HomeMy Public PortalAbout19780319 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 78-7
law
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Special Meeting
Board of Directors
Goals Workshop
MINU . TES
March 19 , 1978 375 Distel Circle, D-1
Los Altos , CA
I. ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order by President Turner at 12 :10 P.M.
Members Present: Richard Bishop, Barbara Green, Nonette Hanko,
Edward Shelley, Harry Turner and Daniel Wendin.
Member Absent: Katherine Duffy
Personnel Present : Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, Jon Olson,
Anne Crosley, Carroll Harrington, Brad Clifford, Eric Mart,
John Melton , Stan Norton, Pat Starrett, Cynthia DiGiovanni
(arrived 2 :30 P.M. ) and Del Woods (arrived 12 :45 P.M. )
II. Discussion of Possible Effects of Pending Tax Reform Legislation
and Jarvis-Gann Initiative on District Program
H. Turner asked staff for some background information about
SB land Proposition 13 , specifically how these might affect
the MROSD.
S. Norton reported that the main purpose of SB 1 was to counter
the effects of the Jarvis initiative which will appear on
the June ballot. Comparing the two in broad terms , he stated
that Jarvis would cut about 60% off an individual 's prop-
erty tax bill , while SB 1 would cut it approximately 30% . He
said the total effect on a local public agency would depend
upon what percentage of the local budget was reliant on
property taxes. As an example , he noted that the City of
Palo Alto, which relies more on revenues from utilities than
property taxes , would be less heavily affected than the
school districts or an agency like the District which relied
almost entirely on property tax revenue. Norton added that
Jarvis had a 2% inflation factor per year which would apply
both to tax rates and the tax assessment level, while SB 1
had a more complicated formula, essentially tied to inflation,
and local agencies might expect a 7 or 8% rate of increase
per year. He pointed out that with SB 1 , it would no longer
Meeting 78-7 Page two
be possible for residential assessments to jump 20% in one
year. The long term impact of Jarvis on homeowners would be
to favor the long-time property owner. Business property
owners would also benefit since they generally occupy prop-
erty for a long time. The new buyer might expect to pay as
much as 33% more taxes, since property would be reassessed
after each sale. He also noted that Jarvis offered no bene-
fits to renters while SB 1 would virtually double the amount
of tax deduction on State income tax returns for renters.
Directly relating the two to MROSD, Norton said that Jarvis
would be a "disaster" while there would be basically no
change under SB 1 since the State would replace the difference
in lost revenue. When asked by H. Turner as to how this
would take place, Norton replied that the bill did not pro-
vide a method for replacing lost revenue, but simply stated
the intent.
H. Turner pointed out that another feature of SB 1 is that
it sets limits on the rate of increase of State expenditures.
R. Bishop added that Jarvis puts the burden for tax reduction
on local agencies. B. Green added that there were many
spiraling effects of Jarvis.
J. Melton said that if Jarvis is passed, the MROSD land
acquisition program would have to stop until all outstanding
debts were paid off, which would be about a ten year time
period.
H. Grench added that the legislature would still have the
power to decide how much each local agency would get of
the 40% remaining after the Jarvis cut, and that it was
possible that the District could be cut off entirely.
Responding to a question from R. Bishop regarding the Dis-
trict' s ability to maintain currently owned land and pay
debts, J. Melton said that under Jarvis and under the assump-
tion of only a 60% cut, the District would be able to pay
its debts and maintain its land at about a 50% level with
nothing left over for acquisition of new land.
R. Bishop suggested the District' s policy on land acquisition
and incurring new debts prior to the election should obvi-
ously be very guarded.
N. Hanko asked if her assumption that the agency could not
use taxpayers ' money to advertise in the newspaper in oppo-
sition to Jarvis was correct.
Meeting 78-7 Page three
S. Norton replied that the District could take measures to
"educate" the public regarding the bill, but could not "take
sides" on the issue. He added that employees can campaign
on their own time. He said that the Palo Alto Times and
other newspapers were taking the position of "airing the
entire matter" and would probably cover meetings such as this
and report the posture the District has, as well as the
impact of Jarvis on the District and other local agencies.
N. Hanko proposed that the subject of the District' s oppo-
sition to Jarvis be put on a future agenda and that staff
be directed to prepare a fact sheet regarding the impact
of Jarvis which could then be used to educate the public
along with a resolution opposing Jarvis. S. Norton said
care should be given to the content of a fact sheet in order
to prevent possible backfiring of its purpose and law suits.
