The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 03232004 - SD6 . Centra Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County , IAP FROM: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AD HOC COMMITTEE ON OPEN SPACE FUNDING SUPERVISOR JOHN GIOIA SUPERVISOR MARK DESAULNIER DATE: March 23, 2004 SUBJECT: Report on Proe2.sedPp en Space Funding Measure SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION 1) ACCEPT report from the Board of Supervisors Ad Hoc Committee on Open Space Funding regarding the status and recommended framework for a proposed open space funding measure; 2) CONSIDER declaring the Board of Supervisors' intent to work with the East Bay Regional Park District to form a Joint Powers Authority for the purpose of asking property owners in the County to approve a benefit assessment district to raise funds for open space; 3) SCHEDULE a decision on forming a Joint Powers Authority with the East Bay Regional Park district for an April Board of Supervisors meeting. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S): SUPERVISOR MARK DESAULNIER U RVISOR JOHN GIOIA ACTION OF BOARD ON March 23, 200.+ APPROVED ASR OMMENDED x OTHER x VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT :o ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES AYES: NOES: OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON ABSENT: ABSTAIN: THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: John Kopchik (925-335-1227) ATTESTED March 23, 2004 cc: Community Development Department (CDD) JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF County Administrator THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Clerk/Recorder Tax Collector Assessor Public Works BY , i ,DEPUTY Agricultural Commissioner G:\Conservation\open_spaee\board_orders\bos_update—and declare—intent_3-23-04.doe ADDENDUM TO ITEM SD.G March 23, 2004 The Board of Supervisors considered the report by the Ad Hoc Committee on Open Space Funding regarding the Proposed Open Space Funding Measure. John Kopchik, Community Development Department presented the staff report and recommendations. The Chair invited those who wished to address the Board on this issue. The following persons presented testimony: Tina Batt,Muir Heritage Land Trust,P.O.Box 2451,Martinez Kristine Hunt, Contra Costa Taxpayers Association Beverly Lane, East Bay Regional Park District Ron Brown, Save Mount Diablo, 61 Kevin Court,Walnut Creek The Chair then returned the matter to the Board for further discussion. Supervisor Greenberg requested that when this matter is returned to the Board of Supervisors, prior to approving the Joint Powers agreement that staff provide a breakdown of estimated costs used for the mail out ballot process, the amount of costs from the schools and special districts, the approximate amount of the funds repaid if the measure succeeds, annual revenue for the funding and explore the possibility of Bonds. She also requested that the Assessment District Engineer is also present for discussion. Supervisor Gioia then moved the recommendations with the modifications. Supervisor DeSaulnier second the motion and the Board took the following action: • ACCEPTED the report from the Board of Supervisors Ad Hoe Committee on Open Space Funding regarding the status and recommended framework for a proposed open space funding measure; • DECLARED the Board of Supervisors'intent to work with the East Bay Regional Park.District to form a Joint Powers Authority for the purpose of asking property owners in the County to approve a benefit assessment district to raise funds for open space; • DIRECTED staff to return to the Board of Supervisors with the Assessment District Engineer for discussion prior to approving the Joint Powers agreement with a breakdown of estimated costs used for the mail out ballot process,the amount of costs from the schools and special districts,the approximate amount of the funds repaid if the measure succeeds,annual revenue for the funding and explore the possibility of Bonds. Report on Proposed Open Space Funding Measure March 23, 2004 Page 2 of 2 FISCAL IMPACT Costs to develop the Open Space Funding Measure over the last year of the planning process have been funded from the Dougherty Valley Regional Enhancement Fund, consistent with Board action on November 12, 2002. Should the Board subsequently elect to enter into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement with the East Bay Regional Park District, and should the Joint Powers Authority elect to proceed with formation of assessment district, the costs of forming the benefit assessment district through a ballot process would be funded from the Regional Enhancement Fund as well. Approximately $50,000 of the Regional Enhancement Fund has been spent or committed to pay for work by staff and assessment engineering. Of the $450,000 allocated by the Board on November 12, 2002, approximately $370,000 remains unspent or uncommitted. Remaining funds would be used for conducting and tabulating the mailout ballot only if the Board subsequently authorizes the County's participation in the assessment district formation process. Should the proposed measure succeed, the Regional Enhancement Fund will be repaid from the proceeds for costs as allowed by law. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS This report represents the culmination of more than four years of work by the Board of Supervisors, the Beard of Supervisors' Ad Floc Committee on Open Space Funding, and the Advisory Committee on Open Space Funding to develop a proposal for funding open space needs in Contra Costa County (the Advisory Committee is a citizens' committee open to all interested individuals and groups that has helped to shape the proposal over the years). On October 1, 2002,the Board of Supervisors concurred in principle with the concept of the©raft Open Space Funding Measure and directed a series of actions to develop and refine that proposal. This report and its attachments detail the work that has transpired since October 2002, document the most current proposed framework of the funding measure, provides an update on the assessment engineering, and recommends a timeline and a process for the Board to make a final decision on working with the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) to conduct the assessment district ballot process. Background information. The history behind this proposal and the process used to frame it are described in ATTACHMENT 1: October 1 2002 Action of the Board of Supervisors (body onl)---no attachments). Financial aspects of the planning work are described in more detail in ATTACHMENT 2: November 12 2002 Action of the Board of Su ervisors (body only—no attachments). Project website: A dedicated website had been used throughout the planning process to provide notice of meetings and to make a wide variety of planning documents available to the interested public. The website can be accessed from the following url: www.cocool2ensi2ace.org For those without internet access, materials continue to be accessible by contacting staff at 925-335-1227. Report on Proposed Open Space Funding Measure March 23, 2004 Wage 3 of 3 Work since October 2002: 1 addition to numerous meetings of the various involved committees, Board Members, staff, and Advisory Committee participants have made numerous presentations to interested organizations and have taken other steps to notify the community of the proposal and solicit their input on it. ATTACHMENT 3: Comments Received Since October 1, 2002, summarizes key comments received and recommended changes to the measure. Two of the most significant recommended changes are the proposal to partner with EBRPD to form the assessment district and the proposal to grow the measure from $130 million to$175 million to fund stewardship and maintenance of open space resources. Current Proposal: ATTACHMENT 4: Draft Framework and ATTACHMENT 5: Draft Map of Allocations present the content of the funding measure, as recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee. Changes summarized in ATTACHMENT 3 are incorporated in ATTACHMENT 4 and 5. Next Steps/ Proposed Timeline: ATTACHMENT 6: Timeline summarizes the recommended schedule for Board and Joint Powers Authority decisions. It also recommends dates for initiating and concluding the assessment ballot process, if authorized. The recommended next step for the Beard or Supervisors is to consider approving a Joint Powers Authority Agreement with EBRPD to form a Joint Powers Authority, which would decide whether to form the assessment district and conduct the ballot process. Such action is recommended for an April Board of Supervisors meeting, possibly the April 6 meeting, if a draft Agreement is ready in time. Alternatively, it may be possible to schedule Joint Powers Authority consideration of forming the assessment district for later on the same day that the Board of Supervisors considers the Joint Powers Authority Agreement, in which case April 23 may be a preferable date. G:iConservation\open—spacelboard_ordersibos_update—and_deciare_intent 3-23-Q4.doc Contra Costa '' 4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County FROM: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AD HOC COMMITTEE ON OPEN SPACE FUNDING SUPERVISOR DONNA GERBER SUPERVISOR JOHN GIOIA DA'L'E: October 1,2002 SUBJECT, 582ort on Draft Proposed O n Space FundingMeasure SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION B CQ r�lMENDATION 1) ACCEPT report from Ad Hoc Committee on a Draft Proposed Open Space Funding Measure,Including discussion of the need for open space funding,public involvement in framing the draft proposal,highlights of the draft measure,and recommended next steps. 2) CONCUR in principle with the general concept of the Draft Proposed Open Space Funding Measure. 3)AUTHORIZE the following actions to continue to frame and define the Draft Proposed Open Space Funding Measure: a) PRESENT draft measure to the November Mayors`Conference and if possible,to an upcoming meeting of the City/County Relations Committee; b) DIRECT staff to further explore the costs of and possible revenues for bringing the draft measure to an election; c) DIRECT staff to work with the Assessor, as needed, to develop preliminary statistics on the numbers and types of various categories of parcels In the County; d) DIRECT staff to circulate a Request For Proposals from assessment district engineers for creation of a countywide benefit assessment district for open space purposes. CONTINUED ON ATTAACH itIENT: XiflYES SIGNATURE �fi®rr�r�rr`urrn rrr� RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATUL2E S .SUPERVIS [DONNA GERBER SUP RVISOR JOHN:GIOIA ACTION OF BOARD ON ;r sPc tuber 1,2002 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X ACCEPTED report from the AdRoc Committee on a Draft Proposed Open Space Funding Measure, including discussion of the need for open space funding, public involve- ment in framing the draft proposal highlights of the draft measure, and rec- ommended next steps; and CONCURRED in principle with the general concept of the Draft Proposed Open Space Funding Measure.{;,w addendun for speakers� Y VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HERESY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS{ABSENT NONEAND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN ) TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES AYES: NOES: _. - OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON ABSENT: ABSTAIN: THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: John Kopchlk(925-336-1227) ATTESTEDDctobl3r�•i:c�Flf�� cc: Community Development Department(CDD) "JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF County Administrator THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Assessor Public Works Agricultural Commissioner r/ , G:\Conservation\open—spacetbos—initiai_report-10-1-02.doo 13Y �ZIO+"'e ,DEPUTY ATTACHMENT 1 Report on Draft Proposed Open Space Funding Measure October 1,2002 Page 2 of 2 FISCAL IMPACT Modest staff costs to perform the tasks recommended above. BACKGROUNUIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On September 5, 2002, the Board of Supervisors' Ad Hoc Committee on Open Space Funding approved submission of a Draft Proposed Open Space Funding Measure to the full Board for an initial presentation and authorization of next steps needed to continue to frame and define the draft proposal. A copy of the draft proposal,Draft Framework For An Open Space Protection and Enhancement Funding Measure For Contra Costa County,and a map Illustrating key components of the proposal, are attached. This report provides additional background Information on the public process through which this proposal has developed. Origins of County interest In this Issue:The concept of developing a new local source of funding to acquire agricultural lands or conservation easements to conserve open space resources was initially raised in 1998 during Board discussions of the proposed Tassajara Agricultural Preserve. The Board requested a report from staff,"Options for Funding the Acquisition and Protection of open Space and Agdoulturai Lands in Contra Costa County", to summarize the available funding mechanisms. As Board discussion shifted to amending the Urban Limit Line ("ULL"), the open space funding issue was referred to an Ad Hoc Committee examining the LILL and growth policy. Emerging as one component of the Board of Supervisors' Smart Growth strategy, open space funding was referred to the Finance Committee and considered together with tools for promoting infill development. When the Board of Supervisors authorized polling in advance of the 1998 County Libraries ballot measure,the Board requested that the poll also explore the Issues of open space protection and economic revitalization. The results of the poll showed thatwhile combining all three issues into one measure was not feasible, support for open space funding was quite strong (approx. 