Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 05182004 - D.5
aCounty Centra Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: May 18, 2004 D.5 SUBJECT: Report on Proposed O en S ace Funding Measure SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION 1) ACCEPT status report from the Community Development Director on the proposed Open Space Funding Measure; 2) REVIEW Draft Preliminary Engineer's Report, Draft Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement with the East Bay Regional Park District, and the revised Draft Framework for An Open Space Protection and Enhancement Funding Measure for Contra Costa County ("Framework"); 3) SCHEDULE a decision on adopting the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and the Framework for May 25, 2004. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMM EE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON mAY 18, 2004 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER x VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ABSENTmw AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES AYES: NOES: OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON ABSENT: I ABSTAIN: THE MATE SHOWN. Contact: John Kopchik (925-335-1227) ATTESTED_m&y m. 2 cc: Community Development Department (CDD) JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF County Administrator THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Treasurer AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Auditor/Controller County Counsel Clerk/Recorder Tax Collector BY # 4 ; ` _ ,DEPUTY Assessor Public Works Agricultural Commissioner 6:1Conservationlopen—space\board_orderst5-18-041board_order5-18-04.doc Report on Proposed Open Space Funding Measure May 18,2004 Page 2 of 6 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 t form the Contra Costa County open Space Funding Authority ("Authority„) and should the Authority elect to proceed with formation of an assessment district, the costs of forming the assessment district through a ballot process would be funded from the Regional Enhancement Fund as well. Approximately $80,00 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 Beard on November 12, 2002, approximately $370,000 remains unspent or uncommitted. Remaining funds would be used for conducting an assessment ballot proceeding and tabulating the assessment ballots only if the Board subsequently authorizes the County's participation in the Authority and the Authority governing board authorizes the assessment ballot proceeding. A summary of estimated costs is provided below. Consultant costs to prepare Engineer's Report: $ 20,500 Staff costs*: 60,000 Ballot preparation, printing, postage and return postage: 310,000** Ballot tabulation: 31,250* Future staff costs***: 15.000** Total: $445,750 *Includes estimated Community Development Department staff costs to manage development of the measure and County Counsel review and assistance. **Not spent or committed ***Includes staff costs to manage the assessment ballot process to its conclusion, if authorized. Should the proposed measure succeed, the Regional Enhancement Fund will be repaid from the proceeds for costs as allowed by law. Staff costs could not be repaid, but costs incurred in the preparation of the Engineer's Report, ballot printing/ postage, and ballot tabulation could be repaid. Consequently, staff estimates that approximately $370,000 of the formation costs could be repaid if the measure proceeds and is approved. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On March 23, 2004, the Board of Supervisors declared its 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 an assessment district to raise funds for open space, park, and recreation purposes. That action followed more than four years of work by the Board of Supervisors, the Board of Supervisors' Ad Hoc 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. This report and its attachments are intended to provide an overview of the key documents that would formalize the proposed Open Space Funding Measure in advance of a decision on this matter the following week. Additional background information on the history behind this proposal is provided in the attachments and discussed below. Report on Proposed Open Space Funding Measure May 18,2004 Page 3 of 6 1. Three Documents Farm the Backbone of the Open Space Funding Measure Proposal: The following three documents are the primary components of the Open Space Funding Measure and each would need to be adopted by the Board and/or Authority for the measure to proceed to ballot and, if approved by property owners, be enacted: • Draft Framework for An Open Space Protection and Enhancement Funding Measure for Contra Costa County ("Framework") • Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement with the East Bay Regional Park District • Draft Preliminary Engineer's Report The Framework, developed and recommended by the Advisory Committee on Open Space Funding during the course of a four year public process, is the guiding policy document for the measure and describes the reasons the measure is proposed, the allocations of funds over 30 years, the process to be used to administer the measure, and the commitments and assurances under which the measure would be implemented. The Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement with the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) would create the Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority, the entity that would propose formation of a benefit assessment district to the property owners of the County. The Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement references both the Framework and the Engineer's Report. The Preliminary Engineer's Report provides the basis for creating the assessment district, apportions the benefits of the measure to properties in the County, and determines how much these properties would be assessed if the measure were to pass. 2. Additional Information Requested by the Board on March 23, 2004: A summary of the requests and a guide to where that information may be found is provided below: More detail on the casts of developing the measure and bringing it to ballot: See Fiscal Impact section above. Amount of assessments proposed for schools and special districts:As explained in more detail in Section V.F.4. (page 39) of the Preliminary Engineer's Report, school, park, open space, and water infrastructure parcels would have zero assessment because the parcels already provide benefits similar to those that would be provided by the Measure. Consequently, assessments for public agencies that operate such facilities would be quite low. The approximate range of assessments for different categories of public agencies are: $250 to $750 per/year for School Districts; $50 to $1000 per/year for other Special Districts; and $700 to $1400 per/year for cities. Staff can assist agencies and others to find their specific assessment amounts upon request. Estimated amount of formation costs that could be repaid if the measure succeeds: Approximately $370,000. See Fiscal Impact section above for more information. Estimated annual revenue from assessments: See Section IV (page 18 in particular) of the Preliminary Engineer's Report(Estimate of Costs and Budget). More thepossibility of bonds: The Advisory Committee has recommended in the Framework a flexible measure, recommending that the Authority be able to Report on Proposed open Space Funding Measure May 18, 2004 Page 4 of B disburse funds on a"pay-as-you-go" basis or borrow against the annual revenue stream to disburse additional funds for capital projects sooner than would otherwise be possible. For this reason, the measure does not anticipate use of assessment bonds. However, various other financing mechanisms could be explored and implemented if the measure is approved and the Authority wishes to pursue this objective. 3. Next Steps: On May 25, 2004, the Board of Supervisors would be asked to consider approving the Framework and the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (EBRPD is scheduled to consider the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement on May 18). If this occurs, the Authority board would convene a meeting on the same day immediately after the action of the Board of Supervisors. The Authority board would be asked to approve the Framework, to preliminarily approve the Engineer's Report (consideration of final approval follows conclusion of the ballot process), and to direct initiation of the assessment ballot process. If a decision were made on May 25 by the Authority to initiate the assessment ballot proceeding, ballots could be mailed on June 10,2004. A decision after May 25, 2004 would delay the mailing of ballots. June 10 is probably the last day the ballots could be mailed and, if the measure was approved, still make the deadline for the FY2004- 05 tax rolls. 4. Attachments Attachments 9 &2--Revised Draft Framework and draft map of allocations: The Draft Framework has been revised by staff to correct errors, clarify ambiguous language to more closely match intent, provide more detailed information on eligibility for grants that would be awarded under the measure, and recommend that the Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District (BIMID) receive an allocation under the Community Priority Projects category (staff were only recently made aware that BIMID owns and operates public park facilities on Bethel Island). Changes to the version of the Framework presented to the Board on March 23, 2004 are documented. The draft map of allocations that accompanies the Framework has not changed since March 23. Attachment 3--Draft Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement: County and EBRPD staff jointly developed the attached Draft Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement. The Agreement references both the Framework and the Engineer's Deport and would create the administrative structure called for in the Framework (see Section 5 of JPA for more detail): Governing Board (7 members: 5 BQS and 2 EBRPD) 1 Executive Committee (9 members: 5 BOS, 2 EBRPD, and 2 public members -- nominations to be solicited from the CCC Mayor's Conference) I Citizens' Oversight Committee (19 members, details in Framework) The County Community Development Director would act as Secretary for the Authority. The County Treasurer and Auditor/Controller would serve similar roles for the Authority (see Section 4 for more detail). The Authority would reimburse the County for these services. Attachment 4--Preliminary Engineer's Report: The Preliminary Engineer's Report Report on Proposed©pen Space Funding Measure May 16, 2004 Page 5 of 6 has been prepared by the assessment engineering consultant retained by the County, Shilts Consultants, Inc. As mentioned above, the Preliminary Engineer's Report provides the basis for creating the assessment district, apportions the benefits of the measure to properties in the County, and determines how much these properties would be assessed if the measure were to pass. Similar reports were used to form benefit assessment districts for the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority and the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (a JPA that included the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy). Beyond these two prior regional-scale measures, more than 25 assessment districts for park or park and open space purposes have been formed in California since the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996. Many more were formed prior to 1995. A guide to key aspects of the Preliminary Engineer's Report and where these provisions are located is provided below: Amount of assessment for different classes of parcels: Determining assessment amounts is the main purpose of the Engineer's Deport. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 4: Summary of Assessments and SFE (Single Family Equivalent) Benefit Units by Property Type (page 40). Rationale for the amount of assessments: See Sections V.F. and V.G. (Assessment Apportionment and Method of Assessment, pages 35-39). The Engineer's Report calculates the amount of benefit(and assessment)for different classes of parcels by using a parcel with a single-family home as a benchmark and relating other parcel types to this benchmark using factors such as relative population density. Zones of Benefit: The Preliminary Engineer's Deport includes two zones, Zone A and Zone B. Zone B includes those parcels within and immediately adjacent to areas where acquisition efforts will be focused. Zone A includes all other parcels (more than more 98% of all parcels are in Zone A). The preliminary Engineer's Report finds that the projects to be funded by the measure are generally well distributed throughout the County and that, by most criteria, benefits are also evenly distributed. However, parcels very proximate to proposed acquisitions do receive certain additional benefits (such as to property value and view protection). For this reason, parcels in Zone B would be assessed at twice the rate of parcels in Zone A. For more information, see Section V.E. (Benefit Finding and Zones of Benefit, pages 32-34)and the Assessment Diagram (page 44). Expenditure Areas: To provide added assurance that funds raised in an area are spent in that area, the Preliminary Engineer's Report establishes three Expenditure Areas: West County, Central County, and East County. Funds raised in an Expenditure Area must be spent in that Expenditure Area. See Section III.C. (Expenditure Areas, page 7-8) and the Table 1 (page 18) for more information. The proposed Assessment: Section VI (Assessment, page 41-42) presents in a formal way the main provisions of the proposed assessment. Explanation of projects and relation to Framework: Section IIID. (Improvements, pages 9-15) includes a summary of the projects that would be funded by the assessment district. The summary of projects in Section III.D. refers to and carefully corresponds with the projects described in the Framework. The Framework provides additional detail and rationale for the projects (as well as much more information on how the measure would be administered). But as Report on Proposed Open Space Funding Measure May 18, 2004 Page 6 of 6 explained in Section III.B. (Framework, pages 6-7), because the Engineer's Report is the basis for the assessment district, the Engineer's Report would control in the event that a conflict is detected when interpreting the two documents. Attachment 5--Proposed Timeline: The Proposed Timeline summarizes the recommended schedule for Board and Joint Powers Authority decisions. It also recommends dates for initiating and concluding the assessment ballot proceeding, if authorized. Attachment 6--Background information: The history behind this proposal and the process used to frame it are described in three previous Board Orders: the October 1 , 2002, November 12, 2002, and March 23, 2004 Actions of the Board of Supervisors (body of reports only—no attachments). 5. 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.cocoopenspace.org For those without Internet access, materials continue to be accessible by contacting staff at 925-335-1227. G:1Conservationlopen_spacelboard_orderstbos_update_and_declare_intent 3-23-04.doe ADDENDUM D»5 May 18, 2004 On this date, the Beard accepted the status report from the Community :development Director on the proposed Open Space Funding Measure,reviewing the Draft Assessment Engineer's Report, Draft Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement with the East Bay Regional Park District, and revised "Draft Framework for An Open Space Protection and Enhancement Funding Measure for Contra Costa County and scheduled a decision on this matter for May 25, 2004 The Chair invited comments from the public. The following individuals addressed the Board: Ralph Hoffman, 60 Saint Timothy Court,Danville; John Wolfe, 5650 Lewis Way, Concord; Herman Welm,P.O.Box 774, San Ramon; Susan Swift, 330 Hat Court, (Richmond Progressive Alliance), El Sobrante; Steve Pardieck, 2590 Pebble Beach Hoop, (Coalition for Open Space), Lafayette; Igor Skardoff, 411 Isabel, (Friends of Alhambra Creek),Martinez; Patty Frieson,P.O. H20, (Contra Costa Water District, Concord; Ken Hambrick, 365 Nob Hill Drive, (Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers) Walnut Creek; Paul Dickey, 307 Duagen Drive, Moraga; Henry A. Acker, 155 Montgomery Street, #504, San Francisco; Mike Oatey,2760 Walnut Boulevard,Walnut Creek; Christy Tyler, 26 Pamplona Court, San.Ramon.; Ron Brown, 61 Kevin Court, (Save Mt. Diablo), 61 Kevin Court,Walnut Creek; Kris Hunt, 838 Escobar Street, (Contra Costa.Taxpayers Association, Martinez; Robert Doyle, 2950 Peralta Oaks Court, (East Bay Regional Parks), Oakland; Guy Bjerke, P.O. Box 5160, (Home Builders Association, San Ramon; Ethan Veneklesen, 877 Ygnacio Valley Road, #202, (Contra Costa Council), Walnut Creek; Tina Batt, P.O. 2452, (Coalition for Open Space Muir Heritage Trust), Martinez; Fry Morrison, (no address) (Coalition for Open Space); After further discussion, the Board made the following recommendations. • ACCEPTED status report from the Community Development Director on the proposed Open Space Funding • REVIEWED Draft Engineer's Report,Draft Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement with the East Bay Regional Park District, and the revised Draft Framework for an Open Space Protection and Enhancement Funding Measure for Contra Costa County • SCHEDULED a decision on adopting the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and the Framework for May 25, 2004. • AMENDED the Draft Framework document to include two additional seats on the Citizens'Oversight Committee: one for the Contra Costa Water District and one for the East Bay Municipal Utility District; AND • REQUESTED that staff respond to other issues raised during the meeting including items 2, 7, and 8 and a portion of item 5 on the list of further questions submitted by Mr. Henry Alker.. Attachment 1 5-18-04 DRAFT FRAMEWORK FOR AN OPEN SPACE PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT FUNDING MEASURE FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ereh-24Mgy 18,2004 Board of Supervisors declared its intent to move onward with this measure on March 23, 2004. Earlier draft version of this document was approved in concept by the Board of Supervisors on October 1, 2002. Ak revisedRfects 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. Changes to the March 23 2004 version recommended by sta f are tracked k a �N MEL t p ter . S7 0 ZR 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 ($175,000,000) 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. Fuge 1 Attachment 1 5-18-04 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 quality 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 2402 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 finding 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 1 5-18-04 East Bay Regional Park District's Measure AA was passed in 1988. Revenues from it are approximately 90% spent; the remainder is entirely committed. 0 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. Comparison of Urbanization,C3 en Space,and Future Open S ace Fu ing Amon Bay Area Counties Contra Costa Napa Marin Solano Sonoma San Mateo Santa Alameda San I Clara Francisco I Percent of land area that is 26.2% 3.5% 11.7% 8.6% 7.2% 19.9% 18.7% 25.5%0 81.2% developed' Percent of land area available for develo ment' 9.5% 2.3% 5.7% 1 6.3% 6.9% 7.7% 4.1% 7.5% 7.0% Acres of protected open .12 aures per .84 .70 .26 .23 .14 .10 .08 .01 space per capite(Bay area person acres/ acres per acres/ acres per acres per acres per acres per acres/ av a=.14 acres! ersonperson __person person person person person personperson Secure future funding for Measure AA None Cin-going Solana, 'l cent O.S.dist has initiated a Measure AA N/A open space(does not city&grant- yet property tax County is sales tax a tax&bond, parcel tax (status same (parks i include Propositionl2 and able portion increment now explor- for open but bond is and an O.S. as CCC); dept other stateffederal sources® spent;EBRPD provides for ing an OS space and nearly spent District In Landfill budget) see below portion 90% acquisitions funding a county County has 2001,voters tipping fee to sprint,remain- measure open space parks dept w/ approved a provide Ing 10%apo- district annual $8M/year significant cated by park - -----,-- budget 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 Warks—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; ' ABAG estimates from"Status and Trends 2000",based on data from 1995(ABAG Figures do not consider the County's 65/35 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 1 5-18-04 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 Local & Municipal Parks/Recreation—Enhance 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. Trails/Puhlic 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 1 5-18-04 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 1 5-18-04 H. GENERAL ALLOCATION OF FUNDS The general funding categories and allocations for the 30-year life of the measure are: Acquisition f 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 STEWARDSBIP: $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 m 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 j by category 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 JPA may determine to borrow against the some or all of the 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. Unless otherwise noted,funding;allocations will be distributed through a competitive grant program. A wide variety of public and private organizations are eligible to appty for and receive funds raised by this measure including but not limited to land trusts ark districts water districts others cial districts cities the.Cgunty,and other not-for- rofit organizations. The administration of the ant-makin rocess is further described in the Administration section of this document and selection criteria and considerations are outlined in the Funding Principles section above. All contracts disbursing funds from this measure will re uire recipients to commit to"maintenance of effort"provisions to ensure that new fends augment rather than replace existing expenditures. All funds from this measure must be spent onroiects and activities within Contra Costa County_ Page 6 Attachment 1 5-18-04 Open Space Allocations ($175 Million) 75% uIsgions 30 Wfion) ANEW- Avp� - Stewardship AcquisitionsiCapital ($45 Million) ($130 Million) 12.3%E sting Regionsd pior"s 21% -i;:-_ 1 60% '3% 31%Now Parks _..__..__.._....__.._..__..__.k 00 W"fty P Wi0=6 21% 19.6%txx anpaik ue 44. h Exmk ng EAd,�NW.Wn 3;% oppoftf*resesvt 5°o- ftwaffthkp E8R#%p Parks 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 V11). 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. Page 7 Stephen Joseph Attachment 1 5-18-04 B. SAN FRANCISCO)BAY 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, �ajor gaps in the Contra Costa County component of the trail could be eamp! overcome. Helping to complete themissing links between Richmond and Crockett would be a keobjective. 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 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 Page 8 Attachment 1 5-18-04 one of private cattle ranches. Acquisition of conservation easements, parklands, 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 EBNIUD and EBRPD 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. PRIl111P FARMLANDIAGRICULTURAL CORE The County has some of the best farmland in the state. (Jur last largely contiguous farming area is located in the lands east of Brentwood from K.nightsen to Byron. Home to nut and fruit 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 E purchase easements and Brentwood has launched an ambitious agricultural 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 RIVER-FRONT 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 I 5-18-04 G. TASSAJARA The Tassajara Valley extends from the eastern edge of the Blackhawk Ranch development along Camino Tassajara, east and then south to the Alameda County line. The valley has been under pressure to develop, fueled 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 1-680 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. L KIRKER ELLS An essential visual resource forb the Cities of Concord, Clayton, Pitts-burg, and Walnut Creek,this ranching area frames the northern flank of central and eastern Contra Costa County. Immediately to the east is Black Diamond Mines Regio-nal Preserve. The purchase of agricultural easements to protect this area into the future as Wage 10 Attachment 1 5-18-04 ranching lands will protect this 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 _.. _ ...._ .. ... .. q 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 Affachment 1 5-18-04 L. CREEK.AND WATERSHED RESTORATION PROGRAM This funding category will provide seed money for creek and watershed ro`ects located throughout the County. Specific objectives include: ❖ Restoration of the natural character and function of creeks. $ •`• Transformation of creeks into community amenities and local educational opportunities through enhancement of visual character and improved public access. Enhancement of water quality, 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. and including. the City of Walnut Creek 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 1 5-18-04 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-one, 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) 'gest Moraga/Indian Valley Open Space Acquisition($2MM) 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) Burton 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(S2M) Page 13 Attachment 1 5-18-04 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 fiord 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 1 5-18-04 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 Ranchl-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) BlackhawklDanville Greenbelt($1M). This provides funding to secure the existing boundary between planned growth areas and the rural Tassajara Valley Flagship area. 14) Northwest Communities Open Space Connection($1M) This provides funding to tie together open space and parklands between Hercules, Rodeo and Crockett. 15) Pittsburg/Antioch Hillsides($1M). 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 Trail 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 creek in all segments due to right-of-way constraints, and alternative alignments that may be necessary in some places are also eligible for firnding. 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 fiends as a pass through to local governmental agencies that provide park and Page 15 Attachment 1 5-18-04 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: ° Eligible projects include: park acquisition and development, park structures, play rg_ounds_,_open space areas, trails, restoration of creeks and other natural resources, recreational facilities, and parr 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 fiords 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 EBRPI7 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. ° 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 Rads 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 1 5-18-04 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 finds for operating and maintaining regional-scale scenic landscape facilities on a programmatic basis; a 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; 0 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,pubes 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 • not patrols d 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,watershed lands, trails,and open space areas. 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 1 5-18-04 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 EBRPD 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 1 5-18-04 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). £ Ensure that matching funds stretch the use of bond new funds. All bead—new funds should be considered local match against other 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. . 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 Page 19 Attachment 1 8-18-04 The JPA Governing Board shall consist of members of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and the EBRPD Board of Directors. The 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 quonun 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 Page 20 Attachment 1 5-18-04 Committee and/or the JPA Executive Committee. If within these 9 months the associations of public agencies do not provide notice that they 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. M. 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 government 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 B presents a more detailed description of the evaluation process and the alternatives considered. Attachment 1 5-18-04 Attachment A: Community Priorities Allocations i,1URISDICTION ' 2000 POPULATION FUNDING Antioch 90,532 $2,512,700 Brentwood 23,302 $646,800 Clayton 10,762 $298,700 Concord 121,780; $3,380,000 Danville 41,715 $1,157,800; EI Cerrito 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 56,769 $1,575,7001 Pleasant Hill/Pleasant Hill P&RD (incorp. portion) 32,837 $911,400: Richmond 99,216 $2,753,800' San Pablo 30,2151 $838,700! San Ramon .44,7221 $1,241,300; Walnut Creek 64,296! $1,784,6001 UNINCORPORATED COUNTY COUNTY SERVICE AREAS GSA R-7A Alamo 15,626 $433,700 CSA M-16 Clyde 694 $19,300 CSA P-1 R-1 Crockett3,194 $$8,700 CSA M-8 Discovery Bay 8,981 $249,300! CSA R-9 EI Sobrante 12,260 $340,300; LSA M-17 Montarabay 10,336 $286,9001 CSA R-10 Rodeo 8,7171 $242,000; AUTONOMOUS DISTRICTS Ambrose P&RD (Bay Point) 21,534 $597,7001 Bethel Island Munici al lm r©vernent District 2.312 664,80 3; Diablo CSD ! 988 $27,500! Kensington CSD i 4,936 $137,00 Pleasant Hill P&RD ! 4,682 $130,003 ' Rollingwood/Willard P&RD 2,900 $80,50 ( ! REMAINDER OF UNINCORPORATED 56i84254 530$1,512,800 ;€ 9 'UNINCORPORATED COUNTY SUBTOTAL 151,690 $4,210,100 Partnership incentive $1,386,000 GRAND TOTAL 945,816! $27,720,000 Page 22 Attachment 1 5-18-04 Attachment B Notification List for Contra Costa County Advisory Committee on Open Space Funding { Contra Costa CoyMbL Farm Bureau Contra Costa County Citizen's Land Alliance EBRPD-Interagency Planning-GAG { Steve Abbots East Bay Municipal Utilitv District Steve Abbots CCC Fish and Wildlife Committee { Charles Abrams City of Walnut Creek { #Seth Adams Save Mount Diablo { Judy Adler L€feGarden { [Jared Aldrich Greenbelt Guardians IKaren Alley Town of MoMga 'Henry Alver Mike Amorosa Tom Torlakson's Office j Shannah Anderson SPAWNERS { Sharon Anderson CCC County Counsel's Office Mike Arata { Brock Amer City of San Pablo Carol Arnold Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Marianne Aude { Mitch Avalon CCC Public Works Dent. D€ck Avenius { Gl€ Azevedo City of Antioch Parks&Recreation Commission { Carol Baird California Institute for Biodiversity { Linda Ballentine Stewards of the Arco c+r PasaJero CRMP Ronald Banducci Judi Bank { Eva Bansner League of Women Voters of the Bay Area ,Stephen Barbata Delta Science Center at Big Break Valerie Barone City of Walnut Creek { Dennis Barry,AICP CCC Community Develgpment Dent. Christina_ Batt Muir Heritage Land Trust { Yvonne Bayless C.Y.C,L.E. { Geoffrey Bellenger City of Lafayette Parks&Recreation Bob Bergen City of Pleasant Hill Recreation&Park District { Bennett Berke Save Mount Diablo { Rhonda Berry City of Brentwood { Martha Berthelsen The Watersh2qProLct { Linda Best Contra Costa Economic Partnership Bruce Beyaert Trails for Richmond Action Committee(TRAGI ` T-errY BBeymos { Bethallyn Black UC Cooperative Extension Contra Costa County Jim Blickenstaff Sierra Club. Mt. Diablo Group.Save Our Danville Creeks { John Bliss Shilts Consultants Inc. Page 23 Attachme6nt I n. yl.�y ( Rosie Sack East Bay Regional Bark District ( Gloria Boehm City of El Cerrito ( Laszlo Sonnyay Town of Mcsraca Parks&Recreation Commission ( Barbara ntemps City of 4rinda barks&Recreation ( Jack Bontemrss arinda Parks&Recreation Foundation ( Arthur Bonwell Save Mount Diablo ( aFelicia Bor_ repo Save the Bav Dubravka"Dee" Bs�skovic ( Rich jBottarini City.of Pleasant Hill ( Josh Bradt CC Clean Water Program ( Myrtle Branton City of Richmond Parks&Recreation Commission w ( Marty Breen Save Mount Diablo Kate .Breslin Supervisor Jahn Gioia`s Office(District 1) ( ,Jan Bridges City of El Cerrito Park& Rec Commission ( C_ raig Bronzan City of Brentwood Parks& Recreation ( ;Lanny Brown City of Brentwood Parks&Recreation Commission Jerry Brown Contra Costa Water District ( Ron Brown Save Mount Diable Ron Brown ( Ann Buell California State Coastal Conservancy Rod Bulter Sherida Bush City of Martinez Parks&Recreation Commission ( lL.auri Byers CCC Board o#Supervisors ( Joe Calabrigo Town of Danville ( ;Bob Calkins CCC Redevelopment Agency ( 'Rosemary Cameron East Bay Regional Park District ;Bob Cantrell City of Martinez ( Lisa Carnahan CCC Public Warks Dept.Special Districts Charles Carpenter ( Laura Case CCC Board of Supervisors Maria Catanzaro ( Dan Cather City of Walnut Creek Richard Chamberlain Town of Morapa Bob Chapman ( Terrance Cheung Supervisor Gioia`s Office Paul Choisser ( Susan Click gty Council ( Dan Coleman Sha_mll industries ( Dave Collins East Bay Regional Park District ( Tom Conrad Habitat for Hurnsnity Ron Common jSteve Costa Ronald Crane ( 'Jason C�vireo County Administrator's Office ( Genevieve lCross Trust for Public Land Page 24 Attachment 1 5-18-04 Dennis Cunnane iDennis Cunnane City of Mcma Janice Cu Jim Cutler Planning, Mediation&Environmental Srvcs. Lori Dair Sustainable El Cerrito Mike Daley Sierra Club Ba rX Chapter John Dalrymple Central Labor Council Dennis Danaghhu 'Chani Danielson Frank Darfing f Orinda Parks&Recreation Gvr nne Davi City of Pittsburg Parks&Recreation 'Mel Davis ON of Richmond Brenda De La Ossa Mount Diablo Gateway Alliance Brenda De La Ossa District Ill Supervisor's Office Jennifer Deal City of Lafayette Parks&Recreation ,Iktark DeSaulnler CCC Board of Sul?erVisors 'Rachael Dinno Government Relations Trust for Public Land Roder Dolan Muir Herita a Land Trust f ;David Dglberg Trails for Richmond Action Committee TRAC Ro er Dollan Muir Heritage Land Trust 'Tim Donahue Slerra Club.Delta Group Jack Dave 'l ab Davle East Bay Regional Park District Lydia Du Bor-q City of Concord Beatriz Pg-f yf City,of San Ramon Tad Duffy City of San Ramon Natalie DuMont Greenbelt Alliance 1 Kath Duncan City of San Pablo barks&Recreation Jeff Edonston 'Lucretia Edwards Adorn Eichberg Conservation Finance Trust for Public Land Adam Efchberg Conservation Finance Trust for Public Land Juliet Ellis Urban Habitat Program Kevin Emigh CCC Public Works Dept. Jeff Eono City of San Ramon Parks&Recreation Jeff :Eono City of San Ramon Paries&Recreation Skip Epperl CCC Public Works Dept. Betty&Sue Ericsson Craig EwinCity of Lafayette Steven Falk City of Lafayette Farideh Farah aily of Antioch, Leisure Services Favlow Arthur Feinstein Golden Gate Audubon Society Deter Felsenfeld Contra Costa Times ,Rudy ]Fernandez City of Antioch Leisure Services Page 25 Attachment 1 g, ,t 5-18-04 ( ILarry Ferri Mt. Diable State Park ( V._.gyne Fettig Saranac►Homeowners'Association ( 59—tty Fisher Supervisor DeSaulnier's Office ( Michael Flemincs City of Martinez Parks&Recreation Paul Flores City.of Pittsb ( 'Susan Friedman San Ramon General Plan Task Force ( Glenn Fuller John Muir National Historic Site Bob Fulton i Chuck Gabrvsiak Mary Ann Gaebe ( Kevin Gailey Town of Danville Trudi Garland City of Orinda Parks& Recreation ( Jeff Gault City of San Ramon ( Gin er Gessner City of Concord ( GaN Gilleran IYoung&Rubicam San Francisco ( John Gioia CCC Board of Supervisors Federal Glover ( Federal Glover CCC Board of Supervlsors ( Roberta Goulart CCC Community Development Dent. ( IDiana Granados Native bird Connections j ?Diana Granados Native Bird Connections ( !Bill Granados Native Bird Connections ( Jeremy Graves Citv_of Clayton ( Millie Greenberg CCC Board of$t pervisors John Greltzer CCC Community Development Dept. ( Sean Griffith West Contra Costa Green Party MarrGrisham City of Pinole D. Manuel Grosse.Sr. City of Richmond Gretchen Grover ( ;Gretchen Grover East flay Municipal UtilityDistrict ( Darts Guenzier Bay Area Open Space Council ( Uim .Gwerder CCC Citizens Land Alliance Tom Hagler ( 'Alexander Hall City of Hercules Parks&Recreation Ken Hambrick ( Barry Hand City of Oakley ( Scott Hanin City of El Cerci#o ( Pamela Hardy Ponderosa Homes Sharon Harris !Z d ,Hart Cwt of Antioch,Leisure Services nthia Harvey Supervisor John Gioia's Office ( Joyce Hawkins City of Odnda Myrna Haves Carguinez Strait Preservation Trust ( ;Hillary Heard jCCC Community DeveloornO Dep#. ;Susan Heck v Lindsay Wildlife Museum Page 26 Attachment 1 5-18-04 SEE ow,. Alison Hill City of Lafayette Parks&Recreation Nadine Hitchcock Bay Area Conservancy Program,Coastal Conservancy Adele Ho City of San Pablo Melanie Hobden City of Orinda Aram Hodes Plumbers&Steamfitters Local 159 Ralph Hoffman League of Women Voters Kathy Hoffman Congressman George Milers Office Rich Holden Moraaa Park&Recreation Committee Jeff Houston Melody Howe Weintraub ,David Hudson Kris Hunt Contra Costa Taxpayer's Association l William Hunt Walnut Creek Parks. Recreation and Open Space Commission Rebecca Ines City of Pittsburg. CommunLty Development Dept. Michelle ltagaki City of Hercules Lucinda Jackson, PH.D. Chevron Research&Technology Co. ;Jim Jakel Contra Costa Council j !Jim Jakel City of Martinez j Ed James City of Concord Vincent Johnson Community Youth Council for Leadership&Education Jody Jones Lillie Mae Jones Conamuni Youth Council for Leadership&.Education Lee Jones Neighborhood House of North Richmond ;Stephen Joseph 'Bob Joyce Frank Junk 'Nancy Kaiser City of Ctakley ;Pamela Karr City of Walnut Creek Park. Ree.&Open S„,pace Comm. Michael Kean City of Antioch Leisure Services Kevin Keegan-Twornbly City of Lafayette Perks& Recreation John Keibel Jahn A. Keibel: Documents Phot r°a h Jim Kennedy CCC CommunitVDeveloprnent Dept. 'Daniel Kibler Gordon Kimber CCC Planning Commission Steve Kirby Glenn Kirby Heather Koch Cily of El Cerrito Werner Koeflner Sierra Club. Mount Diablo Group Jahn Ko2gb ik CCC Community Developr^nent Dept. fDee Korbel Monica Kortz City of El Cerrito Parks&Recreation ndrew Krakoff City of Orinda Parks&Recreation Katherine Kutsuris CCC_Commu_nity Development Dept. James Kyle City of Antioch, Leisure Services Page 27 Attachment 1 5-18_04 40 I jNorman La Force Sierra Club SF Bay Chapter I Kandi Lancaster City of Concord Parks&Rec Commission I Debbi Landshoff Surra Club.West Contra Costa Group Be_ verly Lane jEast Bay Regional Parc District Beverly Lane East Bav Redonal Park District Robert J. Lana Cifv of San Ramon Parks&Community Srves.Comm. Paul Larson Galindo Creek Association Steve Lawton City of Hercules I 'Mike Leana city of Brentwood I l ike Leana�AICP City of Brentwood I INIntX Lee City of Concord Parks&Rec Commission Linda Lewis William Lindsa City of orinda I Beatrice uu County Counsel's Office,Centra Costa County I Laura Lockwood CCC Administrator's Office Laura Lockwood I ,John D. Loder Mills-Peninsula-Hospital Foundation Henry Losee Henry R. Loubet I Jeremy tMadsen Greenbelt Alliance D.Grant Mainland City of Walnut Creek Park. Rec.&Open Space Comm. I Karl Malamud-Roam CC Mosquito&Vector Control District I Silvano Marghesl Contra Costa County Counsel's Office I Jae Marion! Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed John Markley City of brinda Parks&Recreation Commission I Carol Mason Mount Diablo Gatewav Alliance I ;Greg Mattson McGill Martin Self Inc I 'Kristine Mazzei Tri-Valley Business Council 11Janet McBride SF Bay Trait Program,Assoc.of Bay Area Governments I 'Barron McCcy Cityoof San Pablo Jennifer A. Mc�GaU City_of Concord Parks&Rec Commission I Janet IMelloni City of Brentwood Park& Recreation Commission Donna Menge John Mercurio Concord Parks and Recreation Commission I Paul Merrick_ East Bay League Conservation i Ed Meyer CCC Department of Agriculture I Ken Mintz City of San Ramon Parks&Community Srvcs.Comm. I -Iv Morrison Coalition for Open Sp ace I Darrell Mortensen City of Walnut Creek Warks&Recreation I Jo-Lynn Mull City of San Ramon Parks&Community 5rycs. Comm. I Sandy ers Town of Danville Leisure Services I Willie Matt Wells FamolEast Bay Market Area I ;Brenda Navellier El Cerrito Perk&Recr Commission I Steve Nelson Summit Bank ILaurabeth Grieneeks'Nelson City of El Cerrito Park&Rec Commission Kathleen Nirnr Sierra Club. Mt Diablo Group Page 28 _.... ......... ......_.. Attachment 1 5-18-04 `"! $K $ 'w� s s .rI "¢ Shirley Nootbaar Robert Nootbaar Ron Nunn CCC Ag6cu€tura€Land Trust Robert Nuzurn Contra Costa Water D€stmt j Pat O'Brien East Pay Regional Park District j Michael G. O'Connell Paine Webber,,Inc. j Clarice Odell city of Orinda Kae Ono CCC Community Deve€opment Dept. Edmundo Orozco Ci of PittsburgParks&Recreation Commission j Mitch _ O§h€ns City of Brentwood j Peter Oswald Sunset Development Company Garii Owalina City of Orinda Parks,&Recreation j 'Edward Pancoast Urban Creeks Council j 1Jennv Papka Native Bird Connection j l teve Pardieck Muir Heritage Land Trust Laura Pardiieck (Jean Parker City of Walnut Creek Park,Rec.&Open Space Comm. j Mike Parness City of Walnut Creek Stefanie Parrott j Richard Patchin City of Martinez Parks&Recreation Lori Patotzka j Dianne Pau€ Canyon Community Associat€on Leroy Pereira j HenPerkins Ci oty f Pittsburg Parks&Recreat€on jFffePeas Prp$pect Sierra Ranch MaMfIeiedly Pie ho j Wayne Pierce Roddy Ranch.LLC j Sal Pizzamenti City of Pittsburg Parks&Recreation j Bernadette Powell Lindsay Wildlife Museum j Bob Power Bay Area Ridge Trail Council j Edward Prenot CC Master Gardener Tod Radke East 8av Regional Park D€strict j Ted Radke East Bair Regional Park District Pytan Radke j Mike Ramsey Gity of Pleasant Hill j Jirn Randall City of San Ramon j Maya Rap pport Ci cif t rinda j 'Kristopher Rasmussen ON Of Lafa ette Parks&Recreation ?Vrees Rauch j :Peter Rauch California Native Plant Society,East Pay Chapter j Winston Rhodes City of Brentwood j Nancy Richardson Town of Morapa Parks&Recreation j €fan Richardson City of Walnut Creek Mary Rocha j Patrick Rct�e GCC Cornun€ty Development Dept. Page 29 Attachment I 5-18-04 ------------ Fezm�a ( jEmie R dr!gues City of Brentwood Park&Recreation Commission ( Richard Rollins Affiliated Englr►eers, Inc. ( 'Pam Romo Friends of the Creeks ( Caro€ Row1 City of San Rahn Parks&Recreation Commission ( Jennifer Russell City of Lafayette Parks&Recreation ( �Jhohn cyclRuzek East Bay Bie Coalition evin M. Ryder gN of Richmond ( ;Mike Sakamoto City of Hercules ( Lor! Sa€arnack .Town of lulqraga ( She Sank City of Martinez Parks&Recreation Dave agr_ent ( Ruth Sayre Sprimhill Valley Homeowners Assoclabon NaitCY Schaefer ( Lou Schretel Clty of Walnut Creek Parks&Rec. Commisson Patrlcia Scott ( 3Mary Selkirk Callfornla Center for Public Dispute Resolubon ( Cece Sel€gren CCC Public Works Dent. ( Cece Sellgren Muir Heritage Land Trust f Michael G. Sellors National Audubon S'Ociety ( Caro Severin EBRPD Board of Directors ( Dan Shaw City of Richmond Community Development Department ( Douglas Sheehan City of Pittsburg Parks&Recreation ( Nassir Shirazi Cita of P!tts#aurg Maurice Shiu CCC Public Works Dept. Siden East Bay Regional Park District ( ';Carol Singer City of Lafayette Parks&Recreation ,Sir or Madam City of Antioch Leisure Services City of Antioch ( ;Jean Sid East-Bay-Regional Park District ( Jean Sir! EBRPD Board of Directors ( !g—or Skaredoff Friends of Alhambra Creek ( Shirley Skaredoff Friends sof Alhambra Greek Debra Skeaton ( Todd V. Skinner City of Qnnda Parks&Recreation Skrel City of Walnut Creek Park.Rec. &Open Space Comm. John Slaymaker Greenbelt Alliance Katherine Shall City of Lafayette Parks&Recreation Qornrnisslon ( Tiffany Smith Community Youth Council for Leadership-&Education ( 'Tyler Snortum-Phelps Green Pyr of Contra,Costa ( {Marcia Somers Town of Danville Leisure Services ( Maxine japftllman California State Coastal Conservancy ( Malcolm Sproul LSA Associates, Inc. 'Sandy SproW ( Dan Stanton Native Bird Connection ( ,John #Steers ISycamore Associates ( Wye Steffen lCity of AntiochLeiser Service Page 30 ......_....-. Attachment 1 5-18-04 j Karen Stein Town of Moraga j Karen E. Stephenson Cily of Richmond j Sheri r Sterrett City of Peasant Hill,Parks&Recreation Bruce Stewart Community Youth Council for Leadership_&_Education Jackie Stewart j Fran Sticha City of Lafayette Parks&Recreation Evelyn St€vers Green—belt A€fiance j Beth Stone East Bay Regions€Park District E€leen Straus j Joel€ Summerhill City of P'sttsburg j John Sutter East Bay Rggiona€Park District !Mark Sweene gty_of Martinez Parks&Recreation Darrel Sweet California Rangeland Trust }Richard Takahashi City of El.Cerrito Park&Rec Commission i — Tarr Traits for Richmond Action Committee LIR&Q j Nancy Tatarka San Ramon City Council j MikeTaugftt Centra Costa Times j James Teixeira City of Martinez Tom Terrill The Terrill Company Howard Thomas j Richard Thompson CCC Ag Trust(staff) j Laura Thompson SF Bay Trail Program.Assoc.of Bay Area Governments Sandra Threlfall j Clifford ] nA Burton Vaf€e .com Melody Trapp j €siah Turner City of Richmond j jGav{e 8. Ui€trema CCC Board of Suuervisors j jNanci Vafche EB Business j 'Gut van Domse€aar City of Hercules, Community Development l Public Warks j ,Gerard Van Steyn Shilts Consultants, Inc j Barbara Vaughn Mt. Diablo Audubon Society j Barbara Vincent League of Women Voters j „Mike Nuke{ich Contra Costa County Farrn Bureau j Karen Wahl City of Brentwood Helfer Waidtlow Native Bird Connection Loma Wallace Greenbelt Alliance Dave Waiters j Mimi Wa€ueh East Bay Regional Park District j Ron Ward City of Antioch j Jesse Washington City of Richmond Parks&Recreation j Helen Weaver City of Richmond Donald Weber City of Lafayette Parks&Recreation j Hermann Welm Pinole Pt. Properties j Hermann We€m Contra Costa Economic Partnership { Nam Wenn inger East Bay Reionaf Park District Page 31 Attachment I z 5-18-04 ( \��5�°i• 'c.��" �'�� � �s�.,:_:�,�3 s,�af., ��>,.r�, . ,9.0 i'„T°° ���k s + ak\� I lReter Weshler San Jose State-University, Dept. Urban&Regional P€gnnint�" ;Jackie Wessman ( Sharon West City_of Richmond ( Richard Westin City of Orinda Parks&Recreation ( love Wetmore Gity.of Antioch € ( Dave Wetmore City of Antioch. Department of Leisure Services ( Eric Whan CCC Public Works Dept. ( Les White City of Pittsburg ( Sandee Wiedemann ( Ayn Wies_kamp East Bay R# ional Park District ( Chris Wilcox Cty of El Cerrito Parks&Recreation Commission ( L€nda Wilcox County Counael ( B r Williams gly of Richmond Recreation&Parks Department ( Thomas R. Williams Aetna U.S. Healthcare ( aRoland Williams Castro Val€e_y Sanitary District ( Elizabeth Williams-Jones City of Pittsburg Parks&Recreation ( Pete&Amelia Wilson ( Tim Wirth Trust for Public Land Gene Wolfe ( Phil Wong City of San Ramon ( John Woodbury Bay Area Open Space Council ( John Woodburn E3_ay Area open Space Council ( #Elva .Yanez Trust For Public Land ( Bruce YoW City of El Cerrito Park&Rec Commission .Jim Zelinski Page 32 Attachment 1 5-18-04 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 {options for Funding the Acquisition and Protection of open Space and Agricultural Lauds 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. i General Obligation Parcel Taut Benefit Assessment Bond District Haw are funds Increase in ad valorem 'Tax on individual Assessment on generated? tax on property parcels. Possible for property. Amount tax to be a flat,per- assessed is parcel charge or to determined by vary tax by type of engineers report that parcel and other distributes costs factors. according to benefits. Page 33 Attachment 9 5-"18-04 General Obligation Parcel Tax Benefit Assessment Bond District Who pays? Property owners. Property owners. Property owners, Properties with a Tax rates are based on engineers higher net assessed determined within the report that distributes value pay more. measure by the $ costs according to framers. benefits. Who votes? Registered voters Registered voters Pro owners What voting margin 2/3 majority 2/3 majority 50%weighted is required for majority(votes are approval? weighted according to i amount of assess- j ment they would a What type of Special or General Special or General Election by mail election? i Election Election What are the time Two elections per Two elections per Election may be =, constraints on the year,though add years year,though odd convened at any time, election? are more expensive years are more 45 days must be expensive allowed for return of ballots. Costs of election Depends on how many j Depends on how Depends upon how items on ballot many items on ballot many parcels included. OK to fund No Yes Yes stewardship?_ Fixed term required? Yes No No ' Possible to expend No Yes Yes •. revenues on a pay- as o basis? Possible to sell Yes{required} Yes Yes bonds? i Advantages I ° Simple ° Possible to ° Perhaps more customize tax rate I equity in distri- ° Only way to raise ad ballon of costs valorem tax ° Flexibility in use of i revenues Flexibility in use of ° Best interest rates revenues ° Election may occur at an time Disadvantages Not possible to Even year election ° Application to manage funds on probably required county-wide open pay-as You-90 space needs is an basis Flexibility in tax emerging rate structure can technique ° No stewardship be point of Page 34 Attachment 1 i 5-'18-04 i General Obligation Parcel Taut Benefit Assessment Bond district ® p controversy ° Even year election probably required New property owners generally Pa more Page 35 00 00000000 000 s dG�d dp O O OOO Q O 88 OO O s s ssss LJL t5Nco Om0)0 QQQ0 ss s zs $ ss ss ss s Zti, W'.l`�C7CCSNCncOtoN tl7inhctCOtit+9tCl7� I`C7lam. C@tt7C7Yo h�it5ddt!}rQ _ p0o00000 00 0000000 Ci o z} ; qr OoU-) VN C6'twcnLllrCONrl incl) V CO M�6 It�I NN L0)NMcr) f3LL500 t�. Z8 p 888 88 8�s d (n z' �' C'T CO tl7 s3° d' GLS Ch Ih cU N h• r t1.co C1' fes'.47p N DSssssss ss N6�Ld7Ms� cdlt_ to �Ln GLS N M— GU h- t17 LIS c7)F'�t'b Clf ti 'tt(�} - *H H3 69 69 SFt EA r EF} 69 r EA b4 b9('�'#'63 6'3 13.cll 6%cJ cV CV N Cll N N N N h. N •(� Ll. Lll t^?r" N r r h" fsi 63 b3€H 69 63 63 63 63 64 63 69 ff3 fFS 63 N LLS V 1] 64 63 64 fl3 Efl �.q Vi. 63 ka N 63 4 a. +m. XC 0z E (Do2ons cccd t++i Gu am z c`u vo, b 72 E� ©o c OCOM � 0 0 a c c '� cci o ct % Gp o 0 •� O O Y=d(Jr v_' g° aOtl� �— '� _ CLE c Cr U O O 117 �� O 6 d ti r d, C75 Z � �C33 C 'y Z.E >_ tod c E Co iC a c N — O -2 m. N �c cs� EU cc CL a a c m cssd ax r5 L� o y c c N o m y a m m « d c c 0 U) ` a Gaa'S ar �, cum m � Earr c�¢ d ¢¢<ter¢E- c � c .i- roe to w e a� as m uj Z ro ro 0 cc o m•r ca cr.amr c c;ZUUUUU aUdQflYf1 al m° �� v ro w a (� -� dtY]UUoM7L M 00 a.U..2 (B y a_ F- CL c Gn �, m a c Gu x m _ 's m'MCL cr ra secd C C� o t U cts 0-CL a rn C td 'o0 a Q a co C 7•. m C t11 0•c C C di— C3 (� � :^ � vca Cc$ rr�i � �' ``��� � Eo` o,aoirn `� c U) E2 cts C CS.y tY]C) N O c iT 5 E F- _ a— WY .....::•..: ..;:. :;•:::5: ;r::. 4 .... .G Q as 0 0ui ca o r'- ........................ o m at — c ::.:•.55:.:555:5555::. .::;::;::•:::.;;.;.:.;;5;;::;:<;::: :::::.::::::.5':.5•::•;::::; 4UQ L._ ...:.......::.:.:.:. :..::.:•.5:;::::.:.5.....:.:.;...;. .....:: ::.;:•.5:.5:.;x.5:.55:: . :<;.;:::.:;.;5•.:;:::.;.;•:;. .< ca�•• y � U m c o ccY i � Y O N 3 in :5:5:.;55:.::;::::::.;:::: :::.:;:.::.::..;•::;:::.5:}:.:..;:.:.:.:::::.:::::::. .:•:.::.. • � •;::;.. C CJ Lu c N o ............... ..... :>:<}:>::»»::5s>::.>»:}.5:.55:.5:>>::<;:::;: •::•:::.>:>:.:5:::.::;:•5:;.::.55:..:.• 7, d ,;�. .:::::.:::.5:;.�55:5:5:x.:.•:::,:::.:::..5.5:5:•:;.:..:;.:......... ).3:.w.1.<;. :4r}}:>::::}5xt::::x<::_:%}^:>: - .:::. +yd.i, as Fvr cc 1ci cCt,_mLL 0 rA�1=t $ 0a s cd -0 n00N ~ s. 0�u, o cn La jmz r 5............. ti tO-Najd— l7 ,w..•,�`• :.:�..�..,:., �N M eY iti+D r r r r r r h�'. 00� '::}:jjiiiii;}:: A .[n...• 4 It 'Y. y`f,� ,•�. .:.3.. :ii'i "t................. a ..r r . w, 5 r 5 1 ^, -ti i} 4 •ii 'i1 i' .�::.�ii5:•S i5i5:•ii;.55. .t• •5555:;::.:..::..: .:> .S:.,i .�:.: :.::':::: ;`r r ;:) x}.- f /� OQOOOOOOpOCQ�O 00 O urs .'!`• .i I '�sssss sssc7ps ss O f tai i a.,...:..:'' I�• +'' (O�Gpp7tp'S pO QQ GOA Gpp3 Cpl. G�G��7tpS Gppr7 Gpp7 GOGA� 5' t•t W ^12 h 3 C lMx,'vA,, l s s 4'S s s O g f5 S C7 g Cf CS C� a E J „< }.-:+•,. r5 itw�y : '. lL N Ln Lf) Ln Ln tt7 Ln Lo M LA Lf) co 636361' 3 606363636363 6%69 0 v�/.! +�� t f . •_ S vV rrt rye<s k r Cit M y r 6:4 3f' ,. t xt*H s G3 Y o CL Y[ L cco C O y �L ••rc�u, 3' : p °� 2 '.i}Yt x i+! ' ♦ 1 r t r ^ S' U Yh a O O to (L6 O cis C) )�.� ,i pi `a t s s_ y i6 0 Lll ii ,.,a-w � "�S. :'�Y:;rS•::5:•5:<•55: S t ,t%e' c O•� C/)ow C\j O i'>.''•::}:`:<:,r:;;:?': :rt'✓"i^',. YAC 6 C' 0)tb c = a) -Q) c o 'r" •y� .,- .•+ y. ;ra r :..!<:::: yy +• r.. t. — t]i o y,/ay CS U ( CL ow tm Lys/ •Z.Y co _ N G +r tm" C`" �•rn C �'�r i Ts E — 5 •� Q fnr } \r;`" �s. l 7R•Y* t -1$` t; l } •+If k..^.a 1 Y'. ^u ^ f6 a 0 LLN r,•= a c LL C Gy ,..:!` >~ '' "awr y',r ars' ' :s f„t rta•G*+�G < ' ',x.,.''• + . . ca 'C o L. co[]w a..Z J W CL L/ cy ��j pss + � 1^ t t-'''`• .u� 1 dtl]t7dWli C'3==� ' QJ.�` F-- L1'a t,y},z y,-.} Yt L t�f`+ r t +.�'+1^� #f +*[ r l•) �` :r c k .✓ x d 04t Y s• x VJ + �F A� !� v W V > :• t•] .I• ..y,'i txT: tvT 4 f: IL �Y. b! tltltl"lll t }r •g s) n s tp+ t -y y.? �...•„ 7 i '� S l�y `w r +t� 5 'i r .C1 .•�.• >f)*R. " 1i s fv x 1 � W':,• t C}5 ' y y t7 ,tf /`' JUL A IR Jam\ `•} _ • �- +` r.f(� +�1.+�p#'>+Z �s �.us�+ iV) y(/ 40 i.�)b cr y tv y .-_W��-- � .r y M `'r ..;, •tw`+ t'� co VIII 1 `�Ljj -- . r j s� •�xf}tl; 5 •✓t �r t CN C CL CL E •�" .+515. ` "-^i f'� "j ,,.p�'>+: {iv£ +R.. V i O_ � � 6 r f f, �'l'^' A• 'Ski[ ';� d' � • � ��. 77 CL CL /�� •� fil'ti* f s l yy i F- t•L •..✓. �. �x E ,� a. y 0t + + a i r^f "'-.`-i I�:" .Ghl; <- �u +•r. d•c r-' E N w r3 f do /q .,o' 3wd' K 67 E t7 N t Lf� ;r� °�S a �+�, a t •�' 3. ` d9 ul r l'• a t�' KBE LU 0 CL alto ti 3 .