N. Hanko suggested that the Legislative Committee of the Board
should meet to consider supporting Proposition 8 .
B. Clifford said that efforts in this direction should be
coordinated with the state-wide campaign for "Yes on 8" ,
"No on 13" .
E. Shelley raised the question of legality in getting involved
with an "anti-initiative" group. S . Norton reemphasized
that the agency could not spend public funds, but that in-
direct and/or individual contribution to the effort would
be okay, depending upon what form such contribution or par-
ticipation took.
A. Crosley suggested that a letter sent to various organi-
zations, such as conservation groups, enclosing a resolution
from the Board and a fact sheet would be appropriate.
Staff and Board agreed that it was necessary to prepare a
fact sheet as quickly as possible.
H. Turner said that in preparing a fact sheet, comparison of
change from some established benchmark had to be made. He
said that since it was clear that the District' s present
situation would not remain the same, the benchmark would be
the passage of either Proposition 8 or Proposition 13.
J. Olson suggested that the fact sheet contrast the effects
of both propositions with the current program and budget.
J. Melton asked if the fact sheet should be very broad in
scope or limited specifically to the impact of the bills on
the District only.
Meeting 78-7 Page four
R. Bishop said the League of California Cities and similar
organizations would be publicizing fact sheets containing
the overall effects of the two propositions and that Board
and staff should get copies of these. He added he felt
there was an important public education job to be done.
D. Wendin said he felt it was important that the District' s
fact sheet summarize at least some of the basic indirect
effects of the propositions, but not necessarily deal specific-
ally with the impact upon other agencies.
Jean Pineo, Committee for Green Foothills, said that her
organization was preparing a newsletter discussing Proposi-
tion 13 and she now felt it should include Proposition 8 .
She suggested that the content of this newsletter and its
mailing to appropriate persons could help the District in
its task of public education.
Gordon Jennings, 3611 Woodside Road, Woodside, CA. , commented
that 60 to 75% of current tax revenues now go to school districts
and that many people have negative feelings toward the school
districts. He said because of this and because there are many
people who are currently against government in general, he felt
Jarvis had, unfortunately, a good chance of passing. He advised
that the District take a low key approach. He noted that not
all of the public is supportive of acquiring and maintaining
open space. He suggested that volunteer groups be consigned to
carry the message the District wanted to convey to the public-
that the information come from outside the District.
Robert Mark, 720 Cowper, Palo Alto, CA. , said that the District
should be careful about referring to SB 1 as providing benefits
for renters (as opposed to Jarvis) since he felt an additional
return of $35 per year would not be perceived by many renters
as a particular benefit, especially since one of the net results
may be to shift more of the taxes onto business properties such as
apartment houses. Mr. Mark also expressed his discomfort and
frustration with the format of today' s meeting. He said he felt
that having the public wait to make comments until after the
Board/staff discussion of a particular issue prohibited really
meaningful public participation.
Some discussion followed and it was decided to maintain the current
meeting format. H. Turner assured Mr. Mark and other members of
the public that ample opportunity would be given to hear their
views.
C. Harrington summarized her thoughts from the discussion. She
said she agreed that the District needed to educate the public
Meeting 78-7 Page five
and that a fact sheet was essential and she would like this
to include the present budget. She also supported sending
this to newspapers and newsletters, particularily those put
out by volunteer groups who could use this information.
E. Shelley remarked that the fact sheet should cover more than
the effects of the coming year, since both Jarvis and SB 1 would
have impact upon the agency over the next 10-year period as well.
N. Hanko added that efforts should be coordinated with other
districts (East Bay, Monterey, etc. ) also affected by the proposed
legislation.
H. Turner stated the consensus that the General Manager prepare
a descriptive fact sheet on the specific effects of Proposition 13
(the Jarvis Initiative) and Proposition 8 on the District, as
well as a brief summary of the general effects of both pieces of
legislation.
N. Hanko added that this information should come to the Board with
a proposed resolution for adoption prior to being distributed
publicly. She added that the Legislative Committee of the Board
should meet prior to the Board' s review of the fact sheet and
possible resolution.
A Legislative Committee meeting was set for Wednesday, March 29
at 7 :30 p.m. The meeting is open to the public. The next
Board meeting is set for April 12th, at which time a resolution
may be considered.