83%) given the early stage of discussions. The survey analyst concluded that"it should be possible to shape an acceptable proposal over the next few years." The Board wished to continue exploration of this issue,and appointed Supervisors Gerber and Giola to serve on a new Ad Hoc Committee on Open Space Funding. Advisory Committee on Open Space Funding:To provide specific advice and input on the need for and feasibility of developing a new source of local public funds for open space acquisition, the Ad Hoc Committee convened an open committee of individuals and organizations Interested in this topic. This committee,the Advisory Committee on Open Space Funding,began meeting in January of 2000 and has met approximately every other month since that time. Any and all Interested individuals and groups were Invited to attend and participate(i.e.,the Advisory Committee had no pre-defined membership and was completely open). A major portion of the Advisory Committee's activities throughout its process has involved recruiting participation from groups that might not have known about the effort otherwise, including landowners and agriculturalists, the business and labor communities, and city govemments. Of course, a broad cross section of conservation organizations was also represented. At this time, the regular notification list for the Advisory Committee includes more than 200 individuals and groups (please see Attachment B to the proposal for a copy of the list). An additional 200 individuals are on a separate list to receive periodic updates on the progress of the effort. Some key milestones in the work of the Advisory Committee include the following: • A kickoff workshop in April of 2000 at Diablo Valley College that attracted more than 150 participants (the Advisory Committee statement on the need for open space funding which was presented and augmented at the DVC meeting is attached); • Development of a list of eight general categories of open space in need of new funding. The categories Identified were: Scenic Landscapes&Regional Parks ❖ Creeks/Watersheds ❖ Farmland ❖ Historic preservation AiT TACHMENT 1 Report on Draft Proposed Open Space Funding Measure October 7,2002 Page 3 of 3 •:� Local&Municipal Parks/recreation •: Shorelines 4 Trails/Public Access Facilities + Wildlife habitat and corridors ■ Circulation of a request for proposals("RFP")for open space"flagship"projects any where In the County consistent with at least une ur the eryrtt razneyurres ursuusseu above. This RFP was circulated to the entire 400-person mailing list. Approximately 50 proposals (totaling $250M) were received. These proposals became the foundation for framing the current Draft Funding Proposals. ■ Development of the Draft Proposed Open Space Funding Measure, a task that began In earnest in the summer of 2007 and has continued to be the focus of Advisory Committee work since that time. Subcommittee: A working subcommittee of the Advisory Committee directly compiled drafts of Advisory Committee work products for review by the largergroup,and met several times a month during portions of the process. The contributions of Subcommitte members deserves special recognition. Subcommittee participants Included: ,Christina Batt Muir Herita a Land Trust Arthur Bonwetl Save Mount Diablo Ron Brown Save Mount Diablo Richard Chamberlain Town of rags Jim Cutter Planning,Mediation&-Environmental Srvcs. David Dolbarg Trails for Richmond Action Committee TRAC Bob DoyteEast Lax R tonal Park District Jody Jones - City of walnut Creak Anthony Norris City of Richmond,Parks Department Steve Perdleck Muir Heritage Land Trust Mike Vukelich Contra Costa Farm Bureau Hermann weim lContra Costa Economic Partnership Additional outreach: Staff and members of the Ad Hoc and Advisory Committees have made a number of presentations to outside organizations on the work to frame,an Open Space Funding Measure. A partial list of groups to receive these detailed presentations so far includes: the Contra Costa County Citizens Land Alliance (Board and Annual Symposium); Sierra Club (Public Lands andVest Contra Costa Committees); Contra Costa Council(full council and Land Use Task Force); and the Contra Costa Economic Partnership. Of course, Advisory Committee participants represented a broad array of Interested organizations,and we expect most meeting attendees regularly updated their constituencies on the progress of the Advisory Committee. Additional detailed presentations by staff will likely be requested should the Board choose to move forward in its consideration of this proposal. Web site:Staff created a website for the Ad Hoc and Advisory Committee,and used that website as one means to transmit meeting materials to participants. The website contains an extensive collection of past and present work products and background information on the effort. The website may be accessed at the following urC http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cd/water/openspace.htm Attachments: • Draft Proposed ©pen Space Funding Measure ("Draft Framework for an ®pen Space Protection and Enhancement Measure for Contra Costa County") Draft map Illustrating key components of the Draft Proposed Funding Measure • May 2000 statement by the Advisory Committee on the need for open space funding t1BICD11APPLIGROUPS\ConservWohnlosforumauthfOO.doe ATTACHMENT 1 ................................................................. MACHMWT 2 GoConga Costa County TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AD HOC COMMITTEE ON OPEN SPACE FUNDING SUPERVISOR DONNA GERBER SUPERVISOR JOHN GIOIA DATE: November 12,2002 SUBJECT: Report on Draft Proposed Open S ,ace Funding Measure SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) &BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION REt0MjvtEPIDATION 1) DESIGNATE the Dough"Valley Regional Enhancement Fund as a source of funds to cover the costs of taking the Proposed Open Space Funding Measure to a mallout ballot 2) ALLOCATE and TRANSFER$450,000 from the County Regional Enhancement Fund to the Community Development Department to pay for assessment engineering, outside bond'counsel, direct costs of a mailout ballot and Community Development staff costs for this effort; 3) AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller to create a budget unit within the Community Development Department budget for the management of the transferred funds for this effort; 4) AUTHORIZE the Community Development Director, or his designee, to approve expenditures and perforin other administrative actions to support the Proposed Open Space Funding Measure,Including proceeding with solicitation,selection,and payment of an assessment engineer and,In cooperation with the County Administrator's Office, with solicitation,selection,and payment of outside bond counsel. 5) REQUEST that.a recommendation be brought back to the Board at a later date on conducting the mailout ballot. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _X,_)(ES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE (----O-HEIR SIGNATURES :Sb15tRVISOR ON GERRR k SU ERVISOR JOHN GIOIA ACTION OF BOARD ON November 12, 2002 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER x on this date, the Board of Supervisors approved the recommendations of the Ari Hoc Camittee on Open Space and requested that a recommendation on the mailout ballot be brought back to the Board upon completion'of the assessment engineering which would include a cost'allocation in the timeline. The following individual presented testimony in support of the recommendations. Ron Brown, Save Mount Diablo, 61 :Kevin Court, Walnut Creek, CA 94596' VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE x UNANIMOUS(ABSENT None ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES AYES: NOES: OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON ABSENT: ABSTAIN: THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: John Kopchik(925-335-1227) ATTESTED November 12 2002 cc: Community Development Department(CDD) JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF County Administrator THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR GAConservattonlopen spacelbos financial report 11-12-02.doo BY `V - ,DEPUTY AmuA Eivr! 2 Report on Draft Proposed Open Space Funding Measure November 12,2002 Page 2 of 2 FISCAL IMPACT Staff estimates the direct costs of conducting a countywide mailout ballot to be about $300,000, the costs for preparatory work including assessment engineering and outside bond counsel to be about $120,000 and Community Development staff support costs to be about$30,000. The County i%owns at`I It scot tkJolI awl It e uF I%Ap rv,u I a current balance of a little over $1 million, has sufficient funding to cover the estimated $450,000 in costs for the Proposed Open Space Funding Measure. Should the proposed measure succeed, the County Regional Enhancement Fund will be repaid from the proceeds for ail costs as allowed by law. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On October 1,2002,the Board of Supervisors concurred in principle with the concept of the Draft Open Space Measure and directed additional exploratory work on the measure. One component of the: additional work authorized related to Identifying a source of funds to cover the costs of taking the proposal to a mallout ballot. Securing funds for the ballot process and associated preparatory work is a critical first step that underlies the feasibility of the entire effort. The County Regional Enhancement Fund was established as part of the Development Agreement for Gale Ranch I In the Dougherty Valley and was Intended to be used,at the Board's discretion,to support actions such as transportation improvements and economic development activities. The Ad Hoc Committee believes that the establishment of an ongoing funding source for parks, open space, and trails,is a key component of the County's smart growth strategy,will maintAin and enhance the quality of life for County residents and employers,and will provide environmental and economic benefits. Attachments: October 1, 2002 Board of Supervisors action(Wont attachments) • Excerpt from Gale Ranch development agreement describing the County Regional Enhancement Fund d.NConservaUonlopen spacethos_8nancial_Feport t1-12-02.doc Overview of Key Comments Received Attachment 3 on Measure and Recommendation Provided by Board of Supervisors Ad Hoc Committee to Address Comments* 1 Advisory Committee, a variety of wording changes and recdmmended wording changes indicated education committee and corrections to make the plan clearer, easier in the text of the September 19 Draft staff to read, an mor compelling Framework Document were accepted by the Ad Floc Committee 2 Mayors'Conference/City greater city role increase the number of city reps on of Antioch oversight cmte from 2 to 4; provide a role for cities of JPA Exceutive Committee 3 Cities of Lafayette, Change the name of southern component Rename as"Lamodnda Greenbelt" Moraga and Orinda of Flagship D to suggest more relation to their communities 4 Cities of Lafayette, empower oversight crate more assign members 4 year terms spanning Moraga and©rinds more than one Supervisorial term; 3 &5 year terms to start 5 CC Council and its task Greater assurances that measure won't be Recommend adding 3 new funding forces mis-used in the land-use planning process principles (15 to 17). Modify others. Move and that the measure won't be co-opted by to a JPA structure that broadens future policies or programs; Broader governance and includes city distrubution of authority in governance; representation. assurances that the interests of landowners neighboring potential acquisitions will be protected 6 EBRD© greater role for EBRPD, more assurances a) make clear in text that EBRPD is eligible that new/redundant open space for funds; b)consider adding a principle in organizations aren't created the measure about relying on established open space providers with a long track record; c) make clearer that stewardship funds are linked to flagship and regional priority; 7 March 13 adv. Cmte mtg include school districts in list of partners so long as the lead agency remains city, eligible for partnership incentive funds in county, or local park district(like Ambrose), community priority pot allow any kind of partnership of 2 or more public agencies to compete for these funds (has to be more than a"paper"partnership; each party must contribture funds or in- kind). School districts should be specifically mentioned as eligible. 