HomeMy Public PortalAbout19800920 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 80-20
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
Special Meeting
Board of Directors
Program Evaluation Workshop
M I N U T E S
September 20, 1980 375 Distel Circle, D-1
Los Altos, CA 94022
I. ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 9 :10 A.M. by President
Barbara Green.
Board Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin,
Barbara Green, Edward Shelley, Richard Bishop and Nonette
Hanko.
Member Absent: Harry Turner.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, Steve
Sessions , Jean Fiddes, Del Woods, Eric Mart, Suzanne Shipley,
Mike Foster, Charlotte MacDonald,and Joan Combs.
II. INTRODUCTION
B. Green stated that discussion should focus on whether the
Board was in concurrence with the projects and activities
selected for each program and subprogram, relative to other
projects or activities that might have been chosen, rather
than discussing the subprogram activities in detail.
H. Grench explained the staff process involved in preparing
the evaluations for the workshop (see memorandum M-80-66,
dated September 16, 1980) . He said that this was the first
time evaluations were done in this manner, and the process
may need some refining.
III. OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION PROGRAM
C. Britton introduced the Open Space Acquisition Program,
noting that it contained three subprograms, Negotiations,
Land Analysis, and Special Projects. He noted that the
three most important objectives in the Negotiations Sub-
program revolve around money and acreage. The District is
trying to commit both current committed land funds and backlog
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Barbara Green,Nonette G.Hanko,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
Page Two
funds to purchase land at the best possible price for
the District. 101% of the budget was spent in New Land
Commitments with the foundation laid for the expenditure
of another 1 1/2 million dollars. He noted that much of
the work last year set the basis for expenditures this
year. He said that one of the big problems was the $5
million dollar committed lands backlog, where some of the
projects have been going on for a number of years. This
year, the District laid the foundation for the expenditure
of $1.4 million in that backlog, but it was actually a
budgeted amount of $1. 8 million, so the District saved
$400, 000 in committed funds. He said the third key
project in the Negotiations Subprogram was working with
Peninsula Open Space Trust, which the District relies
on for fund-raising, bargain sales, etc. He noted that
two projects were completed this year- the Windy Hill
and the Crittenden Marsh gifts.
K. Duffy asked if there were any major non-progress items.
C. Britton replied that he felt there were not, except for
the continuing backlog.
D. Wendin asked if Cooley Landing, Hassler, and the Los
Gatos Cooperative Project were the only Land and Water
grants that are not yet expended.
C. Britton replied that Edgewood funds are still not expended,
noting that the Edgewood sale has not been finally approved
by the State, and grant money cannot be claimed until property
is owned. He added that the District has not yet requested
the reimbursement for the Crittenden Marsh project.
B. Green asked if projects were specifically chosen from the
Action Plan.
C. Britton said that the Action Plan was a good guideline, but
felt that the Action Plan for next year will be more specific.
H. Grench said that staff tried to choose top priorities ,
guided by the Action Plan, but not bound by it. He noted that
one of the difficulties involved in preparing the evaluations
was narrowing down to one or two key statements for each
subprogram, as there were several things of equivalent priority.
C. Britton noted that the key objectives and activities for
1980-1981 were exactly the same as for the previous year.
C. Britton discussed the Land Analysis Subprogram, which
includes all the background research and information needed
to acquire land.
Page Three
D. Wendin asked if C. Britton felt the District had satis-
factory communications with San Mateo County regarding
properties that are felt to be "safe" in terms of development,
even if not necessarily high priority projects .
C. Britton replied that the District' s relationship with
San Mateo County had greatly improved, especially in the
area of planning.
R. Bishop suggested that he and H. Turner could help with
contacts with San Mateo County Planning Commission and County
Supervisors concerning key issues that affect the District' s
goals.
D. Wendin said he felt there were two kinds of priorities in
Land Analysis; one is information gathering and the other comes
under the general heading of being on top of what was happening
to keep from being surprised.
C. Britton noted that the key objective of 1980/81 in the
Land Analysis subprogram was to continue the process of
information gathering, but that some aspects of the "surprises"
were in the political area of the Government Liaison subprogram.
