HomeMy Public PortalAbout19940518 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Open Space
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
I
Meeting 94-15
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
May 18, 1994
MINUTES
I. ROLL CALL
President Ginny Babbitt called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Pete Siemens, Nonette Hanko, Wim de Wit, Robert McKibbin, Ginny
Babbitt, and Betsy Crowder.
Member Absent: Teena Henshaw.
Staff Present: Crai Britton Jean Fiddes Rand Anderson John Stag y Escobar, Malcolm Smith,
Sue Schectman, Bucky Mace, Carleen Bruins, Diane Blackman, Julie McCullough, and
Emma Johnson.
II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications.
III. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: N. Hanko moved that the Board adopt the agenda. P. Siemens seconded the
motion. The motion passed 6 to 0.
IV. BOARD BUSINESS
QMn Space Preservation Methods WorkshW (Revort R-94M
G. Babbitt thanked the participants for attending, noting they are all partners in open space
preservation and that the District appreciates their input. C. Britton said that the workshop's
purpose was to examine open space preservation methods and discuss the most appropriate
techniques for the District to pursue in completing the greenbelt, especially with tight budget
constraints. He said the information accumulated would be the foundation for a future
meeting with the Board of Directors of Peninsula Open Space Trust. He noted that a report
of the workshop's proceedings would be sent to persons who desired it. He introduced Geoff
Ball who facilitated the workshop.
The participants met in small groups to discuss the pros and cons of the various open space
preservation methods contained in the attachment to the report R-94-60. The entire group
then rated the different approaches on a spectrum of 1 to 100 .
330 Distel Circle - Los Altos, C,iliiorni,i 94022-1404 - Phonc: 41,5-091-1 200 * FAX: 415-691-0455
Board of 1?in nor, fete sit r'nF.nti, Robeit,',A(KiW)iti, Ii,en,i}lensha%ti,(;inn}Ba61)1It,` onette Hanko, Be by Groot der,Witt de Wit
Meeting 94-15 Page 2
i
FEE (essentially is ownership of the land -- includes fee title, defeasible fee, life estate. co-
tenancy, corporate shares, and sale and leaseback,)
I
Pros:
Easily understood; widest scope to use and act; provides long-term planning opportunities for
capital improvement; asset that can be sold, leased, charge fees; may be dedicated as open
space; full ability to preserve natural assets and allow use; life tenant has good security and
eventual ownership; easily transferable; most controllable; allows public access to generate
public support; co-tenancy has potential.
ons•
Most expensive to acquire; full burden of liability and maintenance; leads to high expectation
of
use and mans ement/costs• may be cheapest in the long-run; land may not be available in
g � Y Pe g � Y
fee; use may not require the fee/may not be necessary to own to achieve goals; life estate
tenants may live a long time.
The group then voted on fee title approach to land preservation:
Relative Cost (in comparison with other methods)
High - 100 Medium - 5 Low - 0
Stewardship (control over assets of the property)
High - 100 Medium - 0 Low - 0
Length of Time (length of time of control over property)
Permanent - 96 Middle - 3 Temporary - 5
Sales/Negotiation Difficulty (complex or simple issue explaining to landowner/length of
time/number of advisors)
Complex - 5 Middle - 15 Easy - 83
Use in Oren Space Land Preservation (prevalence in preserving open space)
Often - 98 Sometimes - 2 Seldom - 0
Public Acceptance (public's attitude toward method vs. other methods)
High - 57 Medium - 43 Low - 2
Use by Others (frequency of use)
Public Often - 75 Sometimes - 20 Seldom - 2
Private Often - 44 Sometimes - 44 Seldom - 2
Use by MROSD (would like to see District use this method)
Often - 57 Sometimes - 35 Seldom - 0
EASEMENT (right to do something on someone else's land Cnositive easement]; giving up
of a right by or privilege of a landowner [negative easement] -- includes trail easement
agricultural easement, open space easement, conservation easement, and development rights
acquisition)
Pros;
Less expensive; allows land to be kept in natural state; allows focus on specific resource; can
be tailored to specific management goals; less liability; economic benefit to seller without
natural or development loss; limited maintenance, management, and operations costs; good
tool for reluctant seller; may be more willing sellers; keeps property on tax rolls; permanent
Meeting 94-15 Page 3
right; continuing relationship with owner; limit or restrict public use; more acceptable to
private property rights advocates; more tax advantages for owner; support continuation of
desirable private land uses; can dedicate permanently.
