Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19790204 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) -Meeting 79-3 Aff Or 0 Oww MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Special Meeting Board of Directors Goals Workshop M I N U T E S February 4 , 1979 375 Distel Circle, D-1 Los Altos , CA I . ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 10 : 00 A.M. by President Shelley. Members Present: Richard Bishop, Barbara Green, Katherine Duffy, Nonette Hanko, Harry Turner and Daniel Wendin. Members Absent: None Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, Michael Foster, Jon Olson, Anne Crosley, Eric Mart, Stanley Norton, Pat Starrett and Ellie Huggins. Other Present: Beez and Sam Jones; Lauri Mueller and Betsy Blais (representing Sempervirens Fund) ; Robert Mark; Robert Augsburqer, Sheldon Breiner and Susan Ware (representing Peninsula Open Space Trust) . INTRODUCTION E. Shelley said the purpose of the Goals Workshop is to dis- cuss how to achieve previously established goals under the constraints of Proposition 13 . Board and staff members in- troduced themselves to the audience. SUMMARY OF DISTRICT ACTIVITIES A. Open Space Acquisition C. Britton said Proposition 13 has reduced available land acquisition funds to approximately $1. 8 million this year, compared to $4 million (plus borrowing power which effectively doubled that amount) previously. He said the Meeting 79-3 Page two District has some money in reserves for acquiring property for which the District is already committed and for the matching of grant funds. As a result of Proposition 13, the District no longer has any unused borrowing power; borrowing power is based on four years of anticipated tax revenue, and it has now been drastically cut. of the $1. 8 million available, some is earmarked for "opportunity" purchases arranged, for example, by the Peninsula Open Space Trust, and the District has already used a portion of such money for this year' s acquisitions. In summary, he said the District' s program has been severely curtailed. B. Open Space Management J. Olson said the District has had a policy of designating a percentage of revenue to land management for planning, site operation and development. Prior to Proposition 13, the District was beginning to emphasize selected sites for low- intensity uses. After Proposition 13 , the Board policy has changed so that there is minimum funding for land management which provides for ranger patrol , very minimum maintenance and no site development. J. Olson said this change in policy has had a drastic effect on land management. It will be dif- ficult to judge how much money can be provided for maintenance this coming year. Plans for sites acquired prior to Proposi- tion 13 have been 75-80% completed, with new sites added during the last six months or future sites slated for very minimal attention. Implementation of the recommendations for these sites will be on an agenda in the near future. The problem of how to spend the District's limited funds is a pressing one at this time; if anything is done with new sites , others must be moved to lower priority. The District is losing out on federal grants and other funding possibilities because there is no way the District can provide the necessary super- vision of CETA people or provide the tools , trucks , etc. that are a necessary adjunct to these positions . C. Public Communications and Intergovernmental Liaison A. Crosley said that for six out of the last ten months the District has had no regular Public Communications Coordinator, so that implementation of this program has been minimal, although press coverage has been generally good. She said staff has been interviewing extensively for the position, which should be filled shortly. She said the District now has a legislative advocate in Sacramento, an adopted plan for reaching the District' s short term goal, and a draft of a long term goal plan. Alternative means of funding the communications program are still being pursued, and staff recently applied for a grant to help the District develop a slide presentation. Meeting 79-3 Page three D. General Management and Program Support A. Crosley said administrative costs have been kept to a minimum, in accordance with the Board's policy. There has been no increase in administrative staff, and none is pro- jected in the near future. She added that the main reason no additional staff has been needed is because of the invalu- able help of a regular volunteer office worker, Mrs. Shoolery, who has worked two mornings a week for almost two years. H. Grench said there are two positions open right now (Ranger and Public Communication Coordinator) that staff is trying to fill. Although there have been changes in attitude because of Proposition 13 , the overall level of staff activity has been changed little. D. Wendin said a personnel consultant has been hired and will be working for the next several months reviewing the District' s salary structure. He felt the lack of any sort of defined program has cost the District money over the years, and that salary questions are going to become more intense as the Board tends to want to keep salary expenditures low. He said a good program is needed which should free the Budget Committee and General Manager from the weeks of agony spent every year trying to make things work. A. Crosley said money for