HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2003 0416 CC REG ITEM 09AITEM 9-A-
of
d re .fl �n bn Gtdc ' I rznv (si c 4v
SpA�-G. __�( -Lm r►'►l�ry
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Assistant to City Manager/
City Clerk -Z) ✓-T—
DATE: April 10, 2003 (CC Meeting of 4/16/03)
SUBJECT: Consider City Letter of Support on the Draft Summary
Report of the County of Ventura Open Space District
Advisory Committee ( OSDAC)
BACKGROUND
Attachment I is the staff report for the December 18, 2002 meeting,
which provides background information on the OSDAC. Attachment II
is a copy of a March 27, 2003, e -mail request from County Planning
Division staff requesting Agency or Organization review, comments,
and position on the Draft Summary Report of the OSDAC (included as
an attachment to the e- mail). Comments on the Draft Summary Report
are requested to be provided no later than April 25, 2003.
DISCUSSION
The Draft Summary Report represents the consensus of the 41- member
Advisory Committee, following detailed discussion at eleven
meetings over a one -year time period. For Council discussion
purposes, following is a summary and explanation of some of the key
OSDAC recommendations contained in the Summary Report and
recommendations for revisions.
OSDAC Summary Report Recommendations
Funding: The OSDAC's preference is for a 1/8 -cent sales tax
measure with a ten -year sunset provision. The primary reason cited
in support of this option was that the benefit assessment district
would not generate enough money to allow the Open Space District
(OSD) to accomplish its mission. It was further noted that if a
sales tax measure fails, a benefit assessment district could be
proposed at a later date. The OSDAC member representing the Ventura
County Taxpayers Association also expressed his opinion that the
sales tax was preferable to the assessment district in regard to a
000001
Honorable City Council
April 16, 2003 Regular Meeting
Page 2
more equitable shared tax burden. Dan Goodwin, County Assessor,
also gave a presentation to the OSDAC and recommended the sales tax
versus the assessment district. The OSDAC has recently been
provided information that efforts to recruit a legislative sponsor
for a 1/8 -cent sales tax authorization measure in 2003 were
unsuccessful, due to the State's continuing budget problems. The
OSDAC is scheduled to further discuss the recommendations of the
Working Subcommittee (Attachment III) pertaining to funding and
timeline recommendations, including the scheduling of the OSD
formation and sales tax ballot measures for November 2004.
There has been no specific discussion at this time regarding how
the election for approval of the OSD and sales tax measures would
be funded.
Funding Distribution: The OSDAC has recommended distribution of
OSD funds among three defined geographic areas: North, East and
West. The OSDAC also recommends that the distribution of OSD
revenues among these areas be population- based, and that a minimum
of 85 percent of the entire revenue stream be used for acquisition
purposes.
The other geographic distribution method that received serious
consideration was use of 15 Areas of Interest, including the ten
cities and Los Posas, Oak Park, Bell Canyon, Piru, and Lake
Sherwood /Hidden Valley areas. The disadvantage of this approach
was that there may be desirable properties in some of the areas
which would have limited funding because of low sales tax
collection.
The conclusion was that creating the three defined geographic areas
with an equitable population spread provided more opportunities to
fund a larger variety of projects. The OSDAC supported maintaining
flexibility by not requiring the geographic distribution of the
Lunds to be balanced every year, but instead allowing balancing
over the ten -year life of the revenue measure and also allowing up
to 10 percent of the entire revenue stream to be available to fund
projects of special merit that do not meet the geographic
distribution requirement. There are many details regarding funding
that still need to be worked out.
Governance: The OSDAC consensus was a strong preference for the
Appointed Five - Member Board of Directors option, involving
nomination by the City Selection Committee and the Board of
Supervisors and then formal appointment by the Board. The State
enabling legislation for the Ventura County OSD states that the OSD
000002
Honorable City Council
April 16, 2003 Regular Meeting
Page 3
may be governed by: 1) an elected five - member board of directors,
or 2) an appointed (by the Ventura County Board of Supervisors)
five - member board of directors, or 3) the members of the Ventura
County Board of Supervisors, acting ex- officio. The November 2001
public opinion survey, initiated by the County of Ventura, showed a
higher level of support for the appointed board of directors in
comparison to the directly elected board and the Board of
Supervisors.
Although the City Selection Committee is suggested to be used to
recommend three of the appointments for an appointed OSD, the OSDAC
was informed verbally at its last meeting that County Counsel had
given an opinion that city councilmembers could not be appointed to
the OSD board. Special enabling State legislation would be
required to permit this. For example, the Ventura County
Transportation Commission (VCTC) and the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) have specific enabling provisions in State law
to permit councilmember appointment to those Commissions.
Advisory Committees: The OSDAC is recommending, that regardless of
the governance option selected, Advisory Committees should continue
to be utilized (one fiscal and one diverse and geographically
balanced). This approach is considered necessary, because there is
no predetermined list of projects to be funded by the OSD.
Examples were discussed of two Bay Area open space agencies which
each have appointed 17- member advisory committees. Open space
agencies which have rejected the advisory committee concept include
those which were approved by a ballot measure that had line item
detail regarding future projects and funding.
"Pass Through" Agency: The OSDAC is recommending that the OSD
primarily function as a "pass through" agency in that the OSD would
collect the tax revenue, approve the projects for funding, and then
distribute the funding to appropriate agencies or organizations.
Details have yet to be worked out regarding how the OSD will ensure
that land or easements that are transferred to another agency or
organization will be protected. This is one of the concerns that
the Council expressed at its December 18, 2002 meeting, including
that land funded for open space protection would not be
subsequently converted to another land use. Staff suggested that
this comment be repeated in the comment letter on the Draft Summary
report.
Eligibility Standards and Selection Criteria: The OSDAC has
recommended Acquisition Eligibility Standards and Selection
Criteria. Although the City Council's previous recommendation in
000003
Honorable City Council
April 16, 2003 Regular Meeting
Page 4
December 2002 was that a recreation acquisition should receive a
lower priority in funding, the overall consensus of the OSDAC was
to maintain flexibility and allow the OSD to fund projects that
meet the eligibility standards and the greatest number of the
selection criteria. Given the "Parkland" definition, which
includes a "primarily passive recreation" description, and the
number of criteria that focus on natural habitat preservation, a
truly urban park proposal could probably only qualify under two of
the Parkland Selection Criteria (c. The acquisition has access from
one or more public roadways; and h. The acquisition improves or
significantly enhances parkland in an urban or park -poor community
or it is deemed necessary to meet an urgent recreational need.).