8 education committee there is a keen public interest not only in expand the measure to include additional protecting additional open space, but in funds for stewardship in a 75%:25% ratio of refurbishing and maintaining existing acquisition to stewardship; at$25 per resources as well household per year, will be possible to keep acquisition funds already planned and increase size of measure to include more stewardship. (preliminary ideas on this item are on a subsequent page under label: "Additional Detail on Item#8" 9 Chevron strong discomfort with what was perceived remove focus on Point San Pablo; change as a promise to buy Chevron's land on flagship C to Richmond Shoreline Point San Pablo Page 1 Overview of Key Comments Received Attachment 3 on Measure and Recommendation Provided by Board of Supervisors Ad Hoc Committee to Address Comments* Cc►<xlt + trf or: iy ,17 t� ?ftttti fsbr 10 some city planning perhaps a city/county JPA should manage management by a 19 member JPA would directors measure's be more cumbersome and inefficient;could not be funded with planned 3% admin costs; seek greater trust and partnership in other ways. Ad Hoc committee recommends that findings be necessary to over-rule Oversight Cmte. Also, Ad Hoc committee is recommending a JPA with EBRPD that will broaden control of the measure and provide a role for two city representatives on a nine-member Executive Committee that will final I discretion on grant awards. 11 EI Sobrante land owner Regional Priority 3(El Sobrante Foothills) Change name from"foothills"to"hills"; representatives too specific; "star"on maps seems to move star to valley floor to suggest interest highlight several parcels in all hillsides around El Sobrante(prior location suggested Interest only in southwest , adjust wording to clarify *All recommendations have been incorporated into the March 23,2004 recommended draft of the Framework. Page 2 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BBS DRAFT FRAMEWORK. FOR AN OPEN SPACE PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT FUNDING MEASURE FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY March 23,2004 Earlier draft version of'this document was approved in concept by the Board of Supervisors on October 1, 2002. This revised version reflects recommendations of the Board of Supervisors Ad Hoc Committee on Open Space Funding, Supervisors John Gioia and Mark DeSaulnier, who in turn were advised by the Contra Costa County Advisory Committee on Open Space Funding. ^j'*`'`.,w � 3 � �,�•gi."'j� } F td r't G ikh�.t.. ++ � �^��,.nk°J y, � •'f �, IF i��5 inti J - i 3 _. •J ,� R . " � � �� ''gyp„ r f ar°'� r ;7 11 }� v I. PURPOSE OF THE FUNDING MEASURE The Board of Supervisors created the Ad Hoc Committee on Open Space Funding to make recommendations on whether and how to create new local funding for open space, parks, recreation, natural resource, and farmland preservation needs throughout the County. To achieve this ,goal, the Ad Hoc Committee convened an open committee of individuals and organizations interested in this topic to provide specific advice and input. After more than three and one-half years of meetings, this citizen committee, the Contra Costa County Advisory Committee on Open Space Funding, has recommended a one hundred and seventy-five million-dollar ($175,OOO,000) funding measure to be placed before the property owners of the County, proceeds to be managed by a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) of the County and the East Bay Regional Park District and granted by the JPA to appropriate organizations to fill a wide variety of open space needs. Page 1 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BOS A. THE VALUE OF OPEN SPACE The variety of open spaces in Contra Costa County--from pristine natural parks, scenic shorelines, and productive tracks of prime farmland to neighborhood parks, trails, and urban creeks---are a crucial component of the quality of life of local residents. Collectively,these open space resources provide many benefits: Protect the visual character,heritage, and beauty of the County; Conserve water quality by protecting land adjacent to urban creeks, lakes, and the Bay. ° Promote educational opportunities for children and adults to learn about the County's human and natural history; Create and maintain parks and recreation facilities where people can hike, bike,play,and find solitude; ° Protect the richest farmland in the County for continued food production; Conserve habitat and corridors for wildlife; ° Create a physical setting and amenities that attract and retain businesses, jobs, a vibrant culture, and talented people; ° Complement sound, balanced land-use planning and efforts to address traffic problems. B. PRESENT CHALLENGES The booming regional economy can foster vibrant communities and create economic opportunity for County residents. However,this economic growth must be complemented with: continued protection of our many open space resources if our duality of life is to be maintained. At the very least, we should build on the strong history of open space protection in this County and continue to provide parks and trails and other open space resources to keep up with a growing population. But, if we wish to pass on to future generations a community that retains the attractions that drew us here, we need to identify those characteristics of the County that we most wish to protect and enhance, whether these be defining natural features like Mount Diablo, the shoreline of San Francisco Bay, the Carquinez Straits, and Delta, or the fertile farmland of East County---or backyard open space resources—like neighborhood parks, healthy urban creeks, scenic ridgelines, and hiking and biking trails---that make our developed and developing areas pleasant places to live and work. C. NEED FOR NEW LOCAL FUNDING Meeting the challenge of protecting open space in the future will require funding. The passage in 2000 and 2002 of state water and park bonds (Propositions 12, 13,40, and 50) and passage of any future state park and water bonds will provide some funding for projects in Contra Costa County, but substantial portions of the bond revenues will be set aside for competitive grants that require or encourage a local match. A new source of local funds is needed to leverage such sources and to provide revenues adequate to meet future open space needs. Some additional reasons we need new local funding are provided below: Page 2 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BOS ° East Bay Regional Park District's Measure AA was passed in. 1988, Revenues from it are approximately 90% spent; the remainder is entirely committed. ° City and local recreation districts are hard pressed to keep up with building new facilities and renovating older facilities. ° Private non-profit organizations like land trusts, creek restoration and regional trail groups present opportunities for partnerships between the public and private sectors. New funding can complement and supplement the work of the EBRPD and extend local support to new types of conservation priorities such as protection of prime farmland and other types of agriculture, use of conservation easements, and restoration of urban creeks. ° Existing funds for open space stewardship are strained, and a flexible new source of funds is needed to cover critical management functions such as ranger patrols to protect public safety and natural resources. The following comparison further illustrates that, despite past accomplishments, Contra Costa County now lags behind most other Bay Area counties in terms of open space per capita and future funding revenues. Coat arlson of Urbanization,O ert S ace, and Future Open Space Funding Among Bay Area Counties Contra Costa Napa Marin Solana Sonoma San Mateo Santa Alameda San Clara I Francisco Percent of land area that is 26.2% 3.5% 11.7% 8.6% 7.2% 19.9% 18.7% 25.5% 81.2% developed' Percent of land area available for development' 9.5% 2.3% 5.7% 6.3% 6.9% 7.7% 4.1% 7.5% 7.0% Acres of protected open .12 acres per .84 .70 .26 .23 .14 .10 .08 .01 space per capital(Bay area person acres/ acres per acres/ acres per acres per acres per acres per acres/ average=.14 acres/person) person person person erson ersonrson person person Secure future funding for Measure AA None On-going Solano ih cent O.S.Dist.has Initiated a Measure AA N/A open Space (does(dries not city&grant- yet property tax County Is sales tax a tax&bond, parcel tax {status same (parks i include Proposition12 and able portion increment now explor- for open but bond is and an O.S. as CCC); dept. spent;EBRPD provides for ing an OS space and nearly spent. District.in Landfill budget) other state/federal sources— portion 90% acquisitions funding a coup Count has 2001,voters ti g ) see below) p � . .. g county Y Aping fee to spent,remain- measure open space parks dept.W/1 approved a provide ing 10%alto- district annual $8M/year significant cated_bypark I 1 1 bud et, assessment. o,s.funding. D. TYPES OF OPEN SPACE THAT NEED FUNDING The following categories descriptions explain the variety of"Open Space"actions that are needed in the County: Scenic Landscapes and Regional Parks--a-Preserve defining features of our landscape such as important ridgelines and other scenic landforms, green buffers, connections between existing parkland areas, and other unique landscape or community features; r ABAG estimates from"Status and Trends 2000",based on data from 1995(.ABACI Figures do not consider the County's 55/35 Ordinance which would restrict urbanization of the County to 35%of the land area) 2 Greenlnfo Network, 1999 3 East Bay Regional Park District and Bay Area Open space Council Page 3 Attachment 4 to , March 23 report to BOS CreekslWatersheds--Protect & restore urban & other creeks, watersheds, wetlands, and soil, and improve water quality, safety and flood plain management; Farmland—Maintain the County's agricultural heritage through purchase of conservation easements, buffers, irrigation water or other protections for prime agricultural soils, rangeland, and unique agricultural features; Historic preservation---Preserve historic structures and cultural resources and provide educational opportunities .focal & Municipal ParkslRecreation—1 nhance and create local parks to improve quality of life in our existing communities and complement revitalization efforts; provide healthy, safe recreational alternatives for our youth; Shorelines—Protect and restore the shorelines and marshes of the Bay and Delta, provide public access, education and recreation opportunities, and improve water quality. TrailslPublic Access Facilities—Close gaps in major Bay Area,trails such as the Bay Trail and Ridge Trail, unify and connect existing regional trail systems, improve existing trails, public access and equestrian access; Wildlife habitat and corridors—Protect/enhance the habitat of unique and valuable plants and animals. E. FUNDING PRINCIPLES The following principles are the basis for the funding measure allocation categories and the criteria within each category. They will also guide the implementation of the Measure and serve as benchmarks for the Citizens' Oversight Committee in reviewing project proposals. These following eight principles are intended to maximize the public benefit derived from the Measure and to assure fair and equitable distribution of revenues. A project need not address each of these eight principles to be funded, but the consistency with principles will be considered when allocations are determined. 