•;�,.s+? e � is L mID (D a. _ € t gCL 0 C a d € ` w m z E _ > r� Z a r' CL `° Z oCL CL CD 0 cr) 0 c a M� mm u °' t7t RS '< :' `' a xf z7 v P a y a CD c ?;Ga +fit aS _5 Ci 3+* c a is m O xof C7 g = 8 2 LU _R ;•� 8� to � � C CL 0u *:y'r :�. =:.s..y f: f5 ' a .c n Y U H d rL c» d O O sa L Lei 4y } D n 0 Y� n �r f ? { i 1i 1 i rTl 0�4 W=4 .r. rqn C) >0 U) for CLrTlU) rTi tl) rTl ,� Z7 i i 1 CD j @ @ CD CO CD m 0 CD C a) -s @ Z3 � CD 0- CL CD � @ � 0 :. =3 0 CD C7 SU CD 3 ,_,, O X 3 --h �' ch to 0 } C @ CLCD ,04 @CD 0 Cn ® M @ (D © - =r 0 (n CDW Cn CCD 0 cn O � C' � � D @CD CD Ct Ch 3 C? @ + Q V5' CSD cn CSD p @ V � � C -� C -0 ' C7 M 0 C7 CD lC 0 m fl. @ O CD � -moi ?M C 3 'Z7 Q CD O S13 FD' _ :t CD ;� � Cn iU Cfl j CD mm on 3 @ 0@ .-, CD (DCD C' �y U) Cn Sll CD -* CL CD cc '"' © @ r cr 3 CD © Sll CD - 0 CD - CD -++ Cts @ @ C7 iU CD Cn < -+ CL , -SCD. fn X CD 0 Q C> Cr O p- Q O CX. in @ 2 Q 0 �_ © a c MWit° CL :r cn =r0 n @ � -0 CD � ° vm (D @ p 0 < CD cC2 ='Z @ 0 cn .< w CD 0 �C C7 CD Z3 CD F. -a = v @ @ n :3 '-+ (DU) 0 CD 3 C: rZro d. � m cn Ccs Z3 @ cz CCDD CD 0 0 (D 3- N 0p- CD n @ su Q � s � 0 : - CL CD 00mci 0CD 0 C7 Cn CD cn rn cn to N CL �. ,.�. t 0 t� rt M M po A MM e0 _. �w 0 0 n w C 4 M D m CDCA ro ° c cn "CD CD CD 171 'CI C , TL�tI! •� 4 2 ro P 7 N rt D 13 # i A tit W N16 �. :..i -4 a) O "(0 �0 , � El s ` 0 J c3 00 K) N to «s N O W t37 yawl 8 G C r �0 CD . c CDQ N "= o ca � 3' c �rr —, to C7 C7 CJ �' C �r -r1 iv {� ; tYt EF1 vo �? a " 'n -rty im c� CD CD (E -n o .. 0 _. In rV !1 s 13 til co -, 0') -1 s y �fiti ti�tir CD '4 Co "W til 0) 0) co ;W ,N W m � rn m r``�r �•"' .a m C W N •t17 co tT1 ,P.f ,r• iD - 4�6 N W W 43 J 1 0 CL } t r tlD , j V t� P, 0 m m : 0m + CL int mCL - wo w co m 0 CL ' i CU G) - 0_ (D-0 (D �.. r) `0 ( cu 0 U) -0 cL � �_ j � =3 � �v cn -1 rt C3 Vim') "t'3 =3 � LO ( CL O V) --v (D cu V) -0 x = O c r n o 3 .. w 3 U (D M G) X CL r (D rt in (Dn M- -. 1 90 Lrt n G' O `% 0 C� 0 0 1 i r 0 CD ! CL ' . E m M > CD CD x ` ' � 'C3 toi 90 S?o y� smw U5 'C CP 'CD .. _ �, #`. ❑ RCD �rt 4013 " ° #h 0 ;-J Cil IV � j C77 M !0) r `71 S1S -n . C T -n I a CD th CD n ° , > Ul CL Y #� r Mmn n ® r. ratr�r N .Ctil C-11 O'` : '• i 1 m —v CU � c cu a n (D �FD LA 3 m � � =F V) . 0 G' —h sv r m � m go � � U) =3x vr) • '" Ln w (D Q a 0 rt C C C 0 Z z Mai � r 0 m CL V) =r � rD 00 L f s cn C m cc (D 0 C .C r- U1 CL �. F ..> 3 . 0 r he CD - m M 2. 1 0 1 r 50 oo 01 co 0) 0 t7 0 CD cbOh Lo r co 0) y > s• s rn C7 't7 cr O o� ' G C CD ey c On CD CA f i a (D . 0to CD -� �„ X � La �.,) CD I �L rD tib � to cu rD ct� 0- o 77 1...�. _ Cl) 0i U) rt 0 W 0CU Cli � • • YY•• X 3(D :3 0 0) (D 3 (o e-t 0 ; 3 6 * =3n rD u 3 rD rD rD O � cr - M rD rD rD 0r-tcr rD rD (CD t o� � .-qro, � � 3 tl fU :3 �' rt CL 0) (D CLCL rt 0, LI) 0 C: (D 0 4 �• CD cC (D � o cu3 � � � 3a- a � X17 O' 2• p � � o _ 0 r+- u sv �' o cn cn' Cl) ,. i cu � a -h CD cup ID ca. C7 "� si) :7 _ @ Cb m � cu X (D } cl) =r _0 � r cv rt OJ X Cl 0 � cu� = - Ln 30 r-r sv w` Ln (D (-D Cl =3 v •• cu CL (D cr OJ o acr '" w • ` -- d Cts IRD ry (v (D 0) � (D (A (Dc � PLO to CL CU 0 C w = cu ao 5 S (Dsh CD cu m to 0 n m Z Lor, ' ° . cn �y 3 c �, v � m V) 0 coM 57 M p I — C7 �' +f� 0 Ln rtM. La Ln CD %7H ` % d -1 -.h ::r 3 - Nom CL � � a r-r (00 = 0 =3 V) (,r) (D C: z Z r i'L (gy0 rt p 0- 3 (gyp cr (") (D � n Mrr-r U. to cu Ln 00 0 0` ;�• " :3 - �_ : 4 3 �.,�• ' d N � t!? i i �3 ! T,3 ... . �.,. Ln Ln 0 Wit; En to u, (D � N of H C7cn- 3 e-t- ro 0 © cr w N 30 -1m 3_ u C: W r M = OJ 3 - � ' un 0 un m 0 � � n _ war L 3 U . ` Cu -h (D o - 0 0 w � V�■ 7 1 1 j rD 01 r-rCL =r 77 CL o x 2 5 cu �- . � HT La � c � 4T 5 70r mnrD CD cn 3 rD � o _. a- -v -t =3 0 Ca .- ~- x cr - ' � g c7 � 3! a 0, X CD L.. r-t* �- d � (} (D x 3 3 crn cr m a Ln -� m �- 3 a- sv 3 C7 �. a cr 0. 0(D ' %%j � rn 1 t + h r f � cu cu 3 50 (D © n tib x C 00 0 Ln CD CL 90 0 Er m 3 U-) 0 to 0 0 tT � � � 0 �L�.. � 'fit _ V)< N + r r �" CL 0. - = I � 0 � � m 0 C: 77 3 3 > C CL ? � 0 0 rl* :3 -t LL .... • � � r cr 0 rD 0 0 r r+ CD cu n % h rt E CL) CLcr cr n CL Attachment 3 DRAFT JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA AND THE EAST BAY REGIONAL. PARK DISTRICT RELATING TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUNDING AUTHORITY Attachment 3 DRAFT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUNDING AUTHORITY JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT This Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement ("Agreement"), dated ("Effective Date"), is entered into by and between the EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT, a special district duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the "EBRPD"), and the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a political subdivision of the State of California (the "County"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Article I (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California authorizes the EBRPD and the County to create a joint exercise of powers entity which has the power to jointly exercise the powers common to the EBRPD and the County; WHEREAS, the EBRPD and the County are each empowered by law to undertake certain projects and programs; WHEREAS, the EBRPD and the County have a common interest in acquiring, improving, and maintaining land for park, recreational or open space purposes; WHEREAS, the EBRPD and the County are authorized to create assessment districts in order to fund projects and programs that provide benefits to properties within their jurisdictions; WHEREAS, by this Agreement, the EBRPD and the County desire to create and establish the Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority for the purposes set forth herein and to exercise the powers described herein; WHEREAS, the EBRPD and the County intend that revenues to be collected and utilized pursuant to this Agreement be used to augment expenditures by the EBRPD, the County, and other entities operating in Contra Costa County for projects such as those described in this Agreement and not supplant or reduce the level of such expenditures. NOW, THEREFORE, the EBRPD and the County, for and in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements herein contained, do agree as follows: 1 Attachment 3 DRAFT SECTION 1 DEFINITIONS Unless the context otherwise requires, the terms defined in this Section 1 shall for all purposes of this Agreement have the meanings specified herein. "Assessment District" means the assessment district to be formed by the Authority pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Sts. & Hy. Code § 22500 et seq.). "Authority" means the Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority created by this Agreement. "Board" means the governing board of the Authority. "Citizens' Oversight Committee" means the advisory committee that will provide recommendations to the Executive Committee on the awarding of grants pursuant to this Agreement. "County" means the County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the State of California. "EBRPD" means the East Bay Regional Park District, a special district duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. "Engineer's Report" means the report to be prepared by a certified assessment engineer as a basis for establishing assessments pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 22565, and any subsequent engineer's reports prepared pursuant to Streets & Highways Code section 22522. The Engineer's Report will specify the funding allocations, determine special benefit, and establish a procedure for calculating the amounts to be assessed from properties subject to the Assessment District. "Executive Committee" means the committee established by the Authority to oversee and approve the granting of funds raised pursuant to this Agreement. "Framework For an Open Space Protection and Enhancement Funding Measure for Contra Costa County", dated May 25, 2004 ("Framework"), means the document that was drafted through a public advisory process to recommend creation of a funding measure for open space purposes., The Framework describes the recommended funding allocations and general operating procedures and provides a guide for preparation of the Engineer's Report. "Law" means Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California (Sections 6500-6599). 2 Attachment 3 DRAFT "Projects" means improvements as defined by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, including but not limited to the installation of park or recreational improvements, maintenance of improvements and acquisition of land for park, recreational or open space purposes. SECTION 2 PURPOSE This Agreement is made pursuant to the Law for the purposes set forth below. A. To establish an Assessment District to obtain funds for Projects. B. To identify Projects to be funded by assessments consistent with the Engineer's Report and the Framework. C. To allocate funding for implementation of the Projects, consistent with the Engineer's Report and the Framework. D. To exercise all the powers referred to in the recitals hereof and described in Section 6 herein. SECTION 3 TERRA AND TERMINATION A. This Agreement shall become effective as of the Effective Date and shall continue in full force for 35 years or until terminated or rescinded, whichever occurs first.) The Agreement may be terminated by either party, in its sole discretion upon ninety-day advance written notice thereof to the other, and may be terminated or rescinded immediately by a written supplemental mutual agreement of the parties hereto. SECTION 4 AUTHORITY A. Creation of Authority. There is hereby created pursuant to the Law an agency and public entity to be known as the "Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority." As provided in the Law, the Authority shall be a public entity separate from the EBRPD and the County. The debts, liabilities and obligations of the Authority shall not constitute the debts, liabilities or obligations of the EBRPD or the County. Within 30 days after the effective date of this Agreement or any 3 Attachment 3 DRAFT amendment hereto, the Authority will cause a notice of this Agreement and any amendment hereof to be prepared and filed with the office of the Secretary of State of the State of California in the manner set forth in Section 6503.5 of the Law. B. Governing Board. The Authority shall be administered by the Board, whose members shall be elected members of the governing bodies of the County and the EBRPD. The County shall have five (5) representatives on the Board and the EBRPD shall have two (2) representatives on the Board. The five members of the County Board of Supervisors shall be the County`s representatives on the Board. The EBRPD representatives on the Board shall be appointed by the governing body of the EBRPD. Board members appointed by the EBRPD shall serve at the pleasure of the governing body of the EBRPD. Vacant EBRPD positions on the Board shall be filled by the governing body of the EBRPD. The term of once as a member of the Board of any Board member shall terminate when such member shall cease to be an elected official of the governing body of the party which such member represents. Duties of the Board include, but are not limited to, annual approval of the Authority budget and annual approval of an Engineer's Report. Members of the Board shall not receive any compensation for serving as such, but shall be entitled to reimbursement for any expenses actually incurred in connection with serving as a member if the Board shall determine that such expense shall be reimbursed and there are unencumbered funds available for such purpose. If requested by the Authority, the County or the EBRPD will provide staff to support the activities of the Authority, the costs of such staff to be reimbursed by the Authority from its funds. C. Meetings of Board (1) Regular Meetings. The Board shall hold a regular meeting on the 4 ' Tuesday of April and October and, by resolution, may provide for the holding of regular meetings at more frequent intervals. if the Chair determines that there will be no business to transact at any meeting or that a scheduling conflict exists, such meeting may be canceled or rescheduled. The hour and place at which each such regular meeting shall be held shall be fixed by resolution of the Board. (2) Legal Notice. All meetings of the Board shall be called, noticed, held and conducted subject to the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 of Part l of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (Sections 54950-54961)) or any successor legislation hereinafter enacted, and the County's Better Government Ordinance. (3) Minutes. The Secretary of the Authority shall cause minutes of all meetings of the Board to be kept and shall, as soon as possible after each meeting, 4 Attachment 3 DRAFT cause a copy of the minutes to be forwarded to each member of the Board and to the County and the EBRPD. (4) Quorum. A majority of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, except that less than a quorum may adjourn meetings from time to time. D. Officers: Duties; Bonding. (1) The Board members shall select from the members a Chair who shall serve as Chair of the Authority and a Vice Chair who shall serve as Vice Chair of the Authority. The Chair and the Vice Chair shall have the duties set forth in the By- Laws of the Authority. (2) The Secretary of the Authority shall be the County Community Development Director. The Secretary shall keep the records of the Authority, shall act as Secretary at the meetings of the Authority and record all votes, and shall keep a record of the proceedings of the Authority in a journal of proceedings to be kept for such purpose, and shall perform all duties incident to the office. (3) The County Treasurer is hereby designated as Treasurer of the Authority. Subject to the applicable provisions of any indenture or resolution providing for a trustee or other fiscal agent, the Treasurer is designated as the depository of the Authority to have custody of all the money of the Authority, from whatever source, and, as such, shall have the powers, duties and responsibilities specified in Section 6505.5 of the Law. (4) The Auditor Controller, who performs the functions of auditor and controller for the County, is hereby designated as Controller of the Authority, and, as such, shall have the powers, duties and responsibilities specified in Section 6505.5 of the Law. The Controller shall draw checks to pay demands against the Authority when the demands have been approved by the Authority. (5) The County shall be reimbursed upon approval of the Board of charges to be made against the Authority for the services of the Secretary, Treasurer, and Controller. (6) The Treasurer and Controller of the Authority are designated as the public officers or persons who have charge of, handle, or have access to any property of the Authority, and each such officer shall file an official bond in the amount each such officer determines is necessary as required by Section 6505.1 of the Law, provided, that such bond shall not be required if the Authority does not possess or own property or funds with an aggregate value of greater than $1,500.00. (7) The Treasurer and Controller of the Authority are hereby 5 Attachment 3 DRAFT authorized and directed to prepare or cause to be prepared: (a) a special audit as required pursuant to Section 6505 of the Law every year during the term of this Agreement; and (b) a report in writing on the first day of February, May, August and November of each year to the Board, the EBRPD and the County, which report shall describe the amount of money held by the Treasurer and Controller of the Authority, the amount of receipts since the last such report, and the amount paid out since the last such report. (8) The Board shall have the power to appoint such ether officers and employees as it may deem necessary and to retain independent counsel, consultants and accountants. :SECTION 5 COMMITTEES A. Executive Committee. The Authority shall establish an Executive Committee which shell have nine (9) members. Five members shall be the members of the County Board of Supervisors. Two members shall be elected board members from the EBRPD and shall be appointed by the EBRPD. Two members shall be public members and shall be appointed by the Board. The Board .shall solicit nominations of individuals to serve as public members from the Contra Costa County Mayor's Conference. The seven elected members of the Executive Committee shall serve at the pleasure of their respective governing bodies. The terms of the public members of the Executive Committee shall be established by the Board. The Board shall delegate to the Executive Committee the following responsibilities: ■ Selection of Projects to be funded with revenues from the Assessment District, consistent with the Engineer's Report and the Framework; • Approval of contracts between the Authority and other entities, within the parameters of annual Authority budgets approved by the Board, and effecting the intent of this Agreement to augment expenditures made by the entities with which the Authority contracts for projects such as those described in this Agreement, and not supplant or reduce the level of such expenditures; ■ Appointment of members of the Citizens' Oversight Committee. B. Citizens' Oversight Committee. The Authority shall establish a Citizens' Oversight Committee to review prospective Projects, make recommendations to the Executive Committee regarding approval of contracts, and make other recommendations consistent with the Framework. Members of the Citizens' Oversight Committee shall be appointed by the Executive Committee in accordance with guidelines to be established by the Board and consistent with the Framework. 6 Attachment 3 DRAFT C. Legal Notice. All meetings of committees shell be called, noticed, held and conducted subject to the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 of Part I of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (Sections 54950- 54961)) or any successor legislation hereinafter enacted, and the County's Better Government Ordinance. D. The Board may establish other advisory committees it deems appropriate to advise the Authority on matters related to this Agreement, provided that the purpose and function of any such committee shall be specified by the Board. SECTION 6 POWERS The Authority shall have all of the powers granted to joint powers authorities in Articles 2 and 4 of the Law. Additionally, the Authority is authorized, in its own name, to do all acts necessary for the exercise of said powers for said purposes, including but not limited to any or all of the following:to make and enter into contracts; to employ agents and employees; to sue and be sued in its own name; to acquire real property and improvements thereon by any lawful means other than eminent domain; and to sell and lease reel and personal property to the EBRPD and the County and to buy and hire real and personal property from the EBRPD and the County. Except as otherwise provided herein, such power shall be exercised subject only to such restrictions upon the manner of exercising such power as are imposed upon the EBRPD or the County in the exercise of similar powers, as provided in Section 6509 of the Law. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Authority shall have any additional powers conferred under the Law, insofar as such additional powers may be necessary to accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 2 hereof. SECTION 7 TERMINATION OF POWERS The Authority shall continue to exercise the powers herein conferred upon it until the termination of this Agreement or until the EBRPD and the County shall have rescinded this Agreement. SECTION 8 FISCAL YEAR Unless and until changed by resolution of the Board, the fiscal year of the 7 Attachment 3 DRAFT Authority shall be the period from July 1 of each year to and including the following ,lune 30, except for the first fiscal year which shall be the period from the date of this Agreement to the following June 30. SECTION 9 DISPOSITION OF ASSETS At the end of the term hereof or upon the earlier termination of this Agreement as set forth in Section 7, and after the repayment of advances and contributions in accordance with Section 10, all assets of the Authority shall be distributed to the parties in equal shares. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any real property held bythe Authority shall be transferred to EBRPD, with EBRPD assuming any and all financing liens or encumbrances incurred by the Authority to acquire the property. SECTION 10 CONTRIBUTIONS AND ADVANCES Contributions or advances of public funds and of personnel, equipment or property may be made to the Authority by the County and the EBRPD for any of the purposes of this Agreement. Any such advance shall be made subject to repayment, and shalt be repaid, in the manner agreed upon by the County or the EBRPD, as the case may be, and the Authority at the time of making such advance. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, the parties agree that any and all incidental expenses (as that term is described in Section 22525 of the Streets & Highways Code) incurred by either party related to formation of the Assessment District, including but not limited to the costs of engineering, balloting and ballot tabulation, and attorney's fees, shall be treated as an advance under this Section and shall be promptly repaid by the Authority following the fiat collection of assessments. It is mutually understood and agreed that, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, neither the County nor the EBRPD has any obligation to make advances or contributions to the Authority to provide for the costs and expenses of administration of the Authority, even though either party may do so. The County and the EBRPD may allow the use of personnel, equipment or properly in lieu of other contributions or advances to the Authority. SECTION 11 ACCOUNTS AND REPORTS The Authority shall establish and maintain such funds and accounts as may be required by goad accounting practice. The books and records of the Authority shall be open to inspection at all reasonable times by the County and the EBRPD and their representatives. The Authority shall give an audited written report of all financial Attachment 3 DRAFT activities for each fiscal year to the County and to the EBRPD within twelve (12) months after the close of each fiscal year. To the extent required by Section 6505.6 of the Law, the Controller of the Authority shall contract with a certified public accountant or public accountant to make an annual audit of the accounts and records of the Authority in compliance with Section 6505.6 of the Law. In each case the minimum requirements of the audit shall be those prescribed by the State Controller for special districts under Section 26909 of the Goverment Code of the State of California and shall conform to generally accepted auditing standards. When such an audit of an account and records is made by a certified public accountant or public accountant, a report thereof shall be filed as public records with the County, the EBRPD and, if required by Section 6505.6 of the Law, with the County Auditor/Controller of the County of Contra Costa. Such report shall be filed within twelve (12) months of the end of the fiscal year or years under examination. Any costs of the audit, including contracts with, or employment of, certified public accountants or public accountants, in making an audit pursuant to this Section shall be bome by the Authority and shall be a charge against any unencumbered funds of the Authority available for the purpose. In any year the Authority may, by unanimous request of the Board, replace the annual special audit with an audit covering a two-year period. SECTION 12 CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE The Conflict of Interest Code for the Authority shall be the Conflict of Interest Code for the County. SECTION 13 INDEMNIFICATION AND DEFENSE Each party to this Agreement shall defend, hold harmless and indemnify the other party, its officers, agents, and employees against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses or liability arising out of, or in connection with, any acts performed under this Agreement and caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the indemnitor, its officers, agents or employees. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 10 of this Agreement, the Authority shall have the power to require the parties to this Agreement to contribute funds for the legal defense to challenges to the formation of the Authority or the Assessment District in the event the Board determines that the Authority lacks sufficient funds to pay the cost of such legal defense. At the direction of the Authority, each party to this 9 Attachment 3 DRAFT Agreement shall contribute funds to pay for attorney's fees and costs that may be incurred in such defense of the Authority, which contributions shall be in equal amounts. If funds are available following the conclusion of any litigation, the Authority shall return such contributions to both parties on a pro rata basis at a time and in a manner to be determined by the Board in its sole discretion. SECTION 14 BREACH If default shall be made by the County or the EBRPD in any covenant contained in this Agreement, such default shall not excuse either the County or the EBRPD from fulfilling its obligations under this Agreement and the County and the EBRPD shall continue to be liable for the performance of all conditions herein contained. County and EBRPD shall be entitled to seek any and all legal and equitable remedies against the other in response to any alleged default under this Agreement. Each and all of the remedies given to the Parties hereunder or by any law now or hereafter enacted are cumulative and the exercise of one right or remedy shall not impair the right of the Parties to any or all other remedies. SECTION 15 SEVERABILITY Should any part, term, or provision of this Agreement be decided by the courts to be illegal or in conflict with any flaw of the State of California, or otherwise be rendered unenforceable or ineffectual, the validity of the remaining parts, terms or provisions hereof shall not be affectedthereby. SECTION 16 SUCCESSORS: ASSIGNMENT This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors of the parties. Except to the extent expressly provided herein, neither party may assign any right or obligation hereunder without the consent of the other. SECTION 17 AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT This Agreement may be amended by supplemental agreement executed by the County and the EBRPD at any time. 10 Attachment 3 DAFT SECTION 18 FORM OF APPROVALS Whenever an approval is required in this Agreement, unless the context specifies otherwise, it shall be given, in the case of the County, by resolution duly and regularly adopted by the members of the Board of Supervisors, and, in the case of the EBRPD, by resolution duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the EBRPD, and, in the case of the Authority, by resolution duly and regularly adopted by the Board. Whenever in this Agreement any consent or approval is required, the same shall not be unreasonably withheld. SECTION 19 NOTICES Notices to the EBRPD hereunder shall be sufficient if delivered to the General Manager of the EBRPD and notices to the County hereunder shall be sufficient if delivered to the Community Development Department and Clerk of the County. SECTION 20 SECTION HEADINGS All Section headings contained herein are for convenience of reference only and are not intended to define or limit the scope of any provision of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed and attested by their proper officers thereunto duly authorized, and their official seals to be hereto affixed, as of the day and year first above written. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA By: Federal Glover Chair, Board of Supervisors ATTEST: John Sweeten Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 21 Attachment 3 DRAFT RECOMMENDED BY: Dennis M. Barry Community Development Director FORM APPROVED: Silvano B. Marchesi County Counsel By: Linda Wilcox Deputy County Counsel EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT By: Douglas Siden President, Board of Directors ATTEST: By: Clerk of the Board of Directors FORM APPROVED: By: Ted Radosevich District Counsel 12 ATTACHMENT 4 Draft CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUNDING AUTHORITY Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District PRELumNARY ENGINEER'S REPORT May 12,2004 Engineer of Work Shilts Consultants,Inc. 2300 Boynton Avenue,Suite 201 Fairfield,CA 94533 (707)426-5016 www.shilts.com CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUNDING AUTHORITY Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION................»........................................................................................................1 H. CERTIFICATES....................................»......................................................................................4 III. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS..............»................................................................................5 A. DEFINITIONS AND DESCmpmm......................................................................................................5 B. FRAMEWORK.....................................................................................................................................6 C. ExPENDrruRE AREAS.......................................................................................................................7 D. h eRovEmEws................................................................................................................................9 IV. ESTIMATE OF COSTS AND BUDGET...................................................................................17 A> ESTIMATE OF COSTS............................................................................................................... .... 17 V. METHOD OF ASSESSMENT APPORTIONMENT...............................................................20 A. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT........................................................................................................20 B. DISCUSSION OF BENEFIT.................................................................................................................20 C. CRITERIA AND POLICIES.................................................................................................................29 D. GENERAL VERSUS SPECIAL BENEFIT...............................................................................................30 E. BENEFIT FINDING AND ZONES OF BENEFIT.....................................................................................32 F. ASSESSMENT APPORTiONMENT......................................................................................................35 G. METHOD OF ASSESSMENT...............................................................................................................35 VI. ASSESSMENT.............................................................................................................................41 VII. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM........................................................................................................43 VIII. ASSESSMENT ROLL(SPREAD OF COSTS)..................................................................VIII-1 L INTRODUCTION The Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority (the "Authority") is a joint powers authority formed between the County of Contra Costa (the "County"), and the East Bay Regional Park District (the "Park District"). After a four year public involvement process, the Authority was created to acquire, improve and maintain land in Contra Costa County for park, recreation or open space purposes. According to the United States Census, the population in the County in 1990 was 803,732 and on July 1, 2003, the total County population is estimated to be 1,001,136, representing a 24.5% increase over this time period. Since the County is approximately 720 square miles in total area, the current population density is approximately 1,390 people per square mile.' The map on page 3 depicts the area served by the Authority, the general location of the County and primary access points into the County from surrounding areas. This Preliminary Engineer's Report ("Report") was prepared to (1) establish the estimated costs of the acquisitions, improvements and maintenance services that would be funded by the proposed assessments of the Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District (the "Assessment District"); (2) to determine the special and general benefits derived thereby; and (3) to apportion the proposed assessments to lots and parcels within the Assessment District based on the estimated special benefit each parcel receives. This Report and the proposed assessments have been made pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code(the "Act") and Article X111D of the California Constitution (the"Article"). After consideration of this Report, the Governing Board of the Authority (the "Board") may, by resolution, preliminarily approve this Report, call for an assessment ballot proceeding and establish a date for a public hearing on the proposed assessments. The ballot proceeding and the potential levy of the assessments are subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Articles X111C and XIIID of the California State Constitution and the Act. If the Board approves such resolution, a notice of assessment and assessment ballot would be mailed to property owners owning property within the jurisdictional area of the Authority. Such notice would include descriptions of the proposed assessments and the acquisitions, improvements and maintenance services the assessments would fund as well as an explanation of the method of voting on the assessments. Each notice would also include a ballot upon which the property owner could mark his or her approval or disapproval of the proposed assessments. After the ballots are mailed to property owners, a minimum 45-day time period must be provided for the return of the assessment ballots. Following this minimum 45 day time period, a public hearing must be held for the purpose of allowing public input regarding the proposed assessments. This hearing is currently scheduled for Tuesday, July 27, 2004. At this hearing, the public would have the opportunity to speak on this issue and to present additional input to the Board. After the close of the public input portion of the public hearing, the returned ballots would be tabulated. The results of the tabulation are scheduled to be announced on August 10, 2004. If it is determined that the assessment ballots submitted in opposition to the proposed assessments do not exceed the assessment ballots submitted in favor of the assessments Contra Costs County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservatfon Distnet Page I Engineer`s Repoli Fiscal Year 2004-o5 by shifts ConsuKants,inc. (weighted by the proportional financial obligation of the property for which ballots are submitted), the Board may take action to confirm and approve the levy of the assessments for fiscal year 2044-05. If the assessments are so confirmed and approved by the Board, the levies would be submitted to the County Auditor/Controller in August 2004 for inclusion on the property tax roll for Fiscal Year 2004-05. If the assessments are so confirmed and approved, they may be continued in future years by a majority vote of the Board. This annual assessment continuation process would require the creation of a budget for the upcoming fiscal year, an updated assessment roll listing all parcels and their proposed assessments for the upcoming fiscal year, preparation of an updated Engineer's Report, a noticed public meeting at which the Engineer's Report would be preliminarily approved, publication in a local newspaper of the Board's intent to continue the assessment, and a noticed public hearing prior to the Board's decision on continuing the assessments. Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Page 2 Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultants,Inc. C _ Q m cL = 0 ZY C , chi l O � El 0CL 0 � c 2 a. let n �r m I mm 2 effigy _ x CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUNDING AUTHORITY Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District & CERTIFICATES 1. The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed Engineer's Report and does hereby certify that this Engineer's Report, and the Assessment and Assessment Diagram herein, have been prepared by me. Engineer of Work, License No. C52091 2. 1, the Secretary of the Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority, County of Contra Costa, California, hereby certify that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with the Assessment and Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was filed and recorded with me on , 2004. Secretary of the Board 3. 1, the Secretary of the Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority, County of Contra Costa, California, hereby certify that the Assessment in this Engineer's Report was approved and confirmed by the Board on 2004, by Resolution No. Secretary of the Board 4. 1, the Secretary of the Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority, County of Contra Costa, California, hereby certify that a copy of the Assessment and Assessment Diagram was filed in the office of the County Auditor of the County of Contra Costa, California, on , 2004. Secretary of the Board 5. 1, the County Auditor of the County of Contra Costa, California, hereby certify that a copy of the Assessment Roll and Assessment Diagram for fiscal year 2004-05 was filed with me on , 2004. County Auditor, County of Contra Costa Contra Costs County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer`s Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shilts Consultants,Inc. Page 4 III. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS A. Definitions and Descriptions L Improvements The improvements proposed to be funded by the Assessment District (the "Improvements") provide special benefit to parcels within the Assessment District as defined in the Method of Assessment herein. Improvements are legally defined by the Act (Section 22525 of the Streets and Highways Code) and include, but are not limited to, installation of park or recreational improvements, installation of landscaping, installation of facilities appurtenant to the improvements, maintenance or servicing of improvements and acquisition of lend for park, recreational or open space purposes.The Improvements are generally described to include the following:2 (a) Acquisition of real property in fee for park, recreational or open space purposes. Such real property may include, but is not limited to, open space lands, greenbelts, hillsides, viewsheds and watersheds, shorelines, riparian corridors, urban open space, packs, agricultural lands,wetlands,surplus school sites and quarries. (b)Acquisition of interests in real property for park, recreational or open space purposes. Such interests may include, but are not limited to, easements, rights of entry, leaseholds, dedications,development rights, conservation easements and utility rights of way on real property such as that set forth in Section III.A.1.(a)of this Report. (c) Maintenance and servicing of such real property and interests in real property acquired with funding from assessments pursuant to this Report. (d) Acquisition, installation, maintenance or servicing of improvements or public facilities such as landscaping, recreational facilities, benches, signage, fencing, firebreaks, picnic areas, playground equipment, play courts, restrooms, trails, lighting, electrical facilities, foot bridges and land preparation such as grading, irrigation or drainage on (1) real property owned by, or encumbered by property rights held by, or maintained by, the Authority;or(2)on real property owned by, or encumbered by property rights held by, or maintained by any local agency or non-profit entity within the jurisdictional area of the Authority that participates with the Authority in any of the acquisitions, installations, maintenance and servicing described herein. Z Maintenance Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of any Improvement, including (a) repair, removal, or replacement of all or part of any Improvement; (b)providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, or treating for disease or Injury; (c) the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste; and (d) the cleaning, sandblasting and painting of walls and other Improvements to remove or cover graffiti. (Sts. & Hy. Code, §22531.) Contra costa county open Space Funding Authorffy,harks and open Space Protection and Preservation Dis63ct Engineses Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts consultants,Inc. Page 5 3. Servicing Servicing means the furnishing of(a) electric current or energy, gas or other illuminating agent for any public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of any other Improvements; and (b) water for irrigation of any landscaping, the operation of any fountains, or the maintenance of any other Improvements. (Sts. & Hy. Code, §22538.) 4. Incidental Expenses Incidental expenses include all of the following: (a) The costs of preparation of the report, including plans, specifications, estimates, diagram, and assessment; (b)the costs of printing, advertising, and the giving of published, posted, and mailed notices; (c) compensation payable to the County for collection of assessments; (d) compensation of any engineer or attorney employed to render services in proceedings pursuant to this part; (e) any other expenses incidental to the construction, installation, or maintenance and servicing of the Improvements; (f) any expenses incidental to the issuance of bonds or notes pursuant to Section 22662.5 of the Streets and Highways Code; and (g) costs associated with any elections held for the approval of a new or increased assessment. (Sts. & Hy. Code, § 22526.) B. Framework The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors created the Ad Hoc Committee on Open Space Funding on September of 1999 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 (the"Advisory Committee"), recommended that a funding measure be placed before the property owners of the County with proceeds to be managed by the Authority. The Advisory Committee also prepared a plan for open space preservation, the Framework for an Open Space Protection and Enhancement Funding Measure for Contra Costa County, dated May 25, 2004 (the "Framework"). The provisions and terms of the Framework guide the funding, operation, management and oversight of the Improvements. However, in the event of a conflict in terms or provisions between the Framework and this Report,this Report shall govern. The Framework sets forth the following categories and descriptions to outline the variety of open space actions needed in the County: Scenic Landscapes and Regional Parks—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; Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Packs and Open Space Protection and Preservation district Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultants,Inc. Page 6 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 prune agricultural soils,rangeland,and unique agricultural features; Historic Preservation—Preserve historic structures and cultural resources and provide educational opportunities; Local & Municipal ParkslRecreation—Enhance 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;and Wildlife Habitat and Corridors—Protect/enhance the habitat of unique and valuable plants and animals.3 C. Expenditure Areas Contra Costa County encompasses unique geographic sub-areas. The western areas of the County, which include the industrial areas along the Richmond shoreline and the urbanized areas along the Interstate 80 corridor, are bordered by the San Francisco and San Pablo Bays to the west and by the Oakland Berkeley Hills and Briones Hills to the east. The central area,which includes the urbanized valley floor along the Interstate 680 corridor, is generally bordered by the Briones Hills and Las Trampas Ridge to the west and the Mount Diablo range to the east. The eastern areas, which include agriculture and urbanized areas, extend east from the Mount Diablo range to the San Joaquin River Delta. In order to more clearly establish a basis for equal levels of special beneft#s to all properties of similar type, three areas (the "Expenditure Areas") have been created within the Assessment District. A specific requirement for the Assessment District is that the net available assessment funds generated in an Expenditure Area must be used for Improvements in that Expenditure Area. The criteria for the Assessment District are further delineated in Section V.0 of this Report. These Expenditure Areas, which are depicted on Map 2 and the Parks and Open Space Protection ,and Preservation District Assessment Diagram in Section VII of this Report, are described as"West County,""Central County"and"East County." Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineses Report Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shots Consultants,Inc. Page 7 ns U a +0. CL to 0 CL {/4) ��•. J� r.i�: � ��� � may/ ' v}dY r � 41-f ' c { CS IC Nll"-,,� '11�r�,-�,"- r= Q. Improvements The following projects (the "Projects"), identified in the Framework, further describe and define the Improvements to be funded by the assessments. The Expenditure Area(s)for each Project are listed on the Estimate of Cost and Budget in Section IV of this Report. 1. Flagship Projects Flagship Projects are Projects of countywide significance. Approximately 36% of the assessment funds received by the Authority will be allocated to Flagship Projects. These Flagship Projects are described as follows: a) Mt. Diablo Park Expansions Mt. Diablo State Park is one of California's oldest and most heavily used parks. It supports critical wildlife habitats and is home to many threatened species. A large percentage of the lands on and around the mountain is privately owned and faces development pressure. Funds from the Assessment District would be used to acquire and preserve additional lands to expand Mt. Diablo State Park and better connect it to other neighboring parks and open space areas. b) San Francisco Bay Trail In the 9990s, the California legislature identified the need for a trail that would ring the San Francisco Bay, and provided initial money to help begin its creation. The Assessment District would provide funds to help complete this trail in Contra Costa County, including missing links between Richmond and Crockett. c) Richmond Shoreline This 30-mile stretch of shoreline contains a variety of scenic and environmental resources and offers three-bridge views of the San Francisco Bay. Funds from the Assessment District would be used to preserve and restore shorelines, wetlands and historic features, and to create new trails or public access opportunities. d) Muir Heritage Corridor This is the area of rolling hills generally north of Briones Regional Park. This land, which is primarily used for private cattle ranching, includes watershed lands, scenic vistas and wildlife habitats. Funds from the Assessment District would be used to acquire parklands and easements to protect the scenic and ranching heritage of the area. e) Prime FarmlandlAgricultural Core The last large farming area remaining in the County is Ionated in the lands east of Brentwood from Knightsen to Byron. This area has rich peat soils and supports productive fruit and nut trees. Funds weld be used to help preserve this prime agricultural area through acquisition of land or conservation easements. t) North Contra Costa Wetlands and River€ront The San Francisco and San Pablo Bay-delta system is considered a water way, public resource and wildlife area of statewide significance. Funds would be used to acquire and preserve shorelines and waterfront lands between Pinole and Oakley. The Assessment Contra Cosh County Open Space Funding Authorft;,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer`s Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shr7ts Consultants,Inc Page 9 District's funds would also be used to open these shoreline areas for public benefit by creating trails and other public access facilities. g) Tassajara Valley The Tassajara Valley lies just east of Danville, San Ramon and the Dougherty Valley. Camino Tassajara runs through the Tassajara Valley, from Blackhawk to the Alameda County line. The valley is facing development pressure, and funds from the Assessment District would be used to acquire and preserve scenic hillsides, ridgelines, ranches and other open space in this area. h) Las Trampas Open Space Connections Extending from the Lafayette/Walnut Creek boundary south to the Alameda County line, this prominent ridgeline parallels the west side of 1-680. Funds would be used to protect and permanently preserve this unique urban wilderness area and to help protect and maintain the watershed lands and clean water sources for public drinking water reservoirs in the area through acquisition of land or easements. 1) Kirker Hills These scenic hills frame the eastern side of Concord and Clayton and the southern edge of Bay Point and Pittsburg. Funds from the Assessment District would be used to purchase land and agricultural easements that would protect this area into the future as ranching lands and would help prevent urban sprawl and large lot development. j) East County Foothills This large grassland and oak savannah area extends from the southern end of Antioch and the western boundary of Brentwood south to the Byron Airport. This area is home to many endangered species. Funds would be used to preserve additional parklands in this area and to protect important wildlife corridors through acquisition of land or easements. k) Lamorinda Greenbelt The Lamorinda Greenbelt lies along the north side of Lafayette and Orinda and extends west and south to include the Caldecott wildlife corridor. Funds from the Assessment District would be used to protect this important wildlife corridor and to preserve other lands along the greenbelt through acquisition of land or easements. 1) Creek and Watershed Restoration The Assessment District includes funding for restoring creeks throughout the County and for protecting lands around creeks, streams and lakes to reduce water pollution. Specific projects include the restoration of the natural character and function of creeks; transformation of creeks into community amenities and local educational opportunities through enhancement of visual character and improved public access; enhancement of water quality, including reduced pollution and sedimentation to benefit public health and struggling fish and wildlife populations; and watershed restoration, including weed management, and improved permeability to restore natural groundwater recharge and minimize flooding. Funds for this Flagship Project would be divided equally among the following geographic areas: 1. West County watersheds from Crockett to the Alameda County line; 2. East County watersheds from Bay Point to Oakley and Brentwood; Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Perks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report Fiscal Year 7004-05 by Shifts Consultants,Inc. Page 10 3. North and Central County watersheds, including Alhambra Creek, Grayson Creek, Mt. Diablo Creek, and Walnut Creek from the southern boundary of the City of Walnut Creek north to the Bay; 4. South and Central County watersheds, including the Lamorinda area and the tends south of Walnut Creek to the Alameda County line; 5. Rural, less-impacted portions of each of these watersheds. m) Trail Construction and Enhancements The Assessment District would provide funding to acquire right-of-way and construct new trails, to enhance existing trails and to provide additional access to parks and recreation areas for disabled people. Priority would be given to projects providing sub-regional or regional connectivity, i.e.,trails connecting communities, regional parks or major city parks. 