Recommendations for OSDAC Summary Report Revisions
Staff is recommending several minor revisions to the Property
Acquisition Eligibility Standards and Selection Criteria section of
the Summary Report of the OSDAC. Legislative format has been used
to show the recommended language revisions:
Page 2, A. General Category, 1. Eligibility Standards. The OSDAC
recommends that properties or conservation easements
_..ndod by the Open Space District (OSD) meet all of the following
standards: (Reason for change is the intent that the OSD function
as a "pass through" agency and fund but not acquire land or
easements.)
Page 2, A. General Category, 1. Eligibility Standards. c. The use
of the property does not create a significant 'and Use
cotr:patbitit.y conflict among adjacent agricultural, open space or
parkland uses. (Reason for change is the standard is too vague as
written.)
Page 3, C. Open Space Category, 2. Selection Criteria. One or more
of the Open Space Category Selection Criteria should be revised to
be consistent with Open Space Category Eligibility Standard b.,
which includes the following language: "...or the potential for
restoration of the natural habitat." (Reason for change is staff
is concerned that the lack of any reference to restoration of
habitat in the Selection Criteria could later be interpreted so as
to preclude acquisition of open space land which does not contain
high quality habitat or high number and biodiversity of native
species, but does present an opportunity for successful restoration
and protection.)
000004
Honorable City Council
April 16, 2003 Regular Meeting
Page 5
Page 8, D. Structure of Open Space District. Language should be
included in this section or a new section of the Summary Report
pertaining to requiring any agency /organization receiving Open
Space District (OSD) funding to sign an agreement that restricts
sale of land or easements and change in land use for projects
funded by the OSD. (Reason: While staff supports the recommendation
for a "pass through" agency, there is a need to require the agency
or organization that receives the OSD funds to maintain the use for
which the funding was received. The City Council had previously
expressed a concern that a project that received funding priority
for preservation of open space should not later be converted to a
recreation use.)
With the exception of the revisions discussed above and on the
preceding page, staff supports the recommendations contained in the
Draft OSDAC Summary Report.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff to prepare a letter to the OSDAC for the City
Manager's signature and final language approval including: The City
Council's support of the Draft OSDAC Summary Report and requesting
the revisions discussed in the agenda report.
Attachments:
I. Agenda Report dated 12/18/02
II. E -mail from County Planning Staff dated 3/27/03 and Draft
Final Summary Report of OSDAC
III. OSDAC Working Subcommittee Preliminary Funding and Timeline
Recommendations
000005
ATTACHMENT s• ITEM 9- A.
C.
of
ACiF)N _
MOORPARK CITY COUNCI
AGENDA REPORT
BY:
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Assistant to City Manager/
City Clerk -�ID 5T
DATE: December 11, 2002 (CC Meeting of 12/18/02)
SUBJECT: Consider Status Report on County of Ventura Open Space
District Advisory Committee ( OSDAC) and Recommendation on
Open Space District Project Category Definitions and
Priority for Land Acquisition
BACKGROUND
In November 1998, Ventura County voters endorsed the Open Space
District program concept by approving Advisory Measure A. The
County Board of Supervisors subsequently established an ad hoc Open
Space District Advisory Committee ( OSDAC) on January 8, 2002, and
approved a scope of work, which is included as Attachment 1 (as
amended in March 2002). The OSDAC includes 41 representatives from
various agencies and organizations, as summarized in Attachment 2.
The City of Moorpark's current representative on the OSDAC is
Deborah Traffenstedt.
As an ad hoc committee, the OSDAC will have a limited duration and
will be dissolved after it has provided recommendations to the
Board of Supervisors on criteria for projects to be funded, a
preferred funding option, and on the pros and cons of governance
options. To date, the OSDAC has convened six meetings, with the
first meeting held in April 2002. There is a ten - member Working
Subcommittee of the OSDAC, which has convened five meetings since
July 2002.
Another important milestone in the progress towards creation of an
open space district was the approval of Assembly Bill No. 1145,
which was signed into law on April 17, 2002. This legislation
allows the Board of Supervisors to call an election for creation of
an Open Space District, and describes the governing authority to be
five directors either elected, appointed by the Board, or members
of the Board.
d 00 0(1 6
Honorable City Council
December 18, 2002 Regular Meeting
Page 2
At the November 20, 2002 meeting of the OSDAC, the City
representatives were asked to bring back a recommendation on the
definition for "parklands ", in conjunction with defining and
analyzing open space district project categories and project
criteria. On November 5, 2002, the Board of Supervisors responded
to a question from the OSDAC by voting that their preference was to
limit the definition of Parkland /Recreation to only passive uses,
such as hiking and bicycle trails, nature programs, etc. The Board
noted that the voter - approved Measure A did not reference active
recreation uses such as softball, football and soccer fields.
Included as Attachment 3 is a copy of the draft open space project
category definitions that were provided to the Board of
Supervisors.
The OSDAC discussed the Board's direction at the November 20, 2002
meeting; however, the representatives from the cities of Thousand
Oaks, Santa Paula, and Port Hueneme stated their city's preference
was to not prohibit future open space district funding of land
acquisition for active recreation purposes. On November 25, 2002,
the SanBuenaventura City Council voted to communicate to the OSDAC
their preference for the parklands definition to be limited to
passive recreation uses. The Port Hueneme City Council in a letter
dated December 5, 2002, communicated to the OSDAC their preference
that active recreational uses be included as an eligible project
type under the parklands category for the purposes of open space
district funding. Staff is unaware at this time whether any other
cities in Ventura County have scheduled this issue for a City
Council recommendation.
The Open Space District enabling legislation, AB -1145, states that
the formation of a regional open -space district in Ventura County
is critically needed to help address the unresolved needs and
development pressures in the Ventura County area with respect to
the preservation of open- space, natural, and agricultural areas,
and local and regional parks and recreation facilities. The
legislation does not limit the parks and recreation facilities to
passive versus active uses.
DISCUSSION
The question asked by the OSDAC is whether the definition of
"parkland" should be limited to only passive uses, as shown on
Attachment 3. Staff's intent would be to prepare a letter to the
OSDAC that responds to this question as well as related issues as
described below.
