Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/6/2004 - STAFF REPORTS (24) Date: October 6, 2004 To: City Council From: Director of Strategic Planning CALIFORNIA PERFORMANCE REVIEW REPORT - RESTRUCTURE FUNDING AND GOVERNANCE FOR CERTAIN LAND CONSERVANCIES-COACHELLA VALLEY MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the attached Minute Order opposing the California Performance Review Report(CPR)recommendation that the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy(CVMC) be devolved as a state entity and become a regional joint powers authority. Currently, the CVMC is a state entity under the Resources Agency. SUMMARY: The Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy was formed in 1990 by the State Legislature for the purposes of acquiring lands for habitat protection and provide access to open spaces. Subsequently, in 1997 CVMC became an agency within the Resources Agency. The CPR recommends that five (5) of the eight (8) statewide conservancies do not concentrate on the protection of land and habitat resources that are of statewide interest. Based upon this finding,the report recommends that five (5) conservancies, including the CVMC be "devolved" into local joint powers authorities(JPA's). If legislation becomes effective January 1,2005,the State would save $1 million the first year and about $2.1 million annually thereafter. If a joint powers authority was formed, it would no longer have state funding and would have to compete for state bond funds in the same manner that all other local non-profit entities. State funding for administrative staff would be eliminated. Funding for CVMC is form the Vehicle License Plate Fund. BACKGROUND: Since being formed in 1990, the CVMC has acquired or assisted in the acquisition of over 45,000 acres of land. Lands have been acquired in the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains, Joshua Tree, Mount Sant Jacinto Wilderness Park, and other areas.. The CVMC currently has a staff of 2.5 full-time employees (FTE) and an operating budget of$274,000. The attached Summary of Acquisitions Facilitated by CVMC report provides a complete background and update on CVMC. Currently the CVMC Board's 21 members are: Nine (9) state, nine (9) local, and three (3)federal representatives. Mayor Pro-Tem Chris Mills represents the City of Palm Springs on the Board. The purpose of the CPR was to evaluate state agencies and programs. The report was critical of conservancies and related programs. Issues cited include a lack of comprehensive statewide land conservation plans, acquisitions based upon opportunity vs. statewide objectives, diffused accountability, and limited state oversight. It appears that the authors desire to consolidate the state's effort by supporting statewide resource management practices set by the Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Department of Fish and Game. This l recommendation seems to conflict with other report objectives to encourage partnerships with state, local, federal, and tribal agencies. CVMC has a broad range of membership that creates a very effective partnership. Specifically, the report recommends that the Governor work with the legislature to devolve (yes.."devolve") five (5) conservancies into regional or local joint powers authorities. As a result, conservancy boards or JPA's would no longer have state-level majority participation (on boards), state funding from the Environmental License Plate Fund, and bond funds for staff. JPA's would have to apply for grants for land acquisition and administrative services would need to be self- funded. At the state level, the report recommends that the Resources Agency, or its successor develop a statewide master plan for land acquisition and resource protection. In addition to dealing with conservancies, the CPR Report has recommendations about re-organizing the various state departments including the Resources Agency and Department of Fish and Game. In reviewing the Strategic Plan prepared by the CVMC, staff finds that there are a number of statewide objectives being serviced by the CVMC, some of these objectives are as follows: 1. Habitat Conservation - Currently the state has not funded the State Endangered Species Actor Natural Communities Conservation Program. Conservancies such as CVMC provide programs and funding to acquire sensitive habitat. Without programs and funding, the burden will fall upon property owners and local government. State laws and mandates to protect natural resources will not go away. 2. National Monument - The Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains have been designated a National Monument. Acquisition of sensitive scenic and habitat will meet not only a state objective, but a national objective as well. CVMC has assisted the Bureau of Land Managements(BLM) in acquiring lands of statewide and national interest. 