Measure I Parks and Open Space

[Rich Jager]

I believe it will benefit the voters in American Canyon to get as much information as possible before deciding on their vote on Measure I. Please Google Napablogger and view the information posted there. Please remember that both Supervisors Bill Dodd and Harold Moskowite voted against putting this measure on the ballot. The Napa Chamber of Commerce has refused to indorse this measure. the Carpenters Union is remaining neutral.The proponents for this measure took us to court to keep the voters from seeing our ballot argument.Please take a hard look at this measure before you vote.

[VicRiv]

The American Canyon Parks and Community Services include Discussed this two weeks ago.
Sonoma County formed and was able to obtain $6.235 MILLION in Grant Dollars for OpenSpace, River Access and development of Recreation Facilities between 1999 and 2005. That's over a Million dollars of funding per year of their existence.
The available funding in the NATION for these type progeams is over $65 Million. We deserve our fair share. Their arguement is the money is hard to get... American Canyon has received $895K to tap into the Bay Ridge Trail for walking and biking trails. Funding for the Wetlands viewing Area, $$ for the Commerce/Green Island Road Connection.

OUR(Napa County's) PROBLEM IS THERE'S NO ONE CHASING THE AVAILABLE $$$$
When I think of the millions spend for Alaska's bridge to Nowhere- I think it would be better spent here in Napa County.

A similiar measure missed passing last time around by 1%. Napa County is a jewel offering MANY beautiful, natural areas. Let's expand OUR exposure to them.

[Rich Jager]

Victor, I share your enthusiasm for P&OS and so does the Napa County Planning Dept. They have an eminently qualified P & OS planner named John Woodbury. John has an extensive background in grant writing for P & OS. If we want grant money,John can try to get it without a seperate new district. If you want to consider the Sonoma CountyP& OS, 6.5 million is nothing compared to the 200 million they have collected in tax money since their formation. Their current annual incme from taxes is approximately 15 million per year. Santa Clara County has 2 P&OS districts with a combined annual income from taxes of 32 million per year and a bond debt of 130 million. When Contra Costa County tried to pass a P&OS measure they asked the voters for 30 million dollars. My point here is that grant money will not finance a P&OS district. It requires tax money and lots of it. I take a keen interest in what goes on in American Canyon. I know the folks there want access to the Newell Preserve and the Napa River, but they don't need a new bureaucracy to accomplish these goals.

[M Plate]

The rational for having an independent parks district is to use the parks district law put forth by the State and the special legislation for Napa County. The special legislation does establish an independent board, but it also contains a provision to use County staff to manage the district. The district would be independent enough to negotiate with Public and Private land owners and avoid some thorny political issues not related to Parks. The district would not have eminent domain (a county parks department would), therefore the district is forced to work cooperatively with land owners. District projects would be required to conform to County or City general plan requirements (where as, the County could easily put forth non-conforming projects). The district would operate under a fixed budget; where as, the discretionary portion of county budget is small and during some years could be severely impacted by mandatory programs. There are other advantages in the State legislation for parks districts.

Napa and Sonoma County have are unique when it comes to Park and Open Space needs outside of city limits. Napa has a very active non-profit land trust that is actively acquiring land using private donations. There is also a large amount of land held by public agencies which could be opened to the public, if there was an entity to manage this access. The Sonoma District has used an exorbitant sales tax to acquire land and has only recently focused on public access. Napa does not need to acquire more land, but should make a modest effort to improve and allow public access to lands already held by the public. Land improvements could be made through grants, and management could be done through a mix of donations and user fees, and county contributions, city contributions, and/or a voter approved tax. Being of a conservative bent I prefer that other options be exhausted before a tax is contemplated.

Since the County’s park study in the 1970’s recognized a need for a parks entity in Napa County the urban population has grown and the amount of land held by the public has grown, yet and open space park opportunities for the public have shrunk (including closure of several Boy Scout camps on public land).

An example where the County has failed and continues to fail American Canyon is the Closed Landfill. When the landfill was open the citizens of American Canyon were told that the dump would soon close and there would be a good re-use plan put forward that would benefit American Canyon. This would be a nice compensation for taking others trash for many years. The Waste Management Authority, managed by County staff, has back out of this under the guise that it is not their responsibility. Mr. Woodbury has had little influence in this process because he is dealing with more senior county managers.