000007
Honorable City Council
December 18, 2002 Regular Meeting
Page 3
Staff's opinion is that the definition of "parkland" should not
preclude the type of recreation use; however, lands to be acquired
for strictly recreation purposes should not have as high a priority
for acquisition funding as preservation of greenbelts and buffer
lands between cities, and preservation of agricultural land and
natural resources. This position would be similar to that followed
by the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space
District, which has an Acquisition Plan that includes four
acquisition categories: agriculture, greenbelts, natural resources
and recreation. To summarize, the Sonoma County District
Acquisition Plan generally states that the District's primary role
for recreation is to acquire land and that the responsibility for
developing, operating and maintaining recreational sites and
facilities lies with appropriate local, regional or State park
agencies. Recreation is identified as a secondary focus under the
voter approved Expenditure Plan for the Sonoma County Agricultural
Preservation and Open Space District.
Staff's opinion is that the letter to the OSDAC should include
language to clarify that the City would not support the funding of
an active recreation project in unincorporated areas of the County
that serve as greenbelts or buffer areas between cities. This is
intended to ensure that the City of Moorpark is not misinterpreted
as promoting an active recreation use such as a golf course in the
Tierra Rejada Greenbelt area. The letter to the OSDAC should also
clearly state the City Council's support for a higher priority for
acquisition of open space lands and /or conservation easements to
preserve greenbelts and buffer lands between cities, agricultural
land, and natural resources, in comparison to acquisition of land
for recreation purposes. As previously stated, one of the stated
purposes of the OSDAC is to advise the Board of Supervisors on
criteria for projects to be funded.
STAFF RECObMNDATION
Direct staff to prepare a letter to the OSDAC, including a
recommendation on Open Space District project category definitions
and priority for land acquisition, as discussed in the agenda
report.
Attachments:
1. OSDAC Scope of Work
2. Summary of OSDAC Representation
3. Open Space District Advisory Committee Vision Statement and
Project Categories
000008
ATTACHMENT I
BOARD - APPROVED SCOPE -OF -WORK FOR THE
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (OSDAC)
Revised by Board on 3119102
The following OSDAC Scope -of -Work expands on the principles approved by the Board of
Supervisors on January 8, 2002 and is also based on Board directives and comments
provided on February 26 and March 12, 2002. The purpose of the 'Scope' is to describe
the goals and purpose of the open space district (OSD) and to clarify the OSDAC's
purpose, role, duties and responsibilities so as to minimize any ambiguity as to the
Committee's primary objectives. The Committee's responsibilities have also been
separated into Board mandated and Board recommended procedures.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FINDING
Based on the voter's approval (68 %) of Advisory Measure A in 1998 and the public's
considerable support (up to 75 %) for the formation of an OSD (2001 Public Opinion Survey
findings), the Board of Supervisors unanimously supports the creation of a Regional OSD
in Ventura County. In recognition of this finding, the Board directs that a regional district
formation ballot measure be prepared and submitted to Ventura County voters.
GOALS AND PURPOSE OF OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
1. The primary goal and purpose of the OSD is to identify and preserve agricultural and
open space lands that are under the greatest threat of conversion to other uses and fits
an overall scheme of preserving wildlife corridors and natural habitat and contributing to
watershed health.
• Develop a capability to accept contributions of lands if no other agency is more
appropriate.
2. The secondary goal and purpose of the OSD is to acquire land for parks that is under
the greatest threat of conversion to other uses and fits an overall scheme of preserving
wildlife corridors and natural habitat and contributing to watershed health.
PURPOSE OF OSDAC
The OSDAC is to advise the Board on how an OSD could be set up and not if it should be
established. The OSDAC is an ad -hoc organization that has been appointed by and will
serve as advisor to the Board of Supervisors. As with other ad -hoc organizations, the
Committee shall have a limited duration and it will be dissolved after it has provided
recommendations to the Board regarding the language of future funding and project ballot
measure(s) and completed an assessment of governance options.
BOARD - MANDATED OSDAC DECISION - MAKING SEQUENCE
• Utilize the Board - adopted goals and purpose of the OSD as the basis for developing
project and funding recommendations and assessing governance options.
• Prepare draft open space and farmland conservation and park acquisition project lists.
OOOOV9
Prepare OSD funding recommendations.
• Assess the advantages and disadvantages of OSD governance options including
governance costs, autonomy, accountability, etc.
BOARD- MANDATED OSDAC RESPONSIBILITIES
• Provide periodic progress reports to the Board regarding the OSDAC's activities,
deliberations and progress. The written progress reports will be presented to the Board
at least quarterly, or on a more frequent basis, if circumstances warrant.
• Review and comment on staff and consultant work products including meeting
summaries, research papers, analysis and other technical studies. Technical work that
has been endorsed by the Committee will become part of a permanent record and
should be included in an appendix to the quarterly status reports to the Board.
The 'Committee of the Whole' (includes all representatives) shall collectively discuss
policy - related issues and shall be involved in making the Committee's final
recommendations to the Board. However, the OSDAC may wish to create a small
number of 'functional sub - committees' that would identify, analyze and develop funding
and project recommendations and assess governance options for later consideration
by the 'Committee of the Whole'.
• Develop funding recommendations that consider the findings of the November 2001
Public Opinion Survey and the input of the OSDAC members. Funding options that
should be analyzed and discussed include a real property special assessment and a
special tax (sales tax) increase.
Develop a recommended list of projects that are representative of the project
categories including, 1) the protection of coastal water, rivers and streams, 2) farmland
conservation, 3) open space conservation, and 4) the acquisition and improvement of
parks and recreation facilities. The project list shall consider the findings of the
November 2001 Public Opinion Survey, the language in the OSD enabling legislation
(AB 1145), and the input of the OSDAC members.
Assess the advantages and disadvantages of the OSD governance options (i.e.,
appointed board of directors, directly elected board of directors, or the Board of
Supervisors serving in an ex- officio role). The assessment should consider
governance costs, autonomy, accountability, etc. and should also take into account the
findings of the November 2001 Public Opinion Survey, the language in AB 1145, and
the input of the OSDAC members.
Although the OSDAC will disband after ballot measure(s) recommended language has
been prepared, some or all of the Committee members could serve on their own as the
nucleus of a ballot measure advocacy organization, if they so choose. In accordance
with State law, the County of Ventura would not provide funding for a future ballot
measure advocacy campaign.
• The OSD Coordinator shall prepare and the OSDAC shall approve summary minutes of
its meetings — the minutes should become part of the permanent record and should be
included in the Committee's quarterly progress reports to the Board.
000010
2
One person shall represent each Board - designated agency and organization. If the
primary representative is not able to attend a meeting due to illness, a schedule
conflict, etc., a designated alternate member may represent the agency or group.