3. Strategic plan -As noted above, CVMC has prepared a Strategic Plan and all acquisitions must be consistent with the Plan. CVMC Board members representing state, regional, and local interests review and approve of all programs and land acquisitions. The recommendations in the CPR seems to recommend that state agencies, without regional and local representation, be charged with land acquisition and resource protection for habitat and recreational purposes. As noted above, the recommended program to consolidate into a state run program, would eliminate effective multi-jurisdiction conservancies. The CPR does outline several areas which are needed. First, the state should evaluate how the Resources Agency and Department of Fish & Game operate. Creating a statewide master plan, including strategic guidelines for land acquisition and resource protection are needed. However, eliminating or devolving state conservancies should not be first on the priority list. CVMC plays a crucial role in assisting local, regional, and state agencies to fulfill recreation, habitat, and other conservation state mandates. Over time as the state evaluates its programs and other programs such as the Coachella Valley Multiple Species and National Communities Conservation Program, the purpose and role of CVMC should be evaluated. In staffs opinion, such action today is not warranted and would be counter productive. With all of these considerations, staff recommends that the City Council oppose the recommendations in the California Performance Review as they affect the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy. Director of Strategic Planning d� Citanager Attachments: 1. Restructure Funding and Governance For Certain Land Conservancies - California Performance Review Report 2. CVMC Background 3. Draft Opposition Letter (to be provided) 4. Minute Order The California Peiformance Revieeu RES 12 Restructure Funding and Governance for Certain Land Conservancies Summary Five of the eight separate conservancies for which the Resources Agency is responsible do not represent land assets of statewide interest that benefit all Californians. State funding and governance for these conservancies should be restructured to provide more direct control and accountability to local agencies. Background Within the Resources Agency, there are eight separate conservancies that acquire lands for habitat protection and provide public access to open spaces. The conservancies, and other departments and programs, lack a comprehensive and cohesive statewide land conservation plan. Without such a statewide plan, individual organizations have developed their own land conservation strategies that frequently do not work coherently to achieve statewide objectives.' Although some acquisitions are pursued with a statewide perspective, others are simply purchases made as opportunities arise' The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) have statewide responsibility for managing lands for habitat protection and recreation, respectively.' The chart below compares information obtained from the Department of Finance on the conservancies° Conservancies at a Glance Year 2002-03 Acquisitions Land Holdings Board Begun Jurisdiction Budget Objectives (Acres) State Coastal Conservancy 1976 Coastal zone $6.3 million Promote coastal 700 physical 7 members (1,100 miles of support management plan— property coast) generally public 3,700 All state $179.4 million access, scenic views, easements; appointments property natural habitat and 20,000 acres acquisition and agricultural land improvement A Govenunent for the People for a Change 1023 �` 7 P, ,-- California Tahoe Conservancy 1984 Lake Tahoe $4.0 million Provide access to 64,000 acres 7 members Basin(about support shore; environmental 148,000 acres) sensitive lands, 4 state $20.7 million especially those 3 local property draining to the lake acquisition and and/or subject to improvement erosion San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy 1999 San Gabriel $790,000 Provide open space, None 13 members River and support recreational, Lower Los educational uses, 7 state Angeles River $18 million watershed 6 local and watersheds property improvement, regional (about 569,000 acquisition and wildlife and habitat acres) improvement restoration and protection Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy 1979 Santa Monica $655,000 Provide for parks, About 55,000 9 members and Santa support trails, open space, acres are held Susanna and wildlife habitat by joint 5 state Mountains, and $13.2 million that are easily powers 3 local Placerita property accessible to the authority 1 federal Canyon acquisition and general public associated (551,000 acres) improvement with the conservancy Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy 1996 Coachella $274,000 Promote habitat 3,835 acres; 21 members Valley(about support priorities listed in 1,138 1.25 million Natural easements 9 state acres) $8 million Communities 9 local property Conservation Plans, 3 federal acquisition and currently being improvements developed for Coachella Valley region 1024 Iseaies and Recommendations j Sam* The Caltfvrnia Pei forename Review f V ' San Diego River Conservancy 2003 San Diego $265,000 Acquire and manage None 9 members River from support public lands Julian to the (proposed) 2 state Pacific Ocean 7 local (about 52 miles) Baldwin Hills Conservancy 2001 Baldwin Hills $262,000 Provide recreational 384 acres 9 members area in Los support open space and Angeles wildlife uses 8 state County(about $15 million 1 local 1,200 acres) property acquisition and improvement San Joaquin River Conservancy 1995 San Joaquin $253,000 Affords public 1,762 acres 15 members River parkway support recreational in Fresno and opportunities and 9 state Madera $2.5 million supports wildlife 6 local Counties property habitat (about 5,900 acquisition and acres) improvement The State Coastal Conservancy covers the largest jurisdiction of these conservancies including the entire coast and some significant inland areas, especially around