C. Britton reviewed the key projects and activities for the
Special Projects Subprogram. He noted that grant applications
usually involved a liaison between Land Acquisition and Land
Management. He noted that last year the District did not
receive any Land and Water grants. This year, two grant
applications have been submitted.
N. Hanko asked if another joint project with Santa Clara
County was contemplated.
K. Duffy pointed out that Santa Clara County has made some
moves to go ahead with the San Jose Water Works Company
Lake Ranch purchase.
C. Britton noted that the District had encouraged this project.
H. Grench said that an important part of the District' s program
has been encouraging other agencies to make park acquisitions,
even when they are not joint projects.
C. Britton emphasized the importance of eliminating the current
grant project backlog to make sure the District receives full
consideration on future Land and Water Conservation Fund grants.
R. Bishop said he strongly concurred in the idea of giving
high priority to pending projects where a grant is involved,
as this affects the District' s future eligibility for grants.
Page Four
K. Duffy asked if the District had any grants in mind for
1980/81.
C. Britton said that a grant for the McNiel property was
currently under consideration. The District received a
waiver of retroactivity from the Federal government so
that the property could be acquired prior to the Federal
Government' s decision. He noted that as soon as a project
is approved under the SB 174 program, the applicant can
receive a 90% cash advance. With the Land and Water program ,
reimbursements take up to 6 months.
IV. OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
S. Sessions introduced the Open Space Management Program
noting that, in 1979/80, there were four subprograms. Sub-
program 31, the General Land Administration Subprogram,
was dropped in 1980/81, and for consistency, was not handled
as a separate subprogram in this evaluation.
He noted that Land Administration was an across-the-board
subprogram which touched on all activities. He added that it
was difficult to come up with two or three priorities, and
that each priority statement is made up of several activities.
He explained that the Planning, Design and Development Sub-
program ties back closely to Land Acquisition. He said that
there is a great deal of coordination between programs. He
cited the Monte Bello Development Plan as a task within the
use and management plan category.
K. Duffy asked what pre-acquisition planning involved.
S. Sessions said that pre-acquisition use and management
plans evolved into use and management plans after land is
acquired. The end item is a use and management plan the
Board adopts.
H. Grench stated that the Land Analysis program in Open
Space Acquisition Program discusses developing acquisition
recommendations in conjunction with Open Space Management.
S. Sessions noted that high priority end items were sought
for inclusion in the subprogram.
S. Sessions noted that the Monte Bello Fire Management
program was included as an individual item that was con-
sidered very important. He noted this is an on-going
program over the next 10 years.
K. Duffy noted that the Fire Management plan was described as
completed, but the project is not yet completed.
S. Sessions explained that the plan is complete, but the
implementation of the plan comes under another subprogram.
Page Five
N. Hanko suggested a change in the wording of a section
of Item No. 1, 1980-1981 Key Projects and Activities of
the Planning, Design and Development Subprogram - ("implementing
the Monte Bello development plan" . ) She said that the
Monte Bello development plan is a tentative plan, not yet
approved by the Board and suggested that it read "this includes
implementing an approved Monte Bello development plan" .
D. Wendin suggested adding "when approved" to plans for the
Hassler, Picchetti, and Thornewood sites.
H. Grench referred to Item No. 3 regarding the resolution of
site emphasis question under the 1980-1981 Key Projects and
Activities, and said he felt that those questions were im-
portant to resolve. He noted that questions were not re-
solved from the previous workshop.
N. Hanko said that now the District knows what its funding
will be, it will make a difference in the Board's decision
to emphasize and to what extent.
N. Hanko asked if the additional monies from the tax levy
would influence the Open Space Management program.
H. Grench replied that, according to Board policy, the
additional tax money was for acquisition, and not develop-
ment or management of sites. He added that it did influence
the program in that there are more sites to plan for and
manage.
N. Hanko said that a major problem with Item No. 3 was that
the Board had agreed to meet to work on questions raised at
the Site Emphasis workshop and that meeting had not taken
place.
