HomeMy Public PortalAboutOpen Space Committee (2) Town of Truckee
Open Space Committee Agenda
October 6, 2003
1. Welcome and introductions
2. Review of Council Direction for Committee
3. Discussion of possible topics and scope of issues at future meetings
4. Prioritize topics and set time table for future discussions; identify
future information needs
5. Potential partners in polling efforts — Recreation District?
6. Roundtable identification of issues
7. Establish meeting dates and times
8. Adjourn
Open Space Committee Discussion Topics
• Options for financing — sales tax, property tax, TOT, property transfer tax,
Mello Roos, G.O. bond, other
• What should $$$ be used for?
o Acquisition of land for OS
o Acquisition of trail/access easements
o Acquisition of land to sell or trade for other land
o Maintenance of OS
o Maintenance of trails
o Building facilities
o Educational efforts
o Other
• What land should be acquired? Should it be on a map or should it be a
philosophy? Priorities?
• Who should administer the $$$? Who should own the land? Who
maintains it? How much flexibility should they have to spend the $$$?
• Review what other agencies have done (don't reinvent the wheel).
• What should a poll try to ascertain?
o A response to specific ballot language?
o What specific community interests there are like vacant OS vs.
trails vs. recreation space vs. recreation facilities
o The level of funding (taxpayer willingness)
• Who else should we involve in this process? Should there be partners
sought to share in the polling effort? (TDR&PD?)
• Some land may have liabilities (like Jibboom hillside). Should we consider
acquiring those types or should we avoid them?
• Should we look beyond the Town limits for either open space land
acquisition or for individual citizen involvement (i.e. tourists/visitors)?
• Should we consider an Open Space District as a separate organizational
entity, or should we use a local entity to administer this program?
•
Answering the Call for Open Space and Farmland Protection
Four Steps to Success -
Planning and Building More Livable Communities Conference:
Presentation by Terrell Watt, Planning Consultants
terrywatt@att.net
Step 1: Feasibility
❑ Is there a need?
❑ Is there public support?
o Can strategic partnerships be formed?
•
Step 2: Developing a Plan •
❑ Start with Urban Planning
❑ Engage the Public
❑ Don't Reinvent the Wheel
Step 3: Secure the Funding
❑ Funding Options
❑ Election Considerations
Step 4: Implementing the Plan
❑ Negotiating the deals
❑ Maintaining accountability
o Continuing strategic partnerships
•
Step 1 : Feasibility: Is there A Need? Step 1 : Feasibility: Is there public support?
The need for open space funding should be part of a careful Public interest may be obvious in cases where the public has
assessment of what open space and farmland planning and mounted its own campaign against a specific project or in favor of. •
protection work is already underway in the community or area of an open space plan. Where public support is in question, polling is
interest. Key questions to ask include: the most widely used method of measuring public opinion. Other
means of assessing public support include: advisory measures,
• What efforts are already underway to protect open space in community outreach meetings, feasibility studies. Note that public
the community or surrounding region? dollars can only be used on polling prior to a funding measure or •
other measure being placed on the ballot.
• What organizations or agency's are already engaged in open
space planning and protection efforts? Have their efforts Polls can be a useful tool to: -
been successful?
• Determine the level of public interest in open space
• Is the area of interest included in an existing open space protection. Many jurisdictions rely on periodic polling to •
protection plan? ascertain public interest in multiple topics. Polling was
instrumental in the Contra Costa County Board's decision to
• Does baseline information exist concerning the open space form an Ad-hoc Committee on Open Space funding. Often
areas of interest? polls are done on multiple topics of interest to the agency.
• Is there available funding for open space protection, and if • Determine specific open space and recreation interests of
so is it sufficient to accomplish open space protection goals? the community. Many successful open space measures
include both active and passive elements. Polls can test
A formal "feasibility study" can also be part of this assessment. which projects are most popular.
The heart of such a study is a questionnaire to ascertain the position
of key opinion leader's and potential supporters of an open space • Determine the level offnnnding. Polls can specifically test
protection plan. the amount the public is willing to spend per year on open '
space protection.