However, in order to facilitate the business of the OSDAC and to ensure program
continuity, the Board encourages that each agency or group should avoid rotating their
membership among different representatives.
BOARD - RECOMMENDED OSDAC RESPONSIBILITIES
• The OSDAC's recommendations could be decided through a consensus - building
process or the Committee could vote on individual policy issues. Another option is to
utilize both consensus and voting procedures. Minority opinions on important issues
and decisions should also be recorded and made part of the permanent record.
• The OSDAC could consider using the services of a professional facilitator. The
facilitator could be funded by non - governmental organizations (NGOs) and /or
governmental agencies that serve on the Committee.
• The OSDAC should appoint a Chair and a Vice - Chair. The 'officers' should work with
the OSD Coordinator, the facilitator (if appointed), and the chairs of functional
subcommittees (if established), and prepare the Committee's agendas. The Chair
should also sign Committee correspondence.
• The OSDAC should meet at approximate one -month intervals. The Committee should
establish a regular meeting location(s) and a time slot that to the extent feasible,
accommodates the schedules of the individual representatives.
000011.
ATTACHMENT
affimamiaw
Open Space District
Advisory Committee
Representatives
• Cities and County Appointees (16)
• Agricultural Community (4)
• Business Community (4)
• Environmental Organizations (3)
• Recreation &Park Districts (3)
• Local Land Conservancies (3)
• Farmland, Open Space and Habitat
Conservancies (4)
• Public Service Organizations (2)
• Wetlands/Water Quality Organizations (2)
006012
ATTACHM-ENT -" MM
Open Space District Advisory Committee
Vision Statement and Project Categories
(Revised: 11/15/02)
Open Space District Vision Statement
(Revised by Subcommittee 11115102)
• The primacy purpose of the Regional Open Space District is to help preserve the
natural and unique qualities of Ventura County (e.g., ridgelines, scenic viewsheds,
wildlife corridors, natural habitat, agricultural lands, greenbelts between the cities,
hillsides, wetlands, rivers and streams, and natural parksites) for the enjoyment of
present and future residents of the County.
caeGhaRi&M
Open Space District Project Category (Definitions)
(Approved by Committee 10/17102)
• OPEN SPACE — This designation is applied to an area of undeveloped land, wetlands,
rivers or streams which has substantially retained its characteristics as provided by
nature or has been substantially restored, or which can be feasibly restored to a near
natural condition, and which has natural habitat, wildlife, and scenic resources.
• AGRICULTURE — This designation is applied to irrigated lands (e.g., prime farmland,
farmland of statewide importance, unique farmland) and non - irrigated lands (local
importance, grazing lands) that are suitable for the production of agricultural
commodities and/or the raising of livestock.
(Discussed by Committee on 10/17102 and Subcommittee on 10130102 and 11/15102 —
Board direction on 1115102 generally confirmed this definition with the provision that active
park and recreation uses should be excluded)
• PARKLAND — This designation is applied to lands with scenic, natural and /or open
space values, set aW aside to conserve natural, scenic, cultural, or ecological
resources for present and future generations, and to be used by the public as a place
for rest, education, exercise, inspiration, and passive recreation (e.g., hiking, bicycling,
horseback riding, rock climbing, nature studies, afW picnicking and camping). iA
Open Space District General Proiect Eligibility Standards
(Revised by Subcommittee 11115102)
• OPEN SPACE — Properties or conservation easements acquired by the OSD must
meet one or more of the following standards:
• Wildlife corridor quality
• Natural habitat qualify
• Watershed health contribution
• Scenic qualities values
00001.3
Visibility (e.g., greenbelts, transportation corridors, scenic highways)
• AGRICULTURE — Properties or conservation easements acquired by the OSD must
meet one or more of the following standards:
• Quality 9 Irrigated farmland (e.g., soil quality, water cost and availability)
• Non - Irrigated farmland
• Quality 1 Livestock grazing land
• Watershed health contribution
• Visibility (e.g., greenbelts, transportation corridors, scenic highways)
• PARKLAND — Properties or conservation easements acquired by the OSD must meet
one or more of the following standards:
• Wildlife corridor gaaliy
• Natural habitat gualit�
• Watershed health contribution
• Public access
• Cultural /historical sigGaase values
• Visibility (e.g., greenbelts, transportation corridors, scenic highways)
• Scenic qualities values
000014
Q Documents and Settings\kje11bg\My Documents\ OSDACVisionStateDefinitionStand .doc
Pagel of 2
ATTACHMENT =
Debbie Traffenstedt
From: Gene Kjellberg [ Gene. Kjellberg @mail.co.ventura.ca.us]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 5:50 PM
To: Dmagney @aol.com; EMCLOANS4U @aol.com; Suel 1723 @aol.com; vcfb1 @aol.com;
rguthrie @bialaventura.org; Carl @BioRC.com; larry@brokawnursery.com; mkahn @calattys.com;
BOSWORTHE @Calbt.com; paulm @ccc.ca.gov; David Bobardt; Debbie Traffenstedt;
Brian. Pendleton @ci.oxnard.ca.us; GBrown @ci.port- hueneme.ca.us; pstrautman@ci.port-
hueneme.ca.us; tbartlett @ci.santa- paula.ca.us; LMAGELNI @ci.simi - valley.ca.us;
dmackay @ci.ventura.ca.us; pcalderwood @ci.ventura.ca.us; jerryb @CommunityPoll.com;
R4villa @cs.com; anngistiev @earthlink.net; garcia.jeffrey @earthlink.net; jwigert@earthlink.net;
rockensteinp @earthlink.net; tandemstoker @earthlink.net; jmccaull @FARMLAND.ORG;
edhayduk @hotmail.com; hardingco @hotmail.com; vcta @jetlink.net; Earl McPhail; Julie Bulla; Marty
ROBINSON; Monica Nolan; joeggibson @msn.com; juliaosbomgourley @msn.com;
cdmtowne @mx.ci. thousand - oaks.ca.us; mcharney @nchc.com; bentzsd @netzero.net;
ovlc @ojai.net; slee @ouhsd.kl2.ca.us; rob- vcaa @pacbell.net; JCWilliamson @pvrpd.org;
Kay @realestatemagic.com; karen.schmidt @sbcglobal.net; brand @scc.ca.gov;
edelman @smmc.ca.gov; skei @smmc.ca.gov; eremson @TNC.ORG; wmillet @TNC.ORG;
Adam. Eichberg @tpl.org; Rachel.Dinno @tpl.org; Ikyee @ucdavis.edu; srklittich @ucdavis.edu;
bburatto @viceda.org; armbrustr @vcss.kl2.ca.us; bottorffm @vcss.kl2.ca.us;
broesamlej @vcss.kl2.ca.us; edcjohn @west.net; Ileavens @west.net; Iynnekada @yahoo.com;
virginialr @yahoo.com
Cc: michael @aginnovations.net
Subject: Agency and Organization Review /Comments ( OSDAC Summary Recommendations)
Open Space District Advisory Committee Members,
On March 20, 2003, the OSDAC made several additions, deletions and changes to OSD governance, territory and
funding related issues. These changes have been incorporated in the attached Draft Summary
Recommendations Report.