Jane Hall , acting Coordinator of Volunteers, and Wendy Lieber,
Patrol Ranger, were also introduced. A. Crosley introduced the
recording secretary, Janice Diane.
III. BREAK
H. Turner recessed the meeting at 1:45 p.m. and reconvened the
meeting at 2 :15 p.m.
IV. DISCUSSION OF SHORT-TERM (1-2 Years) and LONG-TERM (up to 8
years) POLICIES REGARDING LAND ACQUISITON AND LAND MANAGEMENT
A. Acquisition
C. Britton stated that acquisition in the past and the immediate
future is based upon expenditure of a major portion of the
District' s yearly revenue. He said this is the case partially
because land costs might soon escalate too high to be affordable.
He also noted that a substantial portion of the District' s
borrowing power has already been used for acquisition. He pointed
out that short term land acquisition goals are based upon several
factors, including purchasing opportunity, the strategy involved,
management potential, location, effects of urban sprawl, etc.
He noted that any discussion of short term policies would have to
deal with the specific goals for acquisition.
Meeting 78-7 Page six
With regard to long term planning, C. Britton said there would
most probably be a de-emphasizing of land acquisition after
about eight years. He said that in about 8 to 10 years, the
District may have purchased the major portions of land it
intends to acquire and more attention would be given to management
and development of open space property.
N. Hanko asked if there would be any discussion today of the
gifts program. Britton replied that POST (Peninsula Open Space
Trust) was being established as a separate entity and would
develop its own program with regard to solicitations of monetary
or land gifts. He said that the District would work with POST
rather than guide or direct it. B. Clifford remarked that
Peninsula Open Space Trust was a separate, non-profit foundation
just recently formed and its directors had not yet had an
opportunity to determine its short and long term policies. He
felt the policies would in part be influenced by the District
policies.
C. Britton commented that POST was very flexible and could
accomplish some things that the District could not, since different
methods of financing and acquiring property were available to POST.
N. Hanko commented that the descriptive paragraph on the agenda
made the assumption that the District would have acquired almost
all of the land it intended to within the next ten years. She
said she felt this was not necessarily so and there were a couple
of ways she felt the agency could grow, the first being to become
a larger district acquiring more land and the second being to
lower the tax rate and maintain a reasonably low level of
recreational development.
C. Britton responded that the agenda statement was not intended
to indicate that the District would have acquired all of its
desirable property, but was meant to help in forming a long range
plan.
E. Shelley pointed out that a major portion of the District' s
income would be required to maintain and operate lands acquired
within the next ten years. B. Clifford suggested that the District
explore in some depth the possibility of open space easements,
adding that this would fulfill part of the District' s mission by
acquiring "visual" open space and water sheds. Another area he
felt should be addressed is the question of urban open space -
the close-in, but expensive property (e.g. the "Hill" in Menlo
Park/Atherton area) . He said this was a difficult area since
the District could not afford to acquire such land if it so desired,
but still wanted to be helpful in resolving such land issues. He
felt the District may have to adopt a more rigid policy concerning
expensive urban open space property. He added that the District
should also consider more defined guidelines and policies with
regard to purchase of small parcels , particularily those near
or adjacent to currently owned sites.
Meeting 78-7 Page seven
N. Hanko said she felt that the possibility of providing
trail connections was the most improtant aspect in acquiring
small parcels. She added that it was appropriate to acquire
small parcels in connection with larger preserves in order to
provide the scenic quality that would otherwise be lost if the
property was developed.
H. Grench said that past efforts to secure open space easements
had been somewhat frustrating, and that perhaps the District could
take a more programatic approach and give more priority to this
issue. He added that Peninsula Open Space Trust might be able
to accomplish more in this area as a private organization.
C. Britton pointed out that an open space easement can sometimes
cost as much as 100% of the title. He emphasized that open space
easement is a very complex issue and takes a lot of planning on
the District' s part to see which properties are feasible to
acquire this way and what advantages there will be to the owner
involved.
H. Grench responded that an open space easement can be either very
restrictive, as in the nature of a conservation easement, or it
may be as flexible as allowing for full agricultural use of the
property and/or some extension of existing dwellings. He said
that the complexity of the easement depended upon what was written
into, , the contract and that this flexibility further complicated
the District' s planning and decision-making process in acquiring
open space easements .
C. Britton added that in some cases, particularily with small
easement parcels , the enforcement burden could be almost as much
as the management burden.