• Ir form campaign planning. Polls are excellent for testing
arguments, project priorities, and messengers before the
• campaign begins. This information is important in
determining the campaign's messages and outreach
strategies.
• Determine when to run the measures.
Step 1 : Feasibility: Can strategic partnerships be formed?
Examples of potential partners, and their roles in an open space program, include:
PARTNER: POTENTIAL ROLES
Special districts Accept fee title ownership of open space,
e.g. open space districts manage properties, serve as grantee,
negotiate deals with landowners, technical
expertise, eligible for state and federal
funds, special taxes, and some private
foundations
Conservancies Can accept fee title ownership of open
e.g. Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, space, manage properties, can serve as
San Joaquin River Conservancy grantee, technical expertise, negotiate deals
with landowners, eligible for special state
funds
Non-profit land trusts Can serve as grantee, negotiate deals with
e.g. Peninsula Open Space Trust landowners, technical expertise, eligible for
private funds, sometimes manage
properties
Large conservation organizations Technical expertise, can serve as grantee,
e.g The Nature Conservancy, The Trust for eligible for private funds, may provide
Public Land, Wildlands Conservancy funding for purchases and management,
may assist with campaign work and
fundraising, sometimes manage properties
Advocacy Groups Can run campaigns, raise campaign funds,
e.g. Sierra Club, Greenbelt Alliance influence important constituencies
Business/Industry Groups Can run campaigns, raise campaign funds,
e.g. Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, influence important constituencies
Homebuilders Association, Chambers of •
Commerce, Hospitality Groups, Others
The benefits of partnerships include:
•
• Partners can engage in campaign activities that public agencies cannot
• Partners can fundraise for campaigns
• Partners can bring along key constituencies
• Strategic partnerships can result in avoiding duplication of administrative and
operations and maintenance costs
• Partners may have experience with negotiating/purchasing private land that public
agencies do not
• Partners are eligible for private grants and matching funds that are not always
available to public agencies
Step 2: Developing a Plan: Start with Urban Do.LARGE-LOT SUBDIVISIONS MAKE "CENTS"?'::
Planning
• • -Large lot zoning (designating a-minimum parcel size of one to 20 acres) is often
In the context of farmland and open space protection, there is no used to maintain the real character. A study by the American Farmland Trust
focused on the economic impact of large lot parcels in the 18 counties of the Central
substitute for sound urban planning. Planning tools for farmland Valley.9 The report presents the following data about 1.5- to 20-acre "ranchette"
and open space protection include: sobdivisions:
• Total Area. There are 444,000 acres in ranchette-type subdivisions in the
• Infill incentives Central Valley.
• Appropriate land use and zoning designations (large • Greater Impact on Local Agency Budgets. Local agencies spend$331 more
per unit annually to provide services (such as roads, schools and other
minimum parcel sizes) services)for ranchette subdivisions than for typical urban development.1a
• Utility service controls • Value of Lost Agriculture.The Central Valley lost an estimated$802 million
• Urban incentive overlay areas in gross agricultural sales between 1986 and 1994 due to the break up of
456,000 acres of farmland into unproductive parcels. Loss of agricultural
• Spheres of Influence and other types of growth boundaries production resulted in an estimated loss of 35,200 permanent agricultural and
• Development credit transfer program related jobs during this period. .
• Cluster program • Overall Economic Loss. Total direct and indirect sales losses due to reduced
agricultural production exceed $2 billion each year. This includes $729
• Optional agricultural element . million in lost annual personal income.
• Mitigation fee program
• Cooperative planning agreements
• I-ICPs/NCCPs
221 FARMLAND PROTECTIC.. ACTION GUIDE • STRATEGY ..
:Fs ` 'I.SAMPLE AGRICULTURAL. ELEMENT,POLICIES '
The following policies are excerpted from general plans throughout Californiac
.