the personnel consultant is avail- able partly because Board members up for election this year chose not to have "Candidate Statements" prepared, saving budgeted money, and the Board members took a cut in pay this year. H. Grench said the most direct impact of the minimum budget has been on land management because the District just can' t afford to do the usual site improvements. C. Britton said the land acquisition staff has a heavy work- load right now, but the program is going fairly well. Some money is available for outside consultants, who will be used when appropriate. H. Grench said much of his time has been taken up with the new legislative program and getting the new personnel consultant oriented, and this has also affected the workload for others in the District. IV. WORKSHOP ON ACHIEVING THE SHORT-TERM GOAL A. Legislative Program 1. H. Grench said the Board has adopted a legislative pro- gram for responding to the impact of Proposition 13, and has hired Bob Beckus and Loren Smith as legislative advocates to act in Sacramento on the District' s behalf. Beckus re- cently arranged a meeting regarding SB 31, Nejedly' s bill, Meeting 79-3 Page four which could provide another $150 million in bailout funds for special districts this year. S. Norton said a problem with the maximum 1% property tax allocation in San Mateo County has been worked out, and the District' s situation there has been at least partially cor- rected to add $170, 000 in revenue this year, and will be cor- rected for the future so the District will get its fair share of property tax revenue in San Mateo County. H. Grench said there is a question as to how the Legislature will allocate property taxes in the future among local govern- ment agencies. He said this would have to be followed closely, because of the District' s dependence on the property tax. H. Grench said State surplus funds have been allocated to cities and counties so that they have almost 100% of their money for the current fiscal year. However, special dis- tricts have not fared as well. The District has received just under 50% of last year's tax revenue) which includes $590, 000 in State surplus funds. If Nejedly' s bill is enacted as is , special districts might get as much as 97% of last fiscal year's tax revenue, but compromises will no doubt make that lower. SB 31 would use the same allo- cation formula as used in the original bailout bill, and multi-county districts would get their money directly from the State, not from Boards of Supervisors. Chappie is now reactivating his bill in the Assembly on behalf of special districts, which provides for the Dept. of Finance to dis- tribute the money according to what the Department feels are the critical unmet needs of special districts, and it is not certain the District would get any money under such an arrangement. The District would favor a bill where allo- cation was accomplished through a formula. H. Grench said Assemblyman Knox is promoting a bill on govern- ment reorganization in which the county LAFCO' s would study the governmental agencies within each county. After study and public hearings, each LAFCO would send its recom- mendations to the affected agencies for comments, and hold more hearings. Any reorganization would eventually have to be submitted to a vote of the electorate. Reorganization would presumably be done agency by agency. Individual boards could not unilaterally decide that their agencies would not submit to a vote; if they did, they would lose their property taxes. The Post Commission Report is also dealing in part with govern- ment reorganization , H. Grench said. Meeting 79-3 Page five H. Grench said the matter of surplus allocation or some other way of compensating for lost property taxes for the coming fiscal year is of much concern. A bill similar to last year' s SB 154 to allocate surplus money is in the works, and Senator Rodda has a bill which could be the main vehicle. He said surplus funds will be about $4 billion this year and $2.5 billion the following year, if the State continues to allocate them, but beyond that the outlook is very uncer- tain. H. Grench said East Bay Regional Park District and the MROSD are specifically mentioned in the final Post Commission report. A number of bills have been introduced based upon the Com- mission' s recommendations , but at present there is no way of knowing their chances of success. H. Grench said the Legislature will be considering ways of compensating for lost property tax revenue , for example, by allocating part of the sales tax to cities and counties. At present cities and special, districts are agreeing on a division of 40% for cities , 40% for counties , and 20% for special districts of one-cent from the sales taxes. One- cent from the sales tax this year would be $1.1 billion, or about $220 million for special districts- The 1. 