1) To provide funding to help complete major Open Space projects and programs of countywide impact, scale, or scope; 2) To provide local matching funds to governmental agencies and non- profit groups as a way to attract State,Federal and Foundation funds to specific Open Space projects with the County; 3) To provide per capita funds directly to local jurisdictions (e.g., cities and local recreation agencies, and the County) to fund park and recreation projects based on local need as determined by locally elected and appointed officials; 4) To provide new methods for Open. Space protection, including the appropriate use of conservation easements, connections among existing parks, and protection of urban creeks and prime farmland; Page 4 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BOS 5) To encourage continuation of private agricultural operations through purchase of conservation easements; 6) To distribute the funds equitably throughout the County both geographically and demographically; 7) To balance funding between large projects of countywide impact with more localized projects and programs; 8) To assure that new and existing open spaces receive necessary stewardship. In addition, there are several principles that assure the taxpayers that the funds will be expended in a way that complements good public policy. These too will be used by the Citizens' Oversight Committee to gauge the appropriateness of a project proposal. 9) To not preclude the development of affordable workforce housing, and, where possible, to provide park amenities that complement new housing; 10) To minimize impacts and respect adjacent property owners and the values they place on their property; 11) To rely on existing institutions to implement the measure, to the extent possible, so that funds are spent efficiently and by those with the most relevant experience; 12) To reward projects with demonstrated community support; 13) To ensure that funded projects are feasible and have a credible plan for funding and performing needed long-term maintenance; 14) To acquire property or easements only from willing sellers. Finally, several additional principles are included to guard against unintended consequences. 15) The projects and programs in this measure are not land use designations and shall not be used as such in the land use planning process; 16) The terms of this Measure shall govern all allocations of funds hereunder notwithstanding any future policy or program related to open space acquisitions that may be adopted within Contra Costa County; 17) No funding from this Measure shall be used to acquire lands for which there is an active development application, filed by a person with an ownership or equitable interest in the property, pending before a land use planning agency, without that person's consent. Page 5 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BOS II. GENERAL ALLOCATION OF FUNDS The general funding categories and allocations for the 30-year life of the measure are: Acquisition/Capital Expenditures ° Flagship projects: $65,000,000 ° Regional priorities: $27,200,000 ° Community priorities: $27,700,000 ° Opportunity Reserve Fund: $6,300,000 ° Administration: $3,800,000 TOTAL ACQUISITION/CAPITAL: $130,000,000 Stewardship Expenditures ° Maintenance of existing regional-scale open space: $20,950,000 Maintenance of new regional-scale open space: $13,970,000 ° Competitive grants for specific stewardship & restoration projects: $8,730,000 ° Administration: 1,350.000 TOTAL STEWARDSHIP: $45,000,000 GRAND TOTAL FOR OPEN SPACE MEASURE: $175,000,000 All proposed allocations are in 2004 dollars and are based on net present value estimates of a 30-year revenue stream. Proposed allocations should increase over time,based on any growth in revenue to the funding measure, on inflation rates, and on the amount of time that passes before the project is implemented. Stewardship funds shall be allocated on a pay-as-you-go-basis(i.e., no borrowing shall occur against the revenue stream allocated for stewardship). Capital funds may be allocated annually as revenues accrue, or the IPA may determine to borrow against the some or all of anticipated revenue stream for capital projects in order to provide grants for acquisitions and other capital projects earlier than would be possible on a pay-as-you-go basis. Factors that will be considered include rates of interest and land value inflation. Page 6 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BOS Open Space Allocations ($175 Million) (Us WWI ( 130 ) AN Stewardship Acquisitions/Capital 045 Million) ($130 Million) s #411 *3%of stewardship funds are also allocated for administration. Chart to be revised. III. DESCRIPTION OF FLAGSHIP PROJECTS Descriptions of these recommended Flagship projects are provided below. The attached map shows the general locations of these recommended Flagship projects (alternatively referred to as "Flagship Opportunity Areas") that are budgeted for $63,000,000. An additional $2,000,000 is allocated to this category for future opportunities(see section vtt). A. MOUNT DIABLO PARK EXPANSIONS Mt. Diablo State Park is one of California's oldest and most heavily used. This park is in an area of intense development pressure. The very slopes of the mountain are threatened, including much of North Peak and major canyons on southern and eastern slopes. The mountain is home to many special status species. To protect these species, corridors of protected lands need to be made with other adjacent protected areas. $5,000,000 is set aside for additions to this park. Stephen Joseph Page 7 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BQS B. SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL COMPLETION In the 1990s, the California legislature adopted a bill identifying the need for a trail that would ring the San Francisco Bay and they provided some seed money to help in this development. in the last 10 years, this emerging trail has become a major recreational resource for the entire Bay Area. The cost of construction was to be handled by local agencies. The EBRPD has built major segments of the trail but substantial gaps remain. By allocation of$5,000,000 to this trail, the Contra Costa County component of the trail could be completed. This includes the missing links between Richmond and Crockett. These funds can be utilized for both right-of-way and trail construction costs. C. RICHMOND SHORELINE This allocation will support acquisition, restoration, and public access along the shoreline of West County from the county line near Point Isabel northward to the to the southern edge of Point Pinole Regional Park. This 30-mile stretch of shoreline contains a variety of scenic and cultural treasures and offers stunning three-bridge views of San Francisco Bay, the San Francisco skyline, and Mount Tamalpais. There are numerous public access and recreational opportunities, including: hiking, biking, picnicking, kayaking, and various fishing and boating piers. Existing parks and trails such as Miller-Knox Regional Shoreline, Rosie the Riveter World War II Home Front National Historic Park, and the East Shore State Park, Point Isabel Regional Shoreline, and a planned and partially completed segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail provide a foundation upon which these funds can build. Wetland protection and restoration opportunities also exist. $5,000,000 is set aside for this work. D. MUIR HERITAGE CORRIDOR i 's This is the area where John Muir walked and worked when he wasn't traveling through the Sierras. This corridor includes portions of city/county designated Briones Hills Agricultural Preservation Area. The corridor connects Hercules together with Martinez along both sides of State Route 4. This land is primarily one of private cattle ranches. Acquisition of conservation easements, parklands, Page 8 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BOS and protection of grazing lands will be pursued to protect the scenic heritage of the area.. $5,000,000 is allocated for this area. The southern portion of the corridor flanks FBMUD and BBRPD lands on the boundaries of Lafayette and Orinda and extends west and south to include the Caldecott wildlife corridor. $3,000,000 is set aside for acquisitions to fill in the gaps between public lands and the existing development. E. PRIME FARMLAND/AGRICULTURAL CORE The County has some of the best farmland in the state. Our last largely contiguous farming area is located in �µ the lands east of Brentwood from. Knightsen to Byron. Horne to nut and frit trees and field crops, this area is an important natural and cultural resource and provides a link between city dwellers and our food sources. The area is a recognized destination for classroom fieldtrips and family outings. The State has a program to help purchase easements and Brentwood has launched an ambitious agricultural :R enterprise program, but a countywide local match is needed to insure the State of our commitment to the program and to complement the efforts of the City of Brentwood. $5,000,000 is to be set aside for this effort. F. NORTH CONTRA COSTA WETLANDS AND RIVERFRONT As one of the defining features of the County, the San Francisco and San Pablo Bay-Delta system is the cornerstone of our visual amenities. Over the last 3 decades great strides have been made to acquire and open the waterfront to public use. There are however substantial gaps in public ownership and a definite need for water quality and habitat improvements. This category will provide funds for public agencies to fill those gaps. The funds can be spent from Pinole to Oakley on waterfront land acquisition, trail and facility development. Approximately half the funds will be spent between Pinole and Martinez within several hundred feet of the shoreline. The other half will be spent on the shoreline from the naval weapons station to Bethel Island. $5,000,000 is reserved for these purposes. Page 9 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to B®S G. TASSAJARA The Tassajara Valley sAA extends from the eastern edge of the Blackhawk Ranch development along Camino Tassajara, east and then south to the tx Alameda County line. The valley has been under pressure to develop, fueledMM y in part by some ranchers' desire to retire from sometimes unprofitable operations. $5,000,000 will be reserved Bob walker for acquiring properties either in fee simple or their development rights in order to preserve the open character of the valley, to provide opportunities for continuing ranch operations, and, to avoid additional traffic congestion. It is anticipated that maximizing permanent open space will be best achieved by acquisitions along hillsides and ridgelines, however, properties along Camino Tassajara and other roadways will be considered when cost-effective opportunities present themselves. H. LAS TRAMPAS OPEN SPACE CONNECTIONS Extending from the Lafayette/Walnut Creek boundary south to the Alameda County line this prominent ridgeline parallels the scenic 1-580 and frames the western boundary of San Ramon, Danville, Alamo and the southern borders of Moraga and Walnut Creek. The area extends to the edge of St. Mary's College. The EBRPD's Las Trampas Wilderness area is located within this sub-region. Land conservation efforts need to be extended to the north and south to better protect this prominent physical feature and permanently conserve a unique urban wildnerness and safeguard the watersheds of our public drinking water reservoirs. $5,000,000 is set aside for either agricultural easements or fee simple acquisition. I. KIRKER HILLS An essential visual resource for k the Cities of Concord, Clayton, Pitts-burg, and Walnut Creek, this ranching area frames the northern `d4" 1, rk° flank of central and eastern ,3 Contra Costa County. Immediately to the east is Black Diamond Mines Regio-nal t Preserve. The purchase of r agricultural easements to protect this area into the future as ranching lands will protect this Page 10 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BOS area from future sprawl and large lot development. In some cases the land may be acquired for addition to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve. $5,000,000 is set aside to purchase lands or easement in this area. J. EAST COUNTY FOOTHILLS i y K � y This large area extends from the southern end of Antioch and the western boundary of Brentwood south to the Byron Airport. This grassland and oak savannah area is the home to many endangered species. As the heart of the remaining grazing lands in the County, this area needs to be protected for both agricultural production and habitat preservation. Public ownership of conservation easements will insure this area will remain a viable corridor for wildlife; $5,000,000 is set aside for this effort. K. LAMORINDA GREENBELT Open space protection opportunities exist along the northern edge of the cities of Lafayette and Orinda, from the Briones Regional Park area near Acalanes road west along the flanks of EBMUD and EBRPD to include the Caldecott wildlife corridor abve the Caldecott Tunnel. $3,000,000 is set aside for acquisitions to fill in the gaps between