Loading...
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