HomeMy Public PortalAbout19750528 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) A.
Meeting 75-12
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
Regular Meeting
Board of Directors
M I N U T E S
745 Distel Drive
May 28 and May 30, 1975 Los Altos, CA
I. ROLL CALL
President Duffy called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 P.M. on
May 28 , 1975.
Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Barbara Green, Nonette
Hanko, Edward Shelley and Daniel Wendin.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Edward Jaynes, Jon Olson,
Anne Crosley, Robert Garcia, Carroll Harrington, Jennie George,
Stanley Norton and John Melton.
Audience of ten persons.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
X. Minutes of May 14 , 1975
E. Shelley said he remembered making the initial suggestion that
letters be sent to school districts advising them of the gift
of land to the Park District from the Saratoga School District
(page five, paragraph four of the minutes of May 14 , 1975) . He
also pointed out an error in the last line on page six, where
it appeared the words "report back to the" had been omitted.
K. Duffy stated the consensus that the minutes of May 14 , 1975
be approved as amended.
III . ADOPTION OF AGENDA
K. Duffy stated the consensus that the agenda be adopted without
change.
IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications at this time.
V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
K. Duffy said there was a letter to the Board regarding Two Term
Limits which would be discussed under that agenda item.
Meeting 75-12 Page two
VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Proposed North Foothills Open Space Preserve Addition
H. Grench introduced his report (R-75-9) dated May 22, 1975 ,
regarding a Proposed North Foothills Open Space Preserve Addi-
tion. He said that on June 12 , 1974 , the Board of Directors
had decided to purchase a 90-acre parcel of land near Palo
Alto Foothills Park. Now the Board has an opportunity to pur-
chase, at approximately half its fair market value, about 70
acres of land which is contiguous to the present North Foot-
hills Open Space Preserve and is bordered by Palo Alto Foothills
Park and the Duveneck property. The topography of the proposed
addition is similar to that of the existing preserve - steep
slopes, grassland, canyons and chapparal. A fork of the Adobe
Creek crosses the southeast corner of the property. Use of
the property would probably be low-intensity, which would in-
clude hiking, horseback riding, birdwatching, photography and
nature study. The proposed addition to the preserve would help
continue the greenbelt of open space land in the area. H. Grench
noted that a litter clean-up would have to be initiated on the
property and could be done in conjunction with a clean-up on
the existing preserve. The clean-up would cost up to $2 ,000 .
H. Grench advised that the cost to the District for the 70 acres
would be approximately $97 ,515. 00 , of which $88,650 is the
price of the land and the remainder is a real estate commission.
He said the District encourages real estate agents to seek out
donations on its behalf and is willing to pay a reasonable
brokerage commission on donated land. He recommended that the
Board adopt a resolution accepting the contract and that the
Board exempt the land from entry permit requirements for the
present time. He then showed several slides of the proposed
North foothills Open Space Preserve Addition.
J. Olson said the property had one easement to the City of Palo
Alto to provide the City access to its water tank. The water
tank is located on the property line , and a fire break runs
along the property line.
K. Duffy opened the public hearing at 7 :50 P.M.
Ms. Lois Hogle, 2000 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, said she wished
to express her gratitude to the Park District for its land
acquisition activities. She said she was pleased to see this
addition to the District and was very much in favor of it.
Mr. Robert Mark , 725 Cowper , Palo Alto, said he supported the
acquisition of the proposed 70 acres as being important to the
protection of the area' s watershed.
Mr. Kenneth Kaye, 350 Edlee, Palo Alto, said he was in support
of the acquisition, and asked how the District determined in-
tensity of use.
Meeting 75-12 Page three
H. Grench replied that the District conducts an extensive re-
source analysis of each property to determine what kinds of
use by what numbers of people are compatible with the land.
The Basic Policy, he added, sets forth the use ,criteria envis-
ioned by the Board of Directors .
J. Olson stated that topography, location and parking are some
factors that will limit use. B. Green noted that the Land Mana-
ger is responsible for adequately patrolling District lands.
E. Shelley said it was the final responsibility of the Board
of Directors to determine use of District lands .
Mr. David Janssen, 27440 Sherlock Court, Los Altos , introduced
himself as a realtor and stated that on behalf of himself and
his future grandchildren he hoped the Park District would pur-
chase the 70 acre parcel.