The intent of the county parks committee, which I was the only American Canyon representative (out of 16 as the Board did not appoint a AC rep.), was to give the voters the option of deciding on a district and to give the district 3 years of County funding to prove that it will be a benefit to residents.

What ever happens with the election, I am glad to work on parks issues for the City and County and with continue to work with great volunteers (Barry, Rick, Nance, and others) to get public access to Newell and the River.

Thanks
Mathew Plate

[Rich Jager]

Mathew, the state law you refer to is Public Resource Code 5500.This can be accessed on our web site Napablogger.com Under this law,all counties in the state wishing to form a P & OS district must place a permanent funding source on the ballot with the P&OS, all except Napa County.The reason this is true is because certain individuals cleverly and without public awarness inserted Section 5539.4 into the code. This circumvents the 2/3 vote required to pass a funding mechanism. Slick.The same people promoting this measure decided that the people of Napa County are not entitled to the same protection from taxes as the people in other counties. This is the height of arrogance.This measure has general rhetoric about parks and trails but no specific plan and no permanent funding source. It would be an independent bureaucracy with the same power to put bonds and taxes on the ballot that we give to the Board of Supervisors and yet would not be under their authority. Have you ever seen a government bureaucracy that had the power to tax that didn't use it to the maximum of its ability?

[M Plate]

Sorry Rich I can’t confirm any nefarious motives, I did go through the 5500 legislation and it was discussed on the committee, the section you state does eliminate the need for the district to be approved by the Local Area Formation Commission. I would hope that the 350K provided by the County would be a permanent source of funding, if needed. It may however be to our advantage that is not, as the public could request the Board to withdraw funding from the District and have LAFCO dissolve it, if the District does not perform acceptably. I really can’t agree to your assertion on Taxes as we were able to defeat Measure H after the formation of the Napa Valley Transportation Authority.

Mathew Plate

[Rich Jager]

Mathew, I was in a meeting at The Napa valley Register last week with Supervisors Luce and Wagonknect, John Hoffnagle(Land Trust) and Tony Norris(candadate for P&OS), all representing yes on I. The $350K originally proposed is off the table. The new figure is $600-$700K pulled from TOT Taxes.The proponents are unable to deny that there will be attempts to tax.Please see the Register's editorial page today. As to comparing this to Measure H that is apples to oranges. The Napa Valley tranportation Planning Agency was formed in 1988 and the board members are elected officials from the particapating cities. The Napa Valley Transportation Authority you reference was the agency that would have been created with the passage of Measure H, That measure was presented to the voters as an agency with a permanent funding source and required a 2/3 majority to pass. This is the way the P& OS should be presented. I do not view a board of elected city official to be in the same catagory as a 5 member board of special interest activists.

[Rich Jager]

Well I guess Mathew and Victor are done responding so let's get to the particulars on this bad and deceptive measure.The Boardd of Supervisors has authorized $350K for this District. Between this election and 2 necessary staff members this money is gone. $75K for the election and $100k for the Planner and $100K for the General Manager, they are done for 2007. Say Supervisor Luce gets 3 votes to increase the allotment to $700k they still need to rent space and start-up an office with furniture etc., say another $20K per year. That leaves $ 400K+ a year to do Newell, Wet Lands Trail, buy Skyline Park for $4million, do Oat Hill Mine Trail, Miliken Dam trails, Cedar Grove and what ever else they have promised the public they will do.If this measure passes they will spend all their extra money on election consultants and ballot measures to secure long term multi million dollar funding sources through taxes and assessments. They cannot do otherwise and survive, do the math. Santa Clara $32 million/year from taxes and assesments, Sonoma $15 million/year income from taxes. American Canyon will get the money for Newell and the Wetlands directly from the County long before it would recieve a penny from Measure I if it passes.You know Up Valley always comes first. I would rather see a new High School in American Canyon and fix the horrible roads. Since the County money for this district would come from tourist hotel dollars, maybe we should give them and us some decent roads.