• Support Fanning Outside Boundariest'Limit •• Regional Collaboration. Coordinate with other
annexations of prime ',land.' and ;promote agencies, , ,nonprofitorganizations and
compatible adjacent uses when projects.within landowners ;;to ensure" `the; `'coordinated
the city abut farmland. designation ;and' preservation of"agricultural
• Cooperation. Work with other local agencies lands in unincorporated lands
to discourage non-agricultural:.land,;uses in• • Murinium-Parcel Size-Promote a minimum lot
agricultural areas ,within' or adjacent to size that is "large :enough r to sustain farm
jurisdiction (for cities) s • enterprises Discourage development of 20- to
40-acre ,home sites, unless :it ,can be
• Farm Marketing. Organizepromotional demonstrated that smaller farm- units will
marketing programs for local agriculture. -
remain ia production.
• Soil Quality Preserve high-quality soils and • Community. Separators. Define-.community
maintain essential agricultural lands buffers using productive agricultural open space
• Small Rural Businesses.�Support farming by so cities 'can maintain their:;community
permitting;limited small-scalefarm' services, identities. . „
and ° `vrsttor senmg:==uses (small retail) in • `
farm areas.:: u�. ., ,
Compact'Growth. Concentrate` growth within '
city 'limits by using increased:densities and• .
• .Direct Urban Development to Crties ;Limit narrower streets.
rural 'residential development to ;parcels • Appropriate Infrastructure Promote an-
outside nonprime agricultural areas , (for agricultural support system, including physical
?.counties).:r'
components such as farmworker;lousing.
.• Liiriit "Rural, Development Direct ,=rural - . Recognize Economic Contributions Enact and
development to communities with-economic
enforce regulations to retain .agriculture as a
• potential_ ,.Severely- t lirmrural residential" mayor source of income aan „,,,,,tpeloyment.
development elsewhere (except for;.farm •
families and employees)' • Develop an InventoryDevelopjail-inventory of
•
the quantity and quality' of agricultural resources
• Protect Current Operations Pr'otectthe:right
of farm operators m` desi
on which to base sound decisions
grated'agricultural;.
areas to continuenu
their farng practices.'- • Protect Grazing•Land Protect landsused for
• Cluster Zoning.' Use cluster housing and grazing, even if they„are considered prime
easements;to maintain large farm parcels. soils.
• Farm Infrastructure Support finance for farm
• Farm Worker Housing. Allow and encourage infrastructure,such as drainage:
the development of farmworker.housing.
• Viable Industry. Enhance agriculture as a major
• Farmers Markets. Encourage a weekly viable production industry.
farmers' market and support other direct
marketing activities.
Step 2: Developing a Plan: Engage the Public Step 2: Developing a Plan: Don't Reinvent the
Wheel
• Create a broad-based stakeholder group list.
• Develop a robust outreach program, including: • Collect and Review Existing Local and Regional Data
❑ Website • Decide Who to Involve and Determine the Need for
o A task force or advisory committee "Experts"
o Use public educations channels
o Establish a public participation brochure • Create the Open Space/Farmland Protection "Vision" Map
o Hold town meetings
o Organize a speaker series • Prioritize areas for protection
o Develop a self-guided tour
o Draft articles for `partner"newsletters and websites • Determine the cost of implementing the plan
❑ Initiate community visioning
- CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON OPEN SPACE FUNDING
Flagship Project Nomination Form •
The Advisory Committee on Open Space Funding is soliciting proposals for flagship projects—
regionally signijfcant open space projects that would be afocus offuture fundraising work.
.Please see the April 9 letter from Supervisors Gerber and Gioia far additional background
•
Name of nominating organization or individual:
Name of proposed"flagship"project: - •
Estimated cost of project:
If you have identified some funding already, please specify how much: -., •
Project location(please be as precise as possible; i.e. nearest city and nearest street):_
Which of the following categories of"open space" best matches your proposal (Ok to check
more than 1 if no single category is the best match.•Please see reverse-for further explanation of •
' these-categories):
❑ Scenic landscapes and regional parks ❑• Creeks and watersheds
❑ Farmland - 0 Historic preservation& environ. education
❑ -Urban parks and recreation facilities 0 Shorelines
❑ Trails/public access 0 Wildlife habitat and corridors
In one:to two paragraphs, please describe your proposed project and its benefits (attach
additional sheet if necessary):
•
•
•
•
Please return this form by May 31, 2001 via mail: OS Committee, attn:John Kopchik •
CCC Community Development Dept.