2. Regional Priority Projects Regional Priority Projects are open space, shoreline, clean water and park projects that are considered important to regional areas of the County and for which there are insufficient local resources. These projects will require matching funds of at least one-to-ane. Approximately 16% of the assessment funds received by the Authority will be used for Regional Priority Projects. (1) West Moraga/Indian Valley Open Space Acquisition The West Moraga/Indian Valley Open Space area is generally adjacent to the San Leandro Reservoir Watershed. Funds from the Assessment District would be used to acquire land or easements to expand the publicly protected lands adjacent to the San Leandro Reservoir Watershed and provide for public parklands connectivity to Sibley Regional Park. (2) Burton Ridge Open Space Acquisition in the Lafayette/Walnut Creek Area Burton Ridge parallels the western boundary of Rossmoor and is the eastern backdrop for the City of Lafayette. Funds from the Assessment District would be used to acquire land or easements to protect this scenic ridgeline and augment the open space recreational opportunities in the area. (3) EI Sobrante Hills Open Space Acquisition The El Sobrante Hills open space area generally encompasses the hillsides that surround El Sobrante Valley. Funds from the Assessment District would be used to provide seed money to acquire land or easements 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 The Big Break Shoreline and Delta Science Center is generally located in the Oakley area along the Delta. Funds from the Assessment District would be used to develop local park amenities near the Dutch Slough Restoration Project and/or fund the construction of a Contm costa County Open Space Funding Authortty,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultants,Inc. Page 1 i 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 Funds from the Assessment District would be used to acquire and create a shoreline park in the Discovery Bay area, improving public access to the recreational resources of this part of the Delta. (8) John Marsh Home Pioneer Park Development near Brentwood The John Marsh Home is the oldest home in the County. Funds from the Assessment District would be used 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 and Creeks The highly urbanized southwest area of the County presents a wide variety of opportunities for new parks and open space. Funds from the Assessment District would be used for projects including wetland restoration on the shoreline, creek restoration and associated pocket parks through the lowlands, and hillside protection in the hills. (8) Walnut Creek Watershed Enhancement Project The Walnut Creek Watershed encompasses the creek and watershed system from San Ramon and Lafayette to Suisun Bay. Funds from the Assessment District would be used to enhance this creek system. Specific projects would include implementation of the 1992 restoration plans for the Walnut Creek Channel and aesthetic improvements to the Iron Horse Trail. (9) Concord Naval Weapons Station Habitat Restoration and Wetlands Access Assessment District funds would support restoration of habitat and creation of public access to wetland areas in this partially-closed military facility, consistent with the interim use plan now being formulated by the Navy in conjunction with local agencies. (10) Lindsay Wildlife Museum Offsite Rehabilitation Center Funds from the Assessment District would be used to create a rural facility operated by the Lindsay Wildlife Museum to care for larger species of rehabilitated wildlife and prepare them for re-introduction to the wild. (11) Byron Airport/Habitat Corridor Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Paries and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultants,Inc. Page 12 The Byron Airport/Habitat Corridor generally encompasses lands between the Byron Airport and the Los Vaqueros Reservoir. Funds from the Assessment District would be used to acquire lands between the Byron Airport and the Los Vaqueros Reservoir to help create and preserve a wildlife corridor by connecting fragmented habitat lands. (12) Bishop Ranch/Big Canyon Park Expansion in the San Ramon area The Bishop Ranch Park and Big Canyon are generally located south and west of San Ramon,Assessment District funds would be used to acquire land and easements that will help combine parkland in southwest San Ramon into a cohesive unit. (13) Blackhawk/Danville Greenbelt Funds from the Assessment District would be used to acquire parklands or conservation easements east of new housing projects approved along Camino Tassajara and north of the rural Tassajera Valley Flagship Project area. (14) Northwest Communities Open Space Connection The northwest communities include Hercules, Rodeo and Crockett. Assessment District funds would be used to acquire land or easements to tie together open space and parklands between Hercules, Rodeo and Crockett. (15) Pittsburg/Antioch Hillsides Funds from the Assessment District would be used to purchase parklands or conservation easements between existing park and dedicated open space lands to help combine these areas into a cohesive open space system along the southern perimeters of Pittsburg and Antioch. (16) Wildcat Creek Trail Extension in the North Richmond and San Pablo areas Funds from the Assessment District would be used toward 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. 3. Community Priority Projects Community Priority Projects are new and improved neighborhood parks, recreation areas and children's playgrounds in urban areas. Approximately 16% of the assessment funds received by the Authority will be provided for Community Priority Projects in every city and community on a per-capita basis: * Acquisition and creation of new neighborhood parks and restoration and renovation of existing neighborhood parks Restoration of urban creeks and natural resources in cities * Enhancement of children's playgrounds Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Auftifty,Perms and open Space Protection and Preservation DisMct Engineer's Report Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shills Consultants,inc.. Page 13 + Recreational facility improvements Five percent of the funds allocated for Community Priorities Projects 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. 4. Maintenance/Restoration Projects Funds from the assessment District would also be used to restore, improve and maintain existing, regional-scale parks, open space areas, shorelines, and watershed lands throughout Contra Costa County and the lands that are acquired with Assessment District funds. a) Existing Park/Open Space Maintenance Projects Approximately 12% of the assessment funds received by the Authority will be used to maintain, improve and restore existing State and regional parks, open space areas and shorelines throughout Contra Costa County, including park rangers to operate, maintain and preserve the Improvements. Such maintenance, improvement, and restoration projects ("Existing Park/Open Space Maintenance Projects") shall be provided for existing East Bay Regional Park District and California Department of Parks and Recreation lands and facilities, including: • Antioch/Oakley Regional Shoreline • Bishop Ranch Open Space Regional Preserve • Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve + Briones Regional Park • Briones to Mt. Diablo Regional Trail • Browns Island Regional Preserve • California Riding and Hiking Trail • Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline + Castle Rock Regional Recreation Area • Contra Costa Canal Regional Trail + Contra Loma Regional Park • Delta de Anza Regional Trail + Diablo Foothills Regional Park • Huckleberry Botanic Regional Preserve Iron Horse Regional Trail (north) • Kennedy Grove Regional Recreation Area • Lafayette-Moraga Regional Trail • Las Trampas Wilderness Regional Preserve • Little Hills Ranch Picnic Park • Marsh Creek Trail, Oakley + Martinez Regional Shoreline • Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline • Morgan Territory Regional Preserve • Mount Diablo State Park • Point Isabel Regional Shoreline • Point Pinole Regional Shoreline • Redwood Regional Park Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report Fiscal Year 20tJ4-05 by Shifts Consultants,Inc. Page 14 • Round Valley Regional Preserve • Sobrante Ridge Botanic Regional Preserve • Tilden Regional Park • Waterbird Regional Preserve • Wildcat Canyon Regional Park b) New Park/Open Space Maintenance Projects To maximize public benefits, lands and facilities that are acquired and preserved by the Assessment District will need to be maintained, restored or improved. Such maintenance, improvements, and restoration projects ("New Park/Open Space Maintenance Projects") may include, for example, the restoration of wildlife or natural habitats, enhancement and maintenance of public access and improvement of recreational facilities. In addition, the Assessment District will fund park rangers to operate, maintain and preserve the Improvements. Approximately 8% of the assessment funds received by the Authority will be used for such New Park/Open Space Maintenance Projects. c) Competitive Park/Open Space Maintenance Projects Approximately 5% of the funds assessment funds received by the Authority will be awarded on a competitive basis to fund maintenance, restoration, and improvements of regional-scale parks, watershed lands, trails and open space areas in Contra Costa County by the entities responsible for operating these facilities. Mai ntenancermprovement projects that are capital in nature, such as the restoration or improvement of trails or public access facilities would have priority in project selection. Matching funds from other sources will be required for those projects CCompetitive Park/Open Space Maintenance Projects"). 5. Opportunity Reserve Fund Approximately 5% of the assessment funds received by the Authority will be placed in an Opportunity Reserve Fund and held for capital Projects of flagship or regional priority level that aren't presently identified herein or are subsequently determined to be under- funded. Not less than 24%of these funds shall be reserved for flagship level Projects. E. Incidental and Administration Costs No more than 3% of the funds from the Assessment District,disbursed to the Authority after charges for collection shall be used for costs related to the administration of the assessments and the Improvements. Any other incidental costs related to the formation of the Assessment District, assessment engineering, legal proceedings or the issuance of bonds or other financing costs for the Assessment District shad not be included this restriction on administrative costs. Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultants,Inc. Page 15 � \ \ \ \ » \ \ \ \ f \� \ \6 \\ sI \ \ k & \ $ \\ a \�£ \\# \tea % § \ 4a U. 0 � $\ k\ « \ p \3& � � � � � � � .. « - N. ES77MATE OF COSTS AND BUDGET A. Estimate of Casts The following is an estimate of the cast of the Improvements that would be funded by the Assessment district in Fiscal Year 2004-05, if the proposed assessments are approved by property owners in a ballot proceeding. The expenditures would be governed by the policies and criteria established within this Report, additional policies and criteria in the Framework and any additional policies established by the Board. Contra Costar County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation!'district Engineer's Report Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultants,Inc. Page 17 Table 7 -Estimate of Costs CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUNDING AUTHORITY Parks and Open Space Preservation and Protection District Estimate of Cost Fiscal Year 2004-05 Assessment Total D1a&kt Contribution' Budget Beginning Fun Balance,July Expenditure Area Acquisition,installation,Maintenance 6 Servicing Casts Flagship Projects CIE Mt.Diablo Park Expansions $215,200 $86,080 $301,280 W San Francisco Bay Trail Completion $215,200 $86,080 $301,280 W Richmond Shoreline $215,200 $86,080 $301,280 W/C Muir Heritage Corridor $215,200 $86,080 $301,280 E Prime Farmland/Agricultural Core $215,200 $86,080 $301,280 C/E North Contra Costa Wetlands and Shorelines $215,200 $86,080 $301,280 C Tassajara Valley $215,200 $86,080 $301,280 C Las Trampas Open Space Connections $215,200 $86,080 $301,280 C/E iiirker Hills $215,200 $86,080 $301,280 E East County Foothills $215,200 $86,080 $301,280 C Lamorinda Greenbelt $129,100 $51,640 $180,740 All Creek and Watershed Restoration $215,200 $86,080 $301,280 All Trail Construction and Enhancements $215,200 $86,080 $301,280 Regional Priority Projects C West Moragalindian Valley Open Space Acquisition $86,100 $86,100 $172,200 C Burton Ridge Open Space Acquisition in the Lafayette/Walnut Creek Area $86,100 $86,100 $172,200 W EI Sobrante Hills Open Space Acquisition $86,100 $86,100 $172,200 E Big Break Shoreline and Delta Science Center $86,100 $86,100 $172,200 E Old River Delta Shoreline Park S Discovery Bay $86,100 $86,100 $172,200 E John Marsh Home Pioneer Park $86,100 $86,100 $172,200 W San Francisco Bay Shoreline,Hills,Urban Open Space,and Creeks $86,100 $86,100 $172,200 C Walnut Creek Watershed Enhancement Project $86,100 $86,100 $172,200 C Habitat Restoration/Watiand Access,Concord Naval Weapons Station $86,100 $86,100 $172,200 C Lindsay Wildlife Museum Offsite Rehabilitation Center $51,600 $51,600 $103,200 E Byron Airport/Habitat Corridor $86,100 $86,100 $172,200 C Bishop Ranch/Big Canyon Park Expansion $43,000 $43,000 $86,000 C Blackhawk/DanvOle Greenbelt $43,000 $43,000 $86,000 W Northwest Communities Open Space Connection $43,000 $43,000 $86,000 E Pittsburg/Antioch Hillsides $43,000 $43,000 $86,000 W Wildcat Creek Trail Extension $86,100 $86,100 $172,200 All Community Priority Projects $1,193,000 $477,200 $1,670,200 Maintenanoe/Restoration Projects All Existing Park/Open Space Maintenance Projects $903,800 $361,520 $1,265,320 All New Park/Open Space Maintenance Projects $602,500 $241,000 $843,500 All Competitive Park/Open Space Maintenance Projects $376,600 $376,600 $753,200 Opportunity Reserve Fund $357,200 $142,880 $500,080 Administration Costs $225,658 $90,263 $315,921 Totals for Acquisition,installation,Maintenance and Servicing $7,540,958 $3,944,763 $11,485,721 Less:Contribution from Other Sources' -$3,944,763 Net Cost of Acquisition,Installation,Maintenance and Servicing $ 8 Incidental Costs` Ballot Proceeding and Formation Costs $450,000 County Collection Charges Subtotals-Incidentals Less: Contribution to/(from)Reserve Fundlimprovement Fund/Contingency $100,000 Total Amount to Assessment°'°''" (Net Amount to be Assessed) WR Budget Allocation to Property Tata/ Assessment Assessment_ _Total SFE 3 Units per SFE' Zone of Benefit A -$8,189,186 327,567.82 $25M Zone of Benefit B $165,763 3,315.25 $50.00 Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Aufhority Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultants,Inc. Page 18 Nates to Estimate of Costs: 1. Contribution from other sources to cover the costs of any general benefits and special benefits not funded by the assessments. A minimum of 34% contribution from other sources is budgeted for most Projects; however, Regional Priority Projects and Competitive Park/Open Space Maintenance Projects require a minimum 100% contribution from other sources. Based on the experience of the East Bay Regional Park District with their Measure AA funds, a 40% contribution from other sources is expected for all projects that do not require a minimum 100%matching contribution. Therefore,the budget cast estimates for contributions from other sources are conservative estimates. 2. Incidental cost includes county collection charges, one-time assessment formation and ballot preceeding costs and other assessment engineering costs. 3. "SFE"means single family equivalent benefit unit. 4. The assessment rate per SFE is the total amount to assessment per single family equivalent benefit unit. 5. The Act stipulates that proceeds from the assessments must be deposited into a special fund that has been set up for the revenues and expenditures of the Assessment District. Moreover, funds raised by the assessment shall be used only for the purposes stated within this Report. Any balance remaining at the end of the fiscal year,June 30, must be carried over to the next fiscal year. A separate account will be maintained for each Project area as defined in this Report. fi. In order to provide flexibility to acquire and/or preserve larder properties, the Authority may borrow funds from certain Project areas to fund projects in other Project areas. A full accounting of any such borrowing will be maintained and such borrowed funds shall be repaid with future year assessment proceeds. 7. The assessment amounts are rounded down to the even penny for purposes of complying with the collection requirements from the County Auditor. Therefore, the total assessment amount for all parcels subject to the assessments may vary slightly from the net amount to assessment. 8. Reference is hereby made to the Framework for additional provisions for the expenditure of Assessment District proceeds and oversight of the Assessment District. Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parts and Open Space Protection and Preservation Dtstdct Engineer's Reporf,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultants,Ina Page 19 V. METHOD OF ASSESSMENT APPORTIONMENT A. Method of Apportionment This section includes an explanation of the special benefits to be derived from the Improvements, the criteria for the expenditure of assessment funds to ensure equal levels of benefit for properties of similar type and the methodology used to apportion the total assessments to properties Within the Assessment District. The method used for apportioning the assessments is based upon the proportional special benefits to be derived by the properties in the Assessment District over and above general benefits conferred on real property or to the public at large. The apportionment of special benefit is a three-step process. The first step is to identify the types of special benefits arising from the Improvements to be funded by the assessment funds. The second step is to establish the criteria that shall ensure that properties within the Assessment District of similar use type and features receive generally equal levels of special benefits from the assessment funds. The third step is to allocate the assessments to property based on the estimated relative special benefit for each type of property. B. Discussion of Benefit Assessments can only be levied based on the special benefit conferred on the property to be assessed (otherwise described as "specific benefit"). This special benefit is received by property over and above any general benefits. Proposition 218 (Article XIII© of the California Constitution), has confirmed that assessments must be based on the special benefit to property: "No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel." In addition, the Califomia State Legislature has found that parks and open space confer the following types of special benefits to property. • Enhanced recreational opportunities and expanded access to recreational facilities. • Improved quality of life for all communities by protecting, restoring, and improving irreplaceable park, wildlife, open-space, and beach lands. • Preservation of canyons,foothills, and mountains and development of public access to these lands. • Protection of diverse historical, cultural, and archaeological values. • Increased economic activity and expanded employment opportunities. • Increased property values. Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report Fiscal Year 2004-05 by shilfs Consultants,Inc. Page 20 • Positive impacts on air and water quality, capacity of roads, transportation and other public infrastructure systems, schools, and public utilities. • Enhanced quality of life • Improved health and well-being of all residents" The following benefit categories are the types of special benefits to residential, commercial, industrial, institutional and other properties from the preservation and improvement of open space'lands to be provided with the assessment proceeds. 1. Protection of views, scenery and other resources values and environmental benefits enjoyed by residents, employees, customers and visitors and the improvement of public assets maintained by the Authority. The proposed Assessment District will provide funding to acquire and preserve existing and new parks, open space areas, watersheds, greenways and nature lands located throughout the Assessment District. in absence of the Assessment District, these parks and open space areas could be developed for residential or commercial use, which would result in a reduction in public resource values and diminished environmental benefits. Parks and open space areas provide other special benefits to property such as landscape buffers, protection of scenic views and protection of wildlife and vegetation habitats as well as historic and cultural sites. Left undeveloped, they allow natural functions such as flood control, purification of air and water, decomposition and recycling of wastes, and generation and renewal of fertile soils. Parks and open space also encompass lands that link existing resource areas and lands that serve as buffers between urban areas or between an urban area and resource land. These are special benefits to property within the Assessment district. With regard to the environmental benefits of public parks and the vegetation they support,Lawrence Livermore Laboratory found that. On a clear summer afternoon, the air temperature in a typical city is about 2.5°C (50F) hotter than the surrounding rural area... [P]eak urban electric demand rises by 2-4% for each VC rise in daily maximum temperature above a threshold of 15- 20°C. Thus, the additional air- conditioning use caused by this urban air temperature increase is responsible for 5-10%of urban peak electric demand.5 Further, the American Forestry Association found that: The average economic contribution of a single tree is $73 in energy conservation,$75 for erosion control, $75 for wildlife shelter, and $50 for air pollution benefits. Over its lifetime, an average tree provides more than$57,000 in environmental and economic benefits. Other studies show the cooling and temperature moderating benefits of trees and vegetation. Without the cooling and moderating effect of trees and green-spaces in our urban environments, urban areas grow hotter and dryer - a heat Wand effect. Approximately 5 to 10 percent of the current electric demand in cities is spent to cool buildings just to compensate for the heat island effect. in Los Angeles this translates to $150,000 per hour and in Washington, DC, close to $40,000 per hour during peak times. Nationally the hourly cost may be as high as$1 million.$ Contra Costa County open Space Funding Authon'ty,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engtnaer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-08 by Shirts Consultants,Inc. Page 21 These special benefits ultimately accrue to properties within the Assessment district because properties are more desirable in areas that offer enhanced environmental benefits and public resources. 2. improved and protected water quality, air quality, enhancement of water resources and reduction of pollution and water runoff. By funding the acquisition, protection, restoration and maintenance of parks, open space and natural lands, the assessments will help protect water resources, reduce runoff, reduce pollution and provide other local environmental special benefits for properties within Assessment District boundaries: The following citations support the water quality, pollution control and runoff mitigation benefits from wildlife in parks,open spaces and other natural lands Establishment of a greenway along a river or stream helps maintain water quality because riparian vegetation helps filter out pollutants. Riparian vegetation serves as an effective buffer between a stream and adjacent agricultural area. The retention capabilities of this vegetation prevents many agricultural chemicals from polluting the stream.9 Natural open spaces also protect water resources and enhance water supplies: When land is covered by pavement, buildings, and other impervious surfaces, rain water runs off in sheets to the nearest storm sewer or other water course. Natural areas enable the aquifer to recharge by allowing rain water to percolate to underlying geologic deposits which may be tapped by wells as a potable water source. In a similar manner, natural areas protect water quality. Rain that rapidly runs off impervious surfaces to rivers and streams carries with it pollutants such as chemicals from car exhaust and lawn treatments.This is known as'non-point source pollution'and is the leading cause of water pollution today. Studies of water quality have shown that non-point source pollution can be greatly reduced by the buffering of streams and rivers by forests and wetlands. When heavily vegetated areas surround surface water bodies, many pollutants are trapped and filtered from the rain water before it reaches the water bodies. Thus, allowing natural areas to recharge aquifers and cleanse storm water potentially saves municipalities millions of dollars in water supply and treatment costs.t° A study in Boulder Creek, Colorado found that: The cleansing and buffer properties of vegetated areas help control water, air, and noise pollution, which may decrease pollution control costs bome by public agencies. In Boulder, Colorado, for example, the city avoided a major outlay for constructing a wastewater treatment facility by restoring Boulder Creek through revegetation, terracing, and construction of aeration structures." A study for the U.S. Forest Service found that trees can reduce runoff in urban areas by up to I Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultants,Inc. Page 22 Trees decrease the amount of water that runs off a site by breaking the impact of the rain and slowing the flow,allowing time for water to infiltrate the soil. Frees can reduce runoff in urban areas up to 17 percent according to a study by the U.S. Forest Service(Ebenreck, 1988). This reduction has implications in the infrastructure costs of storm sewer capacity of sewage treatment plants, flooding of rivers and streams and the loading of sediment and pollutants into rivers and streams.' A study on the air quality and economic benefits of trees conducted in the City of Modeoto found that: Modestds municipal trees provide substantial air quality benefits.Annual air pollutant uptake is 143 metric tons (3.5 lb./tree)with an implied value of$1.4 million ($16Aree). The City's trees are providing important health benefits to residents. As trees grow they increase the value of nearby properties, enhance scenic beauty, and produce other benefits with an estimated value of $1.5 million ($16/tree). Building shade and cooler summertime temperatures attributed to street and park trees save 127,000 MBtu, valuedat$1.0 million (1.39 MBtultree, $11/tree).Smaller benefits result from reductions in stormwater runoff(292,000 m3 or 845 gal/tree, $616,000 or $7/tree) and atmospheric carbon dioxide (13,600 metric tons or 329 lb./tree,$450,000 or$5/tree).13 The special benefit to property in the Assessment District from the acquisition, restoration and preservation of parks, open space properties and watershed lands is thus derived from the protection of air and water quality and prevention of an increase in pollution and runoff that would be created if such properties were otherwise developed or not improver! 3. Reduction of additional traffic congestion and other negative impacts caused by urban sprawl and growth. Additional development and the congestion it causes reduces the desirability of properly within the Assessment District. The Assessment District will help to prevent additional urban sprawl and large-lot development outside the urban limit lines. Such urban sprawl creates additional congestion,pollution and degrades the natural resources in the Assessment District. The prevention of urban sprawl and large-lot development is a special benefit to property in the Assessment District. The economic benefits from reduced sprawl development were noted in a report by the New Jersey Office of State Planning. By avoiding unplanned sprawl development, communities in New Jersey could save an estimated $1.3 billion in infrastructure and additional transportation costs over 20 years.14 An acquisition analysis conducted by the Assessment Engineer projects that the assessment funds could acquire or otherwise preserve over 500 acres per year. If this amount of land were otherwise developed with an average of one home per five acres of land area, these lands would have the potential for 140 large lot homes. Using a conservative estimate of an average of 10 vehicle trips per day per household, if 100 additional homes were constructed on the parcels that would otherwise be acquired and preserved, 1,000 additional vehicle trips would be generated daily in the Assessment District. Over 30 years, this equates to 303,400 additional trips per day. Such additional trips would create additional traffic congestion and create other negative impacts to properly. Therefore, this Assessment District specially benefits property by limiting future levels of urban sprawl and large lot development in the Assessment District and, as a Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and preservation District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by shifts Consultants,Inc. Page 23 result, limiting future levels of traffic congestion and other negative impacts that result from such urban sprawl development, 4. Enhanced recreational opportunities and expanded access to recreational areas for all property owners, residents, employees and customers throughout the Assessment District. Residential properties specially benefit from the enhanced recreational opportunities provided by the Improvements that would be made throughout the Assessment District. These include, among others, new parks and open spaces, areas for recreational activities, and higher levels of maintenance of existing perks, open space, shorelines, trails, nature lands and wildlife habitats than would be provided in absence of the assessment. Non-residential properties also will specially benefit from the improved parks, recreation facilities and open space area. Employees will have additional wildlife and recreation areas to utilize for exercise, recreational activities, picnics, company gatherings or other uses. These Improvements, therefore, enhance an employer's ability to attract and keep quality employees. The benefits to employers ultimately flow to the property because better employees improve the business prospects for companies and enhanced economic conditions specially benefit the property by making it more valuable. In "Trends. Parks, Practice and Program"by Love, L. and Crompton, J. (3993) the authors found that: The provision of parks and recreation services play an influential role in a community's economic development efforts. When companies choose to set up business or relocate, the availability of recreation, parks and open space is high on the priority list for site selection. Recreation and parks have a significant influence on people's preferred living locations.' The "Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America's 3993 State of the Industry Report" found that: From rock climbing to biking to backpacking, the outdoor recreation industry —worth at least $132 billion annually to the U.S. economy-- is growing by leaps and bounds. The biggest and most noticeable effect has been on public lands: Visits to parks and other spaces increased by well over 100 million in the last decade just as funding dwindled.i& All properties will specially benefit from the assessments that will be used to expand, protect and maintain public recreational lands, open space areas, trails and other public resources. 5. Increased economic activity. The Assessment District will create expanded and improved parks and open space areas that are also better maintained. Such Improvements will increase the desirability of the area and enhance recreational and wildlife education opportunities, which, in tum, leads to expanded use. Expanded use and activities facilitated by new and existing parks and open space areas brings greater numbers of visitors to parks and open space into the area who can utilize the services of businesses within the Assessment District. The visitors to the Authority's parks and open space will be more likely to shop and eat locally. Increased use leads to increased economic activity in the area, which is a special benefit ultimately to residential,commercial,industrial and institutional property. Studies of the economic benefits from parks and recreation areas have found the following: Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shilts Consultants,inc. Page 24 Ca€€f6mia's public parks generate more than 35 million annually from businesses for local events. Visitors to public parks and outdoor recreation areas support approximately 235,000 jobs in California's economy.17 Numerous studies demonstrate that linear parks can increase property values, which can in turn increase local tax revenues_ Spending by residents on greenway,-related activities helps support recreation- oriented businesses and employment, as well as other businesses that are patronized by greenway users. Greenways often provide new business opportunities and locations for commercial activities like bed and breakfast establishments, and bike and canoe rental shops. Greenways are caftan major tourist attractions which generate expenditures on lodging, food, and recreation-oriented services. Finally, greenways can reduce public expenditures by lowering the costs associated with flooding and other natural hazards.f8 Although the chief reason for providing outdoor recreation is the broad social and individual benefits it produces, it also brings about desirable economic effects. Its provision enhances community values by creating a better place to live and increasing land values. In some underdeveloped areas, it can be a mainstay of the local economy.And it is a basis for big business as the millions and millions of people seeking the outdoors generate an estimated $20 billion a year market for goods and services.18 People are spending increasing amounts of money on recreation. In California people spent an average of 12 percent of their total personal consumption on recreation and leisure, which was the third largest industry in the state. Also, marry recreational activities that can be pursued in locally protected areas (such as biking, hiking, bird-watching, cross country skiing, and canoeing) entail equipment costs that support local businesses,providing new jobs and tax revenue.20 6. Expanded employment opportunity. Improved recreational areas and public resources foster business growth, which in tum creates additional employment opportunities for Assessment District residents. In addition, the assessments expand local employment opportunities by funding new projects that may create the need for additional construction or maintenance jabs. Improved and well-maintained parks, open space and recreational areas also provide business properties with an opportunity to attract and keep employees due to the benefits provided by these areas. The Califbm a Paris and Recreation Society found that. Recreation and park amenities are central components in establishing the duality of rife in a community, [business'] retain resource is their employees for whom quality of life is an important issue. The availability and attractiveness of local parks and programs influences some companies relocation decisions and the presence of a park encourages real estate development around it.21 This is a special benefit to property, because property in areas with a stronger flab opportunities and more attractive business amenities are more desirable and valuable. Contra Coste County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Presembon bisbict €ngineaes Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shilts Consultants Inc. Page 25 7. Enhanced protection of property through reduction of the risk of fire and reduced cost of local government in law enforcement, public health care and natural disaster response. This assessment also benefits properties in the Assessment District by funding maintenance services that preserve the level of special benefits from parks, recreation areas and open space in the Assessment District and protect the public's parks, recreation and open space resources by reducing the risk of damage or harm and maintaining public access to parks, recreation areas and open space resources. Improved and well-maintained parks, recreational areas and open space lands can also serve to improve public safety and reduce the cost to local government by providing a healthy alternative for youth and adult activities. Studies have shown that adequate park and recreation areas and recreation programs help to reduce crime and vandalism: Natural parks and open space require few public services- no roads, no schools, no sewage, no solid waste disposal, no water, and minimal fire and police protection.xa Exercise derived from recreational activities lessens health related problems and subsequent health care casts. Every year, premature deaths cost American companies an estimated 132 million lost work days at a price tag of$25 billion. Finding and training replacements costs industry more than $700 million each year. In addition, American businesses lose an estimated $3 billion every year because of employee health problems.23 High quality recreational and wildlife areas allow residents and employees in the Assessment District to enjoy activities close to home, thereby not spending time driving to other areas. Moreover, open space and trails in these lands promote healthy activities that help to reduce the cost of health care. Such cost reduction frees public funds for other services that benefit properties. All of these factors ultimately specially benefit property within the Assessment District by reducing the risk of damage to property, and making the community more usable and desirable and property, in tum, more valuable. 8. Enhanced quality of life and desirability of the area. The assessments will provide funding to acquire and preserve open space areas that otherwise may not be preserved for the public benefit. The assessments will provide funding to reduce urban sprawl development and the congestion it causes. Reduced urban sprawl also enhances the desirability of property within the Assessment District. Improved parks, recreation areas, open space and public wildlife areas enhance the overall quality of life and desirability of properties within the Assessment District. This is a special benefit to residential, commercial, industrial and other properties. The following citations provide supporting evidence on the quality of life benefits conferred by the Improvements: The President's Commission on Americans' Outdoors (1987) found natural beauty was the single mos# important factor in deciding tourist destination.za The importance of quality-of-life in business location decisions has been repeatedly verified in the literature. (Boyle, 1988; Bramlage, 1988, Cam & Rabianski, 1991; Conway, 1985; Epping, 1986; Sarvis, 1989; Tosh, et.al., 1988)5 Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 3004-05 by shifts Consultants,Inc. Page 26 Home buyers over age 55 considering a move were surveyed about the amenities that `Would seriously influences them in selecting a new community.` The following results were found:26 % Rank on s klna List Amenity 01roup Rrne0111 Walking and logging ils 55+ 52 1 Walking and jogging trails 55+>$75k per year 65 Outdoor spaces 55+ 51 Outdoor spagespark) 55+,moving to suburbs 55 c7pen s aces 55+ 46 4 A scientific survey of residents in Alameda and Contra Costa County found that 85% agreed with the following statement: 'The regional park system, consisting of recreational parks, picnic areas, wilderness areas and trails, is a valuable public resource and service that improves the quality of life for the residents of the Past Bay area"2' Extensive parks, recreation areas, open space, nature lands and wildlife areas are among the most important public resources and features for property owners in the Assessment District. Therefore, the extensive series of public parks and open space areas that will be maintained and preserved by the Assessment District is a very important feature for property owners in the Assessment Disidd that enhances the quality of life and desirability of property in the Assessment District 9. Specific enhancement of property values. The assessments will provide funding to significantly expand, improve and maintain the public parks, open space lands, recreational areas, wildfffe and nature habitats, wildiffe corridors and other valuable public resources. The Improvements funded by the assessments will also specially benefit properties by(1) protecting resource values, (2) reducing pollution and runoff (3) limiting urban sprawl and large lot development, (4) enhancing recreational opportunities; (5) increasing economic activity, (6) expanding employment opportunity;(7)protecting property and public health,and(8) enhancing the quality of life and desirabfffty of the area. In tum, property values are specilically enhanced by the expression of these special benefits from the Improvements on property in the Assessment District. In other words, this Assessment District will acquire and preserve a significant and well-disbursed set of important properties and public resources throughout the County. These improvements confer many distinct and special benefits to properties in the Assessment District as described previously. These special benefits ultimately flow to properly by specifically or specially enhancing property values. The correlation between enhanced property values and expanded and well- maintained open space areas and recreational areas has been documented. The United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service determined that., An investment in parks and recreation helps reduce pollution and noise, makes communities more livable, and increases property value. parks and recreation stimulate business and generate tax revenues. Paries and recreation help conserve land, energy and resources. Public recreation benefits all employers by providing continuing opportunities to Contra Casts County Open Space Funding AuMonly,Perils and Open Space Protection and Preservabon District Enginsees Report,Fiscal Year 2004.05 by Shirts Consutfants;Inc. Page 27 maintain a level of fitness throughout one's working life, and through helping individuals cope with the stress of a fast-paced and demanding life.2s Additionally,the National Recreation and Park Association,in June 9985,stated- The recreation value is realized as a rise in the value of land and other property in or near the recreation area, and is of both private interest to the landowner and others, holding an economic stake in the area, and of public interest to the taxpayers, who have a stake in a maximum of total assessed values.29 Moreover, the Supreme Court of California and the United States Supreme Court have found that improved and well-maintained park facilities confer special benefits to property by enhancing property values. In Knox v. City of Orland(1993) 4 Cal.4th 932, 143 the Supreme Court of California held that: Plaintiffs basic argument that a special assessment is never appropriate to fund park improvements is unconvincing. Significantly, plaintiffs attempt to differentiate between street lights, sewers, sidewalks and flood control as constituting proper subjects for special assessment, and public parks as matters of such a general nature as to not justify a special assessment,is virtually identical to an argument rejected nearly a century ago by the United States Supreme Court in Wilson v. Lambert. In Wilson v. Lambert (1898) 168 U.S. 699, 695, the United States Supreme Court stated. The residents and property holders in the District of Columbia must be regarded as coming within the class of beneficiaries; and, so far from being injured by the declaration that the park shall also have national character, it is apparent that thereby the welfare of the inhabitants of the Assessment District will be promoted. Whatever tends to increase the attractiveness of the City of Washington, as a place of permanent or temporary residence, will operate to enhance the value of private property situated therein or adjacent thereto. In addition, professional property appraisers and instructional books on the subject find that well-maintained public recreational grounds and areas enhance property values in a community.32 Enhancement value is the tendency of parks and open space to enhance the property value of adjacent properties. It is also explicitly recognized by federal income tax law. U.S. Treasury regulation Sec. 14(h)(3)(i) requires that the valuation of a conservation easement take into account(i.e., be offset by)any resulting increase in the value of other property owned by the donor of the easement or a related person. Section 14(h)(4) sites as an example a landowner who owns 10 one-acre lots and donates an easement over eight of them; 'By perpetually restricting development on this portion of the land, (the landowner) has ensured that the two remaining acres will always be bordered by parkland, thereby increasing their fair market value...' Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultants,Inc. Page 28 C Criteria and Policies This sub-section describes the criteria that shall govern the expenditure of assessment funds and ensure equal levels of benefit for properties of similar type. The criteria established in this Report, as finally confirmed, cannot be substantially modified; however, the Board may adopt additional criteria to further clarify certain criteria or policies established in this Report or establish additional criteria or policies that do not conflict with this Report. The Framework contains additional criteria and funding principals that shall further guide the selection of projects to be funded and the expenditure of assessment funds. L Assessment Funds Must Be,Expended Within the Assessment District The net available assessment funds, after incidental, administrative, financing and other costs, shall be expended exclusively for Improvements within the boundaries of the Assessment district. Z Assessment Funds from Each Expenditure Area.Must Be Expended Within the Same Erpenditure Area The Assessment [district is structured so that the net available assessment funds generated in each Expenditure Area must be expended on Improvements within the same Expenditure Area. Each parcel in the Assessment district has been categorized into the one of the three Expenditure Areas. The Assessment Roll provides this information for each parcel. 3. Citt'zen's Oversight Committee A Citizens' Oversight Committee (the "Citizens' Oversight Committee" will be established for the Assessment District. The Citizens` Oversight Committee shall review potential projects that may be funded by the assessments and shall make recommendations on the expenditure of assessment funds. Members of the Citizen's Oversight Committee, who will be nominated by various organizations, will represent specific interests and constituencies related to open space protection. The Framework contains more specific criteria, policies and responsibilities for the Citizens' Oversight Committee. 4. Separate Accounts by Project Area The net proceeds available for Improvements generated by assessments within each Project Area shall be deposited into a separate account. Expenditures from each Project area account, exclusive of administration costs and other costs related to Improvements, such ars appraisals and title fees, shall be used within the same Project Area for the purposes stated in this Report. However, in order to provide flexibility to acquire and/or preserve larger properties, the Authority may borrow funds from certain Project areas to fund projects in other Project areas. A full accounting of any such borrowing will be maintained and such borrowed funds shall be repaid with future year assessment proceeds. Contra Costs County Open Space Funding Authorfty,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation Distrfct Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultants,lrrc. Page 29 5. Annual Independent Audits The Citizens' Oversight Committee shall appoint an independent auditor. The independent auditor shall annually audit the expenditures and revenues and shall provide an audit report to the Citizens' Oversight Committee and the Authority. 6. Administrative Costs As noted in Section 111.1=., more than 3% of the funds from the Assessment District, disbursed to the Authority after charges for collection shall be used for costs related to the administration of the assessments and the Improvements. 7. Maintenance ofEf)`'ort Agencies that receive assessment funds will be required to maintain their existing levels of service and effort in the project areas and agree that assessment funds will be used to augment, and not supplant, such efforts. 8. Geographic Distribution of Properties Properties acquired, improved or maintained by the Assessment District must be geographically dispersed within each Project Area, to the extent possible. After the first properties are acquired or improved within a Project Area,the Authority shall give priority to properties that would enhance the geographic distribution of Improvements. 9. .Matching Funds Matching funds and contributions from other sources are required, thereby maximizing the special benefits from the Assessment District. 10. Purchase Price Cannot Exceed Independent Appraisal An appraisal of fair market value will be prepared by at least one independent appraiser prior to the acquisition of properties with funds from the Assessment District. No property will be acquired at a price in excess of an independent appraisal of fair market value. ll. Willing Seller Properties shall only be acquired through purchase or donation from willing sellers (or donors). Condemnation will not be used to acquire properties. 12.Permanent Preservation Properties acquired by the Authority or other agencies with funds from the Assessment District shall remain as public resources. D. General versus Special Bent As noted previously, the assessment funds will be used to acquire, maintain, restore, improve and permanently preserve a widely distributed set of important and valuable parks, open space, natural lands, wildlife areas, watershed areas, shorelines, recreational areas and other public resource lands for use and enjoyment by property owners, residents, employees, and customers in the jurisdictional area of the Authority. This is a special benefit to property in the Authority because the acquisition and preservation of such parks, open space and recreation facilities confers the special benefit factors described above and these benefits ultimately flow to property. Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultants,Inc. Page 30 Moreover, in absence of the proposed assessments, the annual revenue from this assessment would not be available to acquire, restore, preserve and protect important natural lands and public resource values in Contra Costa County. Therefore, in absence of the assessment, important riparian corridors and watershed lands would not be protected from development that could negatively impact water quality and public resources in the area. In absence of the assessment, open space lands, parklands and recreational areas would not become public resources or be permanently preserved for current and future generations. As noted, these public resources are an important component of the area's quality of life and public resource values, which is a special benefit to property. Therefore, the assessments provide special benefits to the community by supporting a higher level of open space, public resource, acquisition, maintenance and improvement than would otherwise be provided. The Improvements also provide a degree of general benefits. A measure of this general benefit is the proportionate amount of time that the open space and wildlife areas funded by the Assessment District are used and enjoyed by individuals who are not residents, employees, customers or property owners in the Assessment District.34 A total of 563 users of parks, ripen space areas or recreation facilities were surveyed by Shifts Consultants, Inc. on different days and times and at different regional paries, regional open space areas and regional shorelines in Contra Costa County during the months of March and April 2004. Fifty-one respondents (9.1°!o) indicated' that they did not reside or work within area to be encompassed by the Assessment District, or would not be shopping at businesses within the Assessment District area during their visit to the park, open space or recreational facility. Therefore, this survey measured a 9% level of general benefits from the proposed Assessment District. Many of the open space properties that would be acquired by the Assessment District are not conducive to active recreational use because the property supports important or sensitive wildlife habitat or watersheds or are of topography that does not readily support public use. As a result, many of the special benefit factors construed by the Improvements are "passive" special benefits that are not related to active use of the properties. The special benefits that are passive in nature provide high levels of special benefits to property in the Assessment District because the protection of views, protection of watersheds, reduction in pollution and reduced traffic congestion, for example, are distinct special benefits that are almost exclusively conferred on properties within the Assessment District, and are only minimally enjoyed by properties outside of the Assessment District. Therefore, the measure of general benefits found in the survey can be considered to be a conservative measure. However, in order to establish an even more conservative allocation to cover general benefits, the Assessment Engineer has more than doubled the general benefit measure and has established a minimum 20% requirement of funds and contributions from other sources to fund any general benefits from the Assessment District. The proposed Assessment District's total budget for acquisition, installation, maintenance and servicing of the Improvements is $11,325,820. Of this total budget amount, the Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority and the partner agencies who receive project funding will contribute$3,889,820 from sources other than the assessments. This contribution equates to approximately 34%of the total budget for acquisitions installation, maintenance and servicing and constitutes significantly more than the measure of 9%general benefits from the Improvements. Contra Costa county Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and open Space Pmtechon and Preservation Distdct Engineer's Raport Fiscal Year 21104-05 by Shl/ts Consultants,Inc. Page 31 E. Benefit Finding and Zones of Benefit 1. Benefit Finding The assessment funds will be used to acquire, improve, maintain and preserve a well distributed set of important public resource lands throughout Contra Costa County. For example, the assessments will fund: (1) The acquisition, restoration and permanent preservation of important open space and wildlife areas throughout the County; (2) The maintenance, restoration and preservation of existing regional parks, open space,trails and shorelines throughout the County; (3) The improvement and restoration of neighborhood parks and recreation facilities in each city and urban area in the County; (4) The restoration and protection of creeks, streams and watershed areas in rural and urban areas throughout the County; (5) The improvement and maintenance of a well distributed mix of projects encompassing scenic landscapes and regional parks, creeks and watersheds, farmland, historic preservation features, local and municipal parks/recreation, shorelines, trails and public access facilities and wildlife habitat and corridors throughout the County; and (6) Many other important public resources and recreational facilities located throughout the County. The criteria established in this Report, and further supported by the Framework, will ensure that the assessments will be used to acquire, improve, preserve and protect a well dispersed set of important open space, wildlife and recreational lands — for the permanent special benefit to properties in the County. As noted, the assessments should allow the Authority to conservatively acquire or preserve more than 5001 acres of additional lands per year. In addition, the assessments provide funding to improve, maintain and preserve, for the special benefit of properties in the Assessment District, thousands of acres of existing parks, open spaces and shoreline areas. Therefore, this Engineer's Report finds that the Improvements are a significant, tangible benefit that should reasonably and rationally confer more special benefit to properties in the Authority than the proposed assessment rate of $25 per benefit unit. 2. Zones of Benefit As described in this Report, the assessments will fund the maintenance and improvement of an extensive and well distributed set of existing parks, open space, recreation areas and other public resource lands located throughout the County. These Improvements will specially benefit properties throughout the Assessment District. However, the Assessment District also will fund the acquisition of additional undeveloped lands exclusively in specifically defined project areas in the County. The properties in the project areas in which assessment funds will be primarily used for acquisition of these additional lands have been included in specific areas defined as Zone of Benefit B ("Zone B"). Zone B includes the parcels within the acquisition- Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultants,Inc. Page 32 focused project areas and any improved parcels that border undeveloped lands in these project areas. The bordering improved properties are included in Zone B because they would receive additional benefits from the potential acquisition and permanent preservation of the adjoining undeveloped lands to a greater extent than other properties that dos not border such undeveloped lands. All other properties are included within Zane of Benefit A ("Zone A"). These Zones are depicted in the Assessment Diagram included with this Deport. 