under this agenda item. A. Short-term Financial Management. D. Wendin turned the discussion over to J. Melton, who pointed out that to date the District has relied upon the methods of tax revenue, borrowing power and gifts for financial resources. It has applied for and received grant funds. He expressed the belief that in the near future the District would continue to rely on these as the only sources available. He asked for any ideas for other short-term financing sources. D. Wendin asked if there was an advantage to borrowing from banks rather than on an installment plan with a seller. J. Melton replied that an advantage would exist when the District could receive a lower interest rate from a bank than it could from the seller. To date this has not been the case. J. Melton then presented an update of the December 31, 1974 financial report. He said the District had roughly $1, 750,000 in the bank, plus $3, 000, 000 in borrowing power (of this amount $800,000 is committed, with $600, 000 due within a year) . In addition, grants from Proposition 1 funds and Land and Water Conservation funds should be re- ceived soon. By June 30 , 1975 the District should have over $3, 000, 000 in cash. If the Older-Seven Springs option is exercised, an additional $600,000 will be used. There- fore, it would be reasonable to think in terms of having $1, 750, 000 available for acquisition. In the short term, the traditional sources will continue to give $4 to $5 million in purchasing power. E. Shelley asked if the anticipated funds from the State were "one time only, " to which J. Melton replied affirmatively. H. Grench pointed out that Land and Water Conservation funds can be applied for each year, but there is no assur- ance they will be granted. H. Grench stated, in response to J. Melton' s request for additional sources of financing, that he would like to reintroduce the possibility of a non-profit, private foundation - like "Friends of MRPD" - which would work for contributions of cash and other assets. He felt it was harder for the staff and District to solicit gifts of money or other property such as stocks than it is for them to work for gifts of land or bargain purchases. Meeting 75-3 Page three K. Duffy said she supported this idea because it would provide an opportunity for persons who feel freer deal- ing with non-governmental officials. She expressed con- cern that such a foundation might be in competition with similar existing groups such as the Sempervirens Funds. H. Grench said that, while competition might be a factor, he felt it would be important if people were motivated to give who would not contribute to other similar causes. J. Melton wondered if it would be possible to put together a gifts task force similar to the Trails Task Force. D. Wendin asked if there is a long term possibility for the Trust for Public Lands or the Nature Conservancy to act as an intermediary. H. Grench replied that they could do so in some cases, but he felt there is a need for another group to be soliciting in the interests of the MRPD specifically. N. Hanko reminded the Board that Larry Klein had contracted to submit a tax advantages research and documentation report. She asked about the current status of his work. H. Grench said Mr. Klein is again working on it, and the brochure will be implemented by staff. E. Jaynes pointed out that Mr. Klein said most available literature relates to federal tax advantages, and he would like to develop material on State-related advantages. K. Duffy noted that a group was to be formed for the City of Saratoga to perform the functions suggested by H. Grench, but their goals were not accomplished. J. Olson reported that the East Bay Regional Park District has such a foundation, but it is staffed by the EBRPD and performs more of a bookkeeping function than acting as a separate organization. H. Grench said he was not suggesting the EBRPD foundation as a model. K. Duffy asked if the District could contribute to the funding of such an organization. S. Norton said that was possible under a contract arrangement for specific serv- ices. D. Wendin suggested the idea be placed on a future meeting agenda for further discussion. A. Crosley asked if conflicts would arise between an in- dependent foundation and the District' s program. D. Wen- din said he thought the possibility existed, but since the goals of the two organizations were the same, it would not be a great threat. MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Meeting 75-3 Page four E. Shelley asked if the group might have the independence to donate to other agencies. H. Grench said this arrange- ment could work to the District' s advantage. K. Duffy suggested the idea of agifts foundation be agen- dized at a time when L. Klein could attend a Board meeting. B. Acquisition Policies D. Wendin said he thought items (1) and (3) of his intro- duction could be covered if the Board began a discussion of agricultural lands. He read the suggested policies for acquisition of open space for the protection of agri- culture and said the key to the second policy was that it would be sufficient if agriculture were the only open space use. K. Duffy said she felt agricultural land is valuable enough to be considered on its own