Please review the Draft Summary Report and Geographic. Distribution_. and forwardyouur comments to
Planning Division staff no later than Friday,_A rp it 25,_003. Your input will be reviewed by the OSDAC at its
May 15, 2003 meeting.
Please divide your comments into the following categories:
o Report Editing Suggestions - The Advisory Committee has reviewed and reached consensus on major
substantive issues - please limit this phase of your review to minor editing changes.
o Agency or Organization Position on Summary Recommendations - If you represent an agency or
organization, please also distribute copies of the draft recommendations to your respective city councils, boards
of directors or governing boards for their review and comment. Please request your governing boards or city
councils to forward their positions on the Advisory Committee's draft recommendations.
o Does your agency (city or rec /park district) or organization support or oppose the proposed OSD, as
recommended by the OSDAC?
o As part of your response, please include your agency or organizations's position(s) on the issues of OSD
formation, territory, funding, governance, and project definitions and criteria, as recommended by the OSDAC.
o The format of your response could be a City Council or Rec /Park District resolution or minute order or it
could be a "position letter" signed by the Chair of your governing board or board of directors, or the city
manager, general manager or director.
Please contact Jim Engel (805.646.7930), Joe Gibson (805.279.0601) or staff if you have questions about this
review and comment request and the attached Summary Recommendations Report.
Thank you for your input.
0001015
4/7/2003
Page 2 of 2
Gene Kjellberg, Senior Planner
Ventura County Planning Division
800 S. Victoria Avenue, #1740
Ventura, CA 93009
Ph. 805.654.2455
Fax. 805.654.2509
Email. gene. kjellberg@mail.co.ventura.ca.us
Nancy Settle, Manager Regional Programs
Ventura County Planning Division
800 S. Victoria Avenue, #1740
Ventura, CA 93009
Ph. 805.654.2465
Fax. 805.654.2509
Email. nancy .settle @mail.co.ventura,ca.us
000016
4/7/2003
Summary of Open Space District Advisory Committee
(OSDAC) Assessment and Recommendations
on Open Space District Issues
(Revised: 3/27/03)
I. Purpose Statement
The purpose of the Regional Open Space District (OSD) is to preserve the natural qualities of
Ventura County (e.g., ridgelines, scenic viewsheds, wildlife corridors, natural habitat, agricultural
lands, greenbelts between the cities, hillsides, wetlands, rivers and streams, and natural parksites)
for the enjoyment and benefit of present and future residents of the County.
II. Property Category Definitions
These definitions identify the types of acquisitions the Open Space District would pursue:
A. Agricultural Land — This designation is applied to irrigated lands (e.g., prime farmland,
farmland of statewide significance, unique farmland) and non - irrigated lands (local importance
and grazing lands) that are suitable for the production of agricultural commodities and /or the
raising of livestock.
B. Open Space — This designation is applied to an area of undeveloped lands, wetlands, rivers
or streams which has substantially retained its characteristics as provided by nature or has
been substantially restored, or which can be feasibly restored to a near natural condition, and
which has natural habitat, wildlife or scenic resources.
C. Parkland — This designation is applied to lands with scenic, natural, and /or open space
values, set aside to conserve natural, scenic, cultural, or ecological resources for present and
future generations and to be used by the public as a place for rest, education, inspiration, and
primarily passive recreation.
III. Property Acquisition Eligibility Standards and Selection Criteria
Introduction
This section includes the Property Acquisition Eligibility Standards and Selection Criteria that the
Open Space District (OSD) would use to select future properties for funding. The standards and
criteria are divided into four categories: General, Agriculture, Open Space and Parkland. The
standards and criteria in the General category apply to all projects. The standards and criteria in
the Agriculture, Open Space and Parkland categories apply only to acquisitions in each of those
categories.
• Eligibility Standards — The OSDAC recommends that acquisitions meet all of the Standards
in the General category. However, it is only necessary to meet at least one of the Standards in
the Agriculture, Open Space or Parkland categories.
• Selection Criteria — These criteria are to be used by the Open Space District Board of
Directors to identify worthy projects for funding. The greater the number of criteria that a
000017
proposed acquisition meets, the greater the likelihood that it would be funded. As noted above,
all projects are judged using the General Selection Criteria. Thus, a proposed agricultural
acquisition is evaluated using the General and Agricultural Selection Criteria; a proposed open
space acquisition is evaluated using the General and Open Space Selection Criteria; and a
proposed parkland acquisition is evaluated using the General and Parkland Selection Criteria.
A. General Category
1. Eligibility St s. The OSDAC recommends that properties or conservation
easement acquire y the Open Space District (OSD) meet all of the following standards:
a. The property is available for acquisition from a willing seller.
b. A capable governmental entity and /or non - governmental organization monitors,
administers, operates, maintains and /or accepts liability for the property.
c. The use of the property does not create a significant conflict among adjacent
agricultural, open space or parkland uses.
2. Selection Criteria. The OSDAC recommends that all proposed acquisitions be evaluated
using the following criteria. The criteria are not ranked in order of importance.
a. Property that has the greatest likelihood of being converted to urban or other non-
agricultural, non -open space or non - parkland uses.
b. The acquisition is proximate or contiguous to existing OSD protected parcels or similarly
designated lands.
c. The acquisition has significant strategic value in meeting broad OSD goals such as
protecting coastal water quality or preserving scenic vistas.
d. The acquisition has a high degree of economic value (e.g., is eligible for matching funds
from government agencies and /or non - governmental organizations).
e. The acquisition has a unique time - limited opportunity value at the time of purchase.
f. The acquisition is consistent with city and /or county general plan land use designations
and is used consistently with that land use designation.
g. The acquisition provides multiple benefits (e.g. valuable core habitat and wildlife
corridor).
h. The acquisition is part of a greenbelt or buffer between cities or unincorporated
communities.
i. The acquisition provides important watershed benefits or protection (e.g. protect
riparian areas, improve aquifer recharge and erosion control, and /or minimize runoff).