36 The acquisition of additional undeveloped lands will confer a relatively higher degree of special benefit to parcels in Zone B relative to parcels in Zone A because 1) while the assessment funds will be used to maintain, restore and improve lands throughout the Assessment District and all properties will have good proximity to these improvements, additional undeveloped lands will primarily be acquired and preserved within Zone B and not within Zone A; 2) the parcels in Zone B may be adjacent to or very near the undeveloped hands that are acquired and preserved; 3) in comparison, properties in Zone A will be somewhat less proximate to these lands; 4) some of the special benefit factors such as protection of views, protection the negative impacts of urban sprawl and congestion and property values are influenced by closely proximate acquisitions of undeveloped farad; and 5) the undeveloped lands that are acquired and preserved otherwise may be developed or improved in a manner that would create negative impacts such as increased traffic or diminished views that would more adversely impact parcels in Zane B. In order to estimate the level of special benefit to properties in Zone B the assessment engineer conducted a relative benefit analysis. Properties in Zone B were evaluated to estimate their special benefit from the acquisitions to be funded in Zone B, relative to properties in Zone A. For six of the benefit factors, namely protection of resource values, reduction of pollution and runoff, enhanced recreational opportunities, increased economic activity, expanded employment opportunity, protection of property and public health and enhanced quality of life we find that the benefits are generally equivalent for all,parcels in the Assessment District. This finding is based on: 9) the assessments will fund the acquisition, maintenance and improvement of an extensive and well distributed set of parks, open space, recreation areas and other public resource lands located throughout the County; 2)these benefit factors are considered to be generally equivalent over a benefit area of 2 miles in urban areas and 4 miles in rural areas (See Section V.E.3 below for further explanation of the benefit areas); and 3)all urban parcels in the Assessment District will be less than 2 miles from the Improvements and all rural parcels will be less than 4 miles from the Improvements. For three benefit factors, protection of views and resource values, reduced urban sprawl and congestion and specific enhancement of property values we find that the benefits will be reasonably higher for parcels in Zone B. The parcels in Zone B already receive viewshed property value and lack of congestion benefits from close proximity to the undeveloped lands in Zone B. Therefore, the additional special benefit to these properties from the Assessment District, relative to Zone A, primarily results from the land acquisitions and preservation funded by the assessments that will prevent some of the undeveloped land in Zone B from ever being developed or improved in a manner that would negatively impact the views and other special benefits that properties in Zone B currently enjoy from the undeveloped land in this Zone. In other words, the benefit from the assessments enjoyed by parcels in Zone B that is not enjoyed to the same extent by parcels in Zone A is the permanent preservation of undeveloped lands in Zone B. If undeveloped parcels in Zone B were likely to be developed, the additional benefits Contra Costa County Open Space Funding AuthoMy,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation Distact Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by;hilts Consultants,Inc, Page 33 from their acquisition and preservation could be several multiples of the benefits to Zone A. However, most of the undeveloped lands in Zone B are outside of the County's urban limit line and have limited potential for future development. Therefore, the additional benefits to parcels in Zone B (from the prevention of development) are significantly less than the inherent value of their current viewshed, property value and lack of congestion features because the potential for development and loss of views and other benefits is relatively low. A reasonable conclusion is that properties in Zone B will receive twice the relative Zone A benefit. Therefore, the proposed assessments for properties in Zone B will be twice that of similar properties in Zone A. 3. BenefitAnalysis According to the industry-standard guidelines established by the National Park and Recreation Association (the "NPRA"), community parks in urban areas have a service area radius of up to two or three miles. This radius is determined, in part, by the NPRA's determination of a reasonably short travel time and access to parks and recreation facilities by users in the service area. The service area in rural communities is larger due to in part to the increased speeds at which property owners, employees, customers and guests can travel to reach parks, open space and other recreational facilities. The roadways in the more rural areas in Contra Costa County allow for higher speeds than in urbanized areas for which the NPRA park standards are designed. Therefore, in rural communities, a correction factor of 2 can be applied based upon the assumption of average speeds of 15 mph in urban areas versus 30 mph in more rural areas. Accordingly, the equivalent benefit area radius for parks, open space and recreation facilities in non-urbanized areas of the Assessment District is estimated to be four to six miles. The special benefit factors described in this Report are not materially different for similar urban area properties within two to three miles or less of a park, open space area, recreation facility or other public resource lands or for similar rural area properties within four to six miles or less of a park, open space area, recreation facility or other public resource lands because all such properties are reasonably proximate to these public resource lands and all have good proximity and access to these lands. Moreover, any benefits from increased proximity within the service area are reasonably offset by other negative factors such as increased traffic and loss of privacy from the public use of parks, open space,recreation facilities or other public resource lands. As described in this Report, the assessments will fund the maintenance and improvement of an extensive and well distributed set of parks, open space, recreation areas and other public resource lands located throughout the County and the acquisition, maintenance and improvement of additional lands throughout the County. These extensive and well distributed lands will be less than two miles from all properties in urban areas and less than four miles from all properties in rural areas. Therefore properties of similar type within each Zone of Benefit will receive generally equivalent levels of special benefits and no further Zones of Benefit are justified. Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shilts Consultants,Inc. Page 34 F. Assessment Apportionment In the process of determining the appropriate method of assessment, the Engineer considered various alternatives. For example, an assessment only for all residential improved property was considered but was determined to be inappropriate because commercial, industrial'and other properties also receive benefits from the assessments. Moreover, a fixed or flat assessment for all properties of similar type was deemed to be inappropriate because larger commercial properties and residential properties with multiple dwelling units receive a higher degree of benefit than other similarly used properties that are significantly smaller. For two properties used for commercial purposes,there clearly is a higher benefit provided to the larger property in comparison to'a smaller commercial property because the larger property generally supports a larger building`and has higher numbers of employees, customers and guests that would benefit from preserved open space and recreational facilities. This benefit ultimately flows to the property. Larger parcels, therefore, receive an increased benefit from the assessments. As stated previously, the special benefits derived from the assessments are conferred on property and are not based on a specific property owner's use of the parks, open space, recreation facilities to be acquired, maintained or otherwise improved, or a specific property owner's occupancy of property or the property owner's demographic status such as age or number of dependents_ However, it is ultimately people who value the special'benefits described above, and who use and enjoy the parks, open space and recreational lands that will be acquired, improved,preserved and protected. Further, it is ultimately people who control property values by placing a value on the special benefits to be provided by these public resources. In other words, the benefits derived to property are related to the average number of people who could Potentially live on, work at, or otherwise could use a property, not how the property is currently used by the present owner. Therefore, the number of people who could or potentially live on,work at or otherwise use a property is an indicator of the relative level of special benefit received by a property.37 The Engineer determined that the appropriate method of assessment should be based on the type of property, the relative size of the property and the potential use of property by residents and employees. This method is further described below. G. Method of Assessment The next step in apportioning assessments is to determine the relative special benefit for each property. This process involves determining the relative benefit received by each property in relation to a"benchmark" property, a single family detached dwelling on one parcel (ogle "Single Family Equivalent Benefit Unit" or"SFE"). This SFE methodology is commonly used to distribute assessments in proportion to estimated special benefits and is generally recognized as providing the basis for a fair and appropriate distribution of assessments. In this Engineer's report, all properties are assigned an SFE value, which is each property's relative benefit in relation to a single family home on one parcel. Contra Costa Counly open Space Funding Authority Pa*s and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultants,Inc, Page 35 1. Residential Properties All improved residential properties with a single residential dwelling unit are assigned one Single Family Equivalent or 1.0 SFE. Detached or attached houses, zero-lot line houses and town homes are included in this category. Properties with more than one residential unit are designated as multi-family residential properties. These properties benefit from the improvements in proportion to the number of dwelling units that occupy each property and the average number of people who reside in multi-family residential units versus the average number of people who reside in a single family home. The population density factors (the "Population Factor") for the Assessment District, as depicted below, provide the basis for determining the SFE factors for residential properties. Using the total population in a certain property type in the area of the Assessment District from the 20001 Census and dividing it by the total number of such households, finds that approximately 2.99 persons occupy each single family residence, whereas an average of 2.16 persons occupy each multi-family residence. Using the ratio of one Population Factor for each single-family residence equates to one Population Factor for every 2.99 persons. Using this factor, each multi- family unit receives a 0.72 Population Factor, each condominium unit receives a 0.80 Population Factor and each mobile home receives a 0.67 Population Factor. Table 2 presents this data. Table 2--Residential Population Factors Total Occupied Persons Population Population Households r Household Factor Single Family Residential 680,276 227,318 2.99 1.00 Condominium 69,064 29,013 2.38 0.80 Multi-Family Residential 174,213 80,824 2.16 0.72 Mobile Home on Separate Lot 13,328 6,634 2.01 0.67 Source:2000 Census,Contra Costa County Once established, Population Factors are adjusted to reflect the average structure size of different residential properties. This adjustment is needed because the special benefits are deemed to be relative to the potential population density and average building area per dwelling unit. Based on County data, the average multi-family residence is 57% of the size of a single family residence. Likewise, the average condominium unit is 86% of the size of a single family residence and the average mobile home is 50% of the size of a single family residence. These relationships to a single family residence are "Square Footage Factors." These Square Footage Factors are applied to the Population Factors to determine the SFE benefit factors for residential properties. Accordingly, multi-family properties with a 0.72 Population Factor and a 57% Square Footage Factor will receive a 0.41 SFE. Likewise, condominium units receive a 0.69 SFE and mobile homes on separate parcels receive a 0.43 SFE. See Table below. Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority;Partes and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shills Consultants,Inc. Page 36 Table 3-Residential SFE Assessment Factors Average Population SFE Square Feet %of SFR Factor Factor Single Family Residential 1,400 100% 1.00 1.00 Condominium 1,200 86% 0.80 0.69 Multi-Family Residential* 800 67% 0.72 0.41 Mobile Morrie on Separate Lot 900 64% 0.67 0.43 Source-Contra Costa County Assessor Data and 2000 Census *The SFE factor of 0.41 per dwelling unit for multifamily residential properties applies to such properties with 20 or fewer units. Properties in excess of 20 units typically offer on-site recreational amenities and other facilities that tend to offset some of the benefits provided by the improvements. Therefore the benefit for properties in excess of 20 units is determined to be 0.41 SFE per unit for the first 20 units and 0.10 SFE per each additional unit in excess of 20 dwelling units. 2. Commercia fflndusttirrlProperties Pursuant to the previous description of the special benefit factors from the Improvements, such special benefits are conferred to commercial properties in similar mariner and degree as residential properties. However, commercial and industrial properties are generally occupied for cine-half the amount of time as a residential property. Since, as noted in the Discussion of Benefit and Assessment Apportionment Sections, the benefits to property are measured by the people who either reside at or work at properties in the Assessment District and commercial properties are typically occupied and used for ane-half the time as residential properties, it is reasonable to conclude that on a land-area basis, the benchmark commercial property is deemed to receive similar levels of benefit as a single family home; however the benefits are further adjusted to reflect the relative"usage"factor of both types of property. On a land-area basis, the average size of a single family residential parcel in the Assessment District is approximately one-quarter acre. These single family residential properties are assigned the benchmark 1 SFE benefit unit per parcel. Therefore, the benchmark commerciallindustrial property is a commercial property on one-quarter acre and such property is assigned cine-half the benefit of a single family home, or 0.5 SFE. To determine the relative benefits for various types of commercial and industrial properties, employee densities are utilized, similar to the way resident densities are used to measure the relative levels of special benefit for residential properties. Since the special benefits to commercial and industrial properties are measured by employee densities and such densities generally increase in proportion to the size of a commercialrndustrial property, the special benefit factors for commerciallindustrial properties also take into account parcel size and the average number of people who work at commerciallndustrial properties. The findings from the San Diego Association of Governments Traffic Generators Study (the "SANDAL Study") are used to determine employee densities because these findings were approved by the State Legislature as being a good representation of the average number of employees per acre of land area for commercial and industrial properties. As determined by the SANDAG Study, the average number of employees Contra Cosh County ripen Space FundingAuth=54 Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservedon t}Is Ct Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shift Consultants,Inc. Page 37 per acre for commercial and industrial property is 24. Table 4 presents the SFE benefit factors by commercial and industrial property type using employee density averages from the SANDAG study. The SFE benefit factors are calculated for each commercial industrial property in the Assessment District based on the acreage used for commercialfindustrial purposes and the SFE benefit factors from this Table. It should also be noted that commercial and industrial properties in excess of 5 acres generally involve uses that are more land intensive relative to building areas and number of employees (lower coverage ratios). As a result, the benefit factors for commercial, office, shopping center and industrial property land area in excess of 5 acres is determined to be the SFE rate per quarter acre for the first 5 acres and the relevant SFE 38 rate per each additional acre over 5 acres. Table 4-Commercial/industrial Density and Assessment Factors Average SFE Units SFE Units Type of Commercial/industrial Employees per per Land Use Per Acre a Fraction Acre Y Acre After 5 Commercial 24 0.500 0.500 Office 68 1.420 1.420 Shopping Center 24 0.500 0.500 Industrial 24 0.500 0.500 Refinery 1 0.021 Self Storage or Parking Lot 1 0.021 1. Source: San Diego Association of Governments Traffic Generators Study. 2. The SFE factors for commercial and industrial parcels are applied by the quarter acre of commercialrndustrial use land area or portion thereof. (Therefore, the minimum assessment for any assessable parcel in these categories is the SFE Units listed herein.) 3. VacanVUndeveloped Properties The benefits to be received from the Improvements by vacant, undeveloped properties are passive benefits, which are generally not related to active use of the property. The benefit to undeveloped properties is determined to be proportional to the corresponding benefits for similar type developed properties, but at a lower rate due to the lack of active benefits conferred to undeveloped properties. A measure of the benefits accruing to the underlying land is the average value of land in relation to improvements for developed property. An analysis of the assessed valuation data from the County of Contra Costa found that approximately 40% of the assessed value of improved properties is classified as the land value. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that approximately 40% of the benefits are related to the underlying land and 60% are related to the day-today use of the property. Using this ratio, the SFE factor for vacant/undeveloped parcels is 0.40 per parcel. Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultants,Inc. Page 38 ... 4. other Properties Article XIII©, Section 4 of the California Constitution states that publicly awned properties shall not be exempt from assessment unless there is clear and convincing evidence that those properties receive no special benefit. All public properties that are specially benefited are assessed. [public right-of-way parcels, well, reservoir or other water rights parcels that cannot be developed into other improved uses offer similar open space benefits and/or typically do not generate employees, residents, customers or guests. Moreover, many of these parcels have limited economic value and, therefore, do not benefit from specific enhancement of property value. Such parcels are, therefore, not specially benefited and are not assessed. Agricultural property without residential dwelling units, open space parcels, watershed parcels, parks, properties used for educational purposes, greenbelt lands without improvements and common areas typically offer open space and recreational areas on the property that serve to offset the benefits from the Assessment District. Therefore, these parcels receive minimal benefit and are assessed an SFE factor of Q. If such parcels are converted to residential or commercial use they shall be classified to such new use category and shall be assessed as previously described in this Report. Other publicly owned property that is used for purposes similar to private residential, commercial, industrial or institutional uses is benefited and assessed at the same rate as such privately owned property. Any agricultural properties with homes or residential dwelling units would be assessed at the residential SFE benefit unit rates described previously. S. Appeals of Assessments Levied to Property Any property owner who feels that the assessment levied on the subject property is in error as a result of incorrect information being used to apply the foregoing method of assessment may file a written appeal with the Secretary of the Authority or his or her designee. Any such appeal is limited to correction of an assessment during the then current fiscal year. Upon the filing of any such appeal, the Secretary or his or her designee will promptly review the appeal and any information provided by the property owner. If the Secretary or his or her designee finds that the assessment should be modified, the appropriate changes shall be made to the assessment roll. If any such changes are approved after the assessment roll has been filed with the County for collection, the Secretary or his or her designee is authorized to refund to the property owner the amount of any approved reduction. Any dispute over the decision of the Secretary or his or her designee shall be referred to the Board and the decision of the Board shall be final. 6. Assessment Summary y by Property Type The following table provides a summary of the proposed benefit units by property type. Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation Disinct Engineer's Report;Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consuitents,inc. Page 39 ' w h- C t�7 C� r co!O i w h j C`') DC.) Cii ! N Cr) N 0) CO " CO CSS CV CSI00 C GTl CrS tr} a ct'i O C i r- P`- ' f `CS tWl C r3 Cti t35 i r tM ' l _ ! E CS 0): ; CS Wo! _ C e I�' 1 Im4; 4) uy a 0) o cd M U) 0 c O CA a� ; d d d c: Cc,-! aY LO to u)i ¢? to yty N CV CV I to iC N C:i m W M f2 C3 0- CL C5 Ci Ci CL tL:® CL a. w D( 0 Cul(D 4) CS dQ� Cti"S C3 CC CS CS 01 C) CS (D; i C C1i L1 Cl Gl. CL Ck. L7. CL Ll L1 S3,j C 0 U.) U.J:in S C�7 2 d C5 Cl) U') i 0 C3_CV C,4:h tt3{ tt?:O Q Iq CV x x CV tfd 6 C14, r— T T C�! T 6H:6a 69 69 6o f!3 fig Ef} EFJ N3 t if! CR fi 0f 7 OiO C T O Oi� C7 C7 C� m Q! W Cs:T CTS Cr? CV C14 O O C4 T O C3 st 'd$ CJ (D C) 6 T CS O 0'CL D � sz, Q C � co cCG vi Ct! CCS LL tT1 C7 CSS CV CO T CSS t CD 03 t+S a0 h+ we Lip ' } t' '�_ __ ~_ T C% CL m C) n. ca Cc ti ti CC ro rD' CO E c i _..CC C/3 CD D rq C C3: O C: _ gym C C i 0 _r .� C3 "U U. J j C 4 t EL E ti? 'L' .. co O = nsto CO fa j U Ctt ftc B Ela t t` �' `p ', an d t1 AC72C�)� � > C3a. es) d � E- W ASSE SM€NT WHEREAS, this Engineer's Report (the "Report's has been prepared pursuant to the previsions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (the "Act") and Article XIIID of the California Constitution; WHEREAS, the undersigned Engineer of Work has prepared and filed a report presenting an estimate of costs, a diagram for the assessment district and an assessment of the estimated costs of the improvements upon all assessable parcels within the assessment district; NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, by virtue of the power vested in me under the Act, Article XIIID of the California Constitution and the order of the Board of the Authority, hereby make the following assessment to cover the portion of the estimated cost of said Improvements, and the costs and expenses incidental thereto to be paid by the assessment district. The amount to be paid for said improvements and the expenses incidental thereto,to be paid by the Assessment District for the fiscal year 2004-05 is generally as follows: SUMMARY COST ESTIMATE F Y. 2004-05 budget Acquisition, Installation, Maintenance and Servicing $11,485,721 Less: Contributions from tither Sources ($3,944,763} Subtotal $7,540,958 Incidental Expenses and Reserve $814,000 NET AMOUNT TO ASSESSMENTS $8,354,958 As required by the Act, an Assessment Diagram showing the exterior boundaries of said Assessment District is hereto attached and incorporated herein by reference. The distinctive number of each parcel or lot of land in the said Assessment District is its Assessor Parcel Number appearing on the Assessment Roll. I do hereby assess and apportion said net amount of the cost and expenses of said Improvements, including the costs and expenses incident thereto, upon the parcels and lots of land within said Assessment District, in accordance with the special benefits to be Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Barks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report Fiscat Year 2004-05 by Shots Consultants,Inc. Page 41 received by each parcel or lot, from the Improvements, and more particularly set forth in the Estimate of Cost and Method of Assessment in the Report. The assessment described in the Estimate of Cost is for fiscal year 2004-05. The assessment ballot proceeding will seek property owner approval for the levy of the proposed fiscal year 2004-05 assessments and the continuation of the assessments in future years. If the assessment is approved by a weighted majority of ballots in the ballot proceeding and is subsequently confirmed and levied by the Board, the annual assessment can be continued for a maximum of 30 years. The assessment is subject to an annual adjustment tied to the annual change in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco Bay Area as of January of each succeeding year ("CPP'), with the maximum annual adjustment not to exceed 3%. In the event that the annual change in the CPI exceeds 3%, any percentage change in excess of 3% can be cumulatively reserved and can be added to the annual change in the CPI for years in which the CPI change is less than 3%. The assessment is made upon the parcels or lots of land within the Assessment District in proportion to the special benefits to be received by the parcels or lots of land, from said Improvements. Each parcel or lot of land is described in the Assessment Roll by reference to its parcel number as shown on the Assessor's Maps of the County of Contra Costa for the fiscal year 2004-05. For a more particular description of said property, reference is hereby made to the deeds and maps on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder of said County. I hereby place opposite the Assessor Parcel Number for each parcel or lot within the Assessment Roll, the amount of the assessment for the fiscal year 2004-05 for each parcel or lot of land within the said Assessment District. Dated: May 12, 2004 Engineer of Work By John W. Bliss, License No. C52091 Contra Costa County open Space Funding Authodty,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineers Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultants,Ina Page 42 VII, Assessment diagram The Assessment District incudes all properties within the boundaries of Contra Costa County. The boundaries of the Assessment District are displayed on the following Assessment Diagram. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the Assessment District are those lines and dimensions as shown on the maps of the Assessor of the County of Contra Costa, for fiscal year 2004-05, and are incorporated herein by reference, and made a part of this Diagram and this Report. Contra Costs County Open Space Funding Autha ty,Perks and Open Space Protection and Preservation Cisbict Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by ShIlts Consuffi&Ms Inc. Page 43 a CL uz E' # CL i f ; 10 0 of o ct- � ctt i a LU _ j 21 e U WRQ o �VVk� ivt x_ j w+rww �.dx i V �uUY 4u. ��j�wYj � +��C DZCzSS'�tYaatp jlI ��� ul vl 11tyw 'q;u tJ r' :.s,q (�vn. wtta.„=U�ou �,y W tt1»_ ww ut {1 3 �� $S - ¢� 4 I 9m k w�QWY��.iGrEI.ksw � �,37uy�� $ SS�.�,, {sy W +Cy` Otte 1 �1 (!� n �0 Q W �mi A.IIt-Ckvi .LLfi tt 4U !U Zgyt_£,�6.U. Q Yh i yy ta� _ ___. VIII. ASSESSMENT ROLL (SPREAD OF COSTS) An Assessment Roll, which is a listing of all parcels within the Assessment District and the amount of the proposed assessments, is filed with the Secretary of the Board and is, by reference,made part of this Report. Each tot or parcel listed can the Assessment Roll is shown and illustrated on the latest County Assessor records and these records are, by reference made part of this report. These records shall govern for all details concerning the description of the lots or parcels. Contra Costa County Open Space Funding AtMorfty,Parks and Open Space Protecdon and Preservation District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Stu is Consultants,Inc. Page VIiI-f End Notes 1 . United States Census. www.census.gov z.Any Plans and specifications for the Improvements will be filed with the Authority and are incorporated herein by reference. 8. Framework, pp.3-4 4. Public Resources Code Sections 5539.3,5539.8,5539.9 and 5539.10 5. Cooling Our Communities:An Overview of Heat Island Project Activities, H.Akbari, Energy Analysis Program,Energy&Environment Division, Lawrence Laboratory,UC, 1996 6.American Forestry Association.The American Forestry Association, pub. Washington D.C. (http://www.americanforests.org.) 8. Rodbell, Phillip,Greg McPhereson and Jim Geiger."Planting the Urban Desert."In urban Forests 11(3):8-10,July'1991. 9. National Park Service, Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Tails,and Greenway Corridors,4th ed,rev. 1995 10. Ulrich, Dana. "Put a Value on Open Space."Recorder Publishing Company newspapers. Bernardsville,NJ. April 25, 1996. From Thibideau,F.R,and Ostro,B.D."An Economic Analysis of Wetland Protection". Journal of Environmental Management 12:19-30.Academic Press.San Diego,CA.1981 " ,Smith,Van. "Protecting Rivers,Trails,and Greenways Reap Economic Returns." Exchange. Summer 1991. Reprinted in Economic Benefits of Land Protection. Infante, R.ed.The Land Trust Alliance,Washington, D.C. 1994 12.Thibideau, F.R,and Ostro, B.D."An Economic Analysis of Wetland Protection". Journal of Environmental Management 12:19-30.Academic Press,San Diego, CA, 1981. 13 Greg McPherson,et at,Benefit-Cost Analysis of Modesto's Municipal Forest, Western Arborist, 1999 Volume 25 Number 2&3 14, Burchell R,at.at., Impact Assessment of the Interim State Development and Redevelopment Plan,New Jersey Office of State Planning, 1992 'S,Love, L.and Crompton,J. Trends:Parks, Practice and Program.Oxford University Press- USA.New York, NY. 1993 '6. 1993 State of the Industry Report. Widdekind,L.ed.The Outdoor Industry Association(The Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America and the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association's Outdoor Products. pub.)Boulder CO. 1993 17. Callfomia Parks and Recreation.The California Parks and Recreation Society,pub. Sacramento,CA.(http://www.cprs.org.) as.PKF Consulting.San Francisco, CA. "Analysis of the Economic Impacts of the Northern Central Rail Trail." For the Greenways Commission, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis,Maryland.June 1994. 19.Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Outdoor Recreation For America:A Report To The President And The Congress.January 2002 20. Ibid.Smith,Van zf . Ibid.California Parks and Recreation. 1997. zz.Parks and Recreation, National Recreation and Park Association,pub.Ashburn,Virginia, January 2001.(http.//www.nrpa.orgtj Contra Caste County Open Space Funding Authority,Open Space Preservatfon and Protection District Engineer's Report,by Shifts Consultants,Inc. 23. National Park Service. NPS Technical Information Center. Washington D.C, 9983 za. Report of the President Commission on Americans Outdoors, U.S. Government Printing Office:Management. Washington D.C. 1987 25.Crompton,J., Love L., More T.,An Empirical Study of the Role of Recreation, Parks and Open Space in Companies (Re)Location Decisions, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration,Spring, 9997,vol 15 no. 1,p p37,40 26 .Wylde,Boomers on the Horizon:Housing Preferences of the 55+Market,National Association of Home Builders,2002 2'. Strategy Research Institute, Likely Voter Support for New Maintenance Excise Tax,April 2000 28. Ibid.NPS. 29.Ibid. NPRA.June 9985. 32 . Phillips, Patrick, Real Estate Impacts of Urban Parks,2000 33 U.S.Treasury Regulation See. 14(h)(3)(i). .When Assessment District Improvements are used by individuals who do not live,work or shop within the Assessment District,the Improvements are not providing benefit to property within the Assessment District. Such use under these circumstances is a measure of general benefit. For example, a non-resident who is drawn to utilize the Assessment District facilities and shops at local businesses while in the area would provide special benefit to business properties as a result of his or her use of the Improvements. Conversely,someone who uses Assessment District facilities but does not reside,work,shop or own property within the Assessment District boundaries does not provide special benefits to any property and is considered to be a measure of the general benefits. 36. Zone B includes those areas defined for Flagship Projects and Regional Priority Projects for which most of the assessment funds will be used for the acquisition of new lands. These project areas are depicted on the Assessment Diagram in this Report. 37. In essence,when property owners are deciding how t0 cast their ballot for a proposed assessment,each property owner must weigh the perceived value of the improvements and services proposed to them and their property with the proposed cost of the assessment to their property. If property owners of a certain type of property are either opposed or in support of the assessment in much greater percentages than owners of other property types,this is an indication that,as a group,these property owners perceive that the proposed assessment has relatively higher or lower"utility"or value to their property relative to owners of other property types. One can also infer from these hypothetical ballot results,that the apportionment of benefit (and assessments)was too high or too low for that property type. In other words,property owners,by their balloting,ultimately indicate if they perceive the special benefits to their property to exceed the cost of the assessment, and,as a group,whether the determined level of benefit and proposed assessment(the benefit apportionment made by the Assessment Engineer) is consistent with owners of other types of property. 38. Benefits to commercial and industrial properties are deemed to be related to the area of parcels that are used for such purposes. In the event that a business/industrial parcel includes undeveloped land area that is clearly not related to the businessfindustrial use of the parcel,such unused land area shall not be included in the SFE benefit unit calculation. Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Open Space Preservation and protection District Engineer's Report,by Shifts Consultants,Inc. .°a m v ? o D tea `" • n. O Z (nS ID m G 'y Ck .:..:.....,:..:.. ro by i ' +J ' x . $y' Ak JS CL � � 6 J 0 '�itr rJ .,:::. 1 xi4. S'rC,''''•, � -a`" ,+�'•' y iF• � J ma 01.0 00 CL y = r S•C+\+r.••$.�. J 1 ! 'va t 'YYi•:y:>?y..{::r'+C Jr $' v':.• .. J for r. •Y4;•:L+i`C•,s4+ r vJ.'•.'. f t;� i. arr .«, k EI# ` '1' wo cttr WN s.. ray • r t tr•• •fY iti ,<itr, J,� CL mm. l kg %sr.:' pY ,tel C tr c: /,.•<:::J.•: :3,r�: {{t?} ,:. R <•: :6:�:tr•: t++t•:•:x k'•' J''{''f'?4+ }•.'•nr+,• Q 2' rCr +. {{qC {�[•x:S+ ;f.•:' Q•. :Y+,•.: .yJ } {.;o} to:;>i{{}df'$}:}:. J• �' ��y<Jr J{. oS: , r:',x+ ''?;r tr,. 'C+ �h+.f:}.t�::;{�r;' ?ct�;� f�'k K:. J t,�:t: tr• {;,f:[Y: "'�'r'•'.� '.r• .. �J•r/r4i+tr '•:Cr � hr,.•.'' ;: t{.x `'• JS{r',, i! Str < ro:::� trt.:•:tr••���,c/{ d,$ f••'•v:}: Y ''a�{'t yy,_,{��S rx�r3Ytr'<ri: :#}.;;:.;{{:}:vY.v J�+ 'tC;::.!t Sr{{�;•.{,32}R rt'tt yo-' {{:Y•3�,r•..{S... G ....... Iii t {< d' j{t 'k'{. ,4+J}+t7�c/r •;2:•' `' �''�}�r r } rrr� {Jt{+} { 8 l�' },4,}� •; / :'trrrWry{j.}}�,. wr�utrfr, '. ,}}': ,r� '�J6 }Ce'r•f�.:• .: t �� }'�•'•'�''•,r%{�'.++�Sy -,yt 3" tr o.:v.. tS,+'6.,.'�;g{�rj.`�, ht##. �c. �•1?�s,{,��,.},<<.., *^ .:•.:X•�� d �' { n {:Sv:4 J Y tr " i}};;.:%:4i::i;i. ,{S.$L.',:?ii:S{.• ?+� 111 '::r,'•::;:: :::;: '..:�.: $I S rn >50-0-nmoto mz 0 n- 4� =T Cn �i��ryn(a-t�7 �7t��ica�+ 0 AraM tea pom o�a ci�vy CnM xrmn mea m2m m �qz20 a0m m m M-. n o Z m C7M.. �_ W -40M C7 � fi1 ftt�� 'Pf� fa'1��7 o m �-1 g� .�9 # 7,1 CQJm�j v� � �-ns rn rr aM:i H owom m CJ i m Oa_ o rr'"' � � Q [ b U3YC1 � �t7� m 20 Ho r) ro cn m' 0 nna O m�� �q aCD n—.j,i "m� u'G�7r�rs� z � �t� g (v„c s n t c er r c ro ui m x� rs p , ZS2R o movirm �q �cr, � W X17 m-4 loom '? ('�-n 0 > -40M C 3> a CU-ersZ 0)l CCC777 a z 13 oce� � m a porn � viiwr,� -a ' G3 r" r �-t �m0 ca0rnM vZ-4 'nm a m 0 c -l n�E p co)b, ORO � � :-< is ��'� r�'Mmmo>m> c7 =zsm �acr>. t �3macmcrn c �_y m rvs ; -# C) to iiY mC* M� K$ mr-4m i C3 r-� 2Y as n� yr�y�� m a to Ata > c 0 "' " n s m tb `I7 Uri CO? �C i q 0 CL a O C m CL th7 CL � til 0 '0 � 00 0 > �.. CL CL tJ rh F VAUN ONO t{{E: C: F: F: t G; C Proposed Open Space f=unding Measure Timeline Attachment 5 Meetings Tasks/Comments J I 1 Framework document revised to - --— — -- reflect Advisory Committee recs. u- 23 Ad Hoc Cmte:final recs. Committee acted F--Framework document revised to i l reflect Ad Hoc Committee recs. h @ aA'Pu a'% a', e NII R i6 "'en r ,�,.,sz � ;ip�,aA"'°„�C i R. r e? ;r r "' � ..''., ° �`� ....k?.. � ..• �' �..... ^a t M k -s 3 ' 0 5 b� `0 1 1 ' I 'J. < 1 1 - 1 a'° ;€,...; ;,`;a, nes � �" 2� �' � ae � '� �> ��. � 8a a �,: "t'h ..x ecei a„n fe �^a 'y C "� "2" h�. e '��*E d e r� E ` IN 17MIM d 1 ! 1 14 Ballots mailed(+or-a day or two) _ --__-_. i RI 3k i I & ° 3re,"k,0.w u � kn€° ` rP'" c`�a;;,'�;e,. '� '�° �w°� "u,d„eF„ r3 r a E S eee me" no a "?' 6 `0�o�°eo�'�'e�" t� r�. 'rr��r � w @e -, v nPAN a 1 I d 14 JPA Hearing re:Tabulation&Resolution likely FY 4445 assessment deadline Status Report on Proposed Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Measure i Presentation to the Contra Costa County Board of supervisors May 18,2004 Contact; John Kopchik MMCMe (925)335-2272 www.co=penspace.org i1Y��f mond History �i�siltlNrMs * Open space acquisition a key component of County's smart growth approach • Advisory Committee developed measure Kick-off held April 2000 i + Community RFP yleided many ideas i Ca o�ii„ ifri�R i i i Types of "open space" proposed for funding s Scenic Landscapes®ional Parks CreeksMatersheds Farmland Historic preservation Local&Municipal Parks/Recreation Shorelines Trails/Public Access Facilities 4- Wildlife habitat and corridors Summary of Proposeda� i Expenditures �Opan$r ANoeatlpne J l+rs Mmbn( st. V(545 Mehlp (5F6MMI-) —'� I A Rpkitb Y/Capltai fA.bl 1 i 1i1�G Mitifp) Locations of Proposed open Space Expenditures Oversight and Governance LI' 2 Overview of Assessment District Mechanism J • Property owners vote by mai(; •Votes weighted according to how much each property would pay; •Assessment engineer's report calculates amount each property would pay according to amount of benefit >Proposed assessments shown in Table 5 ➢Annual adjustment for CPI capped at 3% >Brief overview of method >Zones of Benefit and Expenditure Areas •Tabulation. f Zones of Benefit and Expenditure Areas Z. 0 9—ft WE.,—ft—Ara¢a far ':—CAa.a Canty op.Spa.P-012 Au4 Wty FAaa en (p¢n Spec¢prat¢ttlntl pr¢aar iM1 1 Y^ 4 SA$Ilttd %F--. �7AYaA ;� rrw.¢+{xMX;la MasaWM.ary �'iR811fR� Sample Ballot From a 2 I pARM NUMBER:0#141240 TOTAL PROPOSED ASSESSMENT: 4.00 I i Documents that Describe the Proposal i s • ram wori : guiding document on expenditures and governance • M: Establishes the Authority that would implement the Measure • Engineer's R 2EJ: determines amount of assessments on properties based on evaluation of benefits Recommended Schedule •« and Next Steps ;_. May.25: Board of Supervisors considers adopting Framework&JPA May 25: JPA Governing Board considers adopting Framework, preliminarily approving Engineer's report, and authorizing ballot proceeding; June 10: Ballots mailed; 45 days to return July 27: JPA Governing Board hearing and close of ballot process Aug 10: JPA Governing Board receives tabulation results and considers authorizing assessments (if ballot passes) 4 ATTACHMENT 6Contra Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 0[1.1;; I f-,, 11 2- QCounty my 171>,10 FROM: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AD HOC COMMITTEE ON OPEN SPACE FUNDING SUPERVISOR JOHN GIOIA SUPERVISOR MARK DESAULNIER DATE: March 23, 2004 SUBJECT: Report on Proposed Open 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 fora 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 Dark District for an April Board of Supervisors meeting. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF ITOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S);SUPERVISOR MART{DESAULNIER 4URVIFSOR JOHN GIOIA ACTION OF BOARD ON March 23, X904 APPROVED AS R OMMENDED X OTHER x VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE x UNANIMOUS(ABSENT Nome } 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 Kopchlk(925-335-1227) ATTESTED March 23, taw 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 BYEMIL M _, _ ,DEPUTY Agricultural Commissioner G:\Conservatlon\opera_space\board_orders\bos_update and—declara_intert_3-23-p4,doc Report on Proposed Open Space Funding Measure March 23,2004 Page 3 of 3 Werk since October 2002: €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 Macs 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 Timel€ne: ATTACHMENT 6: Timeline summarizes the recommended schedule for guard 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 Board or Supervisors is to consider approving a Joint Powers Authority Agreement with EBRD®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.\Oonservationlopen_spacelboard orderslbos_update_and_deciare_intent 3-23-04.doc ADDENDUM TO ITEM SD.+6 March 23, 2004 The Hoard of Supervisors considered the report b the Ad Hoc Committee on Open i � Y p Space Funding regarding the Proposed Open Space Funding Measure. Sohn 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 gown,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 their 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 Hoc 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 snail 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. Contra QCounty Costa 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:_R"ort on Draft FroPosed Open Space Funding Measure .R�. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)4 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION 1) DESIGNATE the Dougherty Valley Regional Enhancement Fund as a source of funds to cover the costs of taking the Proposed Open Space Funding Measure to a mahout 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 perform 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 mahout ballot. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR �RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE O HER ":=.Jq'�� --- -- -SIGNATURE(S):S ERVISOR ON GER 3 R SU ERVISE iR J HN GICJIA 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 Ad 'IOC Committee 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 Fount Diablo, bl Kevin Court, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE L 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,CLERIC OP County Administrator THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR G:tConservatlonlopen_spacelbos financial jeport 11-12-02.doc BY _,DEPUTY i.J. Contra Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS QCounty FROM: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AD HOC COMMITTEE ON OPEN SPACE FUNDING SUPERVISOR DONNA GERBER SUPERVISOR JOHN GIOIA DATE: October 1,2002 SUBJECT: Report on Draft Proposed Ogen Space Fund[pa Measure SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND ANI:-,?JUSTIFICATION ECOMMENDATION 1) ACCEPT report from Ad Hoc Committee on a Graft 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 CltyfCounty Relations Committee; b) DIRECT staff to further explore the casts 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 ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR —RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER / SIGNATURES :SUPERVIS2=NNA GERBER SUP RVISOR JOHN GlcUA ACTION OF SOARD ON �-'eacto.ber 1,2002 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X ACCEPTED report from the AdHoc 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. (See addendum for speakers VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT NONE ) ANIS CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES AYES: NOES: OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON ABSENT: ABSTAIN: THE GATE SHOWN. Contact: John Kopchik{925-335-1227) ATTESTEDodt6tbrr 1. d-Qf,2-- 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 + GAConservatlontopaq spacelbos_I !Ual report_10-1-02.doc BY0&1 " ,DEPUTY Report on©rah Proposed Open Space Funding Measure October 1,2002 Page 3 of 3 •*e Farmland ❖ Historic preservation ❖ Local&Municipal Parks/Recreation �:• Shorelines ❖ Trails/Public Access Facilities •t• 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 one of the eight categories discussed 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 graft Funding Proposals. • Development of the Draft Proposed Open Space Funding Measure, a task that began in earnest in the summer of 2001 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 larger group,and met several times a month during portions of the process. The contributions of Subcommitte members deserves special recognition. Subcommittee participants included: 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 and West Contra Costa Committees),Contra Costa Council (full council and Land Use `Cask 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 url: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca-us/departicdlwaterlopenspace.htm Attachments: Draft Proposed Open Space Funding Measure ("Draft Framework for an Open Space Protection and Enhancement Measure for Contra Costa County") Draft map illustrating key components of the Graft Proposed Funding Measure • May 2000 statement by the Advisory Committee on the need for open space funding %%BICD1 tAPPL\GROUPS\Conserv\John%osforumauthf00.doc CONSIDER NTH Contra Costa County CITIZENS LAND ALLIANCE Past Office Box 553 ' Byron, CA 94514" (888)63495004 114 MAY III President Tino Bacchini*Vice President Mike VukeUch*Secretary.lames A.Gwerder*'treasurer Michae Giaz;y Directors Mike Ambrosin,Tom Brumim,Bob Chapman,Enrico CinguW,Bob Dai Eugene Harrison,Margie Kaubie,Bob Pagenkopp,Tony Souza,Donna Vingo. . , John Kopchik 5/13/04 Contra Costa County 651 fine St., 4th Floor NW Martinez, CA 94553 VIA E-mail: ikopci cd.ca.contra-costa.ca.us RE: Open Space Protection and Enhancement Funding Measure for Contra Costa County John, The Board of Directors of the Contra Costa County Citizens Land Alliance voted today at our regular board meeting regarding the above-referenced item. After much discussion, the CCCCLA Board voted to support the Open Space Protection and Enhancement Funding Measure. Those on the CCCCLA .Board who voted to support the Measure felt that the Measure is not perfect but is a step in the right direction. Please forward this letter to the Board of Supervisors to be entered into the public record. Thank you. Si cerely, L9 �� James A. Gwerder Secretary, CCCCLA i i Farther Questions about the Open Space Assessment District Engineer's Report For Presentation at public hearing May 11,2004 Martinez, California I I. Could the engineer provide a chart or table showing the assessment reviews broken down by city of origin as compared with the amount of return to source funds those cities might receive if they are successful in a return to source competition. Some preliminary analyses I have done suggest that the taxpayers of certain cities get less than$1 back on projects within their cities for every $10 the taxpayers in that city pay to the District. 2. Would the restriction of tax payer funds to projects within their own region(east, west,or central county)mean that some preservation efforts aiming at saving or restoring animal or plant habitats would have to stop at man made barriers otherwise lacking in a biological or ecological justification? I realize that loans can be made across regional lines. Would those loans collect any interest? Could they be paid back,without interest,after 5,10,or 29 years? 3. In the allocation of relative benefits based on the density of human activity in various residential and work place environments,did the engineer consider differences between cities in the percentage of the work force that live and work in the same city versus the percentage that must commute to a different city or even out of the county to find a good job?I believe there are numbers on these matters available from OCTA. Wouldn't a work place filled with workers from the same city or neighborhood being paying too much benefit assessment compared to a work place filled primarily with workers from far away?In the former case,residents could correctly say that they already gave at the office. 4. Could the engineer prepare maps showing what parts of the county are more than the 2-4 miles from park areas or open space areas identified as potential assessment recipients in this report. According to the report people usually visiting parks come from that distance most of the time. 5. The 40%assessment for"undeveloped"or"vacant"areas needs much further clarification. What if that land is outside or inside the Urban Limit Line. Does that make a difference? If not,why not? What if the property is being sued by one of the environmental groups benefiting from this assessment district and, consequently,is vacant at this time? Should they benefit or be penalized in this assessment district?It would be hard to say,using the criteria from the engineer's report that the property is only enjoying the benefits of open space in a"passive" #jk*gse-. 6. Cost analysis does play a significant role in the engineer's report. One such analysis is not presented. How much of the total money raised by this assessment district actually is paid the property owner and how much goes to other sources? 7. The county paid an economic consulting firm working on the East County Habitat Conservation Plan project to estimate the cost of undeveloped acreage outside the Urban Limit Line. They came up with a$3000 per acre figure after diligently reviewing comparable sales data. Conservation easements vs outright sales would presumably be cheaper. The engineering report mentions that the assessment District will acquire 500 acres a year. The budget each year for the assessment district is over$8 million a year. So actual money paid the property owners will be approximately$1.6 million or less. I would like the engineer to show where I i i i the rest of the money goes . I know there is overhead of 3%but where does the other$6 million a year go?If most of the money doesn't go into paying for the property, and,instead, goes into other pockets,then those pockets should be named in the title of assessment district. May I suggest the East Bay Regional Park District Operations and Management Assessment District? 