651 Pine Street, North Wing,41h Floor •
Martinez, CA 94553 •
via fax: (925) 335-1300
or via Email: jkopcacd.co.contra-costa.ca.us
DRAFT Overview of Spending Priorities: DRAFT
Proposed Open Space/Agriculture Protection and Enhancement Funding Measure
r�!'+�.� for Contra Costa CountyCommunitysPriorityprcProjectsbaia) .
(allocations on per capita basis)
Approved in Concept by the Board of Supervisors,October 1,2002 :. 'II JURISDICTION FUNDING
Antioch $2,512,700
. �l'=.a� �t " Ft Brentwood $646,800
q Clayton 5296,700
✓ti . L i✓'�" Concord $3,380,000
K J • ` ." \ - �.`y lDanville $$143,200
El Cerrito 5643,200
•
' .) x v h Hercules $5ao9on
q l �' • - 4.. •"i k ' Lafayette $6l
i Vl 100• ':' '. • 'P 1 Martinez $91
fro n d A - e a" I '• 1 Morena
.R u;.).,;(...,,,..;;,..:: •• • � A ' I� Oakley 4711,100
�} �- 1 , Onnda $488,500
x f.DToth�i
aa Pinole $520,500
.:: 414 &, J a\ n1 �F , -c" PI PitI5bm9H $1,575,700
.j" n i Richm ntl ill $2,753,800
\ e
Crg it r e ,1 1 .lF San Pablo $$838.700
x V' $ R 2
Walnut
amen 1, 41,300
- - l.\: e s1 1• _ ':of _ Walnut Creek $1,784,800
�1 f r :,vi x t. 4r p I ` LINING.COUNTY
{p •
f; . i !4 I CSA R-7A Alamo $433,700
7 +u.:,•. y -. �.,i -a + et eY v CSA M-I6 l Cru $19.300
-as I ♦�J p. 1 P CSA P-I R-1 covert'tl $89,700
-s a `,' vt •- • r +v,. L. e n j•s •4 si i d`I 'j CSA M-8 Discovery Bay $249300
�, ' ;PC'•s. zs L T 'r A ^ r y �. ., CSA R-9 El Sobranlo $340.300
\ '1 a ?la r prIr .) LSA M-17 Maniere Bay $286,900
1 -}pi 4 t.)1 +[> ..-.1'.ea ss?� IV' CSAR-10 Rodeo $242,000
\ 6m r '. W -al . P Y t • AUTONOMOUS DISTRICTS
4 Ambrose PBRD(Bay Point) $$27,700
s v .� 1 fe I . I Diablo CSD 527,500
'- AT { Kensington CSD $137,000
.. 1 p SS �� Pleasant Hill PBRD $130,000
Other Countywide Flagship Programs Not Shown On Map ii • P ? 1, " RollingwoocVWillard PBRD $80,500
-. ► I r !/ tits REMAINDER OF UNINO $1,577,100
Creek&Watershed Restoration Program(Project K) k - Partnership Incentives $1,306,000
®. Trail Construction&Enhancement Program(Project L) • 'S_h'S TOTAL $27,72
` -' 8 :
( + `\ at Regional Priority Projects•
Legend (matching funds required)
' FUNDING
Flagship Opportunity Areas' Urban 6 Other Lands Willa ULL I) West Moraga/ndian Valley open space acquLtlUon $2,000,000
Regional Priority Protects' lin Pena - -- 2) Burton Ridge open space acquisition $2,000.000
t�OpenSpace Flagship Opportunity Areas• 3) El Sobrante Foothills open space acquisition $2,000000
—Major Roads Total Fund Raising Goal:$13aM FUNDING 4) Big Break Area 52,000.000
MN Pu°uc Watershed Lards ce,n..9 A) MI.Diablo Park Expansions ay 5) Old River Delta Shoreline Park acquisition and development $2,000000
—Canals w°,,.s BI Bay Trail Completion $5,000,000 6) John Marsh Home Pioneer Park development $2,000,000
—Creeks vomer Bodies 't'°"1 ia'u%;ul C) Point San Pablo Peninsula $5,000,000 7) San Francisco Bay Shoreline to Hills urban open space $2,000,000
Other Non-Urtan Lands ea •� D) Muh Heritage Corridor(2 sepemle branches) 08,000,000 and creeks
Mina E) Prime Farmiand+Ageicuitural Core $5.000.000 B) Walnut Creek Watershed Enhancement 52,000,000
j 2" F) North Contra Costa Wetlands and River Front $5,000,000 9) Habitat restoration and wetland access al Concord Naval $2,000,000
"Flaw")Opponumry Areae'and•n pont Pro•ey Prgocu•designation DO NOT antrale -' / L1w.nq GI Tassajara valley 55,000,008 Weapons Station
m °demo,map locations of proposed acquslona.Raver.mese desigatiana ale mended >4.T`n..� '. H) Las Trampas Open Space Connections 55.1100,000 10)Lindsay Wildlife Museum ollsite rehabilitation center' $1,200,000
