The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About20200624 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 20-13 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Wednesday, June 24, 2020 Special Meeting starts at 5:00 PM* Regular Meeting at 7:00 PM* A G E N D A Consistent with Governor Gavin Newsom's Executive Order N-29-20 and the March 16, 2020 Order of the Health Officer of Santa Clara County directing all individuals living in the County to shelter at their place of residence, the Governor has allowed local legislative bodies to hold public meetings via teleconference and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the local legislative body or state body to avoid public gatherings, and has suspended all contrary provisions of the Brown Act. THIS MEETING WILL BE VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY 1. The meeting can be viewed in real-time at: https://openspace.zoom.us/j/89074762199 or listen to the meeting by dialing (669) 900-6833 or (346) 248-7799 (Webinar ID 89074762199). 2. Members of the public may provide written comments by submitting a public comment form at: https://www.openspace.org/public-comment • Comments on matters not on the agenda must be submitted prior to the time the board president calls for public comments. • Comments on agenda items must be submitted prior to the time public comment on the agenda item is closed. • All comments shall be subject to the same rules as would otherwise govern speaker comments at the board of directors meeting. • Electronic comments on agenda may only be submitted via the public comment form. Comments via text or social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) will not be accepted. Any comments received after the deadline, will be provided to the Board after the meeting. 5:00 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT – STUDY SESSION ROLL CALL 1. Benchmark Survey Results (R-20-62) Staff Contact: Korrine Skinner, Manager, Public Affairs Manager General Manager’s Recommendation: Receive a presentation regarding the results of the benchmark survey conducted in January 2020 and insights gained to inform communication and outreach strategies. No Board action required. Meeting 20-13 Rev. 1/3/20 ADJOURNMENT 7:00 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ROLL CALL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the agenda is for members of the public to comment on items not on the agenda; however, the Brown Act (Open Meeting Law) does not allow action by the Board of Directors on items not on the agenda. Individuals are limited to one comment during this section. ADOPTION OF AGENDA CONSENT CALENDAR All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved without discussion by one motion. Board members, the General Manager, and members of the public may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar during consideration of the Consent Calendar. 1. Approve June 10, 2020 Minutes 2. Claims Report 3. Approval of a Commemorative Bench for State Senator Jim Beall at El Sereno Open Space Preserve (R-20-63) Staff Contact: Joshua Hugg, Governmental Affairs Specialist General Manager’s Recommendation: Approve the recommendation from the Legislative, Funding and Public Affairs Committee to install a commemorative bench and plaque in honor of significant supporter State Senator Jim Beall with a view over the Lexington Vista at El Sereno Open Space Preserve. 4. Partnership with the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District for Invasive Plant Early Detection and Rapid Response (R-20-67) Staff Contact: Tom Reyes, IPM Coordinator, Natural Resources General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into a three-year agreement with the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District to perform education and outreach activities and limited invasive non-native plant treatment, for a total amount not-to-exceed $210,000 ($70,000 per year). 5. Annual Review of Finance Policies for Fiscal Year 2021 (R-20-64) Staff Contact: Andrew Taylor, Finance Manager and Disclosure Coordinator General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Affirm Board Policies 3.08 - Statement of Investment, and 3.09 - Debt Management Policy. 2. Approve two minor amendments to Board Policy 3.06 – Initial and Continuing Disclosures Relating to Bond Issuances relating to reporting events of the Continuing Disclosure Policy. 6. Authorization to contribute a $1.5 Million payment of the Fiscal Year 2019-20 budget savings to the Section 115 Trust administered by Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) (R-20- 65) Rev. 1/3/20 Staff Contact: Andrew Taylor, Finance Manager and Disclosure Coordinator General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to deposit $1.5 Million into the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s PARS account established under a Section 115 Trust to pre-fund pension obligations. PUBLIC HEARING/BOARD BUSINESS Public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. Written public comments will be provided to the Board prior to the meeting and posted on the District’s website at www.openspace.org. All written comments submitted in accordance with the guidance posted on the District’s website will be read into the record. 7. Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget and Capital Improvement and Action Plan (R-20-68) Staff Contact: Stefan Jaskulak, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Administrative Services General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Adopt a Resolution approving the Fiscal Year 2020-21 (FY21) Budget and Capital Improvement and Action Plan. 2. Adopt a Resolution approving the Classification and Compensation Plan for Fiscal Year 2020- 21. INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM • Updates regarding the administrative historic resources procedural guide, historic resources database, and historic resources training program INFORMATIONAL REPORTS – Reports on compensable meetings attended. Brief reports or announcements concerning activities of District Directors and staff; opportunity to refer public or Board questions to staff for information; request staff to report to the Board on a matter at a future meeting; or direct staff to place a matter on a future agenda. Items in this category are for discussion and direction to staff only. No final policy action will be taken by the Board. A. Committee Reports B. Staff Reports C. Director Reports ADJOURNMENT *Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to change of order. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the District Clerk at (650) 691-1200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Written materials relating to an item on this Agenda that are considered to be a public record and are distributed to Board members less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, will be available for public inspection at the District’s Administrative Office located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022. CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA I, Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that the foregoing agenda for the special meetings of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for Rev. 1/3/20 review on June 18, 2020, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos California, 94022. The agenda and any additional written materials are also available on the District’s web site at http://www.openspace.org. Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk Rev. 1/3/18 R-20-62 Meeting 20-13 June 24, 2020 SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA ITEM 1 AGENDA ITEM Results of a Benchmark Survey to Understand Public Awareness and Values as they relate to the Mission and Goals of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Receive a presentation regarding the results of the benchmark survey conducted in January 2020 and insights gained to inform ongoing work, including outreach, education, and communications strategies. No Board action required. SUMMARY The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District, Midpen) contracted with Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) to survey District residents and assess their awareness of and regard for the agency, its mission and goals. The study found that residents who are familiar with Midpen view the agency favorably, and that local residents frequently walk or spend time in nature at Midpen open space preserves. As residents learn more, their impressions of Midpen becomes more favorable. Among many broadly shared conservation priorities, residents especially value the protection of water, natural areas and redwood forests. BACKGROUND As part of the Districtwide Strategic Communications Plan for improving external communications, Public Affairs staff initiated a benchmark survey to collect baseline data to understand constituent awareness of Midpen and preferences for messaging that will further guide effective communications. The survey instrument was developed with the assistance of FM3, a professional research consultant chosen through a competitive bidding process in September 2019. Midpen’s Board of Directors (Board) reviewed the survey questionnaire at its December 9, 2019, retreat. FM3 surveyed 889 people over age 18 residing within Midpen boundaries between January 9 and January 23, 2020, via live interviews by landline and cell phones, and an online survey. The margin of sampling error is +/-3.5% at the 95% confidence level. Data were weighted to reflect the demographic balance of the adult population residing within the District’s boundaries by age, gender, level of formal education, geography (by ward), and race/ethnicity, based on American Community Service estimates. Full results are included in Attachment 1. R-20-62 Page 2 DISCUSSION Summary of Survey Results The study suggests that of the 58% of residents familiar with Midpen, nearly all view the agency favorably. Although 42% had never heard of Midpen or did not know enough to have an opinion at the start of the survey, as these residents learned more, impressions of Midpen became notably favorable (91%). Nearly half of local residents reported frequently walking (49%) or spending time in nature (46%) in Midpen open space preserves, by far the most popular uses. Among many broadly shared conservation priorities, residents especially value the work of protecting water, natural areas and redwood forests. These and other key findings are illustrated below: • The vast majority of residents with familiarity of Midpen have a favorable view of the agency, in line with other regional organizations involved in land conservation. As shown in Figure 1 below, Midpen compares favorably to regional organizations like the Peninsula Open Space Trust and the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority. Organizations with broader scopes and more identifiable names that include “park” or “recreation” are better understood by the public and elicit much higher favorable ratings. • Nearly half of survey respondents report visiting Midpen preserves at least a few times a month to walk or spend time in nature. Figure 2 shows the frequency of Preserve use. More than two in five say they go “walking or hiking” or “spend time in nature” in Midpen preserves at least a few times a month; of those who visit preserves, more than 80% participate in these activities at least once a year. R-20-62 Page 3 Notably, of those who visit Midpen preserves, 94% say they feel safe outdoors, with 59% saying they feel “very safe.” • Just hearing more about Midpen's mission gives residents a much more favorable view of the agency. Figure 3 shows the description of Midpen provided to residents prior to being asked a second time about their view of the agency. Given this information, nearly nine in ten (88%) take a favorable view of Midpen, and more than half have a “strongly favorable” view (56%). This is an increase of 32 points in the share who have a favorable view overall, and a 19-point increase in the share who have a "strongly favorable" impression. • Residents most value Midpen goals that have to do with water, caring for the natural environment, redwood forests, wildlife, and wildland fire prevention. Across multiple surveys done by many agencies, water quality protection consistently ranks as a top priority. Notably, every goal listed was listed as “extremely” or “very important” by a majority of residents. Figure 4 below shows goals considered "extremely important" by majorities of residents, indicating more-intense feelings. R-20-62 Page 4 Figure 4: Midpen Goals Next, I am going to read you a list of goals Midpen has set for itself. For each goal, please tell me if you think it is extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. • Given the choice, residents overwhelmingly value low-intensity preserves with minimal facilities over preserves that offer more visitor amenities and infrastructure. Figure 5 below shows that residents prefer preserves that prioritize wildlife habitat and low- impact, leave-no-trace use over those that offer multiple visitor amenities by a 50-point margin. R-20-62 Page 5 • A number of messaging themes about Midpen’s work resonate broadly, especially themes focused on fire, climate change, wildlife, water, and public health. The study tested several statements about Midpen’s work and asked residents whether each gave them a more favorable view of the organization. Again, all themes resonated with a majority of residents, with 59% to 88% saying the statements made them view Midpen “much more favorably” or “somewhat more favorably.” o Two highly persuasive themes that generate large increases in favorability relate to preparing for and responding to wildland fires (increases favorability for 88% of respondents) and climate change (more favorable for 83%). More than half (52%) said they have a “much more favorable” and 36% a “somewhat more favorable” view of Midpen after learning more about its role preparing for and responding to wildland fire danger. Midpen is working with fire agencies and surrounding communities to strengthen prevention and preparation in case of wildland fires. This includes maintaining hundreds of miles of fire roads. Midpen is also using conservation grazing to reduce flammable brush within grassland habitats, limiting the risk of fire, or fire intensity if it does occur. o While the climate-focused message inspired less intensity (39% much more favorable), the positive reaction to it was quite broad, with 44% saying it gave them a “somewhat more favorable” view of Midpen. Smart investments made before a disaster strikes can help protect a community’s quality of life, save lives, and reduce the cost to taxpayers. Midpen is taking a proactive, practical approach to stewardship of public lands, helping ensure San Mateo and Santa Clara counties are resilient as the climate changes. o Water and wildlife are equally important themes (80% of respondents say both themes increase favorability). Water quality ranks high on many environmental issues and attitude surveys. Here, nearly half (49%) say they have a “much more favorable view” of Midpen once they hear about how Midpen preserves protect water supplies and prevent water pollution, and another 31% have a “somewhat more favorable” view. Nothing is more important than clean drinking water. By protecting and restoring areas around sources of water, Midpen increases access to water and naturally prevents the pollution of our water. o Similarly, nearly half (49%) say they have a “much more favorable view” of Midpen once they hear about how Midpen’s work to restore natural areas to protect wildlife habitat and biodiversity protection, and another 31% have a “somewhat more favorable” view. By restoring and protecting natural areas, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is protecting wildlife habitats and California’s unique biodiversity. o When it comes to the benefits of Midpen preserves for people, opportunities for recreation that improve public health resonated with 78% (50% “much more favorable;” 28% “somewhat more favorable”). Open space preserves and natural areas provide spaces where families and children can safely walk, run, and bicycle – improving the physical health of residents, reducing obesity, and reducing healthcare costs. These areas are open 365 days a year, sunrise to sunset, to anyone, and for free. R-20-62 Page 6 Survey results were analyzed by geography, both by ward (see Attachments 2 through 8) and by Coastside Protection Area (Attachment 9) compared to the rest of the District (Attachment 10). Note that due to the low sample size (113 respondents), the margin of error on the Coastside is 9.3% at a 95% confidence level. Coastside Protection Area residents were more likely to be aware of (73% compared to 55% for non-Coastside) and have a favorable impression (67% compared to 54%) of Midpen. Coastal residents were slightly more likely to say the preservation of open space/environmental protection was the reason for their favorable impression (49% compared to 36%). The top three issues were the same throughout the District, though traffic ranked as the top issue on the Coast, with 87% reporting it as a very or extremely serious problem (compared to 73% of non-Coastsiders). Coastsiders were also significantly more likely to rate loss of wildlife habitat (64% compared to 50%) and loss of natural areas to development (60% compared to 47%) as a very or extremely serious problem, as well as loss of wild areas. Water pollution was a significantly bigger concern to Coastsiders (56% compared to 38%). The groups did not differ in how they rated the amount paid in local taxes: 32% of each group ranked taxes as a very or extremely serious problem. In terms of Midpen goals, two elicited significantly different responses between the two groups. The percentage of respondents who rated providing regional hiking trails as a very or extremely important goal was 25 points higher on the Coast. Similarly, the percentage of people rating partnering with Native American tribes as a very or extremely important goal was 19 points higher on the Coast. Coastsiders were more likely to rate all of the six components of Midpen’s two missions as important (41% compared to 15%). Three messaging themes resonated significantly differently between the two groups. Coastsiders were less likely to say that educational programming gave them a more favorable view of Midpen by 15 points. They were more likely to say that protecting sustainable agricultural ranchlands increased their favorability by 12 points, though they were less likely to say that preserving agricultural history gave them a more favorable view by 11 points. Implications for Communications This benchmark survey was designed to capture a starting point from which to measure the impact of strategic communications designed to increase awareness by and connect with Midpen residents. As a snapshot in time, it is a useful tool for understanding public concerns and perceptions and for planning communications to inform the public’s understanding of Midpen’s purpose and work. Key takeaways include: 1. Invest in strategies to increase awareness Recognizing that as residents learn more about Midpen, their impression becomes more favorable, the most important communications objective is to increase reach and frequency to therefore increase awareness. The FY21 communications work plan contains several projects designed to accomplish this objective, including: • Increase reach of Open Space Views quarterly newsletter via newspaper insertions and distribution through municipal partners to introduce Midpen to a broader audience. R-20-62 Page 7 • Review signboard messaging opportunities to better connect with preserve users. • Expand outreach to television and radio media outlets. 2. Consider target audience opportunities As a public agency, Midpen’s target audience is our entire constituency. However, the survey indicates that residents under 50 are much less likely to know enough to rate Midpen, and residents under 40 are especially likely to admit they have never heard of Midpen. This younger audience also overlaps with communities of color, newcomers to the area, and young families. Targeting introductory messaging to audiences under 40 is the richest, broadest opportunity to increase awareness. • Significantly increase the use of social media to spread the word of Midpen’s missions and activities among younger audiences. Notably, the COVID-19 pandemic jumpstarted our plans to increase our virtual connections to our community. • Continue to expand our community outreach through presentations and tabling opportunities to reach strategically targeted communities. • Continue to expand sponsorships and advertising to reach strategically targeted communities, as budget permits. • Add focus on ethnic media to media relations program to reach broader audiences. 3. Elevate key messaging themes As Midpen messaging continues to evolve, staff will consider to the following opportunities: • While three core elements of the mission (protecting open space, restoring habitats and connecting people to nature through low-impact recreation) continue to resonate with resident values, explore ways to increase understanding of the lesser known mission to preserve rural character and encourage viable agricultural land uses on the San Mateo County Coast, particularly to non-Coastside audiences.  There is little evidence to suggest that residents see a tension between preservation and recreation or agriculture, indicating there is likely room for messaging that educates residents on the role of agriculture in conservation and the preservation of open space. • Continue to communicate the success of Midpen’s preservation and protection efforts (nearly 65,000 acres) as a foundational principle. • Continue to ensure communications focus on the “why” by explaining the outcomes of Midpen actions to increase understanding of more nuanced or Midpen-specific messaging. • Embrace our low-impact identity to solidify Midpen’s role as an alternative to more urban parks and to encourage responsible, “leave no trace” recreation, particularly among younger residents who prioritize habitat. • Beyond the mission, the best message themes for broad connection focus on wildfire prevention efforts, climate change, wildlife, water quality protection and public health, yet all message themes resonate strongly. R-20-62 Page 8 • Continue to remind residents of the connection between open space and quality of life. Again, the pandemic offered an opportunity further emphasize the role of nature and open spaces to our well-being. • Continue to connect Midpen’s work to climate change resiliency to connect with broad audiences. • Continue to educate residents on how, in addition to preserving land from development, a greenbelt provides connected corridors for wildlife habitat, themes that resonate broadly. • Continue to emphasize low-impact uses of walking and hiking for general communications, as these are the most common uses and residents overwhelming value “preserve” ethics over more “park”-like amenities. 4. Match message to audience The study showed that certain communications themes present an opportunity to connect with values when focusing on specific audiences. For example: • Highlighting air and water pollution represent an opportunity to connect with Latino communities. • Highlighting outdoor recreation represents an opportunity to connect with men under 50. • Highlighting wildlife habitat, caring for the land, and offering experiences to underserved communities represent an opportunity to connect with women. • Highlighting regional trails and Native American partnerships may represent an opportunity to connect more deeply with residents within the Coastside Protection Area. • Targeted outreach in wards 3 5, 6 and 7 may represent an opportunity to bolster awareness and support of Midpen. Future research will be needed to measure the success of these efforts and may also be an opportunity to further test messaging, such as word choice preferences. The General Manager invites Board members to set individual meetings with the Public Affairs Manager to review Ward-specific results and explore opportunities to become engaged more deeply in Ward-specific communications. FISCAL IMPACT Receipt of this presentation has no fiscal impact. Public affairs communications, outreach and plans that will be informed by the survey results are included in proposed Fiscal Year 2020-21 budget that the Board is considering adopting on June 24, 2020. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW This item was not previously reviewed by Committee. R-20-62 Page 9 PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. NEXT STEPS Results of this initial benchmark study will be used to inform Midpen communications planning. A similar attitudinal and awareness study is planned for Fiscal Year 2022-23, budget permitting, to test the efficacy of communications strategies and messaging. Thereafter, it is recommended to repeat a similar survey as constituency changes and messaging evolves, presumably every three years, budget permitting. Attachment(s) 1. Full survey results 2. Survey results – District Ward1 3. Survey results - District Ward 2 4. Survey results - District Ward 3 5. Survey results - District Ward 4 6. Survey results - District Ward 5 7. Survey results - District Ward 6 8. Survey results - District Ward 7 9. Survey results – Coastside Protection Area 10. Survey results – Bayside Responsible Department Head: Korrine Skinner, Public Affairs Prepared by: Korrine Skinner, Public Affairs Manager Charts prepared by: Miranda Everitt, Consultant, FM3 JANUARY 9-23, 2020 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 320-876-WT N=889 MARGIN OF SAMPLING ERROR ±3.5% (95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL) A/B SPLIT Hello, I'm ________ from______, a public opinion research company. I am not trying to sell you anything. We're conducting a survey about issues that concern residents in your area. May I speak with the person at home over 18 who most recently celebrated a birthday? A.Before we begin, I need to know if I have reached you on a cell phone, and if so, are you in a place where you can talk safely without endangering yourself or others? Yes, cell and can talk safely ------------------------------- 78% Yes, cell but cannot talk safely --------------- TERMINATE No, not on cell ----------------------------------------------- 22% (DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ------- TERMINATE B.My next questions are to ensure that we are interviewing a representative group of residents in your area. What is your age? Under 18 ----------------------- TERMINATE 18-24 ----------------------------------------- 14% 25-29 ------------------------------------------ 5% 30-34 ------------------------------------------ 9% 35-39 ----------------------------------------- 10% 40-44 ------------------------------------------ 8% 45-49 ----------------------------------------- 11% 50-54 ------------------------------------------ 7% 55-59 ------------------------------------------ 8% 60-64 ----------------------------------------- 10% 65-69 ------------------------------------------ 6% 70-74 ------------------------------------------ 4% 75+ ------------------------------------------- 6% (DK/REFUSED) --------------------------- 2% C.With which racial or ethnic group do you identify yourself: Hispanic or Latino; African American or Black; Caucasian or White; Asian or Pacific Islander; multiracial; or some other ethnic or racial background? Latino/Hispanic ----------------------------- 9% African American/Black ------------------- 1% Caucasian/White --------------------------- 57% Asian/Pacific Islander --------------------- 20% Multiracial ----------------------------------- 4% (OTHER) ------------------------------------ 2% (DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED -- 7% Attachment 1_Results_Benchmark_Survey FM3 RESEARCH 320-876-WT PAGE 2 D. Are you registered to vote? (IF YES, ASK: “With which party are you registered to vote: Democratic, Republican, another party, or with no party preference?”) No, not registered -------------------------- 4% Democratic ---------------------------------- 51% Republican ---------------------------------- 10% No Party Preference ----------------------- 24% Another party -------------------------------- 6% (DON'T KNOW/NA) --------------------- 6% 1. OK, let’s begin. First, how would you rate your community as a place to live? Is it … (READ LIST)? EXCELLENT/GOOD ------------------- 86% Excellent------------------------------------- 39% Good ----------------------------------------- 47% FAIR/POOR ------------------------------- 13% Fair ------------------------------------------- 10% Poor ------------------------------------------- 3% (DON'T KNOW/NA) --------------------- 1% 2. Next, I’m going to read you a list of local organizations and public institutions. For each one, I’d like you to tell me if you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion. If you have never heard of one, please just say so. (RANDOMIZE) (CAN’T NEVER STR SMWT SMWT STR RATE HEARD TOTAL TOTAL FAV FAV UNFAV UNFAV /DK) OF FAV UNFAV [ ]a. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ---------------------- 37% ---- 18% ----- 1%------- 1% ------ 9% ------ 33% 56% 2% [ ]b. Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority -------------------- 22% ---- 17% ----- 2%------- 1% ----- 14% ----- 44% 40% 3% [ ]c. Peninsula Open Space Trust ----- 34% ---- 16% ----- 2%------- 1% ----- 10% ----- 37% 49% 4% [ ]d. California State Parks ------------ 62% ---- 29% ----- 2%------- 0% ------ 4% ------ 4% 90% 2% [ ]e. Golden Gate National Recreation Area ------------------- 44% ---- 28% ----- 3%------- 1% ----- 12% ----- 13% 71% 4% (ASK IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY ONLY) [ ]f. Santa Clara County Parks -------- 42% ---- 39% ----- 3%------- 1% ------ 6% ------ 9% 81% 3% (ASK IN SAN MATEO COUNTY ONLY) [ ]g. San Mateo County Parks --------- 41% ---- 40% ----- 4%------- 0% ----- 12% ----- 3% 81% 4% Attachment 1_Results_Benchmark_Survey FM3 RESEARCH 320-876-WT PAGE 3 (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 3. I’m going to read you some issues that some people say may be problems in your area. After I read each one, please tell me whether you think each is a problem or not. (IF YES, PROBLEM, ASK: “Do you think it is an extremely, very, or somewhat serious problem?”) (RANDOMIZE) EXT VERY SMWT NOT SER SER SER A (DK/ EXT/ PROB PROB PROB PROB NA) VERY [ ]a. The quality of local natural lands and open space -------------------------------------------------------- 11% ----- 14% ---- 28% ----- 41% ------ 6% 25% [ ]b. Traffic congestion ---------------------------------------- 45% ----- 29% ---- 19% ----- 5% ------ 2% 74% [ ]c. Loss of natural areas to development ----------------- 23% ----- 26% ---- 29% ----- 18% ------ 4% 49% [ ]d. Fire risk ---------------------------------------------------- 25% ----- 24% ---- 28% ----- 20% ------ 3% 49% [ ]e. Water pollution ------------------------------------------- 18% ----- 22% ---- 28% ----- 24% ------ 7% 41% [ ]f. Air pollution ----------------------------------------------- 21% ----- 23% ---- 32% ----- 21% ------ 4% 44% [ ]g. Loss of wildlife habitat ---------------------------------- 28% ----- 24% ---- 29% ----- 15% ------ 4% 52% [ ]h. A lack of affordable housing --------------------------- 56% ----- 25% ---- 10% ----- 7% ------ 1% 81% [ ]i. Climate change ------------------------------------------- 53% ----- 17% ---- 14% ----- 13% ------ 3% 70% [ ]j. The amount you pay in local taxes -------------------- 16% ----- 16% ---- 26% ----- 34% ------ 7% 32% Attachment 1_Results_Benchmark_Survey FM3 RESEARCH 320-876-WT PAGE 4 NOW I’D LIKE TO ASK YOU A FEW MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT. (ASK Q4 ONLY IF CODES 1-4 IN Q2A) 4. You mentioned a few moments ago that you have a FAVORABLE / UNFAVORABLE opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. In a few words of your own, could you tell me why? (OPEN-ENDED; RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE BELOW. PROBE FOR VERY SPECIFIC RESPONSES) a. Favorable, N=495: Preservation of open space/environmental protection -------------------------------------- 38% Support their mission/efforts ------------------------------------------------------------------- 33% Good option for recreation/exercise ---------------------------------------------------------- 24% Trails/facilities are well maintained ----------------------------------------------------------- 16% I use trails regularly ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 13% Easily accessible to the public ------------------------------------------------------------------ 10% Enjoy nature’s beauty/beautiful views --------------------------------------------------------- 7% Preservation of wildlife/habitat ----------------------------------------------------------------- 7% General favorable statement --------------------------------------------------------------------- 4% Mixed feelings ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3% Dog friendly ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% Watershed protection ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0% Need more information --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0% Other ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% Don’t know ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% Refused ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% b. Unfavorable, N=21: Poor leadership/management -------------------------------------------------------------------- 37% Not enough transparency/misused revenue --------------------------------------------------- 36% They take over too much land ------------------------------------------------------------------ 26% More important issues ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12% Too many limitations ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9% General unfavorable statement ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% Other ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10% Attachment 1_Results_Benchmark_Survey FM3 RESEARCH 320-876-WT PAGE 5 (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) AS YOU MAY KNOW, THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, OFTEN KNOWN AS “MIDPEN,” IS AN INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT PRIMARILY IN SANTA CLARA AND SAN MATEO COUNTIES THAT HAS PRESERVED A REGIONAL GREENBELT OF NEARLY 65 THOUSAND ACRES OF PUBLIC LAND AND MANAGES 26 OPEN SPACE PRESERVES. ITS MISSION IS TO ACQUIRE AND PERMANENTLY PRESERVE OPEN SPACE LAND, PROTECT AND RESTORE THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, AND PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE PUBLIC ENJOYMENT AND EDUCATION. ON THE COAST, ITS MISSION INCLUDES PRESERVING RURAL CHARACTER AND ENCOURAGING VIABLE AGRICULTURAL USE OF LAND. 5. Having heard this, let me ask you again: would you say you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District? TOTAL FAVORABLE ------------------ 88% Strongly favorable ------------------------- 56% Somewhat favorable ----------------------- 32% TOTAL UNFAVORABLE -------------- 5% Somewhat unfavorable --------------------- 3% Strongly unfavorable ----------------------- 2% (DON'T READ) DK/NA ----------------- 7% 6. Next, I am going to read you a list of goals Midpen has set for itself. For each goal, please tell me if you think it is extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. (RANDOMIZE) EXT VERY SMWT NOT TOO (DK/ EXT/ IMP IMP IMP IMP NA) VERY (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]a. Preserving a regional greenbelt of open space land forever ----------------------------------------------- 50% ----- 29% ---- 15% ----- 5% ------ 1% 79% [ ]b. Protecting natural areas --------------------------------- 55% ----- 32% ---- 13% ----- 1% ------ 1% 86% [ ]c. Providing opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education ------------ 37% ----- 36% ---- 20% ----- 5% ------ 1% 73% [ ]d. Restoring native plant and wildlife habitat ----------- 39% ----- 35% ---- 19% ----- 6% ------ 1% 75% [ ]e. Providing multiuse trails for hiking, biking, and equestrian use ---------------------------------------- 29% ----- 37% ---- 31% ----- 3% ------ 0% 66% [ ]f. Stewarding public lands to be resilient in the face of climate change ----------------------------------- 47% ----- 28% ---- 14% ----- 8% ------ 4% 75% [ ]g. Supporting local agriculture along the San Mateo County coast -------------------------------------- 28% ----- 34% ---- 27% ----- 10% ------ 1% 62% [ ]h. Preserving the character of rural areas, such as the Santa Cruz Mountains or the San Mateo County Coast ------------------------------------- 35% ----- 26% ---- 29% ----- 8% ------ 1% 61% Attachment 1_Results_Benchmark_Survey FM3 RESEARCH 320-876-WT PAGE 6 EXT VERY SMWT NOT TOO (DK/ EXT/ IMP IMP IMP IMP NA) VERY (SPLIT SAMPLE A CONTINUED) [ ]i. Partnering with local organizations to promote a regional environmental vision ------------ 32% ----- 36% ---- 24% ----- 7% ------ 2% 68% [ ]j. Connecting regional trails ------------------------------- 20% ----- 35% ---- 33% ----- 9% ------ 3% 55% [ ]k. Caring for the ecosystem to help native plants and wildlife survive -------------------------------------- 51% ----- 35% ---- 10% ----- 3% ------ 1% 86% [ ]l. Reducing dead and downed vegetation for wildland fire prevention --------------------------------- 51% ----- 35% ---- 11% ----- 2% ------ 1% 86% [ ]m. Preserving undeveloped coastal open space and agricultural lands ------------------------------------ 46% ----- 29% ---- 19% ----- 4% ------ 1% 76% [ ]n. Assessing historical significance of structures on open space lands -------------------------------------- 19% ----- 32% ---- 30% ----- 17% ------ 1% 51% [ ]o. Promoting safe wildlife corridors and trail crossings across Highway 17 --------------------------- 34% ----- 34% ---- 19% ----- 6% ------ 6% 68% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]p. Protecting the ridgetops, hillsides and creeks that create our region’s striking natural beauty ----- 48% ----- 27% ---- 22% ----- 3% ------ 0% 75% [ ]q. Protecting and restoring the natural environment ----------------------------------------------- 54% ----- 30% ---- 14% ----- 2% ------ 0% 84% [ ]r. Protecting San Mateo and Santa Clara counties’ agricultural, natural resource, and open space lands for future generations -------------- 53% ----- 24% ---- 20% ----- 2% ------ 1% 77% [ ]s. Creating opportunities for outdoor recreation ------- 30% ----- 35% ---- 30% ----- 4% ------ 1% 65% [ ]t. Preserving diverse habitat for wildlife ---------------- 51% ----- 30% ---- 18% ----- 1% ------ 0% 80% [ ]u. Providing regional hiking trails ------------------------ 29% ----- 31% ---- 34% ----- 4% ------ 2% 60% [ ]v. Restoring public lands to be resilient in the face of climate change ----------------------------------- 46% ----- 31% ---- 15% ----- 5% ------ 2% 77% [ ]w. Connecting kids to nature ------------------------------- 41% ----- 35% ---- 23% ----- 1% ------ 0% 76% [ ]x. Protecting the waterways and natural lands that maintain water quality and supply --------------- 66% ----- 24% ----- 9% ------ 1% ------ 1% 90% [ ]y. Managing redwood forests ------------------------------ 55% ----- 28% ---- 13% ----- 1% ------ 2% 84% [ ]z. Protecting San Mateo and Santa Clara counties’ agricultural, natural resource, and open space lands ------------------------------------------ 42% ----- 28% ---- 24% ----- 4% ------ 1% 70% [ ]aa. Protecting coastal grasslands --------------------------- 42% ----- 31% ---- 22% ----- 3% ------ 2% 73% [ ]bb. Improving access for individuals with disabilities at local preserves --------------------------- 26% ----- 35% ---- 30% ----- 7% ------ 1% 62% [ ]cc. Partnering with Native American tribes to relearn and reapply indigenous plant restoration techniques ------------------------------------ 31% ----- 26% ---- 28% ----- 13% ------ 3% 57% [ ]dd. Removing invasive species to restore native plant and wildlife habitat -------------------------------- 35% ----- 33% ---- 21% ----- 5% ------ 6% 68% Attachment 1_Results_Benchmark_Survey FM3 RESEARCH 320-876-WT PAGE 7 (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 7. And which of these six components of the Midpen mission do you think is most important to you? (RE-READ AND RANDOMIZE LIST IF NECESSARY) [ ] Acquiring and preserving a regional greenbelt ------------------------------------------ 18% [ ] Restoring the natural environment --------------------------------------------------------- 18% [ ] Providing opportunities for ecologically sensitive public recreation ---------------- 14% [ ] Educating the public about conservation and nature ------------------------------------ 18% [ ] Preserving rural character -------------------------------------------------------------------- 4% [ ] Encouraging viable agricultural land use -------------------------------------------------- 4% (DON'T READ) All ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18% (DON'T READ) None --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% (DON'T READ) Other (SPECIFY) ----------------------------------------------------------- 4% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/Refused ------------------------------------------------------------- 2% 8. Stepping back for a moment, I’d like to read you two statements about Midpen preserves. I’d like you to tell me which comes closer to your opinion, even if neither is exactly right. (ROTATE) [ ] I prefer preserves that provide multiple visitor amenities, such as water bottle refilling stations, restrooms, and picnic areas ------------------------------- 22% OR [ ] I prefer preserves that put a high priority on wildlife habitat restoration and protection, with only low-impact trails that encourage users to leave no trace -------- 72% (DON’T READ) (BOTH) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% (NEITHER) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% (DON'T KNOW/NA) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4% Attachment 1_Results_Benchmark_Survey FM3 RESEARCH 320-876-WT PAGE 8 9. Next, I am going to read you a series of statements about the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. For each one, please tell me if it makes you view Midpen much more favorably, somewhat more favorably, or if it makes no difference. (RANDOMIZE) MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV [ ]a. (SPECIAL CHARACTER) People choose to live in the Bay Area because of its scenic beauty and recreational opportunities. The stunning ridge and coastal views and riding, biking, and hiking trails we have in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties are truly unique. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District works to preserve what we love most about living here. ---------------------------- 42% ----- 27% ---- 25% ----- 3% ------ 3% 69% (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]b. (WATER QUALITY) Nothing is more important than clean drinking water. By protecting and restoring areas around sources of water, Midpen increases access to water and naturally prevents the pollution of our water. ------------------------------------------------------- 49% ----- 31% ---- 17% ----- 1% ------ 3% 80% [ ]c. (PARTNERSHIPS) Midpen regularly partners with local nonprofits, the counties, and state and regional park organizations to leverage their resources and connect residents with open space, recreational opportunities, and educational programs. Connecting these public lands supports biodiversity, providing places for local plants and wildlife to thrive. -------- 39% ----- 36% ---- 21% ----- 1% ------ 4% 75% [ ]d. (PUBLIC HEALTH) Open space preserves and natural areas provide spaces where families and children can safely walk, run, and bicycle – improving the physical health of residents, reducing obesity, and reducing healthcare costs. These areas are open 365 days a year, sunrise to sunset, to anyone, and for free. ---------------------------------------------------- 50% ----- 28% ---- 20% ----- 1% ------ 1% 78% [ ]e. (WILDLIFE) By restoring and protecting natural areas, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is protecting wildlife habitats and California’s unique biodiversity. ------- 49% ----- 31% ---- 17% ----- 1% ------ 2% 80% Attachment 1_Results_Benchmark_Survey FM3 RESEARCH 320-876-WT PAGE 9 MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV (SPLIT SAMPLE A CONTINUED) [ ]f. (AG SUSTAINABILITY) San Mateo and Santa Clara counties have rich agricultural and ranching history. That’s why Midpen protects sustainable, working agricultural ranchlands connecting past and future along the scenic coast. ------------------------------------------ 27% ----- 36% ---- 29% ----- 3% ------ 4% 63% [ ]g. (CARING) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is caring for the land to create healthy habitats for plants, animals, and people. ----------------------------------------------------- 46% ----- 30% ---- 18% ----- 2% ------ 3% 77% [ ]h. (UNDERSERVED) Midpen programming connects people to nature through enriched experiences, especially people who are typically less likely to have access to natural areas and open spaces. That includes low- income communities and communities of color. ------------------------------------------------------- 41% ----- 31% ---- 24% ----- 1% ------ 3% 73% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]i. (AG HISTORY) San Mateo and Santa Clara counties have rich agricultural and ranching history. That’s why the Midpeninsula Open Space District preserves historic, agricultural lands close to home along the scenic coast. --------- 23% ----- 37% ---- 27% ----- 7% ------ 7% 60% [ ]j. (RECREATION) Parks and open spaces provide safe places for the community to gather and explore the outdoors. It’s especially important to keep these accessible options for everyone as the cost of living increases. Midpen ensures that San Mateo and Santa Clara County residents have access to well-maintained and beautiful recreation areas. ------------------------------------------------------- 44% ----- 33% ---- 19% ----- 2% ------ 3% 77% [ ]k. (CLIMATE) Smart investments made before a disaster strikes can help protect a community’s quality of life, save lives, and reduce the cost to taxpayers. Midpen is taking a proactive, practical approach to stewardship of public lands, helping ensure San Mateo and Santa Clara counties are resilient as the climate changes. ----------------------- 39% ----- 44% ---- 12% ----- 2% ------ 3% 83% Attachment 1_Results_Benchmark_Survey FM3 RESEARCH 320-876-WT PAGE 10 MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV (SPLIT SAMPLE B CONTINUED) [ ]l. (FIRES) Midpen is working with fire agencies and surrounding communities to strengthen prevention and preparation in case of wildland fires. This includes maintaining hundreds of miles of fire roads. Midpen is also using conservation grazing to reduce flammable brush within grassland habitats, limiting the risk of fire, or fire intensity if it does occur. ------------------------------------------------ 52% ----- 36% ----- 9% ------ 0% ------ 3% 88% [ ]m. (EDUCATION) Midpen programming connects people to nature through enriched experiences, including environmental interpretation, docent-led activities and volunteer opportunities. --------------------------------- 22% ----- 37% ---- 30% ----- 3% ------ 7% 59% [ ]n. (PLACE) Few other conservation organizations protect and restore such a wide variety of unique natural areas: from redwood forests to the Bay and the ocean, from serpentine-soil grasslands to Tafoni sandstone. Our peninsula is unique and Midpen works to protect and restore these places for the wildlife that call it home, and the people who visit and recreate there. -------------- 37% ----- 39% ---- 16% ----- 4% ------ 4% 75% (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 10. Next, having heard this, let me ask you one last time - do you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District? TOTAL FAVORABLE --------------------------- 91% Strongly favorable ---------------------------------- 60% Somewhat favorable -------------------------------- 32% TOTAL UNFAVORABLE ----------------------- 4% Somewhat unfavorable ------------------------------ 3% Strongly unfavorable -------------------------------- 1% (DON'T READ) CAN’T RATE/DK/NA ------- 5% Attachment 1_Results_Benchmark_Survey FM3 RESEARCH 320-876-WT PAGE 11 11. Next, I’m going to read you a list of sources from which people get information about (SPLIT SAMPLE A: local issues in your area) (SPLIT SAMPLE B: parks, open space, and the outdoors). For each, I’d like you to tell me how often you use it to get information about (SPLIT SAMPLE A: local issues in your area) (SPLIT SAMPLE B: parks, open space and the outdoors): frequently, occasionally, rarely, or never. (RANDOMIZE) (DK/ FREQ RRLY FREQ OCCAS RARELY NEVER NA) /OCC /NVR [ ]a. Local television stations ------------------ 12% ----- 24% ----- 16% ---- 46% ------ 3% 36% 61% [ ]b. KQED Radio ------------------------------- 18% ----- 22% ----- 14% ---- 43% ------ 3% 40% 57% [ ]c. Radio stations other than KQED ---------- 8% ----- 18% ----- 20% ---- 51% ------ 3% 26% 71% [ ]d. Information you receive in the mail -------------------------------------------- 6% ----- 30% ----- 24% ---- 36% ------ 3% 36% 60% [ ]e. Facebook ------------------------------------ 13% ----- 19% ----- 18% ---- 48% ------ 2% 32% 65% [ ]f. Twitter ---------------------------------------- 6% ----- 11% ------- 9% ---- 70% ------ 5% 17% 78% [ ]g. Instagram ------------------------------------- 7% ----- 12% ----- 11% ---- 67% ------ 3% 19% 78% [ ]h. Blogs on the Internet ------------------------ 8% ----- 19% ----- 19% ---- 51% ------ 3% 27% 70% [ ]i. The San José Mercury News newspaper ---------------------------------- 10% ----- 18% ----- 20% ---- 50% ------ 2% 28% 70% [ ]j. The San Francisco Chronicle newspaper ------------------------------------ 6% ----- 14% ----- 17% ---- 59% ------ 3% 20% 77% [ ]k. The Half Moon Bay Review newspaper ------------------------------------ 3% ------ 5% ------- 7% ---- 80% ------ 5% 8% 87% [ ]l. The Midpen newsletter and activity guide mailed to your home ------ 6% ----- 13% ----- 12% ---- 63% ------ 6% 19% 76% [ ]m. The Midpen e-newsletter ------------------- 5% ------ 6% ------- 9% ---- 76% ------ 4% 11% 84% [ ]n. Nextdoor ------------------------------------ 11% ----- 22% ----- 14% ---- 49% ------ 4% 33% 64% [ ]o. Midpen’s public meetings ------------------ 1% ------ 3% ----- 10% ---- 82% ------ 4% 4% 92% [ ]p. Midpen’s website, openspace-dot- org --------------------------------------------- 4% ----- 18% ----- 22% ---- 52% ------ 4% 22% 74% Attachment 1_Results_Benchmark_Survey FM3 RESEARCH 320-876-WT PAGE 12 12. Were there any sources of information you use that I didn’t mention? (OPEN END, RECORD VERBATIM) No -------------------------------------------- 59% Word of mouth ----------------------------- 11% Google ---------------------------------------- 5% Internet (general) ---------------------------- 5% Local newspaper ---------------------------- 4% Local newsletter ----------------------------- 2% Local television news ---------------------- 2% National newspaper ------------------------- 1% National news ------------------------------- 1% Community centers ------------------------- 1% You Tube ------------------------------------- 1% Government website ------------------------ 1% Reddit ----------------------------------------- 1% Facebook/social media --------------------- 1% LinkedIn -------------------------------------- 0% News radio ----------------------------------- 0% Saratogian ------------------------------------ 0% Magazines (not specified) ----------------- 0% Library ---------------------------------------- 0% Yelp ------------------------------------------- 0% Maps ------------------------------------------ 0% Personal experience ------------------------ 0% Other ------------------------------------------ 3% Don’t know ---------------------------------- 0% Refused --------------------------------------- 2% Attachment 1_Results_Benchmark_Survey FM3 RESEARCH 320-876-WT PAGE 13 WE'RE JUST ABOUT DONE. I'M ONLY GOING TO ASK YOU A FEW MORE QUESTIONS FOR CLASSIFICATION PURPOSES. 13. First, I’d like you to consider your visits to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District preserves. Please tell me how often you typically visit and use Midpen preserves in this way: about once a week, a few times a month, a few times a year, once a year, or never. (RANDOMIZE) ONCE/ FEW/ FEW/ ONCE/ (DK/ WEEK MO YEAR YEAR NEVER NA) [ ]a. Walking or hiking ------------------------------------- 20% ----- 29% ----- 31% ----- 6% ------ 11% ------ 3% [ ]b. Running or jogging ------------------------------------ 9% ------ 13% ----- 12% ----- 7% ------ 57% ------ 3% [ ]c. Dog walking -------------------------------------------- 10% ----- 8% ----- 10% ----- 4% ------ 65% ------ 3% [ ]d. Horseback riding --------------------------------------- 2% ------ 1% ------ 3% ------ 5% ------ 87% ------ 2% [ ]e. Mountain biking ---------------------------------------- 3% ------ 5% ----- 10% ----- 6% ------ 73% ------ 3% [ ]f. Birdwatching or wildlife viewing -------------------- 5% ------ 10% ----- 19% ---- 11% ----- 52% ------ 4% [ ]g. Spending time in nature ------------------------------ 19% ----- 27% ----- 31% ----- 6% ------ 13% ------ 4% [ ]h. Ranger- or docent-led programs --------------------- 0% ------ 1% ------ 6% ----- 12% ----- 75% ------ 6% [ ]i. Backpack camping ------------------------------------- 0% ------ 2% ----- 11% ---- 11% ----- 72% ------ 5% (ASK IF EVER VISIT FOR ANY REASON – CODE 1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4 IN ANY ITEM IN Q13) 14. Do you feel safe or unsafe outdoors in local nature preserves? (IF SAFE/UNSAFE, ASK: “Is that very or somewhat SAFE/UNSAFE?”) TOTAL SAFE ----------------------------- 94% Very safe ------------------------------------ 59% Somewhat safe ------------------------------ 35% TOTAL UNSAFE ------------------------- 4% Somewhat unsafe---------------------------- 3% Very unsafe ---------------------------------- 1% (DON’T READ) Don’t visit them/NA - 1% (DON'T READ) Don’t know ------------ 0% (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 15. Do you have any children under the age of 19 living at home? Yes ------------------------------------------- 26% No -------------------------------------------- 69% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED -- 4% Attachment 1_Results_Benchmark_Survey FM3 RESEARCH 320-876-WT PAGE 14 16. What was the last level of school you completed? High school graduate or less ------------- 10% Some college -------------------------------- 20% Associate’s Degree ------------------------ 11% College graduate --------------------------- 30% Post-graduate ------------------------------- 26% (DON'T KNOW) -------------------------- 4% 17. Do you work in the technology industry? (IF NO: “Does anyone in your household work in the technology industry?”) Yes, self ------------------------------------- 21% Yes, household ----------------------------- 13% Yes, both ------------------------------------- 8% No -------------------------------------------- 54% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED -- 4% 18. Were you born and raised in Santa Clara or San Mateo counties? (IF NO, ASK: “How long have you lived in San Mateo or Santa Clara Counties?”) Born and raised ---------------------------- 28% Two years or less --------------------------- 6% Three to five years -------------------------- 5% Six to 10 years ------------------------------ 8% 11 to 20 years ------------------------------ 13% 21 to 40 years ------------------------------ 19% More than 40 years ----------------------- 15% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED -- 6% 19. I don’t need to know the exact amount, but please stop me when I read the category that includes the total income for your household before taxes in 2019. Was it: (READ CHOICES BELOW) $30,000 and under ------------------------- 10% $30,001 - $60,000 -------------------------- 9% $60,001 - $90,000 ------------------------- 11% $90,001 - $120,000 ------------------------- 9% $120,001 - $150,000 ----------------------- 9% More than $150,000 ----------------------- 29% (DON'T READ) Refused ---------------- 22% Attachment 1_Results_Benchmark_Survey FM3 RESEARCH 320-876-WT PAGE 15 20. What is your gender? Male ------------------------------------------ 45% Female --------------------------------------- 49% Nonbinary ------------------------------------ 0% Rather not say ------------------------------- 6% THANK AND TERMINATE MODE Phone ------------------------------- 50% Online ------------------------------ 50% DISTRICT WARD 1 - Seimens ------------------------ 17% 2 - Kishimoto ---------------------- 13% 3 - Cyr ------------------------------ 11% 4 - Riffle --------------------------- 14% 5 - Holman------------------------- 14% 6 - Hassett ------------------------- 13% 7 – Kersteen-Tucker ------------- 18% COUNTY San Mateo -------------------------- 38% Santa Clara ------------------------- 62% CITY/TOWN Cupertino -----------------------------5% Los Altos -----------------------------4% Los Gatos ----------------------------6% Menlo Park --------------------------6% Mountain View -------------------- 11% Palo Alto -----------------------------9% Redwood City --------------------- 11% San Carlos ---------------------------4% Saratoga ------------------------------6% Sunnyvale -------------------------- 16% Other -------------------------------- 13% Unincorporated ----------------------9% Attachment 1_Results_Benchmark_Survey JANUARY 9-23, 2020 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 320-876-WT N=151 WARD 1 A/B SPLIT Hello, I'm ________ from______, a public opinion research company. I am not trying to sell you anything. We're conducting a survey about issues that concern residents in your area. May I speak with the person at home over 18 who most recently celebrated a birthday? A. Before we begin, I need to know if I have reached you on a cell phone, and if so, are you in a place where you can talk safely without endangering yourself or others? Yes, cell and can talk safely -------------------------------- 78% Yes, cell but cannot talk safely ---------------- TERMINATE No, not on cell ------------------------------------------------ 22% (DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ------- TERMINATE B. My next questions are to ensure that we are interviewing a representative group of residents in your area. What is your age? Under 18 ------------------------ TERMINATE 18-24 ----------------------------------------- 13% 25-29 ------------------------------------------- 2% 30-34 ------------------------------------------- 2% 35-39 ------------------------------------------- 7% 40-44 ----------------------------------------- 10% 45-49 ----------------------------------------- 14% 50-54 ------------------------------------------- 8% 55-59 ------------------------------------------- 7% 60-64 ----------------------------------------- 14% 65-69 ------------------------------------------- 9% 70-74 ------------------------------------------- 3% 75+ --------------------------------------------- 9% (DK/REFUSED) ---------------------------- 2% C. With which racial or ethnic group do you identify yourself: Hispanic or Latino; African American or Black; Caucasian or White; Asian or Pacific Islander; multiracial; or some other ethnic or racial background? Latino/Hispanic ------------------------------ 4% African American/Black -------------------- 0% Caucasian/White --------------------------- 62% Asian/Pacific Islander --------------------- 22% Multiracial------------------------------------- 3% (OTHER) ------------------------------------- 3% (DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ---- 7% D. Are you registered to vote? (IF YES, ASK: “With which party are you registered to vote: Democratic, Republican, another party, or with no party preference?”) Attachment 2_Results_Ward 1 No, not registered ---------------------------- 2% Democratic ---------------------------------- 29% Republican ---------------------------------- 17% No Party Preference ----------------------- 40% Another party --------------------------------- 6% (DON'T KNOW/NA) ---------------------- 7% 1. OK, let’s begin. First, how would you rate your community as a place to live? Is it … (READ LIST)? EXCELLENT/GOOD ------------------- 92% Excellent------------------------------------- 49% Good ----------------------------------------- 42% FAIR/POOR -------------------------------- 8% Fair --------------------------------------------- 5% Poor -------------------------------------------- 3% (DON'T KNOW/NA) ---------------------- 0% 2. Next, I’m going to read you a list of local organizations and public institutions. For each one, I’d like you to tell me if you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion. If you have never heard of one, please just say so. (RANDOMIZE) (CAN’T NEVER STR SMWT SMWT STR RATE HEARD TOTAL TOTAL FAV FAV UNFAV UNFAV /DK) OF FAV UNFAV [ ]a. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ---------------------- 41% ----- 22% ----- 1% ------- 0% ------ 7% ------ 28% 63% 1% [ ]b. Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority -------------------- 33% ----- 28% ----- 1% ------- 0% ----- 14% ----- 24% 60% 2% [ ]c. Peninsula Open Space Trust ----- 27% ----- 23% ----- 4% ------- 0% ----- 16% ----- 30% 50% 4% [ ]d. California State Parks ------------- 67% ----- 27% ----- 1% ------- 0% ------ 4% -------1% 94% 1% [ ]e. Golden Gate National Recreation Area -------------------- 49% ----- 26% ----- 0% ------- 0% ----- 14% ----- 11% 75% 0% (ASK IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY ONLY) [ ]f. Santa Clara County Parks -------- 51% ----- 38% ----- 4% ------- 0% ------ 6% -------1% 89% 4% (ASK IN SAN MATEO COUNTY ONLY) [ ]g. San Mateo County Parks ---------- 0% ------ 0% ------ 0% ------- 0% ------ 0% -------0% 0% 0% Attachment 2_Results_Ward 1 (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 3. I’m going to read you some issues that some people say may be problems in your area. After I read each one, please tell me whether you think each is a problem or not. (IF YES, PROBLEM, ASK: “Do you think it is an extremely, very, or somewhat serious problem?”) (RANDOMIZE) EXT VERY SMWT NOT SER SER SER A (DK/ EXT/ PROB PROB PROB PROB NA) VERY [ ]a. The quality of local natural lands and open space -------------------------------------------------------- 11% ----- 12% ---- 29% ----- 44% ------ 4% 23% [ ]b. Traffic congestion ---------------------------------------- 47% ----- 26% ---- 14% ------8% ------ 5% 73% [ ]c. Loss of natural areas to development ------------------ 21% ----- 32% ---- 23% ----- 22% ------ 2% 53% [ ]d. Fire risk ---------------------------------------------------- 36% ----- 28% ---- 18% ----- 16% ------ 3% 64% [ ]e. Water pollution ------------------------------------------- 19% ----- 25% ---- 23% ----- 26% ------ 7% 44% [ ]f. Air pollution ----------------------------------------------- 18% ----- 25% ---- 33% ----- 21% ------ 3% 43% [ ]g. Loss of wildlife habitat ---------------------------------- 26% ----- 28% ---- 21% ----- 21% ------ 4% 54% [ ]h. A lack of affordable housing ---------------------------- 38% ----- 30% ---- 19% ----- 12% ------ 1% 68% [ ]i. Climate change -------------------------------------------- 51% ----- 12% ---- 17% ----- 17% ------ 3% 63% [ ]j. The amount you pay in local taxes --------------------- 15% ----- 15% ---- 22% ----- 39% ------ 8% 30% Attachment 2_Results_Ward 1 NOW I’D LIKE TO ASK YOU A FEW MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT. (ASK Q4 ONLY IF CODES 1-4 IN Q2A) 4. You mentioned a few moments ago that you have a FAVORABLE / UNFAVORABLE opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. In a few words of your own, could you tell me why? (OPEN-ENDED; RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE BELOW. PROBE FOR VERY SPECIFIC RESPONSES) a. Favorable, N=95: Preservation of open space/environmental protection --------------------------------------- 36% Good option for recreation/exercise ----------------------------------------------------------- 28% Support their mission/efforts -------------------------------------------------------------------- 25% Trails/facilities are well maintained------------------------------------------------------------ 21% Enjoy nature’s beauty/beautiful views -------------------------------------------------------- 13% Easily accessible to the public ------------------------------------------------------------------ 12% I use trails regularly ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11% Mixed feelings -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7% Preservation of wildlife/habitat ------------------------------------------------------------------- 5% Dog friendly ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% Other -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% Don’t know ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4% Refused ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3% b. Unfavorable, N=2: They take over too much land ------------------------------------------------------------------- 89% More important issues ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 52% Not enough transparency/misused revenue ---------------------------------------------------- 11% Attachment 2_Results_Ward 1 (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) AS YOU MAY KNOW, THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, OFTEN KNOWN AS “MIDPEN,” IS AN INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT PRIMARILY IN SANTA CLARA AND SAN MATEO COUNTIES THAT HAS PRESERVED A REGIONAL GREENBELT OF NEARLY 65 THOUSAND ACRES OF PUBLIC LAND AND MANAGES 26 OPEN SPACE PRESERVES. ITS MISSION IS TO ACQUIRE AND PERMANENTLY PRESERVE OPEN SPACE LAND, PROTECT AND RESTORE THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, AND PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE PUBLIC ENJOYMENT AND EDUCATION. ON THE COAST, ITS MISSION INCLUDES PRESERVING RURAL CHARACTER AND ENCOURAGING VIABLE AGRICULTURAL USE OF LAND. 5. Having heard this, let me ask you again: would you say you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District? TOTAL FAVORABLE ------------------ 90% Strongly favorable ------------------------- 58% Somewhat favorable ----------------------- 32% TOTAL UNFAVORABLE -------------- 2% Somewhat unfavorable ---------------------- 1% Strongly unfavorable ------------------------ 0% (DON'T READ) DK/NA ------------------- 8% 6. Next, I am going to read you a list of goals Midpen has set for itself. For each goal, please tell me if you think it is extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. (RANDOMIZE) EXT VERY SMWT NOT TOO (DK/ EXT/ IMP IMP IMP IMP NA) VERY (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]a. Preserving a regional greenbelt of open space land forever ------------------------------------------------ 47% ----- 35% ---- 11% ------7% ------ 0% 83% [ ]b. Protecting natural areas ---------------------------------- 49% ----- 37% ---- 14% ------0% ------ 0% 86% [ ]c. Providing opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education ------------ 36% ----- 43% ---- 12% ------7% ------ 2% 79% [ ]d. Restoring native plant and wildlife habitat ----------- 43% ----- 40% ----- 8% ------ 10% ------ 0% 83% [ ]e. Providing multiuse trails for hiking, biking, and equestrian use ---------------------------------------- 32% ----- 44% ---- 21% ------3% ------ 0% 76% [ ]f. Stewarding public lands to be resilient in the face of climate change ----------------------------------- 42% ----- 38% ----- 5% ------ 14% ------ 1% 80% [ ]g. Supporting local agriculture along the San Mateo County coast -------------------------------------- 26% ----- 36% ---- 22% ----- 15% ------ 3% 61% [ ]h. Preserving the character of rural areas, such as the Santa Cruz Mountains or the San Mateo County Coast ---------------------------------------------- 41% ----- 22% ---- 27% ------9% ------ 0% 63% Attachment 2_Results_Ward 1 EXT VERY SMWT NOT TOO (DK/ EXT/ IMP IMP IMP IMP NA) VERY (SPLIT SAMPLE A CONTINUED) [ ]i. Partnering with local organizations to promote a regional environmental vision ------------------------ 27% ----- 37% ---- 26% ------8% ------ 2% 65% [ ]j. Connecting regional trails ------------------------------- 24% ----- 38% ---- 26% ------9% ------ 3% 62% [ ]k. Caring for the ecosystem to help native plants and wildlife survive -------------------------------------- 56% ----- 28% ----- 9% -------7% ------ 0% 83% [ ]l. Reducing dead and downed vegetation for wildland fire prevention --------------------------------- 62% ----- 20% ---- 16% ------0% ------ 2% 82% [ ]m. Preserving undeveloped coastal open space and agricultural lands ------------------------------------ 55% ----- 27% ---- 15% ------1% ------ 2% 82% [ ]n. Assessing historical significance of structures on open space lands -------------------------------------- 22% ----- 29% ---- 35% ----- 12% ------ 2% 51% [ ]o. Promoting safe wildlife corridors and trail crossings across Highway 17 --------------------------- 33% ----- 33% ---- 24% ------7% ------ 4% 65% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]p. Protecting the ridgetops, hillsides and creeks that create our region’s striking natural beauty ------ 61% ----- 28% ---- 11% ------0% ------ 0% 89% [ ]q. Protecting and restoring the natural environment ----------------------------------------------- 67% ----- 22% ---- 11% ------0% ------ 0% 89% [ ]r. Protecting San Mateo and Santa Clara counties’ agricultural, natural resource, and open space lands for future generations --------------- 66% ----- 17% ---- 17% ------0% ------ 0% 83% [ ]s. Creating opportunities for outdoor recreation -------- 39% ----- 39% ---- 16% ------7% ------ 0% 77% [ ]t. Preserving diverse habitat for wildlife ----------------- 58% ----- 23% ---- 19% ------0% ------ 0% 81% [ ]u. Providing regional hiking trails ------------------------- 40% ----- 37% ---- 16% ------1% ------ 5% 77% [ ]v. Restoring public lands to be resilient in the face of climate change ----------------------------------- 52% ----- 26% ---- 14% ------8% ------ 0% 78% [ ]w. Connecting kids to nature ------------------------------- 46% ----- 41% ---- 14% ------0% ------ 0% 86% [ ]x. Protecting the waterways and natural lands that maintain water quality and supply ---------------- 76% ----- 21% ----- 3% -------0% ------ 0% 97% [ ]y. Managing redwood forests ------------------------------ 56% ----- 33% ----- 5% -------0% ------ 5% 90% [ ]z. Protecting San Mateo and Santa Clara counties’ agricultural, natural resource, and open space lands ------------------------------------------ 38% ----- 27% ---- 30% ------5% ------ 0% 65% [ ]aa. Protecting coastal grasslands---------------------------- 46% ----- 39% ---- 12% ------1% ------ 2% 85% [ ]bb. Improving access for individuals with disabilities at local preserves ---------------------------- 28% ----- 41% ---- 28% ------3% ------ 0% 69% [ ]cc. Partnering with Native American tribes to relearn and reapply indigenous plant restoration techniques ------------------------------------ 24% ----- 30% ---- 35% ------9% ------ 2% 54% [ ]dd. Removing invasive species to restore native plant and wildlife habitat -------------------------------- 40% ----- 26% ---- 28% ------1% ------ 5% 66% Attachment 2_Results_Ward 1 (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 7. And which of these six components of the Midpen mission do you think is most important to you? (RE- READ AND RANDOMIZE LIST IF NECESSARY) [ ] Acquiring and preserving a regional greenbelt ------------------------------------------- 16% [ ] Restoring the natural environment---------------------------------------------------------- 18% [ ] Providing opportunities for ecologically sensitive public recreation ------------------ 18% [ ] Educating the public about conservation and nature ------------------------------------- 22% [ ] Preserving rural character ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 8% [ ] Encouraging viable agricultural land use ---------------------------------------------------- 0% (DON'T READ) All ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15% (DON'T READ) None ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% (DON'T READ) Other (SPECIFY) ------------------------------------------------------------ 1% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/Refused -------------------------------------------------------------- 1% 8. Stepping back for a moment, I’d like to read you two statements about Midpen preserves. I’d like you to tell me which comes closer to your opinion, even if neither is exactly right. (ROTATE) [ ] I prefer preserves that provide multiple visitor amenities, such as water bottle refilling stations, restrooms, and picnic areas --------------------------------- 17% OR [ ] I prefer preserves that put a high priority on wildlife habitat restoration and protection, with only low-impact trails that encourage users to leave no trace ---------- 75% (DON’T READ) (BOTH) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% (NEITHER)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3% (DON'T KNOW/NA) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4% Attachment 2_Results_Ward 1 9. Next, I am going to read you a series of statements about the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. For each one, please tell me if it makes you view Midpen much more favorably, somewhat more favorably, or if it makes no difference. (RANDOMIZE) MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV [ ]a. (SPECIAL CHARACTER) People choose to live in the Bay Area because of its scenic beauty and recreational opportunities. The stunning ridge and coastal views and riding, biking, and hiking trails we have in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties are truly unique. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District works to preserve what we love most about living here. ----------------------------------- 49% ----- 28% ---- 22% ------1% ------ 1% 76% (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]b. (WATER QUALITY) Nothing is more important than clean drinking water. By protecting and restoring areas around sources of water, Midpen increases access to water and naturally prevents the pollution of our water. -------- 54% ----- 22% ---- 18% ------3% ------ 4% 76% [ ]c. (PARTNERSHIPS) Midpen regularly partners with local nonprofits, the counties, and state and regional park organizations to leverage their resources and connect residents with open space, recreational opportunities, and educational programs. Connecting these public lands supports biodiversity, providing places for local plants and wildlife to thrive. --------- 36% ----- 24% ---- 37% ------0% ------ 2% 61% [ ]d. (PUBLIC HEALTH) Open space preserves and natural areas provide spaces where families and children can safely walk, run, and bicycle – improving the physical health of residents, reducing obesity, and reducing healthcare costs. These areas are open 365 days a year, sunrise to sunset, to anyone, and for free. ----------------------------------------------------- 39% ----- 15% ---- 44% ------0% ------ 2% 55% [ ]e. (WILDLIFE) By restoring and protecting natural areas, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is protecting wildlife habitats and California’s unique biodiversity. ------------------ 56% ----- 20% ---- 22% ------0% ------ 2% 76% Attachment 2_Results_Ward 1 MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV (SPLIT SAMPLE A CONTINUED) [ ]f. (AG SUSTAINABILITY) San Mateo and Santa Clara counties have rich agricultural and ranching history. That’s why Midpen protects sustainable, working agricultural ranchlands connecting past and future along the scenic coast. -------------------------------------------------------- 20% ----- 43% ---- 28% ------6% ------ 3% 63% [ ]g. (CARING) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is caring for the land to create healthy habitats for plants, animals, and people. ------------------------------------------------------ 35% ----- 35% ---- 23% ------5% ------ 2% 70% [ ]h. (UNDERSERVED) Midpen programming connects people to nature through enriched experiences, especially people who are typically less likely to have access to natural areas and open spaces. That includes low- income communities and communities of color. -------------------------------------------------------- 35% ----- 22% ---- 40% ------0% ------ 2% 57% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]i. (AG HISTORY) San Mateo and Santa Clara counties have rich agricultural and ranching history. That’s why the Midpeninsula Open Space District preserves historic, agricultural lands close to home along the scenic coast. ---------- 30% ----- 31% ---- 34% ------3% ------ 3% 60% [ ]j. (RECREATION) Parks and open spaces provide safe places for the community to gather and explore the outdoors. It’s especially important to keep these accessible options for everyone as the cost of living increases. Midpen ensures that San Mateo and Santa Clara County residents have access to well- maintained and beautiful recreation areas. ------------ 59% ----- 28% ---- 10% ------3% ------ 0% 87% [ ]k. (CLIMATE) Smart investments made before a disaster strikes can help protect a community’s quality of life, save lives, and reduce the cost to taxpayers. Midpen is taking a proactive, practical approach to stewardship of public lands, helping ensure San Mateo and Santa Clara counties are resilient as the climate changes. ------------------------------------------ 38% ----- 49% ---- 11% ------2% ------ 0% 87% Attachment 2_Results_Ward 1 MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV (SPLIT SAMPLE B CONTINUED) [ ]l. (FIRES) Midpen is working with fire agencies and surrounding communities to strengthen prevention and preparation in case of wildland fires. This includes maintaining hundreds of miles of fire roads. Midpen is also using conservation grazing to reduce flammable brush within grassland habitats, limiting the risk of fire, or fire intensity if it does occur. ---------- 64% ----- 26% ----- 9% -------1% ------ 0% 90% [ ]m. (EDUCATION) Midpen programming connects people to nature through enriched experiences, including environmental interpretation, docent-led activities and volunteer opportunities. ---------------------------------- 28% ----- 41% ---- 28% ------4% ------ 0% 68% [ ]n. (PLACE) Few other conservation organizations protect and restore such a wide variety of unique natural areas: from redwood forests to the Bay and the ocean, from serpentine-soil grasslands to Tafoni sandstone. Our peninsula is unique and Midpen works to protect and restore these places for the wildlife that call it home, and the people who visit and recreate there. --------------------------------------------- 55% ----- 27% ---- 14% ------1% ------ 2% 82% (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 10. Next, having heard this, let me ask you one last time - do you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District? TOTAL FAVORABLE --------------------------- 98% Strongly favorable ---------------------------------- 59% Somewhat favorable -------------------------------- 38% TOTAL UNFAVORABLE ----------------------- 1% Somewhat unfavorable ------------------------------- 1% Strongly unfavorable --------------------------------- 1% (DON'T READ) CAN’T RATE/DK/NA --------- 1% Attachment 2_Results_Ward 1 11. Next, I’m going to read you a list of sources from which people get information about (SPLIT SAMPLE A: local issues in your area) (SPLIT SAMPLE B: parks, open space, and the outdoors). For each, I’d like you to tell me how often you use it to get information about (SPLIT SAMPLE A: local issues in your area) (SPLIT SAMPLE B: parks, open space and the outdoors): frequently, occasionally, rarely, or never. (RANDOMIZE) (DK/ FREQ RRLY FREQ OCCAS RARELY NEVER NA) /OCC /NVR [ ]a. Local television stations -------------------18% ----- 25% ----- 12% ----- 40% ------ 6% 42% 52% [ ]b. KQED Radio --------------------------------24% ----- 27% ----- 13% ----- 31% ------ 5% 51% 44% [ ]c. Radio stations other than KQED ---------- 8% ----- 26% ----- 21% ----- 40% ------ 6% 34% 60% [ ]d. Information you receive in the mail------- 6% ----- 35% ----- 29% ----- 25% ------ 4% 41% 55% [ ]e. Facebook -------------------------------------- 8% ----- 19% ----- 22% ----- 47% ------ 4% 27% 69% [ ]f. Twitter ----------------------------------------- 5% ----- 12% ------- 6% ----- 74% ------ 4% 16% 80% [ ]g. Instagram ------------------------------------- 9% ----- 11% ----- 11% ----- 64% ------ 5% 20% 75% [ ]h. Blogs on the Internet -----------------------18% ----- 14% ----- 24% ----- 38% ------ 6% 33% 62% [ ]i. The San José Mercury News newspaper ------------------------------------19% ----- 31% ----- 24% ----- 26% ------ 1% 50% 50% [ ]j. The San Francisco Chronicle newspaper ------------------------------------- 2% ------ 6% ----- 25% ----- 62% ------ 6% 7% 87% [ ]k. The Half Moon Bay Review newspaper ------------------------------------- 0% ------ 8% ------- 2% ----- 82% ------ 7% 8% 85% [ ]l. The Midpen newsletter and activity guide mailed to your home ----------------- 5% ----- 12% ----- 18% ----- 57% ------ 8% 17% 76% [ ]m. The Midpen e-newsletter ------------------- 4% ------ 5% ------- 6% ----- 76% ----- 10% 8% 82% [ ]n. Nextdoor -------------------------------------18% ----- 23% ----- 20% ----- 35% ------ 6% 40% 54% [ ]o. Midpen’s public meetings ------------------ 0% ------ 0% ----- 11% ----- 77% ----- 11% 1% 88% [ ]p. Midpen’s website, openspace-dot- org --------------------------------------------- 5% ----- 21% ----- 23% ----- 45% ------ 6% 26% 68% Attachment 2_Results_Ward 1 12. Were there any sources of information you use that I didn’t mention? (OPEN END, RECORD VERBATIM) No -------------------------------------------- 65% Word of mouth ------------------------------- 9% Internet (general) ----------------------------- 7% Local newspaper ----------------------------- 3% Local television news ------------------------ 3% Personal experience -------------------------- 2% Google ----------------------------------------- 1% National newspaper -------------------------- 1% News radio ------------------------------------ 1% You Tube -------------------------------------- 1% Local newsletter ------------------------------ 1% Magazines (not specified)------------------- 1% Government website ------------------------- 1% LinkedIn --------------------------------------- 0% National news --------------------------------- 0% Community centers -------------------------- 0% Saratogian ------------------------------------- 0% Library ----------------------------------------- 0% Yelp -------------------------------------------- 0% Reddit ------------------------------------------ 0% Maps ------------------------------------------- 0% Facebook/social media ---------------------- 0% Other ------------------------------------------- 4% Don’t know ----------------------------------- 0% Refused ---------------------------------------- 3% Attachment 2_Results_Ward 1 WE'RE JUST ABOUT DONE. I'M ONLY GOING TO ASK YOU A FEW MORE QUESTIONS FOR CLASSIFICATION PURPOSES. 