[Return to SCAPOSD
Organizational Assessment, Chapters I-III] Stewardship of easements and fee lands is a permanent responsibility of the District, unless the maintenance duties can be transferred. This has already become a major concern of the current Stewardship Coordinator. The maintenance responsibilities for fee-owned lands include; fire protection (e.g., brush clearing), fencing, encroachment enforcement, and signage prohibiting "four-wheeling," trespassing, and hunting. There are minimal staff hours available for required annual inspections and almost no funding approved for clean-up activities or other maintenance functions. In addition, the Stewardship and Land Management mission is treated as a secondary issue in the acquisition process. Some of the problems identified were:
Representatives from the State Department of Fish and Game's expressed concerns about the District's ability to manage the fee-owned lands and easement areas, including protection, monitoring, and natural resource improvements or restorations. The groups that one might expect to volunteer to take on stewardship activities (e.g., Isaac Walton League, Trout Unlimited, etc.) have not stepped forward. There was also a suggestion that other resources might also be available if an adopt an easement program, which would link volunteers with willing owners to perform land management activities, was offered. Rec V.1 Organize a quarterly half-day meeting with the District, County, and State stewardship representatives to discuss joint activities, shared concerns, and recent acquisitions. The key to cooperation will be the sharing of longer term goals, so that funding across two or more agencies can be coordinated to be available during the same period when working on joint projects. Rec V.2 To encourage long-term or short-term participation in stewardship activities, the District should initiate an intensive program of outreach and education to all conservation groups and groups such as the Scouts, 4-H clubs, and Trout Unlimited. Rec V.3 To encourage long-term participation, the District should initiate an "adopt an easement" program linking participants in University curriculums (e.g., landscape architect or soil conservation students) with the owners of lands under easements who do not have the skills to plan for long-term land improvements. Rec V.4 In an effort to address and manage one aspect of public access to private lands and to publicize the need for stewardship volunteers, the implementation of quarterly open-houses on the lands of willing owners should be initiated. A number of Advisory Committee members stated that they would be willing to serve as docents at these open house functions in order to be seen as advocates for the District, the owner-participants and their shared goals. Another concem raised was the District's ability to provide sufficient in-house staff to oversee a comprehensive stewardship program. Currently, one Stewardship Coordinator is serving as a planner, a volunteer coordinator, a volunteer trainer, and an active participant in the stewardship activities. Rather than over-burden the District's small staff with hands-on stewardship activities and volunteer recruitment and management, one consideration may be to contract out the stewardship duties to a non-profit organization. There are two positives to this altemative, the first being that a non-profit group may have an easier time recruiting and retaining volunteers, can coordinate the stewardship activities for several similar agencies (reducing costs by economy of scale), and can provide the training and oversight personnel at a lower per hour cost than that of the District staff. A non-profit could, while working with a willing owner or for District fee-owned lands, also raise its own funds for larger restoration projects, supplementing the small amounts available through the District for monitoring activities. Rec V.5 In order to avoid extra post-negotiation costs, the District should require that landowners provide proof that any parcel offered for easement or fee acquisition be fully surveyed and monumented prior to finalization of the negotiations. While the District's Stewardship Coordinator does attempt to pass specific easement drafts through one or more of the State's Department of Fish and Game representatives, there is not a formalized review process in place. Part of the problem is the State's own organizational structure, which can require submitting a draft to upwards of seven different reviewers in order to cover all the various programs the State manages across the County. Rec V.6 When appropriate, the District's Stewardship Coordinator should pass draft easements to the Regional Manager of the State's Department of Fish and Game, who would be responsible for coordinating internal reviews and providing, consolidated comments back to the District. Another issue raised about the current planning process was a perception that there are internal inconsistencies in District staff interpretations of the general clauses used in easement documents. Some planners review the general clauses during the development of the specific clauses and then remove those general clauses that overlap or are not appropriate for the type of project under study. It was felt that other planners do not remove those general clauses not appropriate to the specific property, which can cause confusion for owners. As the easement documents pass back and forth from the planners to the acquisition staff to the owners several times as revisions are required, inconsistent or non-appropriate wording in easements adds to the cost of acquisition. The content of the easement documents also impacts the cost of stewardship monitoring after closure on a project. There is an assumption that all clauses in a particular easement are there for a specific reason and therefore should be part of the project's monitoring plan. Because the monitoring practices of the