� Cons:
Overall costs vs. rights are high; don't have full control; management enforcement may be
difficult; can be complicated to negotiate; some risk of liability; limited or no public access;
don't have an asset to sell, lease, or charge fees; can be expensive; possible enforcement
costs; can lose some property tax base; if violation only remedy is money - lose resource;
not as well known as fee title; limited or no flexibility; can be asset that might be traded or
sold back to owner; maybe too much flexibility with easement; no ability to restore habitat.
The group rated b vote trail easements approach to land reservation:
g P Y PP P
Relative Cost (in comparison with other methods)
High - 14 Medium - 38 Low - 42
Stewardship (ability to monitor and preserve natural features)
High - 6 Medium - 16 Low - 75
Length of Time (length of time of control over property)
Permanent - 52 Middle - 35 Temporary - 2
Sales/Negotiation Difficulty (complex or simple issue explaining to landowner/length of
time/number of advisors)
Complex - 43 Middle - 48 Easy - 7
Use in Qoen Space Land Preservation (prevalence in preserving open space)
Often - 11 Sometimes - 28 Seldom - 53
Public Acceptance (public's attitude toward method vs. other methods)
High - 33 Medium - 43 Low - 16
Use by Others (frequency of use)
Public Often - 23 Sometimes - 48 Seldom - 21
Private Often - 9 Sometimes - 35 Seldom - 48
Use by MROSD (would like to see District use this method)
Often - 36 Sometimes - 50 Seldom - 11
The group then rated agricultural, open space, and conservation easement approach to land
acquisition:
Relative Cost (in comparison with other methods)
High - 33 Medium - 66 Low - 8
Stewardship (control over assets of the property)
High - 22 Medium - 63 Low - 28
Length of Time (length of time of control over property)
Permanent - 52 Middle - 39 Temporary - 5
Sales/Negotiation Difficulty (complex or simple issue explaining to landowner/length of
time/number of advisors)
Complex - 52 Middle - 31 Easy - 2
Use in Qnen Space Land Preservation (prevalence in preserving open space)
Often - 39 Sometimes - 42 Seldom - 7
Meeting 94-15 Page 4
Public Acceptance (public's attitude toward method vs. other methods)
High - 33 Medium - 44 Low - 7
j Use by Others (frequency of use)
j Public Often - 8 Sometimes - 47 Seldom - 25
Private Often - 23 Sometimes - 44 Seldom - 11
Use by MROSD (would like to see District use this method)
Often - 36 Sometimes - 34 Seldom - 11
The group rated development rights acquisition approach to land preservation:
Relative Cost (in comparison with other methods)
High - 51 Medium - 39 Low - 2
Stewardship (control over assets of the property)
High - 12 Medium - 27 Low - 54
Length of Time (length of time of control over property)
Permanent - 50 Middle - 25 Temporary - 18
Sales/Negotiation Difficulty (complex or simple issue explaining to landowner/length of
time/number of advisors)
Complex - 64 Middle - 28 Easy - 5
Use in Open Space Land Preservation (prevalence in preserving open space)
Often - 4 Sometimes - 23 Seldom - 71
Public Acceptance (public's attitude toward method vs. other methods)
High - 17 Medium - 42 Low - 43
Use by Others (frequency of use)
Public Often - 5 Sometimes - 16 Seldom - 83
Private Often - 0 Sometimes - 29 Seldom - 70
Use by MROSD (would like to see District use this method)
Often - 15 Sometimes - 22 Seldom - 60
OPTIONS Includes option to purchase (terms specified in option contract and gqP onee has
Ution to buy or not buy), lease with purchase option contract for lease with an option for
purchase which contains essential purchase terms). right of first refusal (mguires landowner
considering_purchase offer to give holder right of first refusal to match terms of offerL
Pros:
Buys time; fixes price when can't purchase immediately; revokable; keeps agencies' funds
more fluid; may negate effects of inflation; no management expense; encourages public j
interest in public acquisition; good tool if trying to assemble contiguous properties; with
n lease may gain control of resources during option period; owners may like security of Navin
Y g g P Pe � Y tY g
a willing buyer; facilitates seller's tax planning; no liability.