N. Hanko said she felt it would be better to explore the possibil-
ities of trail easements in cases where there were existing
dwellings and occupants on the property who would have to move
if the entire site was acquired.
R. Bishop said he could understand a property owner' s reluctance
to agree to an open space easement and asked what the staff ' s
experience had been with regard to trail easements to connect
District owned land when it was not feasible to buy the intervening
piece.
C. Britton said that one of the main problems with trail easements
is the disruption of the nature of the property. He said the
development potential is changed and there are the added problems
of debris and possible damage to the property by trail users.
Meeting 78-7 Page eight
R. Bishop said the District could have a written agreement to
police the trail and pick up debris, but added he could under-
stand a property owner ' s concern over fire hazards and vandalism.
H. Grench stated that the staff 's present small size made it
impractical to pursue the time-consuming task of acquiring trail
easements.
Dorothy Jennings , 3611 Woodside Road, Woodside, CA. , asked for
some comment about the short and long term time periods.
C. Britton replied that the basic difference would be that the
District's borrowing power would be spent in the short term and
the money would not be available again, so it was important for
the District to acquire land in the short term since funds would
be reduced in the future. The long term budget would have to be
used for land management and administrative costs.
Tony Look, P.O. Box 1141, Los Altos, CA. , remarked that he could
accept a long term District policy that would provide for completion
of large major acreage acquisition, but he hoped the District would
always continue to acquire small acreage, hillview sites that have
regional significance, trails and baylands parcels.
N. Hanko replied that she felt that was the intent of the District.
H. Turner added that the District would continue acquisition as
long as it could be sustained and that there were outside forces
(such as the Jarvis initiative) which could inhibit that goal.
Anja Miller, San Mateo County Parks & Recreation Citizens Advisory
Committee Chairperson, voiced her support and appreciation for
the District and its past work. She advised the District to be
aware of activities of other agencies involved in open space
acquisition to avoid duplication of efforts and to also consider
alternative sources of money, such as private funds, management
fees, and seeking State and federal policies that would continue
to support the agency' s operation. She said that the State was
currently involved in a recreational needs study. She said her
group is attempting to introduce an initiative to establish a
State grant program for maintainence and operations monies that
would match volunteer efforts. She pointed out that many agencies,
including the MROSD, were using volunteers effectively with the
result of saving a great deal of taxpayers' money, and that it
was important for this volunteer effort to be realized and
appreciated, partially in the form of matching funds from such
a proposed State grant program. She said the District' s support
in getting this legislation introduced and passed would be welcomed.
I
TIieeting 78-7 Page nine
Sam Jones , 19 La Vueita, Vallejo, CA. , owner of a 240-acre
ranch, said he was here as a significant landowner who
believes in open space and wants to keep his land in
agriculture, with no intention of developing. He noted
that landowners are concerned with increased taxes and worried
about the possible consequences of trail and open space easements,
such as fire hazard, and damages to property, and liability. He
said he appreciated all of the District's effort and asked the
Board to remain sensitive to the needs and concerns of the
landowners.
H. Grench responded that with an open space easement, there
are a lot of possibilities to explore, and contracts could be
written to protect the landowner's interests and maintaining
open space with minimal disruption.
C. Britton confirmed that there were many creative ways to handle
open space and noted property owners have varied interests
and sensitivities that the District needs to be aware of.
J. Melton said he felt more care could be given, with the
goal of reducing government spending, to pre-acquisition
planning. He stressed that more emphasis could be placed
on the impact an acquisition would have upon long term funds
(maintainence and development costs, need to acquire adjoining
lands, etc. ) .
J. Olson responded that such acquisition implications were
constantly being considered and that while general trends
and projections could be made, it was difficult, if not
impossible, to accurately predict specific long term impact
for each site. He noted that the current budget guidelines for
land management have been remarkably accurate.
I
I
I
Meeting 78-7 Page ten
B. Land Management
J. Olson said land management included four stages: (1) the
planning stage (initial plans and yearly review) , (2) the
development stage (implementation of capital improvements
such as parking lots and trails, as well as taking care of
existing structures such as bridges, roads, etc. ) , (3) the
on-going patrol and enforcement stage (police activity, fire
safety, diplomacy) , and (4) the volunteer and docent program.