volunteers and the owners themselves should be tied directly to the clauses in the easement document, the following process is recommended for all projects: Rec V.7 Monitoring criteria should be linked to the Permitted and Prohibited Uses clauses and the appropriate General Clauses. Rec V.8 Monitoring criteria should be defined as standards against which practices will be measured. Rec V.9 Monitoring criteria should be defined with ratings that are linked to observable levels of compliance with the defined standards. Rec V.10 Monitoring criteria should be publicized to the owner and to the volunteer or nonprofit group conducting the stewardship monitoring. There are three Resource Conservation Districts (RCD) within the County. While there have been some limited communications between the District and these three groups, stewardship resourcing oppommities are being missed. Rec V.11 The District should negotiate with the RCDs to conduct stewardship both on lands they own and on District managed lands. They have more hand-on resources for field work than the District. Rec V. 12 Evaluate the cost benefits'of "cost sharing"' stewardship activities, e.g., paying for some labor or vehicle costs associated with monitoring District lands by the RCDs. There is or will be public access to some or all of the acreage on 55 projects. There is a volunteer who performs an inspection of all fee lands, once every two weeks. This volunteer has a check list of major concerns to watch out for and will take photos and check with local property owners if there are signs of vandalism or environmental problems. A training program for other volunteer "inspectors" is being developed for 1998. The District may, in the future, solicit ranchers who want to lease County land for grazing areas until such time as the County has a better use for it. The primary duties of the Stewardship Planner has been to:
One of the concems expressed by both staff and some Advisory Committee members was level of the District's responsibility for environmental restoration. The District has recently spent funds for a restoration plan for an easement wetland restoration and, if the Authority approves it, plans to spend District funds to restore the wetland. As one person suggested, the wiser course of action would seem to be to offer to help coordinate between a non-profit conservation group and the owner. There is a clear difference in interpretation of the mandate of the District. While the majority of those interviewed agreed that the primary goals were to obtain conservation easements and, where necessary, buy title to private lands, the general disagreements were about the County's responsibilities after the land was secured. Due to the lack of an overarching "Trails Policy" by County, there are groups who want development of trails (horse and hiking) on easements. The agriculture communities don't want trails on their lands nor on neighboring agricultural lands due to fears about hiker initiated fires, acts of vandalism, litter, or animal escapes. This group prefers that the County place as few external controls on their easements, and that recreation development are limited to fee-owned lands and urban boundary separator easements. The third group are those whose concept of the mandate is to procure lands and easements and then divest them to other city or private interests to maintain and, if feasible, develop for the public. It is the well-intentioned conflict between these sincere and committed groups of stakeholders (including County residents and businesses; Advisory Committee, Authority, and Board members; and others) which has led to some of the problems observed. Rec V.13 Work with the stakeholders and the Board of Directors to develop a set of balanced long term acquisition goals, and to prioritize them into annual obiectives. This acquisition strategy will assist the District staff to channel their efforts appropriately and will lay the groundwork for a clearer stakeholder understanding of the mandate as it stands today. Rec V.14 Begin to explore opportunities for working with other groups to have them take over management of lands that can be used for recreation. There may be groups other than State or local agencies who would be willing to adopt and maintain trails or picnic areas (e.g., scout troops, associations, Probationary programs, military installations, etc.) Rec V.15 Explore whether there are prohibitions on trading easements or fee lands with groups who have acquired lands more suitable for conservation, but who want land q which might be usable for recreation. CHAPTER VI - OUTREACH/EXTERNAL RELATIONS Interviewees were generally positive about the District. More effort is needed in the area of outreach and external relations to both the general public as well as willing sellers of open space and agricultural lands. To a certain extent, it appears that the District comes to the attention of the general public only when controversial acquisitions occur, as well as conflicts over "trails" and "recreational use" issues. Following are common observations made by interviewees and recommendations: General Observations of lnterviews
RECOMMENDATIONS: Rec VI.1 A specific plan to educate the voting public and market the District to willing sellers of Sonoma County needs to be developed. Prior to doing this, however, the following need to be considered and/or performed.
Rec VI.2 A separate outreach plan needs to be developed to identify willing sellers of properties that the District feels are top priorities for agricultural preservation and open space protection. This would include outreach to estate attorneys, real estate brokers and land consultants. More efforts should be made to access audiences with the Farm Bureau, local Chambers of Commerce and professional organizations. In addition, efforts should be made to streamline the acquisition process to make doing business with the District more attractive to willing sellers.