to roughly it snare the general areasmime acnnptanS Coma own r ° s'^7., nous* I) Kicker Hills
5 i 1., $5,000,000 II)ByronRanch
HaOilal Pn $2,000,000
° 2 4 a re IMaes r'''T^" :!:* J) East County Foothills 85,000,000 12)Bishop wkjoanig Canyon Park Expansion $1.000,000
"af.!, x 13)Northwest
ville Greenbelt $1,000,000
rv,nd Additional Flagship Programs: 14)Northwest Communities Open Space Connection $1,000,000
,..m„ryrn°..m"..e.ea...4e...e N wp au.1m ..°.nr.oat P.P.. •'•v K) Creek and Watershed Restoration Program $5,000,000 15)•• g - Trail00%Co"
Creek $2,000,000
nom'.-..wM� r6 s..rw..e..w erase.» .• r�,,,a...,r�,.�;,,�,.. TOTAL $63,000.000 TOTAL
Step 3: Secure the Funding: Funding Options
Discretionary Actions to General Funding/Secure the Land
to Development fees and conditions
o Development agreements
o Land banking
o General fund allocations
o Grant and foundation assistance
o Revenue bonds
o Lease-purchase agreements and certificates of participation
o Sponsored events and naming rights
o Gifts and donations
o Use fees
Special Taxes
o General obligation bonds/ad valorem tax
o Sales tax increase
o Parcel tax
o Transient occupancy tax •
o Utility user's tax
o Mello-Roos district
Alternatives to Special Taxes
o Benefit assessments (Proposition 218 Landscaping and Lighting measures)
INSTITUTE for Loc SELF GOVERNMENT • COMM I[TY LAND USE PROJECT I 1 ` f
• LOCAL 'AGENCY FUND'ING. TOOLS „
if” ,•,•-• , .
.�;, ADOPTION - ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES , '
Legislative body authorizes Requires"approval onlyby ' Competes with other
':GENERAL FUND expenditure from general governing body.Does•not 'budget priorities;no
ALLOCATION revenues. cost taxpayers extra money. guarantee of ongoing
funding-
Legislative body adopts a ' ,•Easy to ithplementlielps Increases housing costs • .
fee formula to be applied to offset negative:impact.of - -Agency must track how -.
:DEVELOPMENT projects that convert :- - development can raise - fees are spent.Funding ,
.:IMPACT FEES . farmland to housing or substantial revenues .depends on number of
,, ` •permit applications.
commercial uses „r
Implemented upon a " Can provide substantial ; Public May be skeptical of
:';'•:
majority vote.Sometimes longaeim`funding Regtiires a tax;increase;paAicularly'
accompanied by.an.' less[administration than an . r when there-is no guarantee-
•GENERAL TAWS "advisory"measure.'' assessment.district Agency that funds will be spent on
retains discretion:in how ' protection, measures-
• •
funds are`spenL ::r
Requires a two-thirds Provides funding Obtaining a`two-thirds
majority vote-Revenues can for operations and - , majontyvotes difficult-
SPECIAL TAXES be spent only for dedicated -maintenance�:Potentially'less -
-purposes- overhead than.an.assessment
. district
Sale of bonds secured by an Provides funding up-front. Not permanent;cannot be
`. GENERAL increase in property tax or ;Increased tax amount sunsets used for operationand
1}i OBLIGATION assessment. Requires a two- when bonds.are,paid off- maintenance.Subjectto
BONDS thirds majority vote if based ,,, market and credit rating: ,.
on new Laces- ' ;High adtmnistrative costs'..:,
Requires two-thirds i , Providesrongoing funding ;;Two-thirds vote '<
approval of owners of for acquisition,improvement requirement generally ,"
MELLo-Roos voting electorate in , and maintenance:-Property limits Mello-Roos-to large.
