HomeMy Public PortalAbout19771102 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Special Meeting
Board of Directors
M I N U T E S
November 2, 1977 375 Distel Circle, D-1
Los Altos, CA
I. ROLL CALL
President Wendin called the meeting to order at 12 :15 P-14.
Members Present: Daniel Wendin, Katherine Duffy, Nonette
Hanko, Barbara Green, Harry Turner and Richard Bishop.
Member Absent: Edward Shelley
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Brad Clifford, Craig
Britton, Eric Mart, Pat Starrett, Anne Crosley, Jon Olson,
Carroll Harrington, John Melton, Phyllis Lee, Judy Clark,
Del Woods and Jennie George.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
A. Board/Staff Workshop
D. Wendin stated that the topic to be discussed was the
District' s office location and the ways in which the District
functions impact this location.
H. Grench presented a history of the District' s past office
locations, stating the Board' s previous desires to be located
near the population center of the District along a major trans-
portation corridor. He said that in August 1977, the Board
authorized the move to the present location, and the signing
of a 3 year lease. Also at that time there was discussion
to use these 3 years to make a decision on whether or not the
District should buy land and/or construct a building for office
purposes. H. Grench said he felt the most appropriate location
for the District office is near the population center with
public transportation available. He added he felt the District
has a responsibility of relating to the public in the flat-
lands, since the public living near the foothills are already
benefiting from the close proximity of some of the District
owned sites, and therefore he would not encourage a move to
a District site. He suggested possibly a move further north
but still close to the El Camino. He asked L. Schwarz, Fin-
ancial Analyst to summarize his report on Decision to Rent or
Purchase Office Space that had been presented to the Board
on August 17, 1977 .
Meeting 77-26 Page two
L. Schwarz said he had attempted to present a method of
accounting expressing the true cost for building an office
and distinguish that from the cash flows that go out when
you buy land and build or when you acquire a building al-
ready in existence. He said that the economic reality
is that you save money in the long run by buying or building,
but you use up your cash flow.
H. Grench said the question is whether the District has
to buy a site as opposed to a gift of land and building on
it. It most probably would take away some of the funds for
land acquisition.
B. Green asked if the projections indicate that the per-
centage of our overall budget that we are spending now for
rent would stay the same percentage as our overall income.
L. Schwarz replied that no matter what the tax bill and
how that influences your income, buying looks better. The
property value you buy inflates.
J. Melton added that land costs are going up at a faster
rate than inflation and that renting will consume a larger
percentage.
B. Green questioned whether it is proper use of public funds
to preserve land and build on it and how the taxpayers
would feel about the District using funds in this manner
for the next ten years. She wondered if the public would
be able to see the other side of the matter.
N. Hanko expressed concern that investing land or a build-
ing would be a departure from the District founders' agreement
with the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors of spending
5% of District funds for capital improvement over the District' s
first ten years.
K. Duffy said she interpreted that agreement as pertaining
to recreational facilities that might be in competition
with the County.
D. Wendin asked if the District has the option of a sale
leaseback which would spread the costs out over 10 years,
reduce the cash flow and not break any agreement we have
with Santa Clara County. J. Melton responded that the
District probably does have that option. D. Wendin said
the District could borrow and build, stretching the payments
out over the next 10 years ,or get aii outside builder, lease
for 25 years and then buy back after that time.
Meeting 77-26 Page three
R. Bishop informed that the City of San Carlos built their
City Hall through bonds. In that way the payments are fixed
and don't go up; however, he added that it takes a lot of
managerial time. He said he felt it is difficult to anti-
cipate future space needs when building and that renting
is more flexible. He said he thought operations costs would
become a bigger cost factor than acquisition in future years.
J. Olson commented that he felt a lot is lost in communi-
cation between field people and office people when they are
decentralized. He said it would be ideal to have a central-
ized facility for both office and field people and that
the type of patrol requirements and other field activities
would be suitable for centralization. He suggested investi-
gating surplus school sites for office and field locations,
since to an extent a school site is a park like setting in
an urban area.
K. Duffy expressed the feeling that a park like setting is
important for an agency like the MROSD rather than a commer-
cial setting.
E. Huggins said she believes that the Green Act dictated
that when there is surplus school property available, they
have to make contact with public agencies, and it can be a
bargain sale to public agencies.
C. Britton said that from a tax standpoint, land is less
valuable than a building. He suggested the possibility of
a condominium type office building where you have an divided
interest in the building and an undivided interest in the
land. You have a huge tax advantage and the economics of
building a larger building.
L. Schwarz responded that self-contained buildings such as
condominiums are often difficult to sell.
H. Grench said he felt have one' s own site and own building
gave an identity which he felt was important.
B. Green brought up the question of whether or not it is
proper for an agency like the District to be a landlord.
R. Bishop said he thought it was proper for the District' s
own use, but that they should deemphasize being a landlord.