B. Agriculture Category
1. Eligibility Standards. The OSDAC recommends that properties or conservation
easements acquired by the OSD include one or more of the following:
a. Irrigated farmland (e.g., soil quality, water cost and availability)
b. Non - irrigated farmland
c. Livestock grazing land
2. Selection Criteria. The OSDAC recommends that proposed agricultural acquisitions be
evaluated using the following criteria. The criteria are not ranked in order of importance.
a. The acquisition has adequate soil quality to support long -term agricultural production.
b. The acquisition has an affordable, uninterruptible water supply of adequate quality.
2 000015
c. The parcel size is adequate to support efficient agricultural production.
d. The acquisition supports crop use versatility (e.g., site is frost -free and has minimal
flood hazard).
e. The parcel sizes of surrounding properties support long -term agricultural production.
f. The acquisition contributes to the conservation of a significant regional or contiguous
land base.
g. The acquisition minimizes farm /urban conflicts by maximizing large contiguous
agricultural areas and minimizing the farm /urban interface.
C. Open Space Category
1. Eligibility Standards. The OSDAC recommends that properties or conservation
easements acquired by the OSD include one or more of the following:
a. Wildlife resources.
b. Natural habitat or the potential for restoration of the natural habitat.
c. Scenic values.
d. Visibility (e.g., properties or lands are located adjacent to or in close proximity to
greenbelts, transportation corridors and /or scenic highways).
2. Selection Criteria. The OSDAC recommends that all proposed open space acquisitions be
evaluated using the following criteria. The criteria are not ranked in order of importance.
a. The acquisition has a high quality of habitat type (e.g. high quality riparian, coastal sage
scrub, coastal /intertidal zones, oak woodlands, etc.)
b. The acquisition has a high number and biodiversity of native species.
c. The acquisition has federally- or state - listed endangered or threatened species,
candidate species, species of concern, and /or locally rare species.
d. The acquisition has habitat connectivity (i.e., functions or could function as a wildlife
corridor).
e. The acquisition has proximity to the Pacific Ocean coastline or to at least one blue -line
stream, intermittent stream, wetland, creek, and /or other watercourse.
D. Parkland Category
1. Eligibility Standards. The OSDAC recommends that properties or conservation
easements acquired by the OSD include one or more of the following:
a. Wildlife resources.
b. Natural habitat or the potential for restoration of the natural habitat.
c. Cultural, historical or recreational values.
d. Visibility (e.g., properties or lands are located adjacent to or in close proximity to
greenbelts, transportation corridors and /or scenic highways).
e. Scenic values.
2. Selection Criteria. The OSDAC recommends that all proposed parkland acquisitions be
evaluated using the following criteria. The criteria are not ranked in order of importance.
a. The acquisition has above average habitat value, to include a variety of plants and
wildlife.
3 00001.9
WITIM
b. The acquisition has unusually varied terrain, to include natural areas offering
educational and recreational opportunities.
c. The acquisition has access from one or more public roadways.
d. The acquisition includes or potentially includes an important trailhead, a regional or
local trail, and /or a vista point or overlook over a significant viewshed.
e. The acquisition contributes to the protection of scenic views.
f. The acquisition includes a federal, state, or locally designated, or eligible, historic or
archeologically significant site, such as one listed on the National Register of Historic
Places.
g. The acquisition has proximity to the Pacific Ocean coastline or to at least one blue -line
stream, intermittent stream, wetland, creek, and /or other watercourse.
h. The acquisition improves or significantly enhances parkland in an urban or park -poor
community or it is deemed necessary to meet an urgent recreational need.
IV. Funding
Introduction:
This section includes the OSDAC's recommendations regarding funding sources for the Open
Space District (OSD) as well as policies for the distribution of the funds.
A. Funding Source
The OSDAC's first choice is a 1/8 -cent sales tax measure with a ten -year sunset provision. If
for any reason a sales tax is not feasible, the OSDAC recommends a benefit assessment
district as a second choice.
B. Funding Distribution
The OSDAC divided the acquisition funds into two categories: 1) funds allocated according to
Geographic Distribution, and 2) the Flexibility Fund. The OSDAC decided not to recommend
that the funds be distributed in fixed percentages among the categories of Agriculture, Open
Space, and Parkland. However, it is recommended that a minimum of 85% of the dedicated
funding be used for acquisition purposes. Any remaining funds may be used for OSD
administration, operations and maintenance.
1. Geographic Distribution. The OSDAC recommends that funds be distributed among
three defined geographic areas: North, East and West (see attached map). The OSDAC
also recommends that the distribution of OSD revenues among these areas be population -
based and the boundaries of the geographic areas remain fixed for the term of the revenue
measure. However, the population information is updated annually to reflect annual
Department of Finance (DOF) estimates.
The OSDAC recommends that the geographic distribution of funds be balanced over the
ten -year life of the revenue measure. Thus, in any given single year, a specific geographic
area could receive more or less than its population share but after ten years each of the
geographic areas receive an equitable distribution of funds based on population.
4 000020
2. Flexibility. The OSDAC recommends that a minimum of 85% of the entire revenue stream
be used for acquisition purposes and distributed by population among the geographic
areas. The OSDAC also recommends that up to 10% of these funds be available to fund
projects of special merit that do not meet the geographic distribution requirement.
V. Territory
Introduction
The OSD enabling legislation states that the boundaries of the OSD could be: A) countywide (the
same as Ventura County's boundaries), or B) include a part of Ventura County's territory.
Recommendation
The OSDAC recommends that the OSD be a countywide regional district — i.e., its boundaries are
the same as Ventura County's boundaries and include all incorporated cities and all
unincorporated county territory.
VI. Governance
Introduction
The OSD enabling legislation states the OSD may be governed by: 1) an elected five - member
board of directors, or 2) an appointed (by the Ventura County Board of Supervisors) five - member
board of directors, or 3) the members of the Ventura County Board of Supervisors, acting ex-
officio. On March 19, 2002, the Board of Supervisors directed the OSDAC to assess the features,
advantages and disadvantages of the governance options to include costs, autonomy,
accountability, etc.
The OSDAC submits the following governance option assessment and recommendations.