Rec VI.3 The District should obtain the services of outside legal counsel. This counsel should be recognized as an expert in the area of land use and real estate issues. The use of County Counsel may pose potential conflict of interest situations. Therefore, the District should seek independent counsel. CHAPTER VII - ASSESSMENT OF INTERRELATIONSHIPS OF DISTRICT WITH ADVISORY AND POLICY ENTITIES The purpose of this Chapter is to identify both strong and weak aspects of how the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District (District) staff interacts with the political and policy entities affected by the District or that affect the District. Certain relationships have clear lines of communication while others are less open to assessment. Unfortunately, the potentially most important relationship, that of the District with the voters of Sonoma County, falls in this latter category. This matter will be further addressed in this Chapter through a recommendation. The Sonoma County Open Space Program is a 20-year program implemented through the District. Financing is supported by a 1/4 % rate tax and managed by the Open Space Authority. The District is a Dependent Special District of the County and the County Board of Supervisors sits as the Board of Directors of the District. However, the Open Space Authority is an independent body consisting of a five-member board that contracts with the District to carry out the Open Space Program. Appointment to the Authority is by the Board of Supervisors. The District is advised by the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District Advisory Committee, a volunteer body of seventeen appointed by the District's Board of Directors (the Sonoma County Supervisors). The Advisory Committee provides advice to the District Board and Staff on policy matters and makes recommendations for proposed land and easement acquisitions. The Committee holds monthly meetings Open to the public. Committee membership includes representatives from each county district, the cities of Cloverdale, Cotati, and Sonoma, a business representative, a real estate representative, an environmental representative and an agricultural representative. The process of managing District activities is relatively clean cut. The District Staff or the Advisory Committee identifies potential acquisitions or easements from voluntary sellers. The District Staff develops an acquisition plan that is approved by the Advisory Committee and sent to the Authority for funding obligation. The final approval is by the District Board with advice from the County Counsel. The District Staff then implements the acquisition with funds provided by the Authority. The principal strength displayed by the relevant bodies is the relatively open opportunities for communication. Advisory Committee members are free to approach Board members and given established relationships, many apparently do. Advisory Committee members have frequent oppommities to discuss matters with DisMet employees. The principal weakness observed is an absence of clear cut "roles and mission" guidance. For example, what can the DisMet staff do relative to the Board, the Advisory Committee, or the Authority? Where do the roles of the Authority and the Advisory Committee conflict and how can this conflict be resolved? We found reluctance within the District to perform as staff to the Board on important matters. The District staff seems to have isolated itself from the Authority and the Board on what we perceive as critical issues, and the most critical issue is identifying policy issues and assisting the Board in addressing problems and potential problems. It is not the job of the District staff to make Sonoma County policy, but it should be the job of the District staff, and the GM in particular, to provide the Board with current and relevant information as issues arise. We suggest a procedure whereby the General Manager and Assistant General Manager jointly identify unresolved policy issues, then have District staff prepare an issue paper that specifies where policy is needed. The issue paper may or may not provide draft alternative policy statements for Board consideration. County Counsel should be provided a copy of the issue paper prior to sending it to the Board. Current issues that warrant Board considerations are:
Again, the intent is not for the District staff to make policy, but to facilitate Board discussions. The study team found several weaknesses in the acquisition process. There are discussed elsewhere in this report. One weakness, however, seriously affects relationship among Open Space entities. Generally, the Authority is brought into the acquisition process at the very end. In performing their due diligence function, the Authority further delays acquisition. Our recommendation is that the Authority be provided preliminary information on pending acquisitions as early as possible in the process. Associated with the above recommendation is the observation that some individuals interviewed questioned the due diligence role of the Authority and duplicate functions performed by the Advisory Committee. The Board should address this issue in its clarification of roles and missions. Perhaps earlier passing of information to the Authority will ease some of the concerns, but we cannot recommend that the Authority sign off on the funds without due diligence. The above discussion raises questions on the appraisal process that results in input to price negotiation for easements and land acquisitions. Certainly some interviewees questioned the amounts paid by the District, although the qualifications of the questioners did not appear to be much above the level of the average citizen. We recommend that the Authority consider an appraisal audit that considers alternative appraisal processes. A principal concern of this study is the relationship of the District to Sonoma County voters. Many interviewees suggested variances on the theme that the average county voter has only vague impressions of the District's purposes and activities. Some interviewees suggested that this could lead to voter approval of actions to relieve the Authority of funds (to finance-? highway 101 improvements, for instance) or to reject renewal of the sales tax portion going for District activities. One comment was that Santa Rosa voters could, by themselves, vote down a renewal and Santa Rosa received little or no direct benefit from the program. Our comment is that the educational and public relation activities of the District seem to have a limited audience that warrants a rethinking. A general theme uncovered by the interview process was an observation that the District staff is bureaucratic in its approach to easement and space acquisition and that the District staff is generally not tied to the county. This led to the observation that the District was paying too much for acquisitions and was inadequately knowledgeable of available properties. At the same time there was an impression that available easements where the owner was unsympathetic to including the trails clause in the easement were unlikely to be pursued. We conclude from the two prior paragraphs that it is imperative that the Board establish a firm (and clear) policy on trails. This policy will then have an impact on the acquisition process. We further conclude that the District should reassess its approach to Sonoma county voters and landowners. This reassessment should involve developing clear internal to the District processes for expanding contact with county elements beyond the Advisory Committee. CHAPTER VIII - POTENTIAL FOR EXTERNAL FUNDING (GIFTS AND GRANTS) There are a variety of new changes to the 1998 tax code which make donations of land and/or easements to the County a better way to reduce regular and estate tax liabilities. While the District's planning and acquisition staff are supported by the County Counsel, the staff are not CPAs.
The District should research and utilize grant programs that may be available from various Federal sources to accomplish its goals.
There is a noticeable lack of familiarity with the program (despite its national recognition by other land trusts and 'Districts') which both hampers the process and frustrates the Advisory Committee members. Those interviewed perceived that the level of participation by the public and support for the efforts of the mandate would be increased in both quantity and quality with additional publicity. There are a number of brochures, fly-sheets, and pamphlets available upon request, and a public relations consultant has been contracted about developing a newsletter. The Committee members and other stakeholders interviewed had the following recommendations for increased public awareness.
As part of its publicity, and ultimately any plan to support additional private or corporate donations, should include a summary of accomplishments. The following information would be critical to both a general and a targeted promotions program.
|