1 billion would be far short of the $7 billion lost in property taxes as a re- sult of Proposition 13. Robert Mark, 725 Cowper, Palo Alto said another Nejedly bill, SB 295, would create a Heritage Preservation Fund for grants for acquisition, development and maintenance of open space lands and recreation trails, through a $5 designation on the income tax form. He said he was not certain the bill would succeed this year. It was stated that the questions facing the District are these: where will the District' s funding come from, what levels of government will the District be dealing with, and what threats are there to our "separate identity?" N. Hanko said our District crosses county lines and performs a service not provided by cities or counties within our area. R. Mark said recent history in Santa Clara County indicates strong support for the District. H. Grench said the District' s best defense is to do a good job - continue to create a greenbelt, patrol it, make it available to the public , let people know what is available to them, and provide efficiency in operation. He said the District must continue to lobby at the County and State levels to obtain a fair share of funds. Meeting 79-3 Page six H. Turner said he felt the District should encourage San mateo, county leaders to get a measure similar to Santa Clara County' s Proposition A on the ballot and passed, since it could mean millions of dollars in added revenue. N. Hanko suggested that joint meetings with the parks and recreation departments in our counties would be mutually beneficial, as would meetings with regional agencies, and with citizen groups such as People for Open Space. Adjournment for Lunch 11;45 - 12:45 B. Fund Raising H. Turner said that for short-term results of a significant kind, private fund-raising should focus on a couple of selected parcels with one or two relevant strategies: money might be requested for land acquisition, for capital improvements, or for general operations. Fund-raising would probably be most successful with the first two items. H. Turner said the potential of a general membership organization is to bring people closer to the District, provide a basis of support, and eventually turn that support into a solid financial source. This is an expensive way to raise money, which depends on large numbers of people providing individual small contributions. The third alternative is an organization such as the Peninsula Open Space Trust. Sempervirens Fund representatives L. Mueller and B. Blais said Sempervirens is both a general membership and private fund raising organization. Sempervirens gets matching funds from the State for most of the property it buys, and turns the property over to the State to manage. Sempervirens vol- unteer groups do trail-building and cleanup in areas such as Castle Rock. Most of the money received is used for land acquisition. Fund-raising efforts include direct mail appeals for member- ships and to seek contributions. They try to break even on new memberships and eventually turn members into significant sources of contributions. The Sempervirens Fund also uses --personal�:contact -to .reach potential large donors, partly to increase their interest in their support for the program. Contributions may be designated as memorials, or trails, benches, etc. , may be labelled for specific donors . Some grants have come from family-type funds, but Sempervirens has only recently started canvassing this source of funds. Meeting 79-3 Page seven The purchase of Mountain Shadows , a 730 acre parcel, was an active Sempervirens campaign from September, 1977 to January, 1979. Most of the $240, 000 raised came from previous con- tributors. Fifty percent of Sempervirens Fund members are from this immediate area, with the rest from San Francisco, Marin, Santa Cruz and occasional members from Southern Calif- ornia and the East Coast. The Sempervirens ' staff consists of two full-time and seven part-time people, approximately four of whom are fund-raisers. They have many active volunteer fund-raisers. They try to keep costs within 15-20% of receipts; additional overhead is 30-35% , but varies from year-to-year. They can raise $300,000 a year on a sustainable basis which includes a major campaign for a specific parcel each year. Sempervirens Fund can move faster than the State to acquire properties which come on the market. They solicit funds only for property for which they have an option. The option money comes from their general funds. They conduct a quick campaign for additional money, make the purchase payment, and solicit funds for the remainder. Ms. Mueller said that other conservation groups use each other' s membership lists occasionally, but it doesn't seem to hurt either organization's fund-raising efforts. She didn't think that if the MROSD went into the same areas there would be significant impact-- people seem to be willing to contri- bute to several organizations. She knows of people who are on six different membership lists, indicating their interest in a number of environmental organizations. H. Turner said it would seem that a Sempervirens Fund type of membership group would not be useful for the District in the short term, but it holds potential for long-term develop- ment, and ought to be seriously considered. H. Turner introduced Sheldon Breiner and Susan Ware, directors of Peninsula open Space Trust. Robert Augsburger, Executive Director of the Peninsula open Space Trust, said POST' s major emphasis is on land acquisition, with perhaps some funds occasionally available for capital improvements. The Trust' s goals and objectives were distributed, and Augsburger emphasized that most of these long-term in nature and would not satisfy the District' s short-term goals. R. Augsburger said POST's fourth objective , "to provide leader- ship and assistance to community efforts for financing the acquisition of environmentally