the San Francisco Bay. The other conservancies are each responsible for considerably smaller regions. The Baldwin Hills Conservancy, the smallest, covers 1,200 acres, yet it too has a predominantly state-level governance structure. The Tahoe Conservancy, the State Coastal Conservancy and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy concentrate on the protection of land and habitat resources that are of statewide interest. The San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, San Joaquin River Conservancy,Baldwin Hills Conservancy, San Diego River Conservancy, and Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy focus on land acquisitions that are of regional or local interest. One conservancy, the State Coastal Conservancy,primarily provides grant funding to local governments and private non-profits that acquire and manage lands. Other conservancies primarily acquire and manage lands themselves, and some do both. Conservancies also provide grants to each other, to DFG or to DPR. A Govermnent for[lie People fora Change 1025 Collectively, the governing boards of these conservancies total 90 members. The size of the respective boards ranges from 7 to 21 members each. The creation of multiple conservancies has increased state fundu1g for land acquisition and management in the areas in which conservancies are located. However, the programs have the following limitations and Inefficiencies: • No master plan exists at the Resources Agency level to give conservancies comprehensive, strategic guidelines for land acquisition and resource protection. Consequently, the state approach to habitat and recreational land acquisition is a patchwork; • Creating state conservancies having broad authority within their respective jurisdictions has impaired strategic planning at the state level, diffused accountability and limited state-level oversight. The perspective of each conservancy is limited, and the membership of the conservancy boards is not generally reflective of the state-level policy-makers who are held accountable for the expenditure of state funds; and • Conservancy funding has tended to be used primarily on purchases as opportunities have arisen, instead of supporting broader statewide resource management priorities set by the Resources Agency, DPR and DFG.s Recommendations A. The Governor should work with the Legislature to devolve five conservancies of regional or local interest (San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, San Joaquin River Conservancy, Baldwin Hills Conservancy, San Diego River Conservancy, and Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy) into local joint powers authorities. • The proposed legislation should remove state-level majority participation on the governing boards of those five conservancies, and eliminate state Environmental License Plate Fund and bond funds for staff support. • The five conservancies of regional or local interest should be encouraged to apply and compete for state bond funds for land acquisition and other projects in the same manner that all other local and nonprofit entities are eligible for state resource bond funds. Removing state majority representation on the governing boards and reducing state funding for the five conservancies that represent local and regional interests would empower these local jurisdictions to address local land conservation issues. State-level funding and majority participation on the three conservancies of statewide interest (Tahoe Conservancy, State Coastal Conservancy, and Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy) should be retained. 1026 Issides and Recmnretendnhons �° 7 The California Pei formance Revieeo The remaining conservancies would continue as joint powers authorities that compete for state bond funding. State law provides for the joint exercise of powers by public agencies and this is an appropriate governing model for some of the state's conservancies.1 B. The Resources Agency, or its successor, in conjunction with the conservancies and the Departments of Parks and Recreation and Fish and Game, or their successors, should develop a statewide master plan, including strategic guidelines, for land acquisition and resource protection for habitat and recreational purposes. Fiscal Impact Estimated savings assume that legislation becomes effective January 1, 2005. These savings would accrue primarily to the Environmental License Plate Fund,with minor savings from bond funds,which might be freed up for other environmental projects. It is anticipated that the five state conservancies that would be devolved to local joint powers entities would receive state support for only the first half of Fiscal Year 2004-2005, and the state would realize savings of about$1.0 million for the last half of the fiscal year. Beginning in FY 2005-2006 the state would incur savings of about $2.1 million annually. It is anticipated that the costs of developing a statewide master plan would be minor and be absorbed by the Resources Agency. Environmental License Plate Fund and Bond Funds (dollars in thousands) Fiscal Year Savings Costs Net Savings (Costs) Change in PYs 2004-05 $1,041 $0 $1,041 (7.8) 2005-06 $2,082 $0 $2,082 (15.6) 2006-07 $2,082 $0 $2,082 (15.6) 2007-08 $2,082 $0 $2,082 (15.6) 2008-09 $2,082 $0 $2,082 (15.6) Note: the dollars and PYs for each year in the above chart reflect the total change for that year from FY 2003-04 expenditures,revenues and PYs. A Government for the People for a Cliniige 1027 Endnotes ' California Legislative Analyst's Office, "California's Land Conservahma Efforts:The Role of State Conservancies" (Sacramento,California,January 5,2001),p. 8. 