'':FINANCING inhabitedareas-or two-thirds" 'need not be.located within ' undeveloped parcels with Y.'
Cts„.., • 'of the landowners in :: , jurisdiction;Tax formula less than 12 registered
uninhabited areas-; 'need not be based on special voters: '
benefittgLax. payer.
Requires approval of the Can provide,ongoing Must`identifyybenefit to. .
" ajority.of affected J funding�for operation and operation assessed properties
ASSESSMENT property owners.Votes are maintenance. Benefit-based Subject to rnajorit `piotest;-
DISTRICTS weighted according to the assessments may be viewed .and election requirements.
dollar value of their as the fairest method of Requires expensive annual
proposed assessments- funding. engineer's report and more
' accounting than a special
tax.
Ser Culeurm:r. Ccunnuf.Srurm Cm u.64 Cal.App.4th 682 i 1998i.After the Passage of
Proposition 218.hotrecer.some attorneys believe that courts ma) now treat such actions as a special
tax requiring a 2f -majority vote.
General Obligation Parcel Tax Benefit Assessment
Bond District
Who pays? Property owners. Property owners. Property owners,
Properties with a Tax rates are based on engineers •
higher net assessed determined within the report that distributes
value pay more. measure by the costs according to
framers. benefits.
Who votes? Registered voters Registered voters Property owners
What voting margin 2/3 majority 213 majority 50%weighted
is required for majority(votes are
approval? weighted according to
amount of assess-
ment they would pay) •
What type of Special or General Special or General Election by mail
election? Election Election
What are the time Two elections per Two elections per Election may be
constraints on the year,though odd years year,though odd convened at any time.
election? are more expensive years are more 45 days must be
expensive allowed for return of
ballots.
Costs of election Depends on how many Depends on how Depends upon how
items on ballot many items on ballot many parcels •
.
included.
OK to fund No . Yes Yes
stewardship?
•
•
Fixed term required? Yes No No
•
Possible to expend No Yes Yes
revenues on a pay- _
as-you-go basis?
Possible to sell Yes(required) Yes Yes
bonds?
Advantages ' Simple ° Possible to ° Perhaps more
customize tax rate equity in distri-
o Only way to raise ad bulion of costs
valorem tax ° Flexibility in use of
revenues ° Flexibility in use of
o Best interest rate revenues
° Election may
occur at any lime
Disadvantages ° Not possible to " Even year election ° Application to
manage funds on probably required county-wide open
pay-as you-go space needs is an
basis ° Flexibility in tax emerging
rate structure can technique
be point of •
o No stewardship controversy
o Even year election •
probably required •
o New property
owners generally
pay more •.
Step 3: Secure the Funding: Election Considerations Step 4: Implementing the Plan
Elements for success: _ . .. - -
o Negotiating the Deals
• Broad public support
• ..Local agency or partner?
• Unanimous decision-maker support • Landowner contact
• Option agreement
• Robust outreach program during the campaign • Appraisal(s) �,\-,\C
• Public hearings ��)y &J,.
■ Measure tailored to public interest (polling is key) • Closing the deal 5
• Broad based representation on campaign committee ❑ Maintaining Accountability 1
• Honesty and clarity concerning the financial aspects of the • Ongoing ad hoc committee \�
measure • Stewardship plan oet'
• Annual audits or report C\
• Monitoring 00° 1
Public Role Limitations: --,. 1„.
❑ Continuing Strategic Partnerships
The law allows local public agencies to develop a proposal for voter
consideration. Once a measure is placed on the ballot,the public
agency's role is limited for measure advocacy.