significant open space, " holds the best promise of meeting the District' s short-term needs. The choice of a specific project with which to launch POST is very important, and he said the District and post need to execute a plan for a Meeting 79-3 Page eight specific parcel. H. Turner said that in the short run, identifying a specific parcel and setting up a campaign to acquire it would seem the most productive . N. Hanko wondered if it would be possible for the District to cooperate with the Sempervirens Fund in obtaining money to develop some of the District's properties, for example, a trail in the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve connecting the preserve trail to the sea. L. Mueller said agreements between the two organizations is a possibility, but there would have to be meetings on the specifics. N. Hanko said POST is basically for land acquisition. A membership organization might help with capital improvements . H. Turner said he sees fund-raising through a general member- ship organization as gaining a wide audience of people to count on for help in political crises . A. Crosley said the proposed District newsletter could be a good vehicle for informing other organizations about District and POST activities. H. Turner said questions to consider are should a membership organization be set up, and if so, should it be at the Dis- trict or at POST? E. Shelley added, should the organization be for raising funds of finding friends? H. Turner suggested this be put on a Board agenda for further discussion. D. Wendin said he thought earlier discussions of fund-raising had produced agreement that fund-raising would be left to POST. He pointed out that staff was already developing a mail- ing list as a vehicle for getting information to District supporters. H. Grench said the issue of site development is still before US. Land Management staff is preparing a report on developing certain of our sites for public use, which will require capital improvement money. one idea would be an organization called "Friends of the Park" to raise money on a project-by-project basis, similar to the "Adopt A Park" program in the East Bay and others in the State. L. Mueller said Sempervirens has found that some donors like to have their names associated with a specific project, and that this could be handled through POST and the District. For example, the District newsletter could include a return envelope for donating money for a forthcoming project to POST, and the money could be designated for a trail or whatever. Meeting. 79-3 Page nine J. Olson said development can be a fraction of the cost of acquisition, for example a parcel that costs $3 million may have a development and management budget of $120 ,000 a year, a very small amount compared to the cost of the land. Site development is very important for building a basis of support for the District. The level currently budgeted is not sufficient to gain recognition from the public, and there is a need to have some sites developed to start the momentum for broad-based public support. R. Bishop suggested people might be approached for lesser amounts than the big donations, which might be earmarked for capital improvements . R. Augsburger said POST is not asking anyone for money at this time. A key part of POST's effort is to develop an interest in open space and MROSD, and to contact land owners . When there is a specific parcel to buy, then POST will ask people for money, but POST probably can't be of much help in 1979-1980 . C. Grants H. Grench said the District has done quite well in receiving federal and State grants. The District has received $2. 5 million from federal and State grants, and $2 million worth of land donations. He said he felt the District would still be able to provide matching funds to get grant money. C. Britton commented that there is less grant money available, since the State is looking for smaller projects. He said President Carter' s budget this year has lowered allocations for Land and Water Conservation Funds , perhaps by $600 million. R. Mark said there is a reasonable chance that a State bond act for 1980 will be sponsored by Nejedly. He said the whole State acquisition program will come to a halt unless something is done soon, H. Grench said he is not optimistic about sustaining the grant level the District has had for the past several years. C. Britton said he thought that people who would give to a private group like Sempervirens Fund would not be as likely to give money to a public agency funded by tax dollars. A. Crosley suggested the situation could change in the future; for example,people might be willing to contribute money for a trailthey wanted if public agencies didn't have the finan- cial resources to do so. Meeting 79-3 Page ten D. Community Efforts R. Bishop suggested there were three areas of focus : are people willing to (1) donate tax savings, (2) create limited assessment districts, (3) donate their time? He felt the District needed to know where to find its volunteers, what motivates them, and how to utilize their services. 