public lands and the existing development. Page 11 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BOO L. CREEK AND WATERSHED RESTORATION PROGRAM This funding category will provide seed money for creek and watershed projects located throughout the County. Specific objectives include: -. ❖ Restoration of the natural �� character and function of creeps. •+* Transformation of creeks into community amenities and local w jl educational opportunities through enhancement of visual = , character and improved public access. •«• Enhancement of water duality, including reduced,pollution and sedimentation to benefit public health and struggling fish and wildlife populations. ❖ Watershed restoration, including weed management, and improved permeability to Patricia Mathews restore natural groundwater recharge and minimize flooding. The $5,000,000 set aside for this flagship will be divided geographically roughly as follows---One million dollars each for five geographic areas, which are: ° West County watersheds from Crockett to the Alameda County line. ° East County watersheds from Bay Point to Oakley and Brentwood. ° North and Central County watersheds, including Alhambra Creek, Grayson Creek, Mt. Diablo Creek, and Walnut Creek from the City of Walnut Creep north to the Bay. ° South and Central County watersheds including the Lamorinda area and the lands south of Walnut Creek to the Alameda County line. The final one million should be reserved for the rural, less-impacted portions of each of these watersheds. Project nomination for grants will be submitted through the Contra Costa Watershed Forum and will be prioritized for funding by a six member committee representing one member each from the Contra Costa Flood Control District, the Contra Costa Community Development Department, the Contra Costa Clean Water Program, Contra Costa Resource Conservation District, the Contra Costa/Alameda Weed Management Area and a representative from a countywide creek advocacy organization appointed by the other five members. Grant allocations in any fiscal year shall not exceed $500,000. Page 12 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BOS M. 'TRAIL CONSTRUCTION AND ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM This will provide funding for the construction of trails, acquisition of right-of-way for trails, for enhancements along existing trails, and for improved access by the disabled. $5,000,000 will be established for off-road(Class 1) trails. This will be based on competitive grants to be reviewed annually and projects that attract matching funds should be encouraged and recognized in the decision making process. Funding of facilities shall be reviewed annually and shall be dispersed with a$500,000 per year maximum. Priority will be given to funding projects to provide sub-regional or regional connectivity, that is trails connecting communities, or regional parks or major city parks together. Allocations shall be made by the Citizens' Oversight Committee. IV. DESCRIPTIONS OF REGIONAL PRIORITIES & ALLO- CATION PROCESS The Regional Priorities category is to be funded for$27,200,000. This category includes numerous very worthy recreation and Open Space funding projects that are important to geographic, sub-regional areas of the County for which there are insufficient local resources to accomplish the project. These projects will require matching funds of at least one-to-erne, though funding measure revenues can be used as the local match for other programs that require local match. Most of the funds in this category will be allocated by the Citizens' Oversight Committee upon receipt of nominations. The identified projects and their maximum funding levels are described below: 1) Fest Moraga/Indian Valley Open Space Acquisition($2M) This will expand the publicly protected lands adjacent to the San Leandro Reservoir Watershed and provide for public parklands connectivity to Sibley Regional Park, 2) Burgon Ridge in the Lafayette/Walnut Creek Area Open Space Acquisition($2M) Burton Ridge parallels the western boundary of Rossmoor and these rugged lands could be added to the embryonic open space system found in the area. 3) El Sobrante Hills Open Space Acquisition($2M) Page 13 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BOS The hillsides that surround the El Sobrante Valley have several opportunities for acquisition. This will provide seed money to protect the rugged and slide prone hillsides and contribute to completion of the Bay Area Ridge Trail. 4) Big Break Shoreline and Delta Science Center in the Oakley area($2M) Funds from this measure could be used to develop local park amenities near the Dutch Slough Restoration and/or fund the construction of a major educational and scientific institution on the Delta Shoreline, the Delta Science Center. 5) Old River Delta Shoreline Park Acquisition and Development near Discovery Bay($2M) The western Delta is rich in recreational potential but there is a lack of public recreational facilities in this part of the County; this would fund a shoreline park. 6) John Marsh Home Pioneer Park Development near Brentwood($2M) The John Marsh Home is the oldest home in the County and the funding would be utilized for improvements to the historic facility and to enhance the surrounding public property. 7) El Cerrito, Kensington, and Southern Richmond: San Francisco Bay Shoreline to the Hills Urban Open Space& Creeks (El Cerrito area) ($2M) The highly urbanized southwest area of the County presents a wide variety of opportunities for new parks and open space, including wetland restoration on the shoreline, creek restoration and associated pocket parks through the lowlands, and hillside protection opportunities in the hills. 8) Walnut Creek Watershed Enhancement Project($2M) This would provide local agencies funding for projects that enhance this creek system from San Ramon and Lafayette to Suisun Bay. Benefits would include implementation of the 1992 restoration plans for the Walnut Creek Channel and spin-off benefits to the Iron Horse Trail. 9) Concord Naval Weapons Station Habitat Restoration and Wetlands Access ($2M) Funds would support restoration of habitat and public access to wetland areas in this moth-balled military facility, consistent with interim use plan now being formulated. 10) Lindsay Wildlife Museum Off Site Wildlife Rehabilitation Center($1.2M) The Lindsay Wildlife Museum needs a rural facility to care for larger species of rehabilitated wildlife and prepare them for re-introduction to the wild. edu Page 14 ............................................. ................................................... ................................. Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BOS 11) Byron Airport/Habitat Corridor($2M) This is to acquire lands between the Byron Airport and the Los "vaqueros Reservoir to the fragmented habitat lands together. 12) Bishop Ranch Big Canyon Park Expansion in the San Ramon area($1M). This is to provide parkland expansion that will tie parkland in southwest San Ramon into a cohesive unit. 13) Blackhawk/Danville Greenbelt($1M). This provides funding to secure the existing boundary between planned growth areas and the rural Tassajara`Dalley Flagship area. 14) Northwest Communities Open Space Connection($1 M) This provides funding to tie together open space and parklands between Hercules, Rodeo and Crockett. 15) Pittsburg/Antioch Hillsides($1 M). This provides funding to tie existing park and dedicated open space lands together into a cohesive system along the southern edges of Pittsburg and Antioch. 16) Wildcat Creek`frail Extension in the North Richmond and San Pablo areas ($2M) This will help fund completion of the Wildcat Creek Trail from the Bay Trail in North Richmond through San Pablo to Alvarado Park at the foot of the hills. The trail may not be able to follow the creep in all segments due to right-of-way constraints, and alternative alignments that may be necessary in some places are also eligible for funding. Other funds will be allocated based upon grant requests to the Citizens' Oversight Committee. All requests for funding of Regional Priority Projects will need to identify the agency that will implement and operate the facility, ensure that the property will be protected in perpetuity and identify the anticipated source of matching funds. Non-profit groups could satisfy match requirements by developing an endowment fund to assure operation and maintenance. Y. DESCRIPTION OF COMMUNITY PRIORITY ALLOCA- TIONS Due to the extensive unmet funding for local park, recreation, trail, open space, and historic preservation purposes, this funding measure will provide twenty-one (21)percent of the funds as a pass through to local governmental agencies that provide park and Page 15 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to 30S recreation services. An allocation of $27,720,000, or approximately $28 per County resident, is recommended for this purpose. Some additional features of this allocation are described below: 0 Eligible projects include: park acquisition and development, park structures, open space areas, trails, restoration of creeks and other natural resources, recreational facilities, and park renovations. Operation and maintenance costs are ineligible. ° All cities, park and recreation districts, county service areas or other local governmental agencies are eligible to receive funding if they are authorized and provide parks and recreation services to a community or area. That cities get credit for all population within the city; if there is a unit of government that provides services to the unincorporated area within the city SOI, the funds would go to that local entity In cases of overlap —the funds go to the city unless otherwise requested by the city. ° All remaining funding for the unincorporated areas will be allocated by the Board of Supervisors as they deem appropriate. Five percent of the $27,720,000 allocated for the Community Priorities category ($1,300,000) will be reserved for projects that are jointly sponsored by two or more public agencies so long as the lead agency and land manager is a city, the County, or a park district. Eligible partner agencies include but are not limited to EBRPD and school districts. This Partnership Incentive will be allocated by a competitive grants process established by the Citizens' Oversight Committee. The Partnership Incentive may not fund more than 20%of the cost of a project. 0 Community Priority funds shall be reimbursed after the project is completed. The exception is that up to 15%of the grant amount can be requested for the up-front design and permit costs. The Citizens' Oversight Committee will consider requests for up-front appropriations. Funding to identified agencies will be provided after receipt of an action by the elected body of each agency specifying the proposed use of the funds and describing how the project conforms to the purposes of this benefit assessment district. For the 85%or more of funds to be paid on a reimbursement basis, documentation of the completed project is also required. The Citizens' Oversight Committee would develop more detailed procedures for disbursement of funds within the first year of operation Applying the above criteria to the 2000 Federal Census Figures, the Community Priority allocations will be as described in the table in Attachment A. Page 16 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BOS VI. OPEN SPACE STEWARDSHIP Stewardship of protected lands and resources is an essential complement to protection of all forms of open space in Contra Costa County. Important open space stewardship activities include the management and restoration of sensitive resources, maintenance and operation of public access facilities, park patrols, and the protection of public health and safety. To address these needs, approximately $45 million is allocated under this measure as follows: 1) Allocate about 80%($34,920,000)of the stewardship funds for operating and maintaining regional-scale scenic landscape facilities on a programmatic basis; o reserve 40%($13,970,000)of these funds for operating new scenic landscapes purchased with funds from the Flagship and,possibly, the Regional Priority categories; it is anticipated that in the first years of the implementing the Measure,when few if any new acquisitions have been made,these funds shall accumulate and be held in reserve until new acquisitions are requiring maintenance funds; o 60%of these funds($20,950,000) shall be allocated for existing large-scale regional facilities operated by State Parks (5%or$1,050,000) and EBRPD (95%or$19,900,000) in Contra Costa County; includes ranger patrols,public safety, opening land banks, and other operations and maintenance 2) Allocate about 20% ($8,730,000)of the stewardship