merit. N. Hanko reminded the Board that a planned workshop on the viability of orchard lands as open space has not yet taken place, and that bet- ter answers could be reached after such a meeting was held. She said she thought the statement " . . .the District will consider. . . " was appropriate. D. Wendin said the basic question was this: If the Dis- trict is presented with the opportunity to purchase a par- cel of land which has agricultural use as its only poten- tial, would the District even consider the purchase. The question, he said, assumes the parcel under consideration meets the requirement of "regional significance. " Mr. William Peters, Buena Vista del Rio, Carmel Valley, said that the answer should be yes, and he used El Retiro as an example. D. Wendin pointed out there were other justifiable open space uses for that parcel. He added that the lack of an answer to his question indicated to him that the Board would not consider purchase of agri- cultural land suited for that purpose only. H. Grench expressed his belief that the District should stay with its present policy, which has basically defined the District' s area of interest as being outside the Urban Service Area, although allowing for some cross-over. He said he would exclude orchards within the Urban Service Areas which possess regional significance, because he sees the District' s role in such cases as that of an advocate to urge the cities to implement their own open space programs within their Urban Service Area boundaries. D. Wendin stated that he felt there was a consensus among Board members that the District will consider acquiring Meeting 75-3 Page five land or rights in land which is used for agricultural pro- duction if such land also has other substantial open space value. He suggested the second policy - that the District will consider accepting gifts of land or rights in land in order to preserve and protect agricultural production - be discussed at this time. It was agreed that implicit in all of the policies was the consideration of ongoing cost factors and the weighing of this with all other factors. E. Jaynes pointed out that the policy discusses rights in land as well as gifts of land, and considerations might be different in each case. For example, the District may very well accept a gift of development rights. K. Duffy suggested the District develop further statements on gift giving. D. Wendin said the item could be placed on a future meeting agenda. D. Wendin said that he hoped the group would discuss the term "regional significance" later in the day if time per- mits. IV. GOVERNMENTAL LIAISON K. Duffy reported that this goal had been placed on the "back burner" by the Board because of other priorities, and it was therefore important to review what has been accomplished in this area and what should be done in the future. H. Grench said the staff generally reviews agendas from other agencies, but often this is too late to become involved. For example, this year the District was caught short on Urban Service Area considerations. He said he would like to discuss Board involvement in the review of Environmental Impact Reports affecting their respective wards. He said he did not wish to see additional staff devoted to this area, but at present staff simply doesn 't have the time available to handle it more thoroughly. He asked if it would be possible for Board members to become more active in this review process. Mr. William Peters said when he was a Director, he often felt himself caught between District business and city matters. He did agree that the staff, as it was now composed, probably would not be able to handle more. Mr. Robert Mark, 725 Cowper, Palo Alto, suggested the District use community volunteer observers. N. Hanko said she felt Board members could be more active. She suggested regular luncheon meetings between city officials and District Board members. She also felt land tours would be useful. Meeting 75-3 Page six H. Grench said he often felt frustrated because he would like to meet regularly with representatives from the cities, but he has been unable to find enough time. He said he would pre- fer that the District use its money for land acquisition rather than additional staff for this purpose. K. Duffy suggested Board members should receive agendas, review them and check with staff on items of interest to the District. A. Crosley said she often needs to explain who the District is when speaking with staff members of various cities and other agencies. She said staffs have a great deal of influence on boards or councils, and suggested they also be invited to the District office to learn of our goals and interests. N. Hanko said informal meetings with city council members could include a staff member, also. She suggested the possibility of conducting such meetings be agendized for consideration at a future Board meeting. Until then, she urged that Board members actively review Environmental Impact Reports and agendas. S. Norton suggested each Director could be responsible for monitoring the actions of agencies in his or her own area. E. Shelley said they would have to be careful to coordinate their individual efforts with the efforts of staff. D. Wendin pointed out that receiving all agendas could be costly. K. Duffy asked Board members for agreement that each would re- ceive and review agendas from agencies in their respective wards. No one voiced disagreement. J. George asked if staff should continue reviewing also. K. Duffy said she felt it was a good idea to reduce the possibility that an important item would be missed. K. Duffy asked if environmental impact reports could be sorted out by the staff so only items pertinent to the District would be reviewed by the appropriate Director. H. Grench suggested the staff allocate a little more time in its efforts to receive reports and then distribute them to the Director of the ward which would be affected. D. Wendin said he did not personally feel he could assume the responsibility for reviewing reports for a minimum of two, and a maximum of five, cities. E. Shelley said the responsibilities could be divided among the Directors so that no one Director carries a large burden. During the discussion that followed, other suggestions included the use of volunteers or adding a part-time staff member. Meeting 75-3 Page seven K. Duffy said the problem might be partly solved by better con- tact with other agencies ' staffs. J. Olson said his experience with East Bay indicated the most productive method was the establishment of informal, personal contacts with other plan- ning staffs. N. Hanko suggested the District staff prepare a proposal for the improvement of intergovernmental relations, and that the proposal be placed on the agenda of a future Board meeting. Mr. William Peters said he agreed with the ideas of inviting agency staffs to the District and of conducting land tours for both council and staff members. H. Grench said he would summarize the discussion by noting that many of the ideas mentioned were being pursued by the staff and Board on a minimal level, but all felt that more should be done to improve relations with other agencies. Mr. Robert Mark said there were a number of people in the various communities who are already monitoring agencies who could be used by the District. D. wendin said his past experience had been that it was difficult to organize and depend on a independent observer group. He suggested that a list be compiled showing what existing groups already monitor other agencies on a regular basis. V. REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE D. Wendin quoted the Basic Policy statement of the District: "The District will use its available resources primarily to acquire open space outside the urban service area boundaries of the cities rather than within the cities. " He felt that each Board member put his or her own meaning on the term "primarily" and under what circumstances the District would consider buying land located within the Urban Service Area. In an attempt to define more clearly the intent of the District, the words "urban open space of regional significance" have been studied by the staff, and defined in a report (R-74-17) as follows: "Urban Open Space of Regional Significance is undeveloped or essentially undeveloped land or water area located within the boundaries of an Urban Service Area with unique or unusual charac- teristics of sufficient natural value and import- ance to transcend its relevance to the immediate locality. " J. Melton said that in addition to items (a) through (g) of the staff report, the additional criteria of "guiding urban form" might be listed. Meeting 75-3 Page eight K. Duffy said she thought this definition should be included in the District' s Master Plan. N. Hanko disagreed, stating that she did not want to see it included at all because it might get the District involved in areas that were city responsibility. D. Wendin said he felt one of the roles of the District was to look at regionally significant parcels even if they did fall within an Urban Service Area. H. Grench pointed out that people in Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Los Gatos and elsewhere have asked the District to spend money in their cities for land. K. Duffy asked if he was arguing against inclusion of a statement about regionally significant lands in Urban Service Areas. H. Grench said he was, because he felt urban open space acquisition should be the program of other agencies and not the MRPD. S. Norton said the question was whether the District wanted an adopted policy to show as its final statement, or does it wish to consider each proposal that may come from cities as an indi- vidual matter. Mr. Kermit Smith, 864 Orange Avenue, Sunnyvale, urged the Dis- trict to take a flexible view and review proposals on a case- by-case basis. He said this was also the most politically viable position. E. Shelley said he was uncomfortable with the use of the phrase "Urban Service Area" as a definition and would rather use the word "urbanized. " D. Wendin said he felt LAFCO' s definition of Urban Service Area was valid, although some cities have not adhered to that definition. K. Duffy suggested the Board consider the question of including a definition of urban open space of regional significance. She stated that the use of Urban Service Area would be placed on a', future Board meeting agenda. A recess for lunch was taken at 12 : 24 P.M. The meeting was re- convened at 1: 06 P.M. VI. LAND MANAGEMENT N. Hanko introduced Jon Olson, the District's new Land Manager. She read objective No. 3 from the District' s Basic Policy: "The District will follow a land management policy that provides proper care of open space land, allowing public access appropri- ate to the nature of the land and consistent with ecological values." J. Olson said the essence of developing the District' s land manage- ment and use programs will be balancing the various kinds of public and private use against the start-up and operating costs of such uses. He felt this balance must be kept in mind during the discussion of the items outlined. Meeting 75-3 Page nine A. Patrol and Public Safety J. Olson said agricultural land was an example of land requiring the least expense for the District in the category of patrol and public safety. The patrol is built in, and there is some revenue return. However, most lands will require patrol and maintenance services. He felt the District would have to develop regulatory ordin- ances for the use of its lands. He said he felt strongly that the major emphasis of the District should be on educating users of the land rather than on enforcing laws rigidly. K. Duffy asked if the County could enforce District ordin- ances. J. Olson said the District could enter into an agreement with the County for such services, but he said this might be awkward. He added that it might mean sacri- ficing the type of policing that the District would prefer. Mr. Robert Marks cited the example of the Santa Monica Mountains area, where policing problems led to reduced public access, leaving bad feelings on the part of the public. He urged the Board to try very hard to allow at least limited public access, especially in areas which have previously been used by the public. H. Grench pointed out that the Fremont Older Ranch was an example of the problem cited by Mr. Marks. Past users of that land include horseback riders and hikers who are strong supporters of the District' s acquisition of the Ranch. D. Wendin asked if there was a rule-of-thumb cost per acre for patrol and maintenance services. J. Olson said there was no useful rule, since the kind of use for a parcel of land, as well as the topography of the land, determines what problems and costs will be necessary. B. Green asked how much authority a District patrolperson would have if someone were discovered to be violating the District' s ordinances. J. Olson pointed out that the Dis- trict's enabling legislation allows: full police powers. C. Harrington suggested keeping in mind other methods of educating the public rather than distribution of printed materials at the time of an incident. As examples, she cited contact with schools, clubs and associations, news- papers and magazines. MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Meeting 75-3 Page ten N. Hanko asked what the procedure would be for develop- ing ordinances for the District. J. Olson advised that H. Grench, S. Norton and he have already begun review- ing ordinances, and a draft for Board consideration would be forthcoming. B. Green asked when the District would begin its pro- gram of public education. H. Grench said he thought it should begin when ordinances and land use policies are adopted by the Board. N. Hanko asked to what extent the District might con- tract for patrol services by other agencies. J. Olson said this would depend on the particular parcel, its location and use. He emphasized that he hoped the District would have high quality public contact. B. Planning, Management and Use Program J. Olson stated that the District must go through a planning process for each parcel before management and use can be determined. The process should include consideration of resource inventories, potential public and private uses, relationship to uses of other parcels, and the cost of the program. He envisioned the Dis- trict developing interim policies for a year or so to gain experience. Mrs. Linda Stuckey, 22600 Prospect Road, Saratoga, asked if there was a time frame for developing use policies for the Fremont older Ranch. J. Olson said there was none at this time. Mrs. Stuckey noted there was a June 1, 1975 option date for that property, and said she hoped a policy would be developed by then. Mr. Robert Marks suggested a citizens advisory committee for each parcel, similar to the committees used by the State Parks System, could be used. D. Wendin asked what the District' s liability is for its land and the acts of those using the land. S. Norton said the principal area of concern was in terms of fire damage. An individual can be held liable for resulting costs, but the District would only be held liable if it were shown to be negligent. D. Wendin asked if the District was only keeping a property clear of litter, and if a hiker injures self, others or adjacent land, is the District liable. S. Norton said the District would be liable only if it could be shown that an employee or agent of the District acted in a negligent manner. In general, he said, the more per- sons as are admitted onto the land, the greater the Meeting 75-3 Page eleven responsibility of the District for conditions on that land. Also, natural conditions which exist on the land (e.g. , a fallen log or a body of water) do not constitute liability. However, as one begins "improv- ing" natural conditions, added responsibility is taken on for proper maintenance. D. Wendin noted there were a number of existing trails on the Black Mountain property. Would the District be liable, he asked, if it were unable to provide suffi- cient patrol. S. Norton stated that the District has liability insurance, and if and when judgments or claims became so great as to require rate adjustment, the District could decide if it would be cheaper to add extra patrol personnel. N. Hanko asked for more discussion of the idea of using citizen advisory committees in planning for the use of District lands. J. Olson said he foresees staff, volun- teer and intern involvement in the following areas: (1) inventory of resources and (2) identification of possible uses for a particular parcel. D. Wendin suggested the current use of a parcel could be better defined by using citizen input. He said he felt that once the District has obtained an option for the future purchase of a parcel, planning efforts should begin. J. Olson and D. Wendin said they felt the Board should adopt a procedure for planning, even if it is only a broad outline, so at least the public would be aware of the process. D. Wendin said it seemed there was a need for two interim plans before arriving at the long-term planning stage: (1) a pre-acquisition plan which defines use of land immediately after transfer of title to the District, and (2) an interim plan for use while the long-term plan is being developed. K. Duffy urged citizen participation be encouraged from the time a parcel is chosen for acquisition. She felt that many citizen groups have a great deal of informa- tion to offer, and they need to receive information from the District in return. H. Grench said he could envision two types of citizen involvements: (1) formalized citizen advisory groups and (2) informal contacts by staff with interested citizens, particularly neighbors, from the very begin- ning. Meeting 75-3 Page twelve N. Hanko said she felt there was a consensus by the Board that citizen participation is needed early in the planning process. She asked J. Olson to incorporate this into the forthcoming staff report. It was agreed that citizens committees would be beneficial and that guidelines for composing such committees should be developed. C. Trails N. Hanko introduced members of the Trails Task Force who were in attendance at the workshop: Artemas Ginzton, Tony Look and Alan Grundmann. Mr. Grundmann gave a brief history of the Task Force and said the one specific recommendation it had made thus far to the Board of Directors was that the District examine the feasibility of developing a Stevens Creek Trail System. N. Hanko asked Mr. Grundmann if the Task Force wanted any policy direction from the Board. He said the Task Force would like to know what the Board wants it to do. J. Olson defined the categories of trails, stating that he sees the current interest in trails as a reaction to automobiles and urbanization: 1. Regional Trail System: This concept has been discussed by many groups over the United States. Regional trails would be used for more than a day' s hike. One of the charges of the Trails Task Force is to identify appropriate regional trails for our area. 2. Feeder Trails: These are local trails leading to a particular area or center, or connecting regional trails to these sites. 3. Internal Trails: These are trails which are established within lands owned by the District. J. Olson said he saw the District as being most committed to this category of trails at the present. K. Duffy read the background statement and proposed trails acquisition policies for the benefit of the audience. A. Grundmann urged the Board to more clearly state its interest in transportation - particularly biking - trails. N. Hanko pointed out that the Board has asked the Task Force to comment on the proposed acquisition policy statements. Mr. Grundmann said he Meeting 75-3 Page thirteen personally accepted the final statement of the background material and the two acquisition policies. A. Ginzton asked if acquisition policy No. 1 might seem presumptuous, since it appeared to be saying the District would develop a regional trail system rather than empha- sizing that the District would cooperate with other agencies such as the County in this kind of development. E. Shelley said he did not think the statement excluded cooperation. K. Duffy felt the Statement referred to a regional trail system, not necessarily a District trail system. D. Wendin noted that the subcommittee had pur- posely left the statement rather loose, and perhaps it should be stated more clearly that the District does not intend to duplicate other regional trail systems. Ms. Lou Middleton, 22044 Creekside Court, Cupertino, asked if the District would solicit the opinions of people whose land may be acquired for a trail system. A. Ginzton noted that the purpose of today' s workshop was to consider general policies for trail acquisition, and not a specific trail. K. Duffy pointed out that the District holds publicly announced hearings for every acquisition it pro- poses to make. Mrs. Pat Maguire, 1013 East Cardinal Drive, Sunnyvale, asked if the County of Santa Clara' s trails committee would have authority over District proposals. It was ex- plained that the County' s committee is just now being formed, and it would be concerned with trails in the entire County, and would be separate from the MRPD. In response to a question from the audience asking if the $87, 000 figure was intended to be used for trails, A. Grundmann explained that his understanding was that the Board had agreed to limit spending on all types of development to 5% of its income during the first ten years. H. Grench advised that the $87, 000 would be used for all types of park development, including laying-in of trails, but not for trails acquisition. K. Duffy said she felt the words "regional trail system" needed further definition. D. Wendin suggested the last statement in the background material of the trails sec- tion be made a part of the acquisition policy: "The District intends to take a lead in planning and to parti- cipate in the implementation of recreational trails of regional significance. " He also thought. acquisition policy No. 1 should be changed to reflect that the Dis- trict will participate in a regional system in the baylands and foothills. N. Hanko asked if there was consensus for this change. T. Look suggested the Board and Task Force should meet together to work on the definition. K. Duffy Meeting 75-3 Page fourteen said she felt the District needed to develop a policy statement covering the whole concept of trails develop- ment. Mr. Peter Daley, 1573 Ashcroft Way, Sunnyvale, referred to a letter by Mr. Stocklemeier concerning the impact on Stevens Creek of a proposed trail system. He said he was concerned about the existing wildlife along the Creek. He said he thought the District should concern itself with trails outside the urban areas. Mr. Dan Baer, 1380 Rosalia Avenue, Sunnyvale, said the previous discussion had mistakenly assumed there was no environmental impact on Stevens Creek at the present time. He suggested there has been some impact by the present landowners along the Creek, and that public ownership might improve the area. D. Volunteers J. Olson noted there has been discussion of the use of volunteers and student interns by the District, and he felt this was a good idea from a financial viewpoint and as an educational tool. He cautioned, however, that volunteer efforts are not always fruitful. He proposed that staff inventory the needs which could be met by volunteers. Ms. Betsy Fiksdal, 11271 Magdalena Road, Los Altos Hills, said volunteers could be of tremendous help to the Dis- trict. K. Duffy agreed, but pointed out that some staff time would still be necessary to guide volunteers. Ms. Jeanne Pinneo, 3347 St. Michael Court, Palo Alto, said she thought the District should have modest expecta- tions of volunteers. N. Hanko asked how soon a list of volunteer needs could be expected. J. Olson replied that a policy should be developed for volunteer programs. Then a draft of volun- teer needs could be expected about three months after that. He said the list would be an expanding one. VII. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS C. Harrington reviewed the progress on implementation of the Basic Policy goal which states: "The District will educate and make clearly visible to the public the purposes and actions of the Dis- trict, and will actively encourage public communication and in- volvement in District activities. " She said the District has had good cooperation from newspapers . She noted that the District has distributed over 2, 000 brochures and prepared an official District map in cooperation with Santa Clara County. The District Meeting 75-3 Page fifteen has fulfilled a number of requests for speakers, and has prepared a slide presentation for use at such speaking engagements. A. Newspaper Advertising of Elections and Meetings B. Green pointed out that the estimated cost of adver- tising District meetings is $7, 000 per year. K. Duffy noted there is a problem with a number of special dis- tricts regarding lack of visibility to the public, and she felt serious consideration should be given to adver- tising. Mrs. Maguire said she thought it very important that Board meetings be advertised. C. Harrington noted that it is easier to get meeting information into the news- papers "after the fact" than beforehand. N. Hanko suggested the Board consider a six-month trial of advertising Board agendas. S. Norton said it might be important to distinguish be- tween two types of advertising: (1) advertising so the District can say that it has advertised, or (2) adver- tising that the District hopes people will read. He said that if the Board hoped to do the latter, the public might react rather negatively since the agendas do not necessarily always reflect the most important activities of the District. Mr. Robert Marks suggested the District advertise in the two major newspapers within the District only. K. Duffy asked if C. Harrington could prepare a specific trial advertising proposal and place it on a future agenda for Board consideration. N. Hanko said the forthcoming League of Women Voters consensus report on special districts might offer good input. The report is scheduled to be available March 1. D. Wendin pointed out that even on an experimental basis the advertising could cost $1,000 for six months, and said he was opposed to the idea. He said he would prefer the District advertise only when it wishes to call special attention to a particular meeting. B. Two Term Limit E. Shelley said he favored a two term limitfor Directors, especially because the lack of a limit would lower special district visibility and a few people would become entrenched in their positions indefinitely, causing the District to stagnate. Meeting 75-3 Page sixteen N. Hanko said she objected to a two term limit for the following reasons: (1) it would attempt to take away from the voters the right of choice; (2) it is not generally imposed on legislative offices because power is limited; (3) since the enabling legislation does not limit terms, it would be an individual choice anyway; (4) it could mean lame-duck terms for half the Board; (5) the District needs stability in its early years; and (6) annexation problems (i.e. , the change in wards and forced retirement might come at just the wrong time) . E. Shelley said the need for a limitation is greater when the District is older, and he would like to see a legis- lative remedy to enact a limit. D. Wendin said he felt a two term limit was the only way to insure limitation of a-concentration of power. Mr. Robert Marks pointed out that the visibility of a District Director was not as great as political figures in more well-known offices. E. Shelley said he believed the District could benefit from "new blood" and that because of the incumbent advantage, a limit is necessary. K. Duffy asked that the positive and negative views, as well as a specific proposal, be placed on a future Board meeting agenda for consideration. C. Conflicts of Interest D. Wendin suggested the District wait as along as possible regarding a conflicts of interest policy in order to determine the outcome of legislative and court tests. N. Hanko said she would like the District to work for inclusion of special district director under the disclosure provision of the law. S. Norton suggested the Board wait until the State Commis- sion prepared the model code, since time spent before that could be wasted. He suggested attempting to con- vince the State Commission to include candidates in the model code on disclosures. D. Funding of Candidates' Statements S. Norton stated that the Board has the option to pay or to bill candidates for campaign statements. K. Duffy said this question is related to District visibility, and that it is important, even in uncontested elections, to take the opportunity to inform the public about the Dis- Meeting 75-3 Page seventeen trict and its Board members. She said she felt it is the obligation of the District in either contested or uncontested elections to pay for candidates ' statements. H. Grench said he hoped the Board would conduct future discussion of this item at another meeting, so that staff could prepare a report on the cost involved. K. Duffy said she would like to see a statement of the pros and cons of the idea, as well as a specific proposal. D. Wendin agreed to write the cons, and K. Duffy the pros. VIII. ADMINISTRATION A. Board-Staff Relations H. Grench said he had asked that this item be a part of the agenda since two new Directors and staff have been added since the original Goals Workshop. He reminded the group that at that time the Board set the policy of a strong General Manager system with policy input suggestions from the Legal Counsel also welcomed. There would be initiation of programs by the General Manager with Board approval in all areas of the District' s program. Specific assignments involving more than minimal time are not to be made by individual Board members on the General Manager, Legal Counsel or the Controller. Although the General Manager may give assignments to the Legal Counsel or the Controller, these should not be major ones, which would require Board approval. He reiterated the policy that the remainder of the staff is not given assignments directly by individual Board members or by the Board as a whole, but rather these requests are made of the Gen- eral Manager, who may then assign staff to them. K. Duffy reminded the Board that the General Manager is hired by the Board and that in general the remainder of the staff is employed by the General Manager. S. Norton described the problem of elected officials asking lower-level staff to do jobs. He suggested that, as a rule of thumb, the Board might use staff members as an information source, but specific action requests should go through the General Manager. A. Crosley said she felt the District was very fortunate in that its Board-staff relations were excellent, especially in comparison to many other agencies she has observed. She expressed the hope that the groups would remain close and- would cultivate good relations with other agencies and citizens, so that conflicts would not occur, and, if they did, they could be resolved easily. Meeting 75-3 Page eighteen H. Grench distributed copies of the analysis of Board and staff views on acquisition priorities for the Dis- trict. He pointed out that there seemed to be con- sistency in the views. K. Duffy said that although Board-Board relations were not a part of today' s agenda, she felt the President of the Board should be careful not to use that position to further personal views. J. Olson remarked that other Boards he was familiar with had experimented with daytime as well as nighttime meet- ings in order to attract different audiences. He asked if a combination might be worthwhile for the District to try. Some Board members expressed negative feelings about the possibility. C. Harrington suggested it would be a good idea to schedule at least one of the hearings on the Master Plan during the daytime. B. Long-Term Financial Strategies J. Melton said that, while no specific decisions were made during the day, several areas that were discussed reflect on long-term financial considerations. He asked the Board to start considering how the District will use its $1, 750, 000 each year. As an example, he pointed out that alternative use proposals prepared by J. Olson will include financial implications. He could foresee the day when all of the $1,750,000 could be used for operating costs instead of acquisition. He asked that a decision on percentages of such items as management and acquisi- tion be made. H. Grench felt that part of the long-term financial policy might be a request for a tax increase if and when it would be justified. He thought the timing of such a request would be very important. D. Wendin noted that several proposals discussed during the day had to do with District visibility. He said he would like to consider these as a package, and would like to consider the cost/benefit relationship of the various proposals. K. Duffy asked that the Budget Subcommittee of the Board cooperate in the long-term planning process. N. Hanko asked if there was a periodic review of the status of District funds so the best interest rate accrues. J. Melton said a review is made on a quarterly basis, and so far the County fund seems to offer the best ad- vantages. Meeting 75-3 Page nineteen E. Shelley asked if the District was making application for all available grants. H. Grench said he would like to have more time devoted to it, but at present the Land and Water Conservation funds are the best possibility for the District. C. Harrington suggested that smaller projects may be able to receive grants, such as specific educational projects. IX. CLAIMS N. Hanko moved approval of the claims (C-75-3) dated February 2, 1975, as presented. B. Green seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. X. SCHEDULING OF FIRST REGULAR MEETING IN FEBRUARY H. Grench reported that prior to today' s discussion there were no agenda items scheduled for the first regular meeting in February (February 13, since February 12 is a holiday) . There is a slight possibility, he said, that the Master Plan maps would be ready for the February 26 meeting, but it did not appear very likely at this time. A discussion of the items from today' s workshop and the scheduling of these for further consideration would be forthcoming. K. Duffy said her preference is to hold meetings when they are normally scheduled. After discussion, the consensus was to cancel the February 13 meeting, utilize February 26 as a clean-up of today' s discussion, and, if necessary, call a Special meeting for consideration of the Master Plan. XI . ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5: 04 P.M. Norma Grench Volunteer Recording Secretary L Meeting 75-5 Page two B. Minutes of February 2, 1975 D. Wendin pointed out that the introduction on page one of the February 2, 1975 minutes indicates that the District owns 1, 600 acres of land. It was the consensus of the Board that the words "has acquired" be changed to "has interests in. " D. Wendin, referring to page six of the minutes, said he wished to make it clear that he preferred the staff review city agendas prior to sending pertinent items to him. D. Wendin suggested the first paragraph on page nineteen of the minutes did not reflect the concern of some Board members that additional staff time spent on applying for grants would be justified by the return to the District. No change in wording was made. N. Hanko said she did not ask the question reflected in the first sentence of the last paragraph on page eighteen of the minutes, and suggested the words "N. Hanko asked" be changed to "It was asked. . . " E. Shelley said he did not make the statement attributed to him in the second sentence of paragraph eight on page six of the minutes. N. Hanko advised that she made the statement. E. Shelley said he would like the minutes, on page eleven, to reflect his reservations that neighbors of District-owned land would have a strong role in planning for the use of the land inasmuch as they would be unlikely to have a regional per- spective. E. Shelley asked that page sixteen of the minutes include the statement made by A. Ginzton that qualified conservationists might be hesitant to challenge an incumbent Director who had served the District well, because such a challenge would be interpreted as indicating that the incumbent had not, in fact, done a good job. He said this would be an argument in favor of a two-term limit for Directors. K. Duffy stated the consensus that the minutes of February 2, 1975 be approved as amended above.