2 Memorandum from Department of Finance to California Performance Review, Sacramento,California(March 10, 2004). 3 California Governor's Budget for Fiscal Year 2004-05;Public Resources Code Sections 825 et seq.,and Sections 500 el seq. Memorandum from Deportment of Finance to California Pei formance Review,Sacramento,California (Mardi 10,2004). Memorandum from Department of Finance to Colifmmm Pei formance Review, Sacramento,California (March 10,2004). L Government Code Section 6500 et seq. 1028 Issaies and Recommendations Summary of Acquisitions Facilitated by Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy BackLyround The Conservancy came into existence in 1991 as a result of 1990 legislation, but the Conservancy did not become an agency within the Resources Agency until 1997. Prior to 1997, the Conservancy received no state funds for either support or capital outlay. Beginning in 1997, the Conservancy has received a portion of its support budget from the state, and a portion through reimbursements from local sources. The Conservancy received its first capital outlay funds from Proposition 12 in 2000, in the amount of$5 million. The Conservancy received$20 million from Proposition 40, the 2002 bond measure. Prior to receiving bond funds, the Conservancy's acquisition program relied on: ➢ Grants it was able to obtain from such sources as the Environmental Enhancement Mitigation program(EEM) and the Transportation Efficiency Act (TEA). Grants were further leveraged by obtaining local matching funds and participation by other entities in partnership acquisitions. ➢ Helping to secure funds for agencies represented on its Governing Board, such as by assisting the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service in obtaining Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations, preparing Conceptual Area Acquisition Plans for CDFG, and writing grants on behalf of local agencies from sources such as EEM and the Habitat Conservation Fund. The Conservancy also facilitated many of the acquisitions by these agencies by identifying willing sellers, obtaining appraisals, acquiring options to purchase lands and assigning the right to purchase to one of these agencies, facilitating land exchanges, and other such means. ➢ Obtain land donations. ➢ Writing grants on behalf of nonprofit organizations from such sources as EEM and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. ➢ Fundraising efforts, such as the Adopt an Acre program to obtain private contributions for acquisitions. Since receiving state bond funds for its acquisition program, the Conservancy has continued to utilize all the above approaches, has made numerous grants to non-profit organizations and local agencies, assembled various multi entity acquisition partnerships, and has been successful in assisting non-profit organizations to obtain grants from new sources, such as the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation. Summary of Conservancy Acquisitions and Facilitated Acquisitions Direct Acquisitions (Title vested in State of California acting by and through the Conservancy. To minimize management costs to the state, the Conservancy takes title only when absolutely necessary.) 3,950 acres Acquired with grant funds and local matching funds, donations, and Proposition 12 funds. Partnership Acquisitions (Multi entity funding partnerships, title vested in another entity, but some of the funding contributed by the Conservancy) 14,381 acres Conservancy contributed highly-leveraged grant funds, Proposition 12, and Proposition 40 funds to acquisitions; bulk of the funding came from partners who also took title. Acquisition Grants to Other Entities(Acquisitions funded by Proposition 12 and 40 grant funds) 6,616 acres Grants with Prop 12 funds 2,058 acres Grants with Prop 40 funds (to date) Facilitated Acquisitions (Acquisitions involving no Conservancy funds, but Conservancy facilitated the acquisition through one or more of the following: helping the acquiring entity secure funds, working with the landowner, having the property appraised, or securing and assigning options to purchase) 18,149 acres Entities whose acquisitions were facilitated by the Conservancy include Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, Wildlife Conservation Board, Center for Natural Lands Management, Wildlands Conservancy, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, City of Palm Desert, and the Friends of the Desert Mountains. Conclusion The Conservancy has received $25 million in bond finds from the state for its acquisition program. The Conservancy has expended approximately $17.5 million of those funds through August 2004. The total acreage of land acquired directly by the Conservancy, through partnership acquisitions, with grants from the Conservancy, or in transactions facilitated by the Conservancy is approximately 45,154 acres. The total value of this acreage is at least $59,000,000. Thus, Conservancy funds expended have been leveraged at a ratio of about 2.4:1. Of the approximately $41,500,000 in leveraged funds, approximately $12,000,000 came from other state agencies (WCB and DPR). The balance came from local, federal and tribal agencies, non-profit organizations, and private donors. City of Palm Springs a`I` Ron Oden, Mayor 