13. First, I’d like you to consider your visits to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District preserves. Please tell me how often you typically visit and use Midpen preserves in this way: about once a week, a few times a month, a few times a year, once a year, or never. (RANDOMIZE) ONCE/ FEW/ FEW/ ONCE/ (DK/ WEEK MO YEAR YEAR NEVER NA) [ ]a. Walking or hiking ------------------------------------- 29% ----- 31% ----- 29% ----- 5% ------- 6% ------ 1% [ ]b. Running or jogging ------------------------------------- 5% ------ 14% ----- 19% ----- 2% ------ 59% ------ 1% [ ]c. Dog walking -------------------------------------------- 12% ----- 11% ----- 14% ----- 2% ------ 59% ------ 1% [ ]d. Horseback riding ---------------------------------------- 1% -------3% ------ 1% ------ 2% ------ 93% ------ 1% [ ]e. Mountain biking ---------------------------------------- 4% ------ 11% ----- 16% ----- 2% ------ 64% ------ 3% [ ]f. Birdwatching or wildlife viewing -------------------- 5% ------ 11% ----- 18% ---- 12% ----- 53% ------ 1% [ ]g. Spending time in nature ------------------------------ 20% ----- 33% ----- 31% ----- 5% ------- 7% ------ 4% [ ]h. Ranger- or docent-led programs ---------------------- 0% -------1% ------ 8% ------ 7% ------ 78% ------ 5% [ ]i. Backpack camping ------------------------------------- 0% -------5% ----- 11% ---- 12% ----- 72% ------ 1% (ASK IF EVER VISIT FOR ANY REASON – CODE 1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4 IN ANY ITEM IN Q13) 14. Do you feel safe or unsafe outdoors in local nature preserves? (IF SAFE/UNSAFE, ASK: “Is that very or somewhat SAFE/UNSAFE?”) TOTAL SAFE ----------------------------- 94% Very safe ------------------------------------ 49% Somewhat safe ------------------------------ 45% TOTAL UNSAFE ------------------------- 3% Somewhat unsafe----------------------------- 3% Very unsafe ----------------------------------- 0% (DON’T READ) Don’t visit them/NA --- 1% (DON'T READ) Don’t know -------------- 2% (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 15. Do you have any children under the age of 19 living at home? Yes ------------------------------------------- 26% No -------------------------------------------- 73% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ---- 1% Attachment 2_Results_Ward 1 16. What was the last level of school you completed? High school graduate or less ------------- 11% Some college -------------------------------- 24% Associate’s Degree -------------------------- 4% College graduate --------------------------- 32% Post-graduate ------------------------------- 29% (DON'T KNOW) ---------------------------- 1% 17. Do you work in the technology industry? (IF NO: “Does anyone in your household work in the technology industry?”) Yes, self ------------------------------------- 28% Yes, household ----------------------------- 18% Yes, both ------------------------------------ 13% No -------------------------------------------- 41% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ---- 1% 18. Were you born and raised in Santa Clara or San Mateo counties? (IF NO, ASK: “How long have you lived in San Mateo or Santa Clara Counties?”) Born and raised ----------------------------- 24% Two years or less ----------------------------- 1% Three to five years --------------------------- 8% Six to 10 years ------------------------------ 11% 11 to 20 years ------------------------------- 10% 21 to 40 years ------------------------------ 27% More than 40 years ------------------------ 16% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ---- 2% 19. I don’t need to know the exact amount, but please stop me when I read the category that includes the total income for your household before taxes in 2019. Was it: (READ CHOICES BELOW) $30,000 and under --------------------------- 3% $30,001 - $60,000 ---------------------------- 6% $60,001 - $90,000 ---------------------------- 6% $90,001 - $120,000 -------------------------- 6% $120,001 - $150,000 ----------------------- 11% More than $150,000 ----------------------- 36% (DON'T READ) Refused ---------------- 32% Attachment 2_Results_Ward 1 20. What is your gender? Male ------------------------------------------ 53% Female --------------------------------------- 45% Nonbinary ------------------------------------- 0% Rather not say -------------------------------- 2% THANK AND TERMINATE MODE Phone ------------------------------- 43% Online ------------------------------ 57% DISTRICT WARD 1 - Seimens ----------------------- 100% 2 - Kishimoto ------------------------ 0% 3 - Cyr -------------------------------- 0% 4 - Riffle ----------------------------- 0% 5 - Holman --------------------------- 0% 6 - Hassett ---------------------------- 0% 7 – Kersteen-Tucker ---------------- 0% COUNTY San Mateo ---------------------------- 0% Santa Clara ------------------------ 100% CITY/TOWN Cupertino --------------------------- 23% Los Altos ----------------------------- 0% Los Gatos -------------------------- 34% Menlo Park --------------------------- 0% Mountain View ---------------------- 0% Palo Alto ----------------------------- 0% Redwood City ----------------------- 0% San Carlos ---------------------------- 0% Saratoga ---------------------------- 35% Sunnyvale ---------------------------- 0% Other ---------------------------------- 4% Unincorporated ---------------------- 4% Attachment 2_Results_Ward 1 JANUARY 9-23, 2020 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 320-876-WT N=116 WARD 2 A/B SPLIT Hello, I'm ________ from______, a public opinion research company. I am not trying to sell you anything. We're conducting a survey about issues that concern residents in your area. May I speak with the person at home over 18 who most recently celebrated a birthday? A. Before we begin, I need to know if I have reached you on a cell phone, and if so, are you in a place where you can talk safely without endangering yourself or others? Yes, cell and can talk safely -------------------------------- 56% Yes, cell but cannot talk safely ---------------- TERMINATE No, not on cell ------------------------------------------------ 44% (DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ------- TERMINATE B. My next questions are to ensure that we are interviewing a representative group of residents in your area. What is your age? Under 18 ------------------------ TERMINATE 18-24 ----------------------------------------- 15% 25-29 ----------------------------------------- 10% 30-34 ------------------------------------------- 8% 35-39 ------------------------------------------- 7% 40-44 ------------------------------------------- 9% 45-49 ------------------------------------------- 4% 50-54 ------------------------------------------- 8% 55-59 ----------------------------------------- 10% 60-64 ----------------------------------------- 14% 65-69 ------------------------------------------- 2% 70-74 ------------------------------------------- 4% 75+ --------------------------------------------- 9% (DK/REFUSED) ---------------------------- 1% C. With which racial or ethnic group do you identify yourself: Hispanic or Latino; African American or Black; Caucasian or White; Asian or Pacific Islander; multiracial; or some other ethnic or racial background? Latino/Hispanic ------------------------------ 2% African American/Black -------------------- 3% Caucasian/White --------------------------- 53% Asian/Pacific Islander --------------------- 38% Multiracial------------------------------------- 0% (OTHER) ------------------------------------- 1% (DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ---- 3% D. Are you registered to vote? (IF YES, ASK: “With which party are you registered to vote: Democratic, Republican, another party, or with no party preference?”) Attachment 3_Results_Ward 2 No, not registered ---------------------------- 2% Democratic ---------------------------------- 54% Republican ------------------------------------ 8% No Party Preference ----------------------- 20% Another party --------------------------------- 4% (DON'T KNOW/NA) -------------------- 11% 1. OK, let’s begin. First, how would you rate your community as a place to live? Is it … (READ LIST)? EXCELLENT/GOOD ------------------- 91% Excellent------------------------------------- 47% Good ----------------------------------------- 43% FAIR/POOR -------------------------------- 9% Fair --------------------------------------------- 6% Poor -------------------------------------------- 3% (DON'T KNOW/NA) ---------------------- 0% 2. Next, I’m going to read you a list of local organizations and public institutions. For each one, I’d like you to tell me if you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion. If you have never heard of one, please just say so. (RANDOMIZE) (CAN’T NEVER STR SMWT SMWT STR RATE HEARD TOTAL TOTAL FAV FAV UNFAV UNFAV /DK) OF FAV UNFAV [ ]a. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ---------------------- 43% ----- 12% ----- 0% ------- 0% ----- 13% ----- 31% 55% 0% [ ]b. Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority -------------------- 29% ----- 14% ----- 2% ------- 0% ----- 14% ----- 41% 43% 2% [ ]c. Peninsula Open Space Trust ----- 37% ------ 9% ------ 1% ------- 2% ----- 11% ----- 40% 46% 3% [ ]d. California State Parks ------------- 65% ----- 30% ----- 1% ------- 1% ------ 3% -------1% 95% 2% [ ]e. Golden Gate National Recreation Area -------------------- 45% ----- 26% ----- 1% ------- 2% ------ 9% ------ 17% 71% 3% (ASK IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY ONLY) [ ]f. Santa Clara County Parks -------- 46% ----- 30% ----- 2% ------- 0% ------ 8% ------ 14% 76% 2% (ASK IN SAN MATEO COUNTY ONLY) [ ]g. San Mateo County Parks ---------- 0% ------ 0% ------ 0% ------- 0% ------ 0% -------0% 0% 0% Attachment 3_Results_Ward 2 (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 3. I’m going to read you some issues that some people say may be problems in your area. After I read each one, please tell me whether you think each is a problem or not. (IF YES, PROBLEM, ASK: “Do you think it is an extremely, very, or somewhat serious problem?”) (RANDOMIZE) EXT VERY SMWT NOT SER SER SER A (DK/ EXT/ PROB PROB PROB PROB NA) VERY [ ]a. The quality of local natural lands and open space -------------------------------------------------------- 8% ------ 20% ---- 21% ----- 40% ----- 11% 28% [ ]b. Traffic congestion ---------------------------------------- 38% ----- 28% ---- 27% ------7% ------ 0% 66% [ ]c. Loss of natural areas to development ------------------ 14% ----- 33% ---- 34% ----- 15% ------ 5% 46% [ ]d. Fire risk ---------------------------------------------------- 11% ----- 39% ---- 34% ----- 14% ------ 2% 50% [ ]e. Water pollution ------------------------------------------- 12% ----- 19% ---- 32% ----- 27% ----- 10% 30% [ ]f. Air pollution ----------------------------------------------- 14% ----- 25% ---- 37% ----- 22% ------ 2% 38% [ ]g. Loss of wildlife habitat ---------------------------------- 26% ----- 20% ---- 38% ----- 12% ------ 4% 46% [ ]h. A lack of affordable housing ---------------------------- 56% ----- 22% ----- 8% ------ 12% ------ 2% 78% [ ]i. Climate change -------------------------------------------- 55% ----- 13% ---- 24% ------6% ------ 2% 68% [ ]j. The amount you pay in local taxes --------------------- 14% ----- 21% ---- 21% ----- 37% ------ 6% 35% Attachment 3_Results_Ward 2 NOW I’D LIKE TO ASK YOU A FEW MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT. (ASK Q4 ONLY IF CODES 1-4 IN Q2A) 4. You mentioned a few moments ago that you have a FAVORABLE / UNFAVORABLE opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. In a few words of your own, could you tell me why? (OPEN-ENDED; RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE BELOW. PROBE FOR VERY SPECIFIC RESPONSES) a. Favorable, N=64: Good option for recreation/exercise ----------------------------------------------------------- 31% Support their mission/efforts -------------------------------------------------------------------- 31% Preservation of open space/environmental protection --------------------------------------- 25% Easily accessible to the public ------------------------------------------------------------------ 17% Trails/facilities are well maintained------------------------------------------------------------ 17% I use trails regularly ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 15% General favorable statement -------------------------------------------------------------------- 14% Preservation of wildlife/habitat ------------------------------------------------------------------- 6% Mixed feelings -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5% Enjoy nature’s beauty/beautiful views ---------------------------------------------------------- 4% Other -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3% b. Unfavorable, N=1: Poor leadership/management -------------------------------------------------------------------- 70% Not enough transparency/misused revenue ---------------------------------------------------- 30% Attachment 3_Results_Ward 2 (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) AS YOU MAY KNOW, THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, OFTEN KNOWN AS “MIDPEN,” IS AN INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT PRIMARILY IN SANTA CLARA AND SAN MATEO COUNTIES THAT HAS PRESERVED A REGIONAL GREENBELT OF NEARLY 65 THOUSAND ACRES OF PUBLIC LAND AND MANAGES 26 OPEN SPACE PRESERVES. ITS MISSION IS TO ACQUIRE AND PERMANENTLY PRESERVE OPEN SPACE LAND, PROTECT AND RESTORE THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, AND PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE PUBLIC ENJOYMENT AND EDUCATION. ON THE COAST, ITS MISSION INCLUDES PRESERVING RURAL CHARACTER AND ENCOURAGING VIABLE AGRICULTURAL USE OF LAND. 5. Having heard this, let me ask you again: would you say you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District? TOTAL FAVORABLE ------------------ 86% Strongly favorable ------------------------- 58% Somewhat favorable ----------------------- 28% TOTAL UNFAVORABLE -------------- 7% Somewhat unfavorable ---------------------- 6% Strongly unfavorable ------------------------ 1% (DON'T READ) DK/NA ------------------- 7% 6. Next, I am going to read you a list of goals Midpen has set for itself. For each goal, please tell me if you think it is extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. (RANDOMIZE) EXT VERY SMWT NOT TOO (DK/ EXT/ IMP IMP IMP IMP NA) VERY (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]a. Preserving a regional greenbelt of open space land forever ------------------------------------------------ 43% ----- 31% ---- 20% ------6% ------ 0% 74% [ ]b. Protecting natural areas ---------------------------------- 55% ----- 35% ----- 9% -------0% ------ 1% 90% [ ]c. Providing opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education ------------ 33% ----- 40% ---- 20% ------2% ------ 5% 73% [ ]d. Restoring native plant and wildlife habitat ----------- 41% ----- 30% ---- 28% ------0% ------ 1% 71% [ ]e. Providing multiuse trails for hiking, biking, and equestrian use ---------------------------------------- 24% ----- 44% ---- 31% ------1% ------ 0% 68% [ ]f. Stewarding public lands to be resilient in the face of climate change ----------------------------------- 46% ----- 25% ----- 8% -------6% ----- 15% 71% [ ]g. Supporting local agriculture along the San Mateo County coast -------------------------------------- 28% ----- 31% ---- 25% ----- 14% ------ 3% 59% [ ]h. Preserving the character of rural areas, such as the Santa Cruz Mountains or the San Mateo County Coast ---------------------------------------------- 36% ----- 23% ---- 35% ------2% ------ 4% 58% Attachment 3_Results_Ward 2 EXT VERY SMWT NOT TOO (DK/ EXT/ IMP IMP IMP IMP NA) VERY (SPLIT SAMPLE A CONTINUED) [ ]i. Partnering with local organizations to promote a regional environmental vision ------------------------ 36% ----- 52% ---- 10% ------0% ------ 2% 88% [ ]j. Connecting regional trails ------------------------------- 20% ----- 20% ---- 41% ------9% ----- 10% 41% [ ]k. Caring for the ecosystem to help native plants and wildlife survive -------------------------------------- 52% ----- 36% ---- 11% ------0% ------ 1% 88% [ ]l. Reducing dead and downed vegetation for wildland fire prevention --------------------------------- 35% ----- 57% ----- 5% -------2% ------ 0% 93% [ ]m. Preserving undeveloped coastal open space and agricultural lands ------------------------------------ 50% ----- 36% ---- 11% ------0% ------ 3% 86% [ ]n. Assessing historical significance of structures on open space lands -------------------------------------- 6% ------ 38% ---- 48% ------6% ------ 2% 44% [ ]o. Promoting safe wildlife corridors and trail crossings across Highway 17 --------------------------- 14% ----- 40% ---- 32% ------0% ----- 14% 54% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]p. Protecting the ridgetops, hillsides and creeks that create our region’s striking natural beauty ------ 42% ----- 30% ---- 23% ------5% ------ 0% 72% [ ]q. Protecting and restoring the natural environment ----------------------------------------------- 36% ----- 48% ---- 13% ------3% ------ 0% 84% [ ]r. Protecting San Mateo and Santa Clara counties’ agricultural, natural resource, and open space lands for future generations --------------- 25% ----- 48% ---- 21% ------6% ------ 0% 73% [ ]s. Creating opportunities for outdoor recreation -------- 20% ----- 37% ---- 39% ------2% ------ 3% 56% [ ]t. Preserving diverse habitat for wildlife ----------------- 37% ----- 43% ---- 16% ------1% ------ 3% 80% [ ]u. Providing regional hiking trails ------------------------- 18% ----- 37% ---- 33% ------9% ------ 3% 55% [ ]v. Restoring public lands to be resilient in the face of climate change ----------------------------------- 34% ----- 37% ---- 21% ------5% ------ 4% 71% [ ]w. Connecting kids to nature ------------------------------- 29% ----- 38% ---- 30% ------1% ------ 2% 67% [ ]x. Protecting the waterways and natural lands that maintain water quality and supply ---------------- 41% ----- 49% ----- 8% -------2% ------ 0% 90% [ ]y. Managing redwood forests ------------------------------ 40% ----- 38% ---- 16% ------4% ------ 3% 78% [ ]z. Protecting San Mateo and Santa Clara counties’ agricultural, natural resource, and open space lands ------------------------------------------ 25% ----- 38% ---- 31% ------6% ------ 0% 63% [ ]aa. Protecting coastal grasslands---------------------------- 31% ----- 37% ---- 27% ------3% ------ 2% 68% [ ]bb. Improving access for individuals with disabilities at local preserves ---------------------------- 17% ----- 33% ---- 41% ------7% ------ 2% 50% [ ]cc. Partnering with Native American tribes to relearn and reapply indigenous plant restoration techniques ------------------------------------ 19% ----- 20% ---- 35% ----- 20% ------ 7% 38% [ ]dd. Removing invasive species to restore native plant and wildlife habitat -------------------------------- 13% ----- 46% ---- 23% ----- 13% ------ 4% 59% Attachment 3_Results_Ward 2 (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 7. And which of these six components of the Midpen mission do you think is most important to you? (RE- READ AND RANDOMIZE LIST IF NECESSARY) [ ] Acquiring and preserving a regional greenbelt ------------------------------------------- 24% [ ] Restoring the natural environment---------------------------------------------------------- 28% [ ] Providing opportunities for ecologically sensitive public recreation -------------------- 7% [ ] Educating the public about conservation and nature ------------------------------------- 14% [ ] Preserving rural character ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3% [ ] Encouraging viable agricultural land use ---------------------------------------------------- 2% (DON'T READ) All ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10% (DON'T READ) None ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0% (DON'T READ) Other (SPECIFY) ------------------------------------------------------------ 5% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/Refused -------------------------------------------------------------- 7% 8. Stepping back for a moment, I’d like to read you two statements about Midpen preserves. I’d like you to tell me which comes closer to your opinion, even if neither is exactly right. (ROTATE) [ ] I prefer preserves that provide multiple visitor amenities, such as water bottle refilling stations, restrooms, and picnic areas --------------------------------- 19% OR [ ] I prefer preserves that put a high priority on wildlife habitat restoration and protection, with only low-impact trails that encourage users to leave no trace ---------- 65% (DON’T READ) (BOTH) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5% (NEITHER)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0% (DON'T KNOW/NA) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12% Attachment 3_Results_Ward 2 9. Next, I am going to read you a series of statements about the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. For each one, please tell me if it makes you view Midpen much more favorably, somewhat more favorably, or if it makes no difference. (RANDOMIZE) MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV [ ]a. (SPECIAL CHARACTER) People choose to live in the Bay Area because of its scenic beauty and recreational opportunities. The stunning ridge and coastal views and riding, biking, and hiking trails we have in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties are truly unique. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District works to preserve what we love most about living here. ----------------------------------- 41% ----- 21% ---- 30% ------6% ------ 3% 61% (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]b. (WATER QUALITY) Nothing is more important than clean drinking water. By protecting and restoring areas around sources of water, Midpen increases access to water and naturally prevents the pollution of our water. -------- 36% ----- 53% ---- 10% ------0% ------ 2% 89% [ ]c. (PARTNERSHIPS) Midpen regularly partners with local nonprofits, the counties, and state and regional park organizations to leverage their resources and connect residents with open space, recreational opportunities, and educational programs. Connecting these public lands supports biodiversity, providing places for local plants and wildlife to thrive. --------- 41% ----- 52% ----- 6% -------0% ------ 1% 93% [ ]d. (PUBLIC HEALTH) Open space preserves and natural areas provide spaces where families and children can safely walk, run, and bicycle – improving the physical health of residents, reducing obesity, and reducing healthcare costs. These areas are open 365 days a year, sunrise to sunset, to anyone, and for free. ----------------------------------------------------- 56% ----- 40% ----- 4% -------0% ------ 0% 96% [ ]e. (WILDLIFE) By restoring and protecting natural areas, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is protecting wildlife habitats and California’s unique biodiversity. ------------------ 64% ----- 25% ----- 8% -------0% ------ 3% 89% Attachment 3_Results_Ward 2 MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV (SPLIT SAMPLE A CONTINUED) [ ]f. (AG SUSTAINABILITY) San Mateo and Santa Clara counties have rich agricultural and ranching history. That’s why Midpen protects sustainable, working agricultural ranchlands connecting past and future along the scenic coast. -------------------------------------------------------- 16% ----- 53% ---- 26% ------0% ------ 5% 69% [ ]g. (CARING) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is caring for the land to create healthy habitats for plants, animals, and people. ------------------------------------------------------ 40% ----- 36% ---- 10% ------1% ----- 13% 76% [ ]h. (UNDERSERVED) Midpen programming connects people to nature through enriched experiences, especially people who are typically less likely to have access to natural areas and open spaces. That includes low- income communities and communities of color. -------------------------------------------------------- 49% ----- 36% ----- 9% -------4% ------ 2% 85% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]i. (AG HISTORY) San Mateo and Santa Clara counties have rich agricultural and ranching history. That’s why the Midpeninsula Open Space District preserves historic, agricultural lands close to home along the scenic coast. ---------- 18% ----- 34% ---- 31% ----- 17% ------ 0% 52% [ ]j. (RECREATION) Parks and open spaces provide safe places for the community to gather and explore the outdoors. It’s especially important to keep these accessible options for everyone as the cost of living increases. Midpen ensures that San Mateo and Santa Clara County residents have access to well- maintained and beautiful recreation areas. ------------ 43% ----- 40% ---- 15% ------2% ------ 0% 83% [ ]k. (CLIMATE) Smart investments made before a disaster strikes can help protect a community’s quality of life, save lives, and reduce the cost to taxpayers. Midpen is taking a proactive, practical approach to stewardship of public lands, helping ensure San Mateo and Santa Clara counties are resilient as the climate changes. ------------------------------------------ 46% ----- 40% ----- 9% -------1% ------ 4% 86% Attachment 3_Results_Ward 2 MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV (SPLIT SAMPLE B CONTINUED) [ ]l. (FIRES) Midpen is working with fire agencies and surrounding communities to strengthen prevention and preparation in case of wildland fires. This includes maintaining hundreds of miles of fire roads. Midpen is also using conservation grazing to reduce flammable brush within grassland habitats, limiting the risk of fire, or fire intensity if it does occur. ---------- 44% ----- 45% ---- 11% ------0% ------ 0% 89% [ ]m. (EDUCATION) Midpen programming connects people to nature through enriched experiences, including environmental interpretation, docent-led activities and volunteer opportunities. ---------------------------------- 15% ----- 40% ---- 45% ------0% ------ 0% 55% [ ]n. (PLACE) Few other conservation organizations protect and restore such a wide variety of unique natural areas: from redwood forests to the Bay and the ocean, from serpentine-soil grasslands to Tafoni sandstone. Our peninsula is unique and Midpen works to protect and restore these places for the wildlife that call it home, and the people who visit and recreate there. --------------------------------------------- 27% ----- 54% ---- 13% ------6% ------ 0% 80% (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 10. Next, having heard this, let me ask you one last time - do you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District? TOTAL FAVORABLE --------------------------- 88% Strongly favorable ---------------------------------- 60% Somewhat favorable -------------------------------- 28% TOTAL UNFAVORABLE ----------------------- 5% Somewhat unfavorable ------------------------------- 5% Strongly unfavorable --------------------------------- 0% (DON'T READ) CAN’T RATE/DK/NA --------- 7% Attachment 3_Results_Ward 2 11. Next, I’m going to read you a list of sources from which people get information about (SPLIT SAMPLE A: local issues in your area) (SPLIT SAMPLE B: parks, open space, and the outdoors). For each, I’d like you to tell me how often you use it to get information about (SPLIT SAMPLE A: local issues in your area) (SPLIT SAMPLE B: parks, open space and the outdoors): frequently, occasionally, rarely, or never. (RANDOMIZE) (DK/ FREQ RRLY FREQ OCCAS RARELY NEVER NA) /OCC /NVR [ ]a. Local television stations -------------------- 4% ----- 29% ----- 16% ----- 47% ------ 3% 33% 63% [ ]b. KQED Radio --------------------------------19% ----- 14% ----- 17% ----- 41% ------ 8% 33% 58% [ ]c. Radio stations other than KQED ---------12% ------ 6% ----- 18% ----- 62% ------ 3% 18% 80% [ ]d. Information you receive in the mail------- 4% ----- 27% ----- 23% ----- 37% ------ 9% 31% 60% [ ]e. Facebook -------------------------------------21% ----- 17% ----- 16% ----- 44% ------ 2% 38% 60% [ ]f. Twitter ----------------------------------------14% ------ 3% ----- 12% ----- 61% ----- 10% 17% 73% [ ]g. Instagram ------------------------------------14% ----- 10% ----- 12% ----- 62% ------ 3% 24% 74% [ ]h. Blogs on the Internet ------------------------ 1% ----- 23% ----- 29% ----- 45% ------ 2% 24% 74% [ ]i. The San José Mercury News newspaper ------------------------------------16% ----- 18% ----- 21% ----- 43% ------ 2% 35% 63% [ ]j. The San Francisco Chronicle newspaper ------------------------------------10% ----- 17% ------- 8% ----- 63% ------ 2% 26% 71% [ ]k. The Half Moon Bay Review newspaper ------------------------------------- 0% ------ 1% ------- 3% ----- 87% ----- 10% 1% 89% [ ]l. The Midpen newsletter and activity guide mailed to your home ----------------- 3% ------ 9% ----- 11% ----- 64% ----- 14% 12% 74% [ ]m. The Midpen e-newsletter ------------------10% ------ 5% ------- 6% ----- 76% ------ 3% 15% 82% [ ]n. Nextdoor -------------------------------------11% ----- 24% ------- 9% ----- 55% ------ 2% 34% 63% [ ]o. Midpen’s public meetings ------------------ 7% ------ 2% ------- 4% ----- 85% ------ 2% 9% 89% [ ]p. Midpen’s website, openspace-dot- org --------------------------------------------- 6% ----- 18% ----- 15% ----- 49% ----- 11% 25% 64% Attachment 3_Results_Ward 2 12. Were there any sources of information you use that I didn’t mention? (OPEN END, RECORD VERBATIM) No -------------------------------------------- 61% Word of mouth ------------------------------- 8% Facebook/social media ---------------------- 6% Internet (general) ----------------------------- 5% Google ----------------------------------------- 3% Government website ------------------------- 3% Local newspaper ----------------------------- 2% Local newsletter ------------------------------ 2% Local television news ------------------------ 2% National news --------------------------------- 1% Community centers -------------------------- 1% News radio ------------------------------------ 1% Reddit ------------------------------------------ 1% LinkedIn --------------------------------------- 0% National newspaper -------------------------- 0% Saratogian ------------------------------------- 0% You Tube -------------------------------------- 0% Magazines (not specified)------------------- 0% Library ----------------------------------------- 0% Yelp -------------------------------------------- 0% Maps ------------------------------------------- 0% Personal experience -------------------------- 0% Other ------------------------------------------- 2% Don’t know ----------------------------------- 2% Refused ---------------------------------------- 3% Attachment 3_Results_Ward 2 WE'RE JUST ABOUT DONE. I'M ONLY GOING TO ASK YOU A FEW MORE QUESTIONS FOR CLASSIFICATION PURPOSES. 13. First, I’d like you to consider your visits to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District preserves. Please tell me how often you typically visit and use Midpen preserves in this way: about once a week, a few times a month, a few times a year, once a year, or never. (RANDOMIZE) ONCE/ FEW/ FEW/ ONCE/ (DK/ WEEK MO YEAR YEAR NEVER NA) [ ]a. Walking or hiking ------------------------------------- 20% ----- 28% ----- 29% ----- 3% ------ 13% ------ 6% [ ]b. Running or jogging ------------------------------------ 19% ----- 10% ----- 15% ----- 7% ------ 42% ------ 6% [ ]c. Dog walking --------------------------------------------- 4% -------4% ----- 14% ----- 4% ------ 72% ------ 2% [ ]d. Horseback riding ---------------------------------------- 0% -------0% ------ 0% ------ 9% ------ 89% ------ 2% [ ]e. Mountain biking --------------------------------------- 10% ------3% ------ 9% ------ 5% ------ 71% ------ 2% [ ]f. Birdwatching or wildlife viewing -------------------- 3% ------ 13% ----- 12% ---- 11% ----- 50% ----- 11% [ ]g. Spending time in nature ------------------------------ 19% ----- 28% ----- 29% ----- 2% ------ 16% ------ 7% [ ]h. Ranger- or docent-led programs ---------------------- 0% -------0% ------ 2% ----- 18% ----- 64% ----- 16% [ ]i. Backpack camping ------------------------------------- 0% -------0% ----- 10% ---- 17% ----- 60% ----- 13% (ASK IF EVER VISIT FOR ANY REASON – CODE 1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4 IN ANY ITEM IN Q13) 14. Do you feel safe or unsafe outdoors in local nature preserves? (IF SAFE/UNSAFE, ASK: “Is that very or somewhat SAFE/UNSAFE?”) TOTAL SAFE ----------------------------- 95% Very safe ------------------------------------ 57% Somewhat safe ------------------------------ 38% TOTAL UNSAFE ------------------------- 4% Somewhat unsafe----------------------------- 2% Very unsafe ----------------------------------- 2% (DON’T READ) Don’t visit them/NA --- 0% (DON'T READ) Don’t know -------------- 0% (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 15. Do you have any children under the age of 19 living at home? Yes ------------------------------------------- 25% No -------------------------------------------- 65% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED -- 10% Attachment 3_Results_Ward 2 16. What was the last level of school you completed? High school graduate or less --------------- 3% Some college -------------------------------- 14% Associate’s Degree -------------------------- 9% College graduate --------------------------- 44% Post-graduate ------------------------------- 25% (DON'T KNOW) ---------------------------- 4% 17. Do you work in the technology industry? (IF NO: “Does anyone in your household work in the technology industry?”) Yes, self ------------------------------------- 24% Yes, household ----------------------------- 11% Yes, both ------------------------------------ 16% No -------------------------------------------- 37% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED -- 12% 18. Were you born and raised in Santa Clara or San Mateo counties? (IF NO, ASK: “How long have you lived in San Mateo or Santa Clara Counties?”) Born and raised ----------------------------- 13% Two years or less ----------------------------- 7% Three to five years --------------------------- 6% Six to 10 years -------------------------------- 7% 11 to 20 years ------------------------------- 13% 21 to 40 years ------------------------------ 27% More than 40 years ------------------------ 23% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ---- 4% 19. I don’t need to know the exact amount, but please stop me when I read the category that includes the total income for your household before taxes in 2019. Was it: (READ CHOICES BELOW) $30,000 and under --------------------------- 2% $30,001 - $60,000 -------------------------- 15% $60,001 - $90,000 -------------------------- 14% $90,001 - $120,000 -------------------------- 7% $120,001 - $150,000 ----------------------- 13% More than $150,000 ----------------------- 36% (DON'T READ) Refused ---------------- 14% Attachment 3_Results_Ward 2 20. What is your gender? Male ------------------------------------------ 43% Female --------------------------------------- 52% Nonbinary ------------------------------------- 0% Rather not say -------------------------------- 6% THANK AND TERMINATE MODE Phone ------------------------------- 32% Online ------------------------------ 68% DISTRICT WARD 1 - Seimens -------------------------- 0% 2 - Kishimoto --------------------- 100% 3 - Cyr -------------------------------- 0% 4 - Riffle ----------------------------- 0% 5 - Holman --------------------------- 0% 6 - Hassett ---------------------------- 0% 7 – Kersteen-Tucker ---------------- 0% COUNTY San Mateo ---------------------------- 0% Santa Clara ------------------------ 100% CITY/TOWN Cupertino --------------------------- 12% Los Altos ----------------------------- 5% Los Gatos ---------------------------- 0% Menlo Park --------------------------- 0% Mountain View ---------------------- 0% Palo Alto --------------------------- 14% Redwood City ----------------------- 0% San Carlos ---------------------------- 0% Saratoga ------------------------------ 2% Sunnyvale -------------------------- 37% Other -------------------------------- 12% Unincorporated -------------------- 18% Attachment 3_Results_Ward 2 JANUARY 9-23, 2020 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 320-876-WT N=98 WARD 3 A/B SPLIT Hello, I'm ________ from______, a public opinion research company. I am not trying to sell you anything. We're conducting a survey about issues that concern residents in your area. May I speak with the person at home over 18 who most recently celebrated a birthday? A. Before we begin, I need to know if I have reached you on a cell phone, and if so, are you in a place where you can talk safely without endangering yourself or others? Yes, cell and can talk safely -------------------------------- 84% Yes, cell but cannot talk safely ---------------- TERMINATE No, not on cell ------------------------------------------------ 16% (DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ------- TERMINATE B. My next questions are to ensure that we are interviewing a representative group of residents in your area. What is your age? Under 18 ------------------------ TERMINATE 18-24 ----------------------------------------- 16% 25-29 ----------------------------------------- 12% 30-34 ----------------------------------------- 21% 35-39 ------------------------------------------- 4% 40-44 ------------------------------------------- 7% 45-49 ----------------------------------------- 10% 50-54 ------------------------------------------- 4% 55-59 ------------------------------------------- 4% 60-64 ----------------------------------------- 10% 65-69 ------------------------------------------- 3% 70-74 ------------------------------------------- 5% 75+ --------------------------------------------- 3% (DK/REFUSED) ---------------------------- 2% C. With which racial or ethnic group do you identify yourself: Hispanic or Latino; African American or Black; Caucasian or White; Asian or Pacific Islander; multiracial; or some other ethnic or racial background? Latino/Hispanic ------------------------------ 8% African American/Black -------------------- 3% Caucasian/White --------------------------- 40% Asian/Pacific Islander --------------------- 33% Multiracial------------------------------------- 7% (OTHER) ------------------------------------- 4% (DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ---- 5% D. Are you registered to vote? (IF YES, ASK: “With which party are you registered to vote: Democratic, Republican, another party, or with no party preference?”) Attachment 4_Results_Ward 3 No, not registered ---------------------------- 8% Democratic ---------------------------------- 64% Republican ------------------------------------ 9% No Party Preference ----------------------- 11% Another party --------------------------------- 2% (DON'T KNOW/NA) ---------------------- 5% 1. OK, let’s begin. First, how would you rate your community as a place to live? Is it … (READ LIST)? EXCELLENT/GOOD ------------------- 85% Excellent------------------------------------- 26% Good ----------------------------------------- 59% FAIR/POOR ------------------------------- 15% Fair ------------------------------------------- 12% Poor -------------------------------------------- 3% (DON'T KNOW/NA) ---------------------- 0% 2. Next, I’m going to read you a list of local organizations and public institutions. For each one, I’d like you to tell me if you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion. If you have never heard of one, please just say so. (RANDOMIZE) (CAN’T NEVER STR SMWT SMWT STR RATE HEARD TOTAL TOTAL FAV FAV UNFAV UNFAV /DK) OF FAV UNFAV [ ]a. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ---------------------- 18% ----- 19% ----- 1% ------- 1% ----- 11% ----- 50% 37% 2% [ ]b. Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority -------------------- 15% ----- 26% ----- 1% ------- 0% ------ 9% ------ 48% 42% 2% [ ]c. Peninsula Open Space Trust ----- 17% ----- 15% ----- 1% ------- 1% ----- 14% ----- 53% 31% 2% [ ]d. California State Parks ------------- 55% ----- 30% ----- 2% ------- 1% ------ 5% -------8% 85% 3% [ ]e. Golden Gate National Recreation Area -------------------- 37% ----- 19% ----- 7% ------- 0% ----- 23% ----- 14% 57% 7% (ASK IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY ONLY) [ ]f. Santa Clara County Parks -------- 40% ----- 39% ----- 6% ------- 0% ------ 5% ------ 10% 79% 6% (ASK IN SAN MATEO COUNTY ONLY) [ ]g. San Mateo County Parks ---------- 0% ------ 0% ------ 0% ------- 0% ------ 0% -------0% 0% 0% Attachment 4_Results_Ward 3 (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 3. I’m going to read you some issues that some people say may be problems in your area. After I read each one, please tell me whether you think each is a problem or not. (IF YES, PROBLEM, ASK: “Do you think it is an extremely, very, or somewhat serious problem?”) (RANDOMIZE) EXT VERY SMWT NOT SER SER SER A (DK/ EXT/ PROB PROB PROB PROB NA) VERY [ ]a. The quality of local natural lands and open space -------------------------------------------------------- 10% ----- 16% ---- 28% ----- 38% ------ 7% 27% [ ]b. Traffic congestion ---------------------------------------- 46% ----- 31% ---- 14% ------5% ------ 3% 77% [ ]c. Loss of natural areas to development ------------------ 24% ----- 16% ---- 27% ----- 21% ----- 12% 41% [ ]d. Fire risk ---------------------------------------------------- 18% ----- 17% ---- 23% ----- 37% ------ 4% 36% [ ]e. Water pollution ------------------------------------------- 17% ----- 17% ---- 26% ----- 23% ----- 18% 34% [ ]f. Air pollution ----------------------------------------------- 22% ----- 20% ---- 21% ----- 27% ----- 10% 42% [ ]g. Loss of wildlife habitat ---------------------------------- 20% ----- 16% ---- 34% ----- 21% ------ 9% 36% [ ]h. A lack of affordable housing ---------------------------- 70% ----- 21% ----- 3% -------5% ------ 1% 91% [ ]i. Climate change -------------------------------------------- 43% ----- 23% ---- 12% ----- 18% ------ 3% 67% [ ]j. The amount you pay in local taxes --------------------- 22% ----- 21% ---- 24% ----- 25% ------ 9% 42% Attachment 4_Results_Ward 3 NOW I’D LIKE TO ASK YOU A FEW MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT. (ASK Q4 ONLY IF CODES 1-4 IN Q2A) 4. You mentioned a few moments ago that you have a FAVORABLE / UNFAVORABLE opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. In a few words of your own, could you tell me why? (OPEN-ENDED; RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE BELOW. PROBE FOR VERY SPECIFIC RESPONSES) a. Favorable, N=36: Preservation of open space/environmental protection --------------------------------------- 41% Support their mission/efforts -------------------------------------------------------------------- 28% Preservation of wildlife/habitat ----------------------------------------------------------------- 19% Trails/facilities are well maintained------------------------------------------------------------ 15% I use trails regularly ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11% Good option for recreation/exercise ------------------------------------------------------------- 9% Easily accessible to the public -------------------------------------------------------------------- 6% General favorable statement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3% Mixed feelings -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3% Enjoy nature’s beauty/beautiful views ---------------------------------------------------------- 2% Other ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11% b. Unfavorable, N=2: More important issues ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46% Poor leadership/management -------------------------------------------------------------------- 24% General unfavorable statement ------------------------------------------------------------------ 20% They take over too much land ------------------------------------------------------------------- 10% Attachment 4_Results_Ward 3 (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) AS YOU MAY KNOW, THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, OFTEN KNOWN AS “MIDPEN,” IS AN INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT PRIMARILY IN SANTA CLARA AND SAN MATEO COUNTIES THAT HAS PRESERVED A REGIONAL GREENBELT OF NEARLY 65 THOUSAND ACRES OF PUBLIC LAND AND MANAGES 26 OPEN SPACE PRESERVES. ITS MISSION IS TO ACQUIRE AND PERMANENTLY PRESERVE OPEN SPACE LAND, PROTECT AND RESTORE THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, AND PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE PUBLIC ENJOYMENT AND EDUCATION. ON THE COAST, ITS MISSION INCLUDES PRESERVING RURAL CHARACTER AND ENCOURAGING VIABLE AGRICULTURAL USE OF LAND. 5. Having heard this, let me ask you again: would you say you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District? TOTAL FAVORABLE ------------------ 77% Strongly favorable ------------------------- 49% Somewhat favorable ----------------------- 28% TOTAL UNFAVORABLE ------------- 11% Somewhat unfavorable ---------------------- 3% Strongly unfavorable ------------------------ 7% (DON'T READ) DK/NA ----------------- 12% 6. Next, I am going to read you a list of goals Midpen has set for itself. For each goal, please tell me if you think it is extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. (RANDOMIZE) EXT VERY SMWT NOT TOO (DK/ EXT/ IMP IMP IMP IMP NA) VERY (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]a. Preserving a regional greenbelt of open space land forever ------------------------------------------------ 38% ----- 37% ---- 20% ------5% ------ 0% 75% [ ]b. Protecting natural areas ---------------------------------- 40% ----- 49% ----- 8% -------4% ------ 0% 89% [ ]c. Providing opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education ------------ 35% ----- 31% ---- 25% ------9% ------ 0% 66% [ ]d. Restoring native plant and wildlife habitat ----------- 34% ----- 26% ---- 28% ----- 12% ------ 0% 60% [ ]e. Providing multiuse trails for hiking, biking, and equestrian use ---------------------------------------- 32% ----- 34% ---- 33% ------2% ------ 0% 66% [ ]f. Stewarding public lands to be resilient in the face of climate change ----------------------------------- 50% ----- 23% ----- 9% ------ 17% ------ 1% 73% [ ]g. Supporting local agriculture along the San Mateo County coast -------------------------------------- 19% ----- 26% ---- 34% ----- 20% ------ 3% 44% [ ]h. Preserving the character of rural areas, such as the Santa Cruz Mountains or the San Mateo County Coast ---------------------------------------------- 19% ----- 30% ---- 34% ----- 17% ------ 0% 49% Attachment 4_Results_Ward 3 EXT VERY SMWT NOT TOO (DK/ EXT/ IMP IMP IMP IMP NA) VERY (SPLIT SAMPLE A CONTINUED) [ ]i. Partnering with local organizations to promote a regional environmental vision ------------------------ 21% ----- 30% ---- 32% ----- 15% ------ 2% 51% [ ]j. Connecting regional trails ------------------------------- 12% ----- 29% ---- 31% ----- 23% ------ 5% 41% [ ]k. Caring for the ecosystem to help native plants and wildlife survive -------------------------------------- 57% ----- 29% ----- 6% -------8% ------ 0% 86% [ ]l. Reducing dead and downed vegetation for wildland fire prevention --------------------------------- 44% ----- 31% ---- 24% ------0% ------ 1% 75% [ ]m. Preserving undeveloped coastal open space and agricultural lands ------------------------------------ 43% ----- 24% ---- 29% ------3% ------ 1% 67% [ ]n. Assessing historical significance of structures on open space lands -------------------------------------- 23% ----- 29% ---- 14% ----- 32% ------ 2% 52% [ ]o. Promoting safe wildlife corridors and trail crossings across Highway 17 --------------------------- 44% ----- 26% ----- 4% ------ 23% ------ 2% 70% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]p. Protecting the ridgetops, hillsides and creeks that create our region’s striking natural beauty ------ 35% ----- 19% ---- 44% ------3% ------ 0% 54% [ ]q. Protecting and restoring the natural environment ----------------------------------------------- 49% ----- 36% ---- 14% ------1% ------ 0% 85% [ ]r. Protecting San Mateo and Santa Clara counties’ agricultural, natural resource, and open space lands for future generations --------------- 61% ----- 16% ---- 23% ------1% ------ 0% 77% [ ]s. Creating opportunities for outdoor recreation -------- 38% ----- 26% ---- 31% ------4% ------ 0% 65% [ ]t. Preserving diverse habitat for wildlife ----------------- 48% ----- 26% ---- 26% ------1% ------ 0% 74% [ ]u. Providing regional hiking trails ------------------------- 35% ----- 23% ---- 38% ------4% ------ 0% 58% [ ]v. Restoring public lands to be resilient in the face of climate change ----------------------------------- 43% ----- 33% ---- 19% ------5% ------ 0% 76% [ ]w. Connecting kids to nature ------------------------------- 38% ----- 40% ---- 21% ------1% ------ 0% 78% [ ]x. Protecting the waterways and natural lands that maintain water quality and supply ---------------- 58% ----- 20% ---- 22% ------1% ------ 0% 78% [ ]y. Managing redwood forests ------------------------------ 62% ----- 18% ---- 19% ------1% ------ 0% 80% [ ]z. Protecting San Mateo and Santa Clara counties’ agricultural, natural resource, and open space lands ------------------------------------------ 50% ----- 20% ---- 28% ------2% ------ 0% 70% [ ]aa. Protecting coastal grasslands---------------------------- 41% ----- 30% ---- 24% ------3% ------ 2% 72% [ ]bb. Improving access for individuals with disabilities at local preserves ---------------------------- 31% ----- 24% ---- 34% ----- 11% ------ 0% 55% [ ]cc. Partnering with Native American tribes to relearn and reapply indigenous plant restoration techniques ------------------------------------ 34% ----- 20% ---- 31% ----- 11% ------ 4% 53% [ ]dd. Removing invasive species to restore native plant and wildlife habitat -------------------------------- 47% ----- 35% ---- 17% ------1% ------ 0% 82% Attachment 4_Results_Ward 3 (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 7. And which of these six components of the Midpen mission do you think is most important to you? (RE- READ AND RANDOMIZE LIST IF NECESSARY) [ ] Acquiring and preserving a regional greenbelt ------------------------------------------- 13% [ ] Restoring the natural environment---------------------------------------------------------- 22% [ ] Providing opportunities for ecologically sensitive public recreation ------------------ 21% [ ] Educating the public about conservation and nature ------------------------------------- 16% [ ] Preserving rural character ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 4% [ ] Encouraging viable agricultural land use ---------------------------------------------------- 5% (DON'T READ) All ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14% (DON'T READ) None ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% (DON'T READ) Other (SPECIFY) ------------------------------------------------------------ 1% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/Refused -------------------------------------------------------------- 1% 8. Stepping back for a moment, I’d like to read you two statements about Midpen preserves. I’d like you to tell me which comes closer to your opinion, even if neither is exactly right. (ROTATE) [ ] I prefer preserves that provide multiple visitor amenities, such as water bottle refilling stations, restrooms, and picnic areas --------------------------------- 24% OR [ ] I prefer preserves that put a high priority on wildlife habitat restoration and protection, with only low-impact trails that encourage users to leave no trace ---------- 73% (DON’T READ) (BOTH) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% (NEITHER)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0% (DON'T KNOW/NA) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% Attachment 4_Results_Ward 3 9. Next, I am going to read you a series of statements about the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. For each one, please tell me if it makes you view Midpen much more favorably, somewhat more favorably, or if it makes no difference. (RANDOMIZE) MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV [ ]a. (SPECIAL CHARACTER) People choose to live in the Bay Area because of its scenic beauty and recreational opportunities. The stunning ridge and coastal views and riding, biking, and hiking trails we have in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties are truly unique. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District works to preserve what we love most about living here. ----------------------------------- 44% ----- 26% ---- 24% ------1% ------ 5% 70% (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]b. (WATER QUALITY) Nothing is more important than clean drinking water. By protecting and restoring areas around sources of water, Midpen increases access to water and naturally prevents the pollution of our water. -------- 56% ----- 19% ---- 25% ------0% ------ 0% 75% [ ]c. (PARTNERSHIPS) Midpen regularly partners with local nonprofits, the counties, and state and regional park organizations to leverage their resources and connect residents with open space, recreational opportunities, and educational programs. Connecting these public lands supports biodiversity, providing places for local plants and wildlife to thrive. --------- 34% ----- 35% ---- 21% ------2% ------ 8% 69% [ ]d. (PUBLIC HEALTH) Open space preserves and natural areas provide spaces where families and children can safely walk, run, and bicycle – improving the physical health of residents, reducing obesity, and reducing healthcare costs. These areas are open 365 days a year, sunrise to sunset, to anyone, and for free. ----------------------------------------------------- 62% ----- 26% ---- 10% ------1% ------ 2% 88% [ ]e. (WILDLIFE) By restoring and protecting natural areas, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is protecting wildlife habitats and California’s unique biodiversity. ------------------ 36% ----- 39% ---- 22% ------2% ------ 2% 75% Attachment 4_Results_Ward 3 MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV (SPLIT SAMPLE A CONTINUED) [ ]f. (AG SUSTAINABILITY) San Mateo and Santa Clara counties have rich agricultural and ranching history. That’s why Midpen protects sustainable, working agricultural ranchlands connecting past and future along the scenic coast. -------------------------------------------------------- 32% ----- 20% ---- 38% ------3% ------ 6% 52% [ ]g. (CARING) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is caring for the land to create healthy habitats for plants, animals, and people. ------------------------------------------------------ 40% ----- 30% ---- 29% ------0% ------ 2% 70% [ ]h. (UNDERSERVED) Midpen programming connects people to nature through enriched experiences, especially people who are typically less likely to have access to natural areas and open spaces. That includes low- income communities and communities of color. -------------------------------------------------------- 31% ----- 33% ---- 35% ------1% ------ 0% 64% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]i. (AG HISTORY) San Mateo and Santa Clara counties have rich agricultural and ranching history. That’s why the Midpeninsula Open Space District preserves historic, agricultural lands close to home along the scenic coast. ---------- 25% ----- 43% ---- 21% ------0% ----- 11% 68% [ ]j. (RECREATION) Parks and open spaces provide safe places for the community to gather and explore the outdoors. It’s especially important to keep these accessible options for everyone as the cost of living increases. Midpen ensures that San Mateo and Santa Clara County residents have access to well- maintained and beautiful recreation areas. ------------ 60% ----- 17% ---- 13% ------0% ------ 9% 78% [ ]k. (CLIMATE) Smart investments made before a disaster strikes can help protect a community’s quality of life, save lives, and reduce the cost to taxpayers. Midpen is taking a proactive, practical approach to stewardship of public lands, helping ensure San Mateo and Santa Clara counties are resilient as the climate changes. ------------------------------------------ 58% ----- 27% ----- 8% -------0% ------ 7% 85% Attachment 4_Results_Ward 3 MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV (SPLIT SAMPLE B CONTINUED) [ ]l. (FIRES) Midpen is working with fire agencies and surrounding communities to strengthen prevention and preparation in case of wildland fires. This includes maintaining hundreds of miles of fire roads. Midpen is also using conservation grazing to reduce flammable brush within grassland habitats, limiting the risk of fire, or fire intensity if it does occur. ---------- 63% ----- 24% ----- 4% -------0% ------ 9% 87% [ ]m. (EDUCATION) Midpen programming connects people to nature through enriched experiences, including environmental interpretation, docent-led activities and volunteer opportunities. ---------------------------------- 25% ----- 42% ---- 23% ------1% ----- 10% 67% [ ]n. (PLACE) Few other conservation organizations protect and restore such a wide variety of unique natural areas: from redwood forests to the Bay and the ocean, from serpentine-soil grasslands to Tafoni sandstone. Our peninsula is unique and Midpen works to protect and restore these places for the wildlife that call it home, and the people who visit and recreate there. --------------------------------------------- 39% ----- 39% ---- 12% ------0% ----- 11% 77% (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 10. Next, having heard this, let me ask you one last time - do you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District? TOTAL FAVORABLE --------------------------- 83% Strongly favorable ---------------------------------- 56% Somewhat favorable -------------------------------- 27% TOTAL UNFAVORABLE ----------------------- 8% Somewhat unfavorable ------------------------------- 6% Strongly unfavorable --------------------------------- 1% (DON'T READ) CAN’T RATE/DK/NA --------- 9% Attachment 4_Results_Ward 3 11. Next, I’m going to read you a list of sources from which people get information about (SPLIT SAMPLE A: local issues in your area) (SPLIT SAMPLE B: parks, open space, and the outdoors). For each, I’d like you to tell me how often you use it to get information about (SPLIT SAMPLE A: local issues in your area) (SPLIT SAMPLE B: parks, open space and the outdoors): frequently, occasionally, rarely, or never. (RANDOMIZE) (DK/ FREQ RRLY FREQ OCCAS RARELY NEVER NA) /OCC /NVR [ ]a. Local television stations -------------------12% ----- 21% ----- 14% ----- 52% ------ 2% 33% 65% [ ]b. KQED Radio --------------------------------15% ----- 19% ------- 9% ----- 55% ------ 2% 34% 64% [ ]c. Radio stations other than KQED ---------- 8% ----- 23% ----- 16% ----- 51% ------ 1% 31% 68% [ ]d. Information you receive in the mail------- 7% ----- 27% ----- 14% ----- 49% ------ 2% 35% 63% [ ]e. Facebook -------------------------------------- 9% ----- 21% ----- 29% ----- 39% ------ 2% 30% 68% [ ]f. Twitter ----------------------------------------- 6% ------ 9% ----- 12% ----- 72% ------ 2% 15% 84% [ ]g. Instagram ------------------------------------- 6% ----- 11% ----- 10% ----- 73% ------ 1% 17% 82% [ ]h. Blogs on the Internet -----------------------12% ----- 14% ----- 18% ----- 55% ------ 1% 26% 73% [ ]i. The San José Mercury News newspaper ------------------------------------- 9% ----- 14% ----- 17% ----- 59% ------ 1% 23% 76% [ ]j. The San Francisco Chronicle newspaper ------------------------------------- 2% ----- 16% ------- 7% ----- 73% ------ 2% 18% 80% [ ]k. The Half Moon Bay Review newspaper ------------------------------------- 0% ------ 5% ------- 7% ----- 86% ------ 2% 5% 93% [ ]l. The Midpen newsletter and activity guide mailed to your home ----------------- 6% ------ 8% ------- 9% ----- 74% ------ 3% 15% 82% [ ]m. The Midpen e-newsletter ------------------- 6% ------ 3% ------- 6% ----- 82% ------ 2% 9% 89% [ ]n. Nextdoor -------------------------------------- 7% ----- 14% ----- 18% ----- 60% ------ 2% 21% 77% [ ]o. Midpen’s public meetings ------------------ 1% ------ 4% ----- 10% ----- 83% ------ 2% 5% 93% [ ]p. Midpen’s website, openspace-dot- org --------------------------------------------- 3% ----- 18% ----- 18% ----- 61% ------ 1% 20% 79% Attachment 4_Results_Ward 3 12. Were there any sources of information you use that I didn’t mention? (OPEN END, RECORD VERBATIM) No -------------------------------------------- 58% Google ----------------------------------------- 8% Word of mouth ------------------------------- 7% Internet (general) ----------------------------- 6% Facebook/social media ---------------------- 6% Local television news ------------------------ 4% Reddit ------------------------------------------ 3% Local newsletter ------------------------------ 2% News radio ------------------------------------ 1% You Tube -------------------------------------- 1% Magazines (not specified)------------------- 1% Maps ------------------------------------------- 1% LinkedIn --------------------------------------- 0% National newspaper -------------------------- 0% National news --------------------------------- 0% Community centers -------------------------- 0% Local newspaper ----------------------------- 0% Saratogian ------------------------------------- 0% Government website ------------------------- 0% Library ----------------------------------------- 0% Yelp -------------------------------------------- 0% Personal experience -------------------------- 0% Other ------------------------------------------- 3% Attachment 4_Results_Ward 3 WE'RE JUST ABOUT DONE. I'M ONLY GOING TO ASK YOU A FEW MORE QUESTIONS FOR CLASSIFICATION PURPOSES. 13. First, I’d like you to consider your visits to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District preserves. Please tell me how often you typically visit and use Midpen preserves in this way: about once a week, a few times a month, a few times a year, once a year, or never. (RANDOMIZE) ONCE/ FEW/ FEW/ ONCE/ (DK/ WEEK MO YEAR YEAR NEVER NA) [ ]a. Walking or hiking -------------------------------------- 5% ------ 23% ----- 28% ---- 12% ----- 29% ------ 2% [ ]b. Running or jogging ------------------------------------- 6% ------ 10% ----- 19% ----- 5% ------ 58% ------ 1% [ ]c. Dog walking --------------------------------------------- 5% -------7% ------ 4% ----- 12% ----- 71% ------ 1% [ ]d. Horseback riding ---------------------------------------- 0% -------0% ------ 5% ----- 12% ----- 82% ------ 1% [ ]e. Mountain biking ---------------------------------------- 1% -------2% ------ 9% ----- 15% ----- 73% ------ 1% [ ]f. Birdwatching or wildlife viewing -------------------- 3% -------3% ----- 17% ---- 14% ----- 61% ------ 3% [ ]g. Spending time in nature ------------------------------ 11% ----- 21% ----- 29% ---- 16% ----- 22% ------ 1% [ ]h. Ranger- or docent-led programs ---------------------- 0% -------0% ----- 10% ---- 13% ----- 74% ------ 2% [ ]i. Backpack camping ------------------------------------- 0% -------0% ----- 12% ---- 17% ----- 70% ------ 1% (ASK IF EVER VISIT FOR ANY REASON – CODE 1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4 IN ANY ITEM IN Q13) 14. Do you feel safe or unsafe outdoors in local nature preserves? (IF SAFE/UNSAFE, ASK: “Is that very or somewhat SAFE/UNSAFE?”) TOTAL SAFE ----------------------------- 94% Very safe ------------------------------------ 60% Somewhat safe ------------------------------ 34% TOTAL UNSAFE ------------------------- 6% Somewhat unsafe----------------------------- 5% Very unsafe ----------------------------------- 1% (DON’T READ) Don’t visit them/NA --- 0% (DON'T READ) Don’t know -------------- 0% (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 15. Do you have any children under the age of 19 living at home? Yes ------------------------------------------- 15% No -------------------------------------------- 82% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ---- 3% Attachment 4_Results_Ward 3 16. What was the last level of school you completed? High school graduate or less ------------- 12% Some college -------------------------------- 28% Associate’s Degree ------------------------ 22% College graduate --------------------------- 18% Post-graduate ------------------------------- 15% (DON'T KNOW) ---------------------------- 5% 17. Do you work in the technology industry? (IF NO: “Does anyone in your household work in the technology industry?”) Yes, self ------------------------------------- 33% Yes, household ----------------------------- 16% Yes, both -------------------------------------- 9% No -------------------------------------------- 37% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ---- 5% 18. Were you born and raised in Santa Clara or San Mateo counties? (IF NO, ASK: “How long have you lived in San Mateo or Santa Clara Counties?”) Born and raised ----------------------------- 42% Two years or less ----------------------------- 9% Three to five years --------------------------- 6% Six to 10 years -------------------------------- 2% 11 to 20 years ------------------------------- 12% 21 to 40 years -------------------------------- 5% More than 40 years ------------------------ 11% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED -- 12% 19. I don’t need to know the exact amount, but please stop me when I read the category that includes the total income for your household before taxes in 2019. Was it: (READ CHOICES BELOW) $30,000 and under ------------------------- 18% $30,001 - $60,000 -------------------------- 13% $60,001 - $90,000 -------------------------- 10% $90,001 - $120,000 -------------------------- 8% $120,001 - $150,000 ------------------------- 3% More than $150,000 ----------------------- 21% (DON'T READ) Refused ---------------- 27% Attachment 4_Results_Ward 3 20. What is your gender? Male ------------------------------------------ 56% Female --------------------------------------- 35% Nonbinary ------------------------------------- 0% Rather not say -------------------------------- 9% THANK AND TERMINATE MODE Phone ------------------------------- 70% Online ------------------------------ 30% DISTRICT WARD 1 - Seimens -------------------------- 0% 2 - Kishimoto ------------------------ 0% 3 - Cyr ----------------------------- 100% 4 - Riffle ----------------------------- 0% 5 - Holman --------------------------- 0% 6 - Hassett ---------------------------- 0% 7 – Kersteen-Tucker ---------------- 0% COUNTY San Mateo ---------------------------- 0% Santa Clara ------------------------ 100% CITY/TOWN Cupertino ----------------------------- 0% Los Altos ----------------------------- 0% Los Gatos ---------------------------- 0% Menlo Park --------------------------- 0% Mountain View ---------------------- 0% Palo Alto ----------------------------- 0% Redwood City ----------------------- 0% San Carlos ---------------------------- 0% Saratoga ------------------------------ 0% Sunnyvale ------------------------- 100% Other ---------------------------------- 0% Unincorporated ---------------------- 0% Attachment 4_Results_Ward 3 JANUARY 9-23, 2020 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 320-876-WT N=124 WARD 4 A/B SPLIT Hello, I'm ________ from______, a public opinion research company. I am not trying to sell you anything. We're conducting a survey about issues that concern residents in your area. May I speak with the person at home over 18 who most recently celebrated a birthday? A. Before we begin, I need to know if I have reached you on a cell phone, and if so, are you in a place where you can talk safely without endangering yourself or others? Yes, cell and can talk safely -------------------------------- 88% Yes, cell but cannot talk safely ---------------- TERMINATE No, not on cell ------------------------------------------------ 12% (DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ------- TERMINATE B. My next questions are to ensure that we are interviewing a representative group of residents in your area. What is your age? Under 18 ------------------------ TERMINATE 18-24 ----------------------------------------- 13% 25-29 ------------------------------------------- 5% 30-34 ------------------------------------------- 6% 35-39 ----------------------------------------- 19% 40-44 ------------------------------------------- 5% 45-49 ----------------------------------------- 18% 50-54 ------------------------------------------- 4% 55-59 ------------------------------------------- 5% 60-64 ----------------------------------------- 12% 65-69 ------------------------------------------- 2% 70-74 ------------------------------------------- 3% 75+ --------------------------------------------- 5% (DK/REFUSED) ---------------------------- 3% C. With which racial or ethnic group do you identify yourself: Hispanic or Latino; African American or Black; Caucasian or White; Asian or Pacific Islander; multiracial; or some other ethnic or racial background? Latino/Hispanic ------------------------------ 9% African American/Black -------------------- 0% Caucasian/White --------------------------- 52% Asian/Pacific Islander --------------------- 17% Multiracial------------------------------------- 6% (OTHER) ------------------------------------- 1% (DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED -- 14% D. Are you registered to vote? (IF YES, ASK: “With which party are you registered to vote: Democratic, Republican, another party, or with no party preference?”) Attachment 5_Results_Ward 4 No, not registered ---------------------------- 4% Democratic ---------------------------------- 52% Republican ------------------------------------ 8% No Party Preference ----------------------- 18% Another party ------------------------------- 14% (DON'T KNOW/NA) ---------------------- 3% 1. OK, let’s begin. First, how would you rate your community as a place to live? Is it … (READ LIST)? EXCELLENT/GOOD ------------------- 92% Excellent------------------------------------- 39% Good ----------------------------------------- 52% FAIR/POOR -------------------------------- 8% Fair --------------------------------------------- 5% Poor -------------------------------------------- 3% (DON'T KNOW/NA) ---------------------- 0% 2. Next, I’m going to read you a list of local organizations and public institutions. For each one, I’d like you to tell me if you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion. If you have never heard of one, please just say so. (RANDOMIZE) (CAN’T NEVER STR SMWT SMWT STR RATE HEARD TOTAL TOTAL FAV FAV UNFAV UNFAV /DK) OF FAV UNFAV [ ]a. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ---------------------- 39% ----- 11% ----- 0% ------- 2% ------ 7% ------ 41% 50% 2% [ ]b. Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority -------------------- 18% ----- 12% ----- 1% ------- 1% ------ 9% ------ 59% 30% 1% [ ]c. Peninsula Open Space Trust ----- 29% ----- 17% ----- 1% ------- 1% ------ 6% ------ 47% 46% 1% [ ]d. California State Parks ------------- 62% ----- 31% ----- 1% ------- 0% ------ 1% -------5% 93% 1% [ ]e. Golden Gate National Recreation Area -------------------- 42% ----- 36% ----- 3% ------- 0% ------ 7% ------ 13% 77% 3% (ASK IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY ONLY) [ ]f. Santa Clara County Parks -------- 33% ----- 48% ----- 1% ------- 3% ------ 5% ------ 11% 81% 3% (ASK IN SAN MATEO COUNTY ONLY) [ ]g. San Mateo County Parks ---------- 0% ------ 0% ------ 0% ------- 0% ------ 0% -------0% 0% 0% Attachment 5_Results_Ward 4 (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 3. I’m going to read you some issues that some people say may be problems in your area. After I read each one, please tell me whether you think each is a problem or not. (IF YES, PROBLEM, ASK: “Do you think it is an extremely, very, or somewhat serious problem?”) (RANDOMIZE) EXT VERY SMWT NOT SER SER SER A (DK/ EXT/ PROB PROB PROB PROB NA) VERY [ ]a. The quality of local natural lands and open space -------------------------------------------------------- 8% ------ 15% ---- 34% ----- 39% ------ 3% 23% [ ]b. Traffic congestion ---------------------------------------- 33% ----- 34% ---- 26% ------7% ------ 0% 67% [ ]c. Loss of natural areas to development ------------------ 19% ----- 23% ---- 36% ----- 18% ------ 4% 42% [ ]d. Fire risk ---------------------------------------------------- 26% ----- 21% ---- 31% ----- 21% ------ 1% 47% [ ]e. Water pollution ------------------------------------------- 19% ----- 23% ---- 34% ----- 20% ------ 4% 42% [ ]f. Air pollution ----------------------------------------------- 29% ----- 27% ---- 30% ----- 13% ------ 1% 56% [ ]g. Loss of wildlife habitat ---------------------------------- 20% ----- 29% ---- 36% ----- 14% ------ 1% 49% [ ]h. A lack of affordable housing ---------------------------- 60% ----- 22% ----- 9% -------9% ------ 0% 82% [ ]i. Climate change -------------------------------------------- 48% ----- 24% ----- 9% ------ 17% ------ 1% 73% [ ]j. The amount you pay in local taxes --------------------- 7% ------ 18% ---- 31% ----- 39% ------ 4% 25% Attachment 5_Results_Ward 4 NOW I’D LIKE TO ASK YOU A FEW MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT. (ASK Q4 ONLY IF CODES 1-4 IN Q2A) 4. You mentioned a few moments ago that you have a FAVORABLE / UNFAVORABLE opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. In a few words of your own, could you tell me why? (OPEN-ENDED; RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE BELOW. PROBE FOR VERY SPECIFIC RESPONSES) a. Favorable, N=62: Preservation of open space/environmental protection --------------------------------------- 43% Support their mission/efforts -------------------------------------------------------------------- 32% I use trails regularly ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 25% Good option for recreation/exercise ----------------------------------------------------------- 22% Trails/facilities are well maintained------------------------------------------------------------ 14% Mixed feelings -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5% General favorable statement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 4% Enjoy nature’s beauty/beautiful views ---------------------------------------------------------- 2% Easily accessible to the public -------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% Preservation of wildlife/habitat ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% Dog friendly ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% Watershed protection------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% Other -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3% Refused ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% b. Unfavorable, N=2: Poor leadership/management -------------------------------------------------------------------- 52% Other------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 48% Attachment 5_Results_Ward 4 (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) AS YOU MAY KNOW, THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, OFTEN KNOWN AS “MIDPEN,” IS AN INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT PRIMARILY IN SANTA CLARA AND SAN MATEO COUNTIES THAT HAS PRESERVED A REGIONAL GREENBELT OF NEARLY 65 THOUSAND ACRES OF PUBLIC LAND AND MANAGES 26 OPEN SPACE PRESERVES. ITS MISSION IS TO ACQUIRE AND PERMANENTLY PRESERVE OPEN SPACE LAND, PROTECT AND RESTORE THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, AND PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE PUBLIC ENJOYMENT AND EDUCATION. ON THE COAST, ITS MISSION INCLUDES PRESERVING RURAL CHARACTER AND ENCOURAGING VIABLE AGRICULTURAL USE OF LAND. 5. Having heard this, let me ask you again: would you say you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District? TOTAL FAVORABLE ------------------ 89% Strongly favorable ------------------------- 60% Somewhat favorable ----------------------- 28% TOTAL UNFAVORABLE -------------- 2% Somewhat unfavorable ---------------------- 0% Strongly unfavorable ------------------------ 2% (DON'T READ) DK/NA ----------------- 10% 6. Next, I am going to read you a list of goals Midpen has set for itself. For each goal, please tell me if you think it is extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. (RANDOMIZE) EXT VERY SMWT NOT TOO (DK/ EXT/ IMP IMP IMP IMP NA) VERY (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]a. Preserving a regional greenbelt of open space land forever ------------------------------------------------ 53% ----- 32% ---- 11% ------0% ------ 4% 84% [ ]b. Protecting natural areas ---------------------------------- 59% ----- 23% ---- 13% ------1% ------ 3% 82% [ ]c. Providing opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education ------------ 42% ----- 38% ---- 19% ------2% ------ 0% 79% [ ]d. Restoring native plant and wildlife habitat ----------- 25% ----- 45% ---- 25% ------2% ------ 3% 70% [ ]e. Providing multiuse trails for hiking, biking, and equestrian use ---------------------------------------- 27% ----- 27% ---- 42% ------3% ------ 0% 54% [ ]f. Stewarding public lands to be resilient in the face of climate change ----------------------------------- 40% ----- 35% ---- 18% ------1% ------ 6% 75% [ ]g. Supporting local agriculture along the San Mateo County coast -------------------------------------- 23% ----- 42% ---- 26% ------8% ------ 0% 65% [ ]h. Preserving the character of rural areas, such as the Santa Cruz Mountains or the San Mateo County Coast ---------------------------------------------- 25% ----- 39% ---- 28% ------8% ------ 0% 64% Attachment 5_Results_Ward 4 EXT VERY SMWT NOT TOO (DK/ EXT/ IMP IMP IMP IMP NA) VERY (SPLIT SAMPLE A CONTINUED) [ ]i. Partnering with local organizations to promote a regional environmental vision ------------------------ 27% ----- 40% ---- 27% ------4% ------ 2% 67% [ ]j. Connecting regional trails ------------------------------- 17% ----- 41% ---- 34% ------5% ------ 3% 59% [ ]k. Caring for the ecosystem to help native plants and wildlife survive -------------------------------------- 38% ----- 50% ----- 9% -------0% ------ 3% 88% [ ]l. Reducing dead and downed vegetation for wildland fire prevention --------------------------------- 50% ----- 38% ----- 9% -------3% ------ 0% 88% [ ]m. Preserving undeveloped coastal open space and agricultural lands ------------------------------------ 37% ----- 43% ---- 14% ------5% ------ 1% 80% [ ]n. Assessing historical significance of structures on open space lands -------------------------------------- 19% ----- 27% ---- 33% ----- 20% ------ 2% 45% [ ]o. Promoting safe wildlife corridors and trail crossings across Highway 17 --------------------------- 34% ----- 47% ---- 13% ------2% ------ 4% 81% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]p. Protecting the ridgetops, hillsides and creeks that create our region’s striking natural beauty ------ 51% ----- 18% ---- 31% ------0% ------ 0% 69% [ ]q. Protecting and restoring the natural environment ----------------------------------------------- 40% ----- 48% ---- 12% ------1% ------ 0% 88% [ ]r. Protecting San Mateo and Santa Clara counties’ agricultural, natural resource, and open space lands for future generations --------------- 42% ----- 35% ---- 22% ------2% ------ 0% 77% [ ]s. Creating opportunities for outdoor recreation -------- 17% ----- 29% ---- 50% ------0% ------ 4% 46% [ ]t. Preserving diverse habitat for wildlife ----------------- 44% ----- 37% ---- 19% ------0% ------ 0% 80% [ ]u. Providing regional hiking trails ------------------------- 30% ----- 19% ---- 48% ------3% ------ 0% 49% [ ]v. Restoring public lands to be resilient in the face of climate change ----------------------------------- 46% ----- 31% ---- 17% ------2% ------ 4% 77% [ ]w. Connecting kids to nature ------------------------------- 49% ----- 26% ---- 24% ------2% ------ 0% 75% [ ]x. Protecting the waterways and natural lands that maintain water quality and supply ---------------- 66% ----- 20% ---- 10% ------0% ------ 4% 86% [ ]y. Managing redwood forests ------------------------------ 69% ----- 18% ---- 13% ------0% ------ 0% 87% [ ]z. Protecting San Mateo and Santa Clara counties’ agricultural, natural resource, and open space lands ------------------------------------------ 30% ----- 40% ---- 24% ------7% ------ 0% 70% [ ]aa. Protecting coastal grasslands---------------------------- 36% ----- 41% ---- 21% ------1% ------ 1% 77% [ ]bb. Improving access for individuals with disabilities at local preserves ---------------------------- 23% ----- 22% ---- 43% ----- 13% ------ 0% 44% [ ]cc. Partnering with Native American tribes to relearn and reapply indigenous plant restoration techniques ------------------------------------ 37% ----- 25% ---- 33% ------4% ------ 0% 63% [ ]dd. Removing invasive species to restore native plant and wildlife habitat -------------------------------- 32% ----- 44% ---- 21% ------3% ------ 0% 75% Attachment 5_Results_Ward 4 (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 7. And which of these six components of the Midpen mission do you think is most important to you? (RE- READ AND RANDOMIZE LIST IF NECESSARY) [ ] Acquiring and preserving a regional greenbelt ------------------------------------------- 16% [ ] Restoring the natural environment---------------------------------------------------------- 12% [ ] Providing opportunities for ecologically sensitive public recreation ------------------ 11% [ ] Educating the public about conservation and nature ------------------------------------- 25% [ ] Preserving rural character ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3% [ ] Encouraging viable agricultural land use ---------------------------------------------------- 9% (DON'T READ) All ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18% (DON'T READ) None ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% (DON'T READ) Other (SPECIFY) ------------------------------------------------------------ 3% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/Refused -------------------------------------------------------------- 0% 8. Stepping back for a moment, I’d like to read you two statements about Midpen preserves. I’d like you to tell me which comes closer to your opinion, even if neither is exactly right. (ROTATE) [ ] I prefer preserves that provide multiple visitor amenities, such as water bottle refilling stations, restrooms, and picnic areas --------------------------------- 22% OR [ ] I prefer preserves that put a high priority on wildlife habitat restoration and protection, with only low-impact trails that encourage users to leave no trace ---------- 77% (DON’T READ) (BOTH) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0% (NEITHER)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0% (DON'T KNOW/NA) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% Attachment 5_Results_Ward 4 9. Next, I am going to read you a series of statements about the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. For each one, please tell me if it makes you view Midpen much more favorably, somewhat more favorably, or if it makes no difference. (RANDOMIZE) MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV [ ]a. (SPECIAL CHARACTER) People choose to live in the Bay Area because of its scenic beauty and recreational opportunities. The stunning ridge and coastal views and riding, biking, and hiking trails we have in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties are truly unique. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District works to preserve what we love most about living here. ----------------------------------- 39% ----- 28% ---- 30% ------1% ------ 3% 67% (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]b. (WATER QUALITY) Nothing is more important than clean drinking water. By protecting and restoring areas around sources of water, Midpen increases access to water and naturally prevents the pollution of our water. -------- 38% ----- 50% ---- 13% ------0% ------ 0% 87% [ ]c. (PARTNERSHIPS) Midpen regularly partners with local nonprofits, the counties, and state and regional park organizations to leverage their resources and connect residents with open space, recreational opportunities, and educational programs. Connecting these public lands supports biodiversity, providing places for local plants and wildlife to thrive. --------- 32% ----- 39% ---- 25% ------0% ------ 4% 71% [ ]d. (PUBLIC HEALTH) Open space preserves and natural areas provide spaces where families and children can safely walk, run, and bicycle – improving the physical health of residents, reducing obesity, and reducing healthcare costs. These areas are open 365 days a year, sunrise to sunset, to anyone, and for free. ----------------------------------------------------- 41% ----- 43% ---- 16% ------0% ------ 0% 84% [ ]e. (WILDLIFE) By restoring and protecting natural areas, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is protecting wildlife habitats and California’s unique biodiversity. ------------------ 40% ----- 43% ---- 16% ------1% ------ 0% 83% Attachment 5_Results_Ward 4 MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV (SPLIT SAMPLE A CONTINUED) [ ]f. (AG SUSTAINABILITY) San Mateo and Santa Clara counties have rich agricultural and ranching history. That’s why Midpen protects sustainable, working agricultural ranchlands connecting past and future along the scenic coast. -------------------------------------------------------- 23% ----- 44% ---- 30% ------2% ------ 1% 68% [ ]g. (CARING) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is caring for the land to create healthy habitats for plants, animals, and people. ------------------------------------------------------ 40% ----- 36% ---- 23% ------0% ------ 0% 77% [ ]h. (UNDERSERVED) Midpen programming connects people to nature through enriched experiences, especially people who are typically less likely to have access to natural areas and open spaces. That includes low- income communities and communities of color. -------------------------------------------------------- 44% ----- 38% ---- 12% ------0% ------ 6% 83% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]i. (AG HISTORY) San Mateo and Santa Clara counties have rich agricultural and ranching history. That’s why the Midpeninsula Open Space District preserves historic, agricultural lands close to home along the scenic coast. ---------- 21% ----- 47% ---- 19% ----- 10% ------ 4% 68% [ ]j. (RECREATION) Parks and open spaces provide safe places for the community to gather and explore the outdoors. It’s especially important to keep these accessible options for everyone as the cost of living increases. Midpen ensures that San Mateo and Santa Clara County residents have access to well- maintained and beautiful recreation areas. ------------ 49% ----- 13% ---- 35% ------0% ------ 4% 62% [ ]k. (CLIMATE) Smart investments made before a disaster strikes can help protect a community’s quality of life, save lives, and reduce the cost to taxpayers. Midpen is taking a proactive, practical approach to stewardship of public lands, helping ensure San Mateo and Santa Clara counties are resilient as the climate changes. ------------------------------------------ 35% ----- 40% ---- 17% ------3% ------ 4% 76% Attachment 5_Results_Ward 4 MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV (SPLIT SAMPLE B CONTINUED) [ ]l. (FIRES) Midpen is working with fire agencies and surrounding communities to strengthen prevention and preparation in case of wildland fires. This includes maintaining hundreds of miles of fire roads. Midpen is also using conservation grazing to reduce flammable brush within grassland habitats, limiting the risk of fire, or fire intensity if it does occur. ---------- 38% ----- 52% ----- 4% -------2% ------ 4% 90% [ ]m. (EDUCATION) Midpen programming connects people to nature through enriched experiences, including environmental interpretation, docent-led activities and volunteer opportunities. ---------------------------------- 24% ----- 38% ---- 21% ------6% ----- 11% 63% [ ]n. (PLACE) Few other conservation organizations protect and restore such a wide variety of unique natural areas: from redwood forests to the Bay and the ocean, from serpentine-soil grasslands to Tafoni sandstone. Our peninsula is unique and Midpen works to protect and restore these places for the wildlife that call it home, and the people who visit and recreate there. --------------------------------------------- 35% ----- 44% ---- 17% ------0% ------ 4% 79% (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 10. Next, having heard this, let me ask you one last time - do you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District? TOTAL FAVORABLE --------------------------- 89% Strongly favorable ---------------------------------- 64% Somewhat favorable -------------------------------- 26% TOTAL UNFAVORABLE ----------------------- 2% Somewhat unfavorable ------------------------------- 0% Strongly unfavorable --------------------------------- 2% (DON'T READ) CAN’T RATE/DK/NA --------- 8% Attachment 5_Results_Ward 4 11. Next, I’m going to read you a list of sources from which people get information about (SPLIT SAMPLE A: local issues in your area) (SPLIT SAMPLE B: parks, open space, and the outdoors). For each, I’d like you to tell me how often you use it to get information about (SPLIT SAMPLE A: local issues in your area) (SPLIT SAMPLE B: parks, open space and the outdoors): frequently, occasionally, rarely, or never. (RANDOMIZE) (DK/ FREQ RRLY FREQ OCCAS RARELY NEVER NA) /OCC /NVR [ ]a. Local television stations -------------------- 8% ----- 23% ----- 23% ----- 44% ------ 3% 31% 66% [ ]b. KQED Radio --------------------------------20% ----- 26% ----- 21% ----- 30% ------ 4% 46% 51% [ ]c. Radio stations other than KQED ---------11% ----- 15% ----- 24% ----- 44% ------ 5% 27% 68% [ ]d. Information you receive in the mail------- 4% ----- 28% ----- 32% ----- 33% ------ 3% 32% 64% [ ]e. Facebook -------------------------------------13% ----- 26% ----- 19% ----- 39% ------ 3% 39% 58% [ ]f. Twitter ----------------------------------------- 2% ----- 14% ----- 15% ----- 63% ------ 5% 17% 78% [ ]g. Instagram ------------------------------------- 5% ----- 12% ------- 7% ----- 72% ------ 5% 17% 78% [ ]h. Blogs on the Internet ------------------------ 5% ----- 18% ----- 14% ----- 60% ------ 3% 23% 74% [ ]i. The San José Mercury News newspaper ------------------------------------- 6% ----- 23% ----- 19% ----- 49% ------ 3% 29% 68% [ ]j. The San Francisco Chronicle newspaper ------------------------------------- 4% ----- 20% ----- 24% ----- 50% ------ 3% 23% 74% [ ]k. The Half Moon Bay Review newspaper ------------------------------------- 0% ------ 2% ------- 7% ----- 85% ------ 6% 2% 92% [ ]l. The Midpen newsletter and activity guide mailed to your home ----------------- 4% ----- 19% ------- 8% ----- 66% ------ 3% 23% 73% [ ]m. The Midpen e-newsletter ------------------- 2% ------ 8% ----- 12% ----- 73% ------ 5% 10% 85% [ ]n. Nextdoor -------------------------------------- 6% ----- 20% ------- 8% ----- 63% ------ 4% 26% 71% [ ]o. Midpen’s public meetings ------------------ 0% ------ 2% ----- 13% ----- 80% ------ 5% 2% 93% [ ]p. Midpen’s website, openspace-dot- org --------------------------------------------- 1% ----- 13% ----- 27% ----- 56% ------ 3% 14% 83% Attachment 5_Results_Ward 4 12. Were there any sources of information you use that I didn’t mention? (OPEN END, RECORD VERBATIM) No -------------------------------------------- 50% Word of mouth ----------------------------- 10% Google ----------------------------------------- 8% Internet (general) ----------------------------- 7% Local newspaper ----------------------------- 6% You Tube -------------------------------------- 3% Local newsletter ------------------------------ 3% Local television news ------------------------ 2% Government website ------------------------- 2% National newspaper -------------------------- 1% Community centers -------------------------- 1% Magazines (not specified)------------------- 1% Library ----------------------------------------- 1% Reddit ------------------------------------------ 1% LinkedIn --------------------------------------- 0% National news --------------------------------- 0% News radio ------------------------------------ 0% Saratogian ------------------------------------- 0% Yelp -------------------------------------------- 0% Maps ------------------------------------------- 0% Personal experience -------------------------- 0% Facebook/social media ---------------------- 0% Other ------------------------------------------- 7% Don’t know ----------------------------------- 0% Refused ---------------------------------------- 1% Attachment 5_Results_Ward 4 WE'RE JUST ABOUT DONE. I'M ONLY GOING TO ASK YOU A FEW MORE QUESTIONS FOR CLASSIFICATION PURPOSES. 13. First, I’d like you to consider your visits to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District preserves. Please tell me how often you typically visit and use Midpen preserves in this way: about once a week, a few times a month, a few times a year, once a year, or never. (RANDOMIZE) ONCE/ FEW/ FEW/ ONCE/ (DK/ WEEK MO YEAR YEAR NEVER NA) [ ]a. Walking or hiking ------------------------------------- 16% ----- 28% ----- 33% ----- 9% ------- 8% ------ 5% [ ]b. Running or jogging ------------------------------------- 9% ------ 20% ------ 9% ------ 4% ------ 52% ------ 5% [ ]c. Dog walking --------------------------------------------- 6% -------7% ------ 8% ------ 3% ------ 72% ------ 5% [ ]d. Horseback riding ---------------------------------------- 3% -------0% ------ 0% ------ 7% ------ 84% ------ 5% [ ]e. Mountain biking ---------------------------------------- 1% -------3% ----- 13% ----- 4% ------ 75% ------ 5% [ ]f. Birdwatching or wildlife viewing -------------------- 3% ------ 14% ----- 19% ----- 8% ------ 50% ------ 5% [ ]g. Spending time in nature ------------------------------ 18% ----- 22% ----- 36% ----- 4% ------ 14% ------ 5% [ ]h. Ranger- or docent-led programs ---------------------- 0% -------0% ------ 1% ----- 16% ----- 77% ------ 5% [ ]i. Backpack camping ------------------------------------- 0% -------1% ------ 7% ----- 12% ----- 76% ------ 5% (ASK IF EVER VISIT FOR ANY REASON – CODE 1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4 IN ANY ITEM IN Q13) 14. Do you feel safe or unsafe outdoors in local nature preserves? (IF SAFE/UNSAFE, ASK: “Is that very or somewhat SAFE/UNSAFE?”) TOTAL SAFE ----------------------------- 95% Very safe ------------------------------------ 66% Somewhat safe ------------------------------ 29% TOTAL UNSAFE ------------------------- 1% Somewhat unsafe----------------------------- 1% Very unsafe ----------------------------------- 0% (DON’T READ) Don’t visit them/NA --- 4% (DON'T READ) Don’t know -------------- 0% (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 15. Do you have any children under the age of 19 living at home? Yes ------------------------------------------- 20% No -------------------------------------------- 76% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ---- 4% Attachment 5_Results_Ward 4 16. What was the last level of school you completed? High school graduate or less ------------- 15% Some college ---------------------------------- 6% Associate’s Degree ------------------------ 22% College graduate --------------------------- 22% Post-graduate ------------------------------- 33% (DON'T KNOW) ---------------------------- 1% 17. Do you work in the technology industry? (IF NO: “Does anyone in your household work in the technology industry?”) Yes, self ------------------------------------- 22% Yes, household ----------------------------- 10% Yes, both -------------------------------------- 3% No -------------------------------------------- 65% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ---- 1% 18. Were you born and raised in Santa Clara or San Mateo counties? (IF NO, ASK: “How long have you lived in San Mateo or Santa Clara Counties?”) Born and raised ----------------------------- 29% Two years or less --------------------------- 10% Three to five years --------------------------- 6% Six to 10 years -------------------------------- 5% 11 to 20 years ------------------------------- 16% 21 to 40 years ------------------------------ 15% More than 40 years ------------------------ 11% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ---- 8% 19. I don’t need to know the exact amount, but please stop me when I read the category that includes the total income for your household before taxes in 2019. Was it: (READ CHOICES BELOW) $30,000 and under --------------------------- 9% $30,001 - $60,000 ---------------------------- 7% $60,001 - $90,000 -------------------------- 16% $90,001 - $120,000 ------------------------ 16% $120,001 - $150,000 ------------------------- 6% More than $150,000 ----------------------- 24% (DON'T READ) Refused ---------------- 21% Attachment 5_Results_Ward 4 20. What is your gender? Male ------------------------------------------ 53% Female --------------------------------------- 44% Nonbinary ------------------------------------- 1% Rather not say -------------------------------- 2% THANK AND TERMINATE MODE Phone ------------------------------- 62% Online ------------------------------ 38% DISTRICT WARD 1 - Seimens -------------------------- 0% 2 - Kishimoto ------------------------ 0% 3 - Cyr -------------------------------- 0% 4 - Riffle -------------------------- 100% 5 - Holman --------------------------- 0% 6 - Hassett ---------------------------- 0% 7 – Kersteen-Tucker ---------------- 0% COUNTY San Mateo ---------------------------- 0% Santa Clara ------------------------ 100% CITY/TOWN Cupertino ----------------------------- 0% Los Altos --------------------------- 20% Los Gatos ---------------------------- 0% Menlo Park --------------------------- 0% Mountain View -------------------- 80% Palo Alto ----------------------------- 0% Redwood City ----------------------- 0% San Carlos ---------------------------- 0% Saratoga ------------------------------ 0% Sunnyvale ---------------------------- 0% Other ---------------------------------- 0% Unincorporated ---------------------- 0% Attachment 5_Results_Ward 4 JANUARY 9-23, 2020 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 320-876-WT N=124 WARD 5 A/B SPLIT Hello, I'm ________ from______, a public opinion research company. I am not trying to sell you anything. We're conducting a survey about issues that concern residents in your area. May I speak with the person at home over 18 who most recently celebrated a birthday? A. Before we begin, I need to know if I have reached you on a cell phone, and if so, are you in a place where you can talk safely without endangering yourself or others? Yes, cell and can talk safely -------------------------------- 93% Yes, cell but cannot talk safely ---------------- TERMINATE No, not on cell -------------------------------------------------- 7% (DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ------- TERMINATE B. My next questions are to ensure that we are interviewing a representative group of residents in your area. What is your age? Under 18 ------------------------ TERMINATE 18-24 ----------------------------------------- 24% 25-29 ------------------------------------------- 5% 30-34 ------------------------------------------- 8% 35-39 ----------------------------------------- 20% 40-44 ------------------------------------------- 8% 45-49 ----------------------------------------- 11% 50-54 ------------------------------------------- 5% 55-59 ------------------------------------------- 3% 60-64 ------------------------------------------- 2% 65-69 ------------------------------------------- 6% 70-74 ------------------------------------------- 3% 75+ --------------------------------------------- 3% (DK/REFUSED) ---------------------------- 1% C. With which racial or ethnic group do you identify yourself: Hispanic or Latino; African American or Black; Caucasian or White; Asian or Pacific Islander; multiracial; or some other ethnic or racial background? Latino/Hispanic ---------------------------- 34% African American/Black -------------------- 2% Caucasian/White --------------------------- 37% Asian/Pacific Islander --------------------- 21% Multiracial------------------------------------- 4% (OTHER) ------------------------------------- 0% (DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ---- 3% D. Are you registered to vote? (IF YES, ASK: “With which party are you registered to vote: Democratic, Republican, another party, or with no party preference?”) Attachment 6_Results_Ward 5 No, not registered ---------------------------- 8% Democratic ---------------------------------- 60% Republican ------------------------------------ 3% No Party Preference ----------------------- 20% Another party --------------------------------- 2% (DON'T KNOW/NA) ---------------------- 6% 1. OK, let’s begin. First, how would you rate your community as a place to live? Is it … (READ LIST)? EXCELLENT/GOOD ------------------- 73% Excellent------------------------------------- 29% Good ----------------------------------------- 44% FAIR/POOR ------------------------------- 23% Fair ------------------------------------------- 19% Poor -------------------------------------------- 4% (DON'T KNOW/NA) ---------------------- 4% 2. Next, I’m going to read you a list of local organizations and public institutions. For each one, I’d like you to tell me if you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion. If you have never heard of one, please just say so. (RANDOMIZE) (CAN’T NEVER STR SMWT SMWT STR RATE HEARD TOTAL TOTAL FAV FAV UNFAV UNFAV /DK) OF FAV UNFAV [ ]a. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ---------------------- 28% ----- 21% ----- 0% ------- 1% ----- 13% ----- 36% 49% 2% [ ]b. Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority -------------------- 20% ----- 13% ----- 0% ------- 1% ----- 12% ----- 54% 33% 1% [ ]c. Peninsula Open Space Trust ----- 28% ----- 13% ----- 5% ------- 0% ----- 11% ----- 42% 42% 5% [ ]d. California State Parks ------------- 57% ----- 23% ----- 5% ------- 0% ------ 8% -------7% 80% 5% [ ]e. Golden Gate National Recreation Area -------------------- 40% ----- 36% ----- 1% ------- 0% ------ 9% ------ 14% 75% 1% (ASK IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY ONLY) [ ]f. Santa Clara County Parks -------- 38% ----- 36% ----- 0% ------- 1% ------ 8% ------ 17% 75% 1% (ASK IN SAN MATEO COUNTY ONLY) [ ]g. San Mateo County Parks --------- 39% ----- 23% ----- 10% ------ 0% ----- 23% ------5% 62% 10% Attachment 6_Results_Ward 5 (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 3. I’m going to read you some issues that some people say may be problems in your area. After I read each one, please tell me whether you think each is a problem or not. (IF YES, PROBLEM, ASK: “Do you think it is an extremely, very, or somewhat serious problem?”) (RANDOMIZE) EXT VERY SMWT NOT SER SER SER A (DK/ EXT/ PROB PROB PROB PROB NA) VERY [ ]a. The quality of local natural lands and open space -------------------------------------------------------- 11% ----- 11% ---- 33% ----- 39% ------ 6% 22% [ ]b. Traffic congestion ---------------------------------------- 48% ----- 26% ---- 20% ------2% ------ 4% 74% [ ]c. Loss of natural areas to development ------------------ 22% ----- 24% ---- 33% ----- 14% ------ 7% 46% [ ]d. Fire risk ---------------------------------------------------- 21% ----- 21% ---- 26% ----- 26% ------ 5% 42% [ ]e. Water pollution ------------------------------------------- 19% ----- 19% ---- 24% ----- 31% ------ 7% 38% [ ]f. Air pollution ----------------------------------------------- 21% ----- 17% ---- 32% ----- 18% ----- 10% 39% [ ]g. Loss of wildlife habitat ---------------------------------- 29% ----- 22% ---- 33% ----- 11% ------ 5% 51% [ ]h. A lack of affordable housing ---------------------------- 61% ----- 27% ----- 6% -------1% ------ 5% 88% [ ]i. Climate change -------------------------------------------- 55% ----- 17% ----- 8% ------ 11% ------ 9% 72% [ ]j. The amount you pay in local taxes --------------------- 17% ----- 11% ---- 28% ----- 34% ------ 9% 28% Attachment 6_Results_Ward 5 NOW I’D LIKE TO ASK YOU A FEW MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT. (ASK Q4 ONLY IF CODES 1-4 IN Q2A) 4. You mentioned a few moments ago that you have a FAVORABLE / UNFAVORABLE opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. In a few words of your own, could you tell me why? (OPEN-ENDED; RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE BELOW. PROBE FOR VERY SPECIFIC RESPONSES) a. Favorable, N=61: Support their mission/efforts -------------------------------------------------------------------- 48% Preservation of open space/environmental protection --------------------------------------- 39% Good option for recreation/exercise ----------------------------------------------------------- 25% Trails/facilities are well maintained------------------------------------------------------------ 11% I use trails regularly -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9% Preservation of wildlife/habitat ------------------------------------------------------------------- 9% Enjoy nature’s beauty/beautiful views ---------------------------------------------------------- 8% Easily accessible to the public -------------------------------------------------------------------- 5% Other -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% b. Unfavorable, N=2: They take over too much land ------------------------------------------------------------------- 68% Not enough transparency/misused revenue ---------------------------------------------------- 11% Other------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21% Attachment 6_Results_Ward 5 (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) AS YOU MAY KNOW, THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, OFTEN KNOWN AS “MIDPEN,” IS AN INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT PRIMARILY IN SANTA CLARA AND SAN MATEO COUNTIES THAT HAS PRESERVED A REGIONAL GREENBELT OF NEARLY 65 THOUSAND ACRES OF PUBLIC LAND AND MANAGES 26 OPEN SPACE PRESERVES. ITS MISSION IS TO ACQUIRE AND PERMANENTLY PRESERVE OPEN SPACE LAND, PROTECT AND RESTORE THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, AND PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE PUBLIC ENJOYMENT AND EDUCATION. ON THE COAST, ITS MISSION INCLUDES PRESERVING RURAL CHARACTER AND ENCOURAGING VIABLE AGRICULTURAL USE OF LAND. 5. Having heard this, let me ask you again: would you say you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District? TOTAL FAVORABLE ------------------ 91% Strongly favorable ------------------------- 54% Somewhat favorable ----------------------- 36% TOTAL UNFAVORABLE -------------- 4% Somewhat unfavorable ---------------------- 2% Strongly unfavorable ------------------------ 2% (DON'T READ) DK/NA ------------------- 6% 6. Next, I am going to read you a list of goals Midpen has set for itself. For each goal, please tell me if you think it is extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. (RANDOMIZE) EXT VERY SMWT NOT TOO (DK/ EXT/ IMP IMP IMP IMP NA) VERY (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]a. Preserving a regional greenbelt of open space land forever ------------------------------------------------ 57% ----- 27% ---- 14% ------2% ------ 1% 84% [ ]b. Protecting natural areas ---------------------------------- 61% ----- 23% ---- 16% ------0% ------ 0% 84% [ ]c. Providing opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education ------------ 44% ----- 40% ---- 16% ------0% ------ 0% 84% [ ]d. Restoring native plant and wildlife habitat ----------- 48% ----- 32% ---- 16% ------3% ------ 0% 80% [ ]e. Providing multiuse trails for hiking, biking, and equestrian use ---------------------------------------- 31% ----- 39% ---- 27% ------2% ------ 0% 70% [ ]f. Stewarding public lands to be resilient in the face of climate change ----------------------------------- 66% ----- 17% ---- 14% ------1% ------ 2% 83% [ ]g. Supporting local agriculture along the San Mateo County coast -------------------------------------- 39% ----- 37% ---- 15% ------9% ------ 0% 76% [ ]h. Preserving the character of rural areas, such as the Santa Cruz Mountains or the San Mateo County Coast ---------------------------------------------- 45% ----- 20% ---- 25% ------9% ------ 2% 65% Attachment 6_Results_Ward 5 EXT VERY SMWT NOT TOO (DK/ EXT/ IMP IMP IMP IMP NA) VERY (SPLIT SAMPLE A CONTINUED) [ ]i. Partnering with local organizations to promote a regional environmental vision ------------------------ 34% ----- 35% ---- 22% ------7% ------ 3% 69% [ ]j. Connecting regional trails ------------------------------- 22% ----- 35% ---- 33% ------7% ------ 2% 58% [ ]k. Caring for the ecosystem to help native plants and wildlife survive -------------------------------------- 57% ----- 30% ---- 12% ------1% ------ 0% 87% [ ]l. Reducing dead and downed vegetation for wildland fire prevention --------------------------------- 48% ----- 46% ----- 4% -------0% ------ 2% 94% [ ]m. Preserving undeveloped coastal open space and agricultural lands ------------------------------------ 50% ----- 21% ---- 25% ------2% ------ 2% 71% [ ]n. Assessing historical significance of structures on open space lands -------------------------------------- 19% ----- 29% ---- 30% ----- 20% ------ 1% 48% [ ]o. Promoting safe wildlife corridors and trail crossings across Highway 17 --------------------------- 44% ----- 37% ---- 15% ------2% ------ 2% 81% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]p. Protecting the ridgetops, hillsides and creeks that create our region’s striking natural beauty ------ 48% ----- 32% ---- 15% ------5% ------ 0% 80% [ ]q. Protecting and restoring the natural environment ----------------------------------------------- 63% ----- 21% ---- 17% ------0% ------ 0% 83% [ ]r. Protecting San Mateo and Santa Clara counties’ agricultural, natural resource, and open space lands for future generations --------------- 47% ----- 21% ---- 24% ------0% ------ 8% 68% [ ]s. Creating opportunities for outdoor recreation -------- 46% ----- 31% ---- 17% ------6% ------ 0% 77% [ ]t. Preserving diverse habitat for wildlife ----------------- 51% ----- 38% ---- 11% ------0% ------ 0% 89% [ ]u. Providing regional hiking trails ------------------------- 31% ----- 23% ---- 38% ------0% ------ 8% 54% [ ]v. Restoring public lands to be resilient in the face of climate change ----------------------------------- 49% ----- 34% ---- 10% ------7% ------ 0% 82% [ ]w. Connecting kids to nature ------------------------------- 40% ----- 26% ---- 34% ------0% ------ 0% 66% [ ]x. Protecting the waterways and natural lands that maintain water quality and supply ---------------- 72% ----- 22% ----- 4% -------2% ------ 0% 93% [ ]y. Managing redwood forests ------------------------------ 47% ----- 35% ---- 14% ------3% ------ 1% 81% [ ]z. Protecting San Mateo and Santa Clara counties’ agricultural, natural resource, and open space lands ------------------------------------------ 49% ----- 19% ---- 21% ------2% ------ 9% 68% [ ]aa. Protecting coastal grasslands---------------------------- 46% ----- 20% ---- 26% ------0% ------ 8% 66% [ ]bb. Improving access for individuals with disabilities at local preserves ---------------------------- 42% ----- 31% ---- 15% ------8% ------ 4% 73% [ ]cc. Partnering with Native American tribes to relearn and reapply indigenous plant restoration techniques ------------------------------------ 33% ----- 23% ---- 24% ----- 18% ------ 3% 56% [ ]dd. Removing invasive species to restore native plant and wildlife habitat -------------------------------- 48% ----- 21% ---- 22% ------0% ------ 8% 69% Attachment 6_Results_Ward 5 (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 7. And which of these six components of the Midpen mission do you think is most important to you? (RE- READ AND RANDOMIZE LIST IF NECESSARY) [ ] Acquiring and preserving a regional greenbelt ------------------------------------------- 18% [ ] Restoring the natural environment---------------------------------------------------------- 15% [ ] Providing opportunities for ecologically sensitive public recreation ------------------ 21% [ ] Educating the public about conservation and nature ------------------------------------- 24% [ ] Preserving rural character ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 0% [ ] Encouraging viable agricultural land use ---------------------------------------------------- 6% (DON'T READ) All ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12% (DON'T READ) None ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0% (DON'T READ) Other (SPECIFY) ------------------------------------------------------------ 2% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/Refused -------------------------------------------------------------- 1% 8. Stepping back for a moment, I’d like to read you two statements about Midpen preserves. I’d like you to tell me which comes closer to your opinion, even if neither is exactly right. (ROTATE) [ ] I prefer preserves that provide multiple visitor amenities, such as water bottle refilling stations, restrooms, and picnic areas --------------------------------- 24% OR [ ] I prefer preserves that put a high priority on wildlife habitat restoration and protection, with only low-impact trails that encourage users to leave no trace ---------- 65% (DON’T READ) (BOTH) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4% (NEITHER)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0% (DON'T KNOW/NA) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6% Attachment 6_Results_Ward 5 9. Next, I am going to read you a series of statements about the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. For each one, please tell me if it makes you view Midpen much more favorably, somewhat more favorably, or if it makes no difference. (RANDOMIZE) MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV [ ]a. (SPECIAL CHARACTER) People choose to live in the Bay Area because of its scenic beauty and recreational opportunities. The stunning ridge and coastal views and riding, biking, and hiking trails we have in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties are truly unique. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District works to preserve what we love most about living here. ----------------------------------- 50% ----- 20% ---- 23% ------0% ------ 6% 70% (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]b. (WATER QUALITY) Nothing is more important than clean drinking water. By protecting and restoring areas around sources of water, Midpen increases access to water and naturally prevents the pollution of our water. -------- 56% ----- 28% ---- 13% ------0% ------ 3% 84% [ ]c. (PARTNERSHIPS) Midpen regularly partners with local nonprofits, the counties, and state and regional park organizations to leverage their resources and connect residents with open space, recreational opportunities, and educational programs. Connecting these public lands supports biodiversity, providing places for local plants and wildlife to thrive. --------- 61% ----- 21% ---- 15% ------1% ------ 2% 82% [ ]d. (PUBLIC HEALTH) Open space preserves and natural areas provide spaces where families and children can safely walk, run, and bicycle – improving the physical health of residents, reducing obesity, and reducing healthcare costs. These areas are open 365 days a year, sunrise to sunset, to anyone, and for free. ----------------------------------------------------- 60% ----- 16% ---- 22% ------1% ------ 2% 76% [ ]e. (WILDLIFE) By restoring and protecting natural areas, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is protecting wildlife habitats and California’s unique biodiversity. ------------------ 55% ----- 23% ---- 21% ------0% ------ 1% 77% Attachment 6_Results_Ward 5 MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV (SPLIT SAMPLE A CONTINUED) [ ]f. (AG SUSTAINABILITY) San Mateo and Santa Clara counties have rich agricultural and ranching history. That’s why Midpen protects sustainable, working agricultural ranchlands connecting past and future along the scenic coast. -------------------------------------------------------- 33% ----- 20% ---- 37% ------3% ------ 8% 52% [ ]g. (CARING) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is caring for the land to create healthy habitats for plants, animals, and people. ------------------------------------------------------ 67% ----- 18% ---- 13% ------1% ------ 1% 85% [ ]h. (UNDERSERVED) Midpen programming connects people to nature through enriched experiences, especially people who are typically less likely to have access to natural areas and open spaces. That includes low- income communities and communities of color. -------------------------------------------------------- 56% ----- 28% ---- 13% ------0% ------ 3% 84% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]i. (AG HISTORY) San Mateo and Santa Clara counties have rich agricultural and ranching history. That’s why the Midpeninsula Open Space District preserves historic, agricultural lands close to home along the scenic coast. ---------- 24% ----- 37% ---- 28% ------3% ------ 8% 61% [ ]j. (RECREATION) Parks and open spaces provide safe places for the community to gather and explore the outdoors. It’s especially important to keep these accessible options for everyone as the cost of living increases. Midpen ensures that San Mateo and Santa Clara County residents have access to well- maintained and beautiful recreation areas. ------------ 39% ----- 39% ---- 15% ------0% ------ 8% 77% [ ]k. (CLIMATE) Smart investments made before a disaster strikes can help protect a community’s quality of life, save lives, and reduce the cost to taxpayers. Midpen is taking a proactive, practical approach to stewardship of public lands, helping ensure San Mateo and Santa Clara counties are resilient as the climate changes. ------------------------------------------ 41% ----- 47% ----- 9% -------2% ------ 0% 88% Attachment 6_Results_Ward 5 MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV (SPLIT SAMPLE B CONTINUED) [ ]l. (FIRES) Midpen is working with fire agencies and surrounding communities to strengthen prevention and preparation in case of wildland fires. This includes maintaining hundreds of miles of fire roads. Midpen is also using conservation grazing to reduce flammable brush within grassland habitats, limiting the risk of fire, or fire intensity if it does occur. ---------- 49% ----- 35% ----- 9% -------0% ------ 8% 84% [ ]m. (EDUCATION) Midpen programming connects people to nature through enriched experiences, including environmental interpretation, docent-led activities and volunteer opportunities. ---------------------------------- 25% ----- 36% ---- 28% ------0% ----- 11% 61% [ ]n. (PLACE) Few other conservation organizations protect and restore such a wide variety of unique natural areas: from redwood forests to the Bay and the ocean, from serpentine-soil grasslands to Tafoni sandstone. Our peninsula is unique and Midpen works to protect and restore these places for the wildlife that call it home, and the people who visit and recreate there. --------------------------------------------- 35% ----- 42% ---- 13% ------1% ------ 9% 77% (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 10. Next, having heard this, let me ask you one last time - do you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District? TOTAL FAVORABLE --------------------------- 94% Strongly favorable ---------------------------------- 58% Somewhat favorable -------------------------------- 36% TOTAL UNFAVORABLE ----------------------- 3% Somewhat unfavorable ------------------------------- 2% Strongly unfavorable --------------------------------- 0% (DON'T READ) CAN’T RATE/DK/NA --------- 3% Attachment 6_Results_Ward 5 11. Next, I’m going to read you a list of sources from which people get information about (SPLIT SAMPLE A: local issues in your area) (SPLIT SAMPLE B: parks, open space, and the outdoors). For each, I’d like you to tell me how often you use it to get information about (SPLIT SAMPLE A: local issues in your area) (SPLIT SAMPLE B: parks, open space and the outdoors): frequently, occasionally, rarely, or never. (RANDOMIZE) (DK/ FREQ RRLY FREQ OCCAS RARELY NEVER NA) /OCC /NVR [ ]a. Local television stations -------------------13% ----- 22% ----- 14% ----- 51% ------ 0% 35% 65% [ ]b. KQED Radio --------------------------------16% ----- 22% ----- 10% ----- 51% ------ 1% 38% 61% [ ]c. Radio stations other than KQED ---------10% ----- 19% ----- 12% ----- 55% ------ 4% 29% 67% [ ]d. Information you receive in the mail------- 9% ----- 26% ----- 23% ----- 41% ------ 0% 35% 65% [ ]e. Facebook -------------------------------------17% ----- 17% ----- 15% ----- 51% ------ 0% 34% 66% [ ]f. Twitter ----------------------------------------- 7% ----- 13% ------- 8% ----- 66% ------ 6% 20% 74% [ ]g. Instagram ------------------------------------10% ----- 14% ----- 10% ----- 65% ------ 2% 24% 75% [ ]h. Blogs on the Internet -----------------------18% ----- 20% ----- 11% ----- 50% ------ 1% 38% 61% [ ]i. The San José Mercury News newspaper ------------------------------------- 3% ----- 13% ----- 25% ----- 54% ------ 5% 16% 79% [ ]j. The San Francisco Chronicle newspaper ------------------------------------- 7% ----- 13% ----- 17% ----- 59% ------ 4% 20% 76% [ ]k. The Half Moon Bay Review newspaper ------------------------------------- 3% ------ 2% ------- 6% ----- 83% ------ 6% 5% 89% [ ]l. The Midpen newsletter and activity guide mailed to your home ----------------- 8% ------ 8% ------- 9% ----- 72% ------ 3% 16% 81% [ ]m. The Midpen e-newsletter ------------------- 1% ------ 7% ------- 7% ----- 84% ------ 2% 7% 91% [ ]n. Nextdoor -------------------------------------10% ----- 16% ----- 14% ----- 55% ------ 4% 27% 69% [ ]o. Midpen’s public meetings ------------------ 0% ------ 1% ----- 13% ----- 85% ------ 1% 1% 98% [ ]p. Midpen’s website, openspace-dot- org --------------------------------------------- 4% ----- 16% ----- 16% ----- 62% ------ 1% 20% 78% Attachment 6_Results_Ward 5 12. Were there any sources of information you use that I didn’t mention? (OPEN END, RECORD VERBATIM) No -------------------------------------------- 54% Word of mouth ----------------------------- 14% Google ----------------------------------------- 9% Local newspaper ----------------------------- 5% You Tube -------------------------------------- 4% Local television news ------------------------ 4% National newspaper -------------------------- 3% Internet (general) ----------------------------- 3% Local newsletter ------------------------------ 3% Government website ------------------------- 2% National news --------------------------------- 1% Community centers -------------------------- 1% News radio ------------------------------------ 1% Reddit ------------------------------------------ 1% LinkedIn --------------------------------------- 0% Saratogian ------------------------------------- 0% Magazines (not specified)------------------- 0% Library ----------------------------------------- 0% Yelp -------------------------------------------- 0% Maps ------------------------------------------- 0% Personal experience -------------------------- 0% Facebook/social media ---------------------- 0% Other ------------------------------------------- 1% Don’t know ----------------------------------- 0% Refused ---------------------------------------- 2% Attachment 6_Results_Ward 5 WE'RE JUST ABOUT DONE. I'M ONLY GOING TO ASK YOU A FEW MORE QUESTIONS FOR CLASSIFICATION PURPOSES. 13. First, I’d like you to consider your visits to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District preserves. Please tell me how often you typically visit and use Midpen preserves in this way: about once a week, a few times a month, a few times a year, once a year, or never. (RANDOMIZE) ONCE/ FEW/ FEW/ ONCE/ (DK/ WEEK MO YEAR YEAR NEVER NA) [ ]a. Walking or hiking ------------------------------------- 25% ----- 26% ----- 32% ----- 5% ------- 9% ------ 3% [ ]b. Running or jogging ------------------------------------- 9% ------ 15% ------ 9% ----- 17% ----- 48% ------ 3% [ ]c. Dog walking -------------------------------------------- 16% ------6% ----- 10% ----- 2% ------ 57% ------ 9% [ ]d. Horseback riding ---------------------------------------- 4% -------0% ------ 7% ------ 2% ------ 84% ------ 3% [ ]e. Mountain biking ---------------------------------------- 1% -------3% ----- 16% ----- 6% ------ 68% ------ 7% [ ]f. Birdwatching or wildlife viewing -------------------- 3% -------7% ----- 26% ---- 15% ----- 46% ------ 4% [ ]g. Spending time in nature ------------------------------ 16% ----- 35% ----- 27% ----- 6% ------ 12% ------ 3% [ ]h. Ranger- or docent-led programs ---------------------- 0% -------3% ------ 5% ------ 7% ------ 75% ----- 10% [ ]i. Backpack camping ------------------------------------- 0% -------1% ----- 16% ----- 7% ------ 67% ------ 9% (ASK IF EVER VISIT FOR ANY REASON – CODE 1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4 IN ANY ITEM IN Q13) 14. Do you feel safe or unsafe outdoors in local nature preserves? (IF SAFE/UNSAFE, ASK: “Is that very or somewhat SAFE/UNSAFE?”) TOTAL SAFE ----------------------------- 96% Very safe ------------------------------------ 63% Somewhat safe ------------------------------ 33% TOTAL UNSAFE ------------------------- 2% Somewhat unsafe----------------------------- 2% Very unsafe ----------------------------------- 0% (DON’T READ) Don’t visit them/NA --- 2% (DON'T READ) Don’t know -------------- 0% (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 15. Do you have any children under the age of 19 living at home? Yes ------------------------------------------- 43% No -------------------------------------------- 53% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ---- 3% Attachment 6_Results_Ward 5 16. What was the last level of school you completed? High school graduate or less --------------- 9% Some college -------------------------------- 19% Associate’s Degree ------------------------ 11% College graduate --------------------------- 27% Post-graduate ------------------------------- 24% (DON'T KNOW) ---------------------------- 9% 17. Do you work in the technology industry? (IF NO: “Does anyone in your household work in the technology industry?”) Yes, self ------------------------------------- 16% Yes, household ----------------------------- 14% Yes, both -------------------------------------- 7% No -------------------------------------------- 61% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ---- 3% 18. Were you born and raised in Santa Clara or San Mateo counties? (IF NO, ASK: “How long have you lived in San Mateo or Santa Clara Counties?”) Born and raised ----------------------------- 33% Two years or less --------------------------- 11% Three to five years --------------------------- 4% Six to 10 years ------------------------------ 12% 11 to 20 years ------------------------------- 13% 21 to 40 years ------------------------------ 10% More than 40 years ------------------------ 11% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ---- 6% 19. I don’t need to know the exact amount, but please stop me when I read the category that includes the total income for your household before taxes in 2019. Was it: (READ CHOICES BELOW) $30,000 and under ------------------------- 15% $30,001 - $60,000 -------------------------- 14% $60,001 - $90,000 ---------------------------- 5% $90,001 - $120,000 ------------------------ 11% $120,001 - $150,000 ----------------------- 13% More than $150,000 ----------------------- 27% (DON'T READ) Refused ---------------- 15% Attachment 6_Results_Ward 5 20. What is your gender? Male ------------------------------------------ 38% Female --------------------------------------- 51% Nonbinary ------------------------------------- 0% Rather not say ------------------------------ 11% THANK AND TERMINATE MODE Phone ------------------------------- 73% Online ------------------------------ 27% DISTRICT WARD 1 - Seimens -------------------------- 0% 2 - Kishimoto ------------------------ 0% 3 - Cyr -------------------------------- 0% 4 - Riffle ----------------------------- 0% 5 - Holman ------------------------ 100% 6 - Hassett ---------------------------- 0% 7 – Kersteen-Tucker ---------------- 0% COUNTY San Mateo -------------------------- 51% Santa Clara ------------------------- 49% CITY/TOWN Cupertino ----------------------------- 0% Los Altos ----------------------------- 0% Los Gatos ---------------------------- 0% Menlo Park ------------------------- 21% Mountain View ---------------------- 0% Palo Alto --------------------------- 49% Redwood City ----------------------- 0% San Carlos ---------------------------- 0% Saratoga ------------------------------ 0% Sunnyvale ---------------------------- 0% Other -------------------------------- 31% Unincorporated ---------------------- 0% Attachment 6_Results_Ward 5 JANUARY 9-23, 2020 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 320-876-WT N=116 WARD 6 A/B SPLIT Hello, I'm ________ from______, a public opinion research company. I am not trying to sell you anything. We're conducting a survey about issues that concern residents in your area. May I speak with the person at home over 18 who most recently celebrated a birthday? A. Before we begin, I need to know if I have reached you on a cell phone, and if so, are you in a place where you can talk safely without endangering yourself or others? Yes, cell and can talk safely -------------------------------- 70% Yes, cell but cannot talk safely ---------------- TERMINATE No, not on cell ------------------------------------------------ 30% (DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ------- TERMINATE B. My next questions are to ensure that we are interviewing a representative group of residents in your area. What is your age? Under 18 ------------------------ TERMINATE 18-24 ------------------------------------------- 9% 25-29 ------------------------------------------- 4% 30-34 ----------------------------------------- 15% 35-39 ----------------------------------------- 10% 40-44 ------------------------------------------- 7% 45-49 ------------------------------------------- 4% 50-54 ------------------------------------------- 8% 55-59 ------------------------------------------- 8% 60-64 ------------------------------------------- 6% 65-69 ----------------------------------------- 10% 70-74 ------------------------------------------- 8% 75+ --------------------------------------------- 8% (DK/REFUSED) ---------------------------- 4% C. With which racial or ethnic group do you identify yourself: Hispanic or Latino; African American or Black; Caucasian or White; Asian or Pacific Islander; multiracial; or some other ethnic or racial background? Latino/Hispanic ------------------------------ 6% African American/Black -------------------- 2% Caucasian/White --------------------------- 74% Asian/Pacific Islander ----------------------- 4% Multiracial------------------------------------- 2% (OTHER) ------------------------------------- 2% (DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ---- 9% Attachment 7_Results_Ward 6 D. Are you registered to vote? (IF YES, ASK: “With which party are you registered to vote: Democratic, Republican, another party, or with no party preference?”) No, not registered ---------------------------- 1% Democratic ---------------------------------- 57% Republican ---------------------------------- 12% No Party Preference ----------------------- 23% Another party --------------------------------- 5% (DON'T KNOW/NA) ---------------------- 2% 1. OK, let’s begin. First, how would you rate your community as a place to live? Is it … (READ LIST)? EXCELLENT/GOOD ------------------- 82% Excellent------------------------------------- 40% Good ----------------------------------------- 43% FAIR/POOR ------------------------------- 18% Fair ------------------------------------------- 13% Poor -------------------------------------------- 5% (DON'T KNOW/NA) ---------------------- 0% 2. Next, I’m going to read you a list of local organizations and public institutions. For each one, I’d like you to tell me if you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion. If you have never heard of one, please just say so. (RANDOMIZE) (CAN’T NEVER STR SMWT SMWT STR RATE HEARD TOTAL TOTAL FAV FAV UNFAV UNFAV /DK) OF FAV UNFAV [ ]a. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ---------------------- 45% ----- 16% ----- 3% ------- 3% ----- 11% ----- 22% 61% 6% [ ]b. Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority -------------------- 17% ----- 20% ----- 6% ------- 2% ----- 20% ----- 35% 37% 8% [ ]c. Peninsula Open Space Trust ----- 52% ----- 11% ----- 2% ------- 4% ------ 5% ------ 25% 63% 7% [ ]d. California State Parks ------------- 61% ----- 27% ----- 2% ------- 1% ------ 3% -------5% 88% 3% [ ]e. Golden Gate National Recreation Area -------------------- 44% ----- 25% ----- 8% ------- 1% ----- 10% ----- 14% 68% 9% (ASK IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY ONLY) [ ]f. Santa Clara County Parks --------- 0% ------ 0% ------ 0% ------- 0% ------ 0% -------0% 0% 0% (ASK IN SAN MATEO COUNTY ONLY) [ ]g. San Mateo County Parks --------- 35% ----- 44% ----- 2% ------- 1% ----- 14% ------3% 79% 3% Attachment 7_Results_Ward 6 (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 3. I’m going to read you some issues that some people say may be problems in your area. After I read each one, please tell me whether you think each is a problem or not. (IF YES, PROBLEM, ASK: “Do you think it is an extremely, very, or somewhat serious problem?”) (RANDOMIZE) EXT VERY SMWT NOT SER SER SER A (DK/ EXT/ PROB PROB PROB PROB NA) VERY [ ]a. The quality of local natural lands and open space -------------------------------------------------------- 6% ------- 8% ----- 35% ----- 47% ------ 3% 14% [ ]b. Traffic congestion ---------------------------------------- 41% ----- 34% ---- 19% ------6% ------ 0% 75% [ ]c. Loss of natural areas to development ------------------ 21% ----- 27% ---- 26% ----- 25% ------ 1% 48% [ ]d. Fire risk ---------------------------------------------------- 31% ----- 23% ---- 27% ----- 16% ------ 3% 54% [ ]e. Water pollution ------------------------------------------- 18% ----- 25% ---- 28% ----- 22% ------ 7% 43% [ ]f. Air pollution ----------------------------------------------- 19% ----- 26% ---- 31% ----- 22% ------ 1% 45% [ ]g. Loss of wildlife habitat ---------------------------------- 29% ----- 26% ---- 27% ----- 16% ------ 3% 54% [ ]h. A lack of affordable housing ---------------------------- 58% ----- 31% ----- 7% -------4% ------ 0% 89% [ ]i. Climate change -------------------------------------------- 58% ----- 20% ---- 14% ------7% ------ 1% 78% [ ]j. The amount you pay in local taxes --------------------- 12% ----- 19% ---- 27% ----- 39% ------ 3% 32% Attachment 7_Results_Ward 6 NOW I’D LIKE TO ASK YOU A FEW MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT. (ASK Q4 ONLY IF CODES 1-4 IN Q2A) 4. You mentioned a few moments ago that you have a FAVORABLE / UNFAVORABLE opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. In a few words of your own, could you tell me why? (OPEN-ENDED; RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE BELOW. PROBE FOR VERY SPECIFIC RESPONSES) a. Favorable, N=71: Support their mission/efforts -------------------------------------------------------------------- 38% Preservation of open space/environmental protection --------------------------------------- 33% Good option for recreation/exercise ----------------------------------------------------------- 20% Preservation of wildlife/habitat ----------------------------------------------------------------- 15% Trails/facilities are well maintained------------------------------------------------------------ 14% Easily accessible to the public ------------------------------------------------------------------ 13% I use trails regularly -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9% Enjoy nature’s beauty/beautiful views ---------------------------------------------------------- 4% General favorable statement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 4% Dog friendly ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% Refused ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9% b. Unfavorable, N=7: Not enough transparency/misused revenue ---------------------------------------------------- 55% Poor leadership/management -------------------------------------------------------------------- 40% They take over too much land ------------------------------------------------------------------- 30% Too many limitations ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14% More important issues ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9% General unfavorable statement -------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% Attachment 7_Results_Ward 6 (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) AS YOU MAY KNOW, THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, OFTEN KNOWN AS “MIDPEN,” IS AN INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT PRIMARILY IN SANTA CLARA AND SAN MATEO COUNTIES THAT HAS PRESERVED A REGIONAL GREENBELT OF NEARLY 65 THOUSAND ACRES OF PUBLIC LAND AND MANAGES 26 OPEN SPACE PRESERVES. ITS MISSION IS TO ACQUIRE AND PERMANENTLY PRESERVE OPEN SPACE LAND, PROTECT AND RESTORE THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, AND PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE PUBLIC ENJOYMENT AND EDUCATION. ON THE COAST, ITS MISSION INCLUDES PRESERVING RURAL CHARACTER AND ENCOURAGING VIABLE AGRICULTURAL USE OF LAND. 5. Having heard this, let me ask you again: would you say you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District? TOTAL FAVORABLE ------------------ 81% Strongly favorable ------------------------- 53% Somewhat favorable ----------------------- 29% TOTAL UNFAVORABLE ------------- 13% Somewhat unfavorable ---------------------- 9% Strongly unfavorable ------------------------ 4% (DON'T READ) DK/NA ------------------- 6% 6. Next, I am going to read you a list of goals Midpen has set for itself. For each goal, please tell me if you think it is extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. (RANDOMIZE) EXT VERY SMWT NOT TOO (DK/ EXT/ IMP IMP IMP IMP NA) VERY (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]a. Preserving a regional greenbelt of open space land forever ------------------------------------------------ 50% ----- 17% ---- 22% ----- 11% ------ 0% 67% [ ]b. Protecting natural areas ---------------------------------- 57% ----- 29% ---- 14% ------0% ------ 0% 86% [ ]c. Providing opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education ------------ 33% ----- 33% ---- 20% ----- 14% ------ 0% 66% [ ]d. Restoring native plant and wildlife habitat ----------- 47% ----- 42% ----- 5% -------6% ------ 0% 89% [ ]e. Providing multiuse trails for hiking, biking, and equestrian use ---------------------------------------- 24% ----- 29% ---- 40% ------6% ------ 0% 54% [ ]f. Stewarding public lands to be resilient in the face of climate change ----------------------------------- 43% ----- 30% ---- 16% ------7% ------ 4% 74% [ ]g. Supporting local agriculture along the San Mateo County coast -------------------------------------- 26% ----- 30% ---- 36% ------7% ------ 0% 56% [ ]h. Preserving the character of rural areas, such as the Santa Cruz Mountains or the San Mateo County Coast ---------------------------------------------- 21% ----- 27% ---- 37% ----- 12% ------ 3% 48% Attachment 7_Results_Ward 6 EXT VERY SMWT NOT TOO (DK/ EXT/ IMP IMP IMP IMP NA) VERY (SPLIT SAMPLE A CONTINUED) [ ]i. Partnering with local organizations to promote a regional environmental vision ------------------------ 29% ----- 35% ---- 26% ------9% ------ 1% 64% [ ]j. Connecting regional trails ------------------------------- 21% ----- 33% ---- 40% ------7% ------ 0% 53% [ ]k. Caring for the ecosystem to help native plants and wildlife survive -------------------------------------- 56% ----- 32% ----- 5% -------6% ------ 1% 88% [ ]l. Reducing dead and downed vegetation for wildland fire prevention --------------------------------- 50% ----- 34% ----- 6% -------9% ------ 0% 85% [ ]m. Preserving undeveloped coastal open space and agricultural lands ------------------------------------ 39% ----- 29% ---- 14% ----- 17% ------ 0% 69% [ ]n. Assessing historical significance of structures on open space lands -------------------------------------- 11% ----- 37% ---- 25% ----- 25% ------ 1% 49% [ ]o. Promoting safe wildlife corridors and trail crossings across Highway 17 --------------------------- 36% ----- 25% ---- 21% ------6% ----- 12% 61% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]p. Protecting the ridgetops, hillsides and creeks that create our region’s striking natural beauty ------ 45% ----- 27% ---- 24% ------4% ------ 0% 72% [ ]q. Protecting and restoring the natural environment ----------------------------------------------- 51% ----- 24% ---- 19% ------6% ------ 0% 76% [ ]r. Protecting San Mateo and Santa Clara counties’ agricultural, natural resource, and open space lands for future generations --------------- 51% ----- 24% ---- 17% ------9% ------ 0% 75% [ ]s. Creating opportunities for outdoor recreation -------- 31% ----- 35% ---- 27% ------7% ------ 0% 66% [ ]t. Preserving diverse habitat for wildlife ----------------- 46% ----- 33% ---- 16% ------5% ------ 0% 79% [ ]u. Providing regional hiking trails ------------------------- 23% ----- 30% ---- 45% ------2% ------ 0% 53% [ ]v. Restoring public lands to be resilient in the face of climate change ----------------------------------- 49% ----- 23% ---- 13% ----- 11% ------ 5% 72% [ ]w. Connecting kids to nature ------------------------------- 43% ----- 36% ---- 18% ------3% ------ 0% 78% [ ]x. Protecting the waterways and natural lands that maintain water quality and supply ---------------- 67% ----- 24% ----- 7% -------2% ------ 0% 91% [ ]y. Managing redwood forests ------------------------------ 49% ----- 32% ---- 15% ------2% ------ 2% 81% [ ]z. Protecting San Mateo and Santa Clara counties’ agricultural, natural resource, and open space lands ------------------------------------------ 34% ----- 41% ---- 15% ----- 10% ------ 0% 75% [ ]aa. Protecting coastal grasslands---------------------------- 35% ----- 36% ---- 17% ----- 12% ------ 0% 71% [ ]bb. Improving access for individuals with disabilities at local preserves ---------------------------- 21% ----- 43% ---- 32% ------4% ------ 1% 64% [ ]cc. Partnering with Native American tribes to relearn and reapply indigenous plant restoration techniques ------------------------------------ 27% ----- 30% ---- 18% ----- 21% ------ 4% 58% [ ]dd. Removing invasive species to restore native plant and wildlife habitat -------------------------------- 34% ----- 31% ---- 15% ----- 14% ------ 5% 65% Attachment 7_Results_Ward 6 (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 7. And which of these six components of the Midpen mission do you think is most important to you? (RE- READ AND RANDOMIZE LIST IF NECESSARY) [ ] Acquiring and preserving a regional greenbelt ------------------------------------------- 13% [ ] Restoring the natural environment---------------------------------------------------------- 20% [ ] Providing opportunities for ecologically sensitive public recreation ------------------ 11% [ ] Educating the public about conservation and nature ------------------------------------- 15% [ ] Preserving rural character ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% [ ] Encouraging viable agricultural land use ---------------------------------------------------- 6% (DON'T READ) All ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19% (DON'T READ) None ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% (DON'T READ) Other (SPECIFY) ---------------------------------------------------------- 10% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/Refused -------------------------------------------------------------- 2% 8. Stepping back for a moment, I’d like to read you two statements about Midpen preserves. I’d like you to tell me which comes closer to your opinion, even if neither is exactly right. (ROTATE) [ ] I prefer preserves that provide multiple visitor amenities, such as water bottle refilling stations, restrooms, and picnic areas --------------------------------- 24% OR [ ] I prefer preserves that put a high priority on wildlife habitat restoration and protection, with only low-impact trails that encourage users to leave no trace ---------- 71% (DON’T READ) (BOTH) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0% (NEITHER)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3% (DON'T KNOW/NA) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3% Attachment 7_Results_Ward 6 9. Next, I am going to read you a series of statements about the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. For each one, please tell me if it makes you view Midpen much more favorably, somewhat more favorably, or if it makes no difference. (RANDOMIZE) MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV [ ]a. (SPECIAL CHARACTER) People choose to live in the Bay Area because of its scenic beauty and recreational opportunities. The stunning ridge and coastal views and riding, biking, and hiking trails we have in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties are truly unique. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District works to preserve what we love most about living here. ----------------------------------- 32% ----- 37% ---- 25% ------4% ------ 2% 69% (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]b. (WATER QUALITY) Nothing is more important than clean drinking water. By protecting and restoring areas around sources of water, Midpen increases access to water and naturally prevents the pollution of our water. -------- 48% ----- 21% ---- 23% ------3% ------ 5% 69% [ ]c. (PARTNERSHIPS) Midpen regularly partners with local nonprofits, the counties, and state and regional park organizations to leverage their resources and connect residents with open space, recreational opportunities, and educational programs. Connecting these public lands supports biodiversity, providing places for local plants and wildlife to thrive. --------- 29% ----- 46% ---- 19% ------0% ------ 6% 75% [ ]d. (PUBLIC HEALTH) Open space preserves and natural areas provide spaces where families and children can safely walk, run, and bicycle – improving the physical health of residents, reducing obesity, and reducing healthcare costs. These areas are open 365 days a year, sunrise to sunset, to anyone, and for free. ----------------------------------------------------- 61% ----- 24% ---- 13% ------0% ------ 2% 85% [ ]e. (WILDLIFE) By restoring and protecting natural areas, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is protecting wildlife habitats and California’s unique biodiversity. ------------------ 34% ----- 42% ---- 17% ------3% ------ 3% 76% Attachment 7_Results_Ward 6 MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV (SPLIT SAMPLE A CONTINUED) [ ]f. (AG SUSTAINABILITY) San Mateo and Santa Clara counties have rich agricultural and ranching history. That’s why Midpen protects sustainable, working agricultural ranchlands connecting past and future along the scenic coast. -------------------------------------------------------- 24% ----- 36% ---- 30% ------8% ------ 2% 60% [ ]g. (CARING) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is caring for the land to create healthy habitats for plants, animals, and people. ------------------------------------------------------ 49% ----- 29% ---- 16% ------3% ------ 3% 78% [ ]h. (UNDERSERVED) Midpen programming connects people to nature through enriched experiences, especially people who are typically less likely to have access to natural areas and open spaces. That includes low- income communities and communities of color. -------------------------------------------------------- 34% ----- 35% ---- 29% ------0% ------ 3% 69% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]i. (AG HISTORY) San Mateo and Santa Clara counties have rich agricultural and ranching history. That’s why the Midpeninsula Open Space District preserves historic, agricultural lands close to home along the scenic coast. ---------- 23% ----- 36% ---- 32% ------9% ------ 0% 60% [ ]j. (RECREATION) Parks and open spaces provide safe places for the community to gather and explore the outdoors. It’s especially important to keep these accessible options for everyone as the cost of living increases. Midpen ensures that San Mateo and Santa Clara County residents have access to well- maintained and beautiful recreation areas. ------------ 27% ----- 42% ---- 25% ------6% ------ 0% 69% [ ]k. (CLIMATE) Smart investments made before a disaster strikes can help protect a community’s quality of life, save lives, and reduce the cost to taxpayers. Midpen is taking a proactive, practical approach to stewardship of public lands, helping ensure San Mateo and Santa Clara counties are resilient as the climate changes. ------------------------------------------ 30% ----- 45% ---- 14% ------7% ------ 3% 76% Attachment 7_Results_Ward 6 MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV (SPLIT SAMPLE B CONTINUED) [ ]l. (FIRES) Midpen is working with fire agencies and surrounding communities to strengthen prevention and preparation in case of wildland fires. This includes maintaining hundreds of miles of fire roads. Midpen is also using conservation grazing to reduce flammable brush within grassland habitats, limiting the risk of fire, or fire intensity if it does occur. ---------- 47% ----- 48% ----- 6% -------0% ------ 0% 94% [ ]m. (EDUCATION) Midpen programming connects people to nature through enriched experiences, including environmental interpretation, docent-led activities and volunteer opportunities. ---------------------------------- 21% ----- 29% ---- 40% ------7% ------ 2% 51% [ ]n. (PLACE) Few other conservation organizations protect and restore such a wide variety of unique natural areas: from redwood forests to the Bay and the ocean, from serpentine-soil grasslands to Tafoni sandstone. Our peninsula is unique and Midpen works to protect and restore these places for the wildlife that call it home, and the people who visit and recreate there. --------------------------------------------- 40% ----- 29% ---- 25% ------6% ------ 0% 69% (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 10. Next, having heard this, let me ask you one last time - do you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District? TOTAL FAVORABLE --------------------------- 91% Strongly favorable ---------------------------------- 56% Somewhat favorable -------------------------------- 35% TOTAL UNFAVORABLE ----------------------- 9% Somewhat unfavorable ------------------------------- 6% Strongly unfavorable --------------------------------- 3% (DON'T READ) CAN’T RATE/DK/NA --------- 1% Attachment 7_Results_Ward 6 11. Next, I’m going to read you a list of sources from which people get information about (SPLIT SAMPLE A: local issues in your area) (SPLIT SAMPLE B: parks, open space, and the outdoors). For each, I’d like you to tell me how often you use it to get information about (SPLIT SAMPLE A: local issues in your area) (SPLIT SAMPLE B: parks, open space and the outdoors): frequently, occasionally, rarely, or never. (RANDOMIZE) (DK/ FREQ RRLY FREQ OCCAS RARELY NEVER NA) /OCC /NVR [ ]a. Local television stations -------------------16% ----- 20% ----- 12% ----- 52% ------ 0% 36% 63% [ ]b. KQED Radio --------------------------------18% ----- 26% ----- 15% ----- 41% ------ 1% 44% 55% [ ]c. Radio stations other than KQED ---------- 6% ----- 21% ----- 20% ----- 52% ------ 0% 27% 72% [ ]d. Information you receive in the mail------- 5% ----- 29% ----- 30% ----- 35% ------ 1% 34% 65% [ ]e. Facebook -------------------------------------13% ----- 16% ----- 13% ----- 58% ------ 0% 29% 71% [ ]f. Twitter ----------------------------------------- 9% ----- 11% ------- 5% ----- 75% ------ 0% 20% 80% [ ]g. Instagram ------------------------------------- 3% ----- 11% ----- 14% ----- 71% ------ 0% 14% 85% [ ]h. Blogs on the Internet ------------------------ 1% ----- 24% ----- 26% ----- 49% ------ 0% 25% 75% [ ]i. The San José Mercury News newspaper ------------------------------------- 8% ----- 12% ----- 26% ----- 53% ------ 0% 20% 79% [ ]j. The San Francisco Chronicle newspaper ------------------------------------- 9% ----- 13% ----- 26% ----- 51% ------ 0% 22% 77% [ ]k. The Half Moon Bay Review newspaper ------------------------------------- 1% ------ 4% ----- 10% ----- 82% ------ 3% 5% 93% [ ]l. The Midpen newsletter and activity guide mailed to your home ----------------- 7% ----- 16% ----- 15% ----- 58% ------ 3% 23% 73% [ ]m. The Midpen e-newsletter ------------------- 5% ------ 9% ------- 9% ----- 72% ------ 5% 14% 81% [ ]n. Nextdoor -------------------------------------11% ----- 25% ----- 13% ----- 50% ------ 1% 36% 63% [ ]o. Midpen’s public meetings ------------------ 0% ------ 6% ------- 9% ----- 84% ------ 0% 6% 93% [ ]p. Midpen’s website, openspace-dot- org --------------------------------------------- 4% ----- 20% ----- 22% ----- 51% ------ 3% 24% 73% Attachment 7_Results_Ward 6 12. Were there any sources of information you use that I didn’t mention? (OPEN END, RECORD VERBATIM) No -------------------------------------------- 55% Word of mouth ----------------------------- 14% Local newspaper --------------------------- 10% Internet (general) ----------------------------- 3% Local newsletter ------------------------------ 3% Google ----------------------------------------- 2% Community centers -------------------------- 2% Yelp -------------------------------------------- 2% National newspaper -------------------------- 1% National news --------------------------------- 1% Personal experience -------------------------- 1% LinkedIn --------------------------------------- 0% News radio ------------------------------------ 0% Saratogian ------------------------------------- 0% You Tube -------------------------------------- 0% Magazines (not specified)------------------- 0% Local television news ------------------------ 0% Government website ------------------------- 0% Library ----------------------------------------- 0% Reddit ------------------------------------------ 0% Maps ------------------------------------------- 0% Facebook/social media ---------------------- 0% Other ------------------------------------------- 5% Don’t know ----------------------------------- 0% Refused ---------------------------------------- 5% Attachment 7_Results_Ward 6 WE'RE JUST ABOUT DONE. I'M ONLY GOING TO ASK YOU A FEW MORE QUESTIONS FOR CLASSIFICATION PURPOSES. 13. First, I’d like you to consider your visits to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District preserves. Please tell me how often you typically visit and use Midpen preserves in this way: about once a week, a few times a month, a few times a year, once a year, or never. (RANDOMIZE) ONCE/ FEW/ FEW/ ONCE/ (DK/ WEEK MO YEAR YEAR NEVER NA) [ ]a. Walking or hiking ------------------------------------- 14% ----- 40% ----- 28% ----- 7% ------ 10% ------ 1% [ ]b. Running or jogging ------------------------------------- 8% ------ 11% ------ 7% ------ 5% ------ 69% ------ 0% [ ]c. Dog walking -------------------------------------------- 12% ------6% ----- 12% ----- 6% ------ 64% ------ 0% [ ]d. Horseback riding ---------------------------------------- 3% -------1% ------ 4% ------ 5% ------ 87% ------ 0% [ ]e. Mountain biking ---------------------------------------- 2% -------6% ------ 3% ------ 8% ------ 81% ------ 1% [ ]f. Birdwatching or wildlife viewing -------------------- 5% ------ 12% ----- 26% ---- 12% ----- 45% ------ 0% [ ]g. Spending time in nature ------------------------------ 20% ----- 33% ----- 28% ----- 7% ------ 11% ------ 1% [ ]h. Ranger- or docent-led programs ---------------------- 1% -------1% ------ 9% ----- 10% ----- 79% ------ 1% [ ]i. Backpack camping ------------------------------------- 0% -------1% ----- 10% ----- 8% ------ 81% ------ 0% (ASK IF EVER VISIT FOR ANY REASON – CODE 1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4 IN ANY ITEM IN Q13) 14. Do you feel safe or unsafe outdoors in local nature preserves? (IF SAFE/UNSAFE, ASK: “Is that very or somewhat SAFE/UNSAFE?”) TOTAL SAFE ----------------------------- 91% Very safe ------------------------------------ 66% Somewhat safe ------------------------------ 24% TOTAL UNSAFE ------------------------- 7% Somewhat unsafe----------------------------- 7% Very unsafe ----------------------------------- 0% (DON’T READ) Don’t visit them/NA --- 1% (DON'T READ) Don’t know -------------- 1% (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 15. Do you have any children under the age of 19 living at home? Yes ------------------------------------------- 23% No -------------------------------------------- 75% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ---- 2% Attachment 7_Results_Ward 6 16. What was the last level of school you completed? High school graduate or less ------------- 10% Some college -------------------------------- 16% Associate’s Degree -------------------------- 3% College graduate --------------------------- 37% Post-graduate ------------------------------- 30% (DON'T KNOW) ---------------------------- 3% 17. Do you work in the technology industry? (IF NO: “Does anyone in your household work in the technology industry?”) Yes, self ------------------------------------- 15% Yes, household ------------------------------- 7% Yes, both -------------------------------------- 5% No -------------------------------------------- 68% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ---- 4% 18. Were you born and raised in Santa Clara or San Mateo counties? (IF NO, ASK: “How long have you lived in San Mateo or Santa Clara Counties?”) Born and raised ----------------------------- 20% Two years or less ----------------------------- 2% Three to five years --------------------------- 6% Six to 10 years ------------------------------ 15% 11 to 20 years ------------------------------- 12% 21 to 40 years ------------------------------ 20% More than 40 years ------------------------ 20% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ---- 5% 19. I don’t need to know the exact amount, but please stop me when I read the category that includes the total income for your household before taxes in 2019. Was it: (READ CHOICES BELOW) $30,000 and under ------------------------- 15% $30,001 - $60,000 -------------------------- 13% $60,001 - $90,000 -------------------------- 12% $90,001 - $120,000 -------------------------- 8% $120,001 - $150,000 ------------------------- 6% More than $150,000 ----------------------- 30% (DON'T READ) Refused ---------------- 17% Attachment 7_Results_Ward 6 20. What is your gender? Male ------------------------------------------ 41% Female --------------------------------------- 56% Nonbinary ------------------------------------- 0% Rather not say -------------------------------- 3% THANK AND TERMINATE MODE Phone ------------------------------- 43% Online ------------------------------ 57% DISTRICT WARD 1 - Seimens -------------------------- 0% 2 - Kishimoto ------------------------ 0% 3 - Cyr -------------------------------- 0% 4 - Riffle ----------------------------- 0% 5 - Holman --------------------------- 0% 6 - Hassett ------------------------- 100% 7 – Kersteen-Tucker ---------------- 0% COUNTY San Mateo ------------------------- 100% Santa Clara --------------------------- 0% CITY/TOWN Cupertino ----------------------------- 0% Los Altos ----------------------------- 0% Los Gatos ---------------------------- 0% Menlo Park ------------------------- 22% Mountain View ---------------------- 0% Palo Alto ----------------------------- 0% Redwood City --------------------- 35% San Carlos ---------------------------- 0% Saratoga ------------------------------ 0% Sunnyvale ---------------------------- 0% Other -------------------------------- 28% Unincorporated -------------------- 16% Attachment 7_Results_Ward 6 JANUARY 9-23, 2020 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 320-876-WT N=160 WARD 7 A/B SPLIT Hello, I'm ________ from______, a public opinion research company. I am not trying to sell you anything. We're conducting a survey about issues that concern residents in your area. May I speak with the person at home over 18 who most recently celebrated a birthday? A. Before we begin, I need to know if I have reached you on a cell phone, and if so, are you in a place where you can talk safely without endangering yourself or others? Yes, cell and can talk safely -------------------------------- 54% Yes, cell but cannot talk safely ---------------- TERMINATE No, not on cell ------------------------------------------------ 46% (DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ------- TERMINATE B. My next questions are to ensure that we are interviewing a representative group of residents in your area. What is your age? Under 18 ------------------------ TERMINATE 18-24 ------------------------------------------- 9% 25-29 ------------------------------------------- 2% 30-34 ------------------------------------------- 9% 35-39 ------------------------------------------- 2% 40-44 ----------------------------------------- 11% 45-49 ----------------------------------------- 11% 50-54 ------------------------------------------- 8% 55-59 ----------------------------------------- 15% 60-64 ----------------------------------------- 14% 65-69 ------------------------------------------- 6% 70-74 ------------------------------------------- 5% 75+ --------------------------------------------- 5% (DK/REFUSED) ---------------------------- 2% C. With which racial or ethnic group do you identify yourself: Hispanic or Latino; African American or Black; Caucasian or White; Asian or Pacific Islander; multiracial; or some other ethnic or racial background? Latino/Hispanic ------------------------------ 2% African American/Black -------------------- 0% Caucasian/White --------------------------- 74% Asian/Pacific Islander --------------------- 10% Multiracial------------------------------------- 5% (OTHER) ------------------------------------- 2% (DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ---- 7% Attachment 8_Results_Ward 7 D. Are you registered to vote? (IF YES, ASK: “With which party are you registered to vote: Democratic, Republican, another party, or with no party preference?”) No, not registered ---------------------------- 3% Democratic ---------------------------------- 47% Republican ---------------------------------- 11% No Party Preference ----------------------- 25% Another party --------------------------------- 6% (DON'T KNOW/NA) ---------------------- 8% 1. OK, let’s begin. First, how would you rate your community as a place to live? Is it … (READ LIST)? EXCELLENT/GOOD ------------------- 87% Excellent------------------------------------- 40% Good ----------------------------------------- 47% FAIR/POOR ------------------------------- 13% Fair ------------------------------------------- 12% Poor -------------------------------------------- 0% (DON'T KNOW/NA) ---------------------- 0% 2. Next, I’m going to read you a list of local organizations and public institutions. For each one, I’d like you to tell me if you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion. If you have never heard of one, please just say so. (RANDOMIZE) (CAN’T NEVER STR SMWT SMWT STR RATE HEARD TOTAL TOTAL FAV FAV UNFAV UNFAV /DK) OF FAV UNFAV [ ]a. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ---------------------- 42% ----- 24% ----- 3% ------- 1% ------ 5% ------ 26% 66% 4% [ ]b. Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority -------------------- 20% ----- 12% ----- 2% ------- 0% ----- 21% ----- 46% 31% 2% [ ]c. Peninsula Open Space Trust ----- 42% ----- 17% ----- 2% ------- 2% ------ 7% ------ 31% 59% 4% [ ]d. California State Parks ------------- 62% ----- 32% ----- 2% ------- 0% ------ 3% -------1% 95% 2% [ ]e. Golden Gate National Recreation Area -------------------- 48% ----- 24% ----- 4% ------- 2% ----- 13% ------9% 72% 6% (ASK IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY ONLY) [ ]f. Santa Clara County Parks --------- 0% ------ 0% ------ 0% ------- 0% ------ 0% -------0% 0% 0% (ASK IN SAN MATEO COUNTY ONLY) [ ]g. San Mateo County Parks --------- 46% ----- 44% ----- 2% ------- 0% ------ 5% -------2% 89% 3% Attachment 8_Results_Ward 7 (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 3. I’m going to read you some issues that some people say may be problems in your area. After I read each one, please tell me whether you think each is a problem or not. (IF YES, PROBLEM, ASK: “Do you think it is an extremely, very, or somewhat serious problem?”) (RANDOMIZE) EXT VERY SMWT NOT SER SER SER A (DK/ EXT/ PROB PROB PROB PROB NA) VERY [ ]a. The quality of local natural lands and open space -------------------------------------------------------- 17% ----- 18% ---- 19% ----- 42% ------ 5% 34% [ ]b. Traffic congestion ---------------------------------------- 59% ----- 27% ---- 13% ------1% ------ 0% 86% [ ]c. Loss of natural areas to development ------------------ 38% ----- 23% ---- 25% ----- 12% ------ 2% 60% [ ]d. Fire risk ---------------------------------------------------- 26% ----- 21% ---- 37% ----- 15% ------ 0% 48% [ ]e. Water pollution ------------------------------------------- 22% ----- 25% ---- 29% ----- 22% ------ 3% 47% [ ]f. Air pollution ----------------------------------------------- 22% ----- 20% ---- 37% ----- 21% ------ 0% 42% [ ]g. Loss of wildlife habitat ---------------------------------- 41% ----- 22% ---- 19% ----- 15% ------ 2% 64% [ ]h. A lack of affordable housing ---------------------------- 57% ----- 21% ---- 16% ------5% ------ 1% 78% [ ]i. Climate change -------------------------------------------- 58% ----- 16% ---- 12% ----- 12% ------ 2% 73% [ ]j. The amount you pay in local taxes --------------------- 23% ----- 13% ---- 30% ----- 23% ----- 11% 37% Attachment 8_Results_Ward 7 NOW I’D LIKE TO ASK YOU A FEW MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT. (ASK Q4 ONLY IF CODES 1-4 IN Q2A) 4. You mentioned a few moments ago that you have a FAVORABLE / UNFAVORABLE opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. In a few words of your own, could you tell me why? (OPEN-ENDED; RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE BELOW. PROBE FOR VERY SPECIFIC RESPONSES) a. Favorable, N=105: Preservation of open space/environmental protection --------------------------------------- 48% Support their mission/efforts -------------------------------------------------------------------- 34% Good option for recreation/exercise ----------------------------------------------------------- 23% Trails/facilities are well maintained------------------------------------------------------------ 18% I use trails regularly ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 13% Easily accessible to the public ------------------------------------------------------------------ 10% Enjoy nature’s beauty/beautiful views ---------------------------------------------------------- 9% Dog friendly ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4% Preservation of wildlife/habitat ------------------------------------------------------------------- 3% General favorable statement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% Mixed feelings -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% Need more information ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% Don’t know ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4% b. Unfavorable, N=6: Poor leadership/management -------------------------------------------------------------------- 56% Not enough transparency/misused revenue ---------------------------------------------------- 53% Too many limitations ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16% Other------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13% Attachment 8_Results_Ward 7 (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) AS YOU MAY KNOW, THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, OFTEN KNOWN AS “MIDPEN,” IS AN INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT PRIMARILY IN SANTA CLARA AND SAN MATEO COUNTIES THAT HAS PRESERVED A REGIONAL GREENBELT OF NEARLY 65 THOUSAND ACRES OF PUBLIC LAND AND MANAGES 26 OPEN SPACE PRESERVES. ITS MISSION IS TO ACQUIRE AND PERMANENTLY PRESERVE OPEN SPACE LAND, PROTECT AND RESTORE THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, AND PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE PUBLIC ENJOYMENT AND EDUCATION. ON THE COAST, ITS MISSION INCLUDES PRESERVING RURAL CHARACTER AND ENCOURAGING VIABLE AGRICULTURAL USE OF LAND. 5. Having heard this, let me ask you again: would you say you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District? TOTAL FAVORABLE ------------------ 94% Strongly favorable ------------------------- 56% Somewhat favorable ----------------------- 38% TOTAL UNFAVORABLE -------------- 3% Somewhat unfavorable ---------------------- 3% Strongly unfavorable ------------------------ 0% (DON'T READ) DK/NA ------------------- 3% 6. Next, I am going to read you a list of goals Midpen has set for itself. For each goal, please tell me if you think it is extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. (RANDOMIZE) EXT VERY SMWT NOT TOO (DK/ EXT/ IMP IMP IMP IMP NA) VERY (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]a. Preserving a regional greenbelt of open space land forever ------------------------------------------------ 59% ----- 24% ---- 14% ------3% ------ 0% 83% [ ]b. Protecting natural areas ---------------------------------- 58% ----- 28% ---- 14% ------0% ------ 0% 86% [ ]c. Providing opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education ------------ 35% ----- 30% ---- 30% ------6% ------ 0% 65% [ ]d. Restoring native plant and wildlife habitat ----------- 37% ----- 31% ---- 25% ------7% ------ 0% 68% [ ]e. Providing multiuse trails for hiking, biking, and equestrian use ---------------------------------------- 30% ----- 38% ---- 29% ------4% ------ 0% 67% [ ]f. Stewarding public lands to be resilient in the face of climate change ----------------------------------- 44% ----- 26% ---- 23% ------7% ------ 0% 70% [ ]g. Supporting local agriculture along the San Mateo County coast -------------------------------------- 35% ----- 35% ---- 30% ------0% ------ 0% 69% [ ]h. Preserving the character of rural areas, such as the Santa Cruz Mountains or the San Mateo County Coast ---------------------------------------------- 50% ----- 25% ---- 22% ------4% ------ 0% 75% Attachment 8_Results_Ward 7 EXT VERY SMWT NOT TOO (DK/ EXT/ IMP IMP IMP IMP NA) VERY (SPLIT SAMPLE A CONTINUED) [ ]i. Partnering with local organizations to promote a regional environmental vision ------------------------ 43% ----- 26% ---- 23% ------6% ------ 2% 69% [ ]j. Connecting regional trails ------------------------------- 23% ----- 42% ---- 28% ------7% ------ 0% 65% [ ]k. Caring for the ecosystem to help native plants and wildlife survive -------------------------------------- 44% ----- 37% ---- 17% ------2% ------ 0% 81% [ ]l. Reducing dead and downed vegetation for wildland fire prevention --------------------------------- 58% ----- 25% ---- 14% ------0% ------ 2% 84% [ ]m. Preserving undeveloped coastal open space and agricultural lands ------------------------------------ 47% ----- 26% ---- 23% ------2% ------ 1% 73% [ ]n. Assessing historical significance of structures on open space lands -------------------------------------- 27% ----- 36% ---- 26% ----- 11% ------ 0% 63% [ ]o. Promoting safe wildlife corridors and trail crossings across Highway 17 --------------------------- 36% ----- 29% ---- 22% ------6% ------ 6% 65% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]p. Protecting the ridgetops, hillsides and creeks that create our region’s striking natural beauty ------ 50% ----- 32% ---- 16% ------3% ------ 0% 81% [ ]q. Protecting and restoring the natural environment ----------------------------------------------- 67% ----- 18% ---- 13% ------1% ------ 1% 85% [ ]r. Protecting San Mateo and Santa Clara counties’ agricultural, natural resource, and open space lands for future generations --------------- 69% ----- 13% ---- 17% ------1% ------ 0% 83% [ ]s. Creating opportunities for outdoor recreation -------- 24% ----- 42% ---- 31% ------3% ------ 0% 66% [ ]t. Preserving diverse habitat for wildlife ----------------- 63% ----- 15% ---- 20% ------2% ------ 0% 78% [ ]u. Providing regional hiking trails ------------------------- 24% ----- 43% ---- 25% ------7% ------ 0% 67% [ ]v. Restoring public lands to be resilient in the face of climate change ----------------------------------- 48% ----- 32% ---- 16% ------1% ------ 4% 79% [ ]w. Connecting kids to nature ------------------------------- 38% ----- 39% ---- 20% ------3% ------ 0% 77% [ ]x. Protecting the waterways and natural lands that maintain water quality and supply ---------------- 75% ----- 14% ---- 10% ------1% ------ 0% 89% [ ]y. Managing redwood forests ------------------------------ 60% ----- 24% ---- 15% ------1% ------ 0% 84% [ ]z. Protecting San Mateo and Santa Clara counties’ agricultural, natural resource, and open space lands ------------------------------------------ 63% ----- 15% ---- 21% ------1% ------ 0% 78% [ ]aa. Protecting coastal grasslands---------------------------- 51% ----- 18% ---- 30% ------1% ------ 0% 69% [ ]bb. Improving access for individuals with disabilities at local preserves ---------------------------- 23% ----- 47% ---- 23% ------6% ------ 0% 71% [ ]cc. Partnering with Native American tribes to relearn and reapply indigenous plant restoration techniques ------------------------------------ 41% ----- 29% ---- 21% ------9% ------ 0% 69% [ ]dd. Removing invasive species to restore native plant and wildlife habitat -------------------------------- 34% ----- 30% ---- 18% ------3% ----- 14% 65% Attachment 8_Results_Ward 7 (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 7. And which of these six components of the Midpen mission do you think is most important to you? (RE- READ AND RANDOMIZE LIST IF NECESSARY) [ ] Acquiring and preserving a regional greenbelt ------------------------------------------- 23% [ ] Restoring the natural environment---------------------------------------------------------- 13% [ ] Providing opportunities for ecologically sensitive public recreation -------------------- 9% [ ] Educating the public about conservation and nature ------------------------------------- 10% [ ] Preserving rural character ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 4% [ ] Encouraging viable agricultural land use ---------------------------------------------------- 2% (DON'T READ) All ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33% (DON'T READ) None ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0% (DON'T READ) Other (SPECIFY) ------------------------------------------------------------ 3% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/Refused -------------------------------------------------------------- 1% 8. Stepping back for a moment, I’d like to read you two statements about Midpen preserves. I’d like you to tell me which comes closer to your opinion, even if neither is exactly right. (ROTATE) [ ] I prefer preserves that provide multiple visitor amenities, such as water bottle refilling stations, restrooms, and picnic areas --------------------------------- 23% OR [ ] I prefer preserves that put a high priority on wildlife habitat restoration and protection, with only low-impact trails that encourage users to leave no trace ---------- 75% (DON’T READ) (BOTH) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0% (NEITHER)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0% (DON'T KNOW/NA) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% Attachment 8_Results_Ward 7 9. Next, I am going to read you a series of statements about the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. For each one, please tell me if it makes you view Midpen much more favorably, somewhat more favorably, or if it makes no difference. (RANDOMIZE) MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV [ ]a. (SPECIAL CHARACTER) People choose to live in the Bay Area because of its scenic beauty and recreational opportunities. The stunning ridge and coastal views and riding, biking, and hiking trails we have in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties are truly unique. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District works to preserve what we love most about living here. ----------------------------------- 39% ----- 30% ---- 22% ------7% ------ 2% 69% (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]b. (WATER QUALITY) Nothing is more important than clean drinking water. By protecting and restoring areas around sources of water, Midpen increases access to water and naturally prevents the pollution of our water. -------- 52% ----- 25% ---- 18% ------1% ------ 4% 77% [ ]c. (PARTNERSHIPS) Midpen regularly partners with local nonprofits, the counties, and state and regional park organizations to leverage their resources and connect residents with open space, recreational opportunities, and educational programs. Connecting these public lands supports biodiversity, providing places for local plants and wildlife to thrive. --------- 37% ----- 39% ---- 18% ------3% ------ 4% 75% [ ]d. (PUBLIC HEALTH) Open space preserves and natural areas provide spaces where families and children can safely walk, run, and bicycle – improving the physical health of residents, reducing obesity, and reducing healthcare costs. These areas are open 365 days a year, sunrise to sunset, to anyone, and for free. ----------------------------------------------------- 42% ----- 33% ---- 22% ------2% ------ 1% 75% [ ]e. (WILDLIFE) By restoring and protecting natural areas, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is protecting wildlife habitats and California’s unique biodiversity. ------------------ 53% ----- 29% ---- 14% ------1% ------ 4% 82% Attachment 8_Results_Ward 7 MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV (SPLIT SAMPLE A CONTINUED) [ ]f. (AG SUSTAINABILITY) San Mateo and Santa Clara counties have rich agricultural and ranching history. That’s why Midpen protects sustainable, working agricultural ranchlands connecting past and future along the scenic coast. -------------------------------------------------------- 38% ----- 35% ---- 22% ------1% ------ 4% 73% [ ]g. (CARING) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is caring for the land to create healthy habitats for plants, animals, and people. ------------------------------------------------------ 53% ----- 29% ---- 16% ------2% ------ 1% 82% [ ]h. (UNDERSERVED) Midpen programming connects people to nature through enriched experiences, especially people who are typically less likely to have access to natural areas and open spaces. That includes low- income communities and communities of color. -------------------------------------------------------- 39% ----- 31% ---- 27% ------1% ------ 3% 69% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]i. (AG HISTORY) San Mateo and Santa Clara counties have rich agricultural and ranching history. That’s why the Midpeninsula Open Space District preserves historic, agricultural lands close to home along the scenic coast. ---------- 18% ----- 35% ---- 25% ------4% ----- 18% 53% [ ]j. (RECREATION) Parks and open spaces provide safe places for the community to gather and explore the outdoors. It’s especially important to keep these accessible options for everyone as the cost of living increases. Midpen ensures that San Mateo and Santa Clara County residents have access to well- maintained and beautiful recreation areas. ------------ 34% ----- 44% ---- 18% ------0% ------ 3% 78% [ ]k. (CLIMATE) Smart investments made before a disaster strikes can help protect a community’s quality of life, save lives, and reduce the cost to taxpayers. Midpen is taking a proactive, practical approach to stewardship of public lands, helping ensure San Mateo and Santa Clara counties are resilient as the climate changes. ------------------------------------------ 33% ----- 50% ---- 13% ------0% ------ 3% 83% Attachment 8_Results_Ward 7 MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV (SPLIT SAMPLE B CONTINUED) [ ]l. (FIRES) Midpen is working with fire agencies and surrounding communities to strengthen prevention and preparation in case of wildland fires. This includes maintaining hundreds of miles of fire roads. Midpen is also using conservation grazing to reduce flammable brush within grassland habitats, limiting the risk of fire, or fire intensity if it does occur. ---------- 57% ----- 26% ---- 15% ------0% ------ 2% 83% [ ]m. (EDUCATION) Midpen programming connects people to nature through enriched experiences, including environmental interpretation, docent-led activities and volunteer opportunities. ---------------------------------- 17% ----- 36% ---- 27% ------4% ----- 16% 53% [ ]n. (PLACE) Few other conservation organizations protect and restore such a wide variety of unique natural areas: from redwood forests to the Bay and the ocean, from serpentine-soil grasslands to Tafoni sandstone. Our peninsula is unique and Midpen works to protect and restore these places for the wildlife that call it home, and the people who visit and recreate there. --------------------------------------------- 27% ----- 38% ---- 19% ----- 12% ------ 3% 65% (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 10. Next, having heard this, let me ask you one last time - do you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District? TOTAL FAVORABLE --------------------------- 92% Strongly favorable ---------------------------------- 62% Somewhat favorable -------------------------------- 30% TOTAL UNFAVORABLE ----------------------- 3% Somewhat unfavorable ------------------------------- 3% Strongly unfavorable --------------------------------- 0% (DON'T READ) CAN’T RATE/DK/NA --------- 5% Attachment 8_Results_Ward 7 11. Next, I’m going to read you a list of sources from which people get information about (SPLIT SAMPLE A: local issues in your area) (SPLIT SAMPLE B: parks, open space, and the outdoors). For each, I’d like you to tell me how often you use it to get information about (SPLIT SAMPLE A: local issues in your area) (SPLIT SAMPLE B: parks, open space and the outdoors): frequently, occasionally, rarely, or never. (RANDOMIZE) (DK/ FREQ RRLY FREQ OCCAS RARELY NEVER NA) /OCC /NVR [ ]a. Local television stations -------------------11% ----- 27% ----- 20% ----- 39% ------ 3% 38% 59% [ ]b. KQED Radio --------------------------------14% ----- 17% ----- 14% ----- 52% ------ 3% 31% 66% [ ]c. Radio stations other than KQED ---------- 5% ----- 13% ----- 25% ----- 54% ------ 3% 18% 79% [ ]d. Information you receive in the mail------- 7% ----- 36% ----- 16% ----- 37% ------ 3% 43% 54% [ ]e. Facebook -------------------------------------14% ----- 17% ----- 13% ----- 52% ------ 3% 31% 66% [ ]f. Twitter ----------------------------------------- 3% ----- 12% ------- 6% ----- 74% ------ 5% 15% 80% [ ]g. Instagram ------------------------------------- 5% ----- 13% ----- 12% ----- 67% ------ 3% 18% 79% [ ]h. Blogs on the Internet ------------------------ 2% ----- 21% ----- 14% ----- 59% ------ 4% 22% 73% [ ]i. The San José Mercury News newspaper ------------------------------------- 4% ----- 13% ----- 11% ----- 69% ------ 3% 17% 80% [ ]j. The San Francisco Chronicle newspaper ------------------------------------10% ----- 18% ----- 10% ----- 59% ------ 3% 27% 70% [ ]k. The Half Moon Bay Review newspaper ------------------------------------14% ----- 10% ----- 13% ----- 59% ------ 4% 24% 72% [ ]l. The Midpen newsletter and activity guide mailed to your home ----------------- 7% ----- 16% ----- 14% ----- 57% ------ 6% 23% 72% [ ]m. The Midpen e-newsletter ------------------- 5% ------ 9% ----- 12% ----- 71% ------ 3% 14% 83% [ ]n. Nextdoor -------------------------------------12% ----- 27% ----- 17% ----- 39% ------ 5% 39% 56% [ ]o. Midpen’s public meetings ------------------ 1% ------ 6% ------- 9% ----- 81% ------ 3% 7% 91% [ ]p. Midpen’s website, openspace-dot- org --------------------------------------------- 7% ----- 17% ----- 26% ----- 47% ------ 4% 24% 73% Attachment 8_Results_Ward 7 12. Were there any sources of information you use that I didn’t mention? (OPEN END, RECORD VERBATIM) No -------------------------------------------- 64% Word of mouth ----------------------------- 15% Google ----------------------------------------- 4% Internet (general) ----------------------------- 4% Local newspaper ----------------------------- 3% Government website ------------------------- 2% National newspaper -------------------------- 1% National news --------------------------------- 1% Community centers -------------------------- 1% Local newsletter ------------------------------ 1% Magazines (not specified)------------------- 1% LinkedIn --------------------------------------- 0% News radio ------------------------------------ 0% Saratogian ------------------------------------- 0% You Tube -------------------------------------- 0% Local television news ------------------------ 0% Library ----------------------------------------- 0% Yelp -------------------------------------------- 0% Reddit ------------------------------------------ 0% Maps ------------------------------------------- 0% Personal experience -------------------------- 0% Facebook/social media ---------------------- 0% Other ------------------------------------------- 2% Don’t know ----------------------------------- 0% Refused ---------------------------------------- 1% Attachment 8_Results_Ward 7 WE'RE JUST ABOUT DONE. I'M ONLY GOING TO ASK YOU A FEW MORE QUESTIONS FOR CLASSIFICATION PURPOSES. 13. First, I’d like you to consider your visits to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District preserves. Please tell me how often you typically visit and use Midpen preserves in this way: about once a week, a few times a month, a few times a year, once a year, or never. (RANDOMIZE) ONCE/ FEW/ FEW/ ONCE/ (DK/ WEEK MO YEAR YEAR NEVER NA) [ ]a. Walking or hiking ------------------------------------- 22% ----- 26% ----- 35% ----- 5% ------- 8% ------ 4% [ ]b. Running or jogging ------------------------------------- 8% -------8% ------ 8% ------ 7% ------ 66% ------ 4% [ ]c. Dog walking -------------------------------------------- 13% ------9% ------ 9% ------ 2% ------ 62% ------ 5% [ ]d. Horseback riding ---------------------------------------- 0% -------3% ------ 3% ------ 3% ------ 88% ------ 3% [ ]e. Mountain biking ---------------------------------------- 3% -------3% ------ 6% ------ 3% ------ 80% ------ 4% [ ]f. Birdwatching or wildlife viewing -------------------- 9% -------7% ----- 18% ----- 5% ------ 58% ------ 3% [ ]g. Spending time in nature ------------------------------ 25% ----- 19% ----- 34% ----- 6% ------ 12% ------ 4% [ ]h. Ranger- or docent-led programs ---------------------- 1% -------0% ------ 7% ----- 13% ----- 75% ------ 3% [ ]i. Backpack camping ------------------------------------- 0% -------2% ----- 10% ----- 5% ------ 79% ------ 4% (ASK IF EVER VISIT FOR ANY REASON – CODE 1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4 IN ANY ITEM IN Q13) 14. Do you feel safe or unsafe outdoors in local nature preserves? (IF SAFE/UNSAFE, ASK: “Is that very or somewhat SAFE/UNSAFE?”) TOTAL SAFE ----------------------------- 93% Very safe ------------------------------------ 56% Somewhat safe ------------------------------ 38% TOTAL UNSAFE ------------------------- 6% Somewhat unsafe----------------------------- 4% Very unsafe ----------------------------------- 2% (DON’T READ) Don’t visit them/NA --- 0% (DON'T READ) Don’t know -------------- 0% (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 15. Do you have any children under the age of 19 living at home? Yes ------------------------------------------- 27% No -------------------------------------------- 65% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ---- 8% Attachment 8_Results_Ward 7 16. What was the last level of school you completed? High school graduate or less --------------- 7% Some college -------------------------------- 27% Associate’s Degree ------------------------ 10% College graduate --------------------------- 28% Post-graduate ------------------------------- 24% (DON'T KNOW) ---------------------------- 5% 17. Do you work in the technology industry? (IF NO: “Does anyone in your household work in the technology industry?”) Yes, self ------------------------------------- 14% Yes, household ----------------------------- 14% Yes, both -------------------------------------- 5% No -------------------------------------------- 63% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ---- 4% 18. Were you born and raised in Santa Clara or San Mateo counties? (IF NO, ASK: “How long have you lived in San Mateo or Santa Clara Counties?”) Born and raised ----------------------------- 35% Two years or less ----------------------------- 3% Three to five years --------------------------- 2% Six to 10 years -------------------------------- 4% 11 to 20 years ------------------------------- 15% 21 to 40 years ------------------------------ 23% More than 40 years ------------------------ 14% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ---- 4% 19. I don’t need to know the exact amount, but please stop me when I read the category that includes the total income for your household before taxes in 2019. Was it: (READ CHOICES BELOW) $30,000 and under ------------------------- 13% $30,001 - $60,000 ---------------------------- 2% $60,001 - $90,000 -------------------------- 15% $90,001 - $120,000 -------------------------- 8% $120,001 - $150,000 ------------------------- 9% More than $150,000 ----------------------- 27% (DON'T READ) Refused ---------------- 25% Attachment 8_Results_Ward 7 20. What is your gender? Male ------------------------------------------ 35% Female --------------------------------------- 56% Nonbinary ------------------------------------- 0% Rather not say -------------------------------- 9% THANK AND TERMINATE MODE Phone ------------------------------- 36% Online ------------------------------ 64% DISTRICT WARD 1 - Seimens -------------------------- 0% 2 - Kishimoto ------------------------ 0% 3 - Cyr -------------------------------- 0% 4 - Riffle ----------------------------- 0% 5 - Holman --------------------------- 0% 6 - Hassett ---------------------------- 0% 7 – Kersteen-Tucker ------------- 100% COUNTY San Mateo ------------------------- 100% Santa Clara --------------------------- 0% CITY/TOWN Cupertino ----------------------------- 0% Los Altos ----------------------------- 0% Los Gatos ---------------------------- 0% Menlo Park --------------------------- 0% Mountain View ---------------------- 0% Palo Alto ----------------------------- 0% Redwood City --------------------- 36% San Carlos -------------------------- 24% Saratoga ------------------------------ 0% Sunnyvale ---------------------------- 0% Other -------------------------------- 17% Unincorporated -------------------- 23% Attachment 8_Results_Ward 7 JANUARY 9-23, 2020 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 320-876-WT N=113 COASTSIDE MARGIN OF SAMPLING ERROR ±9.3% (95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL) A/B SPLIT Hello, I'm ________ from______, a public opinion research company. I am not trying to sell you anything. We're conducting a survey about issues that concern residents in your area. May I speak with the person at home over 18 who most recently celebrated a birthday? A. Before we begin, I need to know if I have reached you on a cell phone, and if so, are you in a place where you can talk safely without endangering yourself or others? Yes, cell and can talk safely ------------------------------- 58% Yes, cell but cannot talk safely --------------- TERMINATE No, not on cell ----------------------------------------------- 42% (DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ------- TERMINATE B. My next questions are to ensure that we are interviewing a representative group of residents in your area. What is your age? Under 18 ----------------------- TERMINATE 18-24 ------------------------------------------ 7% 25-29 ------------------------------------------ 3% 30-34 ----------------------------------------- 15% 35-39 ------------------------------------------ 0% 40-44 ------------------------------------------ 7% 45-49 ----------------------------------------- 13% 50-54 ----------------------------------------- 10% 55-59 ----------------------------------------- 13% 60-64 ----------------------------------------- 12% 65-69 ------------------------------------------ 5% 70-74 ------------------------------------------ 3% 75+ ------------------------------------------- 7% (DK/REFUSED) --------------------------- 4% C. With which racial or ethnic group do you identify yourself: Hispanic or Latino; African American or Black; Caucasian or White; Asian or Pacific Islander; multiracial; or some other ethnic or racial background? Latino/Hispanic ----------------------------- 3% African American/Black ------------------- 0% Caucasian/White --------------------------- 82% Asian/Pacific Islander ---------------------- 3% Multiracial ----------------------------------- 7% (OTHER) ------------------------------------ 1% (DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED -- 4% Attachment 9_Results_Coastside Protection Area D. Are you registered to vote? (IF YES, ASK: “With which party are you registered to vote: Democratic, Republican, another party, or with no party preference?”) No, not registered -------------------------- 0% Democratic ---------------------------------- 51% Republican ---------------------------------- 12% No Party Preference ----------------------- 19% Another party -------------------------------- 7% (DON'T KNOW/NA) -------------------- 12% 1. OK, let’s begin. First, how would you rate your community as a place to live? Is it … (READ LIST)? EXCELLENT/GOOD ------------------- 88% Excellent------------------------------------- 43% Good ----------------------------------------- 45% FAIR/POOR ------------------------------- 12% Fair ------------------------------------------- 10% Poor ------------------------------------------- 2% (DON'T KNOW/NA) --------------------- 0% 2. Next, I’m going to read you a list of local organizations and public institutions. For each one, I’d like you to tell me if you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion. If you have never heard of one, please just say so. (RANDOMIZE) (CAN’T NEVER STR SMWT SMWT STR RATE HEARD TOTAL TOTAL FAV FAV UNFAV UNFAV /DK) OF FAV UNFAV [ ]a. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ---------------------- 45% ---- 23% ----- 3%------- 3% ------ 6% ------ 21% 67% 5% [ ]b. Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority -------------------- 21% ---- 15% ----- 3%------- 2% ----- 17% ----- 43% 36% 4% [ ]c. Peninsula Open Space Trust ----- 50% ---- 14% ----- 3%------- 6% ------ 6% ------ 21% 64% 9% [ ]d. California State Parks ------------ 71% ---- 23% ----- 0%------- 1% ------ 3% ------ 2% 94% 1% [ ]e. Golden Gate National Recreation Area ------------------- 49% ---- 18% ----- 2%------- 2% ----- 18% ----- 10% 68% 4% (ASK IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY ONLY) [ ]f. Santa Clara County Parks --------- 0% ------ 0% ------ 0%------- 0% ------ 0% ------ 0% 0% 0% (ASK IN SAN MATEO COUNTY ONLY) [ ]g. San Mateo County Parks --------- 47% ---- 43% ----- 0%------- 0% ------ 7% ------ 3% 90% 1% Attachment 9_Results_Coastside Protection Area (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 3. I’m going to read you some issues that some people say may be problems in your area. After I read each one, please tell me whether you think each is a problem or not. (IF YES, PROBLEM, ASK: “Do you think it is an extremely, very, or somewhat serious problem?”) (RANDOMIZE) EXT VERY SMWT NOT SER SER SER A (DK/ EXT/ PROB PROB PROB PROB NA) VERY [ ]a. The quality of local natural lands and open space -------------------------------------------------------- 18% ----- 18% ---- 13% ----- 45% ------ 5% 37% [ ]b. Traffic congestion ---------------------------------------- 60% ----- 26% ----- 9% ------ 4% ------ 0% 87% [ ]c. Loss of natural areas to development ----------------- 39% ----- 21% ---- 17% ----- 18% ------ 5% 60% [ ]d. Fire risk ---------------------------------------------------- 25% ----- 23% ---- 40% ----- 12% ------ 0% 48% [ ]e. Water pollution ------------------------------------------- 28% ----- 28% ---- 21% ----- 15% ------ 7% 56% [ ]f. Air pollution ----------------------------------------------- 30% ----- 21% ---- 29% ----- 20% ------ 0% 51% [ ]g. Loss of wildlife habitat ---------------------------------- 43% ----- 21% ---- 17% ----- 15% ------ 4% 64% [ ]h. A lack of affordable housing --------------------------- 63% ----- 19% ---- 13% ----- 6% ------ 0% 81% [ ]i. Climate change ------------------------------------------- 62% ----- 17% ----- 6% ------ 13% ------ 3% 78% [ ]j. The amount you pay in local taxes -------------------- 24% ------ 9% ----- 29% ----- 25% ----- 14% 32% Attachment 9_Results_Coastside Protection Area NOW I’D LIKE TO ASK YOU A FEW MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT. (ASK Q4 ONLY IF CODES 1-4 IN Q2A) 4. You mentioned a few moments ago that you have a FAVORABLE / UNFAVORABLE opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. In a few words of your own, could you tell me why? (OPEN-ENDED; RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE BELOW. PROBE FOR VERY SPECIFIC RESPONSES) a. Favorable, N=67: Preservation of open space/environmental protection -------------------------------------- 49% Support their mission/efforts ------------------------------------------------------------------- 37% Good option for recreation/exercise ---------------------------------------------------------- 20% Easily accessible to the public ------------------------------------------------------------------ 12% Trails/facilities are well maintained ----------------------------------------------------------- 11% I use trails regularly ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10% Enjoy nature’s beauty/beautiful views -------------------------------------------------------- 10% Preservation of wildlife/habitat ----------------------------------------------------------------- 8% Mixed feelings ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3% Dog friendly ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% General favorable statement --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% Don’t know ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4% Refused ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% b. Unfavorable, N=5: Not enough transparency/misused revenue -------------------------------------------------- 64% Poor leadership/management ------------------------------------------------------------------- 25% They take over too much land------------------------------------------------------------------ 18% Too many limitations ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16% More important issues ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5% Other ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10% Don’t know ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0% Refused ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0% Attachment 9_Results_Coastside Protection Area (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) AS YOU MAY KNOW, THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, OFTEN KNOWN AS “MIDPEN,” IS AN INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT PRIMARILY IN SANTA CLARA AND SAN MATEO COUNTIES THAT HAS PRESERVED A REGIONAL GREENBELT OF NEARLY 65 THOUSAND ACRES OF PUBLIC LAND AND MANAGES 26 OPEN SPACE PRESERVES. ITS MISSION IS TO ACQUIRE AND PERMANENTLY PRESERVE OPEN SPACE LAND, PROTECT AND RESTORE THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, AND PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE PUBLIC ENJOYMENT AND EDUCATION. ON THE COAST, ITS MISSION INCLUDES PRESERVING RURAL CHARACTER AND ENCOURAGING VIABLE AGRICULTURAL USE OF LAND. 5. Having heard this, let me ask you again: would you say you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District? TOTAL FAVORABLE ------------------ 91% Strongly favorable ------------------------- 57% Somewhat favorable ----------------------- 34% TOTAL UNFAVORABLE -------------- 6% Somewhat unfavorable --------------------- 4% Strongly unfavorable ----------------------- 2% (DON'T READ) DK/NA ----------------- 3% 6. Next, I am going to read you a list of goals Midpen has set for itself. For each goal, please tell me if you think it is extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. (RANDOMIZE) EXT VERY SMWT NOT TOO (DK/ EXT/ IMP IMP IMP IMP NA) VERY (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]a. Preserving a regional greenbelt of open space land forever ----------------------------------------------- 56% ----- 16% ---- 21% ----- 7% ------ 0% 72% [ ]b. Protecting natural areas --------------------------------- 62% ----- 30% ----- 8% ------ 0% ------ 0% 92% [ ]c. Providing opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education ------------ 42% ----- 26% ---- 25% ----- 7% ------ 0% 68% [ ]d. Restoring native plant and wildlife habitat ----------- 43% ----- 32% ---- 19% ----- 6% ------ 0% 75% [ ]e. Providing multiuse trails for hiking, biking, and equestrian use ---------------------------------------- 33% ----- 31% ---- 33% ----- 2% ------ 0% 64% [ ]f. Stewarding public lands to be resilient in the face of climate change ----------------------------------- 44% ----- 21% ---- 20% ----- 12% ------ 3% 65% [ ]g. Supporting local agriculture along the San Mateo County coast -------------------------------------- 39% ----- 32% ---- 28% ----- 1% ------ 0% 71% [ ]h. Preserving the character of rural areas, such as the Santa Cruz Mountains or the San Mateo County Coast ------------------------------------- 46% ----- 24% ---- 25% ----- 2% ------ 3% 71% Attachment 9_Results_Coastside Protection Area EXT VERY SMWT NOT TOO (DK/ EXT/ IMP IMP IMP IMP NA) VERY (SPLIT SAMPLE A CONTINUED) [ ]i. Partnering with local organizations to promote a regional environmental vision ------------ 43% ----- 27% ---- 20% ----- 6% ------ 3% 71% [ ]j. Connecting regional trails ------------------------------- 22% ----- 39% ---- 31% ----- 8% ------ 0% 61% [ ]k. Caring for the ecosystem to help native plants and wildlife survive -------------------------------------- 44% ----- 42% ---- 10% ----- 4% ------ 0% 86% [ ]l. Reducing dead and downed vegetation for wildland fire prevention --------------------------------- 59% ----- 23% ---- 16% ----- 3% ------ 0% 81% [ ]m. Preserving undeveloped coastal open space and agricultural lands ------------------------------------ 47% ----- 30% ---- 12% ----- 11% ------ 0% 77% [ ]n. Assessing historical significance of structures on open space lands -------------------------------------- 32% ----- 26% ---- 27% ----- 15% ------ 0% 58% [ ]o. Promoting safe wildlife corridors and trail crossings across Highway 17 --------------------------- 37% ----- 27% ---- 22% ----- 1% ----- 12% 65% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]p. Protecting the ridgetops, hillsides and creeks that create our region’s striking natural beauty ----- 48% ----- 39% ----- 8% ------ 5% ------ 0% 86% [ ]q. Protecting and restoring the natural environment ----------------------------------------------- 68% ----- 24% ----- 7% ------ 0% ------ 0% 93% [ ]r. Protecting San Mateo and Santa Clara counties’ agricultural, natural resource, and open space lands for future generations -------------- 70% ----- 17% ---- 11% ----- 2% ------ 0% 87% [ ]s. Creating opportunities for outdoor recreation ------- 23% ----- 55% ---- 20% ----- 2% ------ 0% 78% [ ]t. Preserving diverse habitat for wildlife ---------------- 64% ----- 20% ---- 16% ----- 0% ------ 0% 84% [ ]u. Providing regional hiking trails ------------------------ 25% ----- 57% ---- 13% ----- 5% ------ 0% 82% [ ]v. Restoring public lands to be resilient in the face of climate change ----------------------------------- 43% ----- 37% ---- 15% ----- 3% ------ 2% 80% [ ]w. Connecting kids to nature ------------------------------- 40% ----- 48% ---- 11% ----- 1% ------ 0% 88% [ ]x. Protecting the waterways and natural lands that maintain water quality and supply --------------- 77% ----- 17% ----- 6% ------ 0% ------ 0% 93% [ ]y. Managing redwood forests ------------------------------ 55% ----- 33% ---- 12% ----- 0% ------ 0% 87% [ ]z. Protecting San Mateo and Santa Clara counties’ agricultural, natural resource, and open space lands ------------------------------------------ 66% ----- 14% ---- 18% ----- 2% ------ 0% 80% [ ]aa. Protecting coastal grasslands --------------------------- 56% ----- 23% ---- 18% ----- 3% ------ 0% 79% [ ]bb. Improving access for individuals with disabilities at local preserves --------------------------- 24% ----- 49% ---- 18% ----- 9% ------ 0% 73% [ ]cc. Partnering with Native American tribes to relearn and reapply indigenous plant restoration techniques ------------------------------------ 44% ----- 30% ---- 14% ----- 12% ------ 0% 74% [ ]dd. Removing invasive species to restore native plant and wildlife habitat -------------------------------- 21% ----- 41% ---- 15% ----- 3% ----- 20% 62% Attachment 9_Results_Coastside Protection Area (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 7. And which of these six components of the Midpen mission do you think is most important to you? (RE-READ AND RANDOMIZE LIST IF NECESSARY) [ ] Acquiring and preserving a regional greenbelt ------------------------------------------ 22% [ ] Restoring the natural environment --------------------------------------------------------- 10% [ ] Providing opportunities for ecologically sensitive public recreation ----------------- 7% [ ] Educating the public about conservation and nature ------------------------------------ 11% [ ] Preserving rural character -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% [ ] Encouraging viable agricultural land use -------------------------------------------------- 3% (DON'T READ) All ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41% (DON'T READ) None --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% (DON'T READ) Other (SPECIFY) ----------------------------------------------------------- 3% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/Refused ------------------------------------------------------------- 2% 8. Stepping back for a moment, I’d like to read you two statements about Midpen preserves. I’d like you to tell me which comes closer to your opinion, even if neither is exactly right. (ROTATE) [ ] I prefer preserves that provide multiple visitor amenities, such as water bottle refilling stations, restrooms, and picnic areas ------------------------------- 20% OR [ ] I prefer preserves that put a high priority on wildlife habitat restoration and protection, with only low-impact trails that encourage users to leave no trace -------- 75% (DON’T READ) (BOTH) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0% (NEITHER) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% (DON'T KNOW/NA) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3% Attachment 9_Results_Coastside Protection Area 9. Next, I am going to read you a series of statements about the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. For each one, please tell me if it makes you view Midpen much more favorably, somewhat more favorably, or if it makes no difference. (RANDOMIZE) MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV [ ]a. (SPECIAL CHARACTER) People choose to live in the Bay Area because of its scenic beauty and recreational opportunities. The stunning ridge and coastal views and riding, biking, and hiking trails we have in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties are truly unique. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District works to preserve what we love most about living here. ---------------------------- 33% ----- 33% ---- 20% ----- 13% ------ 1% 66% (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]b. (WATER QUALITY) Nothing is more important than clean drinking water. By protecting and restoring areas around sources of water, Midpen increases access to water and naturally prevents the pollution of our water. ------------------------------------------------------- 54% ----- 23% ---- 15% ----- 2% ------ 6% 77% [ ]c. (PARTNERSHIPS) Midpen regularly partners with local nonprofits, the counties, and state and regional park organizations to leverage their resources and connect residents with open space, recreational opportunities, and educational programs. Connecting these public lands supports biodiversity, providing places for local plants and wildlife to thrive. -------- 34% ----- 46% ---- 10% ----- 5% ------ 6% 80% [ ]d. (PUBLIC HEALTH) Open space preserves and natural areas provide spaces where families and children can safely walk, run, and bicycle – improving the physical health of residents, reducing obesity, and reducing healthcare costs. These areas are open 365 days a year, sunrise to sunset, to anyone, and for free. ---------------------------------------------------- 43% ----- 34% ---- 20% ----- 3% ------ 0% 77% [ ]e. (WILDLIFE) By restoring and protecting natural areas, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is protecting wildlife habitats and California’s unique biodiversity. ------- 45% ----- 32% ---- 18% ----- 2% ------ 3% 77% Attachment 9_Results_Coastside Protection Area MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV (SPLIT SAMPLE A CONTINUED) [ ]f. (AG SUSTAINABILITY) San Mateo and Santa Clara counties have rich agricultural and ranching history. That’s why Midpen protects sustainable, working agricultural ranchlands connecting past and future along the scenic coast. ------------------------------------------ 32% ----- 43% ---- 20% ----- 2% ------ 3% 75% [ ]g. (CARING) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is caring for the land to create healthy habitats for plants, animals, and people. ----------------------------------------------------- 47% ----- 34% ---- 17% ----- 2% ------ 0% 81% [ ]h. (UNDERSERVED) Midpen programming connects people to nature through enriched experiences, especially people who are typically less likely to have access to natural areas and open spaces. That includes low- income communities and communities of color. ------------------------------------------------------- 38% ----- 29% ---- 29% ----- 1% ------ 3% 67% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]i. (AG HISTORY) San Mateo and Santa Clara counties have rich agricultural and ranching history. That’s why the Midpeninsula Open Space District preserves historic, agricultural lands close to home along the scenic coast. --------- 17% ----- 33% ---- 14% ----- 8% ----- 28% 50% [ ]j. (RECREATION) Parks and open spaces provide safe places for the community to gather and explore the outdoors. It’s especially important to keep these accessible options for everyone as the cost of living increases. Midpen ensures that San Mateo and Santa Clara County residents have access to well-maintained and beautiful recreation areas. ------------------------------------------------------- 33% ----- 43% ---- 19% ----- 0% ------ 4% 76% [ ]k. (CLIMATE) Smart investments made before a disaster strikes can help protect a community’s quality of life, save lives, and reduce the cost to taxpayers. Midpen is taking a proactive, practical approach to stewardship of public lands, helping ensure San Mateo and Santa Clara counties are resilient as the climate changes. ----------------------- 30% ----- 52% ---- 11% ----- 1% ------ 4% 83% Attachment 9_Results_Coastside Protection Area MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV (SPLIT SAMPLE B CONTINUED) [ ]l. (FIRES) Midpen is working with fire agencies and surrounding communities to strengthen prevention and preparation in case of wildland fires. This includes maintaining hundreds of miles of fire roads. Midpen is also using conservation grazing to reduce flammable brush within grassland habitats, limiting the risk of fire, or fire intensity if it does occur. ------------------------------------------------ 60% ----- 23% ---- 15% ----- 0% ------ 2% 83% [ ]m. (EDUCATION) Midpen programming connects people to nature through enriched experiences, including environmental interpretation, docent-led activities and volunteer opportunities. --------------------------------- 18% ----- 28% ---- 23% ----- 6% ----- 25% 46% [ ]n. (PLACE) Few other conservation organizations protect and restore such a wide variety of unique natural areas: from redwood forests to the Bay and the ocean, from serpentine-soil grasslands to Tafoni sandstone. Our peninsula is unique and Midpen works to protect and restore these places for the wildlife that call it home, and the people who visit and recreate there. -------------- 23% ----- 46% ----- 7% ------ 20% ------ 4% 69% (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 10. Next, having heard this, let me ask you one last time - do you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District? TOTAL FAVORABLE --------------------------- 91% Strongly favorable ---------------------------------- 59% Somewhat favorable -------------------------------- 31% TOTAL UNFAVORABLE ----------------------- 5% Somewhat unfavorable ------------------------------ 3% Strongly unfavorable -------------------------------- 2% (DON'T READ) CAN’T RATE/DK/NA ------- 4% Attachment 9_Results_Coastside Protection Area 11. Next, I’m going to read you a list of sources from which people get information about (SPLIT SAMPLE A: local issues in your area) (SPLIT SAMPLE B: parks, open space, and the outdoors). For each, I’d like you to tell me how often you use it to get information about (SPLIT SAMPLE A: local issues in your area) (SPLIT SAMPLE B: parks, open space and the outdoors): frequently, occasionally, rarely, or never. (RANDOMIZE) (DK/ FREQ RRLY FREQ OCCAS RARELY NEVER NA) /OCC /NVR [ ]a. Local television stations ------------------ 10% ----- 24% ----- 12% ---- 50% ------ 4% 34% 63% [ ]b. KQED Radio ------------------------------- 12% ----- 19% ------- 9% ---- 56% ------ 4% 31% 65% [ ]c. Radio stations other than KQED ---------- 3% ----- 14% ----- 20% ---- 59% ------ 3% 17% 80% [ ]d. Information you receive in the mail -------------------------------------------- 3% ----- 33% ----- 12% ---- 48% ------ 4% 36% 60% [ ]e. Facebook -------------------------------------- 9% ----- 17% ----- 11% ---- 59% ------ 4% 26% 70% [ ]f. Twitter ---------------------------------------- 2% ----- 10% ------- 4% ---- 78% ------ 5% 13% 83% [ ]g. Instagram ------------------------------------- 8% ------ 8% ----- 10% ---- 71% ------ 3% 16% 81% [ ]h. Blogs on the Internet ------------------------ 1% ----- 17% ----- 15% ---- 62% ------ 5% 18% 76% [ ]i. The San José Mercury News newspaper ------------------------------------ 9% ----- 15% ----- 10% ---- 63% ------ 3% 24% 73% [ ]j. The San Francisco Chronicle newspaper ------------------------------------ 9% ----- 18% ----- 10% ---- 59% ------ 3% 27% 69% [ ]k. The Half Moon Bay Review newspaper ---------------------------------- 13% ----- 12% ----- 18% ---- 53% ------ 5% 25% 71% [ ]l. The Midpen newsletter and activity guide mailed to your home ------ 7% ----- 15% ----- 10% ---- 64% ------ 5% 21% 73% [ ]m. The Midpen e-newsletter ------------------- 7% ------ 7% ----- 11% ---- 72% ------ 3% 14% 83% [ ]n. Nextdoor ------------------------------------ 13% ----- 24% ----- 16% ---- 41% ------ 6% 37% 57% [ ]o. Midpen’s public meetings ------------------ 0% ------ 6% ------- 8% ---- 82% ------ 4% 6% 90% [ ]p. Midpen’s website, openspace-dot- org --------------------------------------------- 5% ----- 13% ----- 25% ---- 53% ------ 3% 19% 78% Attachment 9_Results_Coastside Protection Area 12. Were there any sources of information you use that I didn’t mention? (OPEN END, RECORD VERBATIM) No -------------------------------------------- 62% Word of mouth ----------------------------- 19% Local newspaper ---------------------------- 3% Internet (general) ---------------------------- 3% Local newsletter ----------------------------- 2% Google ---------------------------------------- 1% Community centers ------------------------- 1% Magazines (not specified) ----------------- 1% Library ---------------------------------------- 1% LinkedIn -------------------------------------- 0% National newspaper ------------------------- 0% National news ------------------------------- 0% News radio ----------------------------------- 0% Saratogian ------------------------------------ 0% You Tube ------------------------------------- 0% Local television news ---------------------- 0% Government website ------------------------ 0% Yelp ------------------------------------------- 0% Reddit ----------------------------------------- 0% Maps ------------------------------------------ 0% Personal experience ------------------------ 0% Facebook/social media --------------------- 0% Other ------------------------------------------ 5% Don’t know ---------------------------------- 0% Refused --------------------------------------- 1% Attachment 9_Results_Coastside Protection Area WE'RE JUST ABOUT DONE. I'M ONLY GOING TO ASK YOU A FEW MORE QUESTIONS FOR CLASSIFICATION PURPOSES. 13. First, I’d like you to consider your visits to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District preserves. Please tell me how often you typically visit and use Midpen preserves in this way: about once a week, a few times a month, a few times a year, once a year, or never. (RANDOMIZE) ONCE/ FEW/ FEW/ ONCE/ (DK/ WEEK MO YEAR YEAR NEVER NA) [ ]a. Walking or hiking ------------------------------------- 25% ----- 27% ----- 38% ----- 3% -------3% ------ 3% [ ]b. Running or jogging ------------------------------------ 5% ------ 7% ------ 8% ------ 7% ------ 69% ------ 3% [ ]c. Dog walking -------------------------------------------- 13% ----- 8% ----- 10% ----- 3% ------ 64% ------ 3% [ ]d. Horseback riding --------------------------------------- 3% ------ 3% ------ 1% ------ 3% ------ 87% ------ 3% [ ]e. Mountain biking ---------------------------------------- 2% ------ 3% ------ 5% ------ 5% ------ 81% ------ 3% [ ]f. Birdwatching or wildlife viewing ------------------- 12% ----- 9% ----- 15% ----- 4% ------ 57% ------ 3% [ ]g. Spending time in nature ------------------------------ 28% ----- 21% ----- 38% ----- 3% -------6% ------ 3% [ ]h. Ranger- or docent-led programs --------------------- 0% ------ 1% ------ 7% ----- 11% ----- 78% ------ 3% [ ]i. Backpack camping ------------------------------------- 1% ------ 2% ----- 10% ----- 2% ------ 81% ------ 4% (ASK IF EVER VISIT FOR ANY REASON – CODE 1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4 IN ANY ITEM IN Q13) 14. Do you feel safe or unsafe outdoors in local nature preserves? (IF SAFE/UNSAFE, ASK: “Is that very or somewhat SAFE/UNSAFE?”) TOTAL SAFE ----------------------------- 95% Very safe ------------------------------------ 57% Somewhat safe ------------------------------ 39% TOTAL UNSAFE ------------------------- 5% Somewhat unsafe---------------------------- 4% Very unsafe ---------------------------------- 1% (DON’T READ) Don’t visit them/NA - 0% (DON'T READ) Don’t know ------------ 0% (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 15. Do you have any children under the age of 19 living at home? Yes ------------------------------------------- 20% No -------------------------------------------- 69% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED - 11% Attachment 9_Results_Coastside Protection Area 16. What was the last level of school you completed? High school graduate or less -------------- 7% Some college -------------------------------- 32% Associate’s Degree ------------------------- 6% College graduate --------------------------- 31% Post-graduate ------------------------------- 19% (DON'T KNOW) -------------------------- 5% 17. Do you work in the technology industry? (IF NO: “Does anyone in your household work in the technology industry?”) Yes, self ------------------------------------- 12% Yes, household ----------------------------- 18% Yes, both ------------------------------------- 5% No -------------------------------------------- 62% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED -- 4% 18. Were you born and raised in Santa Clara or San Mateo counties? (IF NO, ASK: “How long have you lived in San Mateo or Santa Clara Counties?”) Born and raised ---------------------------- 34% Two years or less --------------------------- 0% Three to five years -------------------------- 3% Six to 10 years ------------------------------ 3% 11 to 20 years ------------------------------ 16% 21 to 40 years ------------------------------ 30% More than 40 years ----------------------- 12% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED -- 2% 19. I don’t need to know the exact amount, but please stop me when I read the category that includes the total income for your household before taxes in 2019. Was it: (READ CHOICES BELOW) $30,000 and under ------------------------- 15% $30,001 - $60,000 -------------------------- 2% $60,001 - $90,000 ------------------------- 19% $90,001 - $120,000 ------------------------- 6% $120,001 - $150,000 ---------------------- 12% More than $150,000 ----------------------- 24% (DON'T READ) Refused ---------------- 23% Attachment 9_Results_Coastside Protection Area 20. What is your gender? Male ------------------------------------------ 36% Female --------------------------------------- 55% Nonbinary ------------------------------------ 0% Rather not say ------------------------------- 9% THANK AND TERMINATE MODE Phone ------------------------------- 31% Online ------------------------------ 69% DISTRICT WARD 1 - Seimens -------------------------- 0% 2 - Kishimoto ------------------------ 0% 3 - Cyr -------------------------------- 0% 4 - Riffle ----------------------------- 0% 5 - Holman--------------------------- 0% 6 - Hassett ------------------------- 17% 7 – Kersteen-Tucker ------------- 83% COUNTY San Mateo ------------------------ 100% Santa Clara ---------------------------0% CITY/TOWN Cupertino -----------------------------0% Los Altos -----------------------------0% Los Gatos ----------------------------0% Menlo Park --------------------------0% Mountain View ----------------------0% Palo Alto -----------------------------0% Redwood City --------------------- 37% San Carlos ---------------------------0% Saratoga ------------------------------0% Sunnyvale ----------------------------0% Other -------------------------------- 36% Unincorporated -------------------- 27% Attachment 9_Results_Coastside Protection Area JANUARY 9-23, 2020 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 320-876-WT N=750 BAYSIDE MARGIN OF SAMPLING ERROR ±3.6% (95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL) A/B SPLIT Hello, I'm ________ from______, a public opinion research company. I am not trying to sell you anything. We're conducting a survey about issues that concern residents in your area. May I speak with the person at home over 18 who most recently celebrated a birthday? A. Before we begin, I need to know if I have reached you on a cell phone, and if so, are you in a place where you can talk safely without endangering yourself or others? Yes, cell and can talk safely ------------------------------- 80% Yes, cell but cannot talk safely --------------- TERMINATE No, not on cell ----------------------------------------------- 20% (DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ------- TERMINATE B. My next questions are to ensure that we are interviewing a representative group of residents in your area. What is your age? Under 18 ----------------------- TERMINATE 18-24 ----------------------------------------- 15% 25-29 ------------------------------------------ 6% 30-34 ------------------------------------------ 9% 35-39 ----------------------------------------- 11% 40-44 ------------------------------------------ 9% 45-49 ----------------------------------------- 10% 50-54 ------------------------------------------ 6% 55-59 ------------------------------------------ 7% 60-64 ----------------------------------------- 10% 65-69 ------------------------------------------ 6% 70-74 ------------------------------------------ 4% 75+ ------------------------------------------- 6% (DK/REFUSED) --------------------------- 2% C. With which racial or ethnic group do you identify yourself: Hispanic or Latino; African American or Black; Caucasian or White; Asian or Pacific Islander; multiracial; or some other ethnic or racial background? Latino/Hispanic ---------------------------- 10% African American/Black ------------------- 2% Caucasian/White --------------------------- 53% Asian/Pacific Islander --------------------- 23% Multiracial ----------------------------------- 3% (OTHER) ------------------------------------ 2% (DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED -- 7% Attachment 10_Results_Bayside D. Are you registered to vote? (IF YES, ASK: “With which party are you registered to vote: Democratic, Republican, another party, or with no party preference?”) No, not registered -------------------------- 5% Democratic ---------------------------------- 51% Republican ---------------------------------- 10% No Party Preference ----------------------- 24% Another party -------------------------------- 6% (DON'T KNOW/NA) --------------------- 5% 1. OK, let’s begin. First, how would you rate your community as a place to live? Is it … (READ LIST)? EXCELLENT/GOOD ------------------- 86% Excellent------------------------------------- 39% Good ----------------------------------------- 47% FAIR/POOR ------------------------------- 13% Fair ------------------------------------------- 10% Poor ------------------------------------------- 3% (DON'T KNOW/NA) --------------------- 1% 2. Next, I’m going to read you a list of local organizations and public institutions. For each one, I’d like you to tell me if you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion. If you have never heard of one, please just say so. (RANDOMIZE) (CAN’T NEVER STR SMWT SMWT STR RATE HEARD TOTAL TOTAL FAV FAV UNFAV UNFAV /DK) OF FAV UNFAV [ ]a. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ---------------------- 36% ---- 17% ----- 1%------- 1% ----- 10% ----- 35% 54% 2% [ ]b. Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority -------------------- 22% ---- 18% ----- 2%------- 1% ----- 13% ----- 44% 40% 2% [ ]c. Peninsula Open Space Trust ----- 31% ---- 15% ----- 2%------- 1% ----- 10% ----- 40% 47% 3% [ ]d. California State Parks ------------ 60% ---- 30% ----- 2%------- 0% ------ 4% ------ 4% 90% 2% [ ]e. Golden Gate National Recreation Area ------------------- 43% ---- 29% ----- 3%------- 0% ----- 11% ----- 13% 72% 3% (ASK IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY ONLY) [ ]f. Santa Clara County Parks -------- 42% ---- 39% ----- 3%------- 1% ------ 6% ------ 9% 81% 3% (ASK IN SAN MATEO COUNTY ONLY) [ ]g. San Mateo County Parks --------- 38% ---- 39% ----- 5%------- 0% ----- 14% ----- 4% 77% 5% Attachment 10_Results_Bayside (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 3. I’m going to read you some issues that some people say may be problems in your area. After I read each one, please tell me whether you think each is a problem or not. (IF YES, PROBLEM, ASK: “Do you think it is an extremely, very, or somewhat serious problem?”) (RANDOMIZE) EXT VERY SMWT NOT SER SER SER A (DK/ EXT/ PROB PROB PROB PROB NA) VERY [ ]a. The quality of local natural lands and open space -------------------------------------------------------- 9%------ 14% ---- 30% ----- 41% ------ 6% 23% [ ]b. Traffic congestion ---------------------------------------- 43% ----- 30% ---- 20% ----- 5% ------ 2% 73% [ ]c. Loss of natural areas to development ----------------- 21% ----- 26% ---- 31% ----- 18% ------ 4% 47% [ ]d. Fire risk ---------------------------------------------------- 25% ----- 24% ---- 26% ----- 21% ------ 3% 49% [ ]e. Water pollution ------------------------------------------- 17% ----- 21% ---- 29% ----- 26% ------ 8% 38% [ ]f. Air pollution ----------------------------------------------- 20% ----- 23% ---- 32% ----- 20% ------ 4% 43% [ ]g. Loss of wildlife habitat ---------------------------------- 26% ----- 24% ---- 31% ----- 15% ------ 4% 50% [ ]h. A lack of affordable housing --------------------------- 55% ----- 26% ---- 10% ----- 7% ------ 2% 81% [ ]i. Climate change ------------------------------------------- 52% ----- 17% ---- 15% ----- 13% ------ 3% 69% [ ]j. The amount you pay in local taxes -------------------- 15% ----- 18% ---- 26% ----- 35% ------ 6% 32% Attachment 10_Results_Bayside NOW I’D LIKE TO ASK YOU A FEW MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT. (ASK Q4 ONLY IF CODES 1-4 IN Q2A) 4. You mentioned a few moments ago that you have a FAVORABLE / UNFAVORABLE opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. In a few words of your own, could you tell me why? (OPEN-ENDED; RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE BELOW. PROBE FOR VERY SPECIFIC RESPONSES) a. Favorable, N=415: Preservation of open space/environmental protection -------------------------------------- 36% Support their mission/efforts ------------------------------------------------------------------- 33% Good option for recreation/exercise ---------------------------------------------------------- 24% Trails/facilities are well maintained ----------------------------------------------------------- 17% I use trails regularly ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 14% Easily accessible to the public ------------------------------------------------------------------- 9% Preservation of wildlife/habitat ----------------------------------------------------------------- 7% Enjoy nature’s beauty/beautiful views --------------------------------------------------------- 6% General favorable statement --------------------------------------------------------------------- 4% Mixed feelings ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3% Dog friendly ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% Watershed protection ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0% Need more information --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0% Other ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3% Don’t know ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1% Refused ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% b. Unfavorable, N=14: Poor leadership/management -------------------------------------------------------------------- 37% Not enough transparency/misused revenue --------------------------------------------------- 23% They take over too much land ------------------------------------------------------------------ 31% More important issues ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15% Too many limitations ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8% General unfavorable statement ------------------------------------------------------------------- 3% Other ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10% Attachment 10_Results_Bayside (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) AS YOU MAY KNOW, THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, OFTEN KNOWN AS “MIDPEN,” IS AN INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT PRIMARILY IN SANTA CLARA AND SAN MATEO COUNTIES THAT HAS PRESERVED A REGIONAL GREENBELT OF NEARLY 65 THOUSAND ACRES OF PUBLIC LAND AND MANAGES 26 OPEN SPACE PRESERVES. ITS MISSION IS TO ACQUIRE AND PERMANENTLY PRESERVE OPEN SPACE LAND, PROTECT AND RESTORE THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, AND PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE PUBLIC ENJOYMENT AND EDUCATION. ON THE COAST, ITS MISSION INCLUDES PRESERVING RURAL CHARACTER AND ENCOURAGING VIABLE AGRICULTURAL USE OF LAND. 5. Having heard this, let me ask you again: would you say you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District? TOTAL FAVORABLE ------------------ 87% Strongly favorable ------------------------- 56% Somewhat favorable ----------------------- 32% TOTAL UNFAVORABLE -------------- 5% Somewhat unfavorable --------------------- 3% Strongly unfavorable ----------------------- 2% (DON'T READ) DK/NA ----------------- 8% 6. Next, I am going to read you a list of goals Midpen has set for itself. For each goal, please tell me if you think it is extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. (RANDOMIZE) EXT VERY SMWT NOT TOO (DK/ EXT/ IMP IMP IMP IMP NA) VERY (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]a. Preserving a regional greenbelt of open space land forever ----------------------------------------------- 49% ----- 31% ---- 15% ----- 5% ------ 1% 80% [ ]b. Protecting natural areas --------------------------------- 53% ----- 32% ---- 13% ----- 1% ------ 1% 85% [ ]c. Providing opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education ------------ 37% ----- 38% ---- 19% ----- 5% ------ 1% 74% [ ]d. Restoring native plant and wildlife habitat ----------- 39% ----- 36% ---- 19% ----- 6% ------ 1% 74% [ ]e. Providing multiuse trails for hiking, biking, and equestrian use ---------------------------------------- 28% ----- 37% ---- 32% ----- 3% ------ 0% 65% [ ]f. Stewarding public lands to be resilient in the face of climate change ----------------------------------- 47% ----- 29% ---- 13% ----- 7% ------ 4% 76% [ ]g. Supporting local agriculture along the San Mateo County coast -------------------------------------- 27% ----- 34% ---- 27% ----- 11% ------ 1% 61% [ ]h. Preserving the character of rural areas, such as the Santa Cruz Mountains or the San Mateo County Coast ------------------------------------- 33% ----- 27% ---- 30% ----- 9% ------ 1% 60% Attachment 10_Results_Bayside EXT VERY SMWT NOT TOO (DK/ EXT/ IMP IMP IMP IMP NA) VERY (SPLIT SAMPLE A CONTINUED) [ ]i. Partnering with local organizations to promote a regional environmental vision ------------ 29% ----- 38% ---- 24% ----- 7% ------ 2% 67% [ ]j. Connecting regional trails ------------------------------- 20% ----- 34% ---- 33% ----- 9% ------ 3% 54% [ ]k. Caring for the ecosystem to help native plants and wildlife survive -------------------------------------- 52% ----- 34% ---- 10% ----- 3% ------ 1% 85% [ ]l. Reducing dead and downed vegetation for wildland fire prevention --------------------------------- 50% ----- 37% ---- 10% ----- 2% ------ 1% 87% [ ]m. Preserving undeveloped coastal open space and agricultural lands ------------------------------------ 46% ----- 29% ---- 19% ----- 3% ------ 1% 76% [ ]n. Assessing historical significance of structures on open space lands -------------------------------------- 17% ----- 33% ---- 31% ----- 18% ------ 2% 50% [ ]o. Promoting safe wildlife corridors and trail crossings across Highway 17 --------------------------- 34% ----- 35% ---- 19% ----- 7% ------ 5% 69% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]p. Protecting the ridgetops, hillsides and creeks that create our region’s striking natural beauty ----- 48% ----- 25% ---- 24% ----- 2% ------ 0% 73% [ ]q. Protecting and restoring the natural environment ----------------------------------------------- 52% ----- 31% ---- 15% ----- 2% ------ 0% 83% [ ]r. Protecting San Mateo and Santa Clara counties’ agricultural, natural resource, and open space lands for future generations -------------- 50% ----- 25% ---- 21% ----- 2% ------ 1% 75% [ ]s. Creating opportunities for outdoor recreation ------- 31% ----- 32% ---- 31% ----- 4% ------ 1% 64% [ ]t. Preserving diverse habitat for wildlife ---------------- 48% ----- 31% ---- 18% ----- 1% ------ 0% 80% [ ]u. Providing regional hiking trails ------------------------ 29% ----- 28% ---- 36% ----- 4% ------ 3% 57% [ ]v. Restoring public lands to be resilient in the face of climate change ----------------------------------- 47% ----- 30% ---- 16% ----- 6% ------ 2% 76% [ ]w. Connecting kids to nature ------------------------------- 41% ----- 34% ---- 24% ----- 1% ------ 0% 75% [ ]x. Protecting the waterways and natural lands that maintain water quality and supply --------------- 65% ----- 24% ----- 9% ------ 1% ------ 1% 89% [ ]y. Managing redwood forests ------------------------------ 54% ----- 29% ---- 14% ----- 1% ------ 2% 83% [ ]z. Protecting San Mateo and Santa Clara counties’ agricultural, natural resource, and open space lands ------------------------------------------ 39% ----- 30% ---- 25% ----- 5% ------ 2% 68% [ ]aa. Protecting coastal grasslands --------------------------- 40% ----- 32% ---- 23% ----- 3% ------ 2% 72% [ ]bb. Improving access for individuals with disabilities at local preserves --------------------------- 26% ----- 34% ---- 32% ----- 7% ------ 1% 60% [ ]cc. Partnering with Native American tribes to relearn and reapply indigenous plant restoration techniques ------------------------------------ 29% ----- 25% ---- 30% ----- 13% ------ 3% 55% [ ]dd. Removing invasive species to restore native plant and wildlife habitat -------------------------------- 37% ----- 32% ---- 22% ----- 5% ------ 4% 69% Attachment 10_Results_Bayside (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 7. And which of these six components of the Midpen mission do you think is most important to you? (RE-READ AND RANDOMIZE LIST IF NECESSARY) [ ] Acquiring and preserving a regional greenbelt ------------------------------------------ 17% [ ] Restoring the natural environment --------------------------------------------------------- 19% [ ] Providing opportunities for ecologically sensitive public recreation ---------------- 15% [ ] Educating the public about conservation and nature ------------------------------------ 19% [ ] Preserving rural character -------------------------------------------------------------------- 4% [ ] Encouraging viable agricultural land use -------------------------------------------------- 4% (DON'T READ) All ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15% (DON'T READ) None --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% (DON'T READ) Other (SPECIFY) ----------------------------------------------------------- 4% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/Refused ------------------------------------------------------------- 2% 8. Stepping back for a moment, I’d like to read you two statements about Midpen preserves. I’d like you to tell me which comes closer to your opinion, even if neither is exactly right. (ROTATE) [ ] I prefer preserves that provide multiple visitor amenities, such as water bottle refilling stations, restrooms, and picnic areas ------------------------------- 22% OR [ ] I prefer preserves that put a high priority on wildlife habitat restoration and protection, with only low-impact trails that encourage users to leave no trace -------- 71% (DON’T READ) (BOTH) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% (NEITHER) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% (DON'T KNOW/NA) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4% Attachment 10_Results_Bayside 9. Next, I am going to read you a series of statements about the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. For each one, please tell me if it makes you view Midpen much more favorably, somewhat more favorably, or if it makes no difference. (RANDOMIZE) MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV [ ]a. (SPECIAL CHARACTER) People choose to live in the Bay Area because of its scenic beauty and recreational opportunities. The stunning ridge and coastal views and riding, biking, and hiking trails we have in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties are truly unique. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District works to preserve what we love most about living here. ---------------------------- 43% ----- 27% ---- 26% ----- 2% ------ 3% 70% (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]b. (WATER QUALITY) Nothing is more important than clean drinking water. By protecting and restoring areas around sources of water, Midpen increases access to water and naturally prevents the pollution of our water. ------------------------------------------------------- 48% ----- 32% ---- 17% ----- 1% ------ 2% 80% [ ]c. (PARTNERSHIPS) Midpen regularly partners with local nonprofits, the counties, and state and regional park organizations to leverage their resources and connect residents with open space, recreational opportunities, and educational programs. Connecting these public lands supports biodiversity, providing places for local plants and wildlife to thrive. -------- 39% ----- 35% ---- 22% ----- 0% ------ 3% 74% [ ]d. (PUBLIC HEALTH) Open space preserves and natural areas provide spaces where families and children can safely walk, run, and bicycle – improving the physical health of residents, reducing obesity, and reducing healthcare costs. These areas are open 365 days a year, sunrise to sunset, to anyone, and for free. ---------------------------------------------------- 51% ----- 27% ---- 20% ----- 0% ------ 1% 79% [ ]e. (WILDLIFE) By restoring and protecting natural areas, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is protecting wildlife habitats and California’s unique biodiversity. ------- 49% ----- 31% ---- 17% ----- 1% ------ 2% 80% Attachment 10_Results_Bayside MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV (SPLIT SAMPLE A CONTINUED) [ ]f. (AG SUSTAINABILITY) San Mateo and Santa Clara counties have rich agricultural and ranching history. That’s why Midpen protects sustainable, working agricultural ranchlands connecting past and future along the scenic coast. ------------------------------------------ 26% ----- 36% ---- 31% ----- 4% ------ 4% 61% [ ]g. (CARING) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is caring for the land to create healthy habitats for plants, animals, and people. ----------------------------------------------------- 46% ----- 30% ---- 18% ----- 2% ------ 3% 76% [ ]h. (UNDERSERVED) Midpen programming connects people to nature through enriched experiences, especially people who are typically less likely to have access to natural areas and open spaces. That includes low- income communities and communities of color. ------------------------------------------------------- 42% ----- 32% ---- 23% ----- 1% ------ 3% 73% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]i. (AG HISTORY) San Mateo and Santa Clara counties have rich agricultural and ranching history. That’s why the Midpeninsula Open Space District preserves historic, agricultural lands close to home along the scenic coast. --------- 23% ----- 38% ---- 29% ----- 6% ------ 4% 61% [ ]j. (RECREATION) Parks and open spaces provide safe places for the community to gather and explore the outdoors. It’s especially important to keep these accessible options for everyone as the cost of living increases. Midpen ensures that San Mateo and Santa Clara County residents have access to well-maintained and beautiful recreation areas. ------------------------------------------------------- 45% ----- 31% ---- 19% ----- 2% ------ 3% 76% [ ]k. (CLIMATE) Smart investments made before a disaster strikes can help protect a community’s quality of life, save lives, and reduce the cost to taxpayers. Midpen is taking a proactive, practical approach to stewardship of public lands, helping ensure San Mateo and Santa Clara counties are resilient as the climate changes. ----------------------- 40% ----- 42% ---- 12% ----- 2% ------ 3% 83% Attachment 10_Results_Bayside MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/ MORE FAV FAV DIFF FAV) NA) FAV (SPLIT SAMPLE B CONTINUED) [ ]l. (FIRES) Midpen is working with fire agencies and surrounding communities to strengthen prevention and preparation in case of wildland fires. This includes maintaining hundreds of miles of fire roads. Midpen is also using conservation grazing to reduce flammable brush within grassland habitats, limiting the risk of fire, or fire intensity if it does occur. ------------------------------------------------ 51% ----- 38% ----- 8% ------ 1% ------ 3% 88% [ ]m. (EDUCATION) Midpen programming connects people to nature through enriched experiences, including environmental interpretation, docent-led activities and volunteer opportunities. --------------------------------- 23% ----- 38% ---- 31% ----- 3% ------ 5% 61% [ ]n. (PLACE) Few other conservation organizations protect and restore such a wide variety of unique natural areas: from redwood forests to the Bay and the ocean, from serpentine-soil grasslands to Tafoni sandstone. Our peninsula is unique and Midpen works to protect and restore these places for the wildlife that call it home, and the people who visit and recreate there. -------------- 39% ----- 38% ---- 17% ----- 2% ------ 4% 76% (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 10. Next, having heard this, let me ask you one last time - do you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District? TOTAL FAVORABLE --------------------------- 91% Strongly favorable ---------------------------------- 59% Somewhat favorable -------------------------------- 32% TOTAL UNFAVORABLE ----------------------- 4% Somewhat unfavorable ------------------------------ 3% Strongly unfavorable -------------------------------- 1% (DON'T READ) CAN’T RATE/DK/NA ------- 5% Attachment 10_Results_Bayside 11. Next, I’m going to read you a list of sources from which people get information about (SPLIT SAMPLE A: local issues in your area) (SPLIT SAMPLE B: parks, open space, and the outdoors). For each, I’d like you to tell me how often you use it to get information about (SPLIT SAMPLE A: local issues in your area) (SPLIT SAMPLE B: parks, open space and the outdoors): frequently, occasionally, rarely, or never. (RANDOMIZE) (DK/ FREQ RRLY FREQ OCCAS RARELY NEVER NA) /OCC /NVR [ ]a. Local television stations ------------------ 13% ----- 24% ----- 16% ---- 45% ------ 2% 36% 61% [ ]b. KQED Radio ------------------------------- 19% ----- 22% ----- 15% ---- 41% ------ 3% 41% 56% [ ]c. Radio stations other than KQED ---------- 9% ----- 18% ----- 20% ---- 50% ------ 3% 27% 70% [ ]d. Information you receive in the mail -------------------------------------------- 7% ----- 30% ----- 26% ---- 35% ------ 3% 36% 61% [ ]e. Facebook ------------------------------------ 14% ----- 19% ----- 19% ---- 46% ------ 2% 33% 65% [ ]f. Twitter ---------------------------------------- 7% ----- 11% ------- 9% ---- 68% ------ 5% 18% 78% [ ]g. Instagram ------------------------------------- 8% ----- 12% ----- 11% ---- 67% ------ 3% 20% 78% [ ]h. Blogs on the Internet ------------------------ 9% ----- 19% ----- 20% ---- 49% ------ 2% 28% 69% [ ]i. The San José Mercury News newspaper ---------------------------------- 10% ----- 18% ----- 21% ---- 48% ------ 2% 28% 70% [ ]j. The San Francisco Chronicle newspaper ------------------------------------ 6% ----- 13% ----- 18% ---- 60% ------ 3% 19% 78% [ ]k. The Half Moon Bay Review newspaper ------------------------------------ 1% ------ 3% ------- 6% ---- 84% ------ 5% 5% 90% [ ]l. The Midpen newsletter and activity guide mailed to your home ------ 6% ----- 12% ----- 13% ---- 64% ------ 6% 18% 76% [ ]m. The Midpen e-newsletter ------------------- 4% ------ 6% ------- 8% ---- 77% ------ 5% 11% 85% [ ]n. Nextdoor ------------------------------------ 11% ----- 21% ----- 14% ---- 51% ------ 3% 32% 65% [ ]o. Midpen’s public meetings ------------------ 1% ------ 2% ----- 10% ---- 83% ------ 4% 4% 92% [ ]p. Midpen’s website, openspace-dot- org --------------------------------------------- 4% ----- 18% ----- 21% ---- 53% ------ 4% 22% 73% Attachment 10_Results_Bayside 12. Were there any sources of information you use that I didn’t mention? (OPEN END, RECORD VERBATIM) No -------------------------------------------- 58% Word of mouth ----------------------------- 10% Google ---------------------------------------- 6% Internet (general) ---------------------------- 5% Local newspaper ---------------------------- 4% Local newsletter ----------------------------- 2% Local television news ---------------------- 2% Facebook/social media --------------------- 2% National newspaper ------------------------- 1% National news ------------------------------- 1% Community centers ------------------------- 1% News radio ----------------------------------- 1% You Tube ------------------------------------- 1% Government website ------------------------ 1% Reddit ----------------------------------------- 1% Personal experience ------------------------ 1% LinkedIn -------------------------------------- 0% Saratogian ------------------------------------ 0% Magazines (not specified) ----------------- 0% Library ---------------------------------------- 0% Yelp ------------------------------------------- 0% Maps ------------------------------------------ 0% Other ------------------------------------------ 3% Don’t know ---------------------------------- 0% Refused --------------------------------------- 2% Attachment 10_Results_Bayside WE'RE JUST ABOUT DONE. I'M ONLY GOING TO ASK YOU A FEW MORE QUESTIONS FOR CLASSIFICATION PURPOSES. 13. First, I’d like you to consider your visits to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District preserves. Please tell me how often you typically visit and use Midpen preserves in this way: about once a week, a few times a month, a few times a year, once a year, or never. (RANDOMIZE) ONCE/ FEW/ FEW/ ONCE/ (DK/ WEEK MO YEAR YEAR NEVER NA) [ ]a. Walking or hiking ------------------------------------- 19% ----- 29% ----- 30% ----- 7% ------ 12% ------ 3% [ ]b. Running or jogging ------------------------------------ 9% ------ 13% ----- 13% ----- 7% ------ 55% ------ 3% [ ]c. Dog walking --------------------------------------------- 9% ------ 7% ----- 10% ----- 4% ------ 65% ------ 3% [ ]d. Horseback riding --------------------------------------- 1% ------ 1% ------ 3% ------ 6% ------ 87% ------ 2% [ ]e. Mountain biking ---------------------------------------- 3% ------ 5% ----- 11% ----- 6% ------ 72% ------ 3% [ ]f. Birdwatching or wildlife viewing -------------------- 4% ------ 10% ----- 20% ---- 12% ----- 52% ------ 4% [ ]g. Spending time in nature ------------------------------ 17% ----- 28% ----- 30% ----- 7% ------ 14% ------ 4% [ ]h. Ranger- or docent-led programs --------------------- 0% ------ 1% ------ 6% ----- 12% ----- 75% ------ 7% [ ]i. Backpack camping ------------------------------------- 0% ------ 2% ----- 11% ---- 11% ----- 71% ------ 5% (ASK IF EVER VISIT FOR ANY REASON – CODE 1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4 IN ANY ITEM IN Q13) 14. Do you feel safe or unsafe outdoors in local nature preserves? (IF SAFE/UNSAFE, ASK: “Is that very or somewhat SAFE/UNSAFE?”) TOTAL SAFE ----------------------------- 94% Very safe ------------------------------------ 59% Somewhat safe ------------------------------ 35% TOTAL UNSAFE ------------------------- 4% Somewhat unsafe---------------------------- 3% Very unsafe ---------------------------------- 1% (DON’T READ) Don’t visit them/NA - 1% (DON'T READ) Don’t know ------------ 1% (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 15. Do you have any children under the age of 19 living at home? Yes ------------------------------------------- 27% No -------------------------------------------- 69% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED -- 4% Attachment 10_Results_Bayside 16. What was the last level of school you completed? High school graduate or less ------------- 10% Some college -------------------------------- 18% Associate’s Degree ------------------------ 11% College graduate --------------------------- 30% Post-graduate ------------------------------- 27% (DON'T KNOW) -------------------------- 4% 17. Do you work in the technology industry? (IF NO: “Does anyone in your household work in the technology industry?”) Yes, self ------------------------------------- 22% Yes, household ----------------------------- 13% Yes, both ------------------------------------- 9% No -------------------------------------------- 52% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED -- 4% 18. Were you born and raised in Santa Clara or San Mateo counties? (IF NO, ASK: “How long have you lived in San Mateo or Santa Clara Counties?”) Born and raised ---------------------------- 27% Two years or less --------------------------- 7% Three to five years -------------------------- 6% Six to 10 years ------------------------------ 9% 11 to 20 years ------------------------------ 12% 21 to 40 years ------------------------------ 18% More than 40 years ----------------------- 16% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED -- 6% 19. I don’t need to know the exact amount, but please stop me when I read the category that includes the total income for your household before taxes in 2019. Was it: (READ CHOICES BELOW) $30,000 and under ------------------------- 10% $30,001 - $60,000 ------------------------- 10% $60,001 - $90,000 ------------------------- 10% $90,001 - $120,000 ------------------------- 9% $120,001 - $150,000 ----------------------- 8% More than $150,000 ----------------------- 30% (DON'T READ) Refused ---------------- 22% Attachment 10_Results_Bayside 20. What is your gender? Male ------------------------------------------ 46% Female --------------------------------------- 49% Nonbinary ------------------------------------ 0% Rather not say ------------------------------- 5% THANK AND TERMINATE MODE Phone ------------------------------- 53% Online ------------------------------ 47% DISTRICT WARD 1 - Seimens ------------------------ 20% 2 - Kishimoto ---------------------- 15% 3 - Cyr ------------------------------ 13% 4 - Riffle --------------------------- 16% 5 - Holman------------------------- 16% 6 - Hassett ------------------------- 13% 7 – Kersteen-Tucker --------------- 8% COUNTY San Mateo -------------------------- 29% Santa Clara ------------------------- 71% CITY/TOWN Cupertino -----------------------------6% Los Altos -----------------------------4% Los Gatos ----------------------------7% Menlo Park --------------------------7% Mountain View -------------------- 13% Palo Alto --------------------------- 10% Redwood City -----------------------8% San Carlos ---------------------------5% Saratoga ------------------------------7% Sunnyvale -------------------------- 18% Other -------------------------------- 10% Unincorporated ----------------------6% Attachment 10_Results_Bayside June 10, 2020 Board Meeting 20-12 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Wednesday, June 10, 2020 The Board of Directors conducted this meeting in accordance with California Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20. All Board members and staff participated via teleconference. DRAFT MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING President Holman called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens Members Absent: None Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan, Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak, Real Property Manager Mike Williams, Senior Real Property Agent Allen Ishibashi, Planner III Elish Ryan District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reported no written comments were submitted for this item. The Board of Directors convened into closed session at 5:30 p.m. 1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: Santa Clara County APNs: 510-33-001, -004, -005, -006, 510-35-004, -005, 544-03-001, & 544-06-001 Agency Negotiator: Allen Ishibashi, Senior Real Property Agent Negotiating Party: Janelle McCombs, San Jose Water Company Under Negotiation: Purchase Terms 2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section 54956.8) Meeting 20-12 Page 2 Property: 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, Santa Clara County APN: 170-04-051 Agency Negotiator: Allen Ishibashi, Senior Real Property Agent Negotiating Party: Diane New, Santa Clara County and Chris Jordan, City of Los Altos Under Negotiation: Purchase Terms President Holman adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 7:02 p.m. REGULAR MEETING President Holman called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 7:12 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens Members Absent: None Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Chief Financial Officer Stefan Jaskulak, Assistant General Manager Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan, Controller Mike Foster, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth, Finance Manager Andrew Taylor, Natural Resources Manager Kirk Lenington, Visitor Services Manager Matt Anderson, Planning Manager Jane Mark, Land & Facilities Manager Michael Jurich, Engineering & Construction Manager Jay Lin, Information Systems & Technology Manager Casey Hiatt, Public Affairs Manager Kori Skinner, Real Property Manager Mike Williams, Budget Analyst I Lupe Hernandez, and Budget Analyst I Elissa Martinez, Senior Property Manager Omar Smith President Holman announced this meeting is being held in accordance with Governor Newsom’s Executive Order allowing Board members to participate remotely. The District has done its best to conduct a meeting where everyone has an opportunity to listen to the meeting and to provide comment. The public has the opportunity to comment on the agenda, and the opportunity to listen to this meeting through the internet or via telephone. This information can be found on the meeting agenda, which was physically posted at the District’s Administrative Office, and on the District website. President Holman described the process and protocols for the meeting. REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION General Counsel Hilary Stevenson stated there was no reportable action from the closed session. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reported no written comments were submitted for this item. Meeting 20-12 Page 3 ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to adopt the agenda. ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0 CONSENT CALENDAR President Holman pulled Item 8 from the Consent Calendar in order to hear a brief presentation from Erika Guerra representing Lehigh Quarry. Public comment opened at 7:20 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reported no written comments were submitted for the Consent Calendar. Public comment closed at 7:20 p.m. Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to approve the Consent Calendar, except for Item 8. ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0 1. Approve May 27, 2020 Minutes 2. Claims Report 3. Call District Elections in Wards 3, 4, and 7 and Request Election Consolidation Services from Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties (R-20-54) General Manager’s Recommendation: 1. Adopt a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District calling an election and requesting election consolidation services – Santa Clara County, Wards 3 and 4. 2. Adopt a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District calling an election and requesting election consolidation services – San Mateo County, Ward 7. 3. Reconfirm Board Policy 1.07 (Board Elections) regarding a maximum of 200 words per candidate statement, payment of candidate statements and, if required by the respective county, translations of candidate statements pursuant to the Elections Code of the State of California, in those wards where two or more candidates have qualified to appear on the ballot. 4. Adopt a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District authorizing not listing any unopposed candidate for election on the November 3, 2020 ballots of Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. 4. Award of Contract to ECAST Engineering for Water System Repairs and Improvements to Support the Conservation Grazing Program at the Lone Madrone Ranch in La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (R-20-56) Meeting 20-12 Page 4 General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into contract with ECAST Engineering to repair and improve a spring, install new water distribution tank, new water trough, and associated waterline at Lone Madrone Ranch, Pastures 3 and 4, for a base contract amount of $87,667. 2. Authorize a 10% contract contingency of $8,767 to be reserved for unanticipated issues, for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $96,434. Director Riffle inquired regarding the bid received from Hammer Fences related to the required licensing and why the bid was non-responsive. Senior Property Manager Omar Smith reported that the projects require two different classifications of licensing, and Hammer Fence did not have the required license for the water systems improvement project. 5. Award of Contract to Hammer Fences for Replacement Perimeter Fencing on Bluebrush Canyon Ranch and Lobitos Ridge/Elkus Uplands Ranch in Support of the Conservation Grazing Program at Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (R-20- 55) General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Authorize General Manager to award a contract to Hammer Fences to replace portions of perimeter fencing on Bluebrush Canyon Ranch and Lobitos Ridge/Elkus Uplands Ranch for the base contract amount of $87,375. 2. Authorize a 10% contract contingency of $8,735 to be reserved for unanticipated issues, for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $96,110. 6. Recycled Paper Policy Revision (R-20-58) General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Authorize the specification of 100% recycled paper stock, when feasible, for high quantity printing orders, including for brochure maps and the quarterly newsletter. 2. Adopt a revision to Board Policy 3.03 Section V.C, Purchase of Recycled Products to match Administrative Policy 4.03: “District staff shall purchase recycled products when the cost, suitability, and quality, taken together, provide the best outcome for the environment and best value for the public.” Director Kishimoto and President Holman expressed support for this item. 7. Award of Contracts with Three Firms for On-Call Printing and Mailing Services (R-20-57) General Manager’s Recommendations: Authorize the General Manager to enter into four-year contracts for on-call printing and mailing services with Almaden Global, Dakota Press, and GSL Fine Lithographers for amounts not-to-exceed $200,000 per year for each contract. Meeting 20-12 Page 5 8. Formation of the Lehigh Quarry Review Ad Hoc Committee (R-20-61) General Manager’s Recommendations: Form a Lehigh Quarry Review Ad Hoc Committee of the Board pursuant to Board Policy 1.04, Board Committees. Consistent with other recent Ad Hoc Committees of the Board, these meetings would be compensable. Item 8 was heard after the Consent Calendar. General Manager Ana Ruiz reported Erika Guerra representing Lehigh Hanson will provide comments on this item. Erika Guerra Environmental Director of Cement Operations for Lehigh Hanson thanked the Board for visiting the Lehigh Permanente site and commented on Lehigh Hanson’s desire to be a good neighbor. Ms. Guerra spoke in favor of creating a productive and cooperative working relationship with the propose ad hoc committee to help it make informed recommendations. Motion: Director Kishimoto moved and Director Riffle seconded the motion to approve the General Manager’s recommendations. ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0 President Holman announced that she appointed Director Kishimoto, Director Riffle, and herself to serve on the ad hoc committee. Director Cyr will serve as an alternate for the committee. BOARD BUSINESS 9. Proposed Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget and Action Plan Review and Public Hearing (R-20-59) Ms. Ruiz provided an overview of the District’s response to COVID-19 fiscal impacts, including proposing flat general fund expenditures for the upcoming year, no new staff positions, and conducing an additional April review of projects for potential deferral based on shelter-in-place restrictions that have affected project schedules. Ms. Ruiz suggested the Board defer taking action on this item until after the presentation by Controller Mike Foster. Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak provided an overview of the FY2020-21 budget. Mr. Jaskulak described the budget by funding source, including Measure AA, grants, and general fund, and changes to the proposed budget since the Board’s February retreat. Mr. Jaskulak described the cash projections and funding revenues forecast for the upcoming budget year as compared to previous budget years. Mr. Jaskulak reviewed the proposed FY2020-21 budget by fund and the five-year trend for expenses by fund, including Measure AA expenses. Mr. Jaskulak reported no new full-time equivalents (FTE) are proposed for FY2020-21 and reviewed the proposed budget for the District’s departments. Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan presented the Land Acquisition and Preservation Program, including proposed acquisitions of the South Cowell, Tabachnik, and Johnston Ranch properties, El Sereno wildlife corridors and trail connections, Lower San Gregorio Creek watershed land conservation, and creation of a land conservation guidance document. Meeting 20-12 Page 6 Mr. Malone presented the Natural Resource Protection and Restoration Program, including review and development of an agriculture policy, environmental review of the Highway 17 wildlife crossing, Lone Madrone fence installation, wildlife studies for badger/burrowing owl and mountain lions, and continued climate action plan implementation. Director Hassett inquired regarding projects at Toto Ranch and the cost of the projects being completed by the tenants. Assistant General Manager Brian Malone reported rental credits to the tenant to complete projects are taxable, and contractors will be used for some of the projects. Additionally, there is a backlog of maintenance projects to be completed on Toto Ranch. Director Hassett suggested that nearby property owners should help cover the cost of driveway repairs and replacements that also service their properties. Mr. Malone reported the District covers the portion of the repairs that service District residences, and for shared use portions of the driveways, the other property owners contribute to the cost of the project. Director Kishimoto requested staff return with the results of the mountain lion and badger and burrowing owl habitat studies. Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan reviewed projects included in the Public Access, Education, and Outreach program, including numerous regional trails, such as the Ravenswood Bay Trail, Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail, and Alpine Road Regional Trail; Districtwide ADA barrier removal; and expanding public access at District preserves, such as at La Honda Creek Redwoods and Bear Creek Redwoods Preserves. Mr. Malone described projects included in the Assets and Organizational Support Program. Projects include agricultural workforce housing at the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, property management for residential, office, and other building sites, and improvements to business system and administrative processes. Director Siemens suggested renaming the La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin Stabilization and Assessment to La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin Demolition to reflect the Board’s direction on the structure. Director Siemens also suggested completing a mitigated negative declaration rather than an environmental impact report, if possible, to lower the costs for the project. Ms. Ruiz reported that the bulk of the project cost is related to the demolition. More information will be learned about other costs once the project progresses. Director Hassett suggested the District should analyze any structures on properties prior to purchase by the District because of the high cost of preserving or disposing of a structure. Director Kersteen-Tucker inquired regarding the deferral of the e-bike policy to study potential use of e-bikes on District preserves, stating it may cause the District to lose an opportunity to adequately manage e-bike use in District preserves. Meeting 20-12 Page 7 Ms. Chan stated that the Board may direct staff to include the project in the upcoming Budget & Action Plan. Director Kishimoto inquired if deferral of the project would prevent commuters from being able to bike on the paved Ravenswood Bay Trail. Mr. Malone suggested allowing bikes on the paved Ravenswood Bay Trail but to defer study of allowing e-bikes on other District trails. Additionally, Mr. Malone suggested adding signage to District preserves related to the District’s current prohibition on e-bikes to better educate preserve visitors. Staff can return with additional information regarding the larger study of the potential impact of e-bikes on District trails as a future agenda item. By consensus, the Board directed staff to move forward with bringing the consideration of e- bikes on the paved Ravenswood Bay Trail to the full Board and to also bring additional information regarding a study of the potential impact of e-bikes on other District trails to determine if the Board wants to move forward with this larger study during the upcoming fiscal year. Additional information will also be presented outlining other projects that could be deferred if the larger e-bikes study is scheduled during the upcoming fiscal year. Mr. Malone reviewed areas of interest for the Capital Improvement and Action Plan, including projects supporting agriculture, diversity, and fire prevention, such as agricultural workforce housing, ADA barrier removal, vegetation removal, and wildland fire resiliency and prescribed fire programs. Director Hassett inquired regarding the proposed cost of the Amah Mutsun tribal garden. Mr. Malone described some of the complexities and limitations associated with this restoration, which impact the project cost. Public hearing opened at 10:25 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reported no public comments were submitted for this item. Public hearing closed at 10:25 p.m. The Board recessed at 10:25 p.m. and reconvened at 10:32 p.m. with all Directors present. Mr. Jaskulak reviewed the General Manager’s recommendations and stated Controller Mike Foster will now provide his annual report. The Board returned to Item 9 at 11:10 p.m. Motion: Director Kishimoto moved and Director Riffle seconded the motion to adopt the proposed Fiscal Year 2020-21 (FY21) Budget and Action Plan at the June 24, 2020 regular meeting of the Board of Directors. ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0 Meeting 20-12 Page 8 10. Controller’s Report on the Proposed Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget (R-20-60) Controller Mike Foster provided the Controller’s report outlining projected expenditures for operating and capital expenses. Mr. Foster reported the tax revenue continues to grow although at a reduced amount as previously projected and stated the District’s FY2020-21 is affordable and sustainable. Mr. Foster provided his FY2020-21 cash projection, 30-year cash flow projection, and projected Measure AA tax rate for the life of the bonds. Mr. Foster stated the District will potentially issue a third tranche of Measure AA bonds when and if the Board decides to purchase Cloverdale Ranch. Mr. Foster recommended the Board adopt the proposed FY20-21 Budget and Action Plan. Director Kishimoto inquired regarding the ability for the District to pay for all of the Measure AA projects using Measure AA funds. Mr. Foster stated the District would be able to raise $300 million in Measure AA funds, but additional funding sources will be needed, such as from grants. Director Kishimoto stated the Action Plan & Budget Committee reviewed the proposed budget in detail and recommends Board approval and thanked the Board for their early input into setting the FY20-21 strategic plan goals and objectives. Director Kishimoto thanked District staff for their work in creating a comprehensive budget. Public comment opened at 11:12 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reported no written comments were submitted for this item. Public comment closed at 11:12 p.m. Motion: Director Cyr moved and Director Siemens seconded the motion to accept the Controller’s Report on the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget. ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0 11. Oral Update on Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District COVID-19 Response Ms. Ruiz provided several updates related to the District’s response to COVID-19. There continues to be a high level of visitor use at District preserves, and staff is collecting public input on visitor experiences, including whether they are new users. Natural Resources staff are monitoring wildlife to determine if there is an impact on wildlife due to the higher usage to ensure natural resources are protected. In late May, all preserves began reopening, and all restrooms except those at the Black Mountain backpack camp and Daniels Nature Center are reopened. Staff is determining whether adjustments need to be made to the Black Mountain backpack camp to prepare for reopening. Docent and volunteer program managers are preparing a phased plan to restart volunteer activities. Public comment opened at 11:21 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reported no written comments were submitted for this item. Meeting 20-12 Page 9 Public comment closed at 11:21 p.m. No Board action required. INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM • Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve – Gordon Ridge Barn Siding Protection Director Hassett expressed caution regarding the recommended application of a clear product on the barn stating that they are often temporary and spoke against Option 2. Director Hassett spoke in favor of Option 3. Ms. Ruiz stated staff will look into this further and seek additional peer review. Senior Property Manager Omar Smith stated that the options provided were in response maintaining the historic nature and appearance of the structure and not necessarily the longest lasting options. • Allocation of Water Rights Affecting the Gordon Ridge Ranch Purchase INFORMATIONAL REPORTS A. Committee Reports No Committee reports. B. Staff Reports Ms. Ruiz reported staff recently met with Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority executive team members to coordinate on future endeavors, such as adapting to increased visitation and use and additional outreach and other communication opportunities. C. Director Reports The Board members submitted their compensatory reports. ADJOURNMENT President Holman adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District back into closed session at 11:33 p.m. in the memory of George Floyd and others like him that have lost their life. ________________________________ Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CLAIMS REPORT MEETING # 20-13 MEETING DATE: June 24, 2020 Fiscal Year to date EFT:55.80% Fiscal Year 18-19 EFT:29.44% Payment Number Payment Type Payment Date Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Payment Amount 2091 EFT 06/12/2020 10343 - Granite Rock Company Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project - April 2020 93,010.73 2083 EFT 06/12/2020 12111 - Agbayani Construction Corporation South Area Field Office Renovation Project - April 2020 44,911.25 81192 Check 06/12/2020 11927 - Forrest Telecom Engineering, Inc.Radio Communications System Assessment & Master Plan 9/19 - 4/20 40,960.00 2099 EFT 06/19/2020 10546 - Ecological Concerns, Inc.IPM for Roads and Trails at BCR - April 2020 27,730.00 81204 Check 06/19/2020 11772 - Ahern Rentals, Inc.Equipment Rentals - Dozer, Excavator, Roller 5/1 - 6/1 25,731.37 2115 EFT 06/19/2020 12050 - Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.Mt. Umunhum Radar Tower Assessment Project - May 2020 25,486.50 2108 EFT 06/19/2020 11533 - NBC Universal (KNTV/KSTS)2020 Open Road Founding Sponsorship 25,000.00 81207 Check 06/19/2020 11350 - Environmental Volunteers Environ. Vol. Interpretive Signage - Friendship Trail Proj. - 12/15/19 - 4/17/20 25,000.00 2103 EFT 06/19/2020 11593 - H.T. Harvey & Associates Impact Repairs (Rework) - Ravenswood Bay Trail - February 2020 22,956.16 2105 EFT 06/19/2020 10794 - John Northmore Roberts & Associates Bear Creek Stables Improvements - April 2020 18,693.29 2097 EFT 06/12/2020 *10216 - Valley Oil Company Fuel for District vehicles 11,203.38 81196 Check 06/12/2020 11924 - Nomad Ecology Biological Surveys - Coal Creek & Long Ridge Fuel Mgmt - April 2020 8,113.03 2110 EFT 06/19/2020 11432 - San Mateo County Resource Conserv. Dist.San Gregorio Steamgage MOU 8,000.00 81187 Check 06/12/2020 12076 - Avenza Systems, Inc.Annual Renewal for Avenza Maps Pro Licenses 06/15/20 - 06/15/21 7,498.50 2106 EFT 06/19/2020 10791 - LSA Associates, Inc.Alpine Rd. CEQA/Permit Support and LHC Loop Trail Permit Support 6,810.32 2102 EFT 06/19/2020 12088 - GSL Fine Lithographers Coastside Brochure Map (Spanish)/Spring 2020 Newsletter Postage 5,881.52 81194 Check 06/12/2020 10058 - Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Human Resources Legal Consulting - April 2020 5,573.50 81202 Check 06/12/2020 10775 - Tyler Technologies Inc Tyler Software - User License to Unlimited Site License 5,300.00 2100 EFT 06/19/2020 11748 - Environmental & Energy Consulting Consulting & Lobbying/Lobbying Work for WCWG - May 2020 5,110.41 81205 Check 06/19/2020 11680 - Biggs Cardosa Associates Inc Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project - 3/1/20 - 4/30/20 4,870.75 81200 Check 06/12/2020 11961 - Telepath Corporation Radio, Antenna, & Equipment Installation For P125 4,688.57 81193 Check 06/12/2020 11501 - Harris Design BCR Public Access Project -7/1/19 - 12/31/19 4,485.24 81189 Check 06/12/2020 11898 - Bay Area Tree Specialists MB Tree Project - 13 Trees 4,400.00 2087 EFT 06/12/2020 11748 - Environmental & Energy Consulting State Funding Consulting - May 2020 3,750.00 2096 EFT 06/12/2020 10152 - Tadco Supply Janitorial Supplies - RSA/CP/RR 3,369.45 2095 EFT 06/12/2020 12107 - San Francisco Estuary Institute Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study Area Feasibility Study 3,339.87 2104 EFT 06/19/2020 11859 - Horizon Water and Environment, LLC Programmatic Environmental Permitting - April 2020 3,285.20 2109 EFT 06/19/2020 10211 - Public Policy Advocates Legislative Advocacy Services - May 2020 3,230.00 2107 EFT 06/19/2020 11617 - MIG, Inc.ADA Plan Update - April 2020 3,151.25 2101 EFT 06/19/2020 11151 - Fastenal Company Tools/Press Tool Kit 2,882.92 2094 EFT 06/12/2020 11617 - MIG, Inc.LH Public Access Working Group Facilitation Services - April 2020 2,660.00 81186 Check 06/12/2020 11772 - Ahern Rentals, Inc.Equipment Rental - Excavator for Trail Repairs - 5/4/20 - 6/1/20 2,236.89 2093 EFT 06/12/2020 10190 - MetroMobile Communications Radio Install (M235), Chargers for Field Staff (7), Radio Case 2,184.81 2098 EFT 06/19/2020 *10128 - American Tower Corporation Repeater Lease - June 2020 1,990.25 2090 EFT 06/12/2020 10187 - Gardenland Power Equipment Fuel & Equipment Parts 1,955.20 2111 EFT 06/19/2020 10302 - Stevens Creek Quarry, Inc.Drain Rock (RSA-DHF) 1,877.01 2084 EFT 06/12/2020 10263 - Bank of New York Mellon Administration Fee - 2011 Revenue Bonds - 5/19/20 - 5/18/21 1,650.00 81206 Check 06/19/2020 11058 - Diamond Crane Company Inc Emergency Repair to Windmill Pump on October Farms 1,266.39 2085 EFT 06/12/2020 **10012 - Biosearch Environmental Consulting WH Hawthorns Woodrat trapping 1,249.12 2086 EFT 06/12/2020 10032 - Del Rey Building Maintenance Janitorial Services - Disinfect all common areas/Monte Bello Cabin 1,240.00 2112 EFT 06/19/2020 11895 - Timmons Group Inc Work Order and Asset Management thru 1/31/20 1,050.00 81203 Check 06/19/2020 *10261 - ADT LLC (Protection One)Alarm Services for AO's & Cristo Rey 955.81 81201 Check 06/12/2020 11505 - Town of Portola Valley Windy Hill ADA Vault Toilet Permit Fee 884.52 81210 Check 06/19/2020 10182 - Royal Brass Inc T-28 Hose Assembly & FFO shop towels 843.16 81199 Check 06/12/2020 *10136 - San Jose Water Company Water Service (RSACP) 813.20 2089 EFT 06/12/2020 11736 - Fossil Industries, Inc.Remake of Panel from F85486 782.00 81195 Check 06/12/2020 10189 - Life Assist Safety Supplies - Alcohol Prep Pads, Gloves 781.26 81190 Check 06/12/2020 10014 - CCOI Gate & Fence Gate Repair (SA-MT UM)700.00 2081 EFT 06/12/2020 10001 - Aaron's Septic Tank Service SA-Mt Um - Sanitation Services 650.00 81188 Check 06/12/2020 **11801 - Bay Alarm Company Alarm Services -Historic Hawthorn House 6/1/20 - 9/1/20 608.58 81191 Check 06/12/2020 11530 - Coastside.net SFO - Internet Services 6/1/20 -6/30/20 550.00 Electronic funds transfer (EFT) for accounts payable disbursements to reduce check printing and mailing, increase payment security, and ensure quicker receipt by vendors page 1 of 3 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CLAIMS REPORT MEETING # 20-13 MEETING DATE: June 24, 2020 Fiscal Year to date EFT:55.80% Fiscal Year 18-19 EFT:29.44% Payment Number Payment Type Payment Date Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Payment Amount Electronic funds transfer (EFT) for accounts payable disbursements to reduce check printing and mailing, increase payment security, and ensure quicker receipt by vendors 2092 EFT 06/12/2020 11041 - Interstate All Battery Center Battery replacement 455.46 81197 Check 06/12/2020 *11335 - Pitney Bowes Global Financial Services LLC Postage Meter Lease 3/30/20 - 6/29/20 422.37 81209 Check 06/19/2020 10935 - Rice Trucking - Soil Farm Water Delivery to Toto Residence 371.01 2088 EFT 06/12/2020 11151 - Fastenal Company PPE & Supplies 337.39 81208 Check 06/19/2020 *11526 - Republic Services Monthly Garbage Service 16060 Skyline 298.64 81198 Check 06/12/2020 10176 - RE Borrmann's Steel Co Shop Supplies - SFO 252.07 2114 EFT 06/19/2020 10561 - ULINE Latex Gloves 116.48 2082 EFT 06/12/2020 10240 - Ace Fire Equipment & Service Inc Hydrotest 02 Cylinder 75.00 2113 EFT 06/19/2020 10146 - Tires On The Go T37 Walton Trailer Tire Repair 20.00 81176 Check 06/05/2020 10847 - City of Saratoga Saratoga to the Sea Consultant & Contractor Fees thru 3/31/20 208,436.69 81178 Check 06/05/2020 10413 - Downtown Ford M235 - Purchase of Ford F350 66,539.64 81183 Check 06/05/2020 10102 - Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP Permanente Ridge Scenic Easement 14,632.53 2080 EFT 06/05/2020 10978 - Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting, LLC Final Wetland Delineation and MMP for Alpine Road 9,840.00 81174 Check 06/05/2020 11379 - Caltrans Dept of Transportation Hwy 17 Wildlife Crossing CalTrans Co-Op Agreement - March 2020 4,615.16 2078 EFT 06/05/2020 12107 - San Francisco Estuary Institute Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study Area Feasibility Study - March 2020 4,333.52 2067 EFT 06/05/2020 10616 - BKF Engineers ADA Barrier Removal Project - 3/30 - 4/26 4,211.50 2070 EFT 06/05/2020 10187 - Gardenland Power Equipment Stihl Equipment & Parts, Fuel, Chainsaw Sharpening 3,068.49 2073 EFT 06/05/2020 11887 - Koopmann Rangeland Consulting Manufacturing Wildlife Escape Ramps (30)2,729.00 81184 Check 06/05/2020 *10309 - Verizon Wireless Wireless Service - 4/13/20 - 5/12/20 2,532.79 2066 EFT 06/05/2020 *11799 - Aztec Leasing, Inc.Printer/Copier Leases - 6 machines - May 2020 2,326.07 2071 EFT 06/05/2020 12088 - GSL Fine Lithographers Printing/Mailing - Postcard - Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Qty 3,497 2,121.10 2072 EFT 06/05/2020 12105 - IBI Group Rancho San Antonio Multimodal Access Study - April 2020 2,090.00 81173 Check 06/05/2020 10706 - Bay Area News Group (Mercury News)Bid ADA Barrier Removal Project Ads 1,728.09 2068 EFT 06/05/2020 10723 - Callander Associates RW Bay Trail Connection Design & Construction Mgmt - April 2020 1,726.75 2069 EFT 06/05/2020 11940 - Dickenson, Peatman & Fogarty Water Law Counsel - April 2020 1,015.00 2077 EFT 06/05/2020 11519 - Price, Postel & Parma LLP Burkhart Litigation - April 2020 703.50 2065 EFT 06/05/2020 11170 - Alexander Atkins Design, Inc.On-Call Graphic Design Services - Coastside Brochure - Spanish 467.50 81185 Check 06/05/2020 11852 - Western Exterminator Co.Exterminator Service (RSA-Annex)426.50 81182 Check 06/05/2020 10182 - Royal Brass Inc T28 Supplies 403.55 81175 Check 06/05/2020 10014 - CCOI Gate & Fence Gate Maintenance (SA-MT UM)400.00 81179 Check 06/05/2020 11099 - Law Enforcement Psych. Services Inc.Psychological testing for ranger candidates 400.00 81172 Check 06/05/2020 *12041 - A T & T Mobility (FirstNet)EOC Emergency Phones 353.93 81180 Check 06/05/2020 10260 - Lund Pearson McLaughlin AO Annual Fire Sprinklers Test 300.00 2074 EFT 06/05/2020 11617 - MIG, Inc.ADA Plan Update - February 2020 290.00 2075 EFT 06/05/2020 **11523 - PGA Design, Inc.Hawthorns Public Access Study - April 2020 268.75 2076 EFT 06/05/2020 12060 - Preferred Alliance, Inc.11-20 Off-Site Participants - Random Test 155.40 81181 Check 06/05/2020 10194 - Reed & Graham Inc Tree Removal Supplies (RSA)147.49 2079 EFT 06/05/2020 11303 - Santa Clara County FireSafe Council Los Trancos Eucalyptus Removal - 3/1/20 - 4/30/20 93.38 81171 Check 06/05/2020 *11880 - A T & T (CALNET3)Mt. Um Safety Phone 92.09 81177 Check 06/05/2020 11089 - County of Santa Clara Clerk Recorder Notice of Exemption Fees - SAO 50.00 820,198.25 *Annual Claims **Hawthorn Expenses A### = Administrative Office Vehicle HR = Human Resources P### = Patrol Vehicle SCNT = Stevens Creek Nature Trail AO2, AO3, AO4 = Leased Office Space IPM = Invasive Plant Maintenance PCR = Purisima Creek Redwoods SCS = Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Area BCR = Bear Creek Redwoods ISM = Invasive Species Management PIC= Picchetti Ranch SFO = Skyline Field Office CAO = Coastal Area Office LH = La Honda Creek PR = Pulgas Ridge SG = Saratoga Gap CC = Coal Creek LR = Long Ridge RR = Russian Ridge SJH = Saint Joseph's Hill Abbreviations page 2 of 3 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CLAIMS REPORT MEETING # 20-13 MEETING DATE: June 24, 2020 Fiscal Year to date EFT:55.80% Fiscal Year 18-19 EFT:29.44% Payment Number Payment Type Payment Date Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Payment Amount Electronic funds transfer (EFT) for accounts payable disbursements to reduce check printing and mailing, increase payment security, and ensure quicker receipt by vendors DHF = Dear Hollow Farm LT = Los Trancos RR/MIN = Russian Ridge - Mindego Hill SR= Skyline Ridge ECdM = El Corte de Madera M### = Maintenance Vehicle RSA = Rancho San Antonio T### = Tractor or Trailer ES = El Sereno MB = Monte Bello RV = Ravenswood TC = Tunitas Creek FFO = Foothills Field Office MR = Miramontes Ridge SA = Sierra Azul TH = Teague Hill FOOSP = Fremont Older Open Space Pres.OSP = Open Space Preserve SAO = South Area Outpost TW = Thornewood GP = General Preserve SAU = Mount Umunhum WH = Windy Hill page 3 of 3 R-20-63 Meeting 20-13 June 24, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 3 AGENDA ITEM Approval of a Commemorative Bench for State Senator Jim Beall at El Sereno Open Space Preserve GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Approve the recommendation from the Legislative, Funding and Public Affairs Committee to install a commemorative bench and plaque in honor of significant supporter State Senator Jim Beall with a view over the Lexington Vista at El Sereno Open Space Preserve. SUMMARY The General Manager is forwarding a recommendation from the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee that originated with a request from Board Director Pete Siemens to install a commemorative bench in honor of State Senator Jim Beall for his support to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) in pursuing land protection and public access opportunities. The recommendation is consistent with Board Policy 5.01 Site Naming, Gift and Special Recognition. Installation of the new bench, plaque, and related trail signage is estimated to cost $2,420. Sufficient funds are included in the Fiscal Year 2020-21 within the Land and Facilities Department budget to cover the associated expenditures. DISCUSSION State Senator Jim Beall has served the constituents of the South Bay, including residents in the southern reaches of the District’s jurisdiction, for over 30 years and has been a life-long South Bay resident. He has held municipal office seats at all levels of government, including as a City of San Jose councilmember, Santa Clara County board supervisor, state assemblymember, and state senator. Senator Beall has been an active supporter of the District in his role both locally and in Sacramento. His term in the California Senate concludes in December 2020. His history with the lands surrounding what is today Lexington Reservoir and the Lexington Valley goes back multiple generations. It is his connections with this land that to this day continue to inspire his dedication for protecting the Lexington Valley and its majestic redwood- forested covered hillsides, lush creek corridors, mature stands of chaparral, elegant rock outcrops, and scenic vistas. Senator Beall’s grandparents moved to Los Gatos in 1930 and lived on Montevina Road. In the early 1940s, they moved to downtown Los Gatos, where Senator Beall’s father graduated from Los Gatos High School. Since he was a child, Senator Beall explored the beautiful trails in the Santa Cruz Mountains with his father and brothers. He remembers hiking trails along Trout Creek before Lexington Reservoir was built. Later, after R-20-63 Page 2 graduating from San Jose State University, Senator Beall worked for the Town of Los Gatos as an assistant planner. He still explores the trails today with his wife, Pat. For the past 12 years, Senator Beall has been part of the District’s state legislative delegation as both an assemblymember and senator. In 2016, he reached out to the District with an interest in permanently protecting the combined holdings of San Jose Water Company (SJWC), totaling almost 6,500 acres in the Lexington Valley. This area, which the District has identified as a regional “Priority Conservation Area” also includes 1,000 acres of redwood forests. To expedite the ability of the District to potentially purchase SJWC lands, Senator Beall authored and worked to pass bill SB 492. The legislation streamlines the traditional regulatory processes governing land acquisitions overseen by the California Public Utilities Commission. In 2018, he secured a $10 million state budget allocation to support SJWC land acquisitions. At this time, the District is working on a potential acquisition in El Sereno Open Space Preserve that may benefit from both of these efforts. In further assistance to the District, Senator Beall is currently working to expand the range of applicable projects that may utilize these funds (attachment 1). Further still, Senator Beall played a significant role in allocating $3.0 million in Prop 68 (2018) funding for District projects in the Upper Guadalupe Watershed. This funding has contributed greatly toward watershed improvements and public access projects at Bear Creek Redwood Open Space Preserve. Senator Beall has also taken an active role in the promotion of the District’s Highway 17 Wildlife and Trail Crossings Project with Caltrans. In his 2018 legislation, SB 1, also known as the “gas tax,” he ensured that $120 million would be available for advance mitigation projects to offset the impacts of transportation projects on adjacent habitats and corridors for wildlife movement. He is also pursuing the allocation of $20 million in SB 1 advance mitigation funds and other Caltrans programmatic funding for the Highway 17 crossings project. Commemorative Bench A bench location in either the Sierra Azul or Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserves was first considered due to their high visitation rates and close personal connection to Senator Beall. Upon consultation, Senator Beall expressed interest in the Lexington Vista site at El Sereno Open Space Preserve (attachments 2 and 3). The Board may, of course, consider alternative locations as it deems appropriate. Providing a District commemorative bench for Senator Beall is consistent with Board Policy 5.01 Site Naming and Special Recognition (attachment 4), which includes the following criteria: III. SPECIAL RECOGNITION The Legislative, Funding and Public Affairs Committee (LFPAC) shall be the committee designated to discuss all requests that meet the criteria of the policy for special recognition made by members of the Board of Directors, and after deliberation shall forward a recommendation to the full Board for a vote. C. District Bench Dedications These are benches which are installed by the District in response to requests by members of the Board of Directors to honor "Founders," "Significant Supporters", and “Volunteers”. R-20-63 Page 3 a) LFPAC can initiate a bench request and refer a decision to the full Board or individual Board members can initiate a bench request which will be referred to LFPAC for discussion before it is referred to the full Board for a final decision. Honorees must be "Founders", "Significant Supporters", and “Volunteers” (per policy Section III D below). b) For these benches there are no design specification limits or limits on their location. The District will pay for the lifetime cost of the bench. D. Founders, Significant Supporters, and Volunteers "Significant Supporters" shall be defined as individuals or group of individuals who have shown conspicuous or noteworthy support for the District through extraordinary contributions of time and effort to the advancement of the goals, philosophy and mission of the District. The bench design would be the standard recycled composite plastic/wood lumber that is long- lasting, durable, environmentally friendly and low maintenance, with an embedded bronze plaque. The language on the plaque would be developed in consultation with Senator Beall and/or his chief of staff. FISCAL IMPACT The material and construction cost of the recommended action is estimated at $2,420 and includes the following elements: • Cost of a standard bench: $705 • Cost of personalized plaque: $320 • Cost of shipping of materials: $295 • Cost of assembling and installing the bench and plaque: $500 • Cost of future maintenance of bench and plaque: $600 There are sufficient funds in the proposed FY21 Land & Facilities Department operating budget to cover the cost of the recommendation. The Board is considering adoption of the proposed FY21 Budget at this same June 24 meeting under a separate Agenda Item. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW LFPAC reviewed this item on May 26, 2020 and recommended Board approval (Attachment 5). PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act exempts the minor alteration of existing public structures or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of existing use. The seating installation would be a minor alteration to an existing trail. R-20-63 Page 4 NEXT STEPS If approved by the Board, staff will begin ordering the signage and bench for installation in fall 2020, along with an installation ceremony as conditions permit. Attachments 1. Map of Land Purchases and Potential Projects Utilizing funding from Senator Beall 2. Map of El Sereno Open Space Preserve and Lexington Vista 3. Site Photo 4. Board Policy 5.01 Site Naming, Gift and Special Recognition 5.Draft LFPAC Minutes - May 24, 2020 Responsible Department Head: Korrine Skinner, Public Affairs Manager Staff contact: Joshua Hugg, Governmental Affairs Specialist Lexing t o n R e s . ÄÆ17 ÄÆ17ÄÆ9 ^^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve road under-crossing for safety Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve Phase II trails Expand parking and public access (Bay Area Ridge Trail) El Sereno parcel acquisition El Sereno trail connection to Sanborn County Park Highway 17 wildlife and regional trail crossings Alma Bridge Road newt crossing Sierra Azul parcel acquisition G U A D A L U P E S A R AT O G A U P P E R G U A D A L U P E U P P E R L O S G AT O S L O S G AT O S M t.U m u n h u m Roa d Shannon Rd S o da S p r i ngs R o a d Bo h l m a n Road HicksRd K e n n edy R d A l m a d e n E x p y A l m a d e n E x p y Sum m i t R o a d ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 BEAR CREEK REDWOODS OPEN SPACE PRESERVE SIERRA AZUL OPEN SPACE PRESERVE EL SERENO OPEN SPACE PRESERVE Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) 5/15/2020 District Projects – Underway, Planned, or Potential in Senate District 15 Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ S a n _ J o s e _ W a t e r \ S D 1 5 _ B u d g e t R e a l l o c a t i o n _ 2 0 2 0 0 5 0 7 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : n g r e i g 0 21 MilesI Midpen preserves Private property While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. East Palo Alto Los Altos Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Morgan Hill Milpitas Fremont Santa Clara San Jose Other protected lands Senate District 15 ^Potential Midpen project Watershed boundary Attachment 1 Attachment 2: Map of El Sereno Open Space Preserve and Proposed Lexington Vista Bench Location Proposed bench location Attachment 3 Lexington Vista at El Sereno Open Space Preserve – Towards Lexington Reservoir Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board Policy Manual Site Naming, Gift, and Special Recognition Policy 5.01 Chapter 5 – Historical/Cultural Effective Date: 8/25/93 Revised Date: 12/12/18 Prior Versions: 8/25/93, 9/14/94, 6/24/98, 9/12/01, 10/8/08, 1/13/10, 10/27/10, 11/13/13 Board Policy 5.01 Page 1 of 5 I. SITE NAMING All District site names and signs should be kept as simple and functional as possible. When a property is acquired, either as an addition to an existing preserve or for the establishment of a new preserve, a name will be recommended in the Preliminary Use and Management Plan. In most cases, "open space preserve" is appropriate as part of the name; however, there may be circumstances when another designation may be used. In some cases, a temporary name may be retained until the next Comprehensive Use and Management Plan review. A. Open Space Preserves The name given to each open space preserve should be general enough to remain suitable if the site is enlarged, but specific enough to give its location some significance. Properties added to an open space preserve may not always be contiguous with that preserve. 1. Preserves shall be named after: a)Geographical features of broad, general significance to the preserve; b) Historical persons, cultural names, uses, or events broadly associated with the locale. 2. Preserves shall not be named after any individuals other than historical persons as noted above. B. Preserve Areas, Trails, Site Improvements, Historic Sites and Unnamed Natural Features This designation refers to specific locations, land formations, trails, natural and physical features, staging areas and other site improvements, and areas of significance within open space preserves. Recognition of significant land gifts, including "bargain" purchases, will be negotiated at the time of the gift or bargain purchase. 1. Preserve areas, trails, site improvements including benches and bridges, historic sites and previously unnamed natural features shall ordinarily be named Attachment 4 Board Policy 5.01 Page 2 of 5 after: a) Geographical, botanical or zoological identification; b) Historical persons, uses, or events associated with the site, or persons and organizations listed in Section III: “Special Recognition”. 2. Preserve areas, trails, site improvements, historic sites and unnamed natural features may in rare instances be named after a living individual who has made an outstanding contribution to the District, subject to approval by the Board of Directors. II. GIFT RECOGNITION The purpose of the gift recognition policy is to provide an opportunity for the District to recognize and commend individuals or groups that have made significant contributions of cash, equipment, materials, goods or professional services toward the enhancement of the District, its programs, and its facilities. A. Unsolicited Cash Gifts: Up to $25 Postcard of thanks $26 to $499 Letter signed by General Manager $500 to $1,999 Letter signed by President of the Board $2,000 to $4,999 Letter signed by President of the Board and District gift item (note cards, etc.) $5,000 to $9,999 Letter signed by President of the Board and framed photograph of favorite District preserve $10,000 or more Letter signed by President of the Board and Resolution and framed photograph of District preserve and mention in a District publication* *These items will be provided only if desired by the donor. III. SPECIAL RECOGNITION The Legislative, Funding and Public Affairs Committee (LFPAC) shall be the committee designated to discuss all requests that meet the criteria of the policy for special recognition made by members of the Board of Directors, and after deliberation shall forward a recommendation to the full Board for a vote. The General Manager or his/her designee will review constituent bench dedication requests to determine eligibility based on the policy guidelines outlined below in Section III D. Constituent bench requests may be brought to LFPAC if there exists ambiguity regarding whether the request meets the requirements below. The District places benches in its preserves for three distinct purposes: Attachment 4 Board Policy 5.01 Page 3 of 5 A. District Rest Benches These benches provide constituents with a place to rest. District staff places these benches without involving a District committee or the full Board. Regular benches must be either a backed or a backless standard bench as described in Section V below. B. Constituent Bench Dedications These are benches which have been requested by constituents in order to honor or memorialize a member of the public and are funded by the requestors who must pay $5,000 for a 10-year term. Requests must be in reference to a significant supporter or a volunteer, as defined in Section III D below. The General Manager or his/her designee reviews requests to determine if they meet the eligibility definitions. Requests that are administratively declined because they do not meet the eligibility definitions may be appealed to the General Manager for a second review. Eligible requests will be administratively implemented. a)Constituent bench dedications shall only be selected from and placed in locations that have been pre-determined by the District and/or approved by the Planning and Natural Resources Committee and/or by the full Board of Directors. b)If a request for a constituent bench meets the eligibility requirements, the requestor(s) shall pay for the cost of constructing, installing and maintaining a bench and plaque by contributing $5,000 to cover the 10-year dedication term of the bench. c) Bench plaques will be 2 x 6 inches in size. d) Benches must be one of the two District standard bench designs. e)Constituent bench dedications will have a term limit of 10 years. After 10 years, the original donor will have the option to contribute an additional $5,000 donation for each additional 10-year term. Should the original donor decline to renew an existing bench, the bench will be offered to the public for re-dedication. C. District Bench Dedications These are benches which are installed by the District in response to requests by members of the Board of Directors to honor "Founders," "Significant Supporters", and “Volunteers”. a)LFPAC can initiate a bench request and refer a decision to the full Board or individual Board members can initiate a bench request which will be referred to LFPAC for discussion before it is referred to the full Board for a final decision. Honorees must be "Founders", "Significant Supporters", and “Volunteers” (per policy Section III D below). b) For these benches there are no design specification limits or limits on their location. The District will pay for the lifetime cost of the bench. D. Founders, Significant Supporters, and Volunteers "Founders", "Significant Supporters", and “Volunteers” are eligible for special recognition, including memorials. "Founders" shall be defined as an individual or group of individuals who participated in the formation of the District, or were significant supporters of the formation of the District. Attachment 4 Board Policy 5.01 Page 4 of 5 "Significant Supporters" shall be defined as individuals or group of individuals who have shown conspicuous or noteworthy support for the District through extraordinary contributions of time and effort to the advancement of the goals, philosophy and mission of the District. “Volunteers” shall be defined as individuals or groups of individuals who donated a minimum of 250 volunteer hours and 5 years of service to the District by working for the District’s docent or volunteer program. IV.RECOGNITION OF HISTORIC SITES A.A recognition monument, normally in plaque form, may be considered by the Board if it is in relation to a specific existing building or other remaining structure of significant historic value. In such cases, the plaque will be affixed or in close proximity to the structure itself. If there is no structure, then recognition may he considered for inclusion on District informational materials or trail signage. Such a site, in the absence of a building or structure, will ordinarily not be physically marked except as determined by the Board on a case-by-case basis as part of the Use and Management planning process for the corresponding open space preserve. Any Board-approved memorial names shall be included in site brochures, maps, or other informational materials. V. STANDARD BENCH DESIGN SPECIFICATION A. District Rest Benches and Constituent Bench Dedications, described in III (A) and (B) above, are limited to either of the two following standard bench designs: Backed bench: Dumor - Bench 88, recycled plastic slates (color: CEDAR), steel leg supports (color: BLACK, IMBEDDED) 6’ or 8’ lengths Backless bench: Dumor - Bench 103, recycled plastic slates (color: CEDAR), steel leg supports (color: BLACK, IMBEDDED) 103-60PL 6' long, 3 supports 103-80PL 8' long, 3 supports B. The General Manager or LFPAC can at any point bring designs to the Board that differ from the District’s standard bench designs. VI.PARTNER RECOGNITION SIGNBOARD Partner recognition signboards provide an opportunity for the District to recognize and acknowledge significant partners who have made conspicuous or noteworthy contributions of cash, land, and/or time that were instrumental to the conservation, restoration, management, Attachment 4 Board Policy 5.01 Page 5 of 5 and/or public opening of a preserve. Partners may include agencies, organizations, or individuals. Partner Recognition Signboards may also be used to satisfy recognition requirements specified in grant, purchase, or other funding agreements. Excluding recognitions previously approved by the Board (e.g. recognitions required in Board- approved agreements and resolutions), LFPAC shall review and forward for Board approval the list of partner(s) to recognize on the Partner Recognition Signboard. Following Board approval, the General Manager or his/her designee will follow the guidelines and specifications listed below. a.Guidelines and Specifications: a)Partner Recognition Signboards shall be standalone signboards that follow the same design specifications as the District’s standard trailhead signboards to maintain District branding and visual cohesiveness. b)Partner Recognition Signboards shall normally be placed directly adjacent to existing preserve signboards to consolidate trailhead information and signboard placement. c)Recognition content shall include logos and/or names. d)The District will review recognition content with each partner for accuracy and completeness. e)The General Manager or his/her designee will approve the final recognition content. f)Exceptions to these guidelines and specifications will be forwarded to LFPAC for review and to the full Board for consideration of approval. Attachment 4 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT LEGISLATIVE, FUNDING, AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE The Committee conducted this meeting in accordance with California Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20. All Board members and staff participated via teleconference. Tuesday, May 26, 2020 DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Director Kersteen-Tucker called the meeting of the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee to order at 2:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, and Zoe Kersteen-Tucker Members absent: None Staff present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant General Manager Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan, Chief Financial Officer Stefan Jaskulak, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth, Public Affairs Manager Kori Skinner, Governmental Affairs Specialist Joshua Hugg District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth announced this meeting is being held in accordance with Governor Newsom’s Executive Order allowing Committee members to participate remotely. The District has done its best to conduct a meeting where everyone has an opportunity to listen to the meeting and to provide comment. The public has the opportunity to comment on the agenda, and the opportunity to listen to this meeting through the internet or via telephone. This information can be found on the meeting agenda, which was physically posted at the District’s Administrative Office, and on the District website. Ms. Woodworth described the process and protocols for the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reported no public comments had been submitted. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Director Hassett moved and Director Cyr seconded the motion to adopt the agenda. Attachment 5 LFPAC Page 2 May 26, 2020 ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-0-0 COMMITTEE BUSINESS 1. Approve the April 14, 2020 Legislative, Funding, & Public Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes. Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Hassett seconded the motion to approve the April 14, 2020 Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs committee meeting minutes. Public comment opened at 2:02 p.m. No speakers present. Public comment closed at 2:02 p.m. ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-0-0 2.Consideration of a Commemorative Bench for State Senator Jim Beall at El Sereno Open Space Preserve (R-20-48) Joshua Hugg, Governmental Affairs Specialist provided the staff report describing California State Senator Jim Beall’s significant contributions to the District, including helping secure funding for District projects such as the Highway 17 crossings, streamlined process and funding for potential San Jose Water Company land acquisition, and trail and watershed projects at Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve. The proposed bench location overlooks the Lexington Reservoir, and Mr. Hugg described suggested language for the commemorative bench, which language would be approved by Senator Beall. Finally, Mr. Hugg described the next steps for the process. The Committee members spoke in strong support of the General Manager’s recommendation and of Senator Beall’s contributions to the District. Public comment opened at 2:18 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth announced that no comments were submitted. Public comment closed at 2:18 p.m. Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Hassett seconded the motion to forward to the full Board of Directors a recommendation to install a commemorative bench and plaque in honor of significant supporter State Senator Jim Beall with a view over the Lexington Vista at El Sereno Open Space Preserve. ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-0-0 3. Paper Usage Policy Update – Revised Information (R-20-49) Attachment 5 LFPAC Page 3 May 26, 2020 Public Affairs Manager Korrine Skinner reported this item is bring brought back to the Committee to address a correction from the previous report the Committee discussed in April. Ms. Skinner explained the error and reported it does not significantly alter the fiscal impact of the proposed policy change and described a new revised edit to the proposed policy language update. Directors Cyr and Hassett suggested using the cost of the entire printing budget rather than using sample projects to simplify the explanation of the fiscal impact when the item comes before the full Board for consideration. Public comment opened at 2:31 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth announced no public comments were submitted. Public comment closed at 2:31 p.m. Motion: Director Hassett moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to forward the following recommendations to the Board of Directors for approval: 1.Affirm the authorization of the specification of 100% recycled paper stock, when feasible, for high-quantity printing orders, including for brochure maps and the quarterly newsletter. 2.Update Board Policy 3.03 Section V.C, Purchase of Recycled Products to match Administrative Policy 4.03: “District staff shall purchase recycled products when the cost, suitability, and quality, taken together, provide the best outcome for the environment and best value for the public.” ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-0-0 ADJOURNMENT Director Kersteen-Tucker adjourned the meeting of the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee at 2:32 p.m. ____________________________ Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk Attachment 5 Rev. 1/3/18 R-20-67 Meeting 20-13 June 24, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 4 AGENDA ITEM Partnership with the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District for Invasive Plant Early Detection and Rapid Response GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Authorize the General Manager to enter into a three-year agreement with the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District to perform education and outreach activities regarding invasive, non-native species, as well as limited invasive, non-native plant treatment to support efforts in protecting native plant biodiversity, for a total amount not-to-exceed $210,000 ($70,000 per year). SUMMARY Since 2014, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) has partnered with the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District (RCD) to map and control several high-priority invasive non-native plant species, including slender false brome (Brachypodium sylvaticum, SFB) and hanging sedge (Carex pendula). In addition, the RCD has assisted the District with providing public outreach and education on invasive species and their impacts to the natural environment. The District proposes to continue the partnership with the RCD, focusing on education and outreach to manage, control, and remove invasive species on private lands that threaten biodiversity at nearby District preserves. The General Manager recommends awarding a contract with the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District for an amount not to exceed $210,000 to be expended over the span of three years ($70,000 per year). DISCUSSION In 2005, the District initiated a program to manage the noxious weed, slender false brome (Brachypodium sylvaticum, SFB) in San Mateo County to protect native redwood forests on District preserves and adjacent private lands (R-05-122). The goal of this program was to eradicate SFB in San Mateo County and was based on limited populations found on District and surrounding lands. Since May of 2014, a significant component of this program has been managed through a cooperative partnership with the RCD to address SFB on neighboring private parcels that may potentially infest District lands (R-14-48). The District extended the cooperative agreement with the RCD in 2017 for three additional years (R-17-78). Tasks included communicating with the private property owners, surveying their properties, treating slender false brome therein, post-treatment surveys, and submitting progress reports to the District. R-20-67 Page 2 Despite intensive treatment efforts for over 10 years, SFB continues to expand its range. In 2019, the Board approved a shift in program objectives from solely eradication and containment to include broad outreach, education, and mapping in the region. The expanded program scope also allows more flexibility to treat newly discovered invasive non-native species as they are found, which drastically increases opportunities for eradication. (R-19-90). In 2019, as part of its contract with the District, the RCD also began to survey for and treat hanging sedge in the Purisima Creek watershed to supplement invasive plant treatments already occurring at Purisima Creek Open Space Preserve since 2016. The primary objective of the program is to limit the spread of these high-priority invasive species within the region to protect special status species, native plant communities, and other sensitive resources. Importance of Early Detection/Rapid Response Early Detection/Rapid Response (EDRR) is an integral component of any Integrated Pest Management Program (IPMP). The goal of early detection is to detect and eradicate emerging invasive species threats while populations remain small and manageable. The chance of success is greatest early on in an infestation, and treatment costs and efforts can increase exponentially once an invasive species has firmly established. Additionally, EDRR provides an opportunity to eradicate a threat before it has the opportunity to substantially impact native plant and animal species. The District will begin to implement an Invasive Species EDRR program on District lands beginning in Fiscal Year 2020-21 (FY21). The recommended partnership agreement with RCD would supplement the District’s EDRR program by surveying for, treating, and providing outreach and education about EDRR species on private lands near District Preserves. Adjustments to Prior Program Scope The recommended agreement allows the partnership with the RCD to grow with the development of the District’s IPMP as an integral component of the District’s upcoming EDRR Program. Core components of the partnership would continue with a focus on regional coordination with private landowners, county-based Weed Management Areas (WMA), and the Santa Cruz Mountains Stewardship Network. The partnership would also allow for more flexibility to work on emerging invasive species as they are discovered. The program scope under the recommended agreement includes the following: Slender False Brome • The District to continue all treatments within Open Space Preserves. • The RCD to prioritize outreach within the larger Santa Cruz Mountains community to increase awareness of SFB and advocate for more mapping and treatment throughout the region. • RCD surveys to focus on properties at the leading edge of the infestation and with outlier populations. • RCD to treat properties that my result in direct impact to District lands. Other Early Detection Species • Additional target invasive species may be added to the project scope if found during District EDRR surveys. • Outreach and treatment strategies will differ based on species, location, and intensity of infestation. Strategies will be determined by the District and updated on an annual basis. R-20-67 Page 3 RCD Treatment Options All treatments employed by the RCD follow the District’s IPM Program guidance manual. Treatment options include manual removal, hand-held mechanical removal (weed whips), and limited chemical applications. The RCD project manager and District staff, when necessary, discuss and determine all treatment options with the concurrence of homeowners. RCD staff complete all IPM Program requirements prior to, during, and after treatments, including pre- and post- surveys and reporting. FISCAL IMPACT The recommendation has no fiscal impact for the remainder of FY20. It is projected that there will be sufficient funds to cover the cost of the recommendation in future fiscal years ($70,000 per year beginning in FY21, which the Board is considering under a separate Agenda Item on June 24). Future fiscal year budgets will be adopted annually as a part of the annual Budget and Action Plan process. The recommended action is not funded by Measure AA. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW On January 19, 2016, Staff brought before the Planning and Natural Resources Committee the Ten-year Status Report and Recommended Continuation of a Slender False Brome Integrated Pest Management Program. The Committee recommended 3-0 a continuation of the Slender False Brome Program on District preserves and nearby private parcels over the next ten years to the full Board, which took place on March 9, 2016 (R-16-21). The Board subsequently authorized a three-year Agreement to continue the partnership on June 28, 2017 (R-17-78). Changes to the scope of this program were adopted as a part of the 2018 Annual IPM Report on July 10, 2019 (R-19-90). PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE The treatment of SFB was evaluated in the District’s IPMP Environmental Impact Report, adopted by the Board in December 2014 (R-14-148). On February 27, 2019, the Board adopted a resolution to approve an Addendum to the Final EIR for the IPMP (R-19-11) which updated the District’s List of Approved Pesticides, Best Management Practices, and additional special status species. The RCD follows all Best Management Practices and mitigation measures set out by that environmental review. NEXT STEPS Following Board approval, the General Manager will execute a multi-year agreement with the San Mateo County RCD. Updates to the partnership will be reported to the Board at the Annual IPMP Report. R-20-67 Page 4 Attachment 1. 