K. Duffy closed the public hearing at 8 : 00 P.M.
Motion: N. Hanko moved adoption of Resolution No. 75-8 , a
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpenin-
sula Regional Park District Approving Purchase Agree-
ment, Authorizing Signatures Thereto on Behalf of the
District, Authorizing Officer to Execute Certificate
of Acceptance of Grant to District, and Authorizing
General Manager to Execute Any and All Other Documents
Necessary or Appropriate to Closing of the Transac-
tion (North Foothills Open Space Preserve Addition) .
B. Green seconded the motion.
Discussion: K. Duffy said she felt the property was
a very nice one which would preserve the view from
scenic highways. The motion passed unanimously.
Motion: N. Hanko, moved that the Board of Directors exempt
the North Foothills Open Space Preserve Addition from
entry permit requirements for the present time. E.
Shelley seconded the motion. The motion passed unan-
imously.
VII . OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING ACTION
A. Visibility of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District to
the Public
(1) League of Women Voters Consensus on Study of Special
Districts in Santa Clara County
Ms. Laura Lundy, 736 Coastland Drive, Palo Alto, intro-
duced herself as the representative for about 1100 mem-
bers of the League of Women Voters in Santa Clara County.
She said the League had recently concluded a study of
special districts in the County and reached a consensus
that special districts should be visible to the public,
Meeting 75-12 Page four
responsive and effective. The League, she said, felt
special districts should respond to their electorate
by (1) holding open meetings with time and place well
publicized; (2) meeting in places readily accessible
to the public; (3) publicizing appointments to be made
well in advance; (4) publicizing filing and election
dates well in advance and (5) ascertaining that all
records (minutes , budgets , annual reports , etc. ) are
readily accessible to the public. On the basis of
that report, she said, the League would therefore sup-
port efforts made by the Park District to accomplish
those objectives in regards to maintaining or increas-
ing the visibility of the District.
N. Hanko noted that the District was already doing the
things mentioned by Ms. Lundy and said she had hoped
the League would address other issues of visibility also.
(2) Two Term Limit
E. Shelley introduced his memorandum (M-75-71) dated
May 6, 1975, regarding a Proposed Two-Term Limit for
Directors : Pro Arguments. Among the reasons he gave
for imposing a limitation on the service of Board mem-
bers were the following: (1) long-term elected offi-
cials tend to lose touch with citizens they are supposed
to represent; (2) new Board members will bring new ideas
to the District; (3) potential candidates will run who
otherwise might not attempt to defeat an incumbent and
(4) voters will be given more choice due to the re-
tiring of incumbents periodically. He said the argu-
ment of N. Hanko that limitations are seldom imposed
on legislators does not mean that such limitations are
not needed. He felt the argument that the Board would
find itself with unresponsive "lame ducks" was not ap-
propriate because any official who would take advantage
of his or her "lame duck" status should not have been
elected in the first place.
N. Hanko introduced her memorandum (M-75-72) dated May
6 , 1975, regarding Proposed Two-Term Limit for Directors :
Con Arguments. Among the reasons she gave for not
limiting the terms of Directors were the following :
(1) the voter should make the decision of whether or
not to limit terms, not the Board; (2) voters in one
community should not impose their restriction on Board
members ' terms on another community, where only one
candidate may be qualified and interested in the office;
(3) "lame duck" Directors may not be responsive to
public opinion and (4) the stability of the Board is
Meeting 75-12 Page five
of great importance in its early years, especially in
continuing support for the open space acquisition pro-
gram of the District and the philosophy of preservation
of regionally significant lands.
E. Shelley said that a new Director would be added to
the Board about once every two years on the average
if the two-term limit were imposed.
K. Duffy remarked that the Directors are elected by
the voters and it cannot be assumed that present poli-
cies will always be right for them.
K. Duffy referred Board members to a letter received
from Ms. Betsy A. Collard of 2418 Benjamin Drive in
Mountain View in support of a two-term limitation on
Board members. Ms. Collard said she felt long term
incumbency leads to a lack of interest and involvement
on the part of citizens.
Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board of Directors direct its
legal counsel to seek a legislative change limiting
the service of Midpeninsula Regional Park District
Directors as stated in his memorandum (M-75-71) dated
May 6, 1975. K. Duffy seconded the motion.