J. Olson said that budget guidelines should be emphasized in
talking about land management. He noted that the budget guide-
line this year was 11.7% allocated to land management, with
an increment of 8% or 9% each year, to a maximum of 20% in
about 9 years. He said a critical question was whether or
not the District could stay within this guideline and still
responsibly take care of its lands, provide public access,
etc. , while continuing to maintain a viable acquisition pro-
gram. He noted that the District has an adopted policy to
make all lands accessible to the public, but providing the
necessary funds and methods for doing so has not been made
clear in the past. He said the District has experimented
with various levels of operation on lands currently held in
order to determine what was manageable with the budget guide-
line. He added that the District is now within its budget
guidelines, but is also at its management capacity. He sta-
ted that three of the open space areas already experienced
fairly heavy usage. In order to maintain the land manage-
ment budget guidelines, at least in the short term, he said
it would be necessary to concentrate development on a few
open space preserves, with only minimal development on the
remaining preserves. He suggested that it was part of the
District' s responsibility to provide an open space experi-
ence close to people' s homes since that was the wish of
the people who voted for establishing the District. He
said a possible short term goal, which he defined as approx-
imately the next eight years, could be acquisition and manage-
ment of sites accessible to the residents of the District
living on the "urban fringe" . Potential sites could be the
Edgewood Road State College site in the north, a southern
site, a preserve on Skyline, and perhaps a bayfront trail.
D. Wendin asked what attention would be given to sites that
currently have usage or will have usage, but not in the in-
tensive sense.
J. Olson responded that those sites would probably not have
parking lots added, since it is really the parking lot that
begins to create a burden on land management as it encourages
higher usage of a given area which then leads to further needs
(signs, trails, police activity, collecting debris, etc. ) .
II
Meeting 78-7 Page eleven
E. Shelley remarked that adding a parking lot is a definite
decision to publicize a specific preserve.
E. Mart pointed out that Permanente Creek Park (Rancho San
Antonio Open Space Preserve) receives the most public usage
of any of the currently held preserves even though there are
only ten spaces available for parking.
N. Hanko said she would like to explore the possibility of
establishing caretaker residences on some of the sites with
the goal of creating self-sufficient sites, while still permit-
ting public access at a reasonable level.
D. Wendin asked E. Mart to report on the current level of pa-
trol on sites.
E. Mart replied that there were a total of three patrol rangers,
a construction ranger who is a peace officer but who does not
regularly patrol sites, two seasonal ranger aides, and four
federally funded employees working on construction projects
for one year, and himself. He said he was on patrol approx-
imately 15% of the time, with the rest of this time spent in
supervision and office activity. He said the sites were open
from dawn to dusk seven days a week and there were only two
rangers working on weekends, one doing an early shift, the
other a late shift. He added that on weekdays there was often
only one ranger on patrol with the construction ranger as possi-
ble backup. He said there were currently three rangers living
on site: one at Permanente, one at Picchetti and one at Fremont
Older.
D. Wendin asked what the future needs might be regarding patrol
level and E. Mart replied that, as explained in a previous re-
port to the Board, four rangers and two construction rangers
could maintain a minimum level of service for some time, pro-
viding no new sites rapidly increased usage.
D. Wendin then asked what role non-District caretakers could ful-
fill.
E. Mart replied that would depend upon their relationship with
the District. He added that a potential problem would be the
caretaker' s inability to technically enforce District regula-
tions or solve problems except as a private citizen.
J. Olson added that all the caretaker could probably do would
be to call a District official in the event of a problem.
N. Hanko said she felt the presence of a caretaker would pro-
vide reassurance for public users and deter potential vandals
at night. She asked that staff consider and report on the
feasibility of using non-District caretakers.
Meeting 78-7 Page twelve
G. Jennings suggested that the District continue to explore
the idea of having several different levels of public use on
sites. He stressed that patrol roads may not be needed on
open space preserves with low usage, and he noted that patrol
vehicles sometimes do more damage to land than hikers. He
commented that volunteer patrol could be effective if properly
organized.
E. Mart pointed out that patrol vehicles are often used to
provide fire protection as well as being used for policing
activity.
E. Shelley said the District needed to address the question
of whether or not the budget would be sufficient to manage all
of the lands acquired in a short term plan. He noted that if
the District became a land use organization at some point (after
10 years or so) , the amount needed for land management could es-
calate 20 to 80% if all of the lands were to be brought up to
the development and usage level of sites such as Rancho San An-
tonio. He said the long term aspect of land management had
not been adequately addressed yet.
A. Miller suggested that a good way to deal with the parking
lot problem would be to work in close cooperation with the lo-
cal transit districts.