Governance Assessment
A. Governing Authority Options — The OSDAC separated the three options into "independent
governance" or "dependent governance" categories:
1. Independent Governance
a. Elected Board of Directors — A directly elected board is considered "independent"
because it has one main purpose — oversee a land conservation agency's transactions
and administrative, operational and maintenance functions. Elected boards of directors
are primarily accountable to the voters who elected them and therefore are independent
of other elected officials. There are three current examples of (open space agency)
elected boards of directors in California. However, none of the present examples
includes a single- county agency with boundaries that are contiguous with the county
boundary.
b. Appointed Board of Directors — There are no current examples of an appointed (open
space agency) board of directors in California. if an appointed board is selected as the
governance option in Ventura County, the Board of Supervisors would appoint the five
directors to four -year fixed terms — consequently it would be considered an
"independent" board.
000021L
2. Dependent Governance
�nm INd
a. Board of Supervisors — In some cases, the board of supervisors serves as the open
space agency's board of directors. This governance option is sometimes referred to as
a "dependent" agency because the board of supervisors serves in a part-time (ex-
officio) role. Several existing open space agencies utilize this form of governance.
B. Appointed Board of Directors and Liability Issues — County Counsel determined there
would be no unique liability issues for an appointed board of directors. An appointed board
would be subject to tort liability under the Tort Claims Act in the same manner as any public
entity governed by an elected board or the Board of Supervisors.
C. Costs — The OSDAC determined there were two categories of costs associated with an open
space agency:
1. Start-Up Costs
A new open space agency with an elected board of directors would require significant start-
up costs. Costs would include election costs (see below), hiring new staff, and locating an
office and office equipment.
If the board of supervisors governed an OSD, start-up costs may be reduced because
existing county facilities and /or staff could theoretically be utilized — however, the county
would likely charge the new agency for some or all of these costs.
Start-up costs for an appointed board of directors is difficult to estimate because there are
no current examples of appointed boards. However, costs would probably be less than for
a directly elected board but would likely be more than a board -of- supervisors- governed
regional district.
• Off Year and General Election Costs (Elected Board Option). Estimated election
costs could range from $40,000 for a general election to $400,000 or more for a special
(off -year) election.
2. Recurring Costs
Ongoing costs for administration, operations and maintenance should generally be similar
for the three governance options. The three categories of costs would likely be more
affected by the structure of the open space agency — i.e., "pass through" vs. "stand alone"
agency (see additional findings below).
D. Autonomy of Revenue Accounts — An independent board of directors may be viewed as
more likely to use agency revenues exclusively for land conservation purposes. There may
also be a perception that a dependent board of supervisors- governed district may be tempted
to co- mingle dedicated revenues with other revenue sources, in a fiscal crisis.
In reality, all dedicated revenues include language that requires the funds be used exclusively
for the purposes specified in a voter (or property owner) approved ballot measure. The co-
mingling of revenues (dedicated funds [e.g., intended for an open space agency] with a
county's general fund) is prohibited. In addition, all regional districts are required to be audited
on a regular basis.
E. Governance Autonomy and Countvwide Land Use Perspective — Land acquisition
decisions made by an OSD governing body could affect future urban settlement patterns.
There may be a perception that an independent governing body's decisions could potentially be
more problematic because the agency is separate from other government jurisdictions. If an
6 000022
independent agency pursues an ambitious land protection program, in some cases this may
conflict with a local jurisdiction's general plan objectives such as providing affordable housing.
However, most existing open space agencies have adopted acquisition plans that are based on
and consistent with local county or city general plans. If government or non - profit grants are
used to match local revenues, most grant administrators require that prospective land
acquisitions are consistent with local general plans.
Another consideration is the governing authority's knowledge and experience in leveraging
local revenue sources with government and non - profit grants and other dedicated funding.
F. Public Opinion Survey — The November 2001 public opinion survey initiated by the County
of Ventura indicated that 60% of respondents favored an appointed board of directors, 54%
favored a directly elected board, and 40% favored the Board of Supervisors.
G. Governance Options and Revenue Eligibility — The managers of existing OSD felt the
choice of governing authority did not have an effect on establishing a permanent (stable)
source of revenue. Also, the selection of a governing authority did not appear to be a
significant factor in obtaining intermittent sources of revenue such as grants. As an example,
California's Proposition 40 includes revenue that is dedicated to specific open space agencies
— in other cases, the revenue may be restricted to only local government agencies (cities and
counties) using block grants or competitive grants.
Some managers cautioned that grant funding eligibility may not be an accurate measure when
evaluating the positives /negatives of different governance options. For example, individual
land conservation grants have unique stipulations regarding eligibility requirements and it's
difficult to make an accurate assessment that covers all future grant contingencies.
H. Appointed Boards of Directors Do Not Govern other California OSD. Why? — With
the exception of Ventura County, other California OSD enabling legislation limits their
governing boards to either an elected board of directors or a board of supervisors. General
managers of some existing OSD regarded an appointed board as an extension of county
government and therefore subject to the politics of the board of supervisors. The two multi -
county districts in the Bay Area concluded that an appointed board would be unworkable
because of geographic and political considerations. Los Angeles County's OSD functions
solely as a pass- through agency so the choice of the governing authority was not critical.
Governance Recommendations
A. Governance /Appointments — The OSDAC has a strong preference for the Appointed Five -
Member Board of Directors option. if this governance option is selected, the OSDAC
recommends the nomination and appointment process involve the Board of Supervisors and
the City Selection Committee as follows:
• City Selection Committee nominates three of the five directors and submits its
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Each of the three nominees represents one
of the three geographic distribution areas (see attached map).
• Board of Supervisors nominates two directors — the nominees represent a countywide
perspective.
• Board of Supervisors formally appoints the board of directors to 4 -year fixed terms.
B. Ward (Sub- District) Boundaries — If a directly elected board of directors is the selected
governance option, the OSDAC recommends that the boundaries of the five geographic wards
be the same as the existing supervisorial districts.
7 000023
&@N Tud
C. Advisory Committees — Regardless of the governance option selected, the OSDAC
recommends that the OSD board of directors establish a diverse and geographically balanced
Advisory Committee that includes representatives from the agricultural community, open space
and habitat conservation agencies or organizations, cities, recreation and park districts, and the
environmental and business communities. It is also recommended that a separate 3- member
Fiscal Oversight Committee be established with a membership consisting of one representative
(each) from the three geographic distribution areas.