1. Volunteers E. Huggins said there are willing volunteers, in the area from San Jose to Woodside who enjoy getting out on the land. There are also people who are willing to work on specific projects, but very few who will come in week after week on a regular basis, like Mrs, Shoolery A volunteer's currency is time, loving care, and appre- ciation. Volunteers require staff supervision. The use of their time and talents must be well thought out ahead of time. They can do much to create good will for the District, but they can also create a backlash if a project is unsuccessful. D. Wendin said volunteers are of different kinds : docents do a specific job, and do it well; general volunteers are much harder to come by. R. Bishop responded that from his own experience, volun- teers need specific jobs , supervision and follow-up; they are never "free. " It takes a lot of someone ' s time to recruit, train and follow up on volunteers . S. Jones , 19 La Vuelta, Vallejo commented that many organ- izations are competing for that pool of 'volunteers these days--schools , libraries , etc. , at the same time many potential volunteers have taken pay.ing 2. Assessment Districts S. Norton said a special assessment district is set up to benefit a specific group of property owners, who may be taxed either on the basis of front footage, per head, or per household. Such a district could be used for purchase of open space to benefit the people in the assessment district. A good example for this might be the Hassler property in San Carlos, where the surrounding property owners would benefit from the view, and the pre- served open space would add to the value of their properties. It is legal to form an assessment district for this purpose, where people would receive a direct benefit. It can be accomplished - (1) by a vote of the city counci; (2) by a petition signed by owners of 600 of the land area in the proposed district. He said an assessment district is considered to be outside the scope of Proposition 13 . The steps to be taken are as follows : Meeting 79-3 Page eleven (a) A group of volunteers circulates petitions; (b) An attorney and an engineer are hired to work on a contingency basis; (c) Any people opposed to the district are heard (at this point the city council could still decide against the formation of the district if they felt the people opposing it had sufficient grounds for denial) ; (e) The project is financed through issuance of bonds by the assessment district. S. Norton said ordinarily a city council would not over- ride the wishes of a majority of its constituency. R. Bishop added he didn' t know of any way to form an assessment district if the city council turns it down. He said he believed assessment districts had to be tied to a particular project. H. Turner suggested there might be potential for other special assessment districts , perhaps in Portola Valley for Windy Hill acquisition. 3. Donation of Tax Savings R. Bishop said he felt that asking people to donate their tax savings to the District generally would be doomed. However, if they were asked for money for particular pro- jects they believe in and think are worthwhile, they might be a bit more generous this year because of the tax savings. But the appeal should not be just asking for donations because of real estate tax savings . He hoped people would come to the District to assist with specific projects. H. Turner said he circulated a survey in three precincts in his area in which 80% of the respondents said they would give part of their tax savings for land acquisition. But he said an effort to collect large amounts of money through many small donations would be very expensive, and any willingness to donate tax savings may dissipate rapidly as the year progresses . J. Olson said the Goals Workshop leads into the Action Plan for the coming year, but he didn't feel the discus- sion focused on plans for the next few years . A. Crosley suggested some of the topics discussed could be included in the Action Plan. For instance, if the new public communications person feels there is potential for a membership organization, that might be included in the Action Plan. Meeting 79-3 Page twelve E. Mart said he sees difficult choices in how to allocate District money. Putting all money into acquiring land and indebtedness does not seem to be the District's best choice. Public service organizations which perform direct services tend to win the most support. H. Grench said the District' s short-term plan adopted by the Board will be implemented by the Action Plan through the budget. The long-term plan has been tentatively adopted by the Board, and within the next month or two would be in final form. There is still time for the long-term plan to show up in the Action Plan and budget for this coming year. The hard questions about how much money to take away from land acquisition come out of the budget process. A report for the next Board meeting on the development of selected sites will bring those issues into focus . R. Bishop said the Board can discuss whether a higher level of improvement on sites and public access to sites would improve the District' s relationships with its constitu- ency. E. Shelley said Board members should think about how to proceed with these questions, and be prepared to discuss them and perhaps assign them to the Budget Committee or elsewhere for study and action. V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3 :00 P.M. Bernice DiGiovanni Recording Secretary t II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of February 4, 1979 E. Shelley stated the consensus that the minutes of February 4 be adopted as presented. I I I