R. Mark commented that the District has a network of trails
in the Monte Bello Ridge area and should expect and possibly
encourage usage here.
T. Look agreed that public transportation should be encouraged.
He also cautioned that the higher the intensity of land develop-
ment, the greater the pressure would be on that piece of land
and that some sites could not sustain such pressure and would
be better left in a more primitive state.
D. Jennings said she would like to hear some discussion of the
topic of private concessions on publicly-owned land. H. Turner
replied that the subject was currently being discussed in a
Board committee and that today' s time restriction would not per-
mit opening up a discussion now.
H. Turner requested that the issue of establishing further pol-
icy on land management be placed on the agenda for workshop
follow-up discussion of the Board, and that the Budget Committee
prepare background information.
C. Public Communications
C. Harrington stated three main issues in public communications
and public and private liaison objectives : (1) what is the
li
Meeting 78-7 Page thirteen
District' s responsibility as a public agency to inform the
public regarding its actions and programs; (2) does the Dis-
trict need a more active public communications program; and
(3) what is the District' s responsibility with regard to
public education, public participation, and public and private
liaison objectives. She said she specifically wished to hear
discussion about the rules and procedures regarding dissemina-
tion of information on a regular basis, site specific informa-
tion, and the District' s public use policies.
B. Green pointed out that verbal dissemination of information
was as important and effective as written material.
C. Harrington stated she was working on a plan to increase pub-
lic speaking engagements, preparing new presentations with slides,
and she hoped for the Board' s cooperation on this.
N. Hanko said that in addition to the issue of informing the pub-
lic about the District, there was also the issue of finding out
how the public felt about the District.
C. Harrington commented that while she felt it would be a good
idea, a public survey had not yet been done due to the time com-
mitment it would involve by staff.
D. Wendin noted that while the District had received some criti-
cal press recently, there was no real public negativism and the
District had an essentially good public image.
C. Harrington said another issue in public communications was
how to counteract wrong information, e.g. , a newspaper arti-
cle which misquoted the District or gave inaccurate informa-
tion about usage of the various sites.
H. Turner replied the District should correct the error but
not attempt to "set the whole public straight" .
R. Mark said he felt the District should inform the public
of what it has already accomplished as well as what its future
plans are, since there are still many people who are unaware
of the existence of the District.
N. Hanko suggested that the staff prepare a monthly report on
the District' s activities which would be available to any in-
terested persons. She added that two agenda items for Board
follow-up might be discussion of policies regarding publicity
on land usage and discussion of ways to inform the Board of the
public' s perceptions of district policies, specifically related
to site accessibility.
Meeting 78-7 Page fourteen
!V. D. Administration
A. Crosley outlined some of the activities administration en-
compassed, in addition to program support. She noted that
many things which did not fall into the categories of acquisi-
tion, land management, and public communications, were handled
by administration and included workers compensation reporting,
unemployment insurance procedures and reporting, personnel
(coordinating hiring, establishing salary ranges, job descrip-
tions, reviewing benefits policies) , preparing administrative
policies and procedures, budget, bookkeeping, coordinating the
action plan, preparing the progress report, coordinating elec-
tions, preparing and distributing the board packets, drafting
reports, memos, and letters and office space planning. She poin-
ted out there were not many staff members to accomplish all these
tasks and said one of the reasons the staff had been able to main-
tain its current level of service without hiring additional staff
was due to the efforts of a volunteer who had been working part-
time for the past 1-11 years. She asked that the Board carefully
consider staff' s limitations whenever they wished an increased
level of staff activity or more sophisticated level of staff
service. She said decisions may have to be made regarding re-
distribution of work load, hiring consultants, or training
staff in specific areas to continue activities at essentially
the present staff level.
H. Turner said the staff should be highly and enthusiastically
commended for the job they were doing and asked if there were
any specific problems to address.
A. Crosley replied that the cost and staff time involved in
mailing and duplication of documents was a major problem.
H. Grench said the support staff could just barely maintain
a reasonable service level under normal circumstances, but
there was a real stress problem for the staff when crisis sit-
uations arose. He said that since crisis situations were a
normal part of a public agency environment, the agency would
either have to cut down on expectations of a steady work out-
put from the staff or risk having staff members "burn out" ,
or add more staff members.