I
Cons:
May not be able to purchase and therefore lose option funds; may not have control;
complexity issues; may create false expectation in public; subject to market forces both pro
and con; right of first refusal can expose agency to unscrupulous dealings; no public access
or limited public access; no direct public benefit; hard to renegotiate; owners may be
Meeting 94-15 Page 5
reluctant because of encumbrances (right of first refusal) and putting off potential buyers.
The group rated options to purchase and lease with purchase options approach to land
i
preservation:
Relative Cost (in comparison with other methods)
High - 0 Medium - 12 Low - 96
Stewardship (control over assets of the property)
j High - 0 Medium - 2 Low - 98
j Length of Time (length of time of control over property)
Permanent - 0 Middle - 0 Temporary - 100
Sales/Negotiation Difficulty (complex or simple issue explaining to landowner/length of
time/number of advisors)
Complex - 18 Middle - 73 Easy - 18
Use in Open Space Land Preservation (prevalence in preserving open space)
Often - 21 Sometimes - 70 Seldom - 7
Public Acceptance (public's attitude toward method vs. other methods)
High - 16 Medium - 67 Low - 16
Use by Others (frequency of use)
Public Often - 24 Sometimes - 52 Seldom - 22
Private Often - 32 Sometimes - 64 Seldom - 2
Use by MROSD (would like to see District use this method)
Often - 24 Sometimes - 71 Seldom - 16
I
Right of first refusal was then rated by the group.
Relative Cost (in comparison with other methods)
High - 5 Medium - 13 Low - 77 j
j Stewardship (control over assets of the property)
High - 2 Medium - 2 Low - 98
Length of Time (length of time of control over property)
Permanent - 4 Middle - 4 Temporary - 96 j
Sales/Negotiation Difficulty (complex or simple issue explaining to landowner/length of
time/number of advisors)
Complex - 19 Middle - 45 Easy - 42
Use in Open Space Land Preservation (prevalence in preserving open space)
i
Often - 0 Sometimes - 25 Seldom - 75
Public Acceptance (public's attitude toward method vs. other methods)
High - 0 Medium - 29 Low - 76
Use by Others (frequency of use)
Public Often - 0 Sometimes - 24 Seldom - 80
Private Often - 2 Sometimes - 30 Seldom - 70
Use by MROSD (would like to see District use this method)
Often - 2 Sometimes - 32 Seldom - 68
Meeting 94-15 Page 6
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS - includes focused resale (resale of a portion of purchased
lands with restrictions to limit and control future use), purchase resale (entire fee interest is
purchased and then sold with restrictions on future use and develo men ). parti
development (acquiring entity participates in developing a portion of the ro - y) joint
venture development (association of persons jointly undertaking a single commercial
enterprise for profit). and land exchange (exchange of lands making it practical for each
party to have land best suited to their needs).
Pros:
Flexibility in purchasing and financing; lower cost of acquisition or protection; potential to
allow public access to both areas of parcel (private and public); could be used to overcome
reluctant seller's concerns; opportunity to liquidate or convert assets without giving up all
rights; permits greater participation with other non-profits and agencies; may carry lower
obligation for management; can control kind of development; may maintain property tax
base; allows for trades into higher priority properties; provides opportunities for funding for
on-going maintenance.
Cons.
May be contrary to organization's goals; liability may be high especially in conjunction with
development; possible slow return of money to agency; poor public perception of process;
lack of flexibility in maintaining recreational goals; loss of part of reserves; subject to market
conditions; potential
disputes withPrivate part
ner; typically complex; disputes with Potential
neighbors high probability; risky.
The group rated focused resale, purchase resale, partial development, and joint venture
development.