funds on a competitive, project-specific basis o regional-scale open lands or trails only o not patrols o focus on stewardship projects that are capital in nature(i.e. restoration, enhancement, trails, and public access) o many agencies eligible, including all agencies and organizations that operate parks o match required All projects awarded funds from this measure, whether for stewardship or capital projects, will be required to prepare a stewardship plan and to demonstrate a source of funds to operate and maintain lands and resources. Inclusion of stewardship funding would complement acquisition of conservation easements. Stewardship funds could be deposited in an annuity or other interest earning endowment account to support easement stewardship in perpetuity. Such an approach is attractive because it would address the costs of open space conservation in a comprehensive matter. VII. DESCRIPTION OF THE OPPORTUNITY RESERVE FUND An Opportunity Reserve Fund of$8,300,000 will be created and held for capital projects of flagship or regional priority level that aren't presently advocated or are subsequently determined to be under-funded. Not less than $2 million of these funds shall be reserved for flagship level projects. Page 17 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BOB VIII.PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 1. Appointment of Citizens' Oversight Committee The Citizens' Oversight Committee shall be responsible for overseeing the implementation of this funding measure. The 19 members of this committee shall serve four-year terms spanning more than one County Board of Supervisors terms (at the outset of the Measure, initial terms may be 3 or 5 years so that future four year terms will span more than one County Board of Supervisors terms). Seats on the Citizens' Oversight Committee shall represent specific interests and constituencies related to open space protection. To strengthen the connection between members and their representatives, a nomination process will be used that assigns responsibility for committee nominations to a variety of organizations. Criteria for selection of nominees will be up to the nominating organization, but all members must reside within Contra Costa County and within the area served by the nominating authority. The Citizens' Oversight Committee shall be composed of members representing the following interests or organizations: 5 citizens appointed by the Board of Supervisors, one by each Supervisor 1 citizen appointed by the EBR-PD Board of Directors 4 citizens nominated by the Contra Costa Mayors' Conference and ratified by the JPA Executive Committee 1 citizen nominated by the Contra Costa Association of Special Districts and ratified by the JPA Executive Committee 1 person nominated by a business organization* 1 person nominated by a land trust* 1 person nominated by ranching and farming interests* 1 person nominated by an environmental organization* 1 person nominated by a labor organization* 1 person nominated by a real estate developer organization* 1 person nominated by a government finance watchdog or taxpayer organization* 1 person nominated by a social justice/equity organization* *Nominations for these representatives shall be solicited from the various organizations that are active on these issues. Citizens' Oversight Committee members representing government agencies shall not be elected members of the governing board of those agencies. 2. Responsibilities of the Citizens' Oversight Committee a. Guide the administration of the funding measure consistent with the funding principles described above. Page 18 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BOS b. Determine which agency or agencies will receive funds to implement flagship projects,regional priorities,and opportunity reserve funds. c. Determine the priorities for the expenditure of funds (i.e., to allocate funds equitably and logically over time, whether this involve allocation of annual tax and assessment revenues or the selling and refunding of any revenue bonds). d. Determine the appropriate amount and increments of bonds to be sold, if any; to balance funding needs, interest rate opportunities and the flow of bond repayment revenues. e. Determine that matching funding will be available for the regional priorities' projects(which require a one-to-one match or better). f. Ensure that matching funds stretch the use of bond funds. All bond funds should be considered local match against funding programs. g. Determine the role of conservation easements in the acquisition priorities. h. Allocate funds for trail and watershed projects as described. i. Balance competing demands for funding geographically. j. Allocate the Partnership Incentive within the community priority funds. k. Reallocate unused funds within each category if excess funds are available or if projects can't be completed. Reallocated funds shall remain in the geographic area from which they originated. 1. Adjust the cap on stewardship expenditures after 10 years. m. Conduct an annual review of funded projects and to oversee the preparation of an annual report by staff. n. Conduct other actions necessary to implement the funding measure 3. Sunset of Citizens' Oversight Committee Once 100%of the funds are allocated the Committee will sunset. 4. Role of the Joint Power's Authority(JPA) Governing Board and Executive Committee The JPA Governing Board shall consist of members of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and the EBRPD Board of Directors. The Page 19 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BOS responsibilities of the JPA Governing Board shall include approving the proposed formation of the benefit assessment district, conducting the assessment district ballot process, overseeing tabulation of ballots, approving the annual assessments(if approved by property owners during the ballot process),and approving the annual JPA budget. Other duties shall be delegated to the JPA Executive Committee, including but not limited to the appointment of the Citizens' Oversight Committee members nominated by outside organizations, the approval of Citizens' Oversight Committee recommendations, and approval of grant contracts. The JPA Executive Committee shall consist of up to 9 members, 5 from the County Board of Supervisors and 2 from the EBRPD Board of Directors, and 2 nominated by the Contra Costa Mayors' Conference. To take action, a quorum of 5 members must be present. The JPA Executive Committee will be responsible for the primary administration of the funding measure and shall ensure that the funding proceeds are spent expeditiously. The JPA Executive Committee shall also be the body responsible for reviewing nominations and appointing members representing outside organizations to the Citizens' Oversight Committee. Such appointments shall require a 2/3 vote. The Citizens' Oversight Committee shall provide policy advice and guidance to the funding program, but the JPA Executive Committee shall have decision-making authority on expenditures. The JPA Executive Committee may over-rule an allocation recommendation of the Citizens' Oversight Committee only by 2/3 vote and findings supporting this decision consistent with the Funding Principles. The JPA Governing Board and Executive Committee shall receive an annual report that outlines the work accomplished over the last fiscal year and a program for anticipated expenditures for the next three fiscal years. 5. Operation of Citizens' Oversight Committee, JPA Governing Board, and JPA Executive Committee The Citizens' Oversight Committee, JPA Governing Board, and JPA Executive Committee will be operated in accordance with the Brown Act and the Contra Costa County Better Government Ordinance. All meetings of these bodies shall be open to the public and shall be located within the County. Citizens' Oversight Committee members shall not be paid to serve. 6. Participation by Associations of Public Agencies Within nine (9) months of the certification of a successful outcome of the vote on this measure, the associations of public agencies noted above as nominating members to the Citizens' Oversight Committee and/or to the JPA Executive Committee may notify the JPA Governing Board of their willingness to nominate representatives to the Citizens' Oversight Committee and/or the JPA Executive Committee. If within these 9 months the associations of public agencies do not provide notice that they Page 20 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BOO are willing to nominate representatives, the number of seats on the Citizens' Oversight Committee and/or the JPA Executive Committee shall be reduced accordingly. 7. Administration Services Administration services for the committee shall be provided by JPA staff and shall be funded from funding measure proceeds; these costs shall not exceed three(3)percent of total revenues. IX, FUNDING MECHANISM A Benefit Assessment District approach is the recommended method for implementing this program. Assessment Districts place a charge on real property to pay for the special benefit conveyed to that property from a ,government service. The amount assessed is determined by an engineer's report that distributes the cost of the government service according to benefit received by each property. Assessments must be approved by a weighted majority of property owners in an election conducted by mail. 'Votes are weighted according to the amount of assessment that would be paid. This approach has been used recently by the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority and the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (a govermnent agency with the mission of acquiring land in the Santa Monica Mountains). After considering a comprehensive evaluation of available mechanisms developed by staff several years ago, and after considering several of these mechanisms in significant detail, the Advisory Committee concluded that the Assessment District Approach was the best match for the Open Space Funding Measure. Attachment l3 presents a more detailed description of the evaluation process and the alternatives considered. yj; '1F RX � Page 21 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BOS Attachment A: Community Priorities Allocations JURISDICTION 2000 POPULATION FUNDING Antioch 90,532 $2,512,700 Brentwood 23,302 $646,800 Clayton 10,762 $298,7001 Concord 121,780 $3,380,0001 Danville 41,715 $1,157,8001 El Cerrito j 23,171 $643,200; Hercules 19,488 $540,900' Lafayette 23,908 $663,600 Martinez 35,866 $995,500 Moraga 16,290 $452,200 Oakley 25,619 $711,100 Orinda 17,599 $488,500 Pinole 19,0391 $528,500 Pittsburg 56,7691 $1,575,700; Pleasant Hill/Pleasant Hill P&RD (incorp. portion) 32,837 $911,400; Richmond 99,216 $2,753,800! San Pablo 30,215 $838,700 San Ramon 44,722 $1,241,300 Walnut Creek 64,296 $1,784,600 UNINCORPORATED COUNTY COUNTY SERVICE AREAS CSA R-7A Alamo 15,626' $433,700 CSA M-16 Clyde 6941 $19,300 CSA P-1 R-1 Crockett 3,194' $88,700; CSA M-8 Discovery Bay 8,981 $249,300; CSA R-9 EI Sobrante 12,260 $340,3001 LSA M-17 Montarabay 10,336 $286,900; GSA R-10 Rodeo 8,717 $242,000 AUTONOMOUS DISTRICTS Ambrose P&RD (Bay Point) 21,534, $597,700 Diablo CSD 9881 $27,500 Kensington CSD 4,9361 $137,000 Pleasant Hill P&RD 4,682 $1305000; Rollingwood/Willard P&RD 2,900 $80,500; REMAINDER OF UNINCORPORATEa 56,842 $1,577,1001, UNINCORPORATED COUNTY SUBTOTAL 151,590 $4,210,100 Partnership Incentive $1,386,000 GRAND TOTAL 948,8161 $27,720,000 Page 22 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BOS Attachment B Notification List for Contra Costa County Advisory Committee on Open Space Funding IMtrt 1+latt tact ritaxn+ Agncyl{3rrtloi Contra Costa County Citizen's Land Alliance iEBRPD-Interagency Planning-CAG Contra Costa County Farm Bureau Steve Abbors iCCC Fish and Wildlife Committee ;Steve Abbors East Bay Municipal Utility Dis FchartesAbrams City of Walnut Creek jSeth dams Save Mount Diablo iJudy�� i Adler LifeGarden JaredAldrich Creenbelt Guardians ._ .. . .., .*� .._._.ww.._... _ .._.. _ ..__. 1. jkaren Alley 1Town of Moraga jHenry Alver Mike Amorosa Tom Torlakson's Office Shannah AndersonSPAWNERS ISharon Anderson CCC County Counsel's Office Brock Arner City of San Pablo 7Carol ArnoldContra Costa Resource Conservation District ;Marianne A u d e !Mitch Avalon CCC Public Works Dept. Dick Auenius # Azevedo 6City of Antioch Parks & Recreation Commission CarelBa€rd (California Institute for Biodiversity 'Linda Ballentine Stewards of the Arroyo Pasajero CRMP Ronald Banduccl �iJudi Bank !Eva Bansner League of Women Voters of the Bay Area �Stephen � Barbata ;Delta Science Center at Big Break Valerle Barone City of Walnut Creek ennis Barry,AICP CCC Comm-unity Development Dept jChr€sting Batt Muir Heritage Land Trust Anne Bayless C.Y.C.L.E, IiGeoffrey Bellenger City of Lafayette Parks&Recreation Iiob Berggren _ City of Pleasant Hill Recreation &Park District Bennett Berke Save Mount Diablo . _,��,_ . , ._.. - _.......