D. Wendin noted there was another aspect of this problem,
that the Board may have to separate itself more from staff
functions. He emphasized that the Board is currently spending
time doing things that do not involve setting policy. He
stressed that the role of the Board should be in directorship,
not administration. He added that this non-policy setting
Board activity created a burden on staff since it generated
more work for them.
Meeting 78-7 Page fifteen
J. Melton cautioned that the further the Board removed itself
from the agency' s day to day operations, the less awareness it
might have regarding the impact of requests on staff.
D. Wendin agreed that it was a very subtle matter and reemphasized
the Board' s role as policy setters, saying the direction of the
Board should be to rely more on staff to solve problems after
the Board has set policy.
E. Shelley said the Board could review or audit whenever it
seemed appropriate to do so.
N. Hanko said she felt the Board' s auditing function was remiss,
and the Board should have procedures through which it can answer
allegations, since it is answerable to the public. She said she
felt it was a breach of ethics for an employee working on con-
fidential items for the District to leave and work for someone
else, using the confidential knowledge gained against the Dis-
trict, as one former employee did. She said there should be a
code of ethics or employment agreement which the Board can re-
view.
H. Grench said there will always be personnel problems, although
he said the one N. Hanko referred to was an unusual situation.
N. Hanko said she felt the Board should be informed about such
problems, and asked how the Board can know what the General
Manager' s problems are.
E. Shelley said the General Manager' s problems are for him to
contend with, and if the Board is not satisfied, the General
Manager is answerable to them. He added if the General Manager
needs further policy direction, he can ask the Board for it.
If a matter may be a potential embarrassment to the District
in the General Manager' s opinion, he can let the Board know
when he feels it is necessary.
In response to a question from N. Hanko about a code of ethics
for District employees, H. Grench said many professional asso-
ciations have such codes. For example, he said the American
Right of Way Association, which land negotiators join, has
a code, but that doesn't mean the Association members are going
to follow the code or interpret it similarly. He mentioned
that the District did now have an employment agreement for
land acquisition personnel.
E. Shelley said he did not feel it is appropriate for Board
members to review in-house administrative policies, although
they can learn what they are.
R. Mark said he felt there was now an appropriate level of
Board involvement in District activities.
Meeting 78-7 Page sixteen
In response to a question from B. Green regarding personnel
or land negotiations matters discussed in Executive Session,
S. Norton said that under the Brown Act, the Board and staff
may meet in Executive Session to discuss certain subjects,
but the Brown Act does not say anything about what happens
when someone breaches this confidence.
G. Jennings asked if the Public Resources Code addressed the
situation of a Board member giving suggestions to employees of
the General Manager.
S. Norton replied that he did not feel this subject was covered
in the Public Resources Code, but many charter cities provide
that all direction from the City Council goes through the City
Manager, not other city employees.
B. Green said she felt that if a Board member can help out in
some instances with the workload, it can be both cost-effec-
tive and good from a public relations standpoint.
E. Shelley said such work should only be done at the direction
of the Board, however, and he was concerned with Board members
interfering with the execution of Board policy by giving advice
to staff members "on the spot" .
D. Wendin went on to say he felt the current level of Board
involvement was not a problem, but if the District did not
want to add to its staff, in the future the Board would have
to channel itself into activities that would be cost effective.
He added the Board would have to stop making so many sugges-
itions to staff on solving specific problems, unless it was
clearly in the interest of the District to do so.
E. Shelley said Board suggestions should only be made at
Board meetings, not at other times. R. Bishop added that Board
suggestions were only binding when made in the group context of
a Board meeting and he felt the staff had a good "filtering sys-
tem" for individual Board member suggestions made at other times.
H. Turner noted that this issue was something all boards wrestled
with and suggested that each individual examine his/her behavior
to see if there were any changes which could or should be made
in the following months.
In summary, A. Crosley asked the Board to keep in mind the im-
plications their decisions have regarding the level of staff act-
ivity.
Meeting 78-7 Page seventeen
In closing comments, H. Turner expressed his appreciation
for the level of commitment exhibited by staff and Board
members. R. Bishop added that the quality of support through
public participation had also been excellent.
V. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5 :30 P.M.
Janice Diane
Recording Secretary
A. Minutes of March 19, 1978
Motion. D. Wendin moved approval of the minutes of March 19 ,
19
78, with the following changes :
Page 5, second paragraph - the word "different" was
inserted before the word "impact" which was pluralized.
Page 10, second paragraph - the percentages should
have decimals to reflect 1`0.8%" and "0. 9%" .
H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.