Information Sources
More information: Institute for Local Self Government
Publications Department
www.ilsg.org
• Farmland Protection Action Guide
• Ballot Box Planning
• Development Agreement Manual
• A Local Official's Guide to Ethics Law
•
• The Basic's of Takings Law
•
More information: League of California Cities
Publications Dept. -
www.cacities.org •
• Municipal Revenue Sources Handbook
• Securing Voter Approval of Local Revenue Measures
• Proposition 218 Implementation Guide
• • Toolkit for Reconnecting with Citizens
More information: Terrell Watt Planning Consultant
tenywatt@att.net
• Organizational and Funding Options for Open Space and
Farmland Protection
Cofantuono
fir, ®
Levin & Ntevsiéttër
Rozekl, APC U.p'date on .Public Law ' {
••
Spring 2003 {
Open Space Assessments are an Open Question
By Michael G. Colantuono In Silicon Valley Taxpayers Asso- Exercise of Powers Act allows JPA
ciation v. Santa Clara County Open entities to exercise only those powers
It has always been the case that a Space Authority, the Open Space Au- which are both specified in the JPA
facility or service can be funded thority conducted a mailed-ballot pro- agreement and common to the agen-
with assessments on property only if it test proceeding on a proposed open cies which formed the JPA. Los Ange-
confers some"special benefit"on the space assessment. Property owners les County Superior Court Judge Rich-
assessed property. In 1996,Proposition approved the measure and taxpayer and Adler decided both issues for the
218 slightly redefined the"special advocates sued,arguing that open MRCA, concluding it had met its bur-
benefit"required,stating: space does not confer special benefit den to prove special benefit, noting
"`Special benefit' means a par- under Proposition 218,but rather that"the legislative determination of
titular and distinct benefit over benefits the public generally.The • the lands benefited, and the amount of
and above general benefits con- plaintiffs also argued that the Open the benefit to each landowner, will be
ferred on real property located Space Authority illegally rejected pro- upheld unless plainly arbitrary."
in the district or to thepublic at tests that were not cast on the official
assessment protest ballots distributed Both cases are likely to be appealed
large. General enhancement of and each will likely draw amicus curiae
property values does not consti- by the Open Space Authority. Unfor- ("friend of the court") support from
tute `special benefit." tunately for the Open Space Author- the League of'California Cities and
ity,had those contested ballots been
Few cases have been decided to counted,the assessment would have other local government organizations.
provide guidance on this new defini- failed,making this issue crucial. As- They may well produce published de-
tion. Most notable is last year's Not cisions to be cited as precedent in fu-
adopt a authorities are well advised to ture cases. For the moment, however,
About Water Committee v. Solan adopt a resolution at the outset of an whether open confers special
County, in which the Sacramento Dis- assessment process to spell out how spacep
trict Court of Appeal held that the the proceeding will be conducted, benefit sufficient to allow assessment
construction of new fire hydrants pro- addressing such issues as spoiled and financing is an open question. The
vides special benefit, even to farms duplicate ballots and whether unoffi- early rounds of the fight have gone to
which already had substantial water cial protests will be counted.This the assessing agencies.
storage on-site. case remains pending in the Santa The law of public finance grows
Given the torrid pace of develop- Clara County Superior Court. increasingly complex and new devel-
ment around the state in recent years Badtax v. Mountains Recreation opments arise regularly. The Supreme
and the resultant pressure on the state's and Conservation Authority (MRCA) Court should hear an important Propo-
remaining open space resources,the also arose from a successful mailed sition 218 case on water fees,Rich-
question arises whether the acquisition, ballot proceeding to impose open mond v. Shasta Community Services
preservation and maintenance of open space assessments. It, too, involved District, later this year.
space resources confer"special benefit" the special benefit question and a As always, we'll keep you posted.
on private property sufficient to support procedural question, in this case
an assessment to fund those programs. whether the MRCA, a joint powers •••
Two trial court cases that test this issue authority, has the power to impose For more information on this subject
are now pending,one each in Northern an assessment under the 1972 Land- contact Michael at 213/533-4146 or
and Southern California. scaping and Lighting Act. The Joint mcolantuono@clrlmvfrm.com