__. .__,.. ..._ jRhonda BerryCity of Brentwood ,Murtha Berthelsen Aquatic Outreach Institute I Prida Best w_ iContra Costa Economic Partnership Bruce Beyaert Trails for Richmond Action Committee(TRAC) {TerryBeymos y Black ,U ooperat4ve Extension Contra Costa County (Jim Blickenstaff Sierra Club, Mt Diablo Croup, Save Our Danville Creeks � .�o w_,-._.. M John Bliss Shifts Consultants, Inc Rosie ._._ Bock East Bay Regional Parts District Page 23 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BOS Last Name A gencylOrganizAtIon GEoria T!Boehm Cityof EI Cerrito 'Laszlo _jB_onnyay ITown of Moraga Parks &Recreation Commission Parks&Recreation 'Barbara Bontemps .......... Bontemps Parks &Recreation Foundation ---------------------- .............................. ---------------- iArthur onwell -§-a---v-e--Mount Diablo ---_` ___ ,_______ FeEicia Borrego y— S !Dubravka"Dee" Boskovic ............ .............................. .................... ............ 'Rich ini ity o easant Hill Josh_,_ IBradt Clean Water Program 'Myrtle IBraxton City of Richmond Parks& Recreation Commission ;Marty i _reen __FSa�veMount Diablo Kate ----------- Breslin Office(D Supervisor John Gioia's (District 1) -------------- ............ ............ ,Jan ridges ICity of El Cerrito Park&Rec Commission j__ rlg TRr0 nzan lCity of Brentwood Parks & Recreation :Ron Brown Mount Diablo Brown ;Ron ------------------ ...........................................I ---------- -II-L.'.�-'---"'---'-"-"-'-"-�------------�Lanny ,Brown City of Brentwood Parks&Recreation Commission Ann Buell lCalifornia State Coastal Conservancy Rod Bulter r iSherrda Bush City of Martinez Parks& Recreation Commission ................._---------------_-- .............. Byers CCC Board of Supervisors ;Joe`Lauri lCalabrigo, ITown of Danville 1_Bob ' ----Tdalkins lContra Costa County Redevelopment Agency 'Rosemary Cameron I',East Bay Regional Park District iBob Cantrell jCIty of Martinez . .........-------------------......... ------------------------------------------------------ Psa Carnahan CC Public Works Dept. Special Districts FC—harles Carpenter !LauraCase Board of Supervisors .... Casey City of Pittsburg ....................... ...... —Catanzaro i r6a_n _—Cather -IC—ity'.—of Walnut Creek Richard lChamberlain [Town of Moraga ---------- ob Chapman Terrance _Fc_heu_ng— 'Supervisor Giola's Office aul Choisser ............... .............. !Susan Click I 'City Council __T_r :777iTdo_Ie`man_ �Shapell Industries jDan 'Dave Collins East Bay Regional Park District Conrad Habitat for Humanity Ron Cornman !Steve Costa 5�7o_nald - Crane ,Jason jCrapo County Administrator's Office FCie"nev_leve_ Cross jTrust for Public Land ;Dennis 76_6n_nari� City f Moraga Page 24 ..................................... ..............��............................................. ....... .................. .......... ............................ ........................................ Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BCS 9110 L�Lj ;Dennis Cunnane Janke Curry — _ Cutler Planning, Mediation & Environmental Srvcs. ,Lor1 �n" �W Pair _ Sustainable EI Cerrito !Mike Caffey Sierra Club Say Chapter I Dalrymple Central Labor Council Dennis IDanaghu 1C�..�.�.�.�..Danielson Frank Darling jCity of Orinda Parks&Recreation GwynneDavi ;City of Pittsburg Parks &Recreation ` Mel Davis City of Richmond Brenda De La Ossa Mount Diablo Gateway Alliance i w ....w, .+Mww.....,...�e .. ,w ... w..wrw+,.ww.+.«.uwruwvw.iW. __. ,..ems'---...�.ewa.w%.«.—..._..u::+,..m..,•.J jBr�enda De La Ossa District 111 Supervisors Office E Jennifer _ Deal dty of Lafayette Parks& Recreation lnier CCC Board of Supervisors 1MarkDeSau Rach a eel inno Government Relations Trust for Public Land Pogerolan Muir Heritage Land Trust } ,David Dolberg Trails for Richmond Action Committee(TRAC) age (Roger oilan Muir HeritLand Trust Tim Donahue Sierra Club, Delta Group Jack lDove � ;Bob Doyle East Bay Regional Park District ;Lydia Du Borg City of Concord ................. . ......... _ _ jBeatriz DuffyCity of San Ramon �. :— _ ;Tad huffy City of San Ramon ' Ihlatalie IDuMont Greenbelt Alliance (Kathyuncan !City of San Pablo Parks &Recreation - _---_ -E ___ _ w_ -- ____... Jeffdmonston Lucretia l arils ! Adam E#chberg _ Conservation Finance Trust for Public Land _... .. ___er _ ._._ _ _.. .. Adam E5 c-, berg {Conservation Finance Trust for Public Land 'jui:ie Alis � Drban Habitat Program Kevin Emigh jCCC Public Works Dept. (Jeff �Eorio City of San Ramon Parks&Recreation Jeff Eorio City of San Ramon Parks&Recreation j5kippperly ICCC Public Works Dept ;Betty&Sue jErIcsson !Craig jEwing iCity of Lafayette ;Steven ;Falk City of Lafayette Farideh Faraji jQty of Antioch Favlow ;Arthur µ Feinstein Golden Cate Audubon Socie#y r W Peter Felsenfeld Contra Cos#a Trmes (Rudyernandez City of Antioch m� La Ferri Mt Diablo State Park _. . .,_._a... . . . . .. .. a ......__._ �_ - ....... ... .......... _... .. Page 25 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BOS First ftma:" Lash nwia 1X40 on Wayne Fettig Saranap Homeowners'Association Betty Fisher � Supervisor DeSau#pier's Office N#N€chae# I"#e€n€ng City of#tRartinez Parks &Recreation Susan Fr'€edman 3San Ramon General Plan Task Force ._.__.. ,e. .__- ,G(enn �Fu#ler.. . ,John Muir National Histor#c Site ; Bob ,�. ..__.� Fulton Chuck Gabrysiak 'Mary Ann Gaebe Kev€n TGa€ley awn of Danvi#le w-_.... _:. ---- - Trudi Lar#and City of Orinda Parks & Recreation - , !Jeff Gault City of San Ramon ;Ginger Lessner City of Concord GaryGi#feran jYoung&Rubicam San Francisco nJ I _ � ICCC Board of Supero€sots i ........ _ _:__. _. - _._.f federal L#over jFedera# G#over CC Board of Supervisors ;Roberta Gaulart CCC Co€r€mupity C?evelapment Dept. Diana Granadas !Nat€ve Bird Connections .._._ _. Bill GranadosNative Bird Connections liana Granadas !Nat€ve B€rd Connections 1Jerem Graves... . ��....��..�..:.�..�.._.�,� ..�.:.,_._.�.��.� ..�_.�..�_.�:..�.w.�.�..��.�..�..�4 Y I City of Clayton Millie Greenberg ;CCC Board of Supervisors oh - _w..__.... ... _. . n Gre€tzer #CCC Community Development Dept. SeanGr€ff€th _. jWest Contra Costa Green Party ;Marc Grisham City of Pinole D. Manuel Grosse,Sr. City of Richmond ;Gretchen _ Grover �ast Bay Municipal utility Distr#c# Gretchen Grover T Darla Guenzler eBay Area Open Space Council ;Jim Gwerder ICCC Citizens Land AI#iapce jTom Hagler ;Alexander Hall City of Hercules Parks& Recreation ;Barry lCity of Oakley Scott Han€n City of Fl Cerrito !Pamela Hardy ;Ponderos a Hames � ._....-:� Harris._.. iSharap € ._ .. Cadie i#y of Hart CAntioch jAllen Hart_. City of Pleasant Hill Parks & Recreation jCypth€a Harvey jSupervisor John G€o€a'sµOffice TJoyce HawkinsGity of Orinda iMyrna Hayes !Carquinez Strait Preservation Trust jHlilary Heard ,CCC Community Development Dept. SusanHeckly ILindsay Wildlife Museum Alison Hill �iCity of Lafayette Parks& Recreation Page 26 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BOS ncylg4rrlt1n .' ;Nadine Hitchcock jBay Area Conservancy Program, Coastal Conservancy IAdele Ho G#yof San Pa k Hobden _ ._ .._iCity of Orinda Aram Hodess Plumbers&Steamfitters Local 159 Ralph an ILeague of Women Voters Kathy Hoffman congressman George Mi€€er's Office . ;Rich Holden IMoraga, Park&Recreation Committee Jeff + Houston jMe€ody Howe Weintraub ;David Hudson .... .. .. .... W ll�am Hunt (Walnut Creek Parks, Recreation and Open Space Commission K s Hunt o tra Costa Taxpayer's Association ;[Rebecca � Ines City of Pittsburg, Community Development Dept. Mchelle _ €tagaki City of Hercules t Lucinda _.. Jackson, PH.0, Chevron Research&Technology Co. _ ...._ __ __ _._ jJirn Jakefi City of Martinez _.._ __ ;Jim Jake€ ,Contra Costa Council !EdJames City of Concord !Vincent JohnsonCommunity Youth Council for Leadership&Education Lil€ie Mae Jones Community Youth Council for leadership& Education FLee JonesNeig hborhood House of North Richmond k ;Jody Jones z 1Ste hen Joseph 1Boboyce j Frank Jurik Nancy jKaiser City of Oakley ,P la Karr jCity of Walnut Creek Park, Rec. &Open Space Comm. chaei 4Keegi—n-TZm6ly ean City of Antioch ?Kevin City of Lafayette Parks&Recreation jJohn Keibel John A. Keibel. Documentary Photography _ . _�_ _ _. _.._ ___.. Jrm Kennedy ICCC Community Development Dept. Daniel Kibler rdon Kimber CCC Planning Commission Glenn Kirby Steve Kirby erner Koellner Sierra Club, Mount Diablo Group JohnKopehikVCCCt Community Development Dept. �. _ _ __..._ ._... .._ Dee jKorbel iMonica Kortz City of El Cerrito Parks&Recreation ;Andrew Nw Krakoff fiC►ty of Or{nda Parks &Recreation }CatherineKutsuris CCC Community Development Dept. _ Oames Kyle City of Antioch jNorman L Force Vierra Club SF Bay Chapter IKandi Lancaster jCity of Concord Parks&Rec Commission Page 27 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BOS first m Nae Last'Name,' garlc Itrat#xatiori ;Debbi Landshoff 'Sierra Club,West Contra Costa Group Beverly Lane East Bay Regional Park District ?33everly - Lane T ` East Bay Regional Park District . _ ;Robert J. LangCity of San Ramon Parks&Community Srvcs. Comm, ..... .. _.. Paul Larson j.Galindo Creek Association ;Steve Lawton !City of Hercules ;Mike Leana °City of Brentwood _ Mike Leana,AICP 'City of Brentwood _ ;Irving Lee CE#y of Concord Parks &Rec Commission Linda Lewis !Willmar Lindsay City of Orinda !Beatrice Liu_..-^ County Counsel's Office, Contra Costa County ;Laura Lockwood JCCC Administrator's Office 'Laura Lockwood !John DLoder =Mills-Peninsula Hospital Foundation enry Losee _ i ;Henry R. Loubet ;Jeremy Madsen Greenbelt Alliance r - w _. ID.Grant �lainiand 1Clty-of Walnut Creek Park, Rec &Open Space Comm _... ;Kari _ Maiamud-Roarn CC Mosquito&Vector Control District S ano Marchesi _ Contra Costa County Counsel's Office 'Joe Mar;otti 'Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed John Markley 3C�ty of Onnda Parks&Recreation Commission _. _- 3Caroi .Mason Mount Diablo Gateway Alliance Greg Mattson 'McGill Martin Self, Inc Kri a Mazzei Tri-Valley Business Council . z _ ._. ;Janet McBride 1SF Bay Trail Program, Assoc. of Bay Area Governments ;Barron McCoy City of San Pablo _.._ _ Jennifer A. McGarry City of Concord Parks&Rec Commission _ ... ._ _.. __ n .... __ - -"--" _ 'Janet Mellon! City of Brentwood Park&Recreation Commission Donna Menge John Mercurio Concord Parks and Recreation Commission ;Paul Merrick east Bay League Conservation ,Ed 1Meyer CCC Department of Agriculture Ken Mintz City of San Ramon Parks &Community Srvcs. Comm Ivy Morrison !Coalition for Open Space Darrell Mortensen _ City of Walnut Creek Parks &Recreation Jo-LynnMuli jCityMof San Ramon Parks&Community Srvcs Comm _ - - _ ;Sandy Myers Town of Danville Leisure Services ;Willie INatt Wells Fargo/Bast Bay Market Area Brenda Navellier EI Cerrito Park&Recr Commission ILaurabeth Grieneeks Nelson City of El Cerrito Park&Rec Commission ............... _._ !Steve Nelson 'Summit Bank _ ;Kathleen Nimr ;Sierra Club, Mt. Diablo Group !Shirley Nootbaar Page 28 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BBS ,goricy10,r9a n.zatlrri� Robert Nootbaar lRon Nunn !CCC Agricultural Land Trust 'Pat _ _µ JO'Brien as#Bay Regional Park District 3Michael G. O'Connell Paine Webber, lnc Clarice C3dellCi#y of C?rinda _M jlka�:....—.. Gno CCC Community development Dept. Edmundo Orozco w City of Pittsburg Parks &Recreation Commission 1Mitch Oshinsky ;City of Brentwood 1�Peter 10swald !Sunset Development Company (Gard t)walina City of Orinda Parks & Recreation Edward Pancoast Urban Creeks Council tinny Papka Native Bird Connection ;Steve Pardleck Muir Heritage Land Trust ,Laura Pardieck t Jean Parker !City of Walnut Creek Park, Rec. &Open Space Comm. Mike Parness City of Walnut Creek �S�-tfanle Parrott !Richard Patchin City of Martinez Parks&Recreation Lori Patotzka Dianne au1 'Canyon Community Association Leroy Pereira Hen Perkins City of Pittsburg Parks&Recreation __..---- ------ � w Tr _..._ IFaYe Perry .... _ aspect Sierra Ranch Wayne Pierce TRoddy Ranch, LLC ,SalPizzamenti Ci#y of Pittsburg Parks &Recreation Bernadette Powell Lindsay Wildlife Museum _v. _. ...... _ y Council Bob � Power Bay Area Ridge Trail ,Edward Prenot CC Master Gardener jDylan Radke adke ;past Bay Regional Park District ;Ted Rad_ rtlsey ke ]East Bay Regional Park District Plea ,Mike � !City ofsant dill .� .. _. .._._..