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