Amendment: D. Wendin moved to amend the motion to ask
staff to return to the Board with proposed legislation
to accomplish a two-term limitation. K. Duffy seconded
the amendment. E. Shelley withdrew his motion and D.
Wendin withdrew his amendment, and K. Duffy withdrew
her seconds .
Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board of Directors direct
its legal counsel to draft a resolution which would
accomplish a proposed legislative change of limiting
the term of the Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Park District as set forth in E. Shelley' s memorandum
(M-75-71) dated May 6, 1975. D. Wendin seconded the
motion. The motion passed on the following vote: AYES
E. Shelley, D. Wendin, K. Duffy and B. Green; NOS - N.
Hanko.
(3) Funding of Candidates ' Statements
H. Grench introduced his report (R-75-4) 'dated April
14, 1975, regarding the Costs of Printing Director
Candidates ' Statements. He noted that the report was
written in response to a follow-up discussion of the
Goals Workshop in which ways to increase the District' s
visibility to the public were explored. He said the
cost of printing candidates ' statements in 1976 for
two candidates from each of two wards would run about
$1300 based on today' s prices. The cost for printing
Meeting 75-12 Page six
candidates' statements in 1978 for two candidates
from each of three wards would be about $2200 , also
based on today' s prices.
K. Duffy introduced her memorandum (M-75-78) dated
May 19, 1975, regarding Pro Arguments on Funding
Candidates Statements. She felt it was discrimina-
tory against female and young candidates to charge
for printing of candidates ' statements, that it was
a right of the elector to have adequate information
about candidates, and that the District' s visibility
would be enhanced. She also felt there would be the
beneficial effect of increased competition for the
elected Board offices. She noted that it might be
more difficult to collect the fee for printing the
statement of a losing candidate. K. Duffy also noted
the cost to the District would be about 1� per voter
for one candidate, and less than 2� per voter for
two candidates.
S. Norton advised that the District' s choice is whether
or not it will bill candidates, since the District must
pay the printing bill whether or not the candidate
intends to.
D. Wendin introduced his memorandum (M-75-68) dated
April 29, 1975, regarding Con Arguments on Funding
Candidates' Statements. Among his arguments against
the District paying for candidates ' statements were
the following: (1) non-serious candidates would be
attracted who would otherwise not run; (2) the candi-
dacy of non-serious office-seekers might increase the
cost of running to other candidates; (3) candidates
might prefer another means of advertising their posi-
tion to the voters and (4) the candidates' statements
are not a cost effective way of making the District
more visible to the public, since they are generally
prepared by the candidate and tell little of substance.
B. Green said she felt non-serious candidates would
run whether or not their statements were paid for.
N. Hanko said she supported paying for candidates '
statements because it helped inform the electorate and
provide for more interesting elections.
Motion: K. Duffy moved the Board of Directors adopt a policy
whereby the District would assume the cost of all
candidates' statements in contested and uncontested
elections, and limited to Spanish translations for
those who request it. N. Hanko seconded the motion.
K. Duffy withdrew her motion.
Meeting 75-12 Page seven
Motion: K. Duffy moved that the Board of Directors direct its
staff to return to it with a resolution that the Dis-
trict not bill any candidates for election statements
or for requested Spanish translations. N. Hanko
seconded the motion. The motion passed on the follow-
ing vote: AYES - K. Duffy, B. Green, N. Hanko and
E. Shelley; NOS - D. Wendifi.
(4) Procedure for Published Advertisement of Elections to
Fill Board Seats
K. Duffy referred to the last paragraph of her memoran-
dum (M-75-78) dated May 19, 1975, regarding advertising
for District elections. She said she hoped a resolu-
tion would be adopted which would include information
such as the date of notice and newspaper (s) to be used
in advertising District elections.
Motion: K. Duffy moved that the Board of Directors direct staff
to return to it with a resolution setting forth guide-
lines for advertising of District elections and Board
vacancies. E. Shelley seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously.
The Board recessed at 8: 42 P.M. and reconvened at 9: 00 P.M.
B. Budget for the 1975-1976 Fiscal Year
H. Grench introduced his report (R-75-12) dated May 23, 1975,
regarding the proposed Budget for the 1975-1976 Fiscal Year.