� i _ Randall City of San Ramon Rr stopher Rasmussen City of Lafayette Parks&Recreation ;Vrees Rauch _ jPe#er ,Rauch California Native Plant Society, East Bay Chapter Winston Rhodes City of Brentwood _ ._�� . Nancy Richardson Town of Moraga Parks &Recreation ban Richardson City of Walnut Creek !Mary Rocha !Patrick Roche N"CaCC Community Development Dept. jErnie Rodrigues ICKof Brentwood Park& Recreation Commission rn _ : _ _ . IRichard Rollins Affiliated Engineers, Inc. Pam Roma Friends of the Creeks ,Carol Rowley ICity of San Ramon Parks& Recreation Commission Page 29 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BOS First flame Las Nanta ` ao h J Jennifer Russell City of Lafayette Parks &Recreation ;John Ruzek East Bay Bicycle Coalition ;Kevin M. Ryder City of Richmond Mike Sakamoto ';City of Hercules ----- LonSalamack ITown of Moraga ;Sherry !Sank !City of Martinez Parks& Recreation Dave jSargent Ruth Sayre Springhill Valley Homeowners Associa#ion _ - [Raney Schaefer ,Lau Schretel City of Walnut Creek Parks&Rec. Commisson Patricia Scott !Mary .Selkirk California Center for Public Dispute Resolution `Cece ISellgren Muir Heritage Land Trust CCC Cee Sellgren Public Works Dept. � � 'Michael G. Sellors National Audubon Society __- -.- ,Carolyn Severin jEBRPD Board of Directors ,Dan --TS—haw City of Richmond Community Development Department (D g s Sheehan City of Pittsburg Parks &Recreation jNassir _ - Shirazi�M City of Pittsburg MauriceShiu IC Public Works Dept - : .__ W_. 'Doug Siden yV East Bay Regional Park District ;Carol Singer City of Lafayette Parks& Recreation Sir or Madam City of Antioch Leisure Services City of Antioch jJean Siri EBRPD Board of Directors Jean JEat Bay Regional Park District !Shirley Skaredoff jFriends of Alhambra Creek Igor ISkaredoff Friends of Alhambra Creek - iDebra Skeaton Todd V Skinner City of Orinda Parks &Recreation ___ w_.__.:_--- -- .. __ _. - _ GarySkrelCity of Walnut Creek Park, Rec. &Open Space Comm 'John Slaymaker !Greenbelt Alliance !Katherine - _ Small jCity of Lafayette Parks &Recreation Commission IT nymithCommunity Youth_Council for Leadership&Education . yler Snortum-Phelps jGreen Party of Contra Costa _ _...... ;Marcia Somers Town of Danville Leisure Services ;Maxine Spellman_ California State Coastal Conservancy !Malcolm ��M jSproul _ LSA Associates, Inc. 'Sandy �Sprowl Dan Stanton ;Native Bird Connection John Steere —Sycamore Associates ne jSteffen_ City of Antioch Ra en Stein Town of Moraga IMM -- __ _ Karen E. Stephenson City of Richmond 'Sherry -Sterrett City of Pleasant Hill Parks& Recreation Bruc Stewart Community Youth Council for Leadership&Education Page 30 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BOS F1 08 .Name #', am ` . Aein ;Jackie Stewart ; lFran5#icha i lCity of Lafayette Parks &Recreation ;Evelyn Strvers Greenbelt Alliance jBeth IStone East Bay Regional Park District Pleen Straus [ ;Joel Summerhi€€ City of Pittsburg ,John Suter IEast Bay Regional Park District ,Mark Sweeney 10ty of Martinez Parks&_Retreat€on i 7arrel_ Sweet Kalifornia Rangeland Trust Richard---]Takahashi City of El Cerrito Park& Rec Commission Bette Tarr Tra€Is for Richmond Action Committee(TRAC) _... .__�..w.� .._y�., ..__ FNant Tatarka San Ramon Ci# Council jJames Teixeira #w�City cif Richmond Parks &Recreation ;Tom Terrill ;The Terrill Company HowardThomas !Richard Thompson CCC Ag Trust(staff} Laura Thompson SP Bay Trail Program,Assoc. of Bay Area Governments 1 i ands Threlfall t ;Clifford Tong €Burton Valley.com 71 Melody Trapp ;Isiah Turner City of Richmond ]Gayle B. Uilkema CCC Board of Supervisors FN—aValthe EB Business Gui van Domsefaar� ,City of Hercules, Community Development/Public Works lGerard Van Steyn Shilts Consultants, Inc iBarbara Vaughn Mt. Diablo Audubon Society ,B ara Vincent 7League_of Women Voters �l (MikeVukeiich Contra_Costa County Farm Bureau 'Karen Wahl 10ty of Brentwood FHe€ler Waid#low 4GreenbellIt at€ve Brd Connection ;Lorna Wallace Alliance — _-- - X 1 Dave Walters Imim� Wafuch East Bay Regional Park District ,Rom Ward City of Antioch ; ,Jesse Washington City of Richmond Parks&Recreation 'Helen WeaverlCity of Richmond ;Donald ,..__.___Weber___ 'City of Lafayette Parks &Recreation lHermann Welm Pinoie Pt. Properties Hermann m TWelm Contra Costa Economic Partnership i Nancy WennrngerEast Bay Regional Park District i '_Peter Weshler San Jose State LJniversi , Dept. Urban& Re ions€ Planning"_ --------- g 9 JackieWessman Sharon West City of Richmond Richard Westin City of Orinda Parks &Recreation ,Dave Wetmore ICity of Antioch Page 31 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BOS Fir�t;Name Ag�rtte�ri'E an 2:attan ©ave Wetmore City of Antioch, Department of Leisure Services iErihan CCC Public Warks Dept _._.-.__.__ , 1Sandee Wiedemann L__,._.. ..._,............ __:._: ...... .. .__. . Ayn Weskamp jEast Bay Regional Park District Khris Wiicox sCity of EI Cerrito Parks& Recreation Commission a �a ;Linda Wilcox jCounty Counsel IThomas R. Williams Aetna U.S. Healthcare �- — Roland WilliamsCastro Valley Sanitary District 113arryTWilliams City of Richmond, Recreation&Parks Department Elizabeth Williams-Jones jCjtyof Pittsburg Parks &Recreation rPete&Amelia Wilson iTim Wirth Trust for Public Land (Gene Wolfe [p� Wong � 'ICity of San Ramon ,John -- —Woodbury 1Bay Area Open Space Council iJohn Woodbury jBay Area Open Space Council ;Bruce YOWCity of El Cerrito Park&Rec Commission — Jim �Zelinski Page 32 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BOS Attachment C: Additional Background Information on Funding Mechanisms The Advisory Committee conducted a thorough review of potential funding mechanisms in the course of developing its recommendations, referring this subject to a subcommittee for more detailed discussion at several junctures. The Advisory Committee's evaluation process initially focused on a comprehensive summary of all available mechanisms for raising local public funds for open space protection, a report prepared by staff for the Board of Supervisors in 1999 tion of Open Space and Agricultural Lands in Contra Costa County). Based on a review of this report and a series of discussions with invited experts on the emerging approach of using a benefit Assessment District for regional open space protection, the Advisory Committee identified the following as the three most feasible alternatives: ° General Obligation Bond: The sale of bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the issuing agency and repaid through a temporary increase in the ad valorem property tax. The size of the tax increase is determined by the amount of bond revenues desired, the term for repaying the bonds, and the interest rates available in the bond market. • Parcel Tax;_ A tax on real property. The tax may be levied on a flat, per- parcel rate, or may be graduated according to the use of the property (i.e. commercial properties may pay one rate and residential properties may pay another) or according to other criteria. The tax cannot be levied on an ad valorem basis. If tax revenues are to be dedicated to a specific purpose, the parcel tax is defined as a Special Tax and requires the approval of 2/3 of the voters in a special election(same is true for general obligation bond). • Benefit Assessment District: An assessment(i.e., a charge) on real property to pay for the special benefit conveyed to that property from a government service. The amount assessed is determined by an engineer's report that distributes the cost of the government service according to benefit received by each. Assessments must be approved by a weighted majority of property owners in an election conducted by mail. Votes are weighted according to the amount of assessment that would be paid. The table below compares the features of these three alternative funding approaches. General Obligation parcel Tax Benefit Assessment Bond District How are funds increase In ad valorem Tax on individual Assessment on generated? tax on property parcels. Possible for property. Amount tax to be a fiat,per- assessed is parcel charge or to determined by vary taut by type of engineers report that parcel and other distributes costs factors. according to benefits. Page 33 Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BCS 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? ENIstered voters Registered voters Property owners i What voting margin 213 majority 2/3 majority I 50%weighted Is required for i majority(votes are approval? weighted according to amount of assess- ment they would pa What type Of Special or General Special or General Election by mail I 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 46 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 expand No Yes Yes revenues on a pay- as-you-g!?basis? Possible to sell Yes(required) Yes Yes bonds?- Advantages Simple 0 Possible to 0 Perhaps more customize tax rate equity in distri- 0 Only way to raise ad 1 bution of costs valorem tax Flexibility in use of I revenues i - Flexibility in use of 0 Best interest rate revenues 0 Election may occur at any time Disadvantages 0 Not possible to Even year election 0 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 0 No stewardship --- ..be point of Page 34 .......................................... ....... .................. Attachment 4 to March 23 report to BOS General Obligation Parcel Tax Benefit Assessment Bond District � controversy ° Even year election probably required ° New property owners generally pay more Page 35 CL :r a�� : (D 0 0 Hit 0 m 0 W, 06 0 0 0 g—O 'D C) 0 Iva 's rr mn gig 2 R .1 (D 30. 0 g 0 FL m mom _ • 0 Air* e O= i, (D m CL zo F D Z7y c 0 (D z ry CL Z 0 0 CD --------- CD 2. Z -10D�l (D co RL Ch 00 V; C." 0 (D CL 0i �O 0. A� All, RL (D <1 ................ Cl) A� =r CD X Y28 p MY EE as e L 7R 0 44 CD <S 0 �x CD CL 0. rz/ C) < (D CL CD 00 CD . 0 F0 CD vj =r cf) 0 CD 0 CL 0 K — CL 0 C wa ---P D --U W; M CD 0 z-0 m d. 51r, g 10 CL 0 0 m Q 0 -n sp tj W.6 0 m ........... -n ;;T 3 w (A 6 -0-4� Sr 40 -a 0 Vi O =r FD (D CD U) 0 ii A> X, 0 cr Er CD (D 0 rj) =$ Cl C3 :3 M 5; CD W. Vy C) 0Cy! CD N) C R.. 0 CA 0 CDp w 0 CD PO . . ............. CL T < > 3 -n on @ 3 x CL r . ..... t m 8 88 88§88888888Z P .9.9 p SD P.P.P p P.PP p Q t. 00 0 000000 00 ........... ....... ................ ................. CD .... ............ W ................. ............ ............. ...... ......... ........................ ....... .. .......... .. .... ....... .............. .... .... ... ... .... ............... . . ....... ...... ............... .......... 0 ......... :*-qzg3qiqic *m::Ew y)-o!pmg* ........... U)R ... ........ a 0 U rOTq M Or 2L a tri ........... ............ -4- ........................... .............. ...................... .......... ........... ............... m . ........... ....... ... .................. ......... ............................ . . .... .... ........ ...................... .... ..................... ..................... ............. 10 11) 0 am ......... .................... .............. ......................... Con) >l< 0 CD 0) (D 0) 0 ...... .... ........... w tot .......... .............. ............. .............. .......... ..................... .............. .......... ....... ..... ........ ...-........--............ ........... ......... .................. ............ .... .......... 0 ;I:D ................ ........... ...... ................. ................ ....... .................. ............. ......................... .................. .......... 0 w w ........ 3 .... ............... .................... ............ . . ........ =0, =r 0 ....... ..... ...... .......... to SD as M r ...... .............. D) CL `0 05 Z) M -U 3 wa g-0 CL 9 a cr CD 0 m -V 0) o 23 0 C,-A.,s 5* M cn 0 -U E amt wcs M c (n cn m c ID CD < x 0 77 -0 A 0>>0 0 0 0 0 0 9 2Wl T3 S'M�1W 0 CD Wcs0 Mau M E, :; cowwwwwwZ= w w 0 53 a,� 0 CD rp, 0 A> >>>>30 0 cr (0 s,m &,j� 0 C—n 0 CL E-h Om CD 0- > 0 (n 0 0 CT U) o :3 r r- 0 w Nm g Con n.=- o =7 on 0 0 a m -- 0 Z�l 00D Em 0 0- 3 '000 0 mm 014 :3 =r 0 0, z M 0 X MDTM> (D 0 C C) r_ -1 57 M 0 0 :3 cn 0 m 0 0 kv 0 0 9000 0 ca 0 z 0 0 =t 0 CD CL on z :3 0 CL — 0 o 0 CL cn 0 rr CD 0 < -n H R 0 0-0 a) Z 0)'o > 2) c:a o 0 o z _0 q 0) 9 a3 c=D CD > 2 po -0 l< 0) 1 0 0 LO �< C) 3-0 fool, to (640 �64 cr fA fA fA f..6, n -4 — — �E > V�V� w N-1 N) (A rl) C.0T'r M17 z rx _4 0 Jh�W NP). �0- �Op W W N3 Cn 0)(0 PO CO 0-4 00 -4 8(D 8 C) 8 0 Cc, 00 0000 98 Ho"O "OHO 000 00 00 00000000 ).................... Proposed Open Space Funding Measure Timeline Attachment 6 orderMeetings Tasks(in deadline) 77777 r i=ramawork doirrebt revi t!t rf€ect Advisory Committee tie Ad Hoc Cate-final rets., Y Framtiewt�rl6 dcm�umertt revised-t teftect Ad Hoc orrhi#tee t`ecsa 1 ca r ' --- --- 1 23 BOS Status Report(Declare Intent I 1 _ m— _ draft JPA a ement completed 6 O'S'consrtlers ap„f ving JPFI April 20 ihsttead ) , ee �pry ,.pp�( t }t� y ( _F Proal t*nReers Report aril reeolutior .iFsV J:PA.LJ 1d WoI tiACArs AUt orf! F74 1 t -Y I C13 1 f e 9+ 1 g ! Ballots mailed t t 1 ;k A 6 JPA Hearing ! 45 day ballot return period ends 20 JPA Hearing-re Tabulation&Resolution - 4 � - T _ Idj ltri FY 04-05 assessent dead mn6