B. Clifford suggested having two phases. (l) Since the numbers
come out so well in owning your own building, just have
administrative offices in a marketable building for 10 years
and buy or build and plan for the next 10 years, (2) then
Meeting 77-26 Page four
transfer to the larger facilities afterwards. He added he
thought there is potential for a gift of property to benefit
a purchase; however, you might not get the exact property
to build onbut you could sell the gift.
R. Bishop said he felt it is important for the public to feel
that the District is accessible and he favored renting for
the next 3 years because of the flexibility. B. Green and
N. Hanko agreed.
H. Turner advised that if you design for your use and resale,
you still have flexibility.
D. Wendin questioned if the District was not wasting public
funds by not building and using the facilities for the next
10 years.
J. Olson responded that a decision needed to be made soon in
order to implement by the end of the present 3 years. He
felt the operations location may not be adequate after 5
years.
C. Britton said it would take perhaps 2 years to plan for
and buy a parcel.
N. Hanko said it is difficult to foresee the kinds of pressures
requiring staff time and money the District is going to
face in the next 10 years. She said she would not like to
see Board and staff get bogged down in the planning for a
site and building. Considering all the factors , she said
she was more comfortable renting for 5 years before planning
for something to buy or build.
H. Grench said if a decision is made to buy or construct, he
would want to have outside consultants to help with the
planning.
D. Wendin asked if anyone wanted to speak on having District
offices on a District site.
J. Olson said that having the staff in a remote area makes
it difficult for them to maintain sight of whom they are
serving.
E. Mart added he thought that since the MROSD is an urban
park type District, it is important to make an urban showing
in an urban area, and it is best not to be isolated.
Meeting 77-26 Page five
N. Hanko agreed but added that there are some open space
parcels close enough to an urban center that can be readily
found by the public at large and if it was near Highway 280
that would be close enough.
C. Britton said if you have a commercial use of property
you should be in a commercial area.
B. Clifford pointed out the possibilities in a transition
area where the residential areas phase into the commercial
areas and where there are trees and feelings of open space.
H. Grench expressed the hope that the Board would narrow
their opinions more and have specific preferences expressed.
D. Wendin inquired if public transportation is important.
He added that he thought El Camino would have adequate bus
transportation for many years to come and also Foothill
Expressway possibly would have good transportation for
the next 10 years.
C. Britton reminded that relocation problems exist if an
occupied building is purchased and recommended looking for
vacant land. He added that vacant land is more available
now then it will be 10 years from now.
D. Wendin asked if there was consensus among the Board members
present.
N. Hanko reiterated that she was comfortable with renting
for the next 5 years and after that time would like to
look into the possibility of land close to the urban area
that people could readily get to. She felt it was unrealistic
to think that all of the public is going to use mass transit
to reach the District.
H. Turner said he would like the search for an urban location
near El Camino to begin in the next 2 years and alternative
thinking would be discussed in the near future.
D. Wendin said he wanted to know what land costs
on the El Camino would be with or without an operations
facility but maybe not restricting the search to the El
Camino if a location is near major public transportation.
R. Bishop said he would not favor having staff take the time
to look until the Board made a decision whether to rent or
buy. If something such as a school site or a gift comes to
staff' s attention and is a good bargain, then the Board could
Meeting 77-26 Page six
consider it; otherwise he said he preferred that staff not
spend time now looking for office location possibilities.
Motion: D. Wendin moved that staff be directed to develop
alternate plans to show costs to the District of
purchasing, including options such as:
1. Building or buying a building like the present
office space.
2. Building an office building in a park like set-
ting.
3. Building in a non-park like setting.
4. Costs with and without a corporation yard.
5. Buying part of the present building and then
leasing and selling.
6. Costs to rent a school site.
7. Construction costs on an arbitrary District
site with and without a corporation yard.
8. Consultant costs.
The final cost options would be left to staff and
they should report back to the Board around March 1, 1978.
B. Green seconded the motion.
Discussion: H. Turner said L. Schwarz ' s report has shown
that the District may be spending money unnecessarily;
however, pursuing alternative office locations should
not distract staff from their primary duties of land
acquisition. D. Wendin asked if it was the Board' s
consensus that they would address the issue next Spring.
H. Grench said he preferred to leave it open and see
what the results are at that time. H. Turner said he
preferred that if it is placed on the agenda, that it
be under "no action requested" • L. Schwarz inquired how
interested the Board was in exploring financing and
should staff investigate financing alternatives. D.
Wendin responded not to include financing. C. Britton
added that cost comparisons of land values among some
of the various cities in this vicinity might need to
be included. The motion passed on the following vote:
Meeting 77-26 Page seven
AYES: K. Duffy, B. Green, D. Wendin and H. Turner
NOES: N. Hanko and R. Bishop
ABSENT: E. Shelley
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 2 :12 P.M.
Jennie George
Deputy District Clerk
� I
i
B. Minutes of November 2 , 1977
�. • ' r N. Hanko said she felt J. George had done an excellent job of
preparing the minutes of this meeting. D. Wendin stated t'_ie ,
consensus that the minutes of November 2, 1977 be approved as
presented.
i
I
i
I
i