3200 E.Tahquirz nyoa Way • Palm Springs, California 92262 Tel: (760)323-8200 .x: 7 23-8282 Web: www.ctpalm-springs.ca.us October 7, 2004 Mr. Billy C. Hamilton Mr. Chon Gutierrez Co-Executive Directors California Performance Review Commission 1102 Q Street, 6" Floor Sacramento, CA 95824 RE: CALIFORNIA PERFORMANCE REVIEW REPORT - COACHELLA VALLEY MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY, VOL. IV, CHAPTER 5, RES 12: RESTRUCTURE FUNDING AND GOVERNANCE FOR CERTAIN LAND CONSERVANCIES Dear Messrs. Hamilton and Gutierrez: I am writing to inform you that on October 6, 2004, the Palm Springs City Council voted unanimously to oppose the California Performance Review Report recommendations regarding the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy (the Conservancy). We appreciate the Commission's goal of evaluating our state's methods of governance and feel that there will be many areas where change is warranted. However, in the case of the Conservancy, we believe it should be heralded as an example of a "successful partnership between the state, federal, county, and cities." One of the issues raised in the Report is whether conservancies represent land assets of statewide interest that benefit all Californians. The lands within the conservancies' boundaries clearly represent not only statewide interest, but certain lands have been identified as national interests: (1) Santa Rose and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument (2) Mount San Jacinto Wilderness State Park (3) University of California Deep Canyon Research Center (4) Four (4) state ecological preserves (5) Portions of the Salton Sea (6) Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Preserves (7) Five (5) federal wilderness areas (8) Five (5) areas of critical environmental concerns In addition to assisting with land acquisition, the Conservancy is under contract to prepare the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation (CVMSHC) and the Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP). This Plan will set in place a comprehensive acquisition and management strategy for all nine (9) cities, Riverside County, and regional entities. This Plan is being prepared to meet the statewide goal of preparing comprehensive and cohesive land (� r ! kow Post Office Box 2743 0 Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 California Performance Review Commission October 7, 2004 Page 2 of 2 conservation plans. The Coachella Valley is habitat to twelve (12) state and federally listed threatened or endangered species plus nine(9)California Species of Special Concerns. With the exception of the Conservancy,the state does not assist cities in dealing with the state endangered species act. The Conservancy is a model for establishing and improving partnerships between state and local government. In this case, the Conservancies' Governing Board is clearly a partnership with a strong state representation to ensure that state-level officials are looking out for and maintaining accountability for the expenditure of state funds. The Board includes the Secretary of the Resources Agency, Director of Finance, Director of Fish and Game, Executive Director of the Wildlife Conservation Board, and the Director of Parks and Recreation. The state's representatives, combined with nine (9) local and three (3) federal representatives, create an outstanding Board that represents state, local, and federal interests. More importantly, this Governing Board has acquired or assisted in the acquisition of approximately 45,000 acres of land. Lastly, Palm Springs and the Coachella Valley is a world renown tourist destination which attracts 3.5 million visitors annually. Lands acquired for resource protection and recreation will be very important as tourism expands in the future. Clearly, the state must recognize the statewide interest and significance of tourism. The City Council strongly believes the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy should be used as a model for governmental and private partnerships. Eliminating the Conservancy at the state level will not result in increased efficiency. Savings are estimated at$300,000. The City Council believes this is a minor investment in a Conservancy that provides a tremendous benefit to the citizens of this state. Consolidating statewide resources and eliminating such a strong partnership between local, state, federal, and tribal governments does not seem to be in California's best interest. Sincerely, Mayor Ron Oden RO'DRE.Idm CaI Performance Review Comm 10.05.04 cc: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Senator Denise Moreno Ducheny Senator Jim Battin Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia Assemblyman John Benoit Michael Chrisman, Secretary for Resources Conrad Negron, CVAG Chair CVAG Executive Committee MINUTE ORDER NO. AUTHORIZING THE CITY COUNCIL TO OPPOSE THE CALIFORNIA PERFORMANCE REVIEW REPORT RECOMMENDING THAT THE COACHELLA VALLEY MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY BECOME A LOCAL JOINT POWER AUTHORITY. I HEREBY CERTIFY that this Minute Order authorizing the Mayorand City Council to oppose the California Performance Review Report recommending that the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy become a local joint power authority was adopted by the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, in a meeting thereof held on the 61h day of October, 2004. PATRICIA A. SANDERS City Clerk 17b �' 'aw