8. Assuming property acquisition in divided roughly equally between the 3 districts in the county,and money raised in the part of the county stays in that part of the county,how much money will be available for East County?For Central County? For West County? 9. If only 5000 acres is acquired over 30 years in East County,will that make much of an impact on reducing urban sprawl or reducing congestion?Does your engineer, or his firm,with all of the expertise which you presumably believe that they have really believe otherwise"?Mow much of an impact will it be? 10. Many environmental analyses done in the context of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)are criticized when and if they ignore cumulative impacts of other projects than that currently being analyzed. In east county we have an ongoing Habitat Conservation Pian being developed which seeks to provide from$250-$300 million for creating and preserving open space, animal.habitat. A revised engineering report should integrate those numbers into the cost and benefit analyses contained in this report Leverage could massively affect outcomes. And central and west county habitat conservation plans could be strongly indicated. With these additional efforts and the 16 additional open space districts that each of the 16 cities in Contra Costa County will probably set up if this district succeeds,the cumulative impacts could be tremendous. All that open space coming off the tax rolls would have a fiscal effect as well. I look forward to an engineer's report that coni,iders actual and plausible cumulative impacts that have heretofore not received his careful and considered attention. Resp tfully submitted, He A. Al r,Ph.D Co tra Costa County taxpayer Contact :415-981-0769 i I MAY , + Questions and concerns about the Open Space Asse smn_entr. ": ; ers report I Measuring special benefits. The special benefits listed in the engineer's report(pp.20- 21)are claimed to be special benefits because "The California State legislature has found that parks and open space confer these special benefits."Throughout subsequent discussion of procedures for measuring special benefits this point is assumed to have been established. The only basis provided supporting this assumption is footnote 4. That footnote list several sections of the Public Resources Code. On checking out these sections I find that in 1990 the legislature reached a decision concerning three southern California counties and Sacramento County. The decision explicitly states that the conclusion applies only to those counties. How does this decision apply to Contra Costa County? Why doesn't the engineering report explain why a constitutional amendment passed in 1994 that defines special benefits take precedence over an earlier legislative ruling on the subject, even if it claimed to apply to Contra Costa County, which it does not? Such a vital premise in the Engineering report certainly needs much stronger support than provided by footnote 4. Can this support be provided?Certainly one can not measure how much special benefit one has in various circumstances if one does not know in those circumstances what a special benefit is. 2. Measuring general benefits. The engineering report proposes a measure of the general benefit as follows(p. 31) "The proportionate amount of time that the open space and wild life areas are enjoyed by individuals who are not residents, employees, customers or property owners in the Assessment District."The report mentions a survey of Contra Costa County parks and open space indicating that approximately 9%of users were not residents,property owners, employees, or shoppers in the county. So the engineering report concludes that the general benefit of such improvements is 9%. The remaining benefit is special benefit. Could the engineering report explore this matter a little further?Try, for example,a situation in which more than 9% of the visitors were not employees, shoppers, residents, or property owners. Consider 50%or even 90%. What kind of property or properties would we be dealing with?1 am reminded of a Steven Spielberg movie called , as I recall, Close Encounters of a Third Find. Persons controlled form outer space are compelled to converge at a certain spot where a vehicle from outer space will pick them up. in real life such a property or properties would be a disaster. Traffic congestion on roads meant to serve local needs would be unwelcome. Lines to enter a local park or parks would be frustratingly long. As Yogi Berra might put is such places are so crowded that nobody goes there anymore. Such property or properties don't have more of some kind of benefit. They have liabilities. They would have inordinately high maintenance costs. Improvements, if any, would depreciate faster. This measure of general benefit simply is not convincing. May I request that the engineer provide a different measure of general benefit?I would particularity appreciate a measure that measured general benefit of properties that are visited by people who live,work., shop and own property in the Assessment District area . It doesn't help for the engineering report to concede that a 9% estimate,to be i conservative, could be increased to a measure of 20%general benefit. Zombie tourists are non starters as carriers of a relevant measurement message. Without satisfactory measuring procedures for either specific or general benefits, it is hard, if not impossible,to answer the challenging question what do the proposed improvements or proposed non-improvements offer by way of specific benefit above and beyond the general benefit that they also provide. 3.Measuring no benefit. From the standpoint of strong, well designed measurement versus weak, ineffectual measurement the attainment of measuring a zero amount of something is an important and significant accomplishment. It can not be taken for granted. Many measurements don't pass muster in meeting this standard. They, for example,may achieve only ordinal measurement which rank orders more or less of something but has no zero defining operation. The kind of measurement we often find in physics meets the stronger standard. Zero degree centigrade is defined by water freezing.. For an open space assessment district zero benefit received implies, or should imply, that no money will be paid.Do we have a measurement methodology provided in the engineer's report that rises to this challenge?I hope so because, otherwise, who doesn't pay any tax or assessment could be determined by old fashioned political influence pedaling. Or an assessment district could be structured so that subsets of a population most in favor of an assessment district are allocated a larger supposed attribution of benefit while those opposed to either the goals or means of an assessment district are allocated a smaller or no benefit. That way the assessment district is more likely to win votes in an election. But if there is no real or accurate measure of zero benefit,then some properties actually receiving no benefit would end up paying for it anyway. And some properties actually receiving specific benefit might get away with paying nothing. That kind of district would obviously be unfair and unwise. Hopefully by insisting on a strong,well argued,engineer's report, our Supervisors will spare us the trouble and expense of finding out whether such an assessment district is illegal. Page 39 of the engineering report gives us four short paragraphs on this subject. There are no footnotes to provide further clarification. Unfortunately these four paragraphs raise far more questions than they answer. Consider the claim"All public properties that are specially benefited are assessed"Public right-of-way parcels, well, reservoir or other water rights parcels that cannot be developed into other improved uses offer similar open space benefits, the report claims, qualify for zero assessment and may also Achieve that status because they typically do not generate employees, residents, customers or guests. Dere we learn that a property can reach zero in two different ways. Properties can offer open space benefits particularity if they cannot be developed into other improved uses. Properties can reach zero benefit if they typically do not generate employees,residents, customers, or guests. This latter standard is easier to understand but harder to find real examples to which it might be applied. Public right of ways, i.e. roads, virtually are all used and often overcrowded. Wells,reservoirs, etc generate employees as they have to be maintained. Water rights parcels certainly have value , and over time will probably have greater value. So if they aren't generating any economic activity now,they probably will be doing so in the future. Maintaining watersheds is one of the goals of this assessment district. That benefit is supposed to increase employment. This supposition is more than i an idle speculation . I can show you documents currently being prepared and discussed by public agencies arguing that maintenance of watersheds should be done in a way that protects prevailing wages. So let us turn to the second criteria.Hopefully it will afford us a measurement methodology that is not more or less completely useless. How can a property, public or private,provide an"open space benefit?"This second criterion for achieving zero measured specific benefit from the purchases and other activities of this assessment district apparently applies in a particularity clear fashion when the property can't be developed into other improved uses.That qualification implies that the property is already improved. None of the actual examples mentioned in the engineering report help very much here. Roads can be developed to encourage many different activities from shopping,to commuting,to tourism,to mass transit right of ways, etc. And it would be hard to say that roads provide an open space benefit pure and simple. While they may reduce congestion,they obviously encourage development in their proximity. Reservoirs can become can become recreational facilities for boating, fishing, swimming,etc. Water wells can be used a wide range of agricultural, industrial, and drinking purposes. Than can assist mineral development activity if electrically logged with the proper tools. The report continues many of these parcels have limited economic value and "therefore"do not benefit from specific enhancement of property value. Low economic value can reflect either specific or general value so this criterion is ambiguous. If we need to know the economic value of a parcel to determine what its specific benefit is in the first place,then why not use methods appropriate to assess property value?And why not propose adding to the property tax rather than creating an assessment district? Obviously we have rules about not collecting property tax from publicly owned property that easily can deal with the zero evaluation issue. The engineering report continues "Agricultural property without residential dwelling units,open space parcels, watershed parcels,parks,properties used for educational purposes, greenbelt lands without improvements and common areas typically offer open space and recreational areas on the property that serve to offset the benefits from the Assessment District." So these parcels , it is argued,receive minimal benefit and are assessed at 0. Agricultural lands benefit from the asserted benefits o f open space assessment districts in many ways. Reduced air and water pollution make it easier for plants and animals to grow. The improved health and well being of all residents purported produced by parks and open space has to increase appetites for food products. The reduced crime means that fewer people will be stealing vegetables or cattle. Increased employment means that more people can afford to pay for farm products. Open space parcels benefit very obviously from this Assessment District. Many such parcels are already owed by the East Bay Regional Park District and they receive many millions of dollars for management and improvements. Other park agencies get money though the process is more difficult and conditional. Schools benefit in so many ways, albeit indirectly,that one almost forgets their dire economic needs for which more direct assistance would be preferable. Lots of open space with conservation easements or other growth restriction policies in place will slow population growth reducing stress on often overcrowded facilities. Outdoor recreational sites can provide exercise and sporting opportunities that schools sometimes no longer can afford to provide on site leaving those schools freer to concentrate on academic 1C g 1 studies. Enhanced property values,through the property tax , will provide valuable revenue increases for schools. Protected historical, cultural,and biological sites have already enriched curriculums in high school and junior colleges in the county with programs now being developed at other grade levels as well. Field trip opportunities already are plentiful within our existing park structure. With so much more park creation and enhancement provided by the assessment district revenues, those opportunities will Certainly increase. Claiming that such impacts are so small that they are less than the impact on any single family dwelling or apartment in the county,not only defies common sense but suggests that some other agenda must be governing the preparation of this engineer's report than providing accurate and valid measurement of benefits.. Taxing schools to pay for more parks may well be politically ludicrous. Pointing out the benefits, measuring them realistically and accurately. That is the engineering reports obligation. Let the voters decide if the liabilities of the proposed District outweigh its benefits. Respectfully submitted by Henry A Alker on behalf of Southport Land and Commercial Co Owner of numerous parcels of land And improvements in Contra Costa County. Member of the Board of Directors Contra Costa County Taxpayers Association Contact. 415-981-0769 7 f � MY 24;Ut 4 Further Questions about the Open Space Assessmer ist&,twEngrneer's Report For Presentation at public hearing May 1'x,2004 Martinez, California 1. Could the engineer provide a chart or table showing the assessment reviews broken down by city of origin as compared with the amount of return to source funds those cities might receive if they are successful in a return to source competition. Some preliminary analyses I have done suggest that the taxpayers of certain cities get less than$1 back on projects within their cities for every $10 the taxpayers in that city pay to the District. 2. Would the restriction of tax payer funds to projects within their own region(east, west, or central county)mean that some preservation efforts aiming at saving or restoring animal or plant habitats would have to stop at man made barriers otherwise lacking in a biological or ecological justification? I realize that loans can be made across regional lines. Would those loans collect any interest?Could they be paid back, without interest, after 5,10, or 29 years? 3. In the allocation of relative benefits based on the density of human activity in various residential and work place environments, did the engineer consider differences between cities in the percentage of the work force that live and work in the same city versus the percentage that must commute to a different city or even out of the county to find a good job?I believe there are numbers on these matters available from OCTA. Wouldn't a work place filled with workers from the same city or neighborhood being paying too much benefit assessment compared to a work place filled primarily with workers from far away? In the former case,residents could correctly say that they already gave at the office. 4. Could the engineer prepare maps showing what parts of the county are more than the 2-4 miles from park areas or open space areas identified as potential assessment recipients in this report. According to the report people usually visiting parks come from that distance most of the time. 5. The 40%assessment for"undeveloped"or"vacant"areas needs much further clarification. What if that land is outside or inside the Urban Limit Line. Does that make a difference? If not, why not?What if the property is being sued by one of the environmental groups benefiting from this assessment district and, consequently,is vacant at this time?Should they benefit or be penalized in this assessment district? It would be hard to say, using the criteria from the engineer's report that the property is only enjoying the benefits of open space in a"passive" p74,vq) 6. Cost analysis does play a significant role in the engineer's report. One such analysis is not presented. How much of the total money raised by this assessment district actually is paid the property owner and how much goes to other sources? ?. The county paid an economic consulting firm working on the East County Habitat Conservation Plan project to estimate the cost of undeveloped acreage outside the Urban Limit Line. They came up with a$3000 per acre figure after diligently reviewing comparable sales data. Conservation easements vs outright sales would presumably be cheaper. The engineering report mentions that the assessment District will acquire 500 acres a year. The budget each year for the assessment district is over$8 million a year. So actual money paid the property owners will be approximately$1.6 million or less. I would like the engineer to show where the rest of the money goes . I know there is overhead of 3%but where does the other$6 million a year go?If most of the money doesn't go into paying for the property, and , instead, goes into other pockets,then those pockets should be named in the title of assessment district. May I suggest the East Bay Regional Park District Operations and Management Assessment District? 8. Assuming property acquisition in divided roughly equally between the 3 districts in the county, and money raised in the part of the county stays in that part of the county,how much money will be available for East County? For Central County? For West County? 9. If only 5000 acres is acquired over 30 years in East County,will that make much of an impact on reducing urban sprawl or reducing congestion?Does your engineer, or his firm,with all of the expertise which you presumably believe that they have really believe otherwise?How much of an impact will it be? 10. Many environmental analyses done in the context of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)are criticized when and if they ignore cumulative impacts of other projects than that currently being analyzed. In east county we have an ongoing Habitat Conservation Plan being developed which seeks to provide from$250-$300 million for creating and preserving open space, animal habitat. A revised engineering report should integrate those numbers into the cost and benefit analyses contained in this report Leverage could massively affect outcomes. And central and west county habitat conservation plans could be strongly indicated. With these additional efforts and the 16 additional open space districts that each of the 16 cities in Contra Costa County will probably set up if this district succeeds,the cumulative impacts could be tremendous. All that open space coming off the tax rolls would have a fiscal effect as well. I look forward to an engineer's report that confiders actual and plausible cumulative impacts that have heretofore not received his careful and considered attention. Resp tfully submitted, He A. Al r,Ph.D Co tra Costa County taxpayer Contact :415-981-0769 F ✓ if I Questions and concerns about the Open Space Assessment District Engineers report IMeasuring special benefits. The special benefits listed in the engineer's report(pp.20- 21)are claimed to be special benefits because "The California State legislature has found that parks and open space confer these special benefits."Throughout subsequent discussion of procedures for measuring special benefits this point is assumed to have been established. The only basis provided supporting this assumption is footnote 4. That footnote list several sections of the Public Resources Code. On checking out these sections I find that in 1990 the legislature reached a decision concerning three southern California counties and Sacramento County. The decision explicitly states that the conclusion applies only to those counties. How does this decision apply to Contra Costa County? Why doesn't the engineering report explain why a constitutional amendment passed in 1994 that defines special benefits take precedence over an earlier legislative ruling on the subject, even if it claimed to apply to Contra Costa County,which it does not? Such a vital premise in the Engineering report certainly needs much stronger support than provided by footnote 4. Can this support be provided?Certainly one can not measure how much special benefit one has in various circumstances if one does not know in those circumstances what a special benefit is. 2. Measuring general benefits. The engineering report proposes a measure of the general benefit as follows(p. 31)"The proportionate amount of time that the open space and wild life areas are enjoyed by individuals who are not residents, employees, customers or property owners in the Assessment District."The report mentions a survey of Contra Costa County parks and open space indicating that approximately 9%of users were not residents,property owners, employees, or shoppers in the county. So the engineering report concludes that the general benefit of such improvements is 9%. The remaining benefit is special benefit. Could the engineering report explore this matter a little further?Try, for example, a situation in which more than 9%of the visitors were not employees, shoppers, residents, or property owners. Consider 50%or even 90%. What kind of property or properties would we be dealing with? I am reminded of a Steven Spielberg movie called , as I recall, Close Encounters of a Third Kind. Persons controlled form outer space are compelled to converge at a certain spot where a vehicle from outer space will pick them up. In real life such a property or properties would be a disaster. Traffic congestion on roads meant to serve local needs would be unwelcome. Lines to enter a local park or parks would be frustratingly long. As Yogi Berra might put is such places are so crowded that nobody goes there anymore. Such property or properties don't have more of some kind of benefit. They have liabilities. They would have inordinately high maintenance costs. Improvements, if any, would depreciate faster. This measure of general benefit simply is not convincing. May I request that the engineer provide a different measure of general benefit?I would particularily appreciate a measure that measured general benefit of properties that are visited by people who live,work, shop and own property in the Assessment District area. It doesn't help for the engineering report to concede that a 9%estimate,to be i conservative, could be increased to a measure of 20%general benefit. Zombie tourists are non starters as carriers of a relevant measurement message. Without satisfactory measuring procedures for either specific or general benefits, it is hard, if not impossible, to answer the challenging question what do the proposed improvements or proposed non-improvements offer by way of specific benefit above and beyond the general benefit that they also provide. 3.Measuring no benefit. From the standpoint of strong, well designed measurement versus weak, ineffectual measurement the attainment of measuring a zero amount of something is an important and significant accomplishment. It can not be taken for granted. Many measurements don't pass muster in meeting this standard. They, for example,may achieve only ordinal measurement which rank orders more or less of something but has no zero defining operation. The kind of measurement we often find in physics meets the stronger standard. Zero degree centigrade is defined by water freezing.. For an open space assessment district zero benefit received implies, or should imply, that no money will be paid. Do we have a measurement methodology provided in the engineer's report that rises to this challenge?I hope so because, otherwise, who doesn't pay any tax or assessment could be determined by old fashioned political influence pedaling. Or an assessment district could be structured so that subsets of a population most in favor of an assessment district are allocated a larger supposed attribution of benefit while those opposed to either the goals or means of an assessment district are allocated a smaller or no benefit.That way the assessment district is more likely to win votes in an election. But if there is no real or accurate measure of zero benefit,then some properties actually receiving no benefit would end up paying for it anyway. And some properties actually receiving specific benefit might get away with paying nothing. That kind of district would obviously be unfair and unwise. Hopefully by insisting on a strong, well argued, engineer's report, our Supervisors will spare us the trouble and expense of finding out whether such an assessment district is illegal. Page 31 of the engineering report gives us four short paragraphs on this subject. There are no footnotes to provide further clarification. Unfortunately these four paragraphs raise far more questions than they answer. Consider the claim"All public properties that are specially benefited are assessed"Public right-of-way parcels,well, reservoir or other water rights parcels that cannot be developed into other improved uses offer similar open space benefits,the report claims, qualify for zero assessment and may also Achieve that status because they typically do not generate employees, residents, customers or guests. Here we learn that a property can reach zero in two different ways. Properties can offer open space benefits particularily if they cannot be developed into other improved uses. Properties can reach zero benefit if they typically do not generate employees, residents, customers, or guests. This latter standard is easier to understand but harder to find real examples to which it might be applied. Public right of ways, i.e. roads, virtually are all used and often overcrowded. Wells, reservoirs, etc generate employees as they have to be maintained. Water rights parcels certainly have value , and over time will probably have greater value. So if they aren't generating any economic activity now, they probably will be doing so in the future. Maintaining watersheds is one of the goals of this assessment district. That benefit is supposed to increase employment. This supposition is more than an idle speculation . l can show you documents currently being prepared and discussed by public agencies arguing that maintenance of watersheds should be done in a way that protects prevailing wages. So let us turn to the second criteria. Hopefully it will afford us a measurement methodology that is not more or less completely useless. How can a property,public or private,provide an"open space benefit?"This second criterion for achieving zero measured specific benefit from the purchases and other activities of this assessment district apparently applies in a particularily clear fashion when the property can't be developed into other improved uses.That qualification implies that the property is already improved.None of the actual examples mentioned in the engineering report help very much here. Roads can be developed to encourage many different activities from shopping,to commuting,to tourism,to mass transit right of ways,etc. And it would be hard to say that roads provide an open space benefit pure and simple. While they may reduce congestion, they obviously encourage development in their proximity. Reservoirs can become can become recreational facilities for boating, fishing, swimming,etc. Water wells can be used a wide range of agricultural, industrial, and drinking purposes. Than can assist mineral development activity if electrically logged with the proper tools. The report continues many of these parcels have limited economic value and "therefore"do not benefit from specific enhancement of property value. Low economic value can reflect either specific or general value so this criterion is ambiguous. if we need to know the economic value of a parcel to determine what its specific benefit is in the first place,then why not use methods appropriate to assess property value?And why not propose adding to the property tax rather than creating an assessment district? Obviously we have rules about not collecting property tax from publicly owned property that easily can deal with the zero evaluation issue. The engineering report continues "Agricultural property without residential dwelling units, open space parcels, watershed parcels,parks, properties used for educational purposes, greenbelt lands without improvements and common areas typically offer open space and recreational areas on the property that serve to offset the benefits from the Assessment District." So these parcels , it is argued, receive minimal benefit and are assessed at 0. Agricultural lands benefit from the asserted benefits o f open space assessment districts in many ways. Reduced air and water pollution make it easier for plants and animals to grow. The improved health and well being of all residents purported produced by parks and open space has to increase appetites for food products. The reduced crime means that fewer people will be stealing vegetables or cattle. Increased employment means that more people can afford to pay for farm products. Open space parcels benefit very obviously from this Assessment District. Many such parcels are already owed by the East Bay Regional Park District and they receive many millions of dollars for management and improvements. Other park agencies get money though the process is more difficult and conditional. Schools benefit in so many ways,albeit indirectly,that one almost forgets their dire economic needs for which more direct assistance would be preferable. Lots of open space with conservation easements or other growth restriction policies in place will slow population growth reducing stress on often overcrowded facilities. Outdoor recreational sites can provide exercise and sporting opportunities that schools sometimes no longer can afford to provide on site leaving those schools freer to concentrate on academic j studies. Enhanced property values,through the property tax, will provide valuable revenue increases for schools. Protected historical, cultural, and biological sites have already enriched curriculums in high school and junior colleges in the county with programs now being developed at other grade levels as well. Field trip opportunities already are plentiful within our existing park structure. With so much more park creation and enhancement provided by the assessment district revenues,those opportunities will Certainly increase. Claiming that such impacts are so small that they are less than the impact on any single family dwelling or apartment in the county, not only defies common sense but suggests that some other agenda must be governing the preparation of this engineer's report than providing accurate and valid measurement of benefits.. Taxing schools to pay for more parks may well be politically ludicrous. Pointing out the benefits, measuring them realistically and accurately. That is the engineering reports obligation. Let the voters decide if the liabilities of the proposed District outweigh its benefits. Respectfully submitted by Henry A Alker on behalf of Southport Land and Commercial Co Owner of numerous parcels of land And improvements in Contra Costa County. Member of the Board of Directors Contra Costa County Taxpayers Association Contact. 415-981-0769 o Attachment 1 5-18-04 DRAFT FRAMEWORK FOR AN OPEN SPACE PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT FUNDING MEASURE FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY "Mafeh 2 MMay 18,2004 1 Board ofSy pgrvisors declared its intent to move Lorward with this measure on March 23, 2004. Earlier draft version of this document was approved in concept by the Board of Supervisors on October 1, 2002. slhis renis d vfwi ::.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 ©pen Space Funding. Chanes to the March 23, 2004 version recommended by staff are tracked 3 j; or Y X21 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 {$175,000,000} 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 1 5-18-04 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 quality 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 1 5-18-04 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. ,---ComparlsonofUrbanizaticamn,Open Space,and Future Open S ce Fundin Among Bay Area Counties Contra Costa Napa Marin Solano Sonoma San Mateo Santa Alameda San Clara 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% 1 2.3% 5.7% 6.3% 1 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! nperson person person person person person person erson Secure future funding for Measure AA None On-going Solano %cent O.S.Dist.has Initiated a Measure AA N/A open space'(does not jcity&grant yet property tax County is sales tax a tax&bond, parcel tax (status same (parks include Propositlon12 and able portion increment now explor- for open but bond is and an O.S. as GCC): dept other state/federal sources®- spent EBRPD provides for ing an OS space and nearly spent District In Landfill budget) see below portion 90% acquisitions funding a county County has 2001,voters tipping fee to spent,remain- measure open space parks dept wl approved a provide Ing 10%alto- district annual $8M/year significant cated by park budget. 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—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; ' ABAG estimates from"Status and Trends 2000",based on data from 1995(ABAG Figures do not consider the County's 65135 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 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 $80,000 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 mallout 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 Board of Supervisors' Ad Hoc 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 Draft 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 only--no attachments). Financial aspects of the planning work are described in more detail in ATTACHMENT 2: November 12, 2002 Action of the Board of Supervisors (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.cocoopenspace.org For those without internet access,materials continue to be accessible by contacting staff at 925-335-1227. Repoit on Proposed Open Space Funding Measure March 23,2004 Page 3 of 3 Work since October 2002: 1 addition to numerous meetings of the various involved committees,ward 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 Mao of Allocations present the content of the funding measure,as recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee.Changes summarized in ATTACHMENT 3 are incorporated in ATTACHMIENT 4 and 5 Next Steps/ Proposed Timeline: ATTACHMENT 6: Timellne 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 Board 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.\Conservation\open_space\board_orders\bos..update_and_deofare_intent 3-23-D4.doa i ADDENDUM TO ITEM SD.0 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.D.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 Hoc 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. III QContra 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 Space Funding Measure SPECIFIC REQUEST($)OR RECOMMENDATION($)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDA1 1) DESIGNATE the Dougherty Valley Regional Enhancement Fund as a source of funds to cover the costs of taking the Proposed Open Space Funding Measure to a ma€€out 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 forthe management of the transferred funds for this effort; 4) AUTHORIZE the Community Development Director, or his designee, to approve expenditures and perform 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 recommendations be brought back to the Board at a later date on conducting the mailout ballot. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE O HER SIGNATt3RE S :S ERVISOR ON GERB R sU ERVISOR.1 HN Glom ACTION OF BOARD ON November12, 2002_ APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER x On this date, the Board of Supervisors approved the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee 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 Kopchlk(925-335-1227) ATTESTED . November 12 2002 cc: Community Development Department(CDC)) JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF County Administrator THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel AND COUNTY OF, G:tConservationtoper_spacelbos_finandW report 11-12-02.doc BY b"--~— ,DEPUTY 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 Regional Enhancement Fund,with 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 all 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 mailout 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(w/out attachments) • Excerpt from Gale Ranch development agreement describing the County Regional Enhancement Fund G:\ConservationNoperT_spacekbos_financiaLraporLIl-12-02.doe Contra Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County FROM: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AD HOC COMMITTEE ON OPEN SPACE FUNDING SUPERVISOR DONNA GERBER SUPERVISOR JOHN GIOIA DATE: October 1,2002 SUBJECT: Report on Draft Proposed Oppin Space Funding Measure SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION 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 worts 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 ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR —RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES :SUPERVIS2=ONNA GERBER SUPr=RVISOR JOHN GIOIA ACTION OF BOARD ON 0cto.ber 1,2002 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X ACCEPTED report from the AdHoc Committee on a Draft Proposed Open Space Funding Measure, including discussion of the need for open space funding, public involve- went 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. (See sddendun for speakers. i VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE 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 Kopchlk{925-335-1227) ATTESTEDD-dtobbr 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 O G:1Conservetioniopen spacetbos initial report 10-'1-02.doc BY ,DEPUTY Report on Draft Proposed Open Space Funding Measure October 1,2002 Page 2 of 3 FISCAL IMPACT Modest staff costs to perform the tasks recommended above. BACKGROUND/REASONS 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 Agricultural 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 ULL 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 that while combining all three issues into one measure was not feasible, support for open space funding was quite strong (approx. 63%) 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 Gioia 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 governments. 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 Report on Draft Proposed Open space Funding Measure October 1,2002 Page 3 of 3 •: Farmland +«• Historic preservation •: Local&Municipal Parks/Recreation *:• Shorelines •. Traits/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 one of the eight categories discussed 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 graft Proposed Open Space Funding Measure, a task that began in earnest in the summer of 2001 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 larger group,and met several times a month during portions of the process. The contributions of Subcommitte members deserves special recognition. Subcommittee participants included: i 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 and West 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 url: http-,I/www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/departicd/Water/openspace.htm Attachments: • Draft Proposed Open Space Funding Measure ("Draft Framework for an Open 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 \tBiCD 11APPL1GROUPskoonseMJohn4osforumauihfOO.doo Attachment 1 5-18-04 Creeks/Watersheds-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 Local & .Municipal Parks/Recreation-Enhance 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. Trails/Public 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-----Protectlenhance 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 he 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 on- proft 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 1 5-18-04 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 longterm 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 1 5-18-04 TT. 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 Fuad: $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 by category 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 JPA may determine to borrow against the some or all of the 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. Unless otherwise noted finding allocations will be distributed through a corn etitive "rant urogram. A wide variety of public and private organizations are eligible to atstsly for and receive funds raised by this measure including but not limited to land trusts ark districts water districts otherspecial districts cities the Cpppty, and other not-for- rofat organizations. The administration of the ant-makin rocess is further described in the Administration section of this document and selection criteria and considerations are outlined in the Funding Principles section above. All contracts disbursing funds from this measure will require recipients to commit to "maintenance of effort"provisions to ensure that new funds% ent rather than replace existing ex enditures. All funds from this measure must be spent on projects and activities within Centra-Costa Cqurtty, Page 6 Attachment I 5-18-04 Open Space Allocations ($175 Million) 25% Stewardship Acyuisfiorts 5 (W Millian) Stewardship Acquisitions/Capital ($45 Million) ($130 Million) 21%ExistiwV 3%Adminisliration Regional -...................... J FlagSIVIP ptqwx W% 31%Now Plaks Now ...................._......1 Community pirkwifies 21% 1"Q'=5%COTMrpetifive �Exkaftg Adry9p.stration 3% Opportunity reaft-ve 5% . 4, 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 V11). A. MOUNT DIA LO 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. Page 7 Stephen Joseph Attachment 1 5-18-04 B. SAN FRANCISCO BAY 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, major gaps in the Contra Costa County component of the trail could be eempleWqvercome. Helping to complete the missing links between Richmond and Crockett would be a key objective. These funds can be utilized for both right-of- way ight-ofway 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 E .........._"' t ],� I k, M 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 Page 8 Attachment 9 5-98-04 one of private cattle ranches. Acquisition of conservation easements, parklands, 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 EBMUD and EHRPD 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. PR 4E FARNMAND/AGRICULT RAL CORE e� i9F sr. il Vgla` sga " ',�+'"W i z The County has some of the best farmland in the state. Our last largely contiguous farming area is located in the lands east of Brentwood from Knightsen to Byron. Home to nut and fruit 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 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 RIVERF'RONT 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 duality 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 1 5-18-04 G. lAa1rJA.)A1\ti The Tassajara Valley extends from the eastern edge of the Blackhawk Ranch development along Camino Tassajara, east and then south to the Alameda County line. The valley has been under pressure to develop,fueled 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 1-680 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 the Cities of Concord, Clayton, � Pitts-burg, and Walnut Creek,this ranching area frames the northern Rank of central and eastern Contra Costa County. Immediately to the east is Black Diamond Mines Regio-nal Preserve. The purchase of agricultural easements to protect this area into the future as Page 10 Attachment 1 5-18-04 ranching lands willl protect this 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. L EAST COUNTY FOOTHILLS I I 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 1 5-18-04 L. CREED AND WATERSBED RESTORATION PROGRAM This fundin category will provide seed money for creek and watershed pra'ec#s g gra' � p Y located throughout the County. Specific objectives include: �:• Restoration of the natural character and function of creeks. .;. T t' ransforma ionre f o creeks into community amenities and local educational opportunities through enhancement of visual character and improved public access. •:* Enhancement of water quality, including reduced pollution and sedimentation to benefit public health and struggling fish and wildlife populations. 4• Watershed restoration,including weed management, and improved permeability toa ;c, 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, and including, the City of Walnut Creek 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 1 5-18-04 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-one, 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) West Moragallndian 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) Sturton 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 1 a-18-04 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 1 5-18-0)4 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 Valley Flagship area. 14) Northwest Communities Open Space Connection($1M) This provides funding to tie together open space and parklands between Hercules, Rodeo and Crockett. 15) Pittsburg/Antioch Hillsides($1M). 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 Trail 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 creek 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 fiords. Non-profit groups could satisfy match requirements by developing an endowment fund to assure operation and maintenance. V. DESCRIPTION OF CON"AUNITY PRIOPJTY ALLOCA- TIONS Due to the extensive unmet funding for local park, recreation, trail, open space, and historic preservation purposes,this fiunding measure will provide twenty-one(2 1)percent of the funds as a pass through to local governmental agencies that provide park and Page 15 Attachment 1 5-18-04 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, playgounds, 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 EDRPD 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. 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. 0 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 1 5-18-04 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 finds 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,pubhe safe", 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,watershed lands,trails, and oven space areas. 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 1 5-18-04 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 EBRPD 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 asocial 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 1 5-18-04 b. Determine which agency or agencies will receive fiends 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-once match or better). f. Ensure that matching funds stretch the use of b --neer funds. All bond--new fiends should be considered local match against other 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. . 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 Page 19 Attachment 1 5-18-014 The JPA Governing Board shall consist of members of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and the EBRPD Board of Directors. The 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 ballets, 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 Page 20 Attachment 1 5-16-04 Committee and/or the JPA Executive Committee. If within these 9 months the associations of public agencies do not provide notice that they 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 government 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 B presents a more detailed description of the evaluation process and the alternatives considered. P, .�i A#tachment 1 5-18-04 Attachment A:Community Priorities Allocations JURISDICTION 2000 POPULATION FUNDING Antioch 90,532 $2,512,700 4 it Brentwood 23,302 $646,800` Clayton 10,762, $298,700 ;Concord 121,780; $3,380,000 'Danville 41,715 $1,157,800 EI Cerrito 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 $711,1001 Orinda 17,599 $488,500; Pinole 19,039 $528,500; Pittsburg 56,769 $1,575,706, Pleasant Hill/Pleasant Hill P&RD (incorp. portion) 32,837 $911,400; Richmond ! 99,216 $2,753,800; San Pablo 30,2151 $838,700; San Ramon 44,7221 $1,241,300; Walnut Creek 64,296; $1,784,600; UNINCORPORATED COUNTY COUNTY SERVICE AREAS CSA R-7A Alamo 15,6261 $433,700 CSA M-16 Clyde 694 $19,300 CSA P-IR-1 Crockett 3,1941 $88,700 CSA M-8 Discovery Bay 8,9811 $249,300 CSA R-9 El Sobrante 12,260( $340,300 LSA M-17 Montarabay 10,336 $286,900 CSA R-10 Rodeo 8,717 $242,000 AUTONOMOUS DISTRICTS Ambrose P&RD (Bay Point) 21,534 $597,700 Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District 2.312 64,300 Diablo CSD 988 $27,500 Kensington CSD 4,93 $137,000 Pleasant Hill P&RD 4,682 $130,000 Rollingwood/Willard P&RD 2,900 $80,500 REMAINDER OF UNINCORPORATED 5644254,530$1,512,800�'I00 UNINCORPORATED COUNTY SUBTOTAL 151,690 $4,210,100 Partnership Incentive $1,386,000 GRAND TOTAL 948,816 $27,720,000 Page 22 Attachment 1 5-13-04 Attachment B Notification List for Contra Costa County Advisory Committee on Open Space Funding M& MM Centra Costa County Farm Bureau Contra Costa County Citizen's Land Alliance EBRPD-Interagency Planning, GAG Steve Abbors East Bay Municipal UtiEity D€strict j Steve Abbors CCC Fish and WildlifeCoram€ttee Charles Abrams City of Walnut Creek Seth Adams Save Mount Diablo I Judy Adler LifeGarden 'Jared Aldrich Greenbelt Guardians Kar_e_n Alm Town of Moraaa gnry Alver ( 'Mike Arnorosa Tom Torlakson's Office j Shannah Anderson SPAWNERS Sharon Anderson CCC County Counsers Office Mike Arata Brock Amer i City of San Pablo ;Carol ArnoldContra Costa Resource Conservation District Marianne Aude Mitch Avalon CCC Public Works Dept. Dick Avenius i Gil Azevedo City of Antioch Parks&Recreation Commission Carol Baird California Institute for Biod€varsity f Linda Ballentine Stewards of the Arroyo Pasaero CRMP Ronald Banducci Jud! Bank Eva Bansner League of Women Voters of the Bay Area Steghen Barbata Dela Science Center at Big Break Valerie Barone City of Walnut Creek f Dennis Barry AICP CCC Community Development Dept. Christina Batt Muir Heritage Land Trust Yvonne ftdgjis C.Y.C.L.E. Geoffrey Ballenger City of Lafayette Parks&Recreation Bob Berggran City of Pleasant Hill Recreation&Park District Bennett Bence Save Mount Diablo Rhonda Berry C€ty of Brentwood Martha Berthelsen The Watershed Pro ect Linda Best Contra Costa Economic Partnership Bruce; B yaert Trails for Richmond Action Committee fTRAC) Terry Beymos Bethallyn Black UC Cooperative Extension Contra Costs County Jim Blickenstaff Sierra Club,-Mt. Diablo Group,Save Our Danville Creeks John Bliss iShilts Consultants Inc Page 23 Attachment 1 5-18-04 lit . ate �. ...,.. .,.,E ,. ... • :. ( Rosie Back East Bay Regional Park District ( G€oris Boehm City of El Cerrito ( ;Laszlo Bonnyav Town of Moraga Parks&Recreation Commission ( Barbara Bontemps City of Orinda Parks&Recreation ( Jack Bontemps Or€nda Parks&Recreation Foundation ( Arthur Bonwe€€ Save Mount Diablo ( Felicia Borrego Save the Bay Dubravka"Dee" Boskovic ( Rich Bottarin`t Cily of Pleasant Hill ( Josh Bradt CC Clean Water PMram ( Myrtle Braxton Ch of Richmond Parks&Recreation Commission ( M Breen Save Mount Diablo ( 'Kate Breslin Supervisor John G€oia's Office 1District 11 ( Jan Bridges City of El Cerrito Park&Rec Commission ( ;Cram Bronzan City of Brentwood Parks&Recreation L?nnY Brown City of Brentwood Parks&Recreation Commission ( Jew gown Contra Costa Water Distdpt ( Ron ;Brown Save Mount Diablo Ron Brown ( Ann Buell California State Coastal Conservancy Rod Butter ( Sherida Bush City of Martinez Parks&Recreation Commission ( ;Lauri Byers CCC Board of Supervisors Joe Calabr`rgo Town of Danville ( jBab Calkins CCC Redevelopment Acncy ( ;Rc-sernary Cameron East Bay Regional Park District Bob Cantrell Ci of Martinez ( Lisa Carnahan CCC Public Works Dept. Special Districts Charles Carpenter ( Laura Case CCC Board of Supervisors Maria Catanzaro ( Dan Cather City of Walnut Creek ( Richard :Chamberlain Town of Moraga Bob Chapman ( Terrance Cheung Supervisor Gioia`s Office Paul Choisser Susan Click City Council ( 'Dan Coleman Shapell Industries Dave Collins East Bay Regional Parte District ( ,Tom Conrad Habitat for Humanity Ron Comman Steve Costa Ronald Crane ( Jason CC�. County Administrator's Office ( Genevieve Cross Trust for Public Land Page 24 Attachment 1 5-18-04 ME Dennis Cunnane ,Dennis Cunnane Cily of Moragg Janice Cu Jim Cutler Planning.. Mediation&Environmental Srvcs. Lori Dair Sustainable El Cerrito Mike Daley Sierra Club 8U Chapter John Dalrymple Central Labor Council Dennis Danaclhu I Chani Danielson Frank Darling City of Orinda Parks&Recreation Gwynn: Davi City_of Pittsburg Parks&Recreation Mei Davis City of Richmond Brenda De La Ossa Mount Diablo Gateway Alliance Brenda De La Ossa District Ill Supervisor`s office Jennifer Deal City of Lafayette Parks&Recreation Mark DeSaulnler CCC Board of Supervisors Rachael Dinno Government Relations Trust for Public Land Roster Dolan Muir Hdritage Land Trust David C 2 berg Trails for Richmond Aaron Committee fTEt1 C) j 'Roger Dollan Muir Heritage Land Trust 'Tim Donahue Sierra Club, Delta Group 'Jack Dove ' Bob DgyLe East Bay Regional Park District ' ,Lydia Dk Borg City of Concord ' 'Beatriz Duffy City of San Ramon ' ;Tad Du City.of San Ramon ' 3Natalie DuMont Greenbelt Alliance ' 3Kathv Duncan City of San Pablo Paries&Recreation lieff Edmonston Lucretia Edwards !Adam Ei_chbeM Conservation Finance Trust for Public Land I ' jAdam Eichbera Conservation Finance Trust for Public Land ' IJuliet Ellis Urban Habitat Program ' ,Kevin Emiqh CCC Public Works Dept. ' gaff Eorio City of San Raman Parrs&Recreation ' 'Jett Eorio City of San Ramon Parks&Recreation ' ,—s-mm Epperiy CCC Public Works Dept.. 1Betty&Sue Ericsson ' iCraig Ewing. City of Lafayette ' ;Steven Falk City of Lafayette ' Fartdeh Farah City of Antioch,Leisure Services Favlow Arthur lFeinstein Golden Gate Audubon Society ' Peter Felsenfeld Contra Costa Times ' Rudy Fernandez City of Antioch,Leisure Services Page 25 Attachment 1 5-18-34 ,y� SRF Al. +. k ..., ., . . ....: ,.:a ..: �..... >e' Kms.. , I L_ Ferri Mt, Diablo Mate Park ( titttayne Fqffig Saranap Homeowners'Association ( Butt Fisher Supervisor_DeSaulnier's Office ( Michael 'F€em€n4 City of Martinez Parks&Recreation ( Paul Flores City of Pittsburg ( ;Susan Friedman San Ramon General Plan Task Force ( Genn Fuller Jahn Muir National Historic Site Bob Fulton Chuck Gabrysiak IMa�Ann Gaebe ( Kevin Ga€€ey Town of Denville ;Truth Garland Cit --y drinda Parks&Recreation ( jJeff Gault City of San Ramon ( Ginger Gessner City of Concord ( Gary Gilleran `young&Rubicam San Francisco ( John Gioia CCC Board of Supero€cors Federal Glover I lFederal Glover CCC Board of Supervisors I Roberta Goulart CCC Corrmmunity,Development Dept. I Diana Granados Native Bird Connections I Diana Granados Native Bird Connections ( Bill Granados Native Bird Connections I Jeremy Graves C€ty of C€ayton I Ml€lie Greenberc3 CCC Board of Supervisors I jJohn Greitzer CCC Community Deve€opment Dent. I !Seam Griffith West Contra Costa Green egrty I iMarc Grisham City of Pinole I ;D. Mgn—udl Grosse,Sr. Clt_v of Richmond Gretchen Grover I Gretchen Grover East Bay Municipal Uti€ity District I Dana Guenzier Bay Area©pen Space Council Jim Gwerder CCC Citizens Land Alliance Torn Hagler I Alexander Hall City of Hercules Parks&Recreation Ken Hambrick Ba__frx Hand C€ty of©akiey Scott Hanin Cfty of El Cerrito I Pamela ardy Ponderosa Homes Sharon Harris 3 Codle Hart Citv of Antioch. Leisure Services Cynthia Harvey Supervisor Jahn Gioia's Office ( Joyce Hawkins City of Odnda Myrna Haves Carquinez.Strait Preservation Trust Hii(ary Heard ICCC Community Development Dept. SusanH�;ck€v L€ndsay Wildlife Museum Page 26 Attachment 1 I 5-18-04 �x .a��a �� I A1'ssc�n Hilt Cily.of Lafayette Parks&Recreation I Nadine 'Hitchcock Bay_Area Conservancy Program,Coastal Conservancy Adele Ho City of San Pablo Melanie Hobden City of Odnda 'Aram Hodess Plumbers&Stearnfitters Local 159 I Ralph Hoffman League of Women Voters I Kathy Hoffman Congressman George Miller's Office Rich Holden Mora-ga.Park&Recreation Committee Jeff Houston Melody Howe Weintraub David Hudson Kris Hunt Contra Costa Taxpayer's Association I William Hunt Walnut Creek Parks. Recreation and Open Space Commission I Rebecca Ines City of Pittsburg. Community Develogment Dept I Michelle ttagaki Clay of Hercules I Lucinda Jackson, PN.D. Chevron Research&Technology Co. I Jim Jake] Contra Costa Council I 'Jim Jake] Ci#y of Martinez Ed James JCijy of Concord Vincent Johnson Community Youth Council for Leadership_&Education Jody Jones I Lillie Mae Jones Community Youth Council for Leadership&Education Lee Jones Neighborhood House of forth Richmond Stephen Joseph Bob Joyce Frank Jurik I Nancy Kaiser City of Oakley I Pamela Barr Cily of Walnut Creek Park.,Rec.