R. Bishop noted that the Site Emphasis Subcommittee was
instructed to define issues for the Board to discuss . He
suggested that staff set up a meeting for the Committee to
discuss this problem.
K. Duffy asked if it would be helpful to staff for the Board
to restructure and re-order all the District policies.
S. Session replied that it would be helpful, and noted that
some of the policies tie back to site emphasis questions, some
to use and management plans , and that the whole thing is inter-
related and tied back to the budget.
H. Grench suggested that the restructuring and combining of
all Open Space Management policies should perhaps be one of
the priority projects for the next fiscal year.
.eage Six
S. Sessions outlined three key priorities in the operations,
Maintenance, and Volunteer Subprogram, and noted that the
highest priority was maintaining a level of responsible
stewardship. He said that this was an ongoing program.
The level of emphasis last year was to bring staff up to a
well-trained level and he added that the training was also
an ongoing process.
E. Shelley said that he agreed providing a responsible level
of stewardship was the highest priority, but the hardest one
to measure the success of. He asked how one decided what is
an acceptable, desirable level of stewardship. He asked if
there were incidents that could have been prevented by more
patrol.
E. Mart said that in order to devise a standard of responsible
stewardship in the area of patrol, it is necessary to consider
the number of Ranger manhours and the number of incidents, and
decide if there is a good match. He noted that incidents are
up from last year, and will continue to rise as more people
visit the sites and the District acquires more land.
S. Sessions said that another way to measure the activity
level on the various sites is the response the District gets
from the public. He said that the more land that is acquired,
the more patrol is necessary. He said it is necessary to
have a staffing level where Open Space Management feels com-
fortable, and to come up with an organizational structure that
will allow for future growth. Another task identified for the
coming year is to prepare a comprehensive maintenance and
operation plan. This ties back to the emphasis question as
well as to staff and would also set a level of maintenance
for the preserves.
D. Wendin noted that in previous years, Board and staff have
thought of quantifying the use of District properties . He
said that the ways to measure stewardship are extremely
difficult. He added that in the area of site emphasis, each
Board member has some assumptions on what growth and use is
going to be, and making assumptions on the need for future
budget. He added that it may be that an activity of some
priority for next year is to try to come to grips with the
quantification question.
E. Shelley noted that it was once discussed using volunteers
to conduct a survey of the number of visitors to a site. He
suggested that it might be worthwhile to try to establish a
baseline before a major development plan is implemented for
Monte Bello.
E. Mart said that the District docents keep an informal
tally of visitors to Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve.
Page Seven
S. Sessions said that the docents also keep track of Los
Trancos open Space Preserve visitors, so the District has
some available statistics. He added that it is possible
to quantify the carrying capacity of the land. He said
the State has done many studies over the past years and
come up with some formulas for that.
Beez Jones, 16891 Stevens Canyon Road, Cupertino, asked
for a description of the Ranger training program.
E. Mart replied that the Ranger staff received the basic
40 hour training for police officers, which is a basic
State requirement, plus 200 hours advanced course for
National Park Rangers, adapted for District use.
E. Mart said that one way to quantify the use of a preserve
is to determine how field staff hours are allocated among
the various duties. He said it is possible to come up with
an arbitrary guideline with reference to site use.
K. Duffy suggested that perhaps another workshop on field
service is needed.
N. Hanko said she felt there was a whole area here that could
be explored by both staff and Board. She requested that the
ride-along program be discussed again by the Board, or perhaps
in the Site Emphasis Subcommittee meeting.
H. Grench said that this question did not quite seem to go
with site emphasis, but perhaps went along with the question
of developing standards for stewardship.
B. Green suggested that the Site Emphasis Subcommittee talk
about how to establish the level of responsibility expected
by Board and staff.
E. Shelley said that establishing the number of staff hours
needed on a site is beyond the Board' s qualifications.
E. Mart said that information can be gathered from records
as to how Ranger time and hours are allocated. He said he
could also provide statistics of incidents that occur on
the sites. He added that it would be helpful to have a
reference point in terms of the expectations of the Board.
B. Green said that if the District is going to emphasize
certain sites, it must realize that more Ranger time must
be allocated to those sites.