He noted that last year the District' s land commitments were
two sites totalling 423 acres; this year its commitments were
six sites totalling 1,700 acres. He described the budget
process, which begins with a goals and progress evaluation at
the Board' s annual Goals Workshop. Then staff works on a re-
vised Action Plan based on input from Board and staff. After
adoption of the Action Plan, staff and Board work on formula-
tion of a budget to implement the projects outlined in the
Action Plan. He said the District was gradually beginning the
program accounting method
hod for budgeting.
H. Grench advised Ihat the District' s operating expenses came
to about 18% of its revenues. The "Program Support and Admin-
istration" category was somewhat misleading, he said, because
it served as a catch-all for costs that were not readily iden-
tified with other categories.
H. Grench said he felt it was important to continue the 10�
per $100 tax rate, because operating expenses have been af-
fected by about 15% inflation, land prices are continuing to
rise, and the District will be in a tight cash position this
next fiscal year.
Meeting 75-12 Page eight
H. Grench said he felt the District' s land acquisition program
would continue to be strong, but more installment plans and
an increased use of the District' s borrowing power may be
utilized in determining terms of purchase with landowners.
H. Grench advised that projected revenues for the next fiscal
year were approximately $2. 1 million, based upon an assumed
rise of 15% in assessed valuation. He said that the District' s
approved federal Land and Water Conservation Fund grant would
be received in the 1975-76 fiscal year, rather than the present
one as has been expected.
H. Grench stated that about one third of the District' s cash
reserves would be available for use in the first half of the
1976-77 fiscal year, while the remaining two-thirds would be
available for expenditure during the 1975-76 fiscal year. The
Opportunities and Emergencies cash reserve was planned to drop
to a level of $500 ,000 , but would be increased to $700 ,000 by
the end of the 1975-76 fiscal year.
H. Grench said the General Manager is given a certain lump sum
of money each year for salary increases for those employees
appointed by him. The amount suggested for the 1975-76 fiscal
year is $8,780 , based upon annualized average increases of 15%
and including a $3 ,000 contingency for major adjustments to
salaries if they appear necessary when salary ranges are re-
viewed. He said that last year ' s salary increase figure was
based upon 8% cost of living and 5% merit; however, the cost of
living was actually 11% , so merit increases during the present
fiscal year were only 2% . The average increase during the past
year in the private sector has been 10% ; in the public sector,
15% . He also noted that a 9% increase was allocated for salary
raises for employees appointed by the Board.
H. Grench advised that the estimated cost of the annexation
election was $16 ,500. That figure did not include an approxi-
mately $5, 000 bill for counting ballots, as that would probably
be received during the 1976-77 fiscal year. He said the
Acquisition Services category includes money for services from
the proposed "Friends of the MRPD" foundation and for acquisi-
tion consultant services.
H. Grench pointed out that the District would have only $750 ,000
in cash for land acquisition during the next fiscal year, but
would have at least $2, 200 ,000 in borrowing power to supplement
its cash resources. Money has also been allocated for two
additional vehicles for the time when the District acquires
land in the southern part of the District.
Summarizing, H. Grench said the District is spending 82% of its
revenues for land acquisition, 90% if the costs of acquisition
are included.
Meeting 75-12 Page nine
H. Grench said some of the items which would be included under
Other Professional Services are auditors , design consultants,
vegetation dynamics studies , volunteer coordinator, study of
revenue-producing uses of District land, graphic design for
brochures and planning consultants.
H. Grench recommended that the Board adopt the proposed prelim-
inary budget and a tax rate of 10G per $100. He noted that the
Board would have an opportunity to review the budget in July
when the tax figures had been received.
J. Melton introduced his report (R-75-11) dated May 22, 1975 ,
regarding his Analysis of the Proposed Preliminary Fiscal Year
1975-1976 Budget, with a Pro-Forma Funds Statement and Summary
of Projected Land Expenditures attached. He pointed out that
the reserves for Land Acquisition, Operating Expenses and Op-
portunities and Emergencies were being decreased to put the
District in a better cash position for the coming fiscal year.
He noted that legislation is currently being considered which
might double the District' s borrowing power as of January 1 ,
1976 . He stated that the money for acquisition of the Perham
property had been budgeted for the current fiscal year.
E. Shelley introduced the memorandum of the Budget Subcommittee
dated May 22, 1975, regarding their recommendations for the
1975-1976 fiscal year budget. Two particular items in the
proposed budget were selected for Subcommittee attention. The
Subcommittee recommends an average staff salary increase of
10% , plus $3 , 000 for salary range adjustments if necessary.
It was felt that the District staff should not receive better
salary increases than the average worker in the private sector.
The Subcommittee also recommended that a reduction in the tax
rate from 10<-* to 9� per $100 assessed valuation be considered
if land costs appear to have risen significantly below a 15%
inflation rate or if the increase in assessed valuation is
significantly in excess of 15% .
D. Wendin suggested the excess revenues, if any, should be
kept in a special reserve to be returned at the end of the year,
if justified.
Dr. Robert Mark urged the Board to maintain the 10� per $100
assessed valuation rate. He said it should be up to the voters
to determine whether or not a reduction was appropriate. The
voters had approved the 10� rate because they wanted the maxi-
mum amount of money used to purchase open space.
Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board of Directors adopt
the proposed budget for the 1975-1976 fiscal year
with a change in the amount designated for salary
increases for employees appointed by the General
Manager from 15% to 10% . N. Hanko seconded the
motion.
Meeting 75-12 Page ten
Discussion: H. Grench advised that the decrease in
the salary allocation would result in a savings to
the District of $1,835 over the next fiscal year.
The motion passed unanimously.
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board of Directors adopt
a tax rate of 10G per $100 assessed valuation subject
to a thorough review in July when more exact figures
have been received. E. Shelley seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
C. Action Plan for the Implementation of the Basic Policy of
the Midpeninsula Regional Park District for the 1975-1976
Fiscal Year
H. Grench introduced his memorandum (M-75-79) dated May 22,
1975, regarding the Action Plan for the Implementation of the
Basic Policy of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District for
the 1975-1976 Fiscal Year. He reminded the Board that it had
tentatively adopted the Action Plan on May 14 , 1975, in anti-
cipation of budget adoption. Comments and changes that were
suggested at the May 14 meeting have been incorporated into
the final versioii. The Annexation Subprogram provides for 4
to 5 hours of li4,gal assistance, and a minimum of staff time
will be allocated to this subprogram for the present time.
Relocation assistance has been included in the Special Projects
Subprogram for the Land Acquisition Program. Patrol of Dis-
trict lands was included as the first Typical Project in the
Patrol Subprogram on page 12 , and on page 15 under Required
Resources, the word "or" was placed between "Contract Services"
and "Part-time staff person. " It was noted that the word "will"
should be inserted between "problems and "be made easier" in
the line under Expected Results on page six.
K. Duffy asked that the words "and wildlife" be included after
the word "vegetation" under Typical Project No. 5 in the Open
Space Management Subprogram on page 11.
Motion: B. Green moved that the Board of Directors adopt the
Action Plan for the Implementation of the Basic Policy
of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District for the
1975-1976 Fiscal Year, as amended. K. Duffy seconded
the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
D. Basic Policy Statements Subcommittee Report
D. Wendin introduced the memorandum (M-75-73) dated May 7 , 1975
of the Basic Policy Statements Subcommittee which reported on
proposed changes in the Basic Policy recommended by the Sub-
committee. He said the Board of Directors, when it originally
prepared the District' s Basic Policy document, tried to indi-
cate that the District would use its resources to acquire open
Meeting 75-12 Page eleven
space outside the Urban Service Area boundaries of the cities ,
but in special circumstances the District would consider land
on the "fringe" of the urban areas.
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board of Directors amend its
Basic Policy statement to read as follows:
"The District will use its available
resources primarily to acquire open
space outside the Urban Service Area
boundaries of the cities. This pol-
icy would allow some acquisition of
key open space outside the urbanized
area but within the Urban Service
Area. "
E. Shelley seconded the motion. The motion passed un-
animously.
K. Duffy suggested that a public hearing might be appropriate
for consideration of the sentence "Urban open space judged to
be of regional significance may also be considered" and whether
or not it should be included in the District' s Basic Policy.