&Q en S ace Comm. I Michael Kean City of Antioch. Leisure Services I Kevin _ Keegan-Twombly City of Lafayette Parks&Recreation I Jahn Keibel John A Keibel. Documentary Photography I Jim Kenna CCC CornmunDeve]opment Dept. Daniel Kibler I Gordon Kimber CCC Planning Commission Steve Kirby Glenn Kirby I Heather Koch City of E[Cerrito I Werner Koellner Sierra Club, Mount Diablo Group I John _:c�;�chik CCC Community Development Dept. Dee Korbel Monica Kortz City of El Cerrito Parks tis Recreation I Andrew Krakoff City of Orinda Parks&Recreation I Catherine Kutsuris CCC Community_Development Dep#. I James KyleCit of Antioch,Lstsure Services Page 27 Attachment 1 5-18-a4 ( ;Norman La Force Sierra Club SF Bay Chapter ( Kand'r Lancaster Crty of Concord Parks&Rec Commission ( Debbi Landshof€ Sierra Club.West Contra Costa Group ( p3 erlV Lane East Bav Regional Park District ( Beverly Lane East Bay Regional Park District ( Robert J. Lang City of San Raman Parks&Community Srvcs.Comm. ( Paul Larson Galindo Creek Association ( Steve Lawton City of Hercules ( Mike Leana City of Brentwood ( jMike Leana,AICD Cit of Brentwood ( lrvng Lee City of Concord Parks&Rec Commission Unda Lewis ( jWilliam Lindsay City of arinda ( Beatrice Liu Counly Counsel's Office Contra Costa Coun ( Laura Lockwood CCC Administrator's Office Laura Lockwood ( John D. Lader Mills-Peninsula Hospital Foundation Henry Losee Henry R. Loubet ( Jeremy Madsen Greenbelt Alliance ( D. Grant Mainland City of Walnut Creek Park, Rec. &Open Space Comm. ( Karl Malamud-Roam CC Mosquito&Vector Control District ( Sllvano Marches! Contra Costa Counttv Counsel's Office ( Joe Mahotti Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed ( John Ma le City of Orinda Parks& Recreation Commission ( Carol Mason Mount Diablo Gatewav Alliance ( 'Greg Mattson McGill Martin Self Inc. ( Kristine Mazze! Tri-Valley Business Council ( Janet McBride SF Bay Trail Program,Assoc. of Bay Area Govemments ( Barron McCoy City of San Pablo ( Jennifer A. McGarry City of Concord Parks&Rec Commission ( Jane Melloni City,of Brentwood Park&Recreation Commission Donna M_engp --------------- { !John Mercurio Concord Parks and Recreation Commission ! Paul Merrick East Bay League Conservation ( jEd !Mgyer CCC Department of Agriculture ( Ken Mintz City of San Ramon Parks&Community Srvcs.Comm. ( , Morrison Coalition for Open Space ( Darrell Mortensen City of Walnut Creep Parks&Recreation j „Jo-Lynn Mull Ci of San Ramon Parks&Community Srvcs.Comm, Myers Town of Danville Leisure Services ( ;Willie lNatt Wells Fargo/East Bay Market Area ( Brenda Navellier El Cerrito Park&Recr Commission ;Steve Nelson Summit Bank Laurabeth GrieneeksNelson City of El Cerrito Park&Rec Commission ( !Kathleen Nimr Sierra Club Mt. Diablo Group Page 28 Attachment 1 5-18-04 ,,?zs, ;Shite Nootbaar `Robert_ Nootbaar ( Ron Nunn CCG Agricultural Land Trust ( Robert Nuzum Contra Costa Water District ( Pat O'Brien East Bay Regional Park District ( Michael G. O'Connell Paine Webber, inc. ( Clarice Odell Ci#}r of Orinda ( tcae Ono CCC Community Developmen#Dept. ( Edmundo Orozco City of Pittsburg Parks&Recreation Commission ( Mitch Oshins City of Brentwood ( Peter Oswald Sunset Development Comrsany ( Gard Owalina City of Orinda Parks&Recreation ( Edward Pancoast Urban Creeks Council ( Jenny P_g2ka Native Bird Connection ( Steve Pardieck Muir Heritage Land Trust Laura Pardieck ( Jean Parker City of Walnut Creek Park. Rec. &Open Space Comm. ( Mike Parness Q -of Walnut Creek Stefanie Parrott ( Richard Patchin City,of Martinez Parks&Recreation Lara Patotzka ( Dianne Paul Canyon Community Association Leroy Pereira ( Henry .Perkins City of Pittsburg Parks&Recreation ( I<.a� Perry Prospect Sierra Ranch Mary Neiedly Piepho ( Wayne Pierce Radd_ Rancch LLC ( Sal Pizzamenti City of Pittsburg Parks&Recreation ( Bemadette Powell Lindsav Wildlife Museum Power Bay Area Ridge Trail Council ( Edward Prenot CC Master Gardener ( Ted Radke East Bay Regional Park District ( Ted Radke East Bay Regional Park District Dylan Radke ( Mike Ramsey City of Pleasant Hill ( Jim Randall Ci of San Ramon ( M 'a. Rappaport City of Orinda ( ,Ostopher Rasmussen Ci of Lafayette Paries&Recreation }Trees Rauch Peter Rauch Califomia Native Plant Society. East Bay-Chapter ( Winston Rhodes GEty.of Brentwood ( Nancy Richardson Town of Moraga Parks&Recreation ( Dan Richardson City of Walnut Creek Mater Rocha -- Patrick Roche CCC Communi Development Dent. Page 29 Attachment 1 5-18-04 Ernie Rodrigues City of Brentwood Park&Recreation Commission Richard Rollins Affiliated Enginesrs, Inc. 3Pam Romo Friends of the Creeks Caro€ Rowley City of San Ramon Parks&Recreation Commission Jennifer Russell City of Lafavette Parks&Recreation John Ruzek East Bay Bicycle Coalition Kevin M. Ryder City-of r of Richmond Mike Sakamoto gly.of Hercules Lori Salamack Town of Moraga She Sank Citv of Martinez Parks&Recreation Dave Sargent Ruth Sayre Springhill Valley Homeowners Association f N._ancyr Schaefer €Lou Schretel City of Walnut.Creek Parks&Rec.Commisson ;Patricia Scott M, ary Selkirk California Center for Public Dismte Reno€-tion Cece Sgllgren CCC Public Works Dept, Ceee Se€lgren Muir Hedtgge Land Trust Michael G. Se€fors National Audubon Society Carolyn Severin EBRPD Board of Directors Dan Shaw City of Richmond Community Development Department 'Dou las Sheehan City of Pittsburg Parks&Recreation Nassir Shiraz€ Cityr of P�ttsburq Maurice Shiu CCC Public Works De t. j Doug S€den East Say Regional Parc District j Carol S€naer City of Lafayette Parks&Recreation Sir or Madam City,of Antioch Leisure Services C€ty of Antioch ;,Jean Sid East Bay Regional Park District €Jean S€r€ EBRPD Board of Directors !g—Or Skaredoff Friends of Alhambra Creek ( Shirley Skaredoff Friends of Alhambra Creek }Debra Skeaton 'Todd V. Skinner City of Orinda Parks&Recreation ( Ga Skre€ Ci of Walnut Creek Park n Rec.&4 S ace Comm. j ijohn S€ayrrraker Greenbelt Alliance Katherine Small City of Lafayette Parks& Recreation Commission Tsffan Smith Community Youth Council for Leadership&Education Tyler Snortum-Phelps Green Party of Contra Costa Marcia Somers Town of Danville Leisure Services Maxine Spe€€man California State Coastal Conservancy Malcolm Sero-1 LSA Associates.€nc. Sandy Sprowi Dan Stanton JNative Bird Connection John Steere ISycamore Associates Wayne Steffen jCjjy of Antioch, Leisure Service Page 30 Attachment 1 5-18-04 $�o � M Karen Stain Town of Mbrggg Karen E. Stephenson City of Richmond ( Sherry Sterrett City of Pleasant Hill Parks&Recreation ( Bruce Stewart Community Youth Council for Leadership&Education Jackie Std ( Fran Sticha City of Lafayette Parks&Recreation ( Evelyn Stivers Greenbelt Alliance ( Bye h Stone East Bay Reeiona€Park District Eileen Straus ( Joel Summerhill Ci of Pit#st>u ( John Sutter East Bgy.Regional Park District ( Mark Sweeney Cit of Martinez Parks-&.Recreation ( ;Darrel Sweet California Ran eland Trust ( ;Richard Takahashi City of El Cerrito Park&Rec Commission ( ;Bette Tarr Trails for Richmond Action Committee f'i'RAC� ( iNan Tatarka San Ramon City Council ( Mike Igg her Contra Costa Times James Teixeira City of Martinez 1Tom Terrill The Terrill Company Howard Thomas ( Richard Thompson CCC Ag Trust(staff) ( Laura Thom son SF Bav Tra€1 Pmgrarn.Assoc.of Bay Area Governments Sandra Threlfall ( Clifford Tong Burton Val€ev.com Mem Trapp Isiah Turner City of Richmond Coyle B. Uilkema CCC Board of Supervisors Nand Valche EB Business Gui van Domselaar City,f Hercules,Community Development f Public Works ( Gerard Van Steen Shilts Consultants Inc ( Barbara Vaughn Mt.Diablo Audubon Society ( Barbara Vincent League of Women Voters ( Mike Vukelich Contra Costa Count ry Farm Bureau ( Karen Wahl City of Brentwood ,tie€€er Waidtlow Native Bird Connection ,Lorna Wallace Greenbelt Alliance Dave Walters Waluch East Bay Regional Park District Ron Ward City of Antioch ( 'Jesse Washington City of Richmond Parks&Recreation Helen Weaver City of Richmond ( Donald Weber City of Lafayette Parks&Recreation ( Hermann Welm Pinole Pt.Properties ( Hermann Welm Contra Costa Economic Partnership ( Nan jEast Bay Regional Park District Page 31 Attachment 1 e 5-18-04 ;Peter Weshlgr San Jose State University, Dept Urban&Regional Planning" Jackie Wessman Sharon West City f Richmond Richard Westin City of Orinda Parks&Recreation Clave__ Wetmore City of Antioch Dave Wetmore City of Antioch:Department of Leisure Services Eric Whan CCC Public Works Dept. s 'Les White City of Pittsburg Sandee Wiedemann Ayn Wieskam East Bay Regional Park District Chris Wilcox City of El Cerrito Parks&Recreation Commission Linda Wilcox County Counsel Bares Williams City o€Richmond,Recreation&Parks Dgpgtment ;Thomas R. Wi#hams Aetna U.S. Healthcare Roland Williams Castro Valley Sanitary District Elizabeth Williams-Jones Cwt rE of Pittsburg Parks& Recreation }Pete&Amelia Wilson ;Tim Wirth Trust for Public Land ;Gene Wolfe DPhil Wong City of San Ramon John Woodburn Bay Area Open Space Council John Woodburn Bay Area Open Space Council Elva Yanez Trust For Public Land Bruce Yow Ci of El Cerrito Park&Rec Commission Jim Zelinski Page 32 Attachment 1 5-18-04 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 ((}( tions for Funding the Acquisition and Protection 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 talc 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 Tawe 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. Passible for property. Amount tax to be a flat, per- assessed is parcel charge or to determined by vary tax by type of engineers report that parcel and other distributes costs factors. according to benefits. Page 33 Attachment 1 5-18-04 f General Obligation Parcel Taut 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 I costs according to framers. benefits. Who votes? Registered voters Registered voters Property owners What voting margin 213 majority 213 majority 50%weighted is required for majority(votes are approval? weighted according to amount of assess- ment they would a What type of i Special or General Special or General Election by mail election? Election Election What are the time Two elections per Two elections per Election may be constraints on the year,though odd years year,though odd convened at any time. election? are more expensive years are more 45 days must be expensive allowed for return of ballots. Costs of election depends on how many Depends on how Depends upon how items on ballot many items on ballot many parcels included. OK to fund I No Yes Yes stewardship? i Fixed term required? Yes No No ? Possible to expend No Yes Yes j revenues on a pay- as-you-go ay-as ou o basis? Possible to sell Yes(required) Yes Yes bonds? Advantages ° Simple ° Possible to ° Perhaps more i customize tax rate equity in distri- ° Only way to raise ad - bution of costs valorem tax Flexibility in use of revenues ° Flexibility in use of ° Best interest rate revenues i ° Election may i i occur at anytime Disadvantages Not possible to ° Even year election ° Application to manage funds on probably required county-wide open pay-as you-go space needs is an basis Flexibility in tax 1 emerging rate structure can technique ° No stewardship be point of Page 34 Attachment 1 5-18-04 General Obligation Parcel Tax Benefit Assessment Bond District controversy ° Even year election probably required ° New property owners generally Epay more Page 35 ............ ............. ---- ---- ----------............................................................................ —-------- ....................... 3 �-n D) CD B Offcl a Ho 0 lCDD 110D 1101) m t;.ig?2 -- Z- - z- -0 ED CL % 0 0 o 0 0 0 > 0 :z 8 55 1: 0 po rL ...... v 0 mn -00 f/3 gtai @Cp ER �;5 E.; 0 fit g 'I =R x CD A) a cin —0. m 0 0 ;g > cc,Sm CL S m (a a ttggZ4 co Z5-X CD 3 0 ic) aCL Cli r 0 (D g z 0 2 Q.FA si o °, - :wz z O =0 C En 0 ED chi 0a° r CL rn 0 x D C: CL I.T W -0 e 1 =r Go 0 a (D .moi 'a fr 21 CL C: "a 0 (D a 0 03 > C VCL (j) 0 (D -0 CD 0 7 CD Z) < ...... CL CD o mn :y-0 CD m CD rr ri bdo 3 M , f L a CD ls, a ID �K > T z-0 co (D M. 5-EV -n 0 0 7C'p1 US :lJD 1; 3 -n 4x aoo Ell 0 060. 0i CQ RL 0 FD' I< 0 jii�ki- -- f, ... . .. ID :3 0 a=r M 0 > a M 5, xxn 0) ,7- CD 1@ A) 0). P7C .1 CID6 .. 0 0 O CDt. CD o 0 0 CD 0 0 Ma AN, CD ftp CL =r > to 3 -n 0' fA 4A(Agg(A�w > !nyl Cp cy, A ........... gi vbZtzr ....... ..... .................... 0 Go co C: 0 Ln co ID :* rl - V Co ED o 0, 0 (D W (D W ............... > > (D a u C.) 7, CL 5T 6 .......... ........... 0 ED 3 03 E: . .. .. CD0 ........ =r 0 ID CD vr (D ID :3 =7- < (D 0 3 oCD -u 0) ::3 =3 o (D ID 0 CD .0 m= u u q 0 , T a0 W I< CD (D CD 2) CD 0 0 CL =W, W, c.'ID m .0 C CD cn x m :p 10 0 K K m m 0 0 0 m> Wmm-axo>>or-00000zwwma,<D = M :3.002) 13) o c z C g 2 3 =r A> U) o CD 0) cr (Iji)) (D :3 CD OF >>> >,20 C5 rSoJ MM9 � rn 0 :0 a 0 CD ra c C: o o ch 0 0 CO CD cra to 53 >(03 0, 5' 0 m CD 0 0 m 0)'< W CD =0 3 0' w 2) 0- - OW--.,40@00am (D 0 3 < 2:2 a(a 0 z , i . , - 1 003 En —13 N CD ch 0 -4 0; CD CD '000 0 C/) 3 :D 0 c M 0 :r :3 a K r EF m MDMM> CD :3 okz 0 = 3-0 �o QOOMK --. '. 5 - 0 0 0 (D 000 0 0 =3 :3 CL CD -0 CA c z a CL 0 cl 0 owmaloo -'a vm< W ID -n 0 z @ W ma 0 cD cau z < w (D Cl) m CD w -4 5E Q� _0 CD =3 o b9 EA EA to 611�4L4 fo 64 cr 'q 61'roq 14 NO iA EA x6q)n 11 -n 0 c (n ro N) -4(D m -4 co 0) - C4 w n 9 iL13 0 co 4 CA) z SO al (z 00 —(A<0 0) 0 000 C) -4 -4 -4 N)0) 0 co 00 ED C,) (n 0 ca ZRy P p.9- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :-- �n w 4 tn a 0 al -,j o -4 0,w .4 4,14 Ul (P — rl.)al cy)- to--- - - - - z o 08 Attachment 3 DRAFT JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT II BY AND BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA i I AND I THE EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT RELATING TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUNDING AUTHORITY I I I� J� i Attachment 3 DRAFT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUNDING AUTHORITY JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT This Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement ("Agreement"), dated ("Effective Date"), is entered into by and between the EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT, a special district duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the "EBRPD"), and the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a political subdivision of the State of California (the "County"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Article I (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California authorizes the EBRPD and the County to create a joint exercise of powers entity which has the power to jointly exercise the powers common to the EBRPD and the County; WHEREAS, the EBRPD and the County are each empowered by law to undertake certain projects and programs; WHEREAS, the EBRPD and the County have a common interest in acquiring, improving, and maintaining land for park, recreational or open space purposes; WHEREAS, the EBRPD and the County are authorized to create assessment districts in order to fund projects and programs that provide benefits to properties within their jurisdictions; WHEREAS, by this Agreement, the EBRPD and the County desire to create and establish the Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority for the purposes set forth herein and to exercise the powers described herein; WHEREAS, the EBRPD and the County intend that revenues to be collected and utilized pursuant to this Agreement be used to augment expenditures by the EBRPD, the County, and other entities operating in Contra Costa County for projects such as those described in this Agreement and not supplant or reduce the level of such expenditures. NOW, THEREFORE, the EBRPD and the County, for and in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements herein contained, do agree as follows. 1 Attachment 3 DRAFT SECTION 1 DEFINITIONS Unless the context otherwise requires, the terms defined in this Section 'I shall for all purposes of this Agreement have the meanings specified herein. "Assessment District" means the assessment district to be formed by the Authority pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Sts. & Hy. Code § 22500 et seq.). "Authority" means the Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority created by this Agreement. "Board"means the governing board of the Authority. "Citizens' Oversight Committee" means the advisory committee that will provide recommendations to the Executive Committee on the awarding of grants pursuant to this Agreement. "County" means the County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the State I of California. "EBRPD" means the East Bay regional Park District, a special district duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. "Engineer's report" means the report to be prepared by a certified assessment engineer as a basis for establishing assessments pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 22565, and any subsequent engineer's reports prepared pursuant to Streets & Highways Code section 22622. The Engineer's report will specify the funding allocations, determine special benefit, and establish a procedure for calculating the amounts to be assessed from properties subject to the Assessment District. I "Executive Committee" means the committee established by the Authority to oversee and approve the granting of funds raised pursuant to this Agreement. "Framework For an Open Space Protection and Enhancement Funding Measure for Contra Costa County", dated May 25, 2004 ("Framework"), means the document that was drafted through a public advisory process to recommend creation of a funding measure for open space purposes., The Framework describes the recommended funding allocations and general operating procedures and provides a guide for preparation of the Engineer's Report. "Law" means Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California (Sections 65006599). 2 Attachment 3 DRAFT "Projects" means improvements as defined by the Landscaping and Lighting Act Of 1972, including but not limited to the installation of park or recreational improvements, maintenance of improvements and acquisition of lana for park, recreational or open space purposes. SECTION 2 P'URP'OSE This Agreement is made pursuant to the Law for the purposes set forth below: A. To establish an Assessment District to obtain funds for Projects. B. To identify Projects to be funded by assessments consistent with the Engineer's Report and the Framework. C. To allocate funding for implementation of the Projects, consistent with the Engineer's Report and the Framework. D. To exercise all the powers referred to in the recitals hereof and described in Section 6 herein. SECTION 3 TERM AND TERMINATION A. This Agreement shall become effective as of the Effective Date and shall continue in full force for 35 years or until terminated or rescinded, whichever occurs first.) The Agreement may be terminated by either party, in its sole discretion upon ninety-day advance written notice thereof to the other, and may be terminated or rescinded immediately by a written supplemental mutual agreement of the parties hereto. SECTION 4 AUTHORITY A. Creation of Authority. There is hereby created pursuant to the Law an agency and public entity to be known as the "Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority.g As provided in the Law, the Authority shall be a public entity separate from the EBRPD and the County. The debts, liabilities and obligations of the Authority shall not constitute the debts, liabilities or obligations of the EBRPD or the County. Within 30 days after the effective date of this Agreement or any 3 Attachment 3 DRAFT amendment hereto, the Authority will cause a notice of this Agreement and any amendment hereof to be prepared and filed with the office of the Secretary of State of the State of California in the manner set forth in Section 5503.5 of the Law. B. Governing Board. The Authority shall be administered by the Board, whose members shall be elected members of the governing bodies of the County and the EBRPD. The County shall have five (5) representatives on the Board and the EBRPD shall have two (2) representatives on the Board. The five members of the County Board of Supervisors shall be the County's representatives on the Board. The EBRPD representatives on the Board shall be appointed by the governing body of the EBRPD. Board members appointed by the EBRPD shall serve at the pleasure of the governing body of the EBRPD. Vacant EBRPD positions on the Board shall be filled by the governing body of the EBRPD. The term of office as a member of the Board of any Board member shall terminate when such member shall cease to be an elected official of the governing body of the party which such member represents. Ii Duties of the Board include, but are not limited to, annual approval of the Authority budget and annual approval of an Engineer's Report. Members of the Board shall not receive any compensation for serving as such, but shall be entitled to reimbursement for any expenses actually incurred in connection with serving as a member if the Board shall determine that such expense shall be reimbursed and there are unencumbered funds available for such purpose. If requested by the Authority, the County or the EBRPD will provide staff to support the activities of the Authority, the costs of such staff to be reimbursed by the Authority from its funds. C. Meetings of Board I (1) Regular Meeting . The Board shall hold a regular meeting on the 4ffi Tuesday of April and October and, by resolution, may provide for the holding of regular meetings at more frequent intervals. If the Chair determines that there will be no business to transact at any meeting or that a scheduling conflict exists, such meeting may be canceled or rescheduled. The hour and place at which each such regular meeting shall be held shall be fixed by resolution of the Board. (2) Legal Notice. All meetings of the Board shall be called, noticed, held and conducted subject to the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 of Part I of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (Sections 54950-54951)) or any successor legislation hereinafter enacted, and the County's Better Government Ordinance. (3) Minutes. The Secretary of the Authority shall cause minutes of all meetings of the Board to be kept and shall, as soon as possible after each meeting, 4 Attachment 3 DRAFT cause a copy of the minutes to be forwarded to each member of the Board and to the County and the EBRPD. (4) Quorum. A majority of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, except that less than a quorum may adjourn meetings from time to time. D. Officers: Duties; Bonding. (1) The Board members shall select from the members a Chair who shall serve as Chair of the Authority and a Vice Chair who shall serve as Vice Chair of the Authority. The Chair and the Vice Chair shall have the duties set forth in the By- Laws of the Authority. (2) The Secretary of the Authority shall be the County Community Development Director. The Secretary shall keep the records of the Authority, shall act as Secretary at the meetings of the Authority and record all votes, and shall keep a record of the proceedings of the Authority in a journal of proceedings to be kept for such purpose, and shall perform all duties incident to the office. (3) The County Treasurer is hereby designated as Treasurer of the Authority. Subject to the applicable provisions of any indenture or resolution providing for a trustee or other fiscal agent, the Treasurer is designated as the depository of the Authority to have custody of all the money of the Authority, from whatever source, and, as such, shall have the powers, duties and responsibilities specified in Section 6505.5 of the Law. (4) The Auditor Controller, who performs the functions of auditor and controller for the County, is hereby designated as Controller of the Authority, and, as such, shall have the powers, duties and responsibilities specified in Section 6505.5 of the Law. The Controller shall draw checks to pay demands against the Authority when the demands have been approved by the Authority. (5) The County shall be reimbursed upon approval of the Board of charges to be made against the Authority for the services of the Secretary, Treasurer, and Controller. (6) The Treasurer and Controller of the Authority are designated as the public officers or persons who have charge of, handle, or have access to any property of the Authority, and each such officer shall file an official bond in the amount each such officer determines is necessary as required by Section 6505.1 of the Law, provided, that such bond shall not be required if the Authority does not possess or own property or funds with an aggregate value of greater than $1,500.00. (7) The Treasurer and Controller of the Authority are hereby 5 Attachment 3 DRAFT authorized and directed to prepare or cause to be prepared: (a) a special audit as required pursuant to Section 6505 of the Law every year during the term of this Agreement, and (b) a report in writing on the first day of February, May, August and November of each year to the Board, the EBRPD and the County, which report shall describe the amount of money held by the Treasurer and Controller of the Authority, the amount of receipts since the last such report, and the amount paid out since the last such report. (8) The Board shall have the power to appoint such other officers and employees as it may deem necessary and to retain independent counsel, consultants and accountants. SECTION 5 COMMITTEES A. Executive Committee. The Authority shall establish an Executive Committee which shall have nine (9) members. Five members shall be the members of the County Board of Supervisors. Two members shall be elected board members from the EBRPD and shall be appointed by the EBRPD. Two members shall be public members and shall be appointed by the Board. The Board shall solicit nominations of individuals to serve as public members from the Contra Costa County Mayor's Conference. The seven elected members of the Executive Committee shall serve at the pleasure of their respective governing bodies. The terms of the public members of the Executive Committee shall be established by the Board. The Board shalt delegate to the Executive Committee the following responsibilities: Selection of Projects to be funded with revenues from the Assessment District, consistent with the Engineer's Report and the Framework; ■ Approval of contracts between the Authority and other entities, within the parameters of annual Authority budgets approved by the Board, and effecting the intent of this Agreement to augment expenditures made by the entities with which the Authority contracts for projects such as those described in this Agreement, and not supplant or reduce the level of such expenditures; ■ Appointment of members of the Citizens' Oversight Committee. B. Citizens' Oversight Committee. The Authority shall establish a Citizens' Oversight Committee to review prospective Projects, make recommendations to the Executive Committee regarding approval of contracts, and make other recommendations consistent with the Framework. Members of the Citizens' Oversight Committee shall be appointed by the Executive Committee in accordance with guidelines to be established by the Board and consistent with the Framework. 6 Attachment 3 DRAFT C. Legal Notice. All meetings of committees shall be called, noticed, held and conducted subject to the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 of Part I of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the .State of California (Sections 54950- 54961)) or any successor legislation hereinafter enacted, and the County's Better Government Ordinance. D. The Board may establish other advisory committees it deems appropriate to advise the Authority on matters related to this Agreement, provided that the purpose and function of any such committee shall be Specified by the Board. SECTION 6 POWERS The Authority shall have all of the powers granted to joint powers authorities in Articles 2 and 4 of the Law. Additionally, the Authority is authorized, in its own name, to do all acts necessary for the exercise of said powers for said purposes, including but not limited to any or all of the following: to make and enter into contracts; to employ agents and employees; to sue and be sued in its own name, to acquire real property and improvements thereon by any lawful means other than eminent domain; and to sell and lease real and personal property to the EBRPD and the County and to buy and hire real and personal property from the EBRPD and the County. Except as otherwise provided herein, such power shall be exercised subject only to such restrictions upon the manner of exercising such power as are imposed upon the EBRPD or the County in the exercise of similar powers, as provided in Section 6509 of the Law. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Authority shall have any additional powers conferred under the Law, Insofar as such additional powers may be necessary to accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 2 hereof. SECTION 7 TERMINATION OF POWERS The Authority shall continue to exercise the powers herein conferred upon it until the termination of this Agreement or until the EBRPD and the County shall have rescinded this Agreement. SECTION 8 FISCAL YEAR Unless and until changed by resolution of the Board, the fiscal year of the 7 Attachment 3 DRAFT Authority shall be the period from July 1 of each year to and including the following June 30, except for the first fiscal year which shall be the period from the date of this Agreement to the following June 30. SECTION 9 DISPOSITION OF ASSETS At the end of the term hereof or upon the earlier termination of this Agreement as set forth in Section 7, and after the repayment of advances and contributions in accordance with Section 10, all assets of the Authority shall be distributed to the parties in equal shares. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any real property held bythe Authority shall be transferred to EBRPD, with EBRPD assuming any and all financing liens or encumbrances incurred by the Authority to acquire the property. SECTION 10 CONTRIBUTIONS AND ADVANCES Contributions or advances of public funds and of personnel, equipment or property may be made to the Authority by the County and the EBRPD for any of the purposes of this Agreement. Any such advance shall be made subject to repayment, and shall be repaid, in the manner agreed upon by the County or the EBRPD, as the case may be, and the Authority at the time of making such advance. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, the parties agree that any and all incidental expenses (as that term is described in Section 22526 of the Streets & Highways Code) incurred by either party related to formation of the Assessment district, including but not limited to the costs of engineering, balloting and ballot tabulation, and attomey's fees, shall be treated as an advance under this Section and shall be promptly repaid by the Authority following the first collection of assessments. It is mutually understood and agreed that, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, neither the County nor the EBRPD has any obligation to make advances or contributions to the Authority to provide for the costs and expenses of administration of the Authority, even though either party may do so. The County and the EBRPD may allow the use of personnel, equipment or property in lieu of other contributions or advances to the Authority. SECTION I1 ACCOUNTS AND REPORTS The Authority shall establish and maintain such funds and accounts as may be required by good accounting practice. The books and records of the Authority shall be open to inspection at all reasonable times by the County and the EBRPD and their representatives. The Authority shall give an audited written report of all financial 8 Attachment 3 DRAFT activities for each fiscal year to the County and to the EBRPD within twelve (12) months after the close of each fiscal year. To the extent required by Section 6505.6 of the Law, the Controller of the Authority shall contract with a certified public accountant or public accountant to make an annual audit of the accounts and records of the Authority in compliance with Section 6505.6 of the Law. In each case the minimum requirements of the audit shall be those prescribed by the State Controller for special districts under Section 26909 of the Government Code of the State of California and shall conform to generally accepted auditing standards. When such an audit of an account and records is made by a certified public accountant or public accountant, a report thereof shall be filed as public records with the County, the EBRPD and, if required by Section 6505.6 of the Law, with the County Auditor/Controller of the County of Contra Costa. Such report shall be filed within twelve (12) months of the end of the fiscal year or years under examination. Any costs of the audit, including contracts with, or employment of, certified public accountants or public accountants, in making an audit pursuant to this Section shall be borne by the Authority and shall be a charge against any unencumbered funds of the Authority available for the purpose. In any year the Authority may, by unanimous request of the Board, replace the annual special audit with an audit covering a two-year period. SECTION 12 CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE The Conflict of interest Code for the Authority shall be the Conflict of Interest Code for the County. SECTION 13 INDEMNIFICATION ANIS DEFENSE Each party to this Agreement shall defend, hold harmless and indemnify the other party, its officers, agents, and employees against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses or liability arising out of, or in connection with, any acts performed under this Agreement and caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the indemnitor, its officers, agents or employees. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 10 of this Agreement, the Authority shall have the power to require the parties to this Agreement to contribute funds for the legal defense to challenges to the formation of the Authority or the Assessment District in the event the Board determines that the Authority lacks sufficient funds to pay the cost of such legal defense. At the direction of the Authority, each party to this 9 Attachment 3 DRAFT Agreement shall contribute funds to pay for attorney's fees and costs that may be incurred in such defense of the Authority, which contributions shall be in equal amounts. If funds are available following the conclusion of any litigation, the Authority shall return such contributions to both parties on a pro rata basis at a time and in a manner to be determined by the Board in its sole discretion. SECTION 14 i BREACH If default shall be made by the County or the EBRPD in any covenant contained in this Agreement, such default shall not excuse either the County or the EBRPD from fulfilling its obligations under this Agreement and the County and the EBRPD shall continue to be liable for the performance of all conditions herein contained. County and EBRPD shall be entitled to seek any and all legal and equitable remedies against the other in response to any alleged default under this Agreement. Each and all of the remedies given to the Parties hereunder or by any law now or hereafter enacted are cumulative and the exercise of one right or remedy shall not impair the right of the Parties to any or all other remedies. I SECTION 15 SEVERABILITY Should any part, term, or provision of this Agreement be decided by the courts to be illegal or in conflict with any law of the State of California, or otherwise be rendered unenforceable or ineffectual, the validity of the remaining parts, terms or provisions hereof shall not be affected thereby. SECTION 16 SUCCESSORS: ASSIGNMENT This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors of the parties. Except to the extent expressly provided herein, neither party may assign any right or obligation hereunder without the consent of the other. SECTION 17 AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT This Agreement may be amended by supplemental agreement executed by the County and the EBRPD at any time. 10 Attachment 3 DRAFT SECTION 18 FORM OF APPROVALS Whenever an approval is required in this Agreement, unless the content specifies otherwise, it shall be given, in the case of the County, by resolution duly and regularly adopted by the members of the Board of Supervisors, and, in the case of the EBRPD, by resolution duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the EBRPD, and, in the case of the Authority, by resolution duly and regularly adopted by the Board. Whenever in this Agreement any consent or approval is required, the same shall not be unreasonably withheld. SECTION 19 NOTICES Notices to the EBRPD hereunder shall be sufficient if delivered to the General Manager of the EBRPD and notices to the County hereunder shall be sufficient if delivered to the Community Development Department and Clerk of the County. SECTION 20 SECTION HEADINGS All section headings contained herein are for convenience of reference only and are not intended to deme or limit the scope of any provision of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed and attested by their proper officers thereunto duly authorized, and their official seals to be hereto affixed, as of the day and year first above written. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA By: Federal Clover Chair, Board of Supervisors ATTEST: John Sweeten Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 11 Attachment 3 DRAFT RECOMMENDED BY: Dennis M. Barry Community Development Director FORM APPROVED: Silvana B. Marchesi County Counsel By: Linda Wilcox Deputy County Counsel EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT By: Douglas Siden President, Board of Directors ATTEST: By: Clerk of the Board of Directors FORM APPROVED: By: Ted Radosevich District Counsel 12 ATTACHMENT 4 Draft CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUNDING AUTHORITY Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation district PRELIMINARY ENGINEER's REPORT May 12,2004 Engineer of Work Shilts Consultants,Inc. 2300 Boynton Avenue,Suite 201 Fairfield,CA 94533 (707)42645016 www.shilts.com CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUNDING AUTHORITY Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District TABLE OF CONTENTS LINTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1 U. CERTIFICATES......................»..........»........................................................................................4 III. FLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS..........................................................»....................................5 A. DEFINITIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS......................................................................................................5 B. FRAmEWoRK....................................................................................................................................b C. ExPENDrruRE AREAS.......................................................................................................................7 D. heROVEMENTS................................................................................................................................9 IV. ESTIMATE OF COSTS AND BUDGET...................................................................................17 A. ESTIMATE OF COSTS....................................................................................................................... 17 V. METHOD OF ASSESSMENT APPORTIONMENT...............................................................20 A. METHOD OF At'PORTIONMENT........................................................................................................20 B. DLSCussION OF BENEFrr.................................................................................................................20 C. CRITERIA AND POLICIES.................................................................................................................29 D. GENERAL VERSUS SPECIAL BENEFIT...............................................................................................30 E. BENEFIT FLNDINa AND ZONES OF BENEFrr.....................................................................................32 F. ASSESSMENT APPOR3'I Nm ENT......................................................................................................35 G. METHOD OF AsSEssmENT...............................................................................................................35 VI. ASSESSMENT.............................................................................................................................41 VII. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM........................................................................................................43 VIII. ASSESSMENT ROLL(SPREAD OF COSTS)...................................................................VIII-1 L INTRODUCTION The Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority (the "Authority") is a joint powers authority formed between the County of Contra Costa (the "County"), and the East Bay Regional Park District (the "Paris District"). After a four year public involvement process, the Authority was created to acquire, improve and maintain land in Contra Costa County for park, recreation or open space purposes. According to the United States Census, the population in the County in 1990 was 803,732 and on July 1, 2003, the total County population is estimated to be 1,001,138, representing a 24.5% increase over this time pentad. Since the County is approximately 720 square miles in total area, the current population density is approximately 1,390 people per square mile.' The map on page 3 depicts the area served by the Authority, the general location of the County and primary access points into the County from surrounding areas. This Preliminary Engineer's Report ("Report") was prepared to (1) establish the estimated costs of the acquisitions, improvements and maintenance services that would be funded by the proposed assessments of the Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District (the "Assessment District"); (2) to determine the special and general benefits derived thereby, and (3) to apportion the proposed assessments to lots and parcels within the Assessment District based on the estimated special benefit each parcel receives. This Report and the proposed assessments have been made pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code(the "Act")and Article XIIID of the California Constitution (the"Article"). After consideration of this Report, the Governing Board of the Authority (the "Board") may, by resolution, preliminarily approve this Report, call for an assessment ballot proceeding and establish a date for a public hearing on the proposed assessments. The ballot proceeding and the potential levy of the assessments are subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Articles XIIIC and MID of the California State Constitution and the Act. If the Board approves such resolution, a notice of assessment and assessment ballot would be mailed to property owners owning property within the jurisdictional area of the Authority. Such notice would include descriptions of the proposed assessments and the acquisitions, improvements and maintenance services the assessments would fund as well as an explanation of the method of voting on the assessments. Each notice would also include a ballot upon which the property owner could mark his or her approval or disapproval of the proposed assessments. After the ballots are mailed to property owners, a minimum 45-day time period must be provided for the return of the assessment ballots. Following this minimum 45 day time period, a public hearing must be held for the purpose of allowing public input regarding the proposed assessments. This hearing is currently scheduled for Tuesday, July 27, 2004. At this hearing, the public would have the opportunity to speak on this issue and to present additional input to the Board. After the close of the public input portion of the public hearing, the returned ballots would be tabulated. The results of the tabulation are scheduled to be announced on August 10, 2004. If it is determined that the assessment ballots submitted in opposition to the proposed assessments do not exceed the assessment ballots submitted in favor of the assessments Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authortty,Parks and open Space Pmtectfon and Preservation District Page 1 Engfneaes Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts ConsuHants,Inc. (weighted by the proportional financial obligation of the property for which ballots are submitted), the Board may take action to confirm and approve the levy of the assessments for fiscal year 2004-05. If the assessments are so confirmed and approved by the Board, the levies would be submitted to the County Auditor/Controller in August 2004 for inclusion on the property tax roll for Fiscal Year 2004-05. If the assessments are so confirmed and approved, they may be continued in future years by a majority vote of the Board. This annual assessment continuation process would require the creation of a budget for the upcoming fiscal year, an updated assessment roll listing all parcels and their proposed assessments for the upcoming fiscal year, preparation of an updated Engineer's Report, a noticed public meeting at which the Engineer's Report would be preliminarily approved, publication in a local newspaper of the Board's intent to continue the assessment, and a noticed public hearing prior to the Board's decision on continuing the assessments. Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and open Space Protection and Preservation District Page 2 Engineer's Report Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultants,Inc_ i V Yi o CL C yo co CD Ci •� 02 o o C cn 0 Eld a Q d 8 C q � 44 N 'G,y,WFN dy Ml. s u. oti u s.:urd ' E RLL CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUNDING AUTHORITY Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District A CERTIFICATES 1. The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed Engineer's Report and does hereby certify that this Engineer's Report, and the Assessment and Assessment Diagram herein, have been prepared by me. Engineer of Work, License No. 052091 2. 1, the Secretary of the Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority, County of Contra Costa, California, hereby certify that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with the Assessment and Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was filed and recorded with me on , 2004. Secretary of the Board 3. 1, the Secretary of the Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority, County of Contra Costa, California, hereby certify that the Assessment in this Engineer's Report was approved and confirmed by the Board on 2004, by Resolution No. Secretary of the Board 4. 1, the Secretary of the Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority, County of Contra Costa, California, hereby certify that a copy of the Assessment and Assessment Diagram was filed in the office of the County Auditor of the County of Contra Costa, California, on , 2004. Secretary of the Board 5. 1,the County Auditor of the County of Contra Costa, California, hereby certify that a copy of the Assessment Roll and Assessment Diagram for fiscal year 2004-05 was filed with me on , 2004. County Auditor, County of Contra Costa Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report Fiscal Year 204-05 by Shifts Consuhants,Inc. Page 4 III. FLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS A. Definitions and Descriptions I. Improvements The improvements proposed to be funded by the Assessment District (the "Improvements") provide special benefit to parcels within the Assessment District as defined in the Method of Assessment herein. Improvements are legally defined by the Act (Section 22525 of the Streets and Highways Code) and include, but are not limited to, installation of park or recreational improvements, installation of landscaping, installation of facilities appurtenant to the improvements, maintenance or servicing of improvements and acquisition of land for park, recreational or open space purposes. The Improvements are generally described to include the followingo2 (a) Acquisition of real property in fee for park, recreational or open space purposes. Such real property may include, but is not limited to, open space lands, greenbelts, hillsides, viewsheds and watersheds, shorelines, riparian corridors, urban open space, parks, agricultural lands, wetlands, surplus school sites and quarries. (b)Acquisition of interests in real property for park, recreational or open space purposes. Such interests may include, but are not limited to, easements, rights of entry, leaseholds, dedications, development rights, conservation easements and utility rights of way on real property such as that set forth in Section III.A.1.(a)of this Report. (c) Maintenance and servicing of such real property and interests in real property acquired with funding from assessments pursuant to this Report. (d)Acquisition, installation, maintenance or servicing of improvements or public facilities such as landscaping, recreational facilities, benches, signage, fencing, firebreaks, picnic areas, playground equipment, play courts, restrooms, trails, lighting, electrical facilities, foot bridges and land preparation such as grading, irrigation or drainage on (1) real property owned by, or encumbered by property rights held by, or maintained by, the Authority; or(2) on real property owned by, or encumbered by property rights held by, or maintained by any local agency or non=profit entity within the jurisdictional area of the Authority that participates with the Authority in any of the acquisitions, installations, maintenance and servicing described herein. Z Maintenance Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of any Improvement, including (a) repair, removal, or replacement of all or part of any Improvement; (b) providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, or treating for disease or injury; (c) the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste; and (d) the cleaning, sandblasting and painting of walls and other Improvements to remove or cover graffiti. (Sts. &Hy. Code, §22531.) Centra Costa County open Space Funding Authority,Parks and open Spam Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consu tants,Inc. Page 5 3. Servicing Servicing means the furnishing of(a) electric current or energy, gas or other illuminating agent for any public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of any other Improvements; and (b) water for irrigation of any landscaping, the operation of any fountains,or the maintenance of any other Improvements. (Sts. & Hy. Code, §22538.) 