Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2015 01 14

Home Browse Search

Open Space Advisory Board Minutes November 12th, 2014 Page 3 of 7 of acquisition targets. Jeff shared that CU doesn't publicize their list either. Malcolm asked Christopher whether the state fords the property values are changed ahead of purchases. Missy said she's not in favor of public posting and she felt that private landowners might feel targeted by the government and publicity, and anxious or offended as a result. Mike felt that this "targeted" feeling might be mitigated by a quieter initial approach by the City, so landowners don't find out about owning an acquisition target by reading their property's name on the list. Spencer felt like since the list is effectively already public, it might be splitting hairs to make it front - linked from the City webpage. Helen felt publicly sharing the criteria used to generate the spreadsheet and rank the properties might be helpful, so citizens can provide feedback on OSAB's process. Mike and Missy both agreed that it could be helpful to publish the criteria, without necessarily including the properties themselves. Malcolm thought the rubric might be helpful to give property owners a heads -up that the city might be interested. Missy advocated for purchasing rights of first refusal for properties on the list. Jeff commented that, in his work for CU, he fords it useful to be in regular personal contact with the property owners of targeted land. Jeff also commented that the City Council finds OSAB's acquisition rubric document to be useful. Jeff emphasized that the City IS the market for most of these properties, given their current zoning status. Laura suggested that one advantage of publishing the full list, including the properties names and their criteria, would be to incentivize landowners with marginal target properties to invest in improving their land over time to make it more appealing to the City (for example, by planting trees, improving wetlands, or removing structures). Jeff suggested that OSAB invite some municipal real estate people to come teach us about their process, and suggestion the board liked. Mike mentioned that close communication with property owners can ameliorate any possible misunderstanding caused by properties' inclusion on the list. Christopher asked if council has ever formally approved the list. Ember replied that it has only been used as a tool. Christopher emphasized that he'd like to have a higher -level conversation about acquisition strategy. Helen summarized: there may be sufficient transparency already; we'd like to consult with experts about the city establishing relationships with landowners. IX. Discussion Item: Review and Edit the City Manager's Draft Policy Regarding the Open Space & Parks Tom wants the document to refer to the Conservation Trust -Land Acquisition Fund by its proper name: either the name of the tax as written on the ballot or the name it is referred to in the City's internal accounting. Currently it is written as the "Open Space & Parks Fund." Jean Morgan (1131 Spruce Street) commented that she felt like she understands the name "Open Space & Parks Funds" and it makes sense to her as written. Helen felt like the name itself is semantically important; as written, it equates Open Space and Parks and it also drops the word "trust." Missy felt that a compromise solution is to simply honor the ballot's intent. 5