D. Structure of Open Space District — Regardless of the governance option selected, the
OSDAC recommends that the OSD function primarily as a "pass through" agency — i.e., the
agency usually does not own or manage land or other assets but rather selects land
acquisitions and collects revenue and distributes the funding to appropriate agencies or
organizations. It is also recommended that the OSD only accept land or assets if no other
agencies or organizations are willing to accept responsibility for administration, operations and
maintenance costs.
CADocuments and Settings \kjellbglMy Documents\ OSDACWrkn gCmteRecommendations4.doc
8 00024
Open Space District
Geographic Distribution Areas
Geographic Distribution Areas ® National Forest Boundaries
North Q Supervisorial Districts
East
Cities
West
jI —^�
Dscianrer This map was created by ife Ventura
Canty Resource Management Age cy. Planning
avision . which is designed and operated solely for
Die cuerronce of the Carty and related public
agencies. The Canty does not warrant the
accuracy of Ns map and no deacon involving a
n* ofeconornic loss or physical injury should be
made in reliance therein.
Vadnra Canty Resource Managmeit Agency
Plarmng Division
Mardi 2003
000025
ATTACHMENT a
OSDAC Working Subcommittee Preliminary
Funding and Timeline Recommendations
Wdf t
Revised: 417103
On April 2, 2003, Working Subcommittee members discussed and analyzed two recent
events that could affect the OSDAC's recommendations on a stable (long term) OSD
funding source.
LEGISLATIVE SPONSOR (1/8 -CENT SALES TAX ENABLING LEGISLATION)
Earlier efforts to recruit a legislative sponsor for a 1/8 -cent sales tax authorization
measure were unsuccessful. Because of the state's continuing budget problems, most
of the state's politicians do not want to be involved in a revenue bill in 2003 including a
local sales tax authorization measure.
• The lack of a sponsor means the Legislature will not consider enabling legislation in
2003. Without the legislative authorization, a 1/8 -cent sales tax option could not be
placed on the March 2004 ballot.
COURT DECISION RELATED TO PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS AND OPEN SPACE
CONSERVATION
• Litigation initiated by property owners in Los Angeles and Santa Clara Counties had
challenged the legality of funding open space conservation with benefit assessment
districts.
Allegations included:
Flawed assessment engineer's reports
Questionable legal nexus involving costs (property assessments) and benefits (can
open space conservation special benefits be measured for individual properties)
Flawed mailed "ballots"
Court Decision:
• A Los Angeles trial court recently dismissed allegations previously filed against the
(Santa Monica) Mountains Recreation Authority. The litigation challenged the
legality of recently approved assessment measures affecting properties in the Santa
Monica Mountains.
WORKING SUBCOMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS
The Subcommittee developed the following recommendations related to funding and the
scheduling of a future OSD formation and revenue ballot measure(s) — the
recommendations are prioritized.
1. Schedule Ballot Measures for November 2004 General Election
2. Concurrent Formation and Funding Ballot Measures
3. Sales Tax Increase - Preferred Funding Option
00002E
• 1/8 -cent Sales Tax Increase (first choice)
• 1/4 -cent Sales Tax Increase (second choice)
4. Benefit Assessment Measure (third choice funding option)
5. Sunset Provision — voters (or property owners) must reauthorize 1/8-cent sales tax (or
benefit assessment measure) at the end of 10 years; 1/4 -cent sales tax must be
reauthorized at the end of 5 or 7 years.
Expanded Descriptions
1. Schedule Ballot Measures for November 2004 General Election
• Pros: Historically higher voter turnout than for primary or off -year elections —
increased likelihood of voter approval; if legislature approves 1/8 -cent sales tax
urgency (enabling) legislation, would be first opportunity to bring the issue to County
voters; more likely to retain OSDAC's momentum than postponing funding election
until 2005 or 2006.
• Cons: Sixteen -month interval between OSDAC recommendations (July 2003) and
general election (November 2004) may negatively affect OSDAC's momentum.
2. Concurrent Formation and Funding Ballot Measures
OSD formation and revenue measures are submitted to the voters simultaneously —
e.g., on concurrent, separate ballots.
Pros: Provides voters the opportunity to analyze and vote on formation and funding
measures simultaneously; formation and funding issues are closely linked —difficult
to consider the measures separately; opposition to tax increase has less opportunity
to organize if there is no interval between formation and funding measures.
• Cons: The OSD should be formed first — a funding measure should be submitted to
voters (or property owners) only if the OSD has been established.
3. Funding Measure (Sales Tax) Recommendation
1st Choice, 1/8 -Cent Sales Tax Increase
• Pros: Voters will more likely approve a 1/8 -cent tax measure than a 1/4 -cent
measure; estimated $12 million annual revenue is almost double the estimated
revenue that a $20 (annual) property assessment would generate; possible support
of business community.
Cons: Before a 1/8 -cent measure can be placed on the November 2004 ballot, the
legislature must first approve urgency (enabling) legislation; if enabling legislation is
not approved in 2004, next general election opportunity would be 2006; dedicated
sales tax measure requires a supermajority (2/3) approval of electorate — difficult
challenge.
2nd Choice, 1/4-Cent Sales Tax Increase.
• Pros: Measure would generate about $24 million annually; state legislature does
not have to approve special (enabling) legislation prior to the measure being placed
on a ballot.
2 00002'
• Cons: Dedicated sales tax measure requires a supermajority (2/3) approval of
County's electorate — more difficult challenge than 1/8 -cent measure.
4. Funding Measure (Benefit Assessment District) Recommendation
3`d Choice, benefit assessment district measure
• Pros: Approval requires a simple (weighted) majority of property owners instead of
supermajority voter approval; no need for special legislation; not constrained to
primary or general election calendar as is the case with sales tax measure.
• Cons: Estimated revenue from $20 annual assessment about one -half of 1/8 -cent
sales tax increase; potential opposition of business community.
5. Funding Sunset Provision
Voters (or property owners) must reauthorize 1/8 -cent sales tax (or benefit assessment
measure) at the end of 10 years; 1/4 -cent sales tax must be reauthorized at the end of
5 or 7 years.
• Pros: Provides voters with the assurance that future revenues are contingent on
implementing a successful and cost - effective land conservation program.
Cons: 5 or 7 year sunset provision is very restrictive — provides little opportunity to
build public and private funding partnerships; grant funding agencies and
organizations may question the OSD's long -term commitment to land conservation.
CADocuments and Settings\kjeIIbg \My Documents \OSDACWrkngCmteFunding3.doc
3 000028