4. Incidental Expenses Incidental expenses include all of the following: (a) The costs of preparation of the report, including plans, specifications, estimates, diagram, and assessment; (b)the costs of printing, advertising, and the giving of published, posted, and mailed notices; (c) compensation payable to the County for collection of assessments; (d) compensation of any engineer or attorney employed to render services in proceedings pursuant to this part; (e) any other expenses incidental to the construction, installation, or maintenance and servicing of the Improvements; (f) any expenses incidental to the issuance of bonds or notes pursuant to Section 22662.5 of the Streets and Highways Code; and (g) costs associated with any elections held for the approval of a new or increased assessment. (Sts. &Hy. Code, §22526.) B. Framework The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors created the Ad Hoc Committee on Open Space Funding on September of 1999 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 (the"Advisory Committee"), recommended that a funding measure be placed before the property owners of the County with proceeds to be managed by the Authority. The Advisory Committee also prepared a plan for open space preservation, the Framework for an Open Space Protection and Enhancement Funding Measure for Contra Costa County, dated May 25, 2004 (the"Framework"). The provisions and terms of the Framework guide the funding, operation, management and oversight of the Improvements. However, in the event of a conflict in terms or provisions between the Framework and this Report, this Report shall govern. The Framework sets forth the following categories and descriptions to outline the variety of open space actions needed in the County: Scenic Landscapes and Regional Parks—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; Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer`s Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultants,Inc. Page 6 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; Local & Municipal ParlrslRecreation Enhance 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; 7'railslPublic Access Facilities—dose 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;and Wildlife Habitat and Corridors---Protect/enhance the habitat of unique and valuable plants and animals. C. Expenditure Areas Contra Costa County encompasses unique geographic sub-areas. The western areas of the County, which include the industrial areas along the Richmond shoreline and the urbanized areas along the Interstate 80 corridor, are bordered by the San Francisco and San Pablo Bays to the west and by the Oakland Berkeley Hills and Briones Hills to the east. The central area,which includes the urbanized valley floor along the Interstate 680 corridor, is generally bordered by the Briones Hills and Las Trampas Ridge to the west and the Mount Diablo range to the east. The eastern areas, which include agriculture and urbanized areas, extend east from the Mount Diablo range to the San Joaquin River Delta. In order to more clearly establish a basis for equal levels of special benefits to all properties of similar type, three areas (the "Expenditure Areas") have been created within the Assessment District. A specific requirement for the Assessment District is that the net available assessment funds generated in an Expenditure Area must be used for Improvements in that Expenditure Area. The criteria for the Assessment District are further delineated in Section V.0 of this Report. These Expenditure Areas, which are depicted on Map 2 and the Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Assessment Diagram in Section VII of this Report, are described as"West County,""Central County"and "East County." Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation Dis&ct Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultants,Inc. Page 7 I n I 4-0 C d U. CL c i CL 44 K Q CL Uo a4 Ar � m Z 99 l > c� D. Improvements The following projects (the "Projects"), identified in the Framework, further describe and deme the Improvements to be funded by the assessments. The Expenditure Area(s)for each Project are listed on the Estimate of Cost and Budget in Section IV of this Report. 1. .Flagship Projects Flagship Projects are Projects of countywide significance. Approximately 36% of the assessment funds received by the Authority will be allocated to Flagship Projects. These Flagship Projects are described as follows: a) Mt. Diablo Paris Expansions Mt. Diablo State Park is one of California's oldest and most heavily used parks. It supports critical wildlife habitats and is home to many threatened species. A large percentage of the lands on and around the mountain is privately owned and faces development pressure. Funds from the Assessment District would be used to acquire and preserve additional lands to expand Mt. Diablo State Park and better connect it to other neighboring parks and open space areas. b) San Francisco Bay Trail In the 1990s, the California legislature identified the need for a trail that would ring the San Francisco Bay, and provided initial money to help begin its creation. The Assessment District would provide funds to help complete this trail in Contra Costa County, including missing links between Richmond and Crockett. c) Richmond Shoreline This 30-mile stretch of shoreline contains a variety of scenic and environmental resources and offers three-bridge views of the San Francisco Bay. Funds from the Assessment District would be used to preserve and restore shorelines, wetlands and historic features, and to create new trails or public access opportunities. d) Muir Heritage Corridor This is the area of roiling hills generally north of Briones Regional Park. This land, which is primarily used for private cattle ranching, includes watershed lands, scenic vistas and wildlife habitats. Funds from the Assessment District would be used to acquire parklands and easements to protect the scenic and ranching heritage of the area. e) Prime Farmland/Agricultural Core The last large farming area remaining in the County is located in the lands east of Brentwood from Knightsen to Byron. This area has rich peat soils and supports productive fruit and nut trees. Funds would be used to help preserve this prime agricultural area through acquisition of land or conservation easements. f) North Contra Costa Wetlands and Riverfront The San Francisco and San Pablo Bay-Delta system is considered a water way, public resource and wildlife area of statewide .significance. Funds would be used to acquire and preserve shorelines and waterfront lands between Pinole and Oakley. The Assessment Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation Disfrlct Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consutfants,Inc. Page 9 District's funds would also be used to open these shoreline areas for public benefit by creating trails and other public access facilities. g) Tassajara Valley The Tassajara Valley lies just east of Danville, San Ramon and the Dougherty Valley. Camino Tassajara runs through the Tassajara Valley, from Blackhawk to the Alameda County line. The valley is facing development pressure, and funds from the Assessment District would be used to acquire and preserve scenic hillsides, ridgeiines, ranches and other open space in this area. h) Las Trampas Open Space Connections Extending from the LafayetteMalnut Creek boundary south to the Alameda County line, this prominent ridgeline parallels the west side of 1-880. Funds would be used to protect and permanently preserve this unique urban wilderness area and to help protect and maintain the watershed lands and clean water sources for public drinking water reservoirs in the area through acquisition of land or easements. 1) Kirker Hills These scenic hills frame the eastern side of Concord and Clayton and the southern edge of Bay Point and Pittsburg. Funds from the Assessment District would be used to purchase land and agricultural easements that would protect this area into the future as ranching lands and would help prevent urban sprawl and large lot development. j) East County Foothills This large grassland and oak savannah area extends from the southern end of Antioch and the western boundary of Brentwood south to the Byron Airport. This area is home to many endangered species. Funds would be used to preserve additional parklands in this area and to protect important wildlife corridors through acquisition of land or easements. k) Lamorinda Greenbelt The Lamorinda Greenbelt lies along the north side of Lafayette and Orinda and extends west and south to include the Caldecott wildlife corridor. Funds from the Assessment District would be used to protect this important wildlife corridor and to preserve other lands along the greenbelt through acquisition of land or easements. 1) Creek and Watershed Restoration The Assessment District includes funding for restoring creeks throughout the County and for protecting lands around creeks, streams and lakes to reduce water pollution. Specific projects include the restoration of the natural character and function of creeks; transformation of creeks into community amenities and local educational opportunities through enhancement of visual character and improved public access; enhancement of water quality, including reduced pollution and sedimentation to benefit public health and struggling fish and wildlife populations; and watershed restoration, including weed management, and improved permeability to restore natural groundwater recharge and minimize flooding. Funds for this Flagship Project would be divided equally among the following geographic areas: 1. West County watersheds from Crockett to the Alameda County line; 2. East County watersheds from Bay Point to Oakley and Brentwood; Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 200403 by Shilts Consultants,Inc. Page 10 3. North and Central County watersheds, including Alhambra Creek, Grayson Creek, Mt. Diablo Creek, and Walnut Creek from the southern boundary of the City of Walnut Creek north to the Bay; 4. South and Central County watersheds, including the Lamorinda area and the lands south of Walnut Creek to the Alameda County line; 5. Rural, less-impacted portions of each of these watersheds. m) Trail Construction and Enhancements The Assessment District would provide funding to acquire right-of-way and construct new trails, to enhance existing trails and to provide additional access to parks and recreation areas for disabled people. Priority would be given to projects providing sub-regional or regional connectivity, i.e.,trails connecting communities, regional parks or major city parks. 2. Regional Priority Projects Regional Priority Projects are open space, shoreline, clean water and park projects that are considered important to regional areas of the County and for which there are insufficient local resources. These projects will require matching funds of at least one-to-one. Approximately 16% of the assessment funds received by the Authority will be used for Regional Priority Projects. (1) West Moraga/Indian Valley Open Space Acquisition The West Moragallndian Valley Open Space area is generally adjacent to the San Leandro Reservoir Watershed. Funds from the Assessment District would be used to acquire land or easements to expand the publicly protected lands adjacent to the San Leandro Reservoir Watershed and provide for public parklands connectivity to Sibley Regional Park. (2) Burton Ridge Open Space Acquisition in the Lafayette/Walnut Creek Area Burton Ridge parallels the western boundary of Rossmoor and is the eastern backdrop for the City of Lafayette. Funds from the Assessment District would be used to acquire land or easements to protect this scenic ridgeline and augment the open space recreational opportunities in the area. (3) EI Sobrante Hills Open Space Acquisition The El Sobrante Hills open space area generally encompasses the hillsides that surround El Sobrante Valley. Funds from the Assessment District would be used to provide seed money to acquire land or easements 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 The Big Break Shoreline and Delta Science Center is generally located in the Oakley area along the Delta. Funds from the Assessment District would be used to develop local park amenities near the Dutch Slough Restoration Project and/or fund the construction of a Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultants,Inc. Page i 1 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 Funds from the Assessment District would be used to acquire and create a shoreline park in the Discovery Bay area, improving public access to the recreational resources of this part of the Delta. (6) John Marsh Home Pioneer Park Development near Brentwood The John Marsh Home is the oldest home in the County. Funds from the Assessment District would be used 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 and Creeks The highly urbanized southwest area of the County presents a wide variety of opportunities for new parks and open space. Funds from the Assessment District would be used for projects including wetland restoration on the shoreline, creek restoration and associated pocket parks through the lowlands,and hillside protection in the hills. (8) Walnut Creek Watershed Enhancement Project The Walnut Creek Watershed encompasses the creek and watershed system from San Ramon and Lafayette to Suisun Bay. Funds from the Assessment District would be used to enhance this creek system. Specific projects would include implementation of the 1992 restoration plans for the Walnut Creek Channel and aesthetic improvements to the Iron Horse Trail. (9) Concord Naval Weapons Station Habitat Restoration and Wetlands Access Assessment District funds would support restoration of habitat and creation of public access to wetland areas in this partially-closed military facility, consistent with the interim use plan now being formulated by the Navy in conjunction with local agencies. (10) Lindsay Wildlife Museum Offsite Rehabilitation Center Funds from the Assessment District would be used to create a rural facility operated by the Lindsay Wildlife Museum to care for larger species of rehabilitated wildlife and prepare them for re-introduction to the wild. (11) Byron Airport/Habitat Corridor Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultants,Inc. Page f2 The Byron Airport/Habitat Corridor generally encompasses lands between the Byron Airport and the Los Vaqueros Reservoir. Funds from the Assessment District would be used to acquire lands between the Byron Airport and the Los Vaqueros Reservoir to help create and preserve a wildlife corridor by connecting fragmented habitat lands. (12) Bishop Ranch/Big Canyon Park Expansion in the San Ramon area The Bishop Ranch Park and Big Canyon are generally located south and west of San Ramon. Assessment District funds would be used to acquire land and easements that will help combine parkland in southwest San Raman into a cohesive unit. (13) Blackhawk/Danville Greenbelt Funds from the Assessment District would be used to acquire parklands or conservation easements east of new housing projects approved along Camino Tassajara and north of the rural Tassajara Valley Flagship Project area. (14) Northwest Communities Open Space Connection The northwest communities include Hercules, Rodeo and Crockett. Assessment District funds would be used to acquire land or easements to tie together open space and parklands between Hercules, Rodeo and Crockett. (15) Pittsburg/Antioch Hillsides Funds from the Assessment District would be used to purchase parklands or conservation easements between existing park and dedicated open space lands to help combine these areas into a cohesive open space system along the southern perimeters of Pittsburg and Antioch. (16) Wildcat Creek Trail Extension in the North Richmond and San Pablo areas Funds from the Assessment District would be used toward 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. 3. Community Priority Projects Community Priority Projects are new and improved neighborhood parks, recreation areas and children's playgrounds in urban areas. Approximately 16%of the assessment funds received by the Authority will be provided for Community Priority Projects in every city and community on a per-capita basis: • Acquisition and creation of new neighborhood parks and restoration and renovation of existing neighborhood parks • Restoration of urban creeks and natural resources in cities • Enhancement of children's playgrounds Contra Costa County Open Space Funding AuthoritK Perks and Open Space Protection and Presenratlon DisNct longinsees Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultants,Inc. Page 13 • Recreational facility improvements Five percent of the funds allocated for Community Priorities Projects 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. 4 Maintenance/Restoration Projects Funds from the assessment District would also be used to restore, improve and maintain existing, regional-scale parks, open space areas, shorelines, and watershed lands throughout Contra Costa County and the lands that are acquired with Assessment District funds. a) Existing Park/Open Space Maintenance Projects Approximately 12% of the assessment funds received by the Authority will be used to maintain, improve and restore existing State and regional parks, open space areas and shorelines throughout Contra Costa County, including park rangers to operate, maintain and preserve the Improvements. Such maintenance, improvement, and restoration projects ("Existing Park/Open Space Maintenance Projects") shall be provided for existing East Bay Regional Park District and California Department of Parks and Recreation lands and facilities, including: • Antioch/Oakley Regional Shoreline • Bishop Ranch Open Space Regional Preserve • Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve • Briones Regional Park • Briones to Mt. Diablo Regional Trail • Browns Island Regional Preserve • California Riding and Hiking Trail • Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline • Castle Rock Regional Recreation Area • Contra Costa Canal Regional Trail • Contra Loma Regional Park • Delta de Anza Regional Trail • Diablo Foothills Regional Park • Huckleberry Botanic Regional Preserve • Iron Horse Regional Trail (north) • Kennedy Grove Regional Recreation Area • Lafayette-Moraga Regional Trail • Las Trampas Wilderness Regional Preserve • Little Hills Ranch Picnic Park • Marsh Creek Trail, Oakley • Martinez Regional Shoreline • Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline • Morgan Territory Regional Preserve • Mount Diablo State Park • Point Isabel Regional Shoreline • Point Pinole Regional Shoreline • Redwood Regional Park Contra Costa County Olsen Space Funding Authority,Parks and open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultants,Inc_ Page 14 - .................................................. • Round Valley Regional Preserve • Sobrante Ridge Botanic Regional Preserve • Tilden Regional Park • Waterbird Regional Preserve • Wildcat Canyon Regional Park b) New Park/Open Space Maintenance Projects To maximize public benefits, lands and facilities that are acquired and preserved by the Assessment District will need to be maintained, restored or improved. Such maintenance, improvements, and restoration projects ("New Park/Open Space Maintenance Projects") may include, for example, the restoration of wildlife or natural habitats, enhancement and maintenance of public access and improvement of recreational facilities. In addition, the Assessment District will fund park rangers to operate, maintain and preserve the Improvements. Approximately 8% of the assessment funds received by the Authority will be used for such New Park/Open Space Maintenance Projects. c) Competitive Park/Open Space Maintenance Projects Approximately 5% of the funds assessment funds received by the Authority will be awarded on a competitive basis to fund maintenance, restoration, and improvements of regional-scale parks, watershed lands, trails and open space areas in Contra Costa County by the entities responsible for operating these facilities. Maintenancerimprovement projects that are capital in nature, such as the restoration or improvement of trails or public access facilities would have priority in project selection. Matching funds from other sources will be required for those projects {°Competitive Park/Open Space Maintenance Projects"). 5. Opportunity Reserve Fund Approximately 5% of the assessment funds received by the Authority will be placed in an Opportunity Reserve Fund and held for capital Projects of flagship or regional priority level that aren't presently identified herein or are subsequently determined to be under- funded. Not less than 24%of these funds shall be reserved for flagship level Projects. E. Incidental and Administration Costs No more than 3% of the funds from the Assessment District, disbursed to the Authority after charges for collection shall be used for costs related to the administration of the assessments and the Improvements. Any other incidental costs related to the formation of the Assessment District, assessment engineering, legal proceedings or the issuance of bonds or other financing costs for the Assessment District shall not be included this restriction on administrative costs. Contra Costa County open Space Funding Authority,Parks and open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultants,Inc. Page 15 RE � k ; /\ Al I Ac OR � �\ 2 ca 0 03 CL .................................................................... i IV. ESTIMATE OF COSTS AND BUDGET A. Estimate of Costs The following is an estimate of the cost of the Improvements that would be funded by the Assessment District in Fiscal Year 2004-05, if the proposed assessments are approved by property owners in a ballot proceeding. The expenditures would be governed by the policies and criteria established within this Report, additional policies and criteria in the Framework and any additional policies established by the Board. Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Auft ty,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report Fiscal Year 2084-05 by Shifts Consultants Inc. Page 17 Table 1 -Estimate of Costs CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUNDING AUTHORITY Parks and Open Space Preservation and Protection District Estimate of Cost Fiscal Year 2004-05 Assessment Total District Contribution' Budget Beginning Fund 151ance, u Expenditure Area Acquisition,Installation,Maintenance&Servicing Costs Flagship Projects C/E ML Diablo Park Expansions $215,200 $86,080 $301,280 W San Francisco Bay Trail Completion $215,200 $86,080 $301,280 W Richmond Shoreline $215,200 $86,080 $301,280 WIC Muir Heritage Corridor $215,200 $86,080 $301,280 E Prime Farmland/Agricultural Core $215,200 $86,080 $301,280 CIE North Contra Costa Wetlands and Shorelines $215,200 $86,080 $301,280 C Tassajara Valley $215,200 $86,080 $301,280 C Las Trampas Open Space Connections $215,200 $86,080 $301,280 C/E Kirker Hills $215,200 $86,080 $301,280 E East County Foothills $215,200 $86,080 $301,280 C Lamorinda Greenbelt $129,100 $51,640 $180,740 All Creek and Watershed Restoration $215,200 $86,080 $301,280 All Trail Construction and Enhancements $215,200 $86,080 $301,280 Regional Priority Projects C West Moraga/Indian Valley Open Space Acquisition $86,100 $86,100 $172,200 C Burton Ridge Open Space Acquisition in the Lafayette/Walnut Creek Area $86,100 $86,100 $172,200 W El Sobrante Hills Open Space Acquisition $86,100 $86,100 $172,200 E Big Break Shoreline and Delta Science Center $86,100 $86,100 $172,200 E Old River Delta Shoreline Park&Discovery Bay $86,100 $86,100 $172,200 E John Marsh Home Pioneer Park $86,100 $86,100 $172,200 W San Francisco Bay Shoreline,Hills,Urban Open Space,and Creeks $86,100 $86,100 $172,200 C Walnut Creek Watershed Enhancement Project $86,100 $86,100 $172,200 C Habitat RestorationlWetland Access,Concord Naval Weapons Station $86,100 $86,100 $172,200 C Lindsay Wildlife Museum Offsite Rehabilitation Center $51,600 $51,600 $103,200 E Byron Airport/Habitat Corridor $86,100 $86,100 $172,200 C Bishop Ranch/Big Canyon Park Expansion $43,000 $43,000 $86,000 C Blackhawk/Danvilie Greenbelt $43,000 $43,000 $86,000 W Northwest Communities Open Space Connection $43,000 $43,000 $86,000 E Pittsburg/Antioch Hillsides $43,000 $43,000 $86,000 W Wildcat Creek Trail Extension $86,100 $86,100 $172,200 All Community Priority Projects $1,193,000 $477,200 $1,670,200 Maintenance/Restoration Projects All Existing Park/Open Space Maintenance Projects $903,800 $361,520 $1,265,320 All New Park/Open Space Maintenance Projects $602,500 $241,000 $843,500 All Competitive Park/Open Space Maintenance Projects $376,600 $376,600 $753,200 Opportunity Reserve Fund $357,200 $142,880 $500,080 Administration Costs $225,658 $90,263 $315,921 Totals for Acquisition,installation,Maintenance and Servicing $7,540,958 $3,944,763 $11,485,721 Less:Contribution from Other Sources' -$3,944,763 Net Cost of Acquisition,installation,Maintenance and Servicing _$Yl Incidental Costs` Ballot Proceeding and Formation Costs $450,000 County Collection Charges $264,000 Subtotals-Incidentals � $714,566 Less: Contribution to/(from)Reserve Fundlimprovement Fund/Contingency $100,000 Total Amount to Assessment°""" (Net Amount to be Assessed) Budget Allocation to Property Total Assessment Assessment Toted SFE' Units r SFE` Zone of Benefit A --$8,199,99-327,567.82 $25.uu Zone of Benefit 8 $165,763 3,315.25 $50.00 $8,1SMT-99TW Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Sparge Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shilfs Consultants,Inc. Page 18 _........................................................... Nates to Estimate of Costs: 1. Contribution from other sources to cover the costs of any general benefits and special benefits not funded by the assessments. A minimum of 30% contribution from other sources is budgeted for most Projects; however, Regional Priority Projects and Competitive Park/Open Space Maintenance Projects require a minimum 100% contribution from other sources. Based on the experience of the East Bay Regional Park District with their Measure AA funds, a 40% contribution from other sources is expected for all projects that do not require a minimum 100%matching contribution. Therefore,the budget cost estimates for contributions from other sources are conservative estimates. 2. Incidental cost includes county collection charges, one-time assessment formation and ballot proceeding costs and other assessment engineering costs. 3. "SFE"means single family equivalent benefit unit. 4. The assessment rate per SFE is the total amount to assessment per single family equivalent benefit unit. 5. The Act stipulates that proceeds from the assessments must be deposited into a special fund that has been set up for the revenues and expenditures of the Assessment District. Moreover, funds raised by the assessment shall be used only for the purposes stated within this Report. Any balance remaining at the end of the fiscal year,June 30, must be carried over to the next fiscal year. A separate account will be maintained for each Project area as defined in this Report. 6. In order to provide flexibility to acquire and/or preserve larger properties, the Authority may borrow funds from certain Project areas to fund projects in other Project areas. A full accounting of any such borrowing will be maintained and such borrowed funds shall be repaid with future year assessment proceeds. 7. The assessment amounts are rounded down to the even penny for purposes of complying with the collection requirements from the County Auditor. Therefore, the total assessment amount for all parcels subject to the assessments may vary slightly from the net amount to assessment. 8. Reference is hereby made to the Framework for additional provisions for the expenditure of Assessment District proceeds and oversight of the Assessment District. Contra Costs County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation Distud Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shilts Consultants,Inc. Page 19 V. METHOD OF ASSESSMENT APPORTIONMENT A. Method of Apportionment This section includes an explanation of the special benefits to be derived from the Improvements, the criteria for the expenditure of assessment funds to ensure equal levels of benefit for properties of similar type and the methodology used to apportion the total assessments to properties within the Assessment District. The method used for apportioning the assessments is based upon the proportional special benefits to be derived by the properties in the Assessment District over and above general benefits conferred on real property or to the public at large. The apportionment of special benefit is a three-step process. The first step is to identify the types of special benefits arising from the Improvements to be funded by the assessment funds. The second step is to establish the criteria that shall ensure that properties within the Assessment District of similar use type and features receive generally equal levels of special benefits from the assessment funds. The third step is to allocate the assessments to property based on the estimated relative special benefit for each type of property. B. Discussion ofBeneift Assessments can only be levied based on the special benefit conferred on the property to be assessed (otherwise described as "specific benefit"). This special benefit is received by property over and above any general benefits. Proposition 218 (Article XIIID of the California Constitution), has confirmed that assessments must be based on the special benefit to property: "No assessment shah be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel." In addition, the California State Legislature has found that parks and open space confer the following types of special benefits to property. • Enhanced recreational opportunities and expanded access to recreational facilities. • Improved quality of life for all communities by protecting, restoring, and improving irreplaceable park, wildlife, open-space, and beach lands. • Preservation of canyons,foothills, and mountains and development ofpublic access to these lands. • Protection of diverse historical, cultural, and archaeological values. • Increased economic activity and expanded employment opportunities. • Increased property values. Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authonl y,Perks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shilts Consultants,Inc. rage 20 + Positive impacts on air and water quality, capacity of roads, transportation and other public infrastructure systems, schools, and public utilities. t Enhanced quality of life • Improved health and well-being of all residents4 The following benefit categories are the types of special benefits to residential, commercial, industrial, institutional and other properties from the preservation and improvement of open space lands to be provided with the assessment proceeds. 1. Protection of views, scenery and other resources values and environmental benefits enjoyed by residents, employees, customers and visitors and the improvement of public assets maintained by the Authority. The proposed Assessment District will provide funding to acquire and preserve existing and new parks, open space areas, watersheds, greenways and nature lands located throughout the Assessment District. In absence of the Assessment District, these parks and open space areas could be developed for residential or commercial use, which would result in a reduction in public resource values and diminished environmental benefits. Parks and open space areas provide other special benefits to property such as landscape buffers, protection of scenic views and protection of wildlife and vegetation habitats as well as historic and cultural sites. left undeveloped, they allow natural functions such as flood control,purn5cation of air and water, decomposition and recycling of wastes, and generation and renewal of fertile soils. Parks and open space also encompass lands that link existing resource areas and lands that serve as buffers between urban areas or between an urban area and resource land. These are special benefits to property within the Assessment District. With regain to the environmental benefits of public parks and the vegetation they support, Lawrence Livennore Laboratory found that. On a clear summer afternoon, the air temperature in a typical city is about 2.5C (5*F) hotter than the surrounding rural area... [P]eak urban electric demand rises by 2-4% for each VC rise in daily maximum temperature above a threshold of 15- 20'C. Thus, the additional air- conditioning use caused by this urban air temperature increase is responsible for 5-10%of urban peak electric demand.*5 Further, the American Forestry Association found that: The average economic contribution of a single tree is $73 in energy conservation, $75 for erosion control, $75 for wildlife shelter, and $50 for air pollution benefits. Over its lifetime, an average tree provides more than$57,000 in environmental and economic benefts.6 Other studies show the cooling and temperature moderating benefits of trees and vegetation: Without the cooling and moderating effect of trees and green-spaces in our urban environments, urban areas grow hotter and dryer - a heat island effect. Approximately 5 to 10 percent of the current electric demand in cities is spent to cool buildings just to compensate for the heat island effect. in Los Angeles this translates to $150,000 per hour and in Washington, DC, close to $40,000 per hour during peak times. Nationally the hourly cost may be as high as$1 million.8 Contra Costs county Open Space Funding Auihod,Perks and Open Space Protection and Preservation Dishict Engineer's Report Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shilts Consultants,Inc. Page 21 These special benefits ultimately accrue to properties within the Assessment District because properties are more desirable in areas that offer enhanced environmental benefits and public resources. 2. improved and protected water quality, air quality, enhancement of water resources and reduction of pollution and water runoff. By funding the acquisition, protection, restoration and maintenance of parks, open space and natural lands, the assessments will help protect water resources, reduce runoff, reduce pollution and provide other local environmental special benefits for properties within Assessment District boundaries. The following citations support the water quality, pollution control and runoff mitigation benefits from wildlife in parks, open spaces and other natural lands Establishment of a greenway along a river or stream helps maintain water quality because riparian vegetation helps filter out pollutants. Riparian vegetation serves as an effective buffer between a stream and adjacent agricultural area. The retention capabilities of this vegetation prevents many agricultural chemicals from polluting the stream.9 Natural open spaces also protect water resources and enhance water supplies. When land is covered by pavement, buildings, and other impervious surfaces, rain water runs off in sheets to the nearest storm sewer or other water course. Natural areas enable the aquifer to recharge by allowing rain water to percolate to underlying geologic deposits which may be tapped by wells as a potable water source. In a similar manner, natural areas protect water quality. Rain that rapidly runs off impervious surfaces to rivers and streams carries with it pollutants such as chemicals from car exhaust and lawn treatments.This is known as'non-point source pollution'and is the leading cause of water pollution today. Studies of water quality have shown that non-paint source pollution can be greatly reduced by the buffering of streams and rivers by forests and wetlands. When heavily vegetated areas surround surface water bodies, many pollutants are trapped and filtered from the rain water before it reaches the water bodies. Thus, allowing natural areas to recharge aquifers and cleanse storm water potentially saves municipalities millions of dollars in water supply and treatment costs.'° A study in Boulder Creek, Colorado found that: The cleansing and buffer properties of vegetated areas help control water, air, and noise pollution, which may decrease pollution control costs borne by public agencies. In Boulder, Colorado, for example, the city avoided a major outlay for constructing a wastewater treatment facility by restoring Boulder Creek through revegetation, terracing, and construction of aeration structures." A study for the U.S. Forest Service found that trees can reduce runoff in urban areas by up to l?Yo Contra Costa County Open space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by shifts Consultants,Inc. Page 22 Trees decrease the amount of water that runs off a site by breaking the impact of the rain and slowing the flow,allowing time for water to infiltrate the soil. Trees can reduce runoff in urban areas up to 17 percent according to a study by the U.S. Forest Service (Ebenreck, 1966). This reduction has implications in the infrastructure costs of storm sewer capacity of sewage treatment plants, flooding of rivers and streams and the loading of sediment and pollutants into rivers and streams.'a A study on the air quality and economic benefits of trees conducted in the City of Modesto found that: Modesto's municipal trees provide substantial air quality benefits.Annual air pollutant uptake is 143 metric tons(3.5 lb./tree)with an implied value of$1.4 million ($16/tree). The City's trees are providing important health benefits to residents. As trees grow they increase the value of nearby properties, enhance scenic beauty, and produce other benefits with an estimated value of $1.5 million ($161tree). Building shade and cooler summertime temperatures attributed to street and park trees save 127,000 MBtu, valued at $1.0 million (1.39 MBtuAree, $11/tree). Smaller benefits result from reductions in stormwater runoff(292,000 m3 or 645 gal/tree, $616,000 or$7/tree) and atmospheric carbon dioxide (13,600 metric tons or 329 lb./tree,$450,000 or$5/tree).' The special benefit to property in the Assessment District from the acquisition, restoration and preservation of parks, open space properties and watershed lands is thus derived from the protection of air and water quality and prevention of an increase in potluiion and runoff'that would be created if such properties were otherwise developed or not improved. 3. Reduction of additional traffic congestion and other negative impacts caused by urban sprawl and growth. Additional development and the congestion it causes reduces the desirability of property within the Assessment District. The Assessment District will help to prevent additional urban sprawl and large4ot development outside the urban limit lines. Such urban sprawl creates additional congestion,pollution and degrades the natural resources in the Assessment District The prevention of urban sprawl and large-lot development is a special benefit to property in the Assessment District. The economic benefits from reduced sprawl development were noted in a report by the New Jersey C3itice.of State Planning. By avoiding unplanned sprawl development, communities in New Jersey could save an estimated $1.3 billion in infrastructure and additional transportation costs over 20 years.'$ An acquisition analysis conducted by the Assessment Engineer projects that the assessment funds could acquire or otherwise preserve over 500 acres per year. If this amount of laird were otherwise developed with an average of one home per five acres of land area, these lands would have the potential for 100 large lot homes. Using a conservative estimate of an average of 10 vehicle trips per day per household, if 100 additional homes were constructed on the parcels that would otherwise be acquired and preserved, 1,000 additional vehicle trips would be generated daily in the Assessment District. Over 30 years, this equates to 30,000 additional trips per day. Such additional trips would create additional traffic congestion and create other negative impacts to property. Therefore, this Assessment District specially benefits property by IImNng future levels of urban sprawl and large lot development in the Assessment District and, as a Contra Costa county open Space Funding Authority,Perks and Open Space Protection and Preservation Distrid Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultants,Inc. Page 23 result, limiting future levels of traffic congestion and other negative impacts that result from such urban sprawl development. 4. Enhanced recreational opportunities and expanded access to recreational areas for all property owners, residents, employees and customers throughout the Assessment District. Residential properties specially benefit from the enhanced recreational opportunities provided by the Improvements that would be made throughout the Assessment District. These include, among others, new parks and open spaces, areas for recreational activities, and higher levels of maintenance of existing parks, open space, shorelines, trails, nature lands and wildlife habitats than would be provided in absence of the assessment. Non-residential properties also will specially benefit from the improved parks, recreation facilities and ripen space area. Employees will have additional wildlife and recreation areas to utilize for exercise, recreational activities, picnics, company gatherings or other uses. These Improvements, therefore, enhance an employer's ability to attract and keep quality employees. The benefits to employers ultimately flow to the property because better employees improve the business prospects for companies and enhanced economic conditions specially benefit the property by making it more valuable. In "Trends: Parks, Practice and Program"by Love, L. and Crompton, J. (9993) the authors found that: The provision of parks and recreation services play an influential role in a community's economic development efforts. When companies choose to set up business or relocate,the availability of recreation, parks and open space is high on the priority list for site selection. Recreation and parks have a significant influence on people's preferred living locations.'s The "Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America's 1993 State of the Industry Report" found that: From rock climbing to biking to backpacking, the outdoor recreation industry — worth at least $132 billion annually to the U.S. economy— is growing by leaps and bounds. The biggest and most noticeable effect has been on public lands: Visits to parks and other spaces increased by well over 100 million in the last decade just as funding dwindled.'- All properties will specially benefit from the assessments that will be used to expand, protect and maintain public recreational lands, open space areas, trails and other public resources. 5. Increased economic activity. The Assessment District will create expanded and improved parks and open space areas that are also better maintained Such Improvements will increase the desirability of the area and enhance recreational and wildlife education opportunities, which, in tum, leads to expanded use. Expanded use and activities facilitated by new and existing parks and open space areas brings greater numbers of visitors to parks and open space into the area who can utilize the services of businesses within the Assessment District The visitors to the Authority's parks and open space will be more likely to shop and eat locally. Increased use leads to increased economic activity in the area, which is a special benefit ultimately to residential, commercial, industrial and institutional property. Studies of the economic benefits from paries and recreation areas have found the following. Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultants,Inc. Page 24 Cal€fomia's public parks generate more than $35 million annually from businesses for local events. Visitors to public parks and outdoor recreation areas support approximately 235,000 jobs in California's economy.17 Numerous studies demonstrate that linear parks can increase property values, which can in tum increase local tax revenues. Spending by residents on greenway-related activities helps support recreation- oriented businesses and employment, as well as other businesses that are patronized by greenway users. Greenways often provide new business opportunities and locations for commercial activities like bed and breakfast establishments, and bike and canoe rental shops. Greenways are often major tourist attractions which generate expenditures on lodging, food, and recreation-oriented services. Finally, greenways can reduce public expenditures by lowering the costs associated with flooding and other natural hazards.18 Although the chief reason for providing outdoor recreation is the broad social and individual benefits it produces, it also brings about desirable economic effects. Its provision enhances community values by creating a better place to live and increasing land values. In some underdeveloped areas,it can be a mainstay of the local economy.And it is a basis for big business as the millions and millions of people seeking the outdoors generate an estimated $20 billion a year market for goods and services.ls People are spending increasing amounts of money on recreation. In California people spent an average of 12 percent of their total personal consumption on recreation and leisure, which was the third largest industry in the state. Also, many recreational activities that can be pursued in k)ca€€y protected areas (such as biking, hiking, bird-watching, cross country skiing, and canoeing) entail equipment costs that support local businesses, providing new jobs and tax revenue.20 6. Expanded employment opportunity. Improved recreational areas and public resources foster business ,growth, which in tum creates additional employment opportunities for Assessment district residents. In addition, the assessments expand local employment opportunities by funding new projects that.may create the need for additional construction or maintenance jobs. Improved and well-maintained parks, open space and recreational areas also provide business properties with an opportunity to attract and keep employees due to the benefits provided by these areas. The California Park and Recreation Society found that: Recreation and park amenities are central components in establishing the quality of life in a community, [business'] main resource is their employees for whom quality of life is an important issue. The availability and attractiveness of local parks and programs influences some companies relocation decisions and the presence of a park encourages real estate development around it.21 This is a special benefit to property, because property in areas with a stronger job opportunities and more attractive business amenities are more desirable and valuable. Contra Costa County open space Funding Authority,Partes and Open space Protection and Preservation District Engrnear's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shins Consultants,Inc. Page 25 7. Enhanced protection of property through reduction of the risk of fire and reduced cost of local government in taw enforcement, public health care and natural disaster response. This assessment also benefits properties in the Assessment District by funding maintenance services that preserve the level of special benefits from parks, recreation areas and open space in the Assessment District and protect the public's parks, recreation and open space resources by reducing the risk of damage or harm and maintaining public access to parks, recreation areas and open space resources. Improved and well-maintained parks, recreational areas and open space lands can also serve to improve public safety and reduce the cost to local government by providing a healthy alternative for youth and adult activities. Studies have shown that adequate park and recreation areas and recreation programs help to reduce crime and vandalism: Natural parks and open space require few public services-no roads, no schools, no sewage, no solid waste disposal, no water, and minimal fire and police protection.22 Exercise derived from recreational activities lessens health related problems and subsequent health care costs. Every year, premature deaths cost American companies an estimated 132 million lost work days at a price tag of$25 billion. Finding and training replacements costs industry more than $700 million each year. In addition, American businesses lose an estimated $3 billion every year because of employee health problems.23 High quality recreational and wildlife areas allow residents and employees in the Assessment District to enjoy activities close to home, thereby not spending time driving to other areas. Moreover, open space and trails in these lands promote healthy activities that help to reduce the cost of health care. Such cost reduction frees public funds for other services that benefit properties. All of these factors ultimately specially benefit property within the Assessment District by reducing the risk of damage to property, and making the community more usable and desirable and property,in turn,more valuable. 8. Enhanced quality of life and desirability of the area. The assessments will provide funding to acquire and preserve open space areas that otherwise may not be preserved for the public benefit The assessments will provide funding to reduce urban sprawl development and the congestion it causes. Reduced urban sprawl also enhances the desirability of property within the Assessment District. Improved parks, recreation areas, open space and public wildlife areas enhance the overall quality of life and desirability of properties within the Assessment District. This is a special benefit to residential,commercial,industrial and other properties. The following citations provide supporting evidence on the quality of life benefits conferred by the Improvements: The President's Commission on Americans' Outdoors (1987) found natural beauty was the single most important factor in deciding tourist destination.24 The importance of quality-of-life in business location decisions has been repeatedly verified in the literature. (Boyle, 1988; Bramlage, 1988, Cam & Rabianski, 1991; Conway, 1985; Epping, 1986; Sarvis, 1989; Tosh, et.al., 1988)25 Contra Costa County open Space f=unding Authority,Partes and Open Space Protection and PreservaSon District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-06 by Shifts Consultants,Ina Page 26 Horne buyers over age 55 considering a move were surveyed about the amenities that Would seriously influence them in selecting a new community.' The following results were found:26 % Rank on seekina foist Amenity Groan amenity Walking and iggging trails 55+ 52 1 Walking and jog"In trails 55+>$75k per vear 65 Outdgor spaces 55+ 51 2 Outdoor spaces(park) 55+,moving to suburbs 55 ©pen Spaces 55+ 46 4 A scientific survey of residents in Alameda and Contra Costa County found that 86% agreed with the following statement: "The regional park system, consisting of recreational parks, picnic areas, wilderness areas and trails, is a valuable public resource and services that improves the quality of life for the residents of the East Bay area"2' Extensive parks, recreation areas, open space, nature lands and wildlife areas are among the most important public resources and features for property owners in the Assessment District. Therefore, the extensive series of public parks and open space areas that will be maintained and preserved by the Assessment District is a very important feature for property owners in the Assessment District that enhances the quality of Me and desirability of property in the Assessment District. 