2019 RCD-Midpen Annual Report Responsible Department Head: Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Staff contact: Tom Reyes, IPM Coordinator, Natural Resources ANNUAL REPORT for the “AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AND SAN MATEO RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT FOR THE CONTROL OF SLENDER FALSE BROME” B etween January 31, 2019 - January 31, 2020 Prepared by San Mateo Resource Conservation District 80 Stone Pine Road, Suite 100 Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 Prepared for Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District January 31, 2020 Attachment 1 Slender False Brome Program Annual Report | 2 INTRODUCTION Invasive perennial grass species, Brachypodium sylvaticum (slender false brome) has a limited, but growing range within California. This species, listed under the California Department of Food and Agriculture as a Class A weed, is found mostly in San Mateo County with small localities in Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, and Del Norte Counties. With the current limited range, there is an opportunity for regional control to prevent this weed’s spread. Making use of this opportunity, Midpen has partnered with the San Mateo Resource Conservation District (RCD) to organize invasive species control beyond Midpen preserves and into private and public lands. As part of this effort, Midpen and the RCD have also newly added Carex pendula (hanging sedge) to the program. This invasive sedge is found in scattered localities in the San Francisco Bay Area, but in San Mateo County it is only found along Skyline Boulevard and Purisima Creek. Through the RCD, this program ties together stewardship on private lands and brings a regional context to invasive species control. The Slender False Brome Program is approaching its 6th year with the RCD. Over 100 homeowners have participated within these 6 years. The RCD has collaborated with several partners such as San Mateo County Parks, Grassroots Ecology, UC Elkus Ranch, Santa Clara University, California Native Plant Society, homeowner and road associations of Woodside, local contractors, and other agencies to protect forest and riparian habitat through detection and control of B. sylvaticum and C. pendula. The following report outlines the work done within the 2019/20 season starting in January 2019 and ending in January 2020. Attachment 1 Slender False Brome Program Annual Report | 3 SUMMARY The 2019 season differs from previous program years in order to accommodate changes in program strategy and to include new additions to the program. Our objective remains to protect the natural diversity of Midpen preserves and the regional landscape by working with volunteer landowners to detect and control invasive species such as B. sylvaticum and C. pendula. However, with the conclusion made over the last few years that B. sylvaticum is no longer eradicable, the focus has moved from treatment within dense areas of B. sylvaticum to detection and control of outlying populations. We want to understand the full extent of B. sylvaticum to better strategize species control. In line with project changes, the RCD has chosen to minimize the 2019 treatment season in order to shift treatment in 2020 to April through June as per previous years suggestions. As C. pendula is a new species to the program, the RCD has concentrated efforts towards outreach to landowners with observed or potential infestations within the Purisima Creek watershed. The only observations of C. pendula within San Mateo County have been in the Purisima Creek watershed—within the creek itself and in private yards along Skyline Boulevard that drain into the watershed. The Purisima Creek watershed is mostly encompassed by Purisima Creek Open Space Preserve (OSP) owned by Midpen with private lands infilling the rest of the area. Private lands include a dense mountainous community known as Kings Mountain. The RCD has spent 2019 on outreach strategy and outreach to these landowners. PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS Communication is gradual as we reach into new focus areas. From the start of the project, the RCD already had established contact with a handful of landowners along Purisima creek, including University of California at Elkus Ranch. This educational ranch has been involved in the program since C. pendula was first added to the program. We’ve received response from several other landowners following inquiring letters sent in early January 2020. In all for 2019, the program has reached out to 57 potential participants and is in communication with 17 (Figure 1). The majority of the landowners we reached out to are from the Purisima Creek and Kings Mountain area. Participants for 2019 also include landowners from previous years who are interested in continued treatment of B. sylvaticum. These participants are from the Grandview/Espinosa area who were involved in treatment for early 2019. Neighborhood Number of Properties Purisima Creek 12 Grandview/Espinosa 12 Skyline Boulevard 3 Kings Mountain 30 West La Honda Road 1 Total 58 Table 1. Breakdown of 2019 outreach and participants (properties) by neighborhood. Attachment 1 Slender False Brome Program Annual Report | 4 SURVEYS B. sylvaticum The RCD conducted road side surveys on 05/10/2019 and 12/13/2019 along Native Sons Rd, Star Hill Rd, Swett Rd, Tunitas Creek Rd, Ware Rd, Henrilk Ibsen Rd, and County Rd. New populations of B. sylvaticum were found along Star Hill Rd, Swett Rd, Tunitas Creek Rd, and Ware Rd (Figure 2). These populations are just north of the known range of B. sylvaticum, at the top of the Purisima Creek watershed. The RCD also found a new northern population of B. sylvaticum within the Kings Mountain area, growing alongside C. pendula. This population was found as scattered individual plants below a row of mailboxes at the junction of Ware Road and Skyline Blvd. The RCD surveyed at El Palo Alto Park, Palo Alto with Grassroots Ecology who manages the native garden on March 25, 2019. This is a remnant population from planting back in the 2000’s. Despite control in the past few years, B. sylvaticum still persists within the California native plant garden, in adjacent landscaping, and near the historical El Palo Alto redwood tree. RCD staff provided technical assistance and support to Grassroots Ecology staff who hand pulled the population in June 2019. C. pendula From the roadside surveys conducted on 05/10/2019 and 12/13/2019, C. pendula was found to be established further north and is more integrated into the Kings Mountain Community than previously mapped. From the these surveys, C. pendula was found along Ware Rd, Henrilk Ibsen Rd, and County Rd where it grows along drainages and within yards in the forest community (Figure 3). These observations align with known downstream populations within Midpen preserves on both the North and South fork of Purisima Creek. The RCD verified that the observation of C. pendula along Tunitas Creek Rd on Calflora road was a false observation of Carex amplifolia (big leaf sedge) a native species that is similar to C. pendula in size and growth form. No further observations of C. pendula were made along Tunitas Creek Rd. The RCD also surveyed in the bottom portion of Purisima Creek on a 138-acre property adjacent to Purisima Creek Redwoods OSP. During this survey, 1,296 meters (0.8 miles) of creek contained sparse to dense patches of C. pendula. These observations were just over a mile east of the Purisima Creek mouth. TREATMENT OF TARGET SPECIES Following previous years recommendations, the RCD has changed the timing of treatment for B. sylvaticum. The treatment season for this program has moved from July through October to May through June to better match treatment with plant phenology. In the past, the bulk of treatment was towards the later season after seed set of B. sylvaticum. This year, treatment in Attachment 1 Slender False Brome Program Annual Report | 5 2019 was delayed in order to treat earlier in the 2020 season. This explains the low numbers in acres treated for 2019 compared to previous years. For 2019, properties with B. sylvaticum were treated between June 26 to June 28, 2019. A total of 7.7 acres of B. sylvaticum were removed across 21.4 acres on three properties. All 7.7 acres were manually pulled by contractors, due to the infestation’s proximity to Dennis Martin Creek. No properties in 2019 were treated with herbicide or mulch. At least one homeowner continues to remove slender false brome from their property. No reimbursement was requested from homeowners in 2019. Treatment of C. pendula is not planned until Spring 2020. Treatment will consist of a combination of volunteer groups and contractors. No homeowners have yet reported self- treating C. pendula. TRENDS IN GERMINATION B. sylvaticum No trends in germination after treatment can be made from this year’s activities. C. pendula No trends in germination after treatment can be made from this year’s activities. SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE REGION B. sylvaticum B. sylvaticum has a large array of seed vectors. For example, roadways, equipment, trails, waterways, steep slopes, people and animals are all ways these seeds further spread throughout the Santa Cruz Mountains. This provides ample opportunity for the plant to travel large distances and establish isolated populations. Targeting likely areas for infestation, the RCD has found or confirmed four new locations of B. sylvaticum. These populations are within Kings Mountain Area, along Tunitas Creek road, along Starhill Road, and in Sam MacDonald County Park. These observations suggest B. sylvaticum is now in Tunitas Creek watershed, Purisima Creek watersheds, and potentially in Alpine Creek. The farthest north observation of B. sylvaticum was near Ware Rd in the Kings Mountain area near Purisima Creek OSP and Phleger Estate (Golden Gate National Recreation Area property). This population was found during a roadside survey growing underneath a row of mailboxes. One observation was made on Calflora of B. sylvaticum in Sam MacDonald County Park near La Honda, CA by MROSD Staff. County Parks has been notified and plans to address this population. Attachment 1 Slender False Brome Program Annual Report | 6 Although this program covers San Mateo County, both species extend beyond program boundaries (Figure 4). As such, the RCD reached out to land managers in Santa Cruz County about the outlying populations of B. sylvaticum along Highway 17, China Grade, and Whitehouse Canyon Road. Correspondence continues with the hopes that the RCD will be able to provide technical assistance and will advocate for the landowners to manage the populations. C. pendula Within San Mateo County, C. pendula has not been found outside of the Purisima Creek watershed. However, the sedge is more widespread within the watershed than previously known. From 2019 surveys, C. pendula was found along Skyline Blvd between Comstock Road and County Road, just north of Kings Mountain Road. It’s common to see C. pendula in yards, along roads, and in drainages within the forested neighborhood. On the downstream end of Purisima Creek, C. pendula has been found just over a mile east of the creek mouth. C. pendula most likely extends even more west than current observations and could possibly reach the creek mouth. OUTREACH ACTIVITIES The majority of work for the 2019 season was concentrated on outreach activities to reach new participants. The following us a summary of outreach activities conducted by the RCD. • The RCD reached out to 57 new participants during 2019. This includes the new areas of Kings Mountain community (30 homes) and along Purisima Creek Road (12 homes) where there are known locations of C. pendula. The main method of outreach was through targeted written letters to landowners. Landowners were chosen based on proximity to Purisima Creek or identified through roadside surveys. The RCD intends to follow up with a second round of letters and postcards to landowners who do not reply. • The RCD developed an outreach strategy document to more effectively and strategically reach new audiences for the program. This document outlines target audiences and (Right) Table display at La Honda Fair on June 9, 2019 with informational material on B. sylvaticum. Attachment 1 Slender False Brome Program Annual Report | 7 avenues for reaching those audiences (Appendix A). • The RCD attended the La Honda Fair on June 9, 2019 to showcase B. sylvaticum. From the signup form provided, 6 people signed up to learn more or participate in the program. • The RCD attended Earth Day Fair at the College of San Mateo on March 18, 2019 in collaboration with the San Mateo WMA. The RCD provided information on local weeds, including B. sylvaticum through conversation and distribution of outreach materials. • Informational material on the Slender False Brome Program was available to attendees at the Gardens of the South Coast Tour in Pescadero, CA. Pescadero is a focus area for the RCD for B. sylvaticum given the town’s proximity to San Gregorio and Woodside. Given no evidence of B. sylvaticum within the watershed, the RCD’s outreach into Pescadero has been minimal. • The RCD has partnered with UC Elkus Ranch to host a volunteer day for C. pendula removal in Purisima Creek. While the initial plans of hosting volunteers in November did not happen, the RCD is coordinating with the educational ranch and Americorp for a volunteer day in March 2020. • In partnership with MROSD, the RCD presented on the Slender False Brome P rogram during the Santa Cruz Mountains Stewardship Network Invasive Workshop on April 11, 2019. The presentation went over basics of the program highlighting the programs involvement with private lands and partnerships with public lands. The presentation concluded with a call for the importance of early detection and rapid response programs. From this meeting, the RCD was able to connect with land managers within Santa Cruz County on detecting and controlling B. sylvaticum. • The RCD regularly attended WMA meetings to coordinate with other members on target species control and detection. • The RCD re-confirmed with Golden Gate National Recreation Area that both C. pendula and B. sylvaticum are on the EDRR list for Phleger Estate, just east of Purisima Creek OSP. To date, neither species have been found on the property, although there are occurrences of C. pendula nearby. • The RCD attended a site visit with County Parks (Sean Correa, Hannah Ormshaw) and MROSD (Tom Reyes) to Wunderlich County Park. The purpose of this site visit was to discuss past B. sylvaticum control projects by County Parks and future possibility for treatment. This walk was also to establish a baseline understanding of the spread of B. sylvaticum in Wunderlich since the last survey in 2016. From our conversations, County Parks is invested in undertaking treatment in 2019-2020, leaning more towards surveying in 2019 and Attachment 1 Slender False Brome Program Annual Report | 8 treating in 2020. They are not certain with the fluctuating IPM budget, that treatment can be done yearly, but B. sylvaticum is now on their priority list. RCD and MROSD provided information on identification, treatment, phenology, habitat and grant opportunities for B. sylvaticum control. SLENDER FALSE BROME RESEARCH IN PARTNERSHIP WITH SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY The field experiments for non-herbicide control of B. sylvaticum were concluded in 2019. All non-decomposable items were dismantled by Dr. Virginia Matzek in October of 2019 in coordination with the RCD and landowners. Following concerns about decomposing straw from the experiment, the RCD coordinated reimbursement with one homeowner for removal of the straw plots. This work was completed in November 2019. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES IN FUTURE YEARS Major changes have already been made to the program for 2019, some stemming from the RCD’s past recommendations. Since enacting these changes, there have been some lessons learned while conducting the program. The following are recommendations to the program by the RCD from those lessons learned. 1) Increase in EDRR detections on MROSD Preserves Following new observations of both B. sylvaticum and C. pendula, the RCD recommends follow up surveys on MROSD preserves within Purisima Creek and Tunitas Creek for target species. B. sylvaticum was observed at the head waters of the Tunitas and Purisima Creek Open Space Preserve. Therefore, there may be small populations present in both preserves. While C. pendula has not been found beyond the Purisima Creek watershed, the RCD has confirmed establishment throughout the entire creek. The RCD recommends surveys of the lower portion of Purisima Creek OSP to understand the severity of infestation in these parts of the preserve. 2) Multiple outreach strategies There is no one method for involving new homeowners. From 2019, we’ve found reaching out to new participants requires multiple methods of outreach from neighborhood involvement to mailing of outreach materials. The RCD recommends continuing to follow the guidelines set in the outreach strategy developed by the RCD for this program. This includes multiple venues of outreach (letters, fliers, one-on-one, banners etc.) and high community involvement. 3) Increase in presence and absence styled surveys During a bi-monthly check-in, MROSD staff suggested to the RCD to utilize presence and absence styled surveys. While the RCD has historically noted properties that concluded in no detection of target species (noted as All Clear in past reports), we will explore using the Survey Editor feature through Calflora as a way to track absence/presence of target species. 4) Data collection In previous years, the RCD has been hesitant to use Calflora as the primary mapping software for the program. The RCD provides non-regulatory and confidential service to landowners, thus we’ve had concerns with privacy settings on Calflora in the past. Attachment 1 Slender False Brome Program Annual Report | 9 Instead, staff has utilized ArcCollector for data collection needs. Due to the superiority in Calflora’s ability to collect and track data over time, and with a better understanding of the software’s privacy settings (unpublished or private observations), the RCD will conduct future surveys through Calflora under MROSD’s account. If given the capacity or opportunity, the RCD will also attempt to upload previous years surveys and treatment information to Calflora. 5) Coordination with other Bay Area Counties. Given that both species under the Slender False Brome Program exist beyond San Mateo County boundaries, the RCD suggests continued, and even increased communication and coordination with other Bay Area Counties. We especially recommend increasing coordination with Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties through the Santa Cruz Mountains Stewardship Network, a collaborative network through the RCD. REFERENCES “Brachypodium sylvaticum (Huds.) Beauv”, Observation Download. Calflora. https://www.calflora.org/entry/wsearch.html#search=t&taxon=Brachypodium+sylvaticum&win t=r&checklist=t&nats=w&sort=rslvd_taxon “Carex pendula (Huds.)”, Observation Download. Calflora. https://www.calflora.org/entry/wsearch.html#search=t&taxon=Carex+pendula&wint=r&checkli st=t&nats=w&sort=rslvd_taxon PRIMARY CONTACT Cleopatra Tuday Biologist cleopatra@sanmateorcd.org 650.712.7765 x 115 Attachment 1 Slender False Brome Program Annual Report | 10 PHOTOGRAPHS (Left) Large patch of C. pendula found along County Rd during roadside surveys. (Right) C. pendula detected one mile from mouth of Purisima Creek. (Left top) Slender false brome growing in El Palo Alto Park. Population was assumed planted back in 2004 and is under management by Grassroots Ecology. (Right top) Observations of B. sylvaticum along Tunitas Creek Road. (Left bottom) B. sylvaticum found along Native Sons Road. Attachment 1 Slender False Brome Program Annual Report | 11 ATTACHMENTS Figure 1. Locations of targeted outreach and participants in program for 2019. Attachment 1 Slender False Brome Program Annual Report | 12 Figure 2. New occurrences of B. sylvaticum from 2019 (light red) and current extent of B. sylvaticum within MROSD Sphere of Influence (dark red). Attachment 1 Slender False Brome Program Annual Report | 13 Figure 3. New occurrences of C. pendula from 2019 (light yellow) and current extent of C. pendula within MROSD Sphere of Influence (orange). Attachment 1 Slender False Brome Program Annual Report | 14 Figure 4. Map of target species locations within MROSD Sphere of Influence (San Mateo County). Attachment 1 Carex pendula and Brachypodium sylvaticum Control Outreach Strategy 1 Carex pendula and Brachypodium sylvaticum Control Outreach Strategy Updated 10/15/2019 Objectives The objectives of outreach are to: • Gain new participants for surveying and treatment of target species. • Increase public awareness of target species. • Increase coordination with agencies and special interest groups on target species control. Messages The following messages are key components of the program target audiences should know. This will be the basic messages for developing written material. • These invasive species threaten the health of our watershed (forests and creeks), decrease biodiversity, and/or increase the risk of flooding. • We provide free and confidential services for controlling target invasive species for homeowners. This includes surveys and potential treatment. • These species are early enough in their invasion (unlike French Broom, thistles and other invasive plants) that we can be effective in controlling their spread. • We must be strategic with how we spend limited resources. − We are focusing on the perimeter of invasion in San Mateo County to control their spread. − We are focusing on these two species because of the feasibility for controlling invasion into new areas. Target Audiences and Engagement Strategy There are multiple channels of outreach, which will change based on the target audience. This section outlines goals and strategies for each target audience (Table 1). Attachment 1 Carex pendula and Brachypodium sylvaticum Control Outreach Strategy 2 Table 1. Target Audiences and Engagement Strategy Audience Description Goals Strategies Impacted communities Communities that have been identified as having target invasive species in the watershed. Purisima Creek landowners (CAPE), Skyline Blvd (CAPE/SFB), Kings Mountain (CAPE), Sweet Road landowners (CAPE/SFB), Woodside (SFB), La Honda (SFB), Portola Valley (SFB), South Skyline (SFB), Tunitas Creek (SFB) Increase participation in survey and treatments. Send letters/flyers to homeowners Establish contact with homeowners through community networks Engage in 1:1 conversations Request emails from HOA/community groups Post to RCD Website and staff email Attend community meetings Post flyers at local businesses Install Banner (to be posted majorly trafficked areas) Attend and table at events Request MROSD post information on their website Community Leaders HOAs, road associations, active homeowners, small local water companies, PMAC, Sustainable Pescadero. Increase network for education and expand program participants Engage in 1:1 conversation (email, phone) Attend community meetings Post flyers at local businesses Agencies and Organizations GGNRA, MROSD, County Parks, State Parks, County Ag, CDFA, CalTrans, Town of Woodside, Town of La Honda, Santa Cruz RCD, Cal Water, County DPW, Sempervirens Fund, UC Elkus Ranch, local elementary schools Increase agency involvement both for control on public lands and agency support to increase program participants. Engage in 1:1 conversations Create task force Send targeted emails to agencies and organizations Request to post on their website newsletters and social media and include in newsletters Special Interest Groups WMA, , California Invasive Plant Council, private foresters (SFB), agriculture (CAPE), SCMSN, SGERCS Increase education and increase program participants, potential for expansion of volunteer lead control (volunteer days, workshops etc.). Post to RCD Website and website email Engage in 1:1 conversation Attend group meetings Request to post on their website newsletters and social media and include in newsletters Interested Public of San Mateo County General public, who are not included in target communities, but could have invasive species on their property or could contribute to control (i.e. volunteer for County Parks or MROSD). To provide information on program and target species, potentially to increase program participants. Prepare and distribute press release to La Honda Voice Article, Kings Mountain Echo, and other media. Post to RCD Website and website email Host event trail walk or workshop? Attend and table at events Post flyers at local businesses Funders People and organizations that might fund outreach and eradication. To diversify and increase funding. Engage in 1:1 conversation Apply to competitive grants Post to RCD website and website email Write and send letters of interest (LOI) Attachment 1 Carex pendula and Brachypodium sylvaticum Control Outreach Strategy 3 Engagement Strategy Details Elaborates on engagement strategies identified in the Target Audiences and Engagement Strategy. Send letters or flyers to homeowners • Create print items e.g. Letters, fliers, website content. These documents will be the basis for developing language for other outreach methods. • Create more than one print type (one with more information on program, one with more general outreach). Include both species on print material, e.g. fliers should have both species on each side. • Catchy gimmicks for small print fliers: (where in the world is Carex pendula?) (Sherlock false- bromes) Post on RCD Website and website email • Develop draft language for articles. • Work with Kellyx on appropriate media outlets and further develop language. Attend community meetings • Contact meeting hosts for more details • Attend any community meetings that may be relevant • Example community meetings: Kings Mountain Community meeting, Cuesta La Honda HOA, Town of woodside. • Present to meetings after a few attendances and if determined appropriate venue. Engage in one-on-one conversations • RCD will call or email individuals for interest in involvement and addressing any concerns about the project. Attend and table at events • RCD will attend events appropriate for invasive species control • Examples include: La Honda Fair, San Mateo County Fair, etc. Install roadside banner • Post banners in strategic locations to increase visibility of project to public. • Identify locations of high traffic and visibility. • Get landowner approval. • RCD Draft banner. • Finalize and print banner. • Install banner. • Take down banner after project year. Posts on other agency and organization websites, social media and newsletters. • MROSD: Work with staff to add information on SFB and CAPE to website. Utilize community network to engage more participants • Receive contacts through word of mouth or asking neighbors. Create of task force • Prepare agenda for task force meeting • Create task group consisting of RCD staff, MROSD, Public agencies, special districts, special interest groups, individuals, etc. • Group will meet periodically to coordinate on control. Attachment 1 Carex pendula and Brachypodium sylvaticum Control Outreach Strategy 4 • Host at least one meeting/workshop for task force. This event will allow staff to share data/info, coordinate treatment or survey. Work with Executive Director on further task force development. Considered members include WMA and all organizations listed in Agencies and Organizations. Request information emails from HOA/community groups to members • Get emails from HOA/ community groups (e.g. Grandview/Espinosa Roadside Association) • Integrate emails into mailing list. Establish mailing list • Have outlook or mail chimp for target species control to update stakeholders • Develop articles/blurbs on targets species for RCD general mail chimp • Update mailing list on a periodic basis (quarterly, biannual). Post flyers at local businesses • Post print material developed from letters/fliers Apply to available grants • Potential grants include Pulling Together Grant, CDFA Weed Management Grant. Host and attend volunteer events • Work with public lands to host volunteer events • Volunteer sources include: STEM Students, business volunteers, volunteers from fliers/mailing list, etc. Host workshop/event • Host an event for the public such as a trail walk or garden tour. • Include workshop component into task force meeting. Attachment 1 R-20-64 Meeting R-20-13 June 24, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 5 AGENDA ITEM Annual Review of Finance Policies for Fiscal Year 2021 GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Affirm Board Policies 3.08 - Statement of Investment, and 3.09 - Debt Management Policy. 2. Approve two minor amendments to Board Policy 3.06 – Initial and Continuing Disclosures Relating to Bond Issuances relating to reporting events of the Continuing Disclosure Policy. SUMMARY Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) staff completed its annual review of existing financial policies: Banking Relationship Management (3.01), Capital Expenditure and Depreciable Fixed Assets (3.05), Initial and Continuing Disclosures Relating to Bond Issuances (3.06), Fund Balance Policy (3.07), Statement of Investment (3.08), and Debt Management (3.09), with minor updates to 3.06. The General Manager recommends that the Board (1) affirm Board Policies 3.08 and 3.09 to confirm that these policies remain current, and (2) approve two amendments to Board Policy 3.06, Attachment B, relating to conform with recent updated Continuing Disclosure Policy regarding the reporting of two specific events. DISCUSSION Each year, the General Manager and Chief Financial Officer, together with the Controller reviews the District’s finance policies in preparation for an annual Board review and affirmation of the policies. The 2020 review began as part of the budget cycle this past spring and will continue into the coming months. At this time, the General Manager recommends the approval of minor amendments to the Continuing Disclosure Policy to reflect updated rules issued by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) and that the Board notes no further updates of other financial policies at this time. 3.01 Banking Relationship Policy No changes proposed. 3.02 General Accounting, Internal Control and Capital Assets Policy No changes proposed. 3.03 Public Contract Bidding No changes proposed. R-20-64 Page 2 3.04 Budget and Expenditure Authority Policy No changes proposed. 3.06 Initial and Continuing Disclosures Relating to Bond Issuances Two minor additions to Attachment B (Listed Events) have been added following a modification to the rules of the MSRB. These two events were outlined by the District’s Disclosure Counsel at the Annual Bond Disclosure Training on November 20, 2019 (R-19-159). The first event requires a filing on the MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) in case of events or changes to terms that reflect financial difficulty, and the second requires a filing on EMMA if the District’s Disclosure Working Group determines that certain events or changes to terms are material to security holders. The General Manager recommends that the Board approve these two amendments to Attachment B relating to the list of reportable events. 3.07 Fund Balance Policy No changes proposed. 3.08 Statement of Investment No changes proposed. The Board is requested to affirm the current policy. 3.09 Debt Management Policy No changes proposed. The Board is requested to affirm the current policy. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW This item was not reviewed by any Committee. FISCAL IMPACT No new fiscal impact. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE This proposed action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and no environmental review is required. NEXT STEPS Upon approval by the Board, the new policies will enter into force. Staff will perform another annual review during FY2020-21. Attachments: 1. Initial and Continuing Disclosures for Bond Issuances Policy 3.06 Responsible Department Manager: Stefan Jaskulak, Chief Financial Officer Prepared by: Andrew Taylor, Finance Manager and Disclosure Coordinator Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board Policy Manual Initial and Continuing Disclosures Relating to Bond Issuances Policy 3.06 Chapter 3 – Fiscal Management Effective Date: 04/01/2015 Revised Date: 03/22/201706/24/2020 Prior Versions: 04/01/2015, 03/22/17 Attachments: A – List of Disclosure Documents, to be Amended as Necessary B – Listed Events C –Template of Information to be included in the Staff Report Transmitting Official Statement by General Manager to Board of Directors Board Policy 3.06 Page 1 of 7 Purpose Whenever the District makes statements or releases information relating to its finances to the public that are reasonably expected to reach investors and the trading markets (including, without limitation, all Listed Event Notices, statements in the audited Financial Statements, and other financial reports and statements of the District), the District is obligated to ensure that such statements and information are complete, true, and accurate in all material respects. The disclosure policies and procedures contained herein (the “Disclosure Procedures”) of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (the “District”) are intended to ensure that the District’s disclosure documents (the “Disclosure Documents”), as listed on Attachment A to these Disclosure Procedures, are complete, true, and accurate in all material respects, and in compliance with applicable federal and state securities laws. Policy Article I: Key Participants and Responsibilities Section 1.01. Disclosure Working Group. (A) Composition. By adoption of these Disclosure Procedures, the District hereby establishes a disclosure working group (the “Disclosure Working Group”). The members of the Disclosure Working Group shall be the following: i. General Manager; ii. Chief Financial Officer iii. Controller; and iv. General Counsel. (B) Responsibilities. The Disclosure Working Group shall consult with the Financing Group (as defined in Section 1.03) and other interested parties as necessary or helpful. The Disclosure Working Group shall meet as often as necessary to fulfill its obligations, but not less than once per calendar year. Members of the Disclosure Working Group may participate in meetings by telephone. ATTACHMENT 1 Board Policy 3.06 Page 2 of 7 The Disclosure Working Group is responsible for: i. Reviewing and approving all preliminary and final official statements, private placement memoranda and remarketing memoranda relating to the District’s securities, together with any supplements, for which a continuing disclosure undertaking is required (each, an “Official Statement”) as further described in Article II, before such documents are released to the public; ii. Reviewing and approving the District’s Financial Statements (as defined and further described in Section 3.02 below); iii. Reviewing and approving any other Disclosure Documents before such documents are released; iv. Reviewing annually the District’s status and compliance with continuing disclosure undertakings including filings of Disclosure Documents and compliance with these Disclosure Procedures and the annual financial report as described in Article III below; v. Reviewing any other items referred to the Disclosure Working Group; and vi. Evaluating the effectiveness of these Disclosure Procedures and approving changes to these Disclosure Procedures as further described in Section 5.04 of this Policy. (C) Determination of Disclosure Document Status. Whether or not a particular document or other communication is a Disclosure Document shall be determined by the Disclosure Working Group. At its initial meeting, the Disclosure Working Group shall establish a list of the District’s recurring Disclosure Documents, which list shall be added to Attachment A to these Disclosure Procedures to the extent such documents are not already contained therein. The Disclosure Working Group shall update Attachment A to these Disclosure Procedures when appropriate. (D) Review and Approval. Following receipt of a Disclosure Document from the disclosure coordinator (the “Disclosure Coordinator”), the Disclosure Working Group shall review the Disclosure Document for accuracy and compliance with federal and state securities laws, direct questions tof the Disclosure Coordinator, and approve a substantially final form of the Disclosure Document, which approval may be evidenced by an email transmitted to the Disclosure Coordinator by the General Manager or his/her designee and a copy of which email shall be printed and maintained in the Deal File described in Section 5.01, or by such other written evidence. The Disclosure Coordinator shall consult with the District’s disclosure counsel to the extent the Disclosure Coordinator considers appropriate to perform his or her responsibilities. Section 1.02. Disclosure Coordinator. (A) Appointment. The Finance Manager is appointed as the Disclosure Coordinator. If the position of Finance Manager is vacant, the Chief Financial Officer, in consultation with the other members of the Disclosure Working Group, shall select and appoint the Disclosure Coordinator. (B) Responsibilities. The Disclosure Coordinator shall be responsible for: ATTACHMENT 1 Board Policy 3.06 Page 3 of 7 i. Serving as a “point person” for personnel to communicate issues or information that should be or may need to be included in any Disclosure Document, identifying District personnel that will assist in preparing and reviewing the Disclosure Documents (the “Contributors”); ii. Reviewing annually all continuing disclosure undertakings, preparing a checklist of updated information to be provided; iii. Recommending changes to these Disclosure Procedures to the Disclosure Working Group as deemed necessary or appropriate; iv. Communicating with third parties, including coordination with outside consultants assisting the District in preparing and disseminating Disclosure Documents to make sure that assigned tasks are completed timely, and that the filings are accurate and made timely; v. Soliciting “material” information (as defined for purposes of federal securities law) from District departments to prepare Disclosure Documents; vi. Monitoring compliance by the District with these Disclosure Procedures, including timely dissemination of the Annual Report and Listed Event filings, and maintaining records documenting the District’s compliance with these Disclosure Procedures; vii. Determining when Disclosure Documents are final and ready for review by the Disclosure Working Group to the extent required by these Disclosure Procedures; and viii. Identifying District personnel that should receive disclosure training, and ensuring compliance with training procedures described in Section 1.02(C). The Disclosure Coordinator is authorized to file or cause to be filed the following documents with the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the “MSRB”), without prior review and approval of the Disclosure Working Group, but only after prior review and approval from the Chief Financial Officer: those Disclosure Documents that (i) the District is contractually obligated to file with the MSRB pursuant to written undertakings as a result of the occurrence of a Listed Event (as defined in Attachment B), or (ii) as a result of the failure to timely file the required annual financial report. (C) Training. The Disclosure Coordinator shall arrange for annual disclosure training conducted by the District’s disclosure counsel with the assistance of the General Counsel, for the Board of Directors members, the Disclosure Working Group, and Contributors. Such training sessions shall include education on these Disclosure Procedures, the District’s disclosure obligations under applicable federal and state securities laws, and the disclosure responsibilities and potential liabilities of members of District staff and members of the Board of Directors. Such training sessions may be conducted using a recorded presentation. Each member of the Board of Directors, and new members of the Finance Department shall be required to participate in disclosure training as part of his or her new member orientation. Section 1.03. Financing Group. ATTACHMENT 1 Board Policy 3.06 Page 4 of 7 General. The General Manager or his/her designee shall identify a Financing Group (the “Financing Group”) for each financing (the composition of which may differ for each financing), which shall include, at a minimum, the following individuals: i. Disclosure Working Group; ii. Disclosure Coordinator; iii. The District’s bond counsel and disclosure counsel; iv. The District’s financial advisor (if any); v. The District’s underwriter, placement agent, remarketing agent (as applicable); vi. The District’s dissemination agent (if any); vii. Such other such District staff as the General Manger or his/her designee determines to be appropriate; and viii. Such other consultants retained by the District as the General Manager or his/her designee determines to be appropriate. It is the District’s policy to establish continuing working relationships with professional advisors with expertise in the area of public finance and federal securities laws applicable to the issuance of securities by the District. Article II: Review and Approval of Official Statements Section 2.01. Responsibilities of Financing Group. The Financing Group shall prepare the Official Statement and confirm that the Official Statement: (a) has been reviewed and accurately states all information relating to the District, (b) confirm that any information in the Official Statement other than the information described in the previous clause (a) will be addressed by a closing certificate or opinion by an appropriate person, (c) contains a description of any failures of the District during the last five yars to comply with its continuing disclosure undertakings; and (d) is in substantially final form and is in a form ready to be “substantially final” by the Board of Directors, as evidenced by a Certificate executed and delivered by a member of the Financing Group pursuant to Rule 15c2-12, promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Financing Group shall have at least one all-hands meeting or conference call to review the Official Statement. Section 2.02. Responsibilities of General Counsel. The General Counsel (or a designee) shall review the Official Statement and shall draft for the Official Statement descriptions of (i) any material current, pending or threatened litigation, (ii) any material settlements or court orders and (iii) any other legal issues that are material information for purposes of the Official Statement. Section 2.03. Responsibilities of Controller and Chief Financial Officer. The Controller and Chief Financial Officer shall review the Official Statement, identify any material difference in presentation of financial information from the Financial Statements and ensure there are no misstatements or ATTACHMENT 1 Board Policy 3.06 Page 5 of 7 omissions of material information in any sections that contain descriptions of information prepared by the Controller and/or Chief Financial Officer or other Contributors or of relevance to the finances of the District. In addition, the Controller and/or Chief Financial Officer shall determine whether the District’s then-available Financial Statements are appropriate to be included in the Official Statement and whether to seek the consent of the District’s auditor to include the Financial Statements in the Official Statement. Section 2.04. Review by Disclosure Working Group. Following receipt of the Official Statement from the Financing Group, the Disclosure Working Group shall evaluate the Official Statement for accuracy and compliance with federal and state securities laws, and shall, have an opportunity to ask questions of the Financing Group and of any Contributor or other person who reviewed or drafted any section of the Official Statement. The Disclosure Working Group may direct or request revisions and/or may instruct the Financing Group to solicit contributions from additional Contributors, as they deem necessary or appropriate. Section 2.05. Approval by Disclosure Working Group. Approval of the Official Statement by the Disclosure Working Group shall be evidenced by delivery of the Official Statement to the General Manager for docketing for a meeting of the Board of Directors as provided in Section 2.07. Section 2.06. Submission of Official Statements to Board of Directors for Approval. As part of the docketing process, the General Manager shall submit all Preliminary Official Statements to the Board of Directors for approval using a staff report that includes the information in the template attached as Attachment C to these Disclosure Procedures. The approval of an Official Statement by the Board of Directors shall be docketed as a new business matter and shall not be approved as a consent item. The Board of Directors shall undertake such review as deemed necessary, following consultation with the Controller, to fulfill the responsibilities of the Board of Directors under applicable federal and state securities laws. In this regard, the Controller shall consult with the District’s disclosure counsel to the extent necessary. Article III: Continuing Disclosure Filings Section 3.01. Overview. Under the continuing disclosure undertakings the District has entered into in connection with its debt offerings, the District is required each year to file Annual Reports with the Electronic Municipal Market Access (“EMMA”) system maintained by the MSRB in accordance with such undertakings. Such Annual Reports are required to include certain updated financial and operating information, and the District’s audited financial statements. The District is also required under its continuing disclosure undertakings to file notices of certain events (as summarized in Attachment B to these Disclosure Prodcedures) with EMMA. Section 3.02. Financial Statements. The Chief Financial Officer shall submit the District’s audited financial statements (“Financial Statements”), as they are available, to the Disclosure Working Group. The Disclosure Working Group shall review the audited Financial Statements according to these Disclosure Procedures and, when reviewed and approved for disclosure, shall transmit the audited Financial Statements to the Board of Directors. ATTACHMENT 1 Board Policy 3.06 Page 6 of 7 If the District does not have audited Financial Statements available in time to file the Annual Report, the Chief Financial Officer shall submit the District’s unaudited financial statements as provided in each specific continuing disclosure undertaking. Section 3.03. Annual Reports. The Disclosure Coordinator shall ensure that the preparation of the District’s Annual Report shall commence in enough time so that they are filed no later than 210 days following the end of the fiscal year of the District, or as otherwise required under each specific continuing disclosure undertaking. Before any Annual Report is submitted to EMMA, the Disclosure Coordinator shall review outstanding continuing disclosure undertakings, prepare a checklist of information to be updated, supervise the preparation of the Annual Report, and confer with the Disclosure Working Group as needed regarding the content and accuracy of any such report. Section 3.04. Disclosure of Listed Events. Pursuant to Rule 15c2-12(b)(5)(i)(C), the District is obligated to disclose to the MSRB notice of certain specified events with respect to the District’s securities (a “Listed Event”). Each member of the Disclosure Working Group shall notify the other members of the Disclosure Working Group if he or she becomes aware of the occurrence of any of the Listed Events listed in the District’s continuing disclosure undertakings. The Disclosure Working Group may meet to discuss the event and to determine, in consultation with disclosure counsel to the extent determined by the Disclosure Coordinator, whether a filing is required or is otherwise desirable. If such a filing is deemed necessary, the Disclosure Coordinator shall cause a notice of the Listed Event (a “Listed Event Notice”) that complies with Rule 15c2-12 to be prepared, and the Disclosure Coordinator shall file or cause to be filed the Listed Event Notice as required by Rule 15c2-12. Article IV: Public Statements Regarding Financial Information Section 4.01. Financial Information. Whenever the District makes statements or releases information relating to its finances to the public that are reasonably expected to reach investors and the trading markets (including, without limitation, all Listed Event Notices, statements in the audited Financial Statements, and other financial reports and statements of the District), the District is obligated to ensure that such statements and information are complete, true, and accurate in all material respects. The Chief Financial Officer shall have primary responsibility for ensuring that such financial statements and information are accurate and not misleading in any material respect. Article V: Miscellaneous Section 5.01. Documents to be Retained. The Disclosure Coordinator, working with the District Clerk as needed, shall be responsible for retaining records demonstrating compliance with these Disclosure Procedures. The Disclosure Coordinator shall retain an electronic or paper file (“Deal File”) for each Annual Report and notice of Listed Events filed or caused to be filed by the District. Each Deal File shall include final versions of Disclosure Documents, the transcript of proceedings prepared in connection with the issuance of financial instruments. The Deal File shall be maintained in a central depository for a period equal to the later of the date of maturity or defeasance of the securities referenced in the Disclosure Document. Section 5.02. Waivers. In addition to the General Manager’s authority to adopt an Administrative Procedure to make this Board Policy more specific, any provision of this Board Policy or any related administrative procedure may be waived at any time by the General Manager, with the written confirmation to the members of the Disclosure Working Group. This authority to waive a provision of this policy is triggered only if such waiver is necessary for timely and effective compliance with disclosure laws. Any waivers made under this provision shall be reported to the Board of Directors, with ATTACHMENT 1 Board Policy 3.06 Page 7 of 7 conforming revisions recommended for the Board’s consideration at the next update of this Board Policy and no later than within three months of implementation of such waiver. ATTACHMENT 1 Board Policy 3.06(a) Board Policy 3.06 ATTACHMENT A LIST OF DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS, TO BE AMENDED AS NECESSARY 1. Preliminary and final official statements, private placement memoranda and remarketing memoranda relating to the District’s securities, together with any supplements. 2. Financial Statements. 3. Filings made by the District with the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, whether made pursuant to a continuing disclosure undertaking to which the District is a party or otherwise. 4. Press releases and other information distributed by or on behalf of the District for public dissemination to the extent that such releases are reasonably expected, in the determination of the Disclosure Working Group, to reach investors and the trading markets for municipal securities. 5. Rating agency presentations. 6. Postings on the investor information section of the District’s website, if any. 7. Such portions of the District’s published adopted annual budget as the Disclosure Working Group determines to be appropriate. 8. Any other communications that are reasonably expected, in the determination of the Disclosure Working Group, to reach investors and the trading markets for municipal securities. Amendments: [Date] ATTACHMENT 1 Board Policy 3.06(b) Board Policy 3.06 ATTACHMENT B LISTED EVENTS Occurrence of any of the following events require the District to make a filing on EMMA within ten (10) business days of their occurrence: 1. principal and interest payment delinquencies 2. unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulty 3. unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulty 4. substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform 5. adverse tax opinions, the issuance by the Internal Revenue Service of proposed or final determinations of taxability, Notices of Proposed Issue (IRS Form 5701-TEB) or other events affecting the tax-exempt status of the security 6. tender offers 7. defeasances 8. rating changes 9. bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or similar event of the Oobligated pPerson 10. default, event of acceleration, termination event, modification of terms, or other similar events under the terms of a Financial Obligation of the Obligated Person, any of which reflect financial difficulties. “Obligated Person” means any person, including the District, who is either generally or through an enterprise, fund, or account of such person committed by contract or other arrangement to support payment of all, or part of the securities of the District (other than providers of municipal bond insurance, letters of credit, or other liquidity facilities). “Financial Obligation” means a debt obligation; derivative instrument entered into in connection with, or pledged as security or a source of payment for, an existing or planned debt obligation; or a guarantee of a debt obligation or derivative instrument entered into in connection with, or pledged as security or a source of payment for, an existing or planned debt obligation. The term “Financial Obligation” excludes municipal securities for which a final offering memorandum has been provided to the MSRB consistent with Rule 15c2-12. The occurrence if any of the following events require the District to file a notice on EMMA within ten (10 days after their occurrence, if they are determined to be material by the Disclosure Working Group: 1. non-payment related defaults 2. modifications to the rights of security holders 3. bond calls ATTACHMENT 1 Board Policy 3.06(b) Board Policy 3.06 4. release, substitution or sale of property securing repayments of the securities 5. the consummation of a merger, consolidation, or acquisition involving an oObligated pPerson or the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the oObligated pPerson, other than in the ordinary course of business, the entry into a definitive agreement to undertake such an action or the termination of a definitive agreement relating to any such actions, other than pursuant to its terms 6. appointment of a successor or additional trustee or the change of name of a trustee 7. incurrence of a Financial Obligation of the Obligated Person, if material, or agreement to covenants, events of default, remedies, priority rights, or other similar terms of a Financial Obligation of the Obligated Person, any of which affect security holders ATTACHMENT 1 Board Policy 3.06(d) Board Policy 3.06 ATTACHMENT C Information to be Included in the Staff Report Transmitting Official Statement by General Manager to Board of Directors Transmittal staff report shall include, but is not limited to, the following information: The attached Preliminary Official Statement has been reviewed and approved for transmittal to the Board by the District’s Disclosure Working Group. The distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement by the District is subject to federal securities laws, including the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These laws require the Preliminary Official Statement to include all facts that would be material to an investor in the Obligations. Material information is information that there is a substantial likelihood would have actual significance in the deliberations of the reasonable investor when deciding whether to buy or sell the Obligations. If the Board of Directors concludes that the Preliminary Official Statement includes all facts that would be material to an investor in the Obligations, it must adopt a resolution that authorizes staff to execute a certificate to the effect that the Preliminary Official Statement has been “deemed final.” The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), the agency with regulatory authority over the District’s compliance with the federal securities laws, has issued guidance as to the duties of the elected body with respect to its approval of the Preliminary Official Statement. In its “Report of Investigation in the Matter of County of Orange, California as it Relates to the Conduct of the Members of the Board of Supervisors” (Release No. 36761 / January 24, 1996) (the “Release”), the SEC stated that, if a member of the elected body has knowledge of any facts or circumstances that an investor would want to know about prior to investing in the Obligations, whether relating to their repayment, tax-exempt status, undisclosed conflicts of interest with interested parties, or otherwise, he or she should endeavor to discover whether such facts are adequately disclosed in the Preliminary Official Statement. In the Release, the SEC stated that the steps that a member of the elected body take include becoming familiar with the Preliminary Official Statement and questioning staff and consultants about the disclosure of such facts. Section 1. Purpose of Financing. Section 2. Documents for Approval; Security for the Obligations. Section 3. Risks Relating to Repayment and Tax-Exempt Status of the Obligations. Section 4. Requested Approvals. ATTACHMENT 1 R-20-65 Meeting 20-13 June 26, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 6 AGENDA ITEM Authorization to contribute a $1.5 Million payment of the Fiscal Year 2019-20 budget savings to the Section 115 Trust administered by Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Authorize the General Manager to deposit $1.5 Million into the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s PARS account established under a Section 115 Trust to pre-fund pension obligations. SUMMARY Towards the end of a fiscal year, staff evaluates and projects savings of salaries and benefits, comparing the adopted budget amounts with the actual anticipated expenditures to determine a prudent amount that can be transferred to reduce the unfunded pension liability. To close out Fiscal Year 2019-20 (FY20), the General Manager recommends a transfer of $1.5 million into the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (District) Section 115 Trust held with PARS. To mitigate the future effects of increases to pension costs due to volatile investment returns and/or changes in actuarial parameters, it is preferable for the District to pursue a strategy of paying down its unfunded liability. The District Controller agrees with the proposed transfer. DISCUSSION The Board approved a $3 million prepayment to CalPERS in June 2016 and $1 million in June 2017 to reduce the District’s unfunded pension liability. In 2018, the Board approved the establishment of a Section 115 Trust administered by PARS with an initial funding of $500,000 and an additional $2 million was approved in June 2019. The District received its most recent CalPERS Annual Valuation Report in July 2019 (valuation date of June 30, 2018). As of June 2018, the District’s CalPERS account had market assets of $69.1 million, with an unfunded liability of $12.6 Million, or a funded ratio of 81.7%, down slightly from the prior year’s ratio of 83.3%. The District’s funding ratio increased to 85.36% when including the $2.5 million in the Section 115 Trust administered by PARS, and would increase to 87.53% with the proposed $1.5 million additional funding of the 115 Trust (see table on following page). This compares favorably to the overall CalPERS funded ratio of 71% as of June 30, 2018. CalPERS investment returns have varied over the last three fiscal years: FY2017 11.2% FY2018 8.6% FY2019 6.7% R-20-65 Page 2 CalPERS will report initial FY2020 returns in July, however with the financial market impact of COVID-19, the expectation is for returns to further decline. As of May 5, 2020 CalPERS reported a portfolio market value of $372.9 billion as compared to $372.6 billion at June 30, 2019. Pressure on CalPERS funding may further increase if the economic effects of the COVID-19 become more long-term in nature. In line with the de-risking policy implemented by CalPERS as adopted in 2016, the discount rate has been lowered according to the following schedule: FY2017-18 7.375% FY2018-19 7.25% FY2019-20 7.00% The latest CalPERS Valuation Report for the District is dated June 30, 2018 and the June 30, 2019 report will not be available until sometime this summer. The evolution of the District’s funded ratio as shown below is dynamic and should be viewed with the caveat that the market value of plan assets is driven by market returns (gains/losses) and the accrued liability is a function of changes to actuarial assumptions and the discount rate. Market Value of Plan Assets Accrued Liability Funded Ratio CalPERS Valuation June 30, 2018 56,520,646 69,142,343 81.74% Pre-funding Contributions FY18 and FY19 2,500,000 59,020,646 69,142,343 85.36% Pre-funding Contribution FY2020 1,500,000 June 30, 2020 60,520,646 69,142,343 87.53% BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW This item was not previously reviewed by any Committee. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed contribution will be a payment towards reducing the District’s unfunded pension liability. This contribution is offset by projected savings in salaries and benefits as budgeted in FY2019-20. The added benefit of the contributions to PARS is that the District can transfer these funds to CalPERS at any point in time and could be used to pay the District’s ongoing pension obligations if there was a severe economic downturn or deterioration in the District’s finances, and is especially prudent in light of the potential impacts from COVID-19. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided pursuant to the Brown Act. No additional notice is required. R-20-65 Page 3 CEQA COMPLIANCE The recommended action is not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. NEXT STEPS Upon approval, the General Manager with authorize the transfer of $1.5 Million to the Section 115 Trust prior to the end of the Fiscal Year. Responsible Department Manager: Stefan Jaskulak, Chief Financial Officer Prepared by: Andrew Taylor, Finance Manager and Disclosure Coordinator R-20-68 Meeting 20-13 June 24, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 7 AGENDA ITEM Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget and Capital Improvement and Action Plan GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt a Resolution approving the Fiscal Year 2020-21 (FY21) Budget and Capital Improvement and Action Plan. 2. Adopt a Resolution approving the Classification and Compensation Plan for Fiscal Year 2020-21. SUMMARY The Proposed FY21 budget of $69.3 million is essentially flat at 0% growth (approximately $200,000) compared to the adopted FY20 budget ($69 million) - excluding large one-time expenditures in the General Fund Capital (Fund 40). With the large one-time expenditures, the FY21 budget totals $81.2 million, which is a 9% increase over the FY20 adopted budget. This year-over-year change is largely due to a 26% increase in Measure AA expenditures and 50% increase in General Fund Capital. At this time, the General Manger is not requesting new positions for FY21 given the economic uncertainty arising from the global COVID-19 pandemic and State and County issued shelter-in-place orders. DISCUSSION Annual Budget The proposed Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) FY21 budget is balanced, with estimated revenue and other funding sources totaling $82.1 million. Property tax receipts make up most of the District’s annual revenue (73%); additional funding sources include bond reimbursements (20%), other income (5%) and grants (2%). Annual property taxes are estimated at $59.7 million for FY21. Estimated property tax revenues are up $2.2 million when compared to the current fiscal year amended ($57.5 million in FY20), yet reduced from original projections for FY21 (reduced by $2 million) per the Controller (R-20- 60). The reduced projected tax revenues are due to reductions in real estate transactions that generate supplemental taxes and the expectation of slower collections resulting from the State Governor’s executive order waiving penalties and fees for late payments. These impacts to revenue sources are attributed to COVID-19. The Assessed Value roll for the FY21 property taxes was established on January 1, 2020 and therefore does not affect property tax assessments for FY21. When compared to the current fiscal year, total revenues of $65.2 million are about R-20-68 Page 2 $1.2 million less than FY20 ($66.4 million amended in FY20). Although property taxes are projected to have modest growth ($2.2 million) in FY21, other revenue sources, including interest, grants, and rental income for 5050 El Camino, are all projected to decrease ($3.4 million total for all other revenue sources). The following Fund Balance transfers are proposed for FY21: $300,000 from the General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance to the Committed for Promissory Note Fund, all current and future rental income from 5050 El Camino Real, Los Altos, CA and 240 Cristich Avenue, Campbell, CA from the General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance to the Committed for Infrastructure Fund, until commencement of construction/remodel activities, $4,200,000 from the General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance to Committed for Future Acquisitions & Capital Projects, and $500,000 from the General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance to Committed for Capital Maintenance. Expenditures proposed in the FY21 budget total $81.2 million. Capital expenditures account for 35% of the budget, with salaries and benefits making up 31%, annual debt service at 20%, services and supplies at 14%, and Hawthorns fund expenditures at less than one percent. Attachment 1 includes the Resolution approving the FY21 Budget and Capital Improvement and Action Plan; see Exhibit A for the FY21 Budget book. For additional details, please see the June 10, 2020 Board report Budget and Action Plan Review (R-20-12). Capital Improvement and Action Plan On December 2, 2019, the Board of Directors (Board) held its annual retreat to review the environmental scan prepared by staff and to adjust the District’s Strategic Goals for FY21. Following the adjustment of the Strategic Goals, the Board held a second retreat on March 3, 2020 to establish the priorities for the following fiscal year for inclusion into the FY21 Budget and Action Plan. The priorities established by the Board for FY21 fall within the following four programs: 1. Land Acquisition and Preservation – coastal/agricultural and watershed land protection 2. Natural Resource Protection and Restoration – wildlife crossing, climate resiliency, and habitat restoration 3. Public Access, Education and Outreach – new and enhanced access opportunities and regional trail connections 4. Assets and Organizational Support – operational efficiencies to better deliver on the mission The proposed FY21 Capital Improvement and Action Plan (CIAP) reflects Board priorities as confirmed at the March 3, 2020 Board Priority Setting Retreat and is comprised of 74 Capital Projects and 27 Operating Projects. Classification & Compensation Plan The proposed FY21 budget includes a 3% salary adjustment for all classifications. This increase conforms with Section 7.1.3 of the Memorandum of Understanding between the District and the Field Employee’s Association and is proposed for all District classifications. The updated Classification and Compensation Plan and resolution to approve the change is attached to this report as Attachment 2. R-20-68 Page 3 FISCAL IMPACT Final Board adoption of the Proposed FY21 District Budget and Action Plan would authorize spending of $52,630,153 from the General Fund (funds 10 and 40), $110,200 from the Hawthorn Fund (fund 20), $11,868,588 from the Measure AA Fund (fund 30), and $16,640,925 from Debt Service (fund 50) to accomplish the District’s work plan for the next fiscal year. The proposed FY21 Budget and CIAP has been reviewed by the Controller and inputted into the 30-year fiscal model. The Controller confirmed that the proposed budget is within the parameters and expectations of the 30-year fiscal model. The table below provides an overview for FY21 budgeted revenues and expenditures, including the General Fund (funds 10 and 40), the Hawthorn Fund (fund 20), capital expenditures that are reimbursable from bond proceeds (fund 30), and debt service (fund 50). FY21 Change in Fund Balance Fund 10 Fund 20 Fund 30 Fund 40 Fund 50 Total General Fund Hawthorns Measure AA Capital General Fund Capital Debt Service Revenue Property Tax Revenues $53,487,274 $6,200,000 $59,687,274 Grants Awarded 293,500 1,621,509 1,915,009 Interest Income 894,260 13,500 441,475 41,040 1,360,275 Rental Income 1,329,450 1,329,450 Rental Income - 5050 El Camino Real 400,000 400,000 Rancho San Antonio Agreement 386,761 386,761 Miscellaneous 100,000 100,000 Total Revenues 56,891,245 13,500 2,032,984 0 6,241,040 65,178,769 Other Funding Sources Bond Reimbursements 10,247,079 6,415,212 16,662,291 Hawthorns Funds 96,700 96,700 Assigned Fund Balance Transfers 0 Committed for Infrastructure Transfer (400,000) 5,546,271 5,146,271 Committed for future acquisitions & capital projects (4,200,000) (4,200,000) Committed for capital maintenance (500,000) (500,000) Committed for promissory note (300,000) (300,000) General Fund Transfers (14,573,920) 3,894,845 10,679,075 0 Total Other Funding Sources (19,973,920) 96,700 10,247,079 15,856,328 10,679,075 16,905,262 Grand Total: Revenues & Other Funding Sources 36,917,325 110,200 12,280,063 15,856,328 16,920,115 82,084,031 Expenses Operating 35,032,860 62,200 35,095,060 Labor Reimbursement (669,235) (669,235) Capital & Projects 2,410,200 48,000 11,868,588 15,856,328 30,183,116 Debt Service (General Fund Debt) 10,679,075 10,679,075 Debt Service (Measure AA Debt) 5,961,850 5,961,850 Total Expenses $36,773,825 $110,200 $11,868,588 $15,856,328 $16,640,925 $81,249,866 Change in Fund Balance $143,500 $0 $441,475 $0 $279,190 $834,165 R-20-68 Page 4 BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW The District’s Action Plan and Budget Committee held meetings on May 14 and May 19, 2020. The Committee voted to forward the proposed FY21 Budget and Action Plan to the full Board for review and approval. On June 10, 2020, a public hearing was held for the Proposed Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget and Action Plan in preparation for adoption at the June 24, 2020 regular Board meeting. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required. CEQA COMPLIANCE This proposed action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and no environmental review is required. NEXT STEPS The FY21 Budget would be in effect beginning July 1, 2020. Projects included in the FY21 Capital Improvement and Action Plan would be implemented according to the scope outlined in the Budget Book. Attachments: 1. Resolution Approving the FY21 Budget and Action Plan a. Exhibit A: FY21 Budget and Action Plan 2. Resolution Approving the Position Classification and Compensation Plan for Fiscal Year 2020-21 a. Exhibit A: Classification and Compensation Plan Responsible Department Manager: Stefan Jaskulak, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Administrative Services Contact person: Stefan Jaskulak, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Administrative Services Prepared by: Elissa Martinez, Management Analyst II Lupe Hernandez, Management Analyst I Resolutions/2020/20-__FY21Budget 1 RESOLUTION NO. 20-___ RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2021 AND THE THREE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND ACTION PLAN 2021- 2023 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District desires to establish a Budget for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2021 (Exhibit A); and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District desires to establish a Three-Year Capital Improvement and Action Plan, which addresses the following program areas: Land Acquisition and Preservation; Natural Resources Protection and Restoration; Public Access, Education, and Outreach; and Assets and Organizational Support (Exhibit A – Section III). NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does resolve as follows: SECTION ONE. Adopt the budget for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2021 (FY21), a complete copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, summarized as follows: DISTRICT BUDGET BY FUND FY21 PROPOSED BUDGET Fund 10 – General Fund Operating $36,773,825 Fund 20 – Hawthorns $110,200 Fund 30 – MAA Capital $11,868,588 Fund 40 – General Fund Capital $15,856,328 Fund 50 – Debt Service $16,640,925 TOTAL $81,249,866 SECTION TWO. Adopt the proposed Three-Year Capital Improvement and Action Plan 2021-2023. SECTION THREE. The projects scheduled for implementation for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2021 shall be included in the Capital and Operating Budget of the District’s Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2020-21. SECTION FOUR. The following transfers are approved and the General Manager or designee is authorized to implement said transfers during the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2021: $300,000 from the General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance to the Committed for Promissory Note Fund, all current and future rental income from 5050 El Camino Real, Los Altos, CA and 240 Cristich Avenue, Campbell, CA from the General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance to the Committed for Infrastructure Fund, until commencement of construction/remodel activities, $4,200,000 from the General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance to Committed for Future Acquisitions & Capital Projects, and $500,000 from the General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance to Committed for Capital Maintenance. Attachment 1 Resolutions/2020/20-__FY21Budget 2 SECTION FIVE. Monies are hereby appropriated in accordance with said budget. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on _____, 2020 at a regular meeting thereof, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: Secretary Board of Directors President Board of Directors APPROVED AS TO FORM: General Counsel I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly held and called on the above day. District Clerk Budget and Action Plan ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2021 ADOPTED JUNE XX, 2020 Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve by James Snyder FRONT COVER PHOTO CREDITS Top: Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve by Jon Martin Lower left: La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve by Frances Freyburg Lower middle: Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve by Sohum Phadke Lower right: Ravenswood Open Space Preserve by John Green 1Section I • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I In t r o d u c t i o n Table of Contents 1 SECTION I: INTRODUCTION 2 General Manager’s Transmittal 4 Board of Directors and Management 5 Organizational Chart 6 Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives 8 Regional Map 9 About Us 10 Demographics 12 Board Resolution 15 SECTION II: BUDGET SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW 16 Budget Summar y and Overview 18 Revenues 20 Expenditures 24 Staffing 26 Hawthorns Fund 27 Measure AA Projects 29 Vision Plan 31 Debt Ser vice 36 Grants Program 37 Fund Balance 38 Long-Range Financial Planning 39 Delivering on the Mission 40 Climate Action Plan 41 Budget Process 42 Financial Policies 45 SECTION III: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND ACTION PLAN 46 Capital Improvement and Action Plan Over view 51 Land Acquisition and Preser vation 64 Natural Resource Protection and Restoration 88 Public Access, Education and Outreach 114 Assets and Organizational Support 139 SECTION IV: DEPARTMENT SUMMARIES 141 Departments Overview 142 Administrative Ser vices 146 Engineering and Construction 150 Office of the General Counsel 152 Office of the General Manager 154 Land and Facilities Ser vices 158 Natural Resources 162 Planning 166 Public Affairs 168 Real Property 172 Visitor Services 176 VISION PLAN ACTIONS OVERVIEW 178 GLOSSARY General Manager’s Transmittal Dear Board of Directors and Midpen Constituents, Having both experienced and witnessed the effects of an unprecedented worldwide pandemic, I am especially grateful for the role the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District plays in providing vast outdoor spaces and hundreds of miles of trail where our community can find solace in the beauty of nature, absorbing the mental, emotional and physical health benefits that we all need now, and always. Bay Area public health officers agree that outdoor open spaces provide an essential service, as a meaningful, instrumental and natural antidote, to help us decompress and reduce our anxieties, to renew our sense of hope and give us new perspective to move forward. Throughout the public health emergency created by COVID-19, Midpen staff has worked tirelessly to follow the directives of public health officials in Santa Clara, San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties. We were able to keep our preserves open as much as possible with temporary, innovative measures to promote social distancing and reduce the potential need for medical response. We took to heart our responsibility for providing relief for residents with outdoor recreation—one of the few essential activities allowed under shelter-in-place orders. One of the values of public open space is that it is here to care for us when we need it most. Although Midpen has managed to maintain essential operations in the field and project momentum by telecommuting, the pandemic has significantly impacted many businesses and employment sectors that contribute to our regional, state, national and global financial stability. Our Budget and Action Plan for fiscal year ending June 30, 2021 reflects prudent estimates of how this crisis may stress our local economy, and in turn impact Midpen’s revenues over the next fiscal year. The total FY21 budget remains static in the General Fund, with essentially no growth from the prior fiscal year, anticipating that Midpen may likely see a notable reduction in tax revenue growth—the first slow-to-no-growth forecast in recent history and potentially similar to what the area experienced during the 2007-09 Great Recession. This budget reflects a flat head count, with no additional new position requests. The Budget and Action Plan includes numerous time-sensitive and high-priority projects that we have been able to move forward while working remotely. However, to keep our General Fund Operating and Capital budget flat (with exception of the one-time capital expenditures) and account for ongoing work restrictions that may continue through the foreseeable future, certain projects that were in the queue have been deferred to a future fiscal year. Capital expenditures supporting the delivery of our mission account for 35% of the FY21 budget, and the remaining includes salaries and benefits (31%), services and supplies (14%) and annual debt service obligations (20%). Total revenues and other funding sources are projected at $82.1 million, which include annual revenues at $65.2 million, bond reimbursements at $16.6 million and other funding sources at $300,000, balancing a budget of $81.2 million in expenses. Even if mobility restrictions continue, we project that Midpen can make substantial progress on our Vision Plan priorities—whether by working from home or in the field on projects that serve essential governmental functions to maintain public health and safety, protect public lands and natural resources, and support the essential activity of outdoor recreation. This year’s projects include critical trail connections linking residents to expansive regional trails and trail systems; such as connecting the Ravenswood Bay Trail to create 80 miles of continuous Bay Trail access for Peninsula residents stretching from Menlo Park to Santa Clara, and contributing funds towards the Saratoga to the Skyline Trail to connect bayside residents to the Bay Area Ridge Trail, the Skyline-to-the-Sea Trail and out to the Pacific Ocean. Land conservation remains a founding priority, and Midpen continues its work to protect important coastal agricultural and watershed lands. Since 2004, when the San Mateo County Coast became a part of the District, we’ve protected more than 11,000 acres of Coastside open space, including biodiverse grasslands and critical salmonid watersheds, while preserving the area’s rich agricultural heritage. Our natural resource protection priorities are focused on climate resiliency, wildlife crossings, habitat restoration and effective wildland fire preparedness and responsiveness. Key projects include completing the environmental review process for the Highway 17 wildlife crossing and finalizing the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program that will allow us to expand our vegetation and fuel treatment work. Se c t i o n I In t r o d u c t i o n 2 Section I • Budget and Action Plan FY21 3Section I • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I In t r o d u c t i o n With our ability to continue moving projects forward, albeit under a different work environment, Midpen is well- suited to leverage new funding sources aimed at jump-starting the economy. By positioning the agency to be ready to enter into new contracts for services, supplies and capital projects in FY21, Midpen can be part of the regional solution to move our economy forward. We are thankful for the property tax revenues that remain a fairly steady funding source, which will allow us to manage through the economic disruptions and continue to invest in the lands that are so critical to our collective well-being. In doing so, Midpen can reinvest in our local economy for the good of our broader region. Respectfully submitted, Ana María Ruiz General Manager Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve by Hongyan Liu Se c t i o n I In t r o d u c t i o n 4 Section I • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Board of Directors and Management Executive Management Ana María Ruiz–General Manager Hilary Stevenson–General Counsel Mike Foster–Controller Susanna Chan–Assistant General Manager/Project Planning and Delivery Brian Malone–Assistant General Manager/Visitor and Field Services Stefan Jaskulak–Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Mission Statement——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— The mission of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is to acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity, protect and restore the natural environment, and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education. Coastside Protection Mission Statement——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— To acquire and preserve in perpetuity open space land and agricultural land of regional significance, protect and restore the natural environment, preserve rural character, encourage viable agricultural use of land resources, and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education. District Wards Left to right: Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Curt Riffle, Yoriko Kishimoto, Jed Cyr, Karen Holman, Larry Hassett, Pete Siemens. ——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Pete Siemens Ward 1: Cupertino, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Saratoga——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Yoriko Kishimoto–Board Treasurer Ward 2: Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Palo Alto, Stanford, Sunnyvale ——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Jed Cyr Ward 3: Sunnyvale ——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Curt Riffle–Board Vice President Ward 4: Los Altos, Mountain View ——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Karen Holman–Board President Ward 5: East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Stanford——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Larry Hassett–Board Secretary Ward 6: Atherton, La Honda, Loma Mar, Menlo Park, Pescadero, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Gregorio, Woodside——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Zoe Kersteen-Tucker Ward 7: El Granada, Half Moon Bay, Montara, Moss Beach, Princeton, Redwood City, San Carlos, Woodside——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 5Section I • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I In t r o d u c t i o n Budget Document Preparation Carmen Narayanan–Budget and Analysis Manager Elissa Martinez–Management Analyst Lupe Hernandez–Management Analyst Management Team Matthew Anderson–Visitor Services Candice Basnight–Human Resources Casey Hiatt–Information Systems and Technology Michael Jurich–Land and Facilities Services Kirk Lenington–Natural Resources Jason Lin–Engineering and Construction Jane Mark–Planning Carmen Narayanan–Budget and Analysis Korrine Skinner–Public Affairs Maria Soria–General Manager’s Office Hilary Stevenson–General Counsel’s Office Andrew Taylor–Finance Mike Williams–Real Property Jennifer Woodworth–District Clerk Organizational Chart Public Board of Directors ControllerGeneral Counsel General Manager Public Affairs Department Executive Assistant/ Deputy District Clerk District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Visitor and Field Services Assistant General Manager Finance and Administrative Services CFO-Director of Administrative Services Project Planning and Delivery Assistant General Manager Visitor Services Department Land and Facilities Department Natural Resources Department Planning Department Real Property Department Engineering and Construction Department Budget and Analysis Department Information Systems and Technology Department Finance Department Human Resources Department Se c t i o n I In t r o d u c t i o n 6 Section I • Budget and Action Plan FY21 FY21 Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives The Strategic Plan was adopted by the board of directors in September 2011 and is updated annually based on the results of an environmental scan. The FY21 Strategic Plan provides high-level direction for the annual Budget and Action Plan. GOAL 1 Promote, establish, and implement a regional environmental protection vision with partners——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Objective 1 – Continue implementation of the District’s Vision Plan and communicate progress on projects through reporting results and building partner relationships ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Objective 2 – Build and strengthen diverse partnerships to implement a collaborative and science-based approach to regional environmental protection ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Objective 3 – Build and strengthen relationships with legislators to advocate environmental protection goals ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Objective 4 – Preserve open space lands of local and regional significance ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— GOAL 2 Protect the positive environmental values of open space lands ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Objective 1 – Take a regional leadership role in promoting the benefits of open space ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Objective 2 – Protect and restore the natural environment in a manner that expands regional resiliency and climate change adaptation to preserve healthy natural systems ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Objective 3 – Work with fire agencies and surrounding communities to strengthen the prevention of, preparation for and response to wildland fires for enhanced ecosystem resiliency and public safety ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Objective 4 – Support the viability of sustainable agriculture and character of rural communities ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— GOAL 3 Connect people to open space and a regional environmental protection vision ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Objective 1 – Communicate the benefits of a regional environmental protection vision ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Objective 2 – Refine and implement a comprehensive public outreach strategy, including the engagement of diverse communities and enhanced public education programs ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Objective 3 – Expand opportunities to connect people to their public open space preserves consistent with a regional environmental protection vision ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Objective 4 – Reflect the diverse communities we serve in the District’s visitors, staff, volunteers, and partners ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— GOAL 4 Strengthen organizational capacity and long-term financial sustainability to fulfill the mission——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Objective 1 – Provide the necessary resources, tools, and infrastructure, including technology upgrades and capacity building ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Objective 2 – Continuously evaluate and improve recent processes and business model to effectively and efficiently deliver Vision Plan projects and the District’s ongoing functions ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Objective 3 – Build state of readiness for potential disruptions by completing a risk assessment and creating a business continuity plan ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Objective 4 – Continue to engage constituents for bond sales and via the work of the Bond Oversight Committee–“Promises made, promises kept.”——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Objective 5 – Remain financially sustainable by pursuing and ensuring discretionary funding opportunities and partnerships to augment operating, capital, and bond funding sources, and ensure that large capital expenses and land acquisitions, including associated public access and land management costs, are evaluated within the long-term financial model and remain financially sustainable——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Objective 6 – Continue to recruit, develop and retain talented staff to implement the District’s mission and strengthen our organizational capacity——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 7Section I • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I In t r o d u c t i o n Based upon these priorities, staff prepared the FY21 Proposed Three-Year Capital Improvement and Action Plan (included in Section III) for board approval. Below is a summary of project costs in the CIAP based on primary and secondary goal and objective per project. Some objectives are not directly related to a CIAP project but instead are captured in department’s operational activities. Three-Year CIAP by Primary Goal and Objective CIAP Summary by Primary Goal & Objective FY21 FY22 FY23 3-Year Total Goal 1, Objective 1 $359,750 $0 $0 $359,750 Goal 1, Objective 1 & 2 553,293 0 0 553,293 Goal 1, Objective 2 1,498,440 475,600 5,150,000 7,124,040 Goal 1, Objective 2 & 3 48,000 31,000 0 79,000 Goal 1, Objective 3 508,000 15,000 0 523,000 Goal 1, Objective 4 2,466,751 330,000 300,000 3,096,751 Goal 1 Total 5,434,234 851,600 5,450,000 11,735,834 Goal 2, Objective 1 150,000 200,000 200,000 550,000 Goal 2, Objective 2 1,127,231 471,239 1,734,000 3,332,470 Goal 2, Objective 3 460,000 511,000 160,000 1,131,000 Goal 2, Objective 4 785,000 68,000 210,000 1,063,000 Goal 2 Total 2,522,231 1,250,239 2,304,000 6,076,470 Goal 3, Objective 1*0 0 0 0 Goal 3, Objective 2 4,602,622 0 0 4,602,622 Goal 3, Objective 3 2,961,353 10,523,800 2,493,632 15,978,785 Goal 3, Objective 4*0 0 0 0 Goal 3 Total 7,563,975 10,523,800 2,493,632 20,581,407 Goal 4, Objective 1 12,876,903 20,495,000 1,093,000 34,464,903 Goal 4, Objective 1 & 2 35,000 0 0 35,000 Goal 4, Objective 2 200,000 49,500 0 249,500 Goal 4, Objective 3*0 0 0 0 Goal 4, Objective 4*0 332,450 0 332,450 Goal 4, Objective 5 1,550,773 2,933,612 537,500 5,021,885 Goal 4, Objective 6*0 0 0 0 Goal 4 Total 14,662,676 23,810,562 1,630,500 40,103,738 Total CIAP $30,183,116 $36,436,201 $11,878,132 $78,497,449 Three-Year CIAP by Secondary Goal and Objective CIAP Summary by Secondary Goal & Objective FY21 FY22 FY23 3-Year Total Goal 1, Objective 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 Goal 1, Objective 2 143,500 143,500 0 287,000 Goal 1, Objective 3 0 0 0 0 Goal 1, Objective 4 20,000 0 0 20,000 Goal 1 Total 163,500 143,500 0 307,000 Goal 2, Objective 1 0 0 0 0 Goal 2, Objective 2 529,647 21,250 0 550,897 Goal 2, Objective 3 388,357 187,000 1,345,000 1,920,357 Goal 2, Objective 4 1,835,318 30,000 0 1,865,318 Goal 2 Total 2,753,322 238,250 1,345,000 4,336,572 Goal 3, Objective 1 0 0 0 0 Goal 3, Objective 2 & 3 50,000 0 0 50,000 Goal 3, Objective 3 6,199,235 577,000 3,550,000 10,326,235 Goal 2, Objective 4 0 0 0 0 Goal 3 Total 6,249,235 577,000 3,550,000 10,376,235 Goal 4, Objective 1 0 0 0 0 Goal 4, Objective 2 0 0 0 0 Goal 4, Objective 3 0 0 0 0 Goal 4, Objective 4 0 0 0 0 Goal 4, Objective 5 13,724,417 27,024,000 742,032 41,490,449 Goal 4, Objective 6 0 0 0 0 Goal 4 Total 13,724,417 27,024,000 742,032 41,490,449 Total CIAP $22,890,473 $27,982,750 $5,637,032 $56,510,255 *Goals and objectives are not directly impacted by CIAP projects but are included in department’s operational activities. Se c t i o n I In t r o d u c t i o n 8 Section I • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Regional Map 9Section I • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I In t r o d u c t i o n About Us Midpen helps plants, animals and people thrive throughout the greater Santa Cruz Mountains region by preserving a connected greenbelt of nearly 65,000 acres of public open space. These diverse and scenic landscapes, from bay wetlands to redwood forests and coastal grasslands, host an incredible diversity of life, making our region one of the world’s biodiversity hotspots. Midpen preserves have long and complex histories of human use prior to becoming public open space. We actively manage the land and waterways to restore their health and function, helping our local ecosystem become more resilient in a time of climate change. By caring for the land, the land in turn takes care of us, providing tangible and intangible benefits like clean air and water, flood protection and the opportunity for restorative experiences in nature. On the San Mateo County Coast, where local agricultural roots run deep, our mission also includes preserving viable working lands. We partner with small-scale local ranchers to use conservation grazing as a land management tool for enhancing native coastal grasslands and providing wildland fire protection. Midpen preserves are free and open to the public daily, providing an extensive trail network for low-impact recreation. Our programming connects people to nature through enriched experiences including environmental interpretation, docent-led activities and volunteer opportunities. By preserving, restoring and providing access to our region’s iconic, cultural, working and scenic landscapes, Midpen lands offer us opportunities for health, climate change resilience and refuge. HISTORY The late 1960s was a time of rapid growth in the Bay Area. Through a determined and heartfelt grassroots effort by local conservationists, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District was created in 1972, when the Measure R “Room to Breathe” Initiative was passed by Santa Clara County voters. Local residents voted to expand Midpen’s boundary into southern San Mateo County in 1976, and in 1992 to a small portion of Santa Cruz County. In the late 1990s, development pressure increased on the San Mateo County Coast, threatening sensitive habitat and the area’s rural heritage. This led to the 2004 Coastside Protection Area, an extension of District boundaries to the Pacific Ocean in San Mateo County, and the addition of preserving rural character and encouraging viable agricultural use of land resources to our mission. GOVERNANCE Midpen is governed by a seven-member publicly elected board of directors. Board members serve a four-year term, and represent a geographic ward of approximately equal populations. The board holds its regular public meetings on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month at 7 p.m., at the Midpen administrative office: 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA. STAFFING The staff currently includes over 180 employees in 11 departments: budget and analysis, engineering and construction, finance, human resources, information systems and technology, land and facilities services, natural resources, planning, public affairs, real property and visitor services. For more information about Midpen, visit openspace.org. Midpen At-A-Glance Founded in 1972 Nearly 65,000 Acres Preserved 245 Miles of Trails 26 Preserves 182 Full-Time Employees Over 2 Million Visitors Per Year $81.2 Million Budget 770,000 Residents Founded in 1972 Nearly 65,000 Acres Preserved 245 Miles of Trails 26 Preserves 182 Full-Time Employees Over 2 Million Visitors Per Year $81.2 Million Budget 770,000 Residents Se c t i o n I In t r o d u c t i o n 10 Section I • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Demographics and Economic Statistics The following is economic and demographic information on Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, representing the majority of Midpen’s constituency. Because Midpen does not receive property tax revenue from the small amount of Santa Cruz County land that it holds, information on Santa Cruz County is not included. Demographics and Economic Statistics Last Ten Fiscal Years ———————————————————————————— County of Santa Clara Fiscal Year Population1 Personal Income2 (in millions) Per Capita Personal Income2 Median Age3 School Enrollment4 County Unemployment Rate5 2010 1,880,876 $109,495 $61,289 35.8 265,643 10.5% 2011 1,797,375 120,376 66,366 36.0 266,256 9.6% 2012 1,816,486 133,912 72,704 36.2 270,109 8.2% 2013 1,842,254 136,118 72,754 36.4 273,701 6.8% 2014 1,868,558 149,717 78,955 36.6 276,175 5.2% 2015 1,889,638 165,323 86,141 36.8 276,689 4.3% 2016 1,927,888 178,029 92,168 36.8 274,948 3.9% 2017 1,938,180 190,002 98,032 *273,264 3.4% 2018 1,956,958 ***272,132 2.9% 2019 1,954,286 ***267,224 2.9% County of San Mateo Calendar Year Population1 Personal Income2 (in millions) Per Capita Personal Income2 Median Age3 School Enrollment4 County Unemployment Rate5 2010 719,951 $53,084 $73,739 39.3 91,371 8.5% 2011 729,425 58,228 79,872 39.4 92,097 7.9% 2012 740,738 65,167 87,986 39.6 93,674 6.8% 2013 750,489 65,656 87,501 39.3 93,931 5.6% 2014 758,581 71,111 93,672 39.4 94,567 4.3% 2015 759,155 78,607 102,516 39.8 95,187 3.5% 2016 765,895 82,046 106,615 39.5 95,502 3.2% 2017 770,203 87,486 113,410 *95,620 2.9% 2018 774,155 ***95,155 2.5% 2019 774,485 ***94,234 2.4% *Information not available Data Sources 1 State of California Department of Finance 2U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis 3 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 4 State of California Department of Education 5 State of California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Division Notes: Starting FY16, Midpen changed from a fiscal year end date of March 31 to June 30. As a result, FY16 is a fifteen-month period rather than a twelve-month period. 11Section I • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I In t r o d u c t i o n Principal Employers Most Current Year and Nine Years Ago ———————————————————————————— County of Santa Clara 20184 2009 Employer Number of Employees1 Rank Percentage of Total Employment Number of Employees2 Rank Percentage of Total Employment Apple Computer, Inc.25,000 1 2.44%10,000 3 1.23% Alphabet/Google Inc.20,000 2 1.95 * * County of Santa Clara 18,806 3 1.84 * * Stanford University 16,919 4 1.65 * * Cisco Systems Inc.14,120 5 1.38 13,000 1 1.60% Kaiser Permanente 12,500 6 1.22 5,000 10 0.61% Stanford Healthcare 10,034 7 0.98 5,500 8 0.68% Tesla Motors Inc.10,000 8 0.98 * Intel Corporation 8,450 9 0.83 5,000 9 0.61% City of San Jose 6,159 10 0.60 * Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co.* *10,400 2 1.28% Intuit, Inc.* *8,000 4 0.98% IBM Corporation * *7,500 5 0.94% Hewlett-Packard Co.* *7,000 6 0.86% KLA-Tencor Corporation * *6,200 7 0.76% Total 141,988 13.87%77,750 9.55% County of San Mateo 3 2017 4 2009 Employer Number of Employees Rank Percentage of Total Employment Number of Employees Rank Percentage of Total Employment United Airlines 12,000 1 2.474%* * Genentech Inc.11,000 2 2.51 8,800 1 2.60% Facebook Inc.7,091 3 1.62 * * Oracle Corp.6,781 4 1.55 5,642 2 1.66% County of San Mateo 5,485 5 1.25 5,179 3 1.53% Gilead Sciences Inc.3,900 6 0.89 1,480 10 0.44% Visa U.S.A. Inc.3,500 7 0.80 * * Electronic Arts Inc.2,367 8 0.54 2,000 6 0.59% Robert Half International Inc.1,790 9 0.41 * * YouTube LLC 1,700 10 0.39 * * Kaiser Permanente * *3,790 4 1.12% Mills-Peninsula Health Services * *2,500 5 0.74% United States Postal Service * *1,964 7 0.58% San Mateo Community College District * *1,800 8 0.53% SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory * *1,650 9 0.49% Total 55,614 12.70%34,805 10.28% *Information not available Data Sources 1 Silicon Valley Business Journal, July 27, 2018 2 County of Santa Clara Finance Department. FY09 CAFR 3San Francisco Business Times–2018 Book of Lists and California Employment Development Department 4Latest information available for principal employers in the County of San Mateo Se c t i o n I In t r o d u c t i o n 12 Section I • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Resolution No. 20-XX 13Section I • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I In t r o d u c t i o n 14 Section I • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I In t r o d u c t i o n Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada presented a Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, California, for its annual budget for FY19. In order to receive this award, a governmental unit must publish a budget document that meets program criteria as a policy document, as a financial plan, as an operations guide and as a communications device. This award is valid for a period of one year only. We believe our current budget continues to conform to program requirements, and we are submitting it to GFOA to determine its eligibility for another award. 15Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I Section II Budget Summary and Overview Foothills Open Space Preserve by Aaron Arul Se c t i o n I I Bu d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 16 Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Budget Summary and Overview The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s Proposed FY21 Budget reflects Midpen’s priorities established by the board of directors in December 2019 as part of its annual Strategic Plan update. Based upon these priorities, staff prepared the FY21 Proposed Three-Year Capital Improvement and Action Plan (included in Section III) for board approval. Subsequently, staff developed a detailed budget by department and fund which are included in Budget Summary and Overview (Section II) and Department Summaries (Section IV). FY21 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW Midpen’s budget is comprised of the operating and capital budgets, land acquisition, and debt service, which are funded by five distinct funds, four of which are major governmental funds: ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Fund 10: General Fund Operating. This includes personnel costs, routine operational and maintenance expenses, debt service, and non-capital projects (Fund 10 is a major fund).——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Fund 20: Hawthorns. This endowment fund may only be used for expenses required to maintain the value of the property gifted to Midpen by the Woods family (Fund 20 is reported as part of Fund 10 General Fund in audited financial statements).——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Fund 30: Measure AA Capital. Only capital projects and land acquisitions included in the top 25 priority Project Portfolios in the Vision Plan are eligible for MAA funding (Fund 30 is a major fund).——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Fund 40: General Fund Capital. This includes vehicles and equipment, facilities, and non-MAA capital projects and land acquisitions (Fund 40 is a major fund).——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Fund 50: Debt Service Fund. This includes payments on all Midpen-issued debt, both public and private (Fund 50 is a major fund).——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Compared to most city and county government agencies, Midpen’s operating budget accounts for a much lower percentage of the total budget (45%), reflecting the organization’s focus on project delivery. Capital projects and land acquisition account for 35% of the budget and debt service totals 20%. 17Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I Bu d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w The following table breaks out the revenue and expenses by fund. Each fund has either a balanced budget for FY21 or a positive change in fund balance. Once adopted, appropriations are made for all funds at the fund level. FY21 Budget by Fund FY21 Change in Fund Balance Fund 10 General Fund Operating Fund 20 Hawthorns Fund 30 Measure AA Capital Fund 40 General Fund Capital Fund 50 Debt Service Total Revenue Property Tax Revenues $53,487,274 $6,200,000 $59,687,274 Grants (Awarded)293,500 1,621,509 1,915,009 Interest Income 894,260 13,500 411,475 41,040 1,360,275 Rental Income 1,329,450 1,329,450 Rental Income (5050 El Camino Real) 400,000 400,000 Rancho San Antonio Agreement 386,761 386,761 Miscellaneous 100,000 100,000 Total Revenues 56,891,245 13,500 2,032,984 0 6,241,040 65,178,769 Other Funding Sources Bond Reimbursements 10,247,079 6,415,212 16,662,291 Hawthorns Funds 96,700 96,700 Assigned Fund Balance Transfers 0 Committed for Infrastructure Transfer (400,000) 5,546,271 5,146,271 Committed for Future Acquisitions & Capital Projects (4,200,000) (4,200,000) Committed for Capital Maintenance (500,000) (500,000) Committed for Promissory Note (300,000) (300,000) General Fund Transfers (14,573,920) 3,894,845 10,679,075 0 Total Other Funding Sources (19,973,920)96,700 10,247,079 15,856,328 10,679,075 16,905,262 Grand Total: Revenues & Other Funding Sources 36,917,325 110,200 12,280,063 15,856,328 16,920,115 82,084,031 Expenses Operating 35,032,860 62,200 35,095,060 Labor Reimbursement (669,235) (669,235) Capital & Projects 2,410,200 48,000 11,868,588 15,856,328 30,183,116 Debt Service (General Fund Debt) 10,679,075 10,679,075 Debt Service (Measure AA Debt) 5,961,850 5,961,850 Total Expenses $36,773,825 $110,200 $11,868,588 $15,856,328 $16,640,925 $81,249,866 Change in Fund Balance $143,500 $0 $441,475 $0 $279,190 $834,165 Se c t i o n I I Bu d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 18 Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Revenues Midpen’s FY21 revenue estimate totals $65.2 million with the vast majority, 92% or $59.7 million, coming from property tax receipts. Property taxes are projected to have modest growth ($2.2 million) in FY21 and remain flat with little to no growth in the coming year due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the real estate market. Other revenue sources including grants, interest income and rental income are all projected to decrease ($3.4 million total for all categories). The chart below provides a breakdown of projected FY21 revenue by source. FY21 Revenue by Source ● Property Tax (92%) ● Grants (3%) ● Interest (2%) ● Rental Income and Other (3%) Property Tax Grants Interest Rental Income and Other Total Amount $59,687,274 $1,915,009 $1,360,275 $2,216,211 $65,178,769 Percent 92%3%2%3%100% Total Revenue Trend (in millions) $ 70 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 65 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 60 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 55 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 50 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 45 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 40 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 35 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 30 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 25 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 20 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 15 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 10 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 5 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 0 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— FY17 Actual FY18 Actual FY19 Actual FY20 Estimated FY21 Projected ■ Property Tax ■ Grants ■ Interest ■ Rental Income and Other 19Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I Bu d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w The following graph depicts the historical and projected trend for general fund property tax revenues (excluding MAA ad valorem levy for debt service). Property Tax Trend (in millions) $ 55 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 50 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 45 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 40 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 35 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 30 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 25 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 20 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 15 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 10 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 5 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 0 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual* Actual Actual Actual Projected Projected *FY16 reflects15 months of revenue due to changing the fiscal year start from April 1 to July 1. Silicon Valley and the Peninsula continue to see stable real estate prices and demand for housing for now, resulting in projected growth of 3.5% in FY21. The primary factors used in the projection of revenues are historical growth in assessed valuation and new construction information, which are provided by the County Assessors’ offices in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. 2017-2021 General Fund Tax Revenue Actual FY17 Actual FY18 Actual FY19 Budget FY20 Estimated FY20 Budget FY21 % Increase* Santa Clara County Current Secured $25,277,000 $27,254,000 $29,505,000 $31,173,000 $31,526,000 $32,659,771 3.6% Current Unsecured 1,747,000 1,860,000 2,113,000 1,983,000 2,065,000 2,065,000 0.0% Total Santa Clara County 27,024,000 29,114,000 31,618,000 33,156,000 33,591,000 34,724,771 3.4% San Mateo County Current Secured 12,039,000 13,008,000 13,868,000 15,102,000 14,839,000 15,444,330 4.1% Current Unsecured 515,000 544,000 628,000 667,000 638,000 638,373 0.1% Prior Taxes (14,000)0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Total San Mateo County 12,540,000 13,552,000 14,496,000 15,769,000 15,477,000 16,082,703 3.9% Supplement + HOPTR 1,578,000 1,598,000 1,870,000 1,472,000 955,000 764,000 - 20.0% Redevelopment 1,148,000 1,477,000 1,698,000 1,658,000 1,860,000 1,915,800 3.0% Total Tax Revenue $42,290,000 $45,741,000 $49,682,000 $52,055,000 $51,883,000 $53,487,274 3.1% *Percentage increase compares Budget FY21 to Estimated FY20. Se c t i o n I I Bu d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 20 Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Expenditures Midpen’s FY21 budget totals $81.2 million, a net total budget increase is 9% when compared to the FY20 adopted budget. The year-over-year change is due to increased capital expenditures in Measure AA (Fund 30) as more projects move into construction, as well as one-time capital expenditures in General Fund Capital (Fund 40) on Midpen infrastructure. Operating expenses (salaries and benefits, services and supplies) decreased by $230,000 and debt service is reduced by $1 million. At this time there are no new positions proposed for FY21. The following table and chart provide a summary of the FY21 budget by fund. Midpen Budget By Funding Source FY19 Actuals FY20 Adopted Budget FY21 Proposed Annual Budget $ Change From FY20 Adopted Budget % Change From FY20 Adopted Budget Fund 10–General Fund Operating $28,783,378 $37,003,848 $36,773,825 ($230,023)- 1% Fund 20–Hawthorns 30,888 140,200 110,200 (30,000)- 21% Fund 30–MAA Land/Capital 10,871,866 9,447,647 11,868,588 2,420,941 26% Fund 40–General Fund Land/Capital 3,305,485 4,819,875 3,894,845 (925,030)- 19% Fund 50–Debt Service 15,670,988 17,669,563 16,640,925 (1,028,638)- 6% Subtotal Midpen Budget 58,662,605 69,081,133 69,288,383 207,250 0% Fund 40–General Fund Land/Capital One Time Expenses 31,550,000 5,726,720 11,961,483 6,234,763 109% Total Midpen Budget $90,212,605 $74,807,853 $81,249,866 $6,442,013 9% FY21 Budget By Source ● Fund 10–General Fund Operating (45%) ● Fund 20–Hawthorns (<1%) ● Fund 30–MAA Land/Capital (15%) ● Fund 40–General Fund Land/Capital (5%) ● Fund 40–General Fund Land/Capital One Time Expenses (15%) ● Fund 50–Debt Service (20%) Se c t i o n I I Bu d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 21Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 The following chart depicts actual and projected expenditures over a five-year period by fund. Expenditures Trend (in millions) $ 100 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 90 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 80 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 70 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 60 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 50 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 40 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 30 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 20 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 10 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 0 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— FY17 Actual FY18 Actual FY19 Actual FY20 Adopted FY20 Amended FY21 Projected ■ Fund 10–General Fund Operating ■ Fund 20–Hawthorns ■ Fund 30–MAA Land/Capital ■ Fund 40–General Fund Land/Capital ■ Fund 40–General Fund Land/Capital One Time Expenses ■ Fund 50–Debt Service FUND 10 – GENERAL FUND OPERATING The General Fund Operating has a -1.0% net change. Salaries and Benefits increased slightly by $280,000 due to anticipated salary step increases, changes in benefit costs and maintaining a flat head count (no new positions). A greater proportion of staff time is expected to be reimbursed through MAA for qualified projects as compared to prior years. Services and Supplies decreased by approximately $510,000, reflecting a prudent approach to next fiscal year in light of COVID-19 and the expected project delays and program limitations due to extended social distancing requirements. Typical operating project expenditures continue, such as habitat restoration work associated with new capital improvement projects like the opening of the western area of the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve. In addition, the proposed budget includes significant funds to expand Midpen’s efforts in preventing, preparing for and responding to potential wildland fires. In contrast, non-project related operating expenses were reduced, such as in-person conference and training attendance budgets. FUND 20 – HAWTHORNS The Hawthorns fund includes funding for fuel reduction and fire clearance work. FUND 30 – MEASURE AA LAND/CAPITAL The Measure AA Capital fund increase of 26%, or $2.4 million, in projected annual expenses represents new projects that are beginning and multiple MAA projects that will be under construction next fiscal year. The proposed CIAP includes over 20 MAA projects in various stages of planning and construction. The Measure AA Capital fund increase includes both higher reimbursable labor (+$200,000) and expenditures (+$2.2 million) for multiple large-scale projects. The increase in reimbursable labor is primarily due to more shovel- ready trail projects that will be completed by Midpen’s special projects crews. Se c t i o n I I Bu d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 22 Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 MAA projects in FY21 include the conservation of important coastal agricultural and watershed lands, the Highway 17 Wildlife and Trail Crossing project, the Bear Creek Redwoods Alma College Site Rehabilitation Plan, Beatty Parking Area and Trail Connections, and finalizing the Saratoga-to-Sea Regional Trail and the Ravenswood Bay Trail Connections. Additional projects include the Bear Creek Redwoods Landfill Characterization and Remediation, Purisima Upland Site Clean-up and various infrastructure improvements to support the Conservation Grazing Program. Work will also continue on the Lower La Honda Creek Phase II Trails and Hawthorns Public Access Site Plan. FUND 40 – GENERAL FUND LAND/CAPITAL The General Fund Capital—excluding one-time expenditures—is decreasing by $925,000 compared to the FY20 adopted budget. Most projects are in support of MAA and the Vision Plan. Other projects included in next year’s plan will improve Midpen’s business and data systems; complete repairs and maintenance on Midpen residences and driveways; improve infrastructure for the Conservation Grazing Program; and demolish dilapidated structures to restore these sites to a natural condition. As previously mentioned, the General Fund Capital includes one-time improvements to Midpen’s South Area Field Office and Administrative Office to meet long-term office space needs and support Midpen’s mission and MAA project delivery in perpetuity. Midpen has been prudently setting aside funding for these one-time expenditures since 2014 and rental revenues through January 2021, to offset these costs. In addition, Midpen is under negotiations for the sale of the 330 Distel Circle building (current main Administrative Office site), which will further offset the total costs for facility improvements. FUND 50 – DEBT SERVICE The Debt Service Fund for FY21 decreased by approximately $1 million from FY20, or 6%. Annual debt service principal payments were projected to go down for FY21 and FY22 on the recently issued 2018 General Obligation Bonds (Series GO Green Bonds); the total debt service payments for the GO Bonds remain flat for the next 20 years, or until additional bonds are issued. Treatment of Non-Expended Funds Flowchart For FY21, operating expenses are expected to decrease slightly compared to the FY20 adopted budget. Consistent with Midpen’s practice over the last several fiscal years, land acquisitions will be budgeted if the transaction has great certainty, otherwise the budget is amended at the time of purchase. The first table on the next page illustrates the breakdown of the FY21 budget by fund and breaks out the General Fund between salaries and services and supplies. The second table on the next page breaks out the budget by department. Additional budget information can be found on the individual department pages in Section IV. Treatment of Non-Expended Funds Fund 30: Measure AA Capital Fund 50: Debt Service AssignedRestricted Fund 40: General Fund Capital Fund 10: General Fund Operating Fund 20: Hawthorns Unassigned Se c t i o n I I Bu d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 23Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 FY21 Budget by Fund and Expenditure Type Midpen Budget by Expenditure Category FY19 Actuals FY20 Adopted Budget FY21 Proposed Budget $ Change From FY20 Adopted Budget % Change From FY20 Adopted Budget Salaries and Benefits $21,095,865 $25,821,535 $26,302,406 $480,871 2% Less: MAA Reimbursable Staff Costs (368,306)(471,697)(669,235)(197,538)42% Net Salaries and Benefits 20,727,559 25,349,838 25,633,171 283,333 1% Services and Supplies 8,055,819 11,654,010 11,140,654 (513,356)- 4% Total Operating Expenditures 28,783,378 37,003,848 36,773,825 (230,023)- 1% Hawthorns Operating 30,888 92,200 62,200 (30,000)- 33% Hawthorns Capital 0 48,000 48,000 0 0% Total Hawthorns Expenditures 30,888 140,200 110,200 (30,000)- 21% Measure AA Capital (Fund 30) 8,697,840 9,434,147 10,306,588 872,441 9% General Fund Capital (Fund 40)2,885,198 4,064,375 3,894,845 (169,530)- 4% General Fund Capital (Fund 40)– One Time Expenses 0 1,846,720 11,961,483 10,114,763 548% Total Capital Expenditures 11,583,038 15,345,242 26,162,916 10,817,674 70% Measure AA Land and Associated Costs (Fund 30) 2,174,026 13,500 1,562,000 1,548,500 11,470% General Fund Land and Associated Costs (Fund 40) 31,970,286 4,635,500 0 (4,635,500)- 100% Total Land and Associated Costs 34,144,312 4,649,000 1,562,000 (3,087,000)- 66% Debt Service 15,670,988 17,669,563 16,640,925 (1,028,638)- 6% Total Debt Service (Fund 50)15,670,988 17,669,563 16,640,925 (1,028,638)- 6% Total Midpen Budget $90,212,605 $74,807,853 $81,249,866 $6,442,013 9% FY21 Budget by Department Midpen Budget by Department FY19 Actuals FY20 Adopted Budget FY21 Proposed Budget $ Change From FY20 Adopted Budget % Change From FY20 Adopted Budget Administrative Services $4,970,461 $6,803,459 $7,213,966 $410,507 6% Engineering and Construction 6,808,477 9,994,698 10,259,896 265,198 3% General Counsel 512,049 752,420 800,406 47,986 6% General Manager 2,241,317 2,097,810 2,218,621 120,811 6% Land and Facilities 11,332,374 13,706,416 11,934,423 (1,771,993)- 13% Natural Resources 3,803,936 5,986,696 5,680,572 (306,124)- 5% Planning 3,195,416 3,105,268 3,329,179 223,911 7% Public Affairs 1,460,743 2,018,527 1,856,887 (161,640)- 8% Real Property 3,390,523 1,810,593 2,942,260 1,131,667 63% Visitor Services 5,276,320 7,062,403 6,411,248 (651,155)- 9% Debt Service 15,670,988 17,669,563 16,640,925 (1,028,638)- 6% Total Midpen Budget 58,662,605 71,007,853 69,288,383 (1,719,470)- 2% One Time Expense: Fund 40 Land/Buildings 31,550,000 3,800,000 11,961,483 8,161,483 215% Grand Total: Midpen Budget $90,212,605 $74,807,853 $81,249,866 $6,442,013 9% Se c t i o n I I Bu d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 24 Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Staffing Midpen staffing for FY21 is budgeted for 181.95 Full Time Equivalents and does not include additional positions. At the time of budget development, the General Manger is not requesting the approval of any new positions for FY21 given the economic and functional uncertainty in the midst of a global pandemic and shelter-in-place orders. Additional positions may be recommended later in FY21 if there is more certainty about the end of shelter-in-place orders and economic stability. Activity since the inception of the Financial and Operational Sustainability Model which was approved in 2014 is summarized in the first table on this page. Consistent with the FOSM, any future year recommended positions will be within the agency wide anticipated total growth numbers. It is important to note that the FOSM projections did not account for the notable rise in visitation levels that Midpen is experiencing with the opening of new preserve areas. Additional position recommendations are expected in future years. FOSM Projections and Staffing Growth Business Line FOSM Projected Growth by 2020 FOSM Projected Growth between 2020 to 2045 Positions approved through 2020 Remaining FOSM Projected Positions Through 2045 Planning and Project Delivery 10 to 13 TBD / 4 10 TBD / 4 Visitor and Field Services 20 to 25 37 to 45 29 36 to 44 Finance and Administrative Services 9 to 11 6 to 8 11 6 to 8 General Manager’s Office 2 0 2 0 Total 41 to 51 43 to 57 52 42 to 56 Midpen staffing for FY21 is detailed by department in the table below. Positions by Department Department FY17 Adopted FTE FY18 Adopted FTE FY19 Amended FTE FY20 Adopted FTE FY21 Proposed FTE Change from FY20 Modified Administration 24.75 24.75 26.75 27.75 27.75 0.00 Engineering and Construction 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00 General Counsel 2.50 2.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 0.00 General Manager 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 0.00 Land and Facilities 51.30 55.30 56.30 57.30 57.30 0.00 Natural Resources 11.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 0.00 Planning 10.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 0.00 Public Affairs 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 7.00 - 1.00 Real Property 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 Visitor Services 39.90 39.90 41.90 43.40 43.40 0.00 Total FTE 165.45 173.45 179.45 182.95 181.95 - 1.00 Se c t i o n I I Bu d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 25Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 FUTURE GROWTH IN STAFFING The FOSM projected growth in Midpen staffing initially from 2014 through 2020 with a second growth phase from 2020 through 2045. Growth from 2014 through 2020 projects a total of up to 51 new positions. The FOSM also projects growth in Midpen staffing between 2020 and 2045 of up to 57 additional new positions. Since December 2014, 52 new positions have been approved by the board, completing the first growth phase (51 positions). Notably in the proposed FY21 budget there are no new positions being recommended given the economic uncertainty arising from the global pandemic and current shelter-in-place orders. Additional positions may be recommended later in FY21, based on greater projected certainty about our regional economic stability and Midpen’s financial outlook. The General Manager will continue to assess capacity needs and gaps in expertise during FY21, and in the coming years, as new positions are filled and core functions are reorganized into new departments and programs, in tandem with changes to board priorities and the pace of upcoming action plans to determine if and when additional positions are merited. Considering the magnitude of Midpen’s restructuring, it is important to spend some time working with the expanded organization to evaluate how the synergies among new “capacities” may provide unanticipated efficiencies and additional revenue. Based on that evaluation and reforecasting Midpen’s 30-year financial model, future additional positions would be submitted for board consideration as part of future budget approvals. Such additional position requests would need to remain consistent with the FOSM projections and be financially sustainable. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS Salaries and benefits make up the largest component of expenditures, estimated at 31% of total FY21 expenditures. This category includes all personnel-related costs. Midpen has one represented group: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Field Employees Association. The remaining unrepresented employees are Office, Supervisory and Management Employees. Midpen’s board-adopted Classification and Compensation Plan outlines all position titles, step range number (6-59), and salary ranges, and is available on the organization’s website. Midpen contracts with the California Public Employee’s Retirement System for retirement pension benefits. Midpen’s retirement formulas are 2.5% @ age 55 for “Classic” members and 2% @ age 62 for “New” members. Staff may participate in optional deferred compensation plans. Midpen provides health insurance coverage to all its full-time employees and their dependents. The health insurance program is administered by CalPERS where a variety of medical plans are available for the employee’s selection. There is also a cash-in-lieu benefit for those who opt out of a medical plan. Additional health benefits include full dental insurance coverage for employees and their eligible dependents (Delta Dental), including 60% orthodontia coverage, and full vision insurance for employees and their dependents (VSP). Other insurances provided include Life, AD&D, Long Term Disability, supplemental life, SDI, paid family leave and workers’ compensation. Additional benefits include a Midpen-paid employee assistance program, vacation starting at 15 days per year, 4.5 days of personal leave per year, administrative leave (if eligible), 11 paid holidays and up to 12 days of sick leave per year. Optional benefits that staff may take advantage of include flexible spending plans, commuter check program, tuition reimbursement programs, and supplemental life insurance. In addition, Midpen is a strong advocate for training and provides numerous opportunities for employees throughout the year. Midpen pays $350 per month toward CalPERS retiree medical. By state law, Midpen pays all retirees the PEMHCA minimum amount of $119 per month (a lifetime benefit). Se c t i o n I I Bu d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 26 Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Hawthorns Fund Hawthorns, a 78-acre historic estate named for the flowering hawthorn bushes that once lined its boundary, is one of the last remaining islands of open space in residential Portola Valley. On November 10, 2011, Midpen received a gift of the Hawthorns property and an endowment of $2,018,445 to manage the property in perpetuity. The FY21 Annual Budget for the Hawthorns endowment totals $110,200, which is 21% lower than the FY20 Adopted Budget. The $48,000 capital budget includes funding to pursue a partnership for long-term care, rehabilitation, and maintenance of the historic complex, as well as other stabilization efforts to mitigate deterioration and maintain defensible space as required by the Woodside Fire Protection District. The endowment fund balance at the end of FY21 is projected to be $1,383,139 as shown below. Hawthorns – Projected Cash Balance Hawthorns: Endowment Fund Interest Income Expenditures Total Cash Balance Hawthorns Fund Original Endowment $2,018,445 Actual: FY12 through FY16 $53,466 ($540,243)1,531,668 FY17 Actual 10,349 (6,146)1,535,871 FY18 Actual 5,147 (40,412)1,500,606 FY19 Actual 63,321 (30,888)1,533,039 FY20 Estimated Actual 39,000 (92,200)1,479,839 FY21 Projected 13,500 (110,200)1,383,139 Projected Ending Balance $1,383,139 Windy Hill Open Space Preserve by Midpen Staff Se c t i o n I I Bu d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 27Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Measure AA Projects In June 2014, voters approved Measure AA, a $300 million general obligation bond to protect natural open space lands; open preserves or areas of preserves to the public; construct public access improvements such as new trails and staging areas; and restore and enhance open space land, forests, streams, watersheds, and coastal ranch areas. Projects are grouped in 25 key project portfolios organized by geographic area within the District’s boundaries. Midpen began using MAA funds in 2014 and FY21 will mark the seventh year of funding. As of June 30, 2020, an estimated 64.1 million in MAA funds will be expended and the proposed FY21 budget brings the total to $74.3 million, or 24.8% of the $300 million bond. The table below summarizes the estimated expenditures by project portfolio. The expenditures relative to each portfolio allocation, including life-to-date estimate at June 30, 2020, the amounts budgeted for FY21, and the amount remaining for each allocation net grants awarded, are illustrated in the Measure AA Projects Budget Overview graph below and the table on the following page. Measure AA Expenditures (in millions) $ 60 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 50 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 40 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 30 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 20 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 10 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 0 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MAA Portfolio Number ■ Total Life-to-Date Through 6/30/20 ■ FY21 Budget ■ Remaining Portfolio Balance as of 6/30/21 Se c t i o n I I Bu d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 28 Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Measure AA Projects Budget Overview Tier 1 Vision Plan Priority Actions MAA#Measure AA Portfolio Expenditure Plan (adopted 2014) Total Life-To- Date Estimate through 6/30/20 FY21 Proposed Balance Remaining % Expended 01 Miramontes Ridge: Gateway to the Coast Public Access, Stream Restoration and Agriculture Enhancement $27,774,000 $0 $261,874 $27,512,126 0.9% 02 Regional: Bayfront Habitat Protection and Public Access Partnership 5,052,000 3,680,721 30,000 1,341,280 73.5% 03 Purisima Creek Redwoods: Purisima-to-Sea Trail, Watershed Protection and Conservation Grazing 7,608,000 1,292,250 473,433 5,842,318 23.2% 04 El Corte de Madera Creek: Bike Trail and Water Quality Projects 8,376,000 886,868 0 7,489,132 10.6% 05 La Honda Creek: Upper Area Recreation, Habitat Restoration and Conservation Grazing Projects 11,733,000 2,672,206 422,205 8,638,589 26.4% 06 Windy Hill: Trail Implementation, Preservation and Hawthorns Area Historic Partnership 12,740,000 82,452 107,685 12,549,863 1.5% 07 La Honda Creek: Driscoll Ranch Public Access, Endangered Wildlife Protection and Conservation Grazing 14,825,000 12,030,019 229,292 2,565,689 82.7% 08 La Honda Creek/Russian Ridge: Preservation of Upper San Gregorio Watershed and Ridge Trail 15,347,000 2,153,910 0 13,193,090 14.0% 09 Russian Ridge: Public Recreation, Grazing and Wildlife Protection Projects 5,560,000 952,901 258,010 4,349,089 21.8% 10 Coal Creek: Reopen Alpine Road for Trail Use 8,017,000 357,155 206,568 7,453,277 7.0% 11 Rancho San Antonio: Interpretive Improvements, Refurbishing, and Transit Solutions 10,811,000 165,719 29,750 10,615,531 1.8% 12 Peninsula/South Bay Cities: Partner to Complete Middle Stevens Creek Trail 1,038,000 0 0 1,038,000 0.0% 13 Cloverdale Ranch: Wildlife Protection, Grazing and Trail Connections 15,712,000 0 0 15,712,000 0.0% 14 Regional: Trail Connections and Campgrounds 3,966,000 0 0 3,966,000 0.0% 15 Regional: Redwoods Protection and Salmon Fishery Conservation 50,728,000 3,103,050 1,573,318 46,051,632 9.2% 16 Long Ridge: Trail, Conservation and Habitat Restoration Projects (Saratoga) 5,140,000 0 0 5,140,000 0.0% 17 Regional: Complete Upper Stevens Creek Trail 7,760,000 1,315,333 0 6,444,667 17.0% 18 South Bay Foothills: Saratoga-to-Sea Trail and Wildlife Corridor 1,365,000 553,850 553,293 257,857 81.1% 19 El Sereno: Dog Trails and Connections 2,254,000 480,242 0 1,773,759 21.3% 20 South Bay Foothills: Wildlife Passage and Ridge Trail Improvements 13,966,000 551,296 389,648 13,025,056 6.7% 21 Bear Creek Redwoods: Public Recreation and Interpretive Projects 17,478,000 8,789,456 5,226,539 3,462,005 80.2% 22 Sierra Azul: Cathedral Oaks Public Access and Conservation Projects 6,714,000 1,380,330 485,465 4,848,205 27.8% 23 Sierra Azul: Mount Umunhum Public Access and Interpretive Projects 27,972,000 21,614,442 0 6,357,558 77.3% 24 Sierra Azul: Rancho de Guadalupe Family Recreation 10,078,000 1,591,996 0 8,486,004 15.8% 25 Sierra Azul: Loma Prieta Area Public Access, Regional Trails and Habitat Projects 7,986,000 410,150 0 7,575,850 5.1% TOTAL MAA Bond $300,000,000 $64,064,346 $10,247,079 $225,688,576 24.8% Measure AA Portfolio numbers do not coincide with Regional Map locations 1-26. Total life-to-date and proposed expenditures are net of grants awarded. Se c t i o n I I Bu d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 29Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Vision Plan Through a comprehensive community engagement process and a thorough resource assessment, Midpen developed 54 priority action portfolios focused on the three legs of the mission: land protection, habitat restoration and low-intensity recreation. These were prioritized by the public and approved by Midpen’s board of directors in January 2014 as a slate of 25 high-priority project portfolios (now identified as MAA portfolios) and 29 additional portfolios to be completed as time and resources allow. Vision Plan Goals ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 1. Outdoor Recreation and Healthy Living: Provide accessible open space lands for recreation and outdoor exercise in nature.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 2. Cultural and Scenic Landscape Preservation: Conserve the area’s scenery and rich history; provide places for escape and quiet enjoyment.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 3. Healthy Nature: Take care of the land, air, water and soil so that plants and animals thrive and people can receive nature’s benefits.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 4. Connecting with Nature and Each Other: Provide opportunities for people to learn about and appreciate the natural environment and to connect with nature and each other.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 5. Viable Working Lands: Provide viable working lands that reflect our agricultural heritage and provide food and jobs.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— The 54 priority actions portfolios identified in the Vision Plan were separated into two tiers. Tier 1 represents the top 25 priority actions identified in the Vision Plan (see previous page for a full list of MAA portfolios). Tier 2 includes longer-term priority actions as identified in the Vision Plan. This map identifies the location of both Tier 1 and Tier 2 priority actions, followed by a list of Tier 2 action locations and names. Se c t i o n I I Bu d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 30 Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 TIER 2 VISION PLAN PRIORITY ACTIONS Portfolio Location and Name ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 26 Pulgas Ridge: Regional and Neighborhood Trail Extensions——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 27 Miramontes Ridge/Purisima Creek Redwoods: Coastside Environmental Education Partnerships——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 28 Miramontes Ridge/Purisima Creek Redwoods: Mills Creek /Arroyo Leon Watershed Protection, Stream Restoration, and Regional Trail Connections——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 29 Regional: Advocate to Protect Coastal Vistas of North San Mateo County Coast——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 30 Regional: Support California Coastal Trail——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 31 Miramontes Ridge/Purisima Creek Redwoods: Fire Management and Risk Reduction——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 32 Tunitas Creek: Additional Watershed Preservation and Conservation Grazing——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 33 Purisima Creek Redwoods: Parking and Repair Projects——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 34 Teague Hill: West Union Creek Watershed Restoration Partnership——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 35 Peninsula and South Bay Cities: Major Roadway Signage——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 36 Regional: Collaborate to Restore San Francisquito Creek Fish Habitat——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 37 Peninsula and South Bay Cities: San Francisquito Creek Restoration Partnership——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 38 Ravenswood: Cooley Landing Nature Center Partnership——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 39 La Honda Creek/El Corte de Madera Creek: San Gregorio Watershed and Agriculture Preservation Projects——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 40 Regional: San Andreas Fault Interpretive Trail Program——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 41 Rancho San Antonio: Hidden Villa Access and Preservation Projects——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 42 Regional: Advocate to Protect Coastal Vistas of South San Mateo County Coast——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 43 Lower Pomponio Creek: Watershed Preservation and Conservation Grazing——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 44 Lower Pescadero Creek: Watershed Preservation and Conservation Grazing——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 45 Skyline Subregion: Fire Management and Forest Restoration Projects——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 46 Skyline Ridge: Education Facilities, Trails, and Wildlife Conservation Projects——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 47 Monte Bello: Campfire Talks and Habitat Projects——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 48 Gazos Creek Watershed: Redwood Preservation, Long-distance Trails, Fish Habitat Improvements——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 49 Saratoga Gap: Stevens Canyon Ranch Family Food Education Projects——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 50 Picchetti Ranch: Family Nature Play Program——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 51 Fremont Older: Historic Woodhills Restoration and Overall Parking Improvements——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 52 Peninsula and South Bay Cities: Los Gatos Creek Trail Connections——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 53 Sierra Azul: Expand Access in the Kennedy-Limekiln Area——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 54 Sierra Azul: Fire Management——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Midpen’s Vision Plan Report and appendices can be found online at: openspace.org/our-work/projects/vision-plan Se c t i o n I I Bu d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 31Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Debt Service LEGAL DEBT LIMIT The legal debt limit for Midpen is based on Section 5568 of the California Public Resources Code, which states that for the purpose of acquiring land or other property, and for constructing or completing any capital improvements, Midpen may incur an indebtedness not to exceed fifteen percent of the assessed valuation of property situated in the District. As of June 30, 2020, the assessed value of property within the District’s jurisdiction totaled $270.536 billion, resulting in a legal debt limit of $40.580 billion. In 2017 and 2018, both Standard & Poor’s and Fitch Ratings awarded AAA ratings to Midpen’s new 2017 Green Refunding Bonds, the 2017 Parity Bonds, and the 2018 General Obligation Bonds. Midpen’s Refunding Promissory Notes and Bonds remain at AAA, and the 2011 District’s Revenue Bonds are rated AA+ by both ratings agencies. OUTSTANDING DEBT OBLIGATIONS As of June 30, 2020, Midpen had the following outstanding debt obligations: Outstanding Debt Obligations Type of Debt Maturity Actual Interest Rate Authorized and Issued Outstanding as of June 30, 2020 2011 Revenue Bonds*2022 2% to 6%$1,080,000 $535,000 2012 Refunding Promissory Notes**2034 2% to 5%9,085,601 7,900,601 2015 Refunding Promissory Notes 2034 3.5% to 5%23,630,000 20,135,000 2016 Green Refunding Bonds 2039 3% to 5%57,410,000 47,410,000 2017 Green Refunding Bonds 2038 3.125% to 5% 25,025,000 25,025,000 2017 Parity Bonds 2028 5%11,220,000 9,480,000 Promissory Note 2023 5%1,500,000 1,500,000 General Fund 128,950,601 111,985,601 2015 General Obligation Bonds 2021/2045 1.5% to 2.5%45,000,000 41,555,000 2018 General Obligation Bonds 2049 2% to 5%50,000,000 47,255,000 Measure AA Fund 95,000,000 88,810,000 Total Debt $223,950,601 $200,795,601 *The 2023 through 2041 maturities of the 2011 Revenue Bonds were refunded through Midpen’s 2016 Green Bonds. **The 2024 through 2029 and 2035 through 2042 maturities of the 2012 Revenue Bonds were refunded through Midpen’s 2017 Green Bonds. GENERAL FUND BOND 2011 Revenue Bonds On May 19, 2011, the District Financing Authority, on behalf of Midpen, issued $20.5 million of Revenue Bonds for the purpose of acquiring land to preserve and use as open space. Each year, Midpen will appropriate revenues (primarily limited property tax collections that Santa Clara County and San Mateo County allocate to Midpen) to pay its obligations under a lease agreement for use and occupancy of District land in addition to other Midpen debt and lease obligations unrelated to this financing. The maturities from 2022 through the final maturity in 2041 issue were advance refunded through Midpen’s 2016 Green Bonds. 2012 Revenue Refunding Bonds On January 19, 2012, Midpen advance refunded $34.7 million in 1999 Lease Revenue Bonds by issuing $34.265 million in promissory notes. The notes are a blend of current interest and capital appreciation notes maturing through 2042. The net proceeds of $33.396 million were used to purchase U.S. government securities, which were deposited in an irrevocable trust with an escrow agent to provide for all future debt service payments on the 1999 Series bonds. As a result, the 1999 Series bonds are considered to be defeased and the liability for those bonds has been removed from the long-term debt in the financial statements. Se c t i o n I I Bu d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 32 Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 2015 Refunding Promissory Notes (2004 Project Lease) On January 22, 2015, Midpen refunded $31.9 million of the District’s Financing Authority’s 2004 Revenue Bonds by issuing $23.63 million in promissory notes. The net proceeds of $30.9 million, together with $2.3 million of funds related to the 2004 Revenue Bonds, were used to purchase U.S. government securities. Those securities were deposited in an irrevocable trust with an escrow agent to redeem the 2004 Revenue Bonds in full on March 1, 2015. 2016 Green Bonds Refunding On September 22, 2016, Midpen refunded $44.1 million of the District Financing Authority’s 2007 Series A Revenue Refunding Bonds and advance refunded $19.1 million of the District Financing Authority’s 2011 Revenue Bonds by issuing $57.4 million in Green Bonds Refunding. The net proceeds of $24.0 million were deposited in an irrevocable trust with an escrow agent to redeem the 2011 Revenue Bonds in full on September 1, 2021. 2017 Green Bonds Refunding (Series A) On December 13, 2017, Midpen advance refunded $11.6 million of the District’s 2012 Revenue Bonds Current Interest Notes and $8.9 million of the District’s 2012 Revenue Bonds Capital Appreciation Notes by issuing $25.025 million in Green Bonds Refunding. The net proceeds of $28.3 million were deposited in an irrevocable trust with an escrow agent to redeem the 2012 Revenue Bonds in full on September 1, 2022. 2017 Parity Bonds (Series B) On December 13, 2017, Midpen issued $11.22 million of Parity Bonds to finance a portion of the cost of acquiring and improving staffing facilities to establish the new South Area Field Office and to refurbish the newly acquired Administrative Office. The net proceeds of $12.5 million were deposited into the Project Fund. Promissory Note On April 1, 2003, Midpen entered into a $1.5 million promissory note with the Hunt Living Trust as part of a lease and management agreement. The note is due in full on April 1, 2023 and bears interest at 5.5% semi-annually through April 1, 2013 and 5.0% per annum until the maturity, or prior redemption, of the note. Monte Bello Open Space Preserve by Cass Kalinski Se c t i o n I I Bu d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 33Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 General Fund Annual Debt Service (in millions) $ 14 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 12 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 10 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 8 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 6 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 4 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 2 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 0 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33 FY34 FY35 FY36 FY37 FY38 FY39 FY40 ■ 2011 Refunding Notes (Unrefunded portion) ■ 2012 Refunding Notes ■ 2015 Refunding Notes ■ 2016 Refunding Green Bonds ■ 2017 Green Bonds (Series A Refunding 2012s) ■ 2017 Parity Bonds (Series B) ■ Promissory Note Five-Year General Fund Debt Projection Type of Debt FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 2011 Refunding Bonds $266,400 $290,700 $0 $0 $0 2012 Refunding Notes 460,350 460,250 461,825 0 0 2015 Refunding Notes 1,918,675 1,939,375 1,967,125 1,995,750 1,990,875 2016 Green Bonds 5,497,200 5,509,200 5,818,575 5,852,325 5,893,575 2017 Green Bonds (Series A Refunding 2012s) 1,022,200 1,022,200 1,022,200 1,022,200 1,022,200 2017 Parity Bonds (Series B) 1,439,250 1,438,500 1,435,250 1,439,250 1,435,575 Promissory Note 75,000 75,000 1,575,000 0 0 Total 10,679,075 10,735,225 12,279,975 10,309,525 10,342,225 Total General Fund Principal 5,985,000 6,295,000 8,135,000 6,565,000 6,935,000 Total General Fund Interest 4,694,075 4,440,225 4,144,975 3,744,525 3,407,225 Grand Total $10,679,075 $10,735,225 $12,279,975 $10,309,525 $10,342,225 Se c t i o n I I Bu d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 34 Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 MAA BOND FUND MAA Tax Levy Debt service payments on the MAA Bonds are paid through ad valorem taxes on all taxable property within the District. Midpen receives property tax revenue from Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. The counties are responsible for assessing, collecting and distributing property taxes in accordance with state law. Each year, the levy is calculated based on the assessed value and the debt service amount that Midpen needs to collect. The evolution of the tax levy is as follows: ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 2015-16 $.0008 per $100 of assessed valuation——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 2016-17 $.0006 per $100 of assessed valuation——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 2017-18 $.0009 per $100 of assessed valuation——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 2018-19 $.0018 per $100 of assessed valuation——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 2019-20 $.0016 per $100 of assessed valuation——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 2020-21 $.0019 per $100 of assessed valuation (projected)——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 2015 General Obligation Bonds (Series 2015A and 2015B) On August 13, 2015, Midpen issued $40 million of tax-exempt general obligation bonds (Series 2015A) and $5 million of taxable general obligation bonds (Series 2015B). The bonds are payable from ad valorem taxes pursuant to an election of registered voters of the District held on June 3, 2014, which approved MAA to authorize the issuance of up to $300 million principal amount of general obligation bonds. 2018 General Obligation Bonds (Series GO Green Bonds) On February 14, 2018, Midpen issued an additional $50 million of tax-exempt general obligation Green Bonds. The bonds are also payable from ad valorem taxes pursuant to an election of registered voters of the District held on June 3, 2014 which approved MAA to authorize the issuance of up to $300 million principal amount of general obligation bonds. Se c t i o n I I Bu d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 35Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Measure AA Annual Debt Service (in millions) $ 8 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 7 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 6 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 5 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 4 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 3 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 2 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 1 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 0 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ■ Measure AA 2015 Series A (Tax-Exempt) ■ Measure AA 2015 Series B (Taxable) ■ Measure AA 2018 Series GO Green Bonds Five-Year Measure AA Debt Projection FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 Measure AA 2015 Series A (Tax-Exempt) $1,636,163 $1,943,288 $2,575,913 $2,570,788 $2,573,163 Measure AA 2015 Series B (Taxable)952,313 637,875 0 0 0 Measure AA 2018 Series GO Green Bonds 3,373,375 2,728,500 2,727,600 2,730,200 2,721,350 Total 5,961,850 5,309,663 5,303,513 5,300,988 5,294,513 Total Measure AA Principal 2,410,000 1,825,000 1,895,000 1,980,000 2,070,000 Total Measure AA Interest 3,551,850 3,484,663 3,408,513 3,320,988 3,224,513 Grand Total $5,961,850 $5,309,663 $5,303,513 $5,300,988 $5,294,513 Projected Tax Rate $1.95 $2.17 $2.13 $2.20 $2.56 FY2 1 FY2 2 FY2 3 FY2 4 FY2 5 FY2 6 FY2 7 FY2 8 FY2 9 FY3 0 FY3 1 FY3 2 FY3 3 FY3 4 FY3 5 FY3 6 FY3 7 FY3 8 FY3 9 FY4 0 FY4 1 FY4 2 FY4 3 FY4 5 FY4 6 FY4 7 FY4 8 FY4 9 FY4 4 Se c t i o n I I Bu d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 36 Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Grants Program Midpen recognizes that it cannot accomplish its mission alone. The ambitious vision set forth by MAA requires the organization to think strategically about how to broaden its impact in partnership with the conservation community and leverage existing revenue sources to augment funding gaps. To address this need, in early 2017, Midpen created a formal Grants Program focused on increasing grant funding for the organization and deepening its relationships with external partners. The objective of the Grants Program is to bring in additional revenue to fulfill MAA obligations, work in concert with partner organizations to build the collective impact of the conservation community and remain responsive to community needs and trends. Over the long-term, the goal is to build a diverse portfolio of external revenue sources and engage more deeply and collaboratively with partners. As part of its effort to build these relationships, Midpen has expanded its Grantmaking Program, which provides modest conservation grants to partners working on projects that align with Midpen’s mission. To this end, Midpen increased its investment in this program and broadened the categories of eligible funding to align with the organization’s current priorities. Going forward, Midpen will continue to build the capacity of the Grants Program, work collaboratively with its partners and strategically align grant awards with Midpen’s mission. In the short term, the Grants Program will refine these goals, build institutional knowledge about grants among staff and focus on small-scale successes to demonstrate the value of the program. Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve by Jamie Tan Se c t i o n I I Bu d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 37Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 General Fund Balance The projected FY21 Total Fund Balance in the General Fund remains essentially flat due to the FY21 proposed budget having a zero percent increase over the FY20 adopted budget. Of note, some funds are shifting from unassigned to committed in preparation for future capital expenditures in FY22 and beyond. Projected General Fund Balance FY16 Actual FY17 Actual FY18 Actual FY19 Actual FY20 Projected FY21 Budget Nonspendable —$55,093 $35,968 $185,984 $185,984 $185,984 Restricted $1,971,040 1,971,040 1,466,982 1,436,094 1,382,894 1,286,194 Committed 35,400,000 35,400,000 55,300,000 29,288,465 30,317,570 30,171,299 Assigned — — — — — — Unassigned 16,857,586 23,872,450 16,306,537 20,442,045 19,608,600 19,898,371 Total Fund Balance $54,228,626 $61,298,583 $73,109,487 $51,352,588 $51,495,048 $51,541,848 Minimum Unassigned Fund Balance*$11,839,200 $12,691,200 $13,722,600 $14,493,900 $15,616,500 $16,046,100 *Calculated as 30% of total annual Fund 10 property tax revenues. General fund balances include Fund 10 General Fund and Fund 20 Hawthorns Fund, as presented in Midpen’s audited financial statements. CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE Midpen maintains a balanced budget by ensuring that annual operating revenues are equal to or greater than annual operating expenses, general fund capital expenses and debt service obligations. The FY21 projected balance in each fund is based on FY20 projected fund balances at fiscal year-end; audited financial statements are not available at the time of budget development. A balance is maintained in Fund 50 due to an offset in timing between property tax collection and debt service payments. The following table depicts the change in fund balance. Projected Change in Fund Balance Fund 10 General Fund Operating Fund 20 Hawthorns Fund 30 Measure AA Capital Fund 40 General Fund Capital Fund 50 Debt Service Total FY19 Audited Fund Balance $49,916,494 $1,436,094 $37,944,253 $8,254,539 $6,775,924 $104,327,304 Change in Fund Balance 195,660 (53,200)(7,947,370)(1,839,327)746,085 (8,898,152) FY20 Projected Balance $50,112,154 $1,382,894 $29,996,883 $6,415,212 $7,522,009 $95,429,152 Change in Fund Balance 143,500 (96,700)(9,835,604)(6,415,212)279,190 (15,924,826) FY21 Projected Balance $50,255,654 $1,286,194 $20,161,279 $0 $7,801,199 $79,504,326 Fund 10 General Fund and Fund 20 Hawthorns Fund are presented in Midpen’s audited financial statements as the General Fund. Fund 20 Hawthorns Fund is called out separately as part of the Budget and Action Plan for clarity and tracking. Se c t i o n I I Bu d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 38 Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Long-Range Financial Planning INTENTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS This Long-Range Financial Plan looks forward for five years, projecting revenues and expenditures, while testing the financial resiliency of Midpen beyond FY21. Information is included for the two prior year actuals for reference. Annual revenues are based on the Controller’s conservative revenue projections; FY22 property taxes are expected to grow at 1% and then at 3.5% each year thereafter. Estimated one-time revenue of $10 million in FY23 represents the anticipated sale of the current administrative office. Expenditures include salaries and benefits, inflated at 5% per year beginning in FY22 and the inclusion of four new FTEs per year at various salary ranges (note: these positions have not been approved by the board). Additional annual expenditures include services and supplies inflated at 5% per year, capital expenditures in the General Fund and Measure AA at 4% per year, land acquisition in the General Fund at 2% per year and known one-time expenditures in the General Fund. Annual debt service payments reflect higher principal and interest from new bond proceeds, projected to be issued in FY22 and FY25. Long-Range Financial Plan (in thousands) FY19 Actual FY20 Projected FY21 Budget FY22 Projected FY23 Projected FY24 Projected FY25 Projected Fund balance beginning $132,413 $104,327 $95,429 $79,504 $95,530 $95,390 $86,141 Revenue Property Taxes 54,395 57,510 59,687 60,429 62,725 65,202 68,839 Grant Income 1,082 4,265 1,915 1,170 942 740 980 Interest Income 3,649 2,067 1,360 1,374 1,388 1,402 1,416 Rental Income 2,360 2,061 1,729 1,347 1,764 1,782 1,800 Other Revenues 641 479 487 487 487 500 500 One-Time Revenues 0 0 0 0 10,000 0 0 Total Revenues 62,127 66,382 65,179 64,806 77,306 69,626 73,535 Other Funding Sources Use of Bond Proceeds 0 983 0 0 0 0 0 New Bond Proceeds & Debt Service Premiums 0 1,633 0 45,000 0 0 35,000 Transfers In / (Out)0 (729)146 0 0 0 0 Total Other Funding Sources 0 1,887 146 45,000 0 0 35,000 Grand Total: Revenues & Other Funding Sources 62,127 68,269 65,325 109,806 77,306 69,626 108,535 Expenses General Fund, Hawthorns & GF Capital (10, 20 & 40) Salaries and Benefits 20,728 25,461 25,633 26,915 28,261 29,674 31,158 Salaries and Benefits (4 add’l FTEs per year)0 0 0 1,001 2,102 3,311 4,635 Total Salaries and Benefits 20,728 25,461 25,633 27,916 30,363 32,985 35,793 Services and Supplies 8,087 10,161 11,203 11,763 12,351 12,969 13,617 General Fund Capital Outlay 2,885 2,458 3,943 7,280 3,045 4,080 4,240 General Fund Land Acquisition 31,970 9,215 0 1,000 1,020 1,040 1,061 Other One-Time Expenditures 0 1,847 11,961 18,825 2,000 0 0 General Fund, Hawthorns & GF Capital Total 63,670 49,142 52,740 66,784 48,779 51,074 54,712 Measure AA Fund (30) Measure AA Funded Capital Outlay 8,698 10,356 10,307 9,601 8,834 9,940 10,340 Measure AA Land Acquisition 2,174 0 1,562 0 0 0 0 Measure AA Fund Total 10,872 10,356 11,869 9,601 8,834 9,940 10,340 Debt Service Fund (50) Debt Service 15,671 17,670 16,641 17,395 19,833 17,861 18,937 Total Expenses $90,213 $77,167 $81,250 $93,780 $77,446 $78,875 $83,988 Net changes in fund balance ($28,086)($8,898)($15,925)$16,026 ($140)($9,249)$24,547 Fund Balance Ending General Fund $49,916 $50,112 $50,256 $30,241 $39,009 $39,254 $37,886 Hawthorns Endowment Fund 1,436 1,383 1,286 1,211 1,136 1,061 986 Measure AA Capital Projects Fund (Bond Proceeds)37,944 29,997 20,161 56,530 48,439 39,239 64,879 General Fund Capital Projects Fund (Bond Proceeds)8,255 6,415 0 0 0 0 0 Debt Service Fund 6,776 7,522 7,801 7,548 6,806 6,587 6,937 Fund balance ending $104,327 $95,429 $79,504 $95,530 $95,390 $86,141 $110,688 Se c t i o n I I Bu d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 39Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 CONCLUSIONS Beginning FY21 cash balances, estimated at a total of $95.4 million, and future projected revenues are adequate to cover projected debt service, operating expenses, capital expenditures, and reserve requirements. Ending FY25 cash balances are estimated at a total of $110.7 million. Midpen’s long-term financial projections indicate that the proposed FY21 budget is balanced, sustainable and aligned with Midpen’s long-term plans and objectives. Delivering on Midpen’s Mission AGRICULTURE In keeping with Strategic Plan Goal 2, Objective 4: take a regional leadership role in promoting the benefits of open space and sustainable agriculture, Midpen has prioritized 13 projects to support regional agriculture and sustain conservation grazing on District lands such as the Russian Ridge Mindego Pond Improvement. DIVERSITY In support of Goal 3, Objective 2: engaging diverse communities, Midpen has prioritized seven projects to connect diverse communities to their public open space preserves, including projects at Rancho San Antonio and Cooley Landing. WILDLAND FIRE RESILIENCY In support of Goal 2, Objective 3: Climate change has created a new wildfire reality in California: fires are becoming more frequent and catastrophic. In response, Midpen has prioritized seven fire prevention projects, including an emphasis on fuels reduction and wildland fire readiness. Windy Hill Open Space Preserve by David Medeiros Se c t i o n I I Bu d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 40 Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Climate Action Plan CLIMATE ACTION PLAN OVERVIEW The board adopted the Climate Action Plan in October 2018 to chart a course for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agency operations. The plan identified Midpen’s goals for reducing GHG emissions as the following: 20% below 2016 baseline by 2022, 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050. Changes have already been implemented that reduced emissions by 14% from 2016 to 2018. Actions taken in FY21 are expected to reduce emissions by a further 3-5%. The table below describes the Climate Action Plan items that will be implemented in FY21. Of note is a higher and sustained level of telecommuting due to the pandemic and expected extension of social distancing requirements. This shift in how Midpen works while delivering on the mission will not only reduce employee commute-generated emissions, it will support Midpen’s long-term goals to permanently reduce GHG emissions from agency operations. As of the time of when this report was written, Midpen is evaluating the opportunity for expanding its telecommuting options given the success of maintaining high productivity during the shelter-in-place/work-from-home requirements. With greater telecommuting by its administrative office staff, Midpen can achieve further reductions in its greenhouse gas emissions this coming fiscal year. The Climate Action Plan can be found on Midpen’s website at openspace.org/our-work/projects/climate-change. FY21 Climate Action Plan Implementation Actions Climate Action Plan Item Budget*Department Commute-3/Facilities-5: Assess feasibility of a weekly or biweekly AO closure (compressed schedules or telework) $0 (Staff time only*)Land and Facilities, Human Resources Commute-4: Continue incentives for employees commuting via carpool, public transit, bike, or walking $48,000 Administrative Services Facilities-2: Install solar panel system at Skyline Field Office $150,000 Land and Facilities Livestock-2: Partner with San Mateo County Resource Conservation District to develop plan to increase carbon sequestration $25,000 Natural Resources, Land and Facilities Vehicles-X: As patrol vehicles are up for replacement, replace with diesel or lower emissions options whenever possible Visitor Services Vehicles-4: Acquire and test electric maintenance equipment and electric ATVs $20,000 Land and Facilities Vehicles-9: Acquire and test electric bikes, motorcycles, or ATVs $10,000 Visitor Services Vehicles-14: Purchase carbon offsets for business flights $1,000 Natural Resources *Staff time only: Midpen recognizes staff time as an indirect cost of implementing the Climate Action Plan actions. MONITORING PROGRESS To track progress towards the climate change goals, staff will conduct a greenhouse gas inventory every two years to measure emissions and assess change over time. The 2018 greenhouse gas inventory found that emissions decreased by 14% from 2016 to 2018, primarily due to “low-hanging fruit” actions such as purchasing carbon offsets and buying renewable electricity that cut significant emissions without great financial or administrative costs. However, an inventory of avoided emissions showed that had actions not been taken, administrative emissions would have risen 9%—this reminds us that without intentional effort, emissions will continue to rise. This page, which is now included annually in the Budget and Action Plan, is intended to drive progress, highlight work on this important initiative, and provide accountability on progress towards Midpen’s climate change goals. Implementation updates will be shared throughout the year through newsletters and social media. Se c t i o n I I Bu d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 41Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Budget Process Midpen’s annual budget development process begins in December each year. An annual retreat is held where the board reviews and updates Midpen’s Strategic Plan, based on the findings of an environmental scan, and reviews prior-year accomplishments. At this time, staff begins capacity planning for ongoing projects and proposed new projects. In March, the board meets with executive management and department managers to establish priorities for the upcoming fiscal year and provide staff with strategic direction regarding the Capital Improvement and Action Plan. Departments begin developing Midpen’s annual CIAP in February/March in accordance with the board’s priorities, and CIAP budgets are developed in March. The individual department budgets and CIAPs are consolidated in March/April and reviewed by executive management before being presented to the Action Plan and Budget Committee in April/May. The board conducts its initial review of the proposed Annual Budget and Action Plan in May and formally adopts it in June. Notable to the FY21 budget development process was an additional review period in April 2020 that executive management and department managers performed in response to the pandemic. Proposed operating expenses were carefully reviewed and reduced as appropriate (e.g. in-person conferences, trainings and events; consulting services). CIAP projects were also carefully reviewed with some projects being deferred into FY22 or beyond. This additional review period is included in the process map below. Budget Development Process • Develop Environmental Scan • Update Strategic Goals • Board Retreat #1 • Project Scoping • Resource Loading • Measure AA Reprioritization, as needed • Develop Capital Improvement and Action Plan (CIAP) • Board Retreat #2 • Initialize Budget in NWS • Finalize OpEx/CapEx Budgets and CIAP • Review Budget and CIAP with Managers/AGMs/CFO • Review Budget and CIAP with GM • Review triggered by COVID-19 pandemic and economic impacts to the Bay Area • Review operating budgets (resulted in 0% increase from FY20 Adopted) • Review CIAP projects (resulted in deferred projects; budget increases only in Measure AA funded capital and one-time General Fund capital expenditures) • Present Budget and CIAP to ABC Committee • Follow-up Presentations to ABC (if needed) • ABC Approves Budget and CIAP • Board‘s Initial Review of Budget and CIAP • Board Adopts Budget and CIAP Midpen’s board of directors adopts an annual operating budget for the organization by major fund on or before June 30 for the ensuing fiscal period. The board may amend the budget by resolution during the fiscal period. The legal level of control, the level at which expenditures may not legally exceed the budget, is at the category level. Midpen uses three methods of amending the budget throughout the year: (1) at the quarterly re-forecast, (2) ad hoc for property purchases or time-sensitive expenditure adjustments, and (3) a net zero adjustment within a fund and expense category. Strategic Planning (Nov-Jan) Action Plan Development (Nov-Mar) Budget Preparation (Jan-Apr) Board Review (Apr-Jun) NEW April 2020 Budget Review Se c t i o n I I Bu d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 42 Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 1. After the end of the first, second, and third quarters, department managers and project managers provide a re-forecast report for all non-personnel related expenditures. Based on the aggregated re-forecast reports, a consolidated budget adjustment is proposed to the board for adoption via resolution.