Motion: K. Duffy moved that a public hearing be called to con-
sider whether or not the District 's Basic Policy should
include the sentence "Urban open space judged to be of
regional significance may also be considered" or a
similar phrase. D. Wendin seconded the motion. The
motion passed on the following vote: AYES - K. Duffy,
B. Green, D. Wendin and E. Shelley; NOS - N. Hanko.
VIII. OLD BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION
A. Master Plan of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District
Mr. Larz Anderson, Master Plan consultant to the District, intro-
duced his letter to the General Manager dated May 23, 1975, with
a draft of sections of the text of the Master Plan being prepared
for the District. He suggested a table of contents for the Master
Plan might include the following: (1) a description of the Mid-
peninsula Regional Park District, its purpose, location, powers
and finances; (2) objectives of the Master Plan; (3) a summary of
the findings of the open space evaluation and location of the
land evaluated, as well as a summary of the methodology used in
preparing the Master Plan; (4) the Basic Policy of the District;
(5) the Acquisition Policies of the District; (6) the criteria
used for evaluating lands for the District' s open space program;
(7) a written analysis of findings made from the evaluation of
open space lands and (8) a listing of the powers and responsibil-
ities of various public and private agencies regarding open
Meeting 75-12 Page twelve
space preservation and a statement of the priorities of the Dis-
trict for open space acquisition.
Referring to page eleven of the draft, D. Wendin said he did not
like the statement that the District would give priority to
lands scoring highest on the Master Plan map. E. Shelley agreed,
stating that the map was intended to serve as a guide in es-
tablishing priority, but it did not determine priority alone.
N. Hanko suggested a subcommittee be appointed to review the
Master Plan draft. She asked that consideration be given to
listing the powers of cities and any other relevant agencies
which might have an impact on the preservation of open space.
K. Duffy suggested a number of other organizations which might
be mentioned, including the State parks and trails program,
San Jose Water Works lands and the Skyline Scenic Recreation
Route.
K. Duffy stated the consensus that the Master Plan draft be re-
ferred to a subcommittee consisting of K. Duffy and D. Wendin,
with input from other Board members and staff.
H. Grench referred the Board to maps displayed on the office
walls which showed different possible color schemes for the
Master Plan maps. It was the consensus that a continuum of
green shades be used for the published map.
IX. CLAIMS
Motion: N. Hanko moved adoption of the claims (C-75-11) dated
May 28, 1975. E. Shelley seconded the motion. The
motion passed unanimously.
X. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Board recessed to Executive Session at 11: 00 P.M. The
Board reconvened at 11: 59 P.M. to adjourn the Executive Session
portion of the meeting to 12: 00 Noon on Friday, May 30.
The Board met in Executive Session at 12: 00 Noon on Friday, May
30.
XI . ADJOURNMENT
The Board reconvened to adjourn at 12: 40 P.M. on Friday, May 30,
1975.
Anne Cathcart Crosley
Administrative Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of May 28 and 30 , 1975
The Board considered a memorandui,t (z•s-75-89) dated June 24 ,
1975 from A. Crosley regarding tle Minutes of May 23 and 30 ,
1975 . The memorandum reflected comments, made by the Directors
taken from the tape of that meeting during consideration of
a two-term limit for Directors.
Motion: N. Hanko, moved that the minutes of May 28 and 30 ,
1975 be amended on page four, paragraph four, line
six, after " (2) " to read as follows :
" (2) since the subject of term limita-
tion has been a public issue solely in
Mountain View there is no basis to con-
clude it is an issue elsewhere in the
District. . . "
and that the following sentence attributable to B.
Green be included on page five of the minutes after
paragraph two:
"By 1982 it may well be that each of the
cities in our District may have initiated
two term limits themselves, anyway. There's
a trend in that direction. "
B. Green seconded the motion.
Discussion: D. Wendin said he did not see there was
a need to change the statement made by N. Hanko in
the minutes. E. Shelley suggested the word "directors"
could be substituted for the word "voters" , but he
felt that small points of discussion should be not
included. N. Hanko withdrew her motion.
Motion: N. Hanko moved that the minutes of May 28 and 30 ,
1975 be amended on page four, paragraph four, line
six, after " (2) " to read as follows :
11 (2) a Board of Directors should not
impose their restriction on Board mem-
bers ' terms in another community. "
E. Shelley seconded the motion. The motion passed un-
animously.