H. Grench said he felt the Board had progressed on the
site emphasis policy question, and that stewardship considera-
tion should not be interjected at this time. He suggested
that the stewardship question might be considered a topic
for another workshop.
Page Eight
D. Wendin said that the Board cannot adopt a site emphasis
policy without having addressed the question of the level of
stewardship and what it will cost. He said the Board could
very easily adopt a site emphasis policy carried to an ex-
treme which totally reverses the way the District spends
money.
E. Shelley stated that there is a difference between having
a policy of emphasized vs. non-emphasized sites, and the
implementation of that policy in determining what fraction
of the lands are emphasized.
K. Duffy referred to Item 2 in the 1979/80 Key Projects of
the subprogram - "implement those portions of site use and
management plans that can be accomplished by District staff"
and said that she felt this statement should be stated more
clearly, as it sounded as if Land Management only planned
on doing part of it. She suggested that this be stated more
clearly, and should read "Implement the site use and manage-
ment plans. "
S. Sessions noted that the docent program will try to focus
on more depth, meeting increased user needs. He then dis-
cussed the Enterprise subprogram, which last year maintained
6 rental accounts and 2 agricultural leases.
E. Shelley asked how much staff time goes into managing
this enterprise program compared to the dollar return. He
noted that a policy was adopted in terms of structures that
they would not be maintained only for revenue-production
but must have other merits to the District. He added that
the Board discussed dropping this policy during the Proposi-
tion 13 period, but the Board has never changed the policy.
The Board recessed at 10: 35.
The Board reconvened at 10 :45.
V. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS/GOVERNMENTAL LIAISON PROGRAM
C. MacDonald said that the two key projects in the Public
Education and Participation Subprogram for 1979/80 were
the printing and distribution of a fact sheet and news-
letter measuring the effectiveness of this effort. She
noted that in 1980/81, a telephone survey will be con-
ducted, after the distribution of the next issue of
Openspace. In describing the speakers' program, she
said that it has been broadened to include displays and
slide presentations. She said the priority to reach more
public organizations and agencies than in the past had been
accomplished.
D. Wendin suggested that a key objective for 1980/81 should
be to determine the effectiveness of the newsletters and
presentations. He said he would like to see an answer, at
Page Nine
the end of the year, to the question of which things were
most effective and perhaps should be expanded.
B. Green noted that brochures were not included in the
priority list.
C. MacDonald replied that brochures were a part of the
site emphasis question.
Public and Private Liaison Subprogram
H. Grench introduced this subprogram, stating that the main
priority was accomplishing the District' s legislative program,
utilizing the services of the District' s lobbyist in Sacramento.
He said that every A and B priority item had been accomplished.
He added that this subprogram is well-designed and successful,
perhaps partly because it is not overly ambitious.
Media Subprogram
C. MacDonald noted that the primary activity of this subprogram
is regular communications with the press. This same item is a
Key Activity for 1980-81. She said there has been a sudden flurry
of interest in the District from radio and television, and added
that she has been hesitant to pursue TV coverage because she did
not know how desirable such exposure was.
K. Duffy asked if there was a need for policy guidelines in
this area.
C. MacDonald said policy guidelines were needed, particularly
for TV exposure. '
B. Green suggested that this matter should be agendized for
discussion at a future meeting.
E. Shelley noted that there are two types of television pub-
licity- general information about the District, and publicity
on a particular site.
VI. GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM SUPPORT
H. Grench introduced this item, noting that General Manage-
ment is not really a program in itself, and results need to
be measured by the progress in other program areas. Re-
ferring to Item #2, developing strategies to meet funding
needs, he said that theDistrict Controller, Mike Foster,
has been very involved in this. He added that the tax levy
for pre-Proposition 13 debt is an example of developing and
implementing ideas. He noted that administration of personnel
functions (Item #3) was an item of particular importance. He
said that Gary Foss' s original salary study has been partially
implemented, and a key activity for 1980/81 is the completion
of G. Foss ' s recommendations.