9. Specific enhancement of property values. The assessments will provide funding to significantly expand, improve and maintain the public parks, open space lands, recreational areas, wildlife and nature habitats, wildlife corridors and other valuable public resources. The Improvements funded by the assessments will also specially benefit properties by(1) protecting resource values, (2) reducing pollution and runoff; (3) limiting urban sprawl and large lot development; (4) enhancing recreational opportunities, (5) increasing economic activity; (6) expanding employment opportunity;(7)protecting property and public health;and(8)enhancing the quality of life and desirability of the area, in tum, property values are specifically enhanced by the expression of these special benefits from the Improvements on property in the Assessment District. In other words, this Assessment District will acquire and preserve a significant and well-disbursed set of important properties and public resources throughout the Counfy. These Improvements confer many distinct and special benefits to properties in the Assessment District as described previously. These special benefits ultimately flow to property by specifically or specially enhancing property values. The correlation between enhanced property values and expanded and well- maintained open space areas and recreational areas has been documented. The united States Department of the Interior, National Park Service determined that. An investment in parks and recreation helps reduce pollution and noise, makes communities more livable, and increases property value. Parks and recreation stimulate business and generate tax revenues. Parks and recreation help conserve land, energy and resources. Public recreation benefits all employers by providing continuing opportunities to Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Envgineees Report Fiscal Year 2004-05 by shifts ConsuXants,Inc. Page 27 maintain a level of fitness throughout one's working fife, and through helping individuals cope with the stress of a fast-paced and demanding life.28 Additionally, the National Recreation and Park Association, in June 9985, stated. The recreation value is realized as a rise in the value of land and other property in or near the recreation area, and is of both private interest to the landowner and others,holding an economic stake in the area, and of public interest to the taxpayers,who have a stake in a maximum of total assessed values.29 Moreover; the Supreme Court of California and the United States Supreme Court have found that improved and well-maintained park facilities confer special benefits to property by enhancing property values. In Knox v. City of Orland(1993) 4 Cal.4" 932, 943 the Supreme Court of Califomia held that: Plaintiff's basic argument that a special assessment is never appropriate to fund park improvements is unconvincing. Significantly, plaintiffs attempt to differentiate between street lights, sewers, sidewalks and flood control as constituting proper subjects for special assessment, and public parks as matters of such a general nature as to not justify a special assessment,is virtually identical to an argument rejected nearly a century ago by the United States Supreme Court in Wilson v. Lambert. In Wilson v. Lambert (9898) 968 U.S. 619, 616, the United States Supreme Court stated_ The residents and property holders in the District of Columbia must be regarded as coming within the class of beneficiaries; and, so far from being injured by the declaration that the park shall also have national character, it is apparent that thereby the welfare of the inhabitants of the Assessment District will be promoted. Whatever tends to increase the attractiveness of the City of Washington, as a place of permanent or temporary residence, will operate to enhance the value of private property situated therein or adjacent thereto. In addition, professional property appraisers and instructional books on the subject find that well-maintained public recreational grounds and areas enhance property values in a community.32 Enhancement value is the tendency of parks and open space to enhance the property value of adjacent properties. It is also explicitly recognized by federal income tax law. U.S. Treasury regulation Sec. 14(h)(3)(1) requires that the valuation of a conservation easement take into account(i.e., be offset by)any resulting increase in the value of other property owned by the donor of the easement or a related person. Section 14(h)(4) sites as an example a landowner who owns 14 one-acre lots and donates an easement over eight of them: 'By perpetually restricting development on this portion of the land, (the landowner) has ensured that the two remaining acres will always be bordered by parkland, thereby increasing their fair market value...'33 Contra Costa County open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation district Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shits Consultants,Inc Page 28 C. Criteria and Policies This sub-section describes the criteria that shall govern the expenditure of assessment funds and ensure equal levels of benefit for properties of similar type. The criteria established in this Report, as finally confirmed, cannot be substantially modified; however, the Board may adopt additional criteria to further clarify certain criteria or policies established in this Report or establish additional criteria or policies that do not conflict with this Report. The Framework contains additional criteria and funding principals that shall further guide the selection of projects to be funded and the expenditure of assessment funds. L Assessment Funds Must.Be Expended Within the Assessment District The net available assessment funds, after incidental, administrative, financing and other casts, shall be expended exclusively for Improvements within the boundaries of the Assessment district. Z Assessment Funds from Each Expenditure Area Must.Be Expended Within the Same Expenditure Area The Assessment district is structured so that the net available assessment funds generated in each Expenditure Area must be expended on Improvements within the same Expenditure Area. Each parcel in the Assessment District has been categorized into the one of the three Expenditure Areas. The Assessment Roll provides this information for each parcel. 3. Cid en's Oversight Committee A Citizens' Oversight Committee (the "Citizens' Oversight Committee") will be established for the Assessment District. The Citizens' Oversight Committee shall review potential projects that may be funded by the assessments and shall make recommendations on the expenditure of assessment funds. Members of the Citizen's Oversight Committee, who will be nominated by various organizations, will represent specific interests and constituencies related to open space protection. The Framework contains more specific criteria, policies and responsibilities for the Citizens' Oversight Committee. 4. Separate Accounts by Project Area The net proceeds available for Improvements generated by assessments within each Project Area shall be deposited into a separate account. Expenditures from each Project area account, exclusive of administration costs and other costs related to Improvements, such as appraisals and title fees, shall be used within the same Project Area for the purposes stated in this Report. However, in order to provide flexibility to acquire and/or preserve larger properties, the Authority may borrow funds from certain Project areas to fund projects in other Project areas. A full accounting of any such borrowing will be maintained and such borrowed funds shall be repaid with future year assessment proceeds. Contra Costa County open Space Funding Authority,Parks and open Space Protection and Preservation District Fngineaes Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shuts Consultants,Inc. Page 29 S. Annual Independent Audits The Citizens' Oversight Committee shall appoint an independent auditor. The independent auditor shall annually audit the expenditures and revenues and shall provide an audit report to the Citizens' Oversight Committee and the Authority. 6. Administrative Cash,- As astsAs noted in Section II1.E., more than 3% of the funds from the Assessment District, disbursed to the Authority after charges for collection shall be used for costs related to the administration of the assessments and the Improvements. 7. Maintenance of Effort Agencies that receive assessment funds will be required to maintain their existing levels of service and effort in the project areas and agree that assessment funds will be used to augment, and not supplant, such efforts. 8. Geographic.Distribution of Properties Properties acquired, improved or maintained by the Assessment District must be geographically dispersed within each Project Area, to the extent possible. After the first properties are acquired or improved within a Project Area,the Authority shall give priority to properties that would enhance the geographic distribution of Improvements. 9. Matching Funds Matching funds and contributions from other sources are required, thereby maximizing the special benefits from the Assessment District. 10. Purchase Price Cannot Exceed Independent Appraisal An appraisal of fair market value will be prepared by at least one independent appraiser prior to the acquisition of properties with funds from the Assessment District. No property will be acquired at a price in excess of an independent appraisal of fair market value. I L Willing Seller Properties shall only be acquired through purchase or donation from willing sellers (or donors). Condemnation will not be used to acquire properties. 1Z Permanent Preservation Properties acquired by the Authority or other agencies with funds from the Assessment District shall remain as public resources. D. General versus Special Beneiif As noted previously, the assessment funds will be used to acquire, maintain, restore, improve and permanently preserve a widely distributed set of important and valuable parks, open space, natural lands, wildlife areas, watershed areas, shorelines, recreational areas and other public resource lands for use and enjoyment by property owners, residents, employees, and customers in the jurisdictional area of the Authority. This is a special benefit to property in the Authority because the acquisition and preservation of such parks, open space and recreation facilities confers the special benefit factors described above and these benefits ultimately flow to property. Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shills Consultants,Inc. Page 30 Moreover, in absence of the proposed assessments, the annual revenue from this assessment would not be available to acquire, restore, preserve and protect important natural lands and public resource values in Contra Costa County. Therefore, in absence of the assessment, important riparian corridors and watershed lands would not be protected from development that could negatively impact water quality and public resources in the area. In absence of the assessment, open space lands, parklands and recreational areas would not become public resources or be permanently preserved for current and future generations. As noted, these public resources are an important component of the area's quality of life and public resource values, which is a special benefit to property. Therefore, the assessments provide special benefits to the community by supporting a higher level of open space, public resource, acquisition, maintenance and improvement than would otherwise be provided. The Improvements also provide a degree of general benefits. A measure of this general benefit is the proportionate amount of time that the open space and wildlife areas funded by the Assessment District are used and enjoyed by individuals who are not residents, employees, customers or property owners in the Assessment District.34 A total of 563 users of parks, open space areas or recreation facilities were surveyed by Shilts Consultants, Inc. on different days and times and at different regional parks, regional open space areas and regional shorelines in Contra Costa County during the months of March and April 2004. Fifty-one respondents (9.1%) indicated that they did not reside or work within area to be encompassed by the Assessment District, or would not be shopping at businesses within the Assessment District area during their visit to the park, open space or recreational facility. Therefore, this survey measured a 9% level of general benefits from the proposed Assessment District. Many of the open space properties that would be acquired by the Assessment District are not conducive to active recreational use because the property supports important or sensitive wildlife habitat or watersheds or are of topography that does not readily support public use. As a result, many of the special benefit factors construed by the Improvements are "passive" special benefits that are not related to active use of the properties. The special benefits that are passive in nature provide high levels of special benefits to property in the Assessment District because the protection of views, protection of watersheds, reduction in pollution and reduced traffic congestion, for example, are distinct special benefits that are almost exclusively conferred on properties within the Assessment District, and are only minimally enjoyed by properties outside of the Assessment District. Therefore, the measure of general benefits found in the survey can be considered to be a conservative measure. However, in order to establish an even more conservative allocation to cover general benefits, the Assessment Engineer has more than doubled the general benefit measure and has established a minimum 20% requirement of funds and contributions from other sources to fund any general benefits from the Assessment District. The proposed Assessment District's total budget for acquisition, installation, maintenance and servicing of the Improvements is $11,325,820. Of this total budget amount, the Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority and the partner agencies who receive project funding will contribute $3,889,820 from sources other than the assessments. This contribution equates to approximately 34% of the total budget for acquisition, installation, maintenance and servicing and constitutes significantly more than the measure of 9%general benefits from the Improvements. Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Patios and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shots Consultants,Inc. Page 31 E. Benefit Finding and Zones of Benefit L Benet Finding The assessment funds will be used to acquire, improve, maintain and preserve a well distributed set of important public resource lands throughout Contra Costa County. For example, the assessments will fund: (9) The acquisition, restoration and permanent preservation of important open space and wildlife areas throughout the County; (2) The maintenance, restoration and preservation of existing regional parks, open space,trails and shorelines throughout the County; (3) The improvement and restoration of neighborhood parks and recreation facilities in each city and urban area in the County; (4) The restoration and protection of creeks, streams and watershed areas in rural and urban areas throughout the County; (5) The improvement and maintenance of a well distributed mix of projects encompassing scenic landscapes and regional parks, creeks and watersheds, farmland, historic preservation features, local and municipal parks/recreation, shorelines, trails and public access facilities and wildlife habitat and corridors throughout the County; and (6) Many other important public resources and recreational facilities located throughout the County. The criteria established in this Report, and further supported by the Framework, will ensure that the assessments will be used to acquire, improve, preserve and protect a well dispersed set of important open space, wildlife and recreational lands — for the permanent special benefit to properties in the County. As noted, the assessments should allow the Authority to conservatively acquire or preserve more than 500 acres of additional lands per year. In addition, the assessments provide funding to improve, maintain and preserve,for the special benefit of properties in the Assessment District, thousands of acres of existing parks, open spaces and shoreline areas. Therefore, this Engineer's Report finds that the Improvements are a significant, tangible benefit that should reasonably and rationally confer more special benefit to properties in the Authority than the proposed assessment rate of $25 per benefit unit. Z .Zones of Benefit As described in this Report, the assessments will fund the maintenance and improvement of an extensive and well distributed set of existing parks, open space, recreation areas and other public resource lands located throughout the County. These Improvements will specially benefit properties throughout the Assessment District. However, the Assessment district also will fund the acquisition of additional undeveloped lands exclusively in specifically defined project areas in the County. The properties in the project areas in which assessment funds will be primarily used for acquisition of these additional lands have been included in specific areas defined as Zone of Benefit B ("Zone B"). Zone B includes the parcels within the acquisition- Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shills Consultants,Inc. Page 32 focused project areas and any improved parcels that border undeveloped lands in these project areas. The bordering improvedproperties are included in Zone B because they would receive additional benefits from the potential acquisition and permanent preservation of the adjoining undeveloped lands to a greater extent than other properties that do not border such undeveloped lands. All other properties are included within Zone of Benefit A ("Zone A"). These Zones are depicted in the Assessment Diagram included with this Report. The acquisition of additional undeveloped lands will confer a relatively higher degree of special benefit to parcels in Zone B relative to parcels in Zone A because 1) while the assessment funds will be used to maintain, restore and improve lands throughout the Assessment District and all properties will have good proximity to these improvements, additional undeveloped lands will primarily be acquired and preserved within Zone B and not within Zone A; 2) the parcels. in Zone B may be adjacent to or very near the undeveloped lands that are acquired and preserved; 3) in comparison, properties in Zone A will be somewhat less proximate to these lands; 4) some of the special benefit factors such as protection of views, protection the negative impacts of urban sprawl and congestion and property values are influenced by closely proximate acquisitions of undeveloped land; and 5) the undeveloped lands that are acquired and preserved otherwise may be developed or improved in a manner that would create negative impacts such as increased traffic or diminished views that would more adversely impact parcels in Zone B. In order to estimate the level of special benefit to properties in Zone B the assessment engineer conducted a relative benefit analysis. Properties in Zone B were evaluated to estimate their special benefit from the acquisitions to be funded in Zone B, relative to properties in Zone A. For six of the benefit factors, namely protection of resource values, reduction of pollution and runoff, enhanced recreational opportunities, increased economic activity, expanded employment opportunity, protection of property and public health and enhanced quality of life we find that the benefits are generally equivalent for all parcels in the Assessment District. This finding is based on: 1) the assessments will fund the acquisition, maintenance and improvement of an extensive and well distributed set of parks, open space, recreation areas and other public resource lands located throughout the County; 2)these benefit factors are considered to be generally equivalent over a benefit area of 2 miles in urban areas and 4 miles in rural areas (Bee Section V.E.3 below for further explanation of the benefit areas); and 3) all urban parcels in the Assessment District will be less than 2 miles from the Improvements and all rural parcels will be less than 4 miles from the Improvements. For three benefit factors, protection of views and resource values, reduced urban sprawl and congestion and specific enhancement of property values we find that the benefits will be reasonably higher for parcels in Zone B. The parcels in Zone B already receive viewshed, property value and lack of congestion benefits from close proximity to the undeveloped lands in Zone B. Therefore, the additional special benefit to these properties from the Assessment District, relative to Zone A, primarily results from the land acquisitions and preservation funded by the assessments that will prevent some of the undeveloped land in Zone B from ever being developed or improved in a manner that would negatively impact the views and other special benefits that properties in Zone B currently enjoy from the undeveloped land in this Zone. In other words, the benefit from the assessments enjoyed by parcels in Zone B that is not enjoyed to the same extent by parcels in Zone A is the permanent preservation of undeveloped lands in Zone B. If undeveloped parcels in Zone B were likely to be developed, the additional benefits Contra Costa County open Space Funding Authority,Parks and open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-[16 by Shuts Consultants,Inc. Page 33 from their acquisition and preservation could be several multiples of the benefits to Zone A. However, most of the undeveloped lands in Zone B are outside of the County's urban limit line and have limited potential for future development. Therefore, the additional benefits to parcels in Zone B (from the prevention of development) are significantly less than the inherent value of their current viewshed, property value and lack of congestion features because the potential for development and loss of views and other benefits is relatively low. A reasonable conclusion is that properties in Zone B will receive twice the relative Zone A benefit. Therefore, the proposed assessments for properties in Zone B will be twice that of similar properties in Zone A. 3. Benefit Analysis According to the industry-standard guidelines established by the National Park and Recreation Association (the "NPRA"), community parks in urban areas have a service area radius of up to two or three miles. This radius is determined, in part, by the NPRA's determination of a reasonably short travel time and access to parks and recreation facilities by users in the service area. The service area in rural communities is larger due to in part to the increased speeds at which property owners, employees, customers and guests can travel to reach parks, open space and other recreational facilities. The roadways in the more rural areas in Contra Costa County allow for higher speeds than in urbanized areas for which the NPRA park standards are designed. Therefore, in rural communities, a correction factor of 2 can be applied based upon the assumption of average speeds of 15 mph in urban areas versus 30 mph in more rural areas. Accordingly, the equivalent benefit area radius for parks, open space and recreation facilities in non-urbanized areas of the Assessment District is estimated to be four to six miles. The special benefit factors described in this Report are not materially different for similar urban area properties within two to three miles or less of a park, open space area, recreation facility or other public resource lands or for similar rural area properties within four to six miles or less of a park, open space area, recreation facility or other public resource lands because all such properties are reasonably proximate to these public resource lands and all have good proximity and access to these lands. Moreover, any benefits from increased proximity within the service area are reasonably offset by other negative factors such as increased traffic and loss of privacy from the public use of parks, open space, recreation facilities or other public resource lands. As described in this Report, the assessments will fund the maintenance and improvement of an extensive and well distributed set of parks, open space, recreation areas and other public resource lands located throughout the County and the acquisition, maintenance and improvement of additional lands throughout the County. These extensive and well distributed lands will be less than two miles from all properties in urban areas and less than four miles from all properties in rural areas. Therefore properties of similar type within each Zone of Benefit will receive generally equivalent levels of special benefits and no further Zones of Benefit are justified. Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Ruthonty,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by ShIlts Consultants,Inc. Page 34 F Assessment Apportionment In the process of determining the appropriate method of assessment, the Engineer considered various alternatives. For example, an assessment only for all residential improved property was considered but was determined to be inappropriate because commercial, industrial and other properties also receive benefits from the assessments. Moreover, a fixed or flat assessment for all properties of similar type was deemed to be inappropriate because larger commercial properties and residential properties with multiple dwelling units receive a higher degree of benefit than other similarly used properties that are significantly smaller. For two properties used for commercial purposes, there clearly is a higher benefit provided to the larger property in comparison to a smaller commercial property because the larger property generally supports a larger building and has higher numbers of employees, customers and guests that would benefit from preserved open space and recreational facilities. This benefit ultimately flows to the property. Larger parcels, therefore, receive an increased benefit from the assessments. As stated previously, the special benefits derived from the assessments are conferred on property and are not based on a specific property owner's use of the parks, open space, recreation facilities to be acquired, maintained or otherwise improved, or a specific property owner's occupancy of property or the property owner's demographic status such as age or number of dependents. However, it is ultimately people who value the special benefits described above, and who use and enjoy the parks, open space and recreational lands that will be acquired, improved, preserved and protected. Further, it is ultimately people who control property values by placing a value on the special benefits to be provided by these public resources. In other words, the benefits derived to property are related to the average number of people who could potentially live on, work at, or otherwise could use a property, not how the property is currently used by the present owner. Therefore, the number of people who could or potentially live on, work at or otherwise use a property is an indicator of the relative level of special benefit received by a property. 3' The Engineer determined that the appropriate method of assessment should be based on the type of property, the relative size of the property and the potential use of property by residents and employees. This method is further described below. G. Method of Assessment The next step in apportioning assessments is to determine the relative special benefit for each property. This process involves determining the relative benefit received by each property in relation to a "benchmark° property, a single family detached dwelling on one parcel (one "Single Family Equivalent Benefit Unit" or"SFE"). This SFE methodology is commonly used to distribute assessments in proportion to estimated special benefits and is generally recognized as providing the basis for a fair and appropriate distribution of assessments. In this Engineer's Report, all properties are assigned an SFE value, which is each property`s relative benefit in relation to a single family home on one parcel. Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and open Space Protection and Preservation Disbict Engineer",Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultants,Inc. Page 35 L Residential Properties All improved residential properties with a single residential dwelling unit are assigned one Single Family Equivalent or 1.0 SFE. Detached or attached houses, zero-lot line houses and town homes are included in this category. Properties with more than one residential unit are designated as multi-family residential properties. These properties benefit from the improvements in proportion to the number of dwelling units that occupy each property and the average number of people who reside in multi-family residential units versus the average number of people who reside in a single family home. The population density factors {the "Population Factor"} for the Assessment District, as depicted below, provide the basis for determining the SFE factors for residential properties. Using the total population in a certain property type in the area of the Assessment District from the 2000 Census and dividing it by the total number of such households, finds that approximately 2.99 persons occupy each single family residence, whereas an average of 2.16 persons occupy each multi-family residence. Using the ratio of one Population Factor for each single-family residence equates to one Population Factor for every 2.59 persons. Using this factor, each multi- family unit receives a 0.72 Population Factor, each condominium unit receives a 0.80 Population Factor and each mobile home receives a 0.67 Population Factor. Table 2 presents this data. Table 2--Residential Population tractors 'total Occupied Persons Papulation Po ulstlon Households per Household Factor Single Family Residential 680,276 227,318 2.99 1.00 Condominium 69,064 29,013 2.38 0.80 Multi-Family Residential 174,213 80,824 2.16 0.72 Mobile Home on Separate Lot 13,328 6,634 2.01 0.67 Source:2000 Census,Contra Costa County Once established, Population Factors are adjusted to reflect the average structure size of different residential properties. This adjustment is needed because the special benefits are deemed to be relative to the potential population density and average building area per dwelling unit. Based on County data, the average multi-family residence is 57% of the size of a single family residence. Likewise, the average condominium unit is 86% of the size of a single family residence and the average mobile home is 50% of the size of a single family residence. These relationships to a single family residence are "Square Footage Factors." These Square Footage Factors are applied to the Population Factors to determine the SFE benefit factors for residential properties. Accordingly, multi-family properties with a 0.72 Population Factor and a 57% Square Footage Factor will receive a 0.41 SFE. Likewise, condominium units receive a 0.69 SFE and mobile homes on separate parcels receive a 0.43 SFE. See Table below. Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Perks and Open Space Protection and Preservation Distrd Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultents,Inc. Page 36 Table 3-Residential SFE Assessment Factors Average Population SFE Square Feet %of SFR Factor Factor Single Family Residential 1,400 100% 1.00 1.00 Condominium 1,200 86% 0.80 0.69 Multi-Family Residential* 800 57% 0.72 0.41 Mobile Home on Separate Lot 900 64% 0.67 0.43 Source:Contra costa county Assessor Data and 2000 Census *The SFE factor of 0.41 per dwelling unit for multifamily residential properties applies to such properties with 20 or fewer units. Properties in excess of 20 units typically offer on-site recreational amenities and other facilities that tend to offset some of the benefits provided by the improvements. Therefore the benefit for properties in excess of 20 units is determined to be 0.41 SFE per unit for the first 20 units and 0.10 SFE per each additional unit in excess of 20 dwelling units. 2. CommerciallIndushial P'roperdes Pursuant to the previous description of the special benefit factors from the Improvements, such special benefits are conferred to commercial properties in similar manner and degree as residential properties. However, commercial and industrial properties are generally occupied for cine-half the amount of time as a residential property. Since, as noted in the Discussion of Benefit and Assessment Apportionment Sections, the benefits to property are measured by the people who either reside at or work at properties in the Assessment District and commercial properties are typically occupied and used for one-half the time as residential properties, it is reasonable to conclude that on a land-area basis, the benchmark commercial property is deemed to receive similar levels of benefit as a single family home, however the benefits are further adjusted to reflect the relative"usage"factor of both types of property. On a land-area basis, the average size of a single family residential parcel in the Assessment District is approximately one-quarter acre. These single family residential properties are assigned the benchmark 1 SFE benefit unit per parcel. Therefore, the benchmark commercial/industrial property is a commercial property on one-quarter acre and such property is assigned one-half the benefit of a single family home, or 0.5 SFE. To determine the relative benefits for various types of commercial and industrial properties,employee densities are utilized, similar to the way resident densities are used to measure the relative levels of special benefit for residential properties. Since the special benefits to commercial and industrial properties are measured by employee densities and such densities generally increase in proportion to the size of a commerciairndustrial property, the special benefit factors forcommercial{industrial properties also take into account parcel size and the average number of people who work at commercial/industrial properties. The findings from the San Diego Association of Governments Traffic Generators Study (the "SANDAG Study") are used to determine employee densities because these findings were approved by the State Legislature as being a good representation of the average number of employees per acre of land area for commercial and industrial properties. As determined by the SANDAL Study, the average number of employees Contra Caste County Open Space Funding Author*Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shills Consultants,Inc. Page 37 per acre for commercial and industrial property is 24. Table 4 presents the SFE benefit factors by commercial and industrial property type using employee density averages from the SANDAL study. The SFE benefit factors are calculated for each commercial/industrial property in the Assessment District based on the acreage used for commercialrindustrial purposes and the SFE benefit factors from this Table. It should also be noted that commercial and industrial properties in excess of 5 acres generally involve uses that are more land intensive relative to building areas and number of employees (lower coverage ratios). As a result, the benefit factors for commercial, office, shopping center and industrial property land area in excess of 5 acres is determined to be the SFE rate per quarter acre for the first 5 acres and the relevant SFE rate per each additional acre over 5 acres. 38 Table 4-Commercial/industrial Density and Assessment Factors Average SFE Units SFE Units Type of Commercial/industrial Employees per per Land Use Per Acre i Fraction Acres Acre After 5 Commercial 24 0.500 0.500 Office 68 1.420 1.420 Shopping Center 24 0.500 0.500 industrial 24 0.500 0.500 Refinery 1 0.021 Self Storage or Parking Lot 1 0.021 1. Source: San Diego Association of Governments Traffic Generators Study. 2. The SFE factors for commercial and industrial parcels are applied by the quarter acre of commerciallindustrial use land area or portion thereof. (Therefore, the minimum assessment for any assessable parcel in these categories is the SFE Units listed herein.) 3. VacanWndeveloped Properties The benefits to be received from the Improvements by vacant, undeveloped properties are passive benefits, which are generally not related to active use of the property. The benefit to undeveloped properties is determined to be proportional to the corresponding benefits for similar type developed properties, but at a lower rate due to the lack of active benefits conferred to undeveloped properties. A measure of the benefits accruing to the underlying land is the average value of land in relation to improvements for developed property. An analysis of the assessed valuation data from the County of Contra Costa found that approximately 40% of the assessed value of improved properties is classified as the land value. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that approximately 40% of the benefits are related to the underlying land and 600 are related to the day-to-day use of the property. Using this ratio, the SFE factor for vacant/undeveloped parcels is 0.40 per parcel. Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer`s Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultants,Inc. Page 38 4. Other Properties Article XIIID, Section 4 of the California Constitution states that publicly owned properties shall not be exempt from assessment unless there is clear and evincing evidence that those properties receive no special benefit. All public properties that are specially benefited are assessed. Public right-of-way parcels, well, reservoir or other water rights parcels that cannot be developed into other improved uses offer similar open space benefits and/or typically do not generate employees, residents, customers or guests. Moreover, many of these parcels have limited economic value and, therefore, do not benefit from specific enhancement of property value. Such parcels are, therefore, not specially benefited and are not assessed. Agricultural property without residential dwelling units, open space parcels, watershed parcels, parks, properties used for educational purposes, greenbelt lands without improvements and common areas typically offer open space and recreational areas on the property that serve to offset the benefits from the Assessment District. Therefore, these parcels receive minimal benefit and are assessed an SEE factor of 0. If such parcels are converted to residential or commercial use they shall be classified to such new use category and shall be assessed as previously described in this Report. Other publicly owned property that is used for purposes similar to private residential, commercial, industrial or institutional uses is benefited and assessed at the same rate as such privately owned property. Any agricultural properties with homes or residential dwelling units would be assessed at the residential SEE benefit unit rates described previously. 5. Appeals of Assessments Levied to Property Any property owner who feels that the assessment levied on the subject property is in error as a result of incorrect information being used to apply the foregoing method of assessment may file a written appeal with the Secretary of the Authority or his or her designee. Any such appeal is limited to correction of an assessment during the then current fiscal year. Upon the filing of any such appeal, the Secretary or his or her designee will promptly review the appeal and any information provided by the property owner. If the Secretary or his or her designee finds that the assessment should be modified, the appropriate changes shall be made to the assessment roll. If any such changes are approved after the assessment roll has been filed with the County for collection, the Secretary or his or her designee is authorized to refund to the property owner the amount of any approved reduction. Any dispute over the decision of the Secretary or his or her designee shall be referred to the Board and the decision of the Board shall be final. 6. Assessment Summary by Property Type The following table provides a summary of the proposed benefit units by property type. Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shilts consultants,Ina Page 39 I- N M C14 W C-4 uj:G) 04 CV co 0) M,cv! et mt 4r IM:0) r- 40 <0 co tO (D cm t37 T 0 co tf 42) M m 4,J) t3 tD m a coi m m c: Cq: cx < Z 72-D Lf) Lf) LO 2 2: w 0 C%j N N w to::04 "E w w co 3: CL CL 6:: 0- (L e 0: 0 0 4) (D acs. CL: CL CL: CL 0. a aw� CL CL CL CL tg q cl C4 t� Lq U� Ui q q LO N CS1 m C14 4C( 6C w .* 619� WI 61). 40 1 613, its th 0 0 a 0 C> C� 40 0 iG i-. a 0) M 0 IN N 0 0 IN 00 al CL W l4t j Lo 'It a V C�� a qT a:0 0 Ig L. ci 6 IL °h° c` to 'n; 8 04:'T CD o (D to cm cw oltib 07 co Co 10 LLI U. tt 3! to N 0 —�ic CS) 10 co cf) co- t- Act, (D oo m (0 o Ict PL to Fa to 0) o 7aS CL Z l0 CD C N sq (D (D iii cz V) U); E I m us 0 E F E D Co cis LL m 0 AS (D C'4 0 4) E 0 (Di r- C M 75 (A r- CO t3 LLto LL` 0 0 oi 4) ca w 0 tm 0 > 0 u ...................................................... ....... .............. ..................... WL ASSESSMENT WHEREAS, this Engineer's Report {the "Report"} has been prepared pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (the "Act") and Article XIiID of the California Constitution; WHEREAS, the undersigned Engineer of Work has prepared and filed a report presenting an estimate of costs, a diagram for the assessment district and an assessment of the estimated costs of the improvements upon all assessable parcels within the assessment district; NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, by virtue of the power vested in me under the Act, Article XIIID of the California Constitution and the order of the Board of the Authority, hereby make the fallowing assessment to cover the portion of the estimated cost of said Improvements, and the costs and expenses incidental thereto to be paid by the assessment district. The amount to be paid for said Improvements and the expenses incidental thereto, to be paid by the Assessment District for the fiscal year 2004-05 is generally as follows: SUMMARY COST ESTIMATE F.Y: 2004-05 .-Budget Acquisition, Installation, Maintenance and Servicing $11,485,721 Less: Contributions from Other Sources ($3,944,763} Subtotal $7,540,958 Incidental Expenses and Reserve $814,000 NET AMOUNT TO ASSESSMENTS $8,354,958 As required by the Act, an Assessment Diagram showing the exterior boundaries of said Assessment District is hereto attached and incorporated herein by reference. The distinctive number of each parcel or lot of land in the said Assessment District is its Assessor Parcel Number appearing on the Assessment Roll. I do hereby assess and apportion said net amount of the cost and expenses of said Improvements, including the costs and expenses incident thereto, upon the parcels and lots of land within said Assessment District, in accordance with the special benefits to be Contra Code County OPen Space Funding Authority,Paries and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineees Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05,by Shiite Consultants,Inc Page 41 received by each parcel or lot, from the Improvements, and more particularly set forth in the Estimate of Cost and Method of Assessment in the Report. The assessment described in the Estimate of Cost is for fiscal year 2004-05. The assessment ballot proceeding will seek property owner approval for the levy of the proposed fiscal year 2004-05 assessments and the continuation of the assessments in future years. If the assessment is approved by a weighted majority of ballots in the ballot proceeding and is subsequently confirmed and levied by the Board, the annual assessment can be continued for a maximum of 30 years. The assessment is subject to an annual adjustment tied to the annual change in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco Bay Area as of January of each succeeding year CCPI"), with the maximum annual adjustment not to exceed 3%. In the event that the annual change in the CPI exceeds 3%, any percentage change in excess of 3% can be cumulatively reserved and can be added to the annual change in the CPI for years in which the CPI change is less than 3%. The assessment is made upon the parcels or lots of land within the Assessment District in proportion to the special benefits to be received by the parcels or lots of land, from said Improvements. Each parcel or lot of land is described in the Assessment Roll by reference to its parcel number as shown on the Assessor's Maps of the County of Contra Costa for the fiscal year 2004-05. For a more particular description of said property, reference is hereby made to the deeds and maps on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder of said County. I hereby place opposite the Assessor Parcel Number for each parcel or lot within the Assessment Roll, the amount of the assessment for the fiscal year 2004-05 for each parcel or lot of land within the said Assessment District. Dated: May 12, 2004 Engineer of Work By John W. Bliss, License No. 052091 Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and©pen Space Protection and Preservation Distdct Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Shifts Consultants Inc. Page 42 VII. Assessment Diagram The Assessment District includes all properties within the boundaries of Contra Cosh County. The boundaries of the Assessment District are displayed on the following Assessment Diagram. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the Assessment District are those lines and dimensions as shown on the maps of the Assessor of the County of Contra Costa, for fiscal year 2004-06, and are incorporated herein by reference,and made a part of this Diagram and this Report. Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation District Engineer's Report Fiscal Year 2004-05 by Sirius Consultants,Inc. Page 43 4 � I LL 0j 00i to U � CL � 4 ._. - - to LL 1 m ami w a c N j S t- F r tZi1 W S W CWiµµ. 4>+ qg 2 �Q[! tyf>f>43 �=C1WO WN hUWh@ ❑V �(� � ' "� W F:lU Mt4�� � 'Cl Jvd1-W0�0Ua-. O N4J� 2NQ�' a nnqW z a c �� �vgqi� ~rte 1wfu"iS �nul �f yy (W� +C. � ,Q 6, f/ P "R H ..6W.� lNt1�C} W� !v:�$I �✓ �<.rt> N zU� Wd���.6�au.u�>•c�`� m LL_�U�c> '�'a'��b`c;tiau��°+� i.._.. iLl VIIL ASSESSMENT ROLL (SPREAD OF COSTS) An Assessment Roll, which is a listing of all parcels within the Assessment District and the amount of the proposed assessments, is filed with the Secretary of the Board and is, by reference, made part of this Report. Each lot or parcel listed on the Assessment Roll Is shown and illustrated on the latest County Assessor records and these records are, by reference made part of this report. These records shall govern for all details concerning the description of the lots or parcels. Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Parks and Open Space Protection and Preservation district Engineer's Report,Fiscal Year 2004-05 8y,hilts Consultants,Ina Page Viii-1 End Notes 1 . United States Census. www.census.gov 2.Any Plans and specifications for the Improvements will be filed with the Authority and are incorporated herein by reference. 3. Framework, pp.3-4 4. Pubt'ic Resources Code Sections 5539.3,5539.8, 5535.9 and 5539.10 5 Cooling Our Communities:An Overview of Heat Island Project Activities,H.Akbari, Energy Analysis Program, Energy&Environment Division, Lawrence Laboratory, UC, 1996 '3.American Forestry Association.The American Forestry Association, pub. Washington D.C. (http://www.americanforests.org.) $. Rodbell, Phillip, Greg McPhereson and Jim Geiger."Planting the Urban desert."In Urban Forests 11(3):8-10,July 1991. 9.National Parr Service, Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors,4th ed, rev. 1995 10. Ulrich,Dana. "Put a Value on Open Space."Recorder Publishing Company newspapers. Bernardsville,NJ. April 25, 1996. From Thibideau, F.R,and Ostro,B.D."An Economic Analysis of Wetland Protection". Joumal of Environmental Management 12:19-30.Academic Press.San Diego, CA.1981 11 .Smith,Van. "Protecting Rivers,Trails, and Greenways Reap Economic Returns. Exchange. Summer 1991. Reprinted in Economic Benefits of Land Protection. Infante, R.ed.The Land Trust Alliance,Washington, D.C. 1994 12.Thibideau, F.R,and Ostro,B.D."An Economic Analysis of Wetland Protection". Journal of Environmental Management 12:19•-30.Academic Press. San Diego,CA. 1981. 13 Greg McPherson,et al,Benefit-Cost Analysis of Modesto's Municipal Forest, Western Arborist, 1999 Volume 25 Number 2&3 14 . Burchell R,et.al., Impact Assessment of the Interim State Development and Redevelopment Plan, New Jersey Office of State Planning, 1992 15. Love,L. and Crompton,J. Trends:Parks, Practice and Program.Oxford University Press- USA. New York, NY, 1993 16. 1993 State of the Industry Report. Widdekind, L.ed.The Outdoor Industry Association(The Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America and the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association's Outdoor Products.pub.)Boulder CO. 1993 17. California Parks and Recreation.The California Parks and Recreation Society,pub. Sacramento,CA.(hfp://www.cprs.org.) 18. PKF Consulting.San Francisco,CA. "Analysis of the Economic Impacts of the Northern Central Rail Trail." For the Greenways Commission,Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis,Maryland.June 1994. 19.Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Outdoor Recreation For America:A Report To The President And The Congress. January 2002 20. Ibid.Smith,Van 21 . Ibid.California Parks and Recreation. 1997. 22.Parks and Recreation,National Recreation and Park Association,pub.Ashburn,Virginia. January 2001.(hfp://www.nrpa.org/ Contra Costa County open Space Funding Authority,Open Space Preservation and Protection District Engineer's Report,by Shilts Consultants,Inc. 23. National Park Service. NPS Technical Information Center. Washington D.C, 1983 24.Report of the President Commission on Americans Outdoors, U.S. Government Printing Office:Management Washington D.C. 1987 25. Crompton,J., Love L., More T.,An Empirical Study of the Role of Recreation, Parks and Open Space in Companies'(Re)Location Decisions,Joumal of Park and Recreation Administration,Spring, 1997,vol 15 no. 1,p p37,40 zs.Wylde,Boomers on the Horizon: Housing Preferences of the 55+Market, National Association of Home Builders,2002 27.Strategy Research Institute, Likely Voter Support for New Maintenance Excise Tax,April 2000 zs Ibid. NPS. zs. Ibid. NPRA.June 1985. az. Phillips,Patrick,Real Estate Impacts of Urban Parks,2000 sa. U.S.Treasury Regulation Sec. 14(h)(3)(i). 34 When Assessment District Improvements are used by individuals who do not live,work or shop within the Assessment District,the Improvements are not providing benefit to property within the Assessment District. Such use under these circumstances is a measure of general benefit. For example,a non-resident who is drawn to utilize the Assessment District facilities and shops at local businesses while in the area would provide special benefit to business properties as a result of his or her use of the Improvements. Conversely,someone who uses Assessment District facilities but does not reside,work,shop or own property within the Assessment District boundaries does not provide special benefits to any property and is considered to be a measure of the general benefits. ss. Zone B includes those areas defined for Flagship Projects and Regional Priority Projects for which most of the assessment funds will be used for the acquisition of new lands. These project areas are depicted on the Assessment Diagram in this Report. '. In essence,when property owners are deciding how to cast their ballot for a proposed assessment,each property owner must weigh the perceived value of the improvements and services proposed to them and their property with the proposed cost of the assessment to their property. If property owners of a certain type of property are either opposed or in support of the assessment in much greater percentages than owners of other property types,this is an indication that,as a group,these property owners perceive that the proposed assessment has relatively higher or lower"utility"or value to their property relative to owners of other property types. One can also infer from these hypothetical ballot results,that the apportionment of benefit (and assessments)was too high or too low for that property type. In other words,property owners,by their balloting,ultimately indicate if they perceive the special benefits to their property to exceed the cost of the assessment,and,as a group,whether the determined level of benefit and proposed assessment(the benefit apportionment made by the Assessment Engineer)is consistent with owners of other types of property. ss Benefits to commercial and industrial properties are deemed to be related to the area of parcels that are used for such purposes. In the event that a business/industrial parcel includes undeveloped land area that is clearly not related to the businessfindustrial use of the parcel,such unused land area shall not be included in the SFE benefit unit calculation. Contra Costa County Open Space Funding Authority,Open Space Preservation and Protection District Engineer's Report by Shifts Consultants,Inc. Proposed Open Space Funding Measure Timeline Attachment 5 Meetings Tasks/Comments 1 i I Framework document revised to I eg i reflect Advisory Committee recs. - - - — -3- - -- LL 23 Ad Hoc Cmte:final recs. _ Committee acted -- Framework document revised to - i reflect Ad Hoc Committee recs. �„ ,'�d z § s"� �r+�'a ���sra ,��.��Yy '°` �,° «Is � � 5✓ ��. * 'a'«„ �'u� �$�'" � �� �,€ k 3' �u.���; �� ¢ �sal�pe a , � . s h p.�` �f,R �se M,y ,e•,�,� F'�.,J11i: 'v4 Za- �'.-. ab.!,s^ ^.\,. IWO f 1 — 1 1 I f i i �,, � �:_a' wE �7 p r S;��+��° � ,,'��"�``�'a r.� 41 1 ��I�tis, ': � �;9 � � � �� �, ��r✓4 .:�✓ �»--. ���° € �'b ^ver � �, ;� �` 'Yr 75 '. �alsh m �^.a ro ''ac. "�' ''"�.�..,a r�✓ tits i y �,�� p ,� `� s € ��.� � y p 'si.'��`y sB a�,y r x§ wa s�fir' �,�✓ I ���a. � � �� e $r€ ci,�'' � � � � ��� "�.v +,YR ' '{`o° '���. '' �s��s�s's��'�`s�'�. a✓��d✓k�. ° � s r uv i.a jg. i 1 l 1 --___------_.__-_ 1 1 4) 1 -_- Ballots mailed(+or-a day or two) -- � 1 i 1 I 1 - Nj a�l s��,- Mai`� �.''•r �' *,1� '�a�� 9&f ��ak; '' ¢ e Y^ � � Z e d� iQ r tli i Q! 10 JPA Hearing re:Tabulation&Resolution likely FY 04-05 assessment deadline ATTACHMENTQCounty Contra ' COSta TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS X1,.1',: 3 I E;1 1: `' ,1 10 FROM: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AD HOC COMMITTEE ON OPEN SPACE FUNDING SUPERVISOR JOHN GIOIA SUPERVISOR MARK DESAULNIER DATE: March 23, 2004 SUBJECT: Report on Pros used O en Space Funding Measure SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECQMMENDATION 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 i )ARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S). SUPERVISOR MARK DESAULNIER 4URVv ISOR JOHN GIOIA ACTION OF BOARD ON March 73, 2004 APPROVED ASR OMMEND►ED x OTHER x VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ane } AND CORRECT CONY OF AN ACTION TAKEN TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES AYES: NOES: OF THE.BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON ABSENT: ABSTAIN: THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Jahn Kopchlk(925-335-9227) 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 ,DEPUTY Agricultural Commissioner G:1Gonservationlopen spacelboardworderslbos_update—and dectare_intent_3-23-04.doc