Relative Cost (in comparison with other methods)
High - 20 Medium - 59 Low - 10
Stewardship (control over assets of the property)
High - 10 Medium - 55 Low - 28
Length of Time (length of time of control over property)
Permanent - 20 Middle - 60 Temporary - 10
Sales/Negotiation Difficulty (complex or simple issue explaining to landowner/length of
time/number of advisors)
Complex - 90 Middle - 5 Easy - 0
Use in Open Space Land Preservation (prevalence in preserving open space)
Often - 0 Sometimes - 22 Seldom - 76
Public Acceptance (public's attitude toward method vs. other methods)
High - 0 Medium - 20 Low - 80
Use by Others (frequency of use)
Public Often - 0 Sometimes - 10 Seldom - 84
Private Often - 7 Sometimes - 52 Seldom - 40
Use by MROSD (would like to see District use this method)
Often - 2 Sometimes - 36 Seldom - 61
Meeting 94-15 Page 7
The group then rated land exchange.
r methods)
in com arison with other
Relative Cost ( p
High - 5 Medium - 22 Low - 71
Stewardship (control over assets of the property)
High - 15 Medium - 47 Low - 25
Length of Time (length of time of control over property)
Permanent - 73 Middle - 15 Temporary - 2
Sales/Negotiation Difficulty (complex or simple issue explaining to landowner/length of
time/number of advisors)
Complex - 48 Middle - 32 Easy - 12
Use in Open Space Land Preservation (prevalence in preserving open space)
Often - 10 Sometimes - 50 Seldom - 40
Public Acceptance (public's attitude toward method vs. other methods)
High - 30 Medium - 45 Low - 17
Use by Others (frequency of use)
Public Often - 0 Sometimes - 30 Seldom - 68
Private Often - 2 Sometimes - 57 Seldom - 30
Use by MROSD (would like to see District use this method)
Often - 2 Sometimes - 42 Seldom - 56
MISCELLANEOUS - includes land trust facilitation (referral of a land owner to a land trust
may result in ultimate acquisition to best advantage of all involved parties)., tax sale (when
prove owner fails to pay taxes. a five year period begins in which owner must redeem
property or lose title if taxes, costs and penalties are not paid within five years, the
property is offered to certain public agencies before an auction). eminent domain (exercise of
the right of government to force sale of property for public use). foreclosure (enforcement of
a lien by sale of propgrty given as security, The foreclosed RL=EIY can sometimes be
obtained for below market value), bankruptcy (public agency acquisition can often offer cash
that is not available in the private sector to a landowner in bankrulLy) transfer of
development rights ,grantee gains right of development given up by the grantor. TDRs can
be sold or exchanged for other property or property rights), development dedication
(dedication of public amenities such as trail ri htg s or open space easement required of a
property owner as a condition of development), mitigation brokering (adverse environmental
consequences of development often require mitigation measures which a local agency can
participate in by guiding to appropriate land acquisition or habitat restoration). creative �
financing (unusual but mutually beneficial financing arrangements). and planning policies
(policies established by cities and counties having significant effect on patterns and degrees of
development.
The ratings on level of use by MROSD participants would like to see in each of the
following miscellaneous categories were:
Land Trust Facilitation
Often - 72 Sometimes - 23 Seldom - 5
Tax Sale
Often - 77 Sometimes - 10 Seldom - 5
Eminent Domain
Meeting 94-15 Page 8
Often - 5 Sometimes - 26 Seldom - 64
Foreclosure
Often - 56 Sometimes - 26 Seldom - 10
Bankruptcy Often - 45 Sometimes - 42 Seldom - 5
Transfer of Development Rights
Often - 27 Sometimes - 33 Seldom - 33
Development Dedication
Often - 50 Sometimes - 42 Seldom - 5
Mitigation Brokering
Often - 66 Sometimes - 26 Seldom - 10
Creative financing
Often - 57 Sometimes - 30 Seldom - 12
Planning Policies
Often - 52 Sometimes - 27 Seldom - 7
G. Babbitt and C. Britton thanked everyone for attending and participating.
V. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P.M.
Emma Johnson
Recording Secretary