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 2. The Ad Hoc budget adjustments are used for property purchases as well as time-sensitive expenditures that require budget availability prior to the quarterly re-forecast. This method ensures continuation of projects and operations without administrative restrictions. Ad Hoc budget adjustments are adopted by the board via resolution.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 3. Net-zero budget transfers can be implemented administratively, provided these transfers are within the same fund and the same expenditure category. A summary of net zero transfers is included in each quarterly re- forecast report to the board.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Budget Management Process • Departments are expected to review YTD operating and capital budgets throughout the fiscal year to ensure that expenditures are trending to adopted budget • Budget and Analysis sends quarterly budget performance reports to departments • General Manager may approve net-zero adjustments over $15,000 • AGM’s may approve net-zero adjustments up to $15,000 • Department managers may approve net-zero adjustments within their departments up to $10,000 • GM must report to the board any adjustments greater than 5% in the following accounts: Expenses/Annexation, Special Agreements, Insurance, Travel Expenses and Personal Development • Budget and Analysis staff presents quarterly budget adjustment requests to the board for approval Financial Policies BUDGET POLICY Midpen follows best practices in budgeting, including assessing constituent needs, developing long range plans, adhering to budget preparation and adoption procedures, monitoring performance, and adjusting budgets as required. Midpen’s budget is divided into four categories: Operating Budget, Capital Budget, Land and Associated Costs, and Debt Service. The budget is prepared and adopted on a cash basis, whereas the annual financial statements are prepared on a modified accrual basis, which takes into account all of the current year revenues and expenses regardless of when cash is received or paid. The board adopts the annual budget on the Fund level: ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Fund 10 – General Fund Operating——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Fund 20 – Hawthorns——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Fund 30 – Measure AA Land/Capital——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Fund 40 – General Fund Land/Capital——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Fund 50 – Debt Service——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Budget Monitoring Board Approval GM Review Budget Amendments (Quarterly) Se c t i o n I I Bu d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 43Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 The budget can be amended during the year, in accordance with the board Budget and Expenditure Policy, which states that increases to any of the four budget categories must be approved by the Board. DEBT MANAGEMENT POLICY The board adopted a Debt Management Policy in 2017. The stated purpose of the Debt Management Policy is to establish the overall parameters for issuing, structuring, and administering Midpen’s debt in compliance with applicable federal and state securities law. The Debt Management Policy was developed in conjunction with the Policy for Initial and Continuing Disclosure Relating to Bond Issuances, with the latter ensuring that statements or releases of information to the public and investors relating to the finances of Midpen are complete, true and accurate in all material respects. FUND BALANCE POLICY During 2014, the board adopted the Fund Balance Policy to provide adequate funding to meet Midpen’s short-term and long-term plans, provide funds for unforeseen expenditures related to emergencies such as natural disasters, strengthen the financial stability of the organization against present and future uncertainties, such as economic downturns and revenue shortfalls, and maintain an investment-grade bond rating. This policy has been developed, with the counsel of the Midpen auditors, to meet the requirements of GASB 54. The components of Midpen’s fund balance are as follows: ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Nonspendable fund balance includes amounts that cannot be spent either because they are not in spendable form, e.g. prepaid insurance, or because of legal or contractual constraints. At all times, Midpen shall hold fund balance equal to the sum of its nonspendable assets.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Restricted fund balance includes amounts that are constrained for specific purposes which are externally imposed by constitutional provisions, enabling legislation, creditors or contracts.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Committed fund balance includes amounts that are constrained for specific purposes that are internally imposed by the government through formal action of the highest level of decision making authority and do not lapse at period end. ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Assigned fund balance includes amounts that are intended to be used for specific purposes that are neither restricted nor committed. Such amounts may be assigned by the General Manager if authorized by the board to make such designations. Projects to be funded by assigned funds require the approval of the General Manager. ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Unassigned fund balance includes amounts within the general fund which have not been classified within the above categories. The board shall designate the minimum amount of unassigned fund balance which is to be held in reserve in consideration of unanticipated events that could adversely affect the financial condition of Midpen and jeopardize the continuation of necessary public services.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— INVESTMENT POLICY Midpen’s Investment Policy is adopted annually, in accordance with state law. The policy provides guidance and direction for the prudent investment of Midpen funds to safeguard the principal of invested funds and achieve a return on funds while maintaining the liquidity needs of the organization. The ultimate goal is to maximize the efficiency of Midpen’s cash management system, and to enhance the organization’s economic status, while protecting its pooled cash. The investment of funds is governed by the California Government Code Section 53601 et seq., and by California Government Code Section 53630 et seq. Funds on deposit in banks must be federally insured or collateralized in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code, Sections 53630 et seq. Midpen uses restricted/committed amounts to be spent first when both restricted and unrestricted fund balance is available unless there are legal documents/contracts that prohibit doing this, such as a grant agreement requiring dollar-for-dollar spending. Additionally, Midpen would first use committed, then assigned and lastly unassigned amounts of unrestricted fund balance when expenditures are made. Long Ridge Open Space Preserve by Greg Hughes 44 Section II • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I Bu d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w Section III Capital Improvement and Action Plan Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve by Tristan Paine 45Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 46 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Capital Improvement and Action Plan Overview This section of the budget, the Capital Improvement and Action Plan, provides multi-year budget information and a consolidated view of the major projects and activities at Midpen. Projects with budgets of $50,000 or more are highlighted in this section. Projects below this threshold are noted at the beginning of each program and are also included in Section IV: Department Summary. Midpen’s CIAP forms the fiscal year work program and includes the projects and key initiatives that the organization will pursue and for which it will dedicate staff and financial resources. The FY21 CIAP contains a total of 74 projects, of which 24 projects, or 32%, are eligible for Measure AA reimbursement, a general obligation bond funding source that was approved by the voters in 2014. Midpen staff prepared the FY21 CIAP in accordance with the board’s direction outlined at the March 3, 2020 retreat. However, given the worldwide pandemic and resulting shelter-in-place orders, the District’s ability to move forward numerous projects that either require field work or were planned to be under construction in Q4 of FY20 has been significantly impacted. In light of these impacts, the General Manager directed staff to review the proposed FY21 CIAP again in April 2020 to recalibrate the project list and budgets given the unanticipated project delays and schedule extensions that are occurring in Q4 of FY20. Significant edits were made to the proposed FY21 CIAP, resulting in 74 projects spread throughout the following programs: FY21 CIAP by Program ● Land Acquisition and Preservation (18%) ● Natural Resource Protection and Restoration (27%) ● Public Access, Education and Outreach (31%) ● Assets and Organizational Support (24%) From a funding perspective, 70% of the CIAP projects are capital projects or land acquisition while the remaining 30% are included in the operating budget. FY21 CIAP Projects by Program Program Fund 10– General Fund Operating Fund 20– Hawthorns Fund 30– Measure AA Capital Fund 40– General Fund Capital Grand Total % Total Land Acquisition and Preservation - - 1 12 13 18% Natural Resource Protection and Restoration 8 - 9 3 20 27% Public Access, Education and Outreach 6 - 14 3 23 31% Assets and Organizational Support 8 1 - 9 18 24% Total Projects 22 1 24 27 74 100% FY21 CIAP Budget The FY21 Three-Year CIAP lists projected capital and operating projects and associated costs for FY21 through FY23 and provides funding of $78.5 million over the next three years. The CIAP is funded by the General Fund, Measure AA general obligation bonds, the Hawthorns Fund and grants. The CIAP lists the capital and operating projects by program. Midpen’s budget typically excludes new land purchase funding, for which a corresponding budget adjustment to fund the purchase will be included when new land acquisitions are presented to the board for approval. However, associated land costs, such as surveys, appraisals, legal services, environmental planning and studies are included in the FY21 budget. Three-Year CIAP Funding Sources CIAP Summary by Funding Source FY21 FY22 FY23 3-Year Total Fund 10 – General Fund Operating $2,116,700 $944,589 $459,000 $3,520,289 Fund 20 – Hawthorns 48,000 31,000 TBD 79,000 Fund 30 – Measure AA Capital 10,247,079 8,358,589 8,091,600 26,697,268 Fund 40 – General Fund Capital 15,856,328 25,516,312 2,385,500 43,758,140 Grants/Partnerships/Other 1,915,009 1,585,711 942,032 4,442,752 Total CIAP $30,183,116 $36,436,201 $11,878,132 $78,497,449 Three-Year CIAP by Program CIAP Summary by Program FY21 FY22 FY23 3-Year Total Land Acquisition and Preservation* $2,013,318 $330,000 $300,000 $2,643,318 Natural Resource Protection and Restoration 3,808,042 1,463,839 4,204,000 9,475,881 Public Access, Education, and Outreach 10,321,928 13,250,800 5,899,132 29,471,860 Assets and Organizational Support 14,039,828 21,391,562 1,475,000 36,906,390 Total CIAP $30,183,116 $36,436,201 $11,878,132 $78,497,449 *The land budget does not include title and purchase costs and only accounts for appraisals and other costs associated with property purchase research and early negotiations. Land purchase costs for titles or easements are budgeted upon approval by the board. ICONS In an effort to highlight projects that support key areas of interest and improve readability, icons are now included on pertinent CIAP project worksheets. 47Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n Land Acquisition and Preservation Natural Resource Protection and Restoration Public Access, Education and Outreach Assets and Organizational Support Agriculture Diversity Wildland Fire Resiliency Grant Funded Supports Climate Action Plan implementation Project has an ongoing impact on the operating budget Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 48 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 With the support of the Grants Program, additional revenue is secured annually to support Midpen’s mission, leverage existing financial resources to relieve financial resources to relieve funding gaps and ensure project delivery. A summary of CIAP projects with awarded external funding sources is included below. Grant Income Project #Project Name Grant/Partnership/Other FY21 FY22 FY23 3-Year Total 80065 IPM Implementation of Santa Clara Valley Water District Grant Santa Clara Valley Water District $150,000 $200,000 $200,000 $550,000 MAA02-002 Ravenswood Bay Trail Design and Implementation Urban Greening Grant Program 200,257 0 0 200,257 MAA09-003 Russian Ridge Mindego Pond Improvement California Department of Parks and Recreation 200,000 0 0 200,000 MAA10-001 Alpine Road Regional Trail, Coal Creek Santa Clara County Stanford Mitigation 0 272,211 0 272,211 MAA11-002 Rancho San Antonio–Deer Hollow Farm–White Barn Rehabilitation Tindall and Friends of DHF Donations 330,000 0 0 330,000 MAA21-006 Bear Creek Redwoods–Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation California Natural Resources Agency 179,378 0 0 179,378 MAA21-006 Bear Creek Redwoods–Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Historic Grant Program 200,000 0 0 200,000 MAA21-007 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Invasive Weed Treatment and Restoration Santa Clara Valley Water District 50,000 0 0 50,000 MAA21-011 Phase II Trail Improvements, Bear Creek Redwoods OSP California Natural Resources Agency 411,968 870,000 742,032 2,024,000 MAA22-004 Beatty Parking Area and Trail Connections Safe, Clean Water Priority D3 Grant 49,906 100,000 0 149,906 VP03-003 Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Area Feasibility and Planning State Coastal Conservancy 143,500 143,500 0 287,000 Grand Total $1,915,009 $1,585,711 $942,032 $4,442,752 Midpen has identified several key areas of interest in addition to the four CIAP programs. ——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————— Agriculture: Supporting agriculture and sustaining conservation grazing programs on District lands support Midpen’s mission and board adopted Strategic Goals and Objectives (Goal 2, Objective 4).——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————— Diversity: Connecting diverse communities to their public open space preserves, through support of regional partnerships and expanded outreach to youth and underserved communities (Strategic Goal 3, Objective 2).——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————— Wildland Fire Resiliency: Working with local fire agencies and surrounding communities to enhance Midpen’s wildland fire preparedness and responsiveness (Strategic Goal 2, Objective 3).——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————— CIAP project summary tables for these three areas of interest are included below. Agriculture Project Summary Project #Project Name FY21 FY22 FY23 3-Year Total 61001 Tunitas Creek–Toto Ranch Driveway Improvements* $0 $423,112 $0 $423,112 61010 Toto Ranch Well Drilling and Construction, Tunitas Creek 227,425 0 0 227,425 61021 Toto Ranch North Water Line 107,000 0 0 107,000 MAA01-004 Remediation Plan Development and Ranch Dump Clean Up– Madonna Creek Ranch 261,874 10,000 4,000 275,874 MAA05-011 Lone Madrone Ranch Fence Installation 87,075 0 0 87,075 MAA09-003 Russian Ridge Mindego Pond Improvement 351,010 0 0 351,010 MAA09-006 Mindego Ranch South Pasture 107,000 0 0 107,000 VP01-001 Miramontes Ridge Land Conservation 77,000 0 0 77,000 VP03-002 South Cowell Upland Land Conservation 50,000 0 0 50,000 VP07-002 Agricultural Workforce Housing–La Honda Creek 317,500 0 0 317,500 VP13-001 Cloverdale Ranch Land Opportunity 70,000 20,000 0 90,000 VP32-003 Toto Ponds Management Planning* 0 68,000 210,000 278,000 VP39-001 Lower San Gregorio Creek Watershed Land Conservation 70,000 10,000 0 80,000 Total $1,725,883 $531,112 $214,000 $2,470,995 Diversity Project Summary Project #Project Name FY21 FY22 FY23 3-Year Total 31901 ADA Barrier Removal $487,000 $1,433,500 $0 $1,920,500 80066 Amah Mutsun Land Trust Native Garden*0 50,000 100,000 150,000 51704 Ward Boundary Redistricting Plan 42,500 49,500 0 92,000 MAA02-001 Cooley Landing Interpretive Facilities Design and Implementation 30,000 25,000 0 55,000 MAA02-002 Ravenswood Bay Trail Design and Implementation 200,257 0 0 200,257 MAA11-002 Rancho San Antonio–Deer Hollow Farm–White Barn Rehabilitation 359,750 0 0 359,750 VP11-001 Rancho San Antonio (RSA) Multimodal Access Study 50,000 0 0 50,000 Total $1,169,507 $1,558,000 $100,000 $2,827,507 Wildland Fire Resiliency Project Summary Project #Project Name FY21 FY22 FY23 3-Year Total 61008 Los Trancos–Page Mill Fire Safety Eucalyptus Removal $245,000 $0 $0 $245,000 80063 San Mateo County Vegetation Map 39,200 33,600 0 72,800 80003-10 Wildland Fire Resiliency Program 285,000 311,000 0 596,000 61017 Fuel Reduction Implementation 175,000 200,000 160,000 535,000 80068 Santa Clara & Santa Cruz Vegetation Mapping 50,000 50,000 50,000 150,000 MAA05-010 Restoration Forestry Demonstration Project 143,357 187,000 1,345,000 1,675,357 MAA21-007 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan: Invasive Weed Treatment and Restoration 133,500 0 0 133,500 Total $1,071,056 $781,600 $1,555,000 $3,407,656 *The entire project budget for this project has been shifted out by a year due to changes in project timelines and workload capacity because of the impacts of COVID-19 and the shelter-in-place order in San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties. 49Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 50 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 PROJECT NUMBERING All projects are assigned a name and a unique number. Additionally, Midpen has three categories of projects, MAA eligible, Vision Plan related, or other capital and operating projects. MAA eligible projects are designated by portfolio and project number, for example MAA21-006 indicates MAA portfolio number 21 (Bear Creek Redwoods: Public Recreation and Interpretive Projects), and project number 6 (Bear Creek Redwoods Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation). Vision Plan related projects are also designated by portfolio and project number, for example VP11-001 indicates Vision Plan portfolio number 11 (Rancho San Antonio: Interpretive Improvements, Refurbishing Projects), and project number 1 [Rancho San Antonio (RSA) Multimodal Access Study]. Vision Plan portfolios number 01 through 25 represent Midpen-funded efforts in support of the corresponding MAA portfolios. Vision Plan portfolios 26 through 54 are the Tier 2 priority actions in Midpen’s Vision Plan. Other projects are assigned a five-digit project number set (such as 31901, ADA Barrier Removal) and designate operating projects such as wildlife monitoring, facility improvements and administrative systems implementations. OPERATING PROJECTS Operating projects are important activities undertaken each year that do not meet CIAP project criteria (typically with expenses less than $50,000). While the operating projects listed on program summary pages may incur real expenses, they are only included in the lead department’s operating budget (see Section IV). OPERATING IMPACT Within the FY21 CIAP, Midpen has identified over 50 projects (or 61% of the CIAP) as having a future operating impact to the annual Budget and Action Plan. Some projects will have costs in perpetuity while other projects will have a shorter-term impact. For example, numerous Natural Resource Protection and Restoration projects that are completed require an additional three to five years of ongoing monitoring work (for example, ensuring native plants are well established after being planted can take over three years). When new areas are opened to the public, that space will require long-term patrol and maintenance work; this may result in additional staff. Staff is monitoring new and existing CIAP projects for their ongoing operating impact to the annual Budget and Action Plan to identify how operating costs will change in the future. Land Acquisition and Preservation Project #Project Name FY21 FY22 FY23 3-Year Total 20125 Cal-Water Land Exchange, Teague Hill Preserve $23,000 $0 $0 $23,000 MAA15-004 Irish Ridge Land Conservation 1,573,318 0 0 1,573,318 VP01-001 Miramontes Ridge Land Conservation*77,000 0 0 77,000 VP03-002 South Cowell Upland Land Conservation*50,000 0 0 50,000 VP08-001 Upper San Gregorio Land Conservation*20,000 0 0 20,000 VP13-001 Cloverdale Ranch Land Opportunity*70,000 20,000 0 90,000 VP15-001 Redwood Forest Land Opportunity*25,000 0 0 25,000 VP19-001 El Sereno Trails, Wildlife Corridors and Land Conservation*5,000 0 0 5,000 VP19-002 El Sereno Land Conservation*20,000 0 0 20,000 VP24-002 SCVWD Exchange Agreement at Rancho de Guadalupe Area of SAOSP* 10,000 0 0 10,000 VP25-001 Sierra Azul Loma Prieta Land Conservation*20,000 0 0 20,000 VP39-001 Lower San Gregorio Creek Watershed Land Conservation 70,000 10,000 0 80,000 None District-wide purchase options and low-value Land Fund 50,000 300,000 300,000 650,000 Total $2,013,318 $330,000 $300,000 $2,643,318 *Pre-acquisition activity for land purchases is budgeted in Fund 40. Upon approval from the board for fee or easement, pre-acquisition expenses and the purchase price are eligible for MAA reimbursement and a budget adjustment request will be made to transfer budget to Fund 30. OPERATING PROJECTS The table below lists operating projects by name and includes the project purpose and lead department. While the operating project listed below may incur real expenses, they are only included in the lead department’s operating budget. Project Name Project Purpose Lead Department Land Conservation Guidance Document Create a Land Conservation Guidance Document that clearly communicates District acquisition policies and goals that provides a road map for strategic land acquisition. (Consistent FOSM Recommendation #11) Real Property/General Manager’s Office 51Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 52 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 LAND ACQUISITION AND PRESERVATION Cal Water Land Exchange, Teague Hill Preserve Project #: 20125 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Pursue trail connections between Huddart Park and Teague Hill Open Space Preserve, and pursue future land conservation protections in the Bear Creek watershed in exchange for land rights to allow the installation of Cal Water water tanks at El Corte de Madera Open Space Preserve. FY21 SCOPE Pursue trail connections between Huddart Park and Teague Hill Preserve, and pursue future land conservation protections in the Bear Creek watershed in exchange for land rights to allow the installation of Cal Water water tanks for fire suppression at El Corte de Madera Preserve. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 23,000 0 0 0 23,000 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $23,000 $0 $0 $0 $23,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 23,000 0 0 0 23,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $23,000 $0 $0 $0 $23,000 53Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n LAND ACQUISITION AND PRESERVATION Irish Ridge Land Conservation Project #: MAA15-004 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Pursue land purchase as addition to Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve for connection to Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve and protection of Tunitas Creek watershed. FY21 SCOPE Complete Planed Agricultural District zoning amendment process, submit lot split application and complete purchase. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $1,318 $0 $0 $0 $1,318 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 24,703 110,000 1,572,000 0 0 0 1,706,703 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $24,703 $110,000 $1,573,318 $0 $0 $0 $1,708,021 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 24,703 110,000 1,573,318 0 0 0 1,708,021 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $ 24,703 $110,000 $1,573,318 $0 $0 $0 $1,708,021 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 54 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 LAND ACQUISITION AND PRESERVATION Miramontes Ridge Land Conservation Project #: VP01-001 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase uplands portion of Johnston Ranch from Peninsula Open Space Trust as an addition to the Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve. FY21 SCOPE Complete Planed Agricultural District Zoning amendment process, partner with POST as co-applicant to resubmit lot line adjustment application, and complete purchase. Work with City of Half Moon Bay to coordinate on future shared parking and future trails at Historic Johnston House, and shared patrol and farm access road. Work with neighbor and State Parks on future trail connection to Burleigh Murray State Park. Continue to pursue additional land purchase grant funds. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 100,326 22,000 77,000 0 0 0 199,326 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $100,326 $22,000 $77,000 $0 $0 $0 $199,326 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 100,326 22,000 77,000 0 0 0 199,326 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $100,326 $22,000 $77,000 $0 $0 $0 $199,326 55Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n LAND ACQUISITION AND PRESERVATION South Cowell Upland Land Conservation Project #: VP03-002 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION In partnership with Peninsula Open Space Trust, pursue land purchase to provide improved parking and trail access for the Purisima-to-the-Sea regional trail corridor. FY21 SCOPE Purchase property and begin trail and parking planning for Preliminary Use and Management Plan preparation. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 37,500 50,000 0 0 0 87,500 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $37,500 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $87,500 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 37,500 50,000 0 0 0 87,500 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $37,500 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $87,500 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 56 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 LAND ACQUISITION AND PRESERVATION Upper San Gregorio Land Conservation Project #: VP08-001 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Negotiate property additions to the Upper San Gregorio Creek watershed. FY21 SCOPE Continue to work with neighboring private property owner on access alternative to the Woodruff Redwoods addition to La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. Next steps include surveying alternative access road and entering into a new access easement. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 3,270 13,000 20,000 0 0 0 36,270 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $3,270 $13,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $36,270 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 3,270 13,000 20,000 0 0 0 36,270 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $3,270 $13,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $36,270 57Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n LAND ACQUISITION AND PRESERVATION Cloverdale Ranch Land Opportunity Project #: VP13-001 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Complete the property’s existing conditions assessment and report, and identify additional improvements and restoration projects for Peninsula Open Space Trust to complete. Develop funding plan and pursue grant opportunities, and pursue lot line adjustment as co-applicants with POST. Develop a community outreach/communications plan, and identify and initiate outreach with partners and stakeholders. Continue to participate in regional trail planning in the vicinity of Cloverdale Ranch, and identify preliminary land and resource management goals in preparation for future potential acquisition of property. FY21 SCOPE Work with POST to complete additional studies and/or restoration projects needed prior to land transfer, including roads and trails assessment, water system infrastructure assessment, botanical surveys. Initiate community engagement, outreach and meetings. Identify natural resource management goals and outline staffing and management plan to be put in place for the first years after land transfer and inform the Coastal Management Plan. Work with POST to develop an integrated rangeland management for lease area. Pursue grant funding opportunities to support purchase. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 40,000 70,000 20,000 0 0 130,000 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $40,000 $70,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $130,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 40,000 70,000 20,000 0 0 130,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $40,000 $70,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $130,000 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 58 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 LAND ACQUISITION AND PRESERVATION Redwood Forest Land Opportunity Project #: VP15-001 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Pursue land purchase opportunities to grow the District’s contiguous greenbelt in redwood forests. FY21 SCOPE Pursue opportunities in the Oil Creek and Slate Creek watersheds. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 10,000 25,000 0 0 0 35,000 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $10,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $35,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 10,000 25,000 0 0 0 35,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $10,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $35,000 59Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n LAND ACQUISITION AND PRESERVATION El Sereno Trails, Wildlife Corridors and Land Conservation Project #: VP19-001 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Work with public agency and private landowners to purchase property and trail easements to connect El Sereno Open Space Preserve to Sanborn County Park and protect wildlife corridors at El Sereno Preserve. FY21 SCOPE Work with public agency and private landowners to purchase property and trail easements to connect El Sereno Preserve to Sanborn County Park and protect wildlife corridors at El Sereno Preserve. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 8,500 12,500 5,000 0 0 0 26,000 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $8,500 $12,500 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $26,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 8,500 12,500 5,000 0 0 0 26,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $8,500 $12,500 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $26,000 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 60 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 LAND ACQUISITION AND PRESERVATION El Sereno Land Conservation Project #: VP19-002 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Pursue land rights for a trail connection between El Sereno Open Space Preserve and Sanborn County Park as part of the Bay Area Ridge Trail. FY21 SCOPE Pursue land rights for a trail connection between El Sereno Preserve and Sanborn County Park as part of the Bay Area Ridge Trail. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 20,000 0 0 0 20,000 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 20,000 0 0 0 20,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 61Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n LAND ACQUISITION AND PRESERVATION SCVWD Exchange Agreement at Rancho de Guadalupe Area of SAOSP Project #: VP24-002 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Enter into exchange agreement with Valley Water for license to use Pheasant and Hicks Road intersection as a staging area for Guadalupe Dam repairs in exchange for Valley Water’s construction of a public parking lot for accessing the Rancho de Guadalupe area of Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve. FY21 SCOPE Enter into exchange agreement with Valley Water for license to use Pheasant and Hicks Road intersection as a staging area for Guadalupe Dam repairs in exchange for Valley Water’s construction of a public parking lot for accessing the Rancho de Guadalupe area of Sierra Azul Preserve. Work with Santa Clara County Planning Department to change zoning of Pheasant and Hicks Road property to Hillside to be compatible with open space use. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 10,000 0 0 0 10,000 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 10,000 0 0 0 10,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 62 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 LAND ACQUISITION AND PRESERVATION Sierra Azul Loma Prieta Land Conservation Project #: VP25-001 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Pursue land purchase opportunity to grow Midpen’s contiguous greenbelt in the Loma Prieta area of Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve. FY21 SCOPE Pursue land purchase opportunities in the Loma Prieta area of Sierra Azul Preserve. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 10,000 20,000 0 0 0 30,000 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $10,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $30,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 10,000 20,000 0 0 0 30,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $10,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $30,000 63Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n LAND ACQUISITION AND PRESERVATION Lower San Gregorio Creek Watershed Land Conservation Project #: VP39-001 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Pursue opportunity to protect watershed and farmland in the Lower San Gregorio watershed. FY21 SCOPE Work with POST to prepare conservation easement for San Gregorio Farm property to ensure protection of lower San Gregorio creek riparian corridor and provide for future creek habitat restoration, including a conceptual plan for creek and floodplain restoration. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 5,234 11,074 9,670 20,000 10,000 0 0 55,978 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 50,000 0 0 0 50,000 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $5,234 $11,074 $9,670 $70,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $105,978 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 5,234 11,074 9,670 70,000 10,000 0 0 105,978 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $5,234 $11,074 $9,670 $70,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $105,978 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 64 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Natural Resource Protection and Restoration Project#Project Name FY21 FY22 FY23 3-Year Total 61008 Los Trancos–Page Mill Fire Safety Eucalyptus Removal $245,000 $0 $0 $245,000 61014 BCR Stables Road Drainage Repairs and Mitigation 75,000 10,000 10,000 95,000 61017 Fuel Reduction Implementation 175,000 200,000 160,000 535,000 61021 Toto Ranch North Water Line 107,000 0 0 107,000 80003-10 Wildland Fire Resiliency Program 285,000 311,000 0 596,000 80034-44 Programmatic State and Federal Environmental Permitting 508,000 15,000 0 523,000 80054 Badger/Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment 50,000 14,239 0 64,239 80059 Groundwater Well Decommissioning 95,000 200,000 0 295,000 80063 San Mateo County Vegetation Map 39,200 33,600 0 72,800 80065 IPM Implementation of Santa Clara Valley Water District Grant 150,000 200,000 200,000 550,000 80066 Amah Mutsun Land Trust Native Garden*0 50,000 100,000 150,000 80067 Pescadero Total Maximum Daily Load*0 50,000 375,000 425,000 80068 Santa Clara & Santa Cruz Vegetation Mapping 50,000 50,000 50,000 150,000 MAA01-004 Remediation Plan Development and Ranch Dump Clean Up– Madonna Creek Ranch 261,874 10,000 4,000 275,874 MAA03-002 Purisima Upland Site Clean up and Soil Remediation Assessment 473,433 0 0 473,433 MAA05-010 Restoration Forestry Demonstration Project 143,357 187,000 1,345,000 1,675,357 MAA05-011 Lone Madrone Ranch Fence Installation 87,075 0 0 87,075 MAA09-003 Russian Ridge Mindego Pond Improvement 351,010 0 0 351,010 MAA09-006 Mindego Ranch South Pasture 107,000 0 0 107,000 MAA20-001 Wildlife Corridor: Highway 17 Crossing 114,196 65,000 1,750,000 1,929,196 MAA21-007 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan: Invasive Weed Treatment and Restoration 133,500 0 0 133,500 MAA21-010 Bear Creek Redwoods Landfill Characterization and Remediation 357,398 0 0 357,398 VP32-003 Toto Ponds Management Planning*0 68,000 210,000 278,000 Total $3,808,042 $1,463,839 $4,204,000 $9,475,881 OPERATING PROJECTS The table below lists operating projects by name and includes the project purpose and lead department. While the operating projects listed below may incur real expenses, they are only included in the lead department’s operating budget. Project Name Project Purpose Lead Department Agricultural Policy Review and Development Compile and review existing agricultural policies, guidelines, and current practices. Evaluate gaps and areas requiring greater clarification. Develop comprehensive board-approved agricultural policy. Natural Resources Elkus/Lobitos Water Supply Feasibility* Increase water supply and storage in support of year-round grazing throughout the lease area. Natural Resources Grazing Management Policy Amendment Promote the economic sustainability of conservation grazing while safeguarding native plants and wildlife in areas where predation of livestock may occur. Natural Resources Mountain Lion Collaring Effort– Rancho San Antonio/Foothills Preserve To better understand mountain lion use of Santa Clara Foothills Preserves (focus on Rancho San Antonio) to inform wildlife management and public use and reduce conflict. Natural Resources Science Advisory Panel Formation of a Scientific Advisory Panel to inform Midpen land management decisions.Natural Resources *The entire project budget for this project has been shifted out by a year due to changes in project timelines and workload capacity because of the impacts of COVID-19 and the shelter-in-place order in San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties. 65Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION Los Trancos – Page Mill Fire Safety Eucalyptus Removal Project #: 61008 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Improve fire and road safety in Los Trancos Open Space Preserve next to Page Mill Road by removing approximately 100 mature nonnative and fire-prone eucalyptus trees in Los Trancos Preserve. Midpen will contract with Santa Clara County Fire Safe Council for tree removal. Midpen funding is a match for grant funding received by Santa Clara County Fire Safe Council to complete additional vegetation management along Page Mill Road, as well as other projects throughout the county. FY21 SCOPE Continue eucalyptus removal and restoration. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 9,250 245,000 0 0 0 254,250 Grand Total $0 $0 $9,250 $245,000 $0 $0 $0 $254,250 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 9,250 245,000 0 0 0 254,250 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $9,250 $245,000 $0 $0 $0 $254,250 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 66 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION BCR Stables Road Drainage Repairs and Mitigation Project #: 61014 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating PROJECT DESCRIPTION Assess drainage and erosion from arena area onto the road around paddocks. Repair or remove old road and plant trees for mitigation. FY21 SCOPE Assess and repair drainage and erosion issues from arena area to Briggs Creek. Develop and implement mitigation plan for trees removed from riparian area. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 75,000 10,000 10,000 0 95,000 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $75,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $95,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $75,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $95,000 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $75,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $95,000 67Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION Fuel Reduction Implementation Project #: 61017 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating PROJECT DESCRIPTION Begin fuel reduction work outlined in upcoming Vegetation Management Plan to reduce fuels that contribute to wildfire risks. FY21 SCOPE Continue fuel reduction in critical areas along roads, infrastructure and adjacent properties. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 175,000 200,000 160,000 0 535,000 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $175,000 $200,000 $160,000 $0 $535,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $175,000 $200,000 $160,000 $0 $535,000 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $175,000 $200,000 $160,000 $0 $535,000 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 68 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION Toto Ranch North Water Line Project #: 61021 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Install Toto Ranch north water line FY21 SCOPE Tenant will subcontract work to install new water line. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 7,500 0 0 0 7,500 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 7,500 0 0 0 7,500 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 92,000 0 0 0 92,000 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $107,000 $0 $0 $0 $107,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 107,000 0 0 0 107,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $107,000 $0 $0 $0 $107,000 69Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Project #: 80003-10 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating PROJECT DESCRIPTION Develop the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program for Midpen lands and hire consultants to design program and prepare environmental review. FY21 SCOPE Complete phase I of the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program development, including the Vegetation Management Plan, pre-plan maps, and monitoring plan. Complete scoping of phase II (prescribed fire) and start the CEQA process. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 29,533 76,268 441,000 285,000 311,000 0 3,000 1,145,801 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $29,533 $76,268 $441,000 $285,000 $311,000 $0 $3,000 $1,145,801 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $29,533 $76,268 $441,000 $285,000 $311,000 $0 $3,000 $1,145,801 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $29,533 $76,268 $441,000 $285,000 $311,000 $0 $3,000 $1,145,801 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 70 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION Programmatic State and Federal Environmental Permitting Project #: 80034-44 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating PROJECT DESCRIPTION Develop state and federal programmatic permits for compliance with Endangered Species and Clean Water acts. Facilitates streamlined implementation of MAA and non-MAA projects, resource protection and partnering efforts. FY21 SCOPE Finalize and obtain permits with the permit agencies and begin program implementation and staff training as needed. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 13,123 82,409 218,922 508,000 15,000 0 0 837,454 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $13,123 $82,409 $218,922 $508,000 $15,000 $0 $0 $837,454 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $13,123 $82,409 $218,922 $508,000 $15,000 $0 $0 $837,454 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $13,123 $82,409 $218,922 $508,000 $15,000 $0 $0 $837,454 71Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION Badger/Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment Project #: 80054 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating PROJECT DESCRIPTION Develop a request for proposal quote/qualification and award consultant services to provide expertise in the management of grasslands and upland habitat for badger and burrowing owl. Provide a detailed habitat suitability assessment (Districtwide) for badger and burrowing owl. Determine the presence, use and status of the species within the available habitat. Recommend specific management measures to protect and enhance habitat. Project may involve genetic studies to determine viability of population(s). Project may also involve banding and telemetry of burrowing owls to determine breeding locations (presumed to be off of Midpen lands), to allow for partnering to provide management of the species throughout the year (both breeding and non-breeding). FY21 SCOPE Continue data collection, including field surveys, wildlife camera trapping, hair/genetics collection and incidental reports of observations/roadkill. Ongoing calibration of habitat and linkage models using new data. Engage public interest through outreach, community events and volunteer opportunities. Facilitate interest from partner agencies for a long-term goal of regional species protection and habitat management. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 78,602 71,410 50,000 14,239 0 0 214,251 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $78,602 $71,410 $50,000 $14,239 $0 $0 $214,251 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $78,602 $71,410 $50,000 $14,239 $0 $0 $214,251 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $78,602 $71,410 $50,000 $14,239 $0 $0 $214,251 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 72 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION Groundwater Well Decommissioning Project #: 80059 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Work with consultant to evaluate approximately 10 wells and contract for their decommissioning with a qualified driller. FY21 SCOPE Evaluate, obtain permits for and bid out the decommissioning of 10 unused and abandoned wells in Sierra Azul Preserve. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 20,000 40,000 0 0 60,000 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 10,000 10,000 0 0 20,000 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 5,000 10,000 0 0 15,000 8205–Construction 0 0 0 60,000 140,000 0 0 200,000 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $95,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $295,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 95,000 200,000 0 0 295,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $95,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $295,000 73Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION San Mateo County Vegetation Map Project #: 80063 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating PROJECT DESCRIPTION To inform preserve management needs in San Mateo County, Midpen will collaborate with the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy to quantify vegetation changes and fuels on a landscape scale. This collaboration is coordinated with parallel efforts being undertaken by neighboring land managers to create seamless mapping and data products for all of San Mateo County. This project will additionally support project planning and review. FY21 SCOPE Provide technical project support and coordination (staff to review GIS deliverables and provide feedback on project). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 50,000 39,200 39,200 33,600 0 0 162,000 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $50,000 $39,200 $39,200 $33,600 $0 $0 $162,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $50,000 $39,200 $39,200 $33,600 $0 $0 $162,000 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $50,000 $39,200 $39,200 $33,600 $0 $0 $162,000 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 74 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION IPM Implementation of Santa Clara Valley Water District Grant Project #: 80065 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating PROJECT DESCRIPTION Expand scope of the Valley Water integrated pest management grant to include invasive plant removal at Bear Creek Redwoods, Rancho San Antonio and Picchetti Ranch preserves. FY21 SCOPE Oversee contractor to implement IPM on high priority weeds in riparian areas at Bear Creek Redwoods, Rancho San Antonio, and Picchetti Ranch preserves. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 100,000 150,000 200,000 200,000 0 650,000 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $650,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 100,000 150,000 200,000 200,000 0 650,000 Grand Total $0 $0 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $650,000 75Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION Amah Mutsun Land Trust Native Garden Project #: 80066 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating PROJECT DESCRIPTION Create a culturally significant native plant garden at Mount Umunhum. FY22 SCOPE Amah Mutsun Land Trust to draft and finalize a revegetation plan for a culturally significant native plant demonstration garden. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 50,000 100,000 50,000 200,000 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $100,000 $50,000 $200,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $100,000 $50,000 $200,000 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $100,000 $50,000 $200,000 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 76 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION Pescadero Total Maximum Daily Load Project #: 80067 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Assess all Pescadero-Butano Watershed lands for sediment sources, develop implementation plan and reduce sediment from high and medium priority sites. FY22 SCOPE Hire consultant team to inventory all potential sediment sources in Skyline Ridge and Long Ridge preserves. Identify high priority sediment reduction actions for future years to comply with the Pescadero-Butano sediment regulations from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 50,000 250,000 150,000 450,000 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 125,000 20,000 145,000 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 500,000 500,000 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $375,000 $670,000 $1,095,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 50,000 375,000 670,000 1,095,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $375,000 $670,000 $1,095,000 77Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION Santa Clara & Santa Cruz Vegetation Mapping Project #: 80068 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating PROJECT DESCRIPTION To inform preserve management needs in Santa Clara County and applicable portions of Santa Cruz County, Midpen will collaborate with the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy to quantify vegetation changes and fuels on a landscape scale. This collaboration is coordinated with parallel efforts being undertaken by neighboring land managers to create seamless mapping and data products for all of San Mateo County. This project will additionally support project planning and review. FY21 SCOPE Provide technical project support and coordination. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 0 150,000 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $150,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $150,000 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $150,000 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 78 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION Remediation Plan Development and Ranch Dump Clean Up – Madonna Creek Ranch Project #: MAA01-004 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Obtain permits, remediate dumpsite and restore vegetation as warranted. FY21 SCOPE Permit and implement remediation plan to remove all ranch and farm dump debris from riparian area and restore vegetation. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $16,874 $0 $0 $0 $16,874 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 45,000 10,000 4,000 10,000 69,000 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 25,000 0 0 0 25,000 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 175,000 0 0 0 175,000 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $261,874 $10,000 $4,000 $10,000 $285,874 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 261,874 10,000 4,000 10,000 285,874 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $261,874 $10,000 $4,000 $10,000 $285,874 79Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION Purisima Upland Site Clean up and Soil Remediation Assessment Project #: MAA03-002 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Complete site cleanup and soil remediation around existing empty oil tank on newly transferred Purisima Upland property entry. FY21 SCOPE Finalize permits, release request for bids and complete construction activities. Begin revegetation, seeding. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $3,884 $2,715 $12,954 $28,933 $0 $0 $0 $48,486 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 65,271 0 0 0 0 0 0 65,271 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 9,158 620 0 0 0 0 9,778 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 7,152 0 25,000 0 0 0 32,152 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 3,000 40,000 0 0 0 43,000 8204–Permitting Fees 0 1,574 5,000 0 0 0 0 6,574 8205–Construction 0 0 0 379,500 0 0 0 379,500 Grand Total $69,155 $20,599 $21,574 $473,433 $0 $0 $0 $584,761 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 69,155 20,599 21,574 473,433 0 0 0 584,761 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $69,155 $20,599 $21,574 $473,433 $0 $0 $0 $584,761 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 80 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION Restoration Forestry Demonstration Project Project #: MAA05-010 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Develop pilot project to restore and enhance forest habitat on Midpen preserves. Facilitates implementation of MAA Portfolio 15–Regional Redwood Protection and Salmon Fishery Conservation. FY21 SCOPE Develop restoration forestry prescription, designs for roads and creek restoration, and begin permitting. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $11,357 $0 $0 $0 $11,357 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 60,000 110,000 75,000 0 245,000 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 72,000 77,000 70,000 0 219,000 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 1,200,000 0 1,200,000 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $143,357 $187,000 $1,345,000 $0 $1,675,357 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 143,357 187,000 1,345,000 0 1,675,357 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $143,357 $187,000 $1,345,000 $0 $1,675,357 81Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION Lone Madrone Ranch Fence Installation Project #: MAA05-011 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Construct a livestock boundary fence along riparian corridor. FY21 SCOPE Project contingent on resolution of an agreement with neighbor for access. Construct a livestock boundary fence along riparian corridor. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 10,000 0 0 0 10,000 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 7,500 0 0 0 7,500 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 69,575 0 0 0 69,575 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $87,075 $0 $0 $0 $87,075 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 87,075 0 0 0 87,075 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $87,075 $0 $0 $0 $87,075 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 82 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION Russian Ridge Mindego Pond Improvement Project #: MAA09-003 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Engineer, permit and restore aquatic habitats at Mindego Ranch for California red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake as well as water supply for livestock operation in support of Midpen’s conservation grazing program. FY21 SCOPE Complete project design, permitting and construction, with support of a subject matter expert. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $136 $7,659 $8,434 $35,010 $0 $0 $0 $51,239 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 25,000 0 0 0 25,000 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 2,625 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 102,625 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 65,519 575,000 241,000 0 0 0 881,519 Grand Total $136 $75,803 $633,434 $351,010 $0 $0 $0 $1,060,383 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 136 75,803 633,434 151,010 0 0 0 860,383 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 200,000 0 0 0 200,000 Grand Total $136 $75,803 $633,434 $351,010 $0 $0 $0 $1,060,383 83Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION Mindego Ranch South Pasture Project #: MAA09-006 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Install livestock fencing, water infrastructure and perform invasive removal in south pasture area. FY21 SCOPE Install livestock fencing, water infrastructure and perform invasive removal in south pasture area. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 7,500 0 0 0 7,500 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 7,500 0 0 0 7,500 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 92,000 0 0 0 92,000 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $107,000 $0 $0 $0 $107,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 107,000 0 0 0 107,000 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $107,000 $0 $0 $0 $107,000 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 84 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION Wildlife Corridor: Highway 17 Crossing Project #: MAA20-001 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Work with partners to develop and engineer wildlife crossing improvements at Highway 17. FY21 SCOPE Continue CEQA/NEPA and Caltrans Project Approval/Environmental Document (environmental review documents). Continue working with consultant (TBD) to develop CEQA documents in conjunction with Caltrans lead on NEPA documents. Continue public and partner outreach and seek funding opportunities. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $20,928 $13,593 $14,196 $0 $0 $0 $48,717 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 2,485 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,485 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 94,389 102,745 21,000 0 0 1,750,000 1,900,000 3,868,134 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 12,410 0 29,000 100,000 65,000 0 0 206,410 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 87,236 0 0 0 0 0 11,400,000 11,487,236 Grand Total $196,520 $123,673 $63,593 $114,196 $65,000 $1,750,000 $13,300,000 $15,612,982 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 196,520 123,673 63,593 114,196 65,000 1,750,000 13,300,000 15,612,982 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $196,520 $123,673 $63,593 $114,196 $65,000 $1,750,000 $13,300,000 $15,612,982 85Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan: Invasive Weed Treatment and Restoration Project #: MAA21-007 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Implement targeted treatments under the Integrated Pest Management Plan to control invasive weed populations at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve, and facilitate opening the preserve for public access. Implement third year of targeted weed treatments at Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve to restore native habitats along roads and trails. Project is expected to require five years of treatment before habitats are restored to maintenance levels. FY21 SCOPE Continued targeted invasive species at Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve in both phase I and phase II. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $1,233 $6,807 $13,500 $0 $0 $0 $21,540 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 553 0 0 0 0 0 0 553 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 501,125 317,446 170,000 120,000 0 0 0 1,108,571 Grand Total $501,678 $318,679 $176,807 $133,500 $0 $0 $0 $1,130,664 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 394,636 128,797 76,807 83,500 0 0 0 683,740 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 107,042 189,882 100,000 50,000 0 0 0 446,924 Grand Total $501,678 $318,679 $176,807 $133,500 $0 $0 $0 $1,130,664 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 86 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION Bear Creek Redwoods Landfill Characterization and Remediation Project #: MAA21-010 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conduct investigation to assess and characterize old landfill for potential toxic substances, develop remediation plan and CEQA analysis, and implement remediation to facilitate opening Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve phase II trails for public access. FY21 SCOPE Implement remediation plan to remove toxic substances from landfill site, including data recovery of historic resources within landfill, and restore site to stable configuration. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $7,142 $22,398 $0 $0 $0 $29,540 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 36,375 12,998 160,000 0 0 0 209,373 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 175,000 0 0 0 175,000 Grand Total $0 $36,375 $20,140 $357,398 $0 $0 $0 $413,913 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 36,375 20,140 357,398 0 0 0 413,913 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $36,375 $20,140 $357,398 $0 $0 $0 $413,913 87Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION Toto Ponds Management Planning Project #: VP32-003 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Develop Pond Management Plan for Toto Ranch and implement priority ponds projects. FY22 SCOPE Finalize Pond Management Plan, complete archaeology surveys, issue RFPQ for design and begin permitting process. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 93,902 0 35,000 10,000 0 138,902 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 33,000 0 50,000 83,000 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 200,000 0 200,000 Grand Total $0 $0 $93,902 $0 $68,000 $210,000 $50,000 $421,902 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 93,902 0 68,000 210,000 50,000 421,902 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $93,902 $0 $68,000 $210,000 $50,000 $421,902 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 88 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Public Access, Education and Outreach Project#Project Name FY21 FY22 FY23 3-Year Total 31901 ADA Barrier Removal $487,000 $1,433,500 $0 $1,920,500 31903 Hwy 35 Multi-use Trail Crossing and Parking/Multimodal Access Study 130,000 50,000 9,000 189,000 35006 Restroom Replacements 129,500 205,000 130,500 465,000 40011 Website Redesign 90,000 0 0 90,000 61018 Rancho San Antonio County Parks Repairs*0 25,000 25,000 50,000 MAA02-001 Cooley Landing Interpretive Facilities Design and Implementation 30,000 25,000 0 55,000 MAA02-002 Ravenswood Bay Trail Design and Implementation 200,257 0 0 200,257 MAA05-008 La Honda Creek White Barn Structural Rehabilitation 160,386 202,500 0 362,886 MAA05-009 La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin Assessment, Removal and Site Restoration 31,386 462,500 0 493,886 MAA06-002 Hawthorns Public Access Site Plan and CEQA 107,685 102,000 0 209,685 MAA07-011 Phase II Loop Trails, Lower La Honda Creek OSP 229,292 0 0 229,292 MAA10-001 Alpine Road Regional Trail, Coal Creek 206,568 3,015,000 0 3,221,568 MAA11-002 Rancho San Antonio–Deer Hollow Farm–White Barn Rehabilitation 359,750 0 0 359,750 MAA18-002 Saratoga-to-the-Sea Regional Trail Connection 553,293 0 0 553,293 MAA20-002 Bay Area Ridge Trail: Highway 17 Crossing 275,452 175,000 3,250,000 3,700,452 MAA21-004 Bear Creek Stables Site Plan Implementation 562,398 3,993,000 4,555,398 MAA21-006 Bear Creek Redwoods–Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation 4,602,622 0 0 4,602,622 MAA21-011 Phase II Trail Improvements, Bear Creek Redwoods OSP 411,968 870,000 742,032 2,024,000 MAA22-004 Beatty Parking Area and Trail Connections 535,371 993,800 1,742,600 3,271,771 VP03-003 Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Area Feasibility and Planning 143,500 143,500 287,000 VP05-002 La Honda Creek Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study 25,000 0 0 25,000 VP11-001 Rancho San Antonio (RSA) Multimodal Access Study 50,000 0 0 50,000 VP23-002 Traffic Study for Mt. Umunhum Road 107,500 0 0 107,500 VP23-003 Mt. Umunhum–Radar Tower Repair 893,000 1,555,000 0 2,448,000 Total $10,321,928 $13,250,800 $5,899,132 $29,471,860 *The entire project budget for this project has been shifted out by a year due to changes in project timelines and workload capacity because of the impacts of COVID-19 and the shelter-in-place order in San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties. 89Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n OPERATING PROJECTS The table below lists operating projects by name and includes the project purpose and lead department. While the operating project listed below may incur real expenses, they are only included in the lead department’s operating budget. Project Name Project Purpose Lead Department Cooley Landing Park Business and Operation Plan Continue to support the City of East Palo Alto's efforts to recruit and select an operator to provide environmental stewardship programing at Cooley Landing that is reflective of the community's culture. Midpen will provide funding for the development of a business and operating plan for the preferred operator. General Manager’s Office Cooley Landing Site Use Agreements Formalize separate agreements/easements/MOUs (Midpen, City of East Palo Alto, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Menlo Fire) to meet operations and maintenance requirements. Supports partnership project at Cooley Landing park. General Manager’s Office E-Bike Policy Evaluation Explore pilot program for e-bike access on District paved trails and evaluate schedule for pilot program for e-bike access on District unpaved trails to address this up and coming form of transportation. Visitor Services La Honda Elementary Path to Pond Work with La Honda Elementary School to implement environmental education program at La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. Planning/Land and Facilities Services Long Ridge Trail Connection to Eagle Rock and Devils Canyon Waterfall* Provide public access by developing parking and one-mile trail connection to Devils Canyon waterfall and Eagle Rock. Land and Facilities Services Parking Area Naming Conventions Determine naming convention and addresses for all existing parking areas.Planning Preserve Use Survey Implementation Implement the recommendations detailed in the Preserve Use Survey to enhance visitor satisfaction and outreach. General Manager’s Office Regional Trails Planning and Coordination Provide technical and planning support on external regional trail projects that are initiated by partner agencies. Example projects include Bay-to-Sea Trail, Dumbarton Rail Corridor Bike-Ped Feasibility, SFPUC Bay Area Ridge Trail Extension, etc. Planning/Real Property Stevens Creek Trail Signage Install new trail signage for Stevens Creek Trail, to provide consistent signage across jurisdictions. Planning *The entire project budget for this project has been shifted out by a year due to changes in project timelines and workload capacity because of the impacts of COVID-19 and the shelter-in-place order in San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties. Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 90 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 PUBLIC ACCESS, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH ADA Barrier Removal Project #: 31901 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Prioritize barrier removals and develop cost estimates for Budget and Action Plan. Complete tracking and reporting on annual accomplishments of completed priorities. FY21 SCOPE Complete year two of barrier removals. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 439 30,000 0 0 0 0 30,439 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 78,500 77,500 18,000 0 0 174,000 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 15,000 30,000 30,000 0 0 75,000 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 100,000 379,500 1,385,500 0 0 1,865,000 Grand Total $0 $439 $223,500 $487,000 $1,433,500 $0 $0 $2,144,439 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $439 $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,439 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 193,500 487,000 1,433,500 0 0 2,114,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $439 $223,500 $487,000 $1,433,500 $0 $0 $2,144,439 91Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n PUBLIC ACCESS, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Hwy 35 Multi-use Trail Crossing and Parking/Multimodal Access Study Project #: 31903 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating PROJECT DESCRIPTION Partnership opportunity with the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council, SFPUC and other partners in evaluating pedestrian crossing at Highway 35 from SFPUC’s Bay Area Ridge Trail Extension to North Ridge parking lot and feasibility of potential parking expansion. FY21 SCOPE In coordination with Bay Area Ridge Trail Council and SFPUC, conduct feasibility analysis and technical studies for potential pedestrian crossing at Highway 35 and parking expansion opportunity at North Ridge parking lot at Purisima Creek Redwoods Preserve. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 130,000 50,000 9,000 0 189,000 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $130,000 $50,000 $9,000 $0 $189,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $130,000 $50,000 $9,000 $0 $189,000 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $130,000 $50,000 $9,000 $0 $189,000 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 92 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 PUBLIC ACCESS, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Restroom Replacements Project #: 35006 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Replace existing degraded restrooms and install new restrooms at parking areas where they are needed using design-build delivery method. FY21 SCOPE Perform the feasibility study, design and begin permitting for the Purisima North and Kennedy Trailhead restrooms. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 61,500 46,500 0 0 108,000 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 48,000 8,000 0 0 56,000 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 10,000 0 0 10,000 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 20,000 10,000 0 0 30,000 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 130,500 130,500 0 261,000 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $129,500 $205,000 $130,500 $0 $465,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 129,500 205,000 130,500 0 465,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $129,500 $205,000 $130,500 $0 $465,000 93Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n PUBLIC ACCESS, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Website Redesign Project #: 40011 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating PROJECT DESCRIPTION Update current website structure and design and migrate website to updated Drupal 8 platform. FY21 SCOPE Work with contractor to redesign structure. Retain contractor to design and migrate current site to new platform; develop new content. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 10,000 90,000 0 0 0 100,000 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $10,000 $90,000 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $10,000 $90,000 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $10,000 $90,000 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 94 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 PUBLIC ACCESS, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Rancho San Antonio County Parks Repairs Project #: 61018 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating PROJECT DESCRIPTION Repair slip out on service road. Upgrade and repair the restrooms. FY22 SCOPE Engineering and design for repair of slip out, pending agreement with Santa Clara County Parks for cost sharing. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 25,000 25,000 $0 50,000 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $50,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $50,000 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $50,000 95Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n PUBLIC ACCESS, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Cooley Landing Interpretive Facilities Design and Implementation Project #: MAA02-001 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Habitat restoration work at Cooley Landing and Ravenswood Open Space Preserve. FY21 SCOPE Complete habitat restoration work (second year of three-year contract). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 183,037 33,437 30,000 0 0 0 0 246,474 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 52,149 939,639 30,000 30,000 25,000 0 0 1,076,788 Grand Total $235,186 $973,076 $60,000 $30,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $1,323,262 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 235,186 973,076 60,000 30,000 25,000 0 0 1,323,262 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $235,186 $973,076 $60,000 $30,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $1,323,262 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 96 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 PUBLIC ACCESS, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Ravenswood Bay Trail Design and Implementation Project #: MAA02-002 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Secure and record trail easement. Complete design, environmental review, permitