Loading...
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.