Page Ten
J. Fiddes reported that major areas from the Foss plan to
be completed were the revamping of District' s rules and
regulations into a personnel manual, the final revision
of the job specifications and the implementation of the
new benefit system.
H. Grench pointed out that, in general, there have been
some problems associated with lack of definition of priorities.
He said that Board and staff are both highly motivated, but
do not always set the priority for something new compared
with other items on the workload. He also noted that because
of the relatively small staff and specialization in different
areas, there is a workload disruption when a vacancy occurs.
Priorities for 1980/81 include being on top of the question
of funding strategies and protecting the District's interest
in Sacramento. He said that a new note issue may come before
the Board for a progress report in the near future. He said
that another priority for 1980/81 was looking for ways to
enhance communications between office and field staff.
H. Grench, discussing the recent court decision concerning
the tax levy, said that the District had filed a writ of
mandate in Santa Clara County Superior Court, asking the
court to rule that the District could levy an additional
3 cent property tax to cover debt service from debt incurred
before the passage of Proposition 13. The court ruled in the
District' s favor, and as a result of this, the District will
have $1. 3 million dollars this year for additional land
acquisition.
vII. RECAP
J. Fiddes requested a discussion of what follow-up to the
workshop was expected.
H. Grench reviewed Item 4 in the workshop process, which
involved staff incorporating its reports and the Board's
comments into the draft Action Plan, including a one or
two sentence priority summary. He said that staff will
make some fairly minor changes in the 1980/81 Key Projects
and Activities and present these revised statements to the
Board for adoption but not rewrite the 1980/81 Action Plan.
N. Hanko said that a summary is needed of "where we go from
here" on each program. She reminded the Board that the Site
Emphasis Committee had agreed to meet and discuss what came
out of the last workshop and to address particular items.
E. Shelley said the task of the Site Emphasis was to try to
identify the potential policy areas for site emphasis, not
to recommend policy.
Page Eleven
A discussion followed of the subjects the Site Emphasis
Committee should address, and D. Wendin said that the
main subjects should be site publicity and brochures.
N. Hanko felt that the direction to the Site Emphasis
Committee should be to review both the February Site
Emphasis Policy workshop and today' s workshop.
R. Bishop asked if S. Sessions would take the responsibility
of setting up a meeting of the Site Emphasis Committee.
K. Duffy asked if there should be further discussion of field
activities and problems of stewardship guidelines in the Site
Emphasis Committee meeting. She said that in preparation for
that, the Board needs more information on what happens on the
sites.
S. Sessions noted that a definition of a level of emphasis is
also needed, because it dictates the amount of effort and the
level of responsibility that goes into each site.
B. Green said that as a result of the workshop last spring, a
ride-along program was identified as an agenda item that should
be discussed in the future.
E. Shelley noted that there is a question of whether the
Board has a procedure for accomplishing its tasks on a timely
basis. He said perhaps there should be a Board self-evaluation,
perhaps in a workshop.
H. Grench said, in conclusion, that he was impressed with
how closely staff' s ideas about priorities were aligned with
the Board' s ideas.
D. Wendin said that the Board had identified two areas that
remain open issues: site emphasis and publicity.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12 :00 noon.
Joan Combs
Recording Secretary
CORRECTIONS TO MINUTES OF MAZA: Yin - .
III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. September 20, 1980
K. Duffy requested the inclusion of the statement "These actions
should be noted in the progress report"to the tenth paragraph
on Page Three. C. MacDonald requested that the minutes reflected
her response to D. Wendin' s statement beginning at the bottom of
Page Eight and continuing to Page Nine. Her response should
read "Before undertaking an effort to measure the effectiveness
of publicity efforts, she needs to know what 'effect' was desired
by the Board. "
R. Bishop stated the revised minutes were adopted by Board consensus.
B. September 24, 1980
J. Fiddes requested the addition of the statement "H. Turner abstained"
to the recording of the vote on the motion regarding the adoption
of the Committee report on the draft Santa Clara County General
Plan as amended and the direction that the President send a letter
to the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission detailing
the Board' s comments and proposed changes (Page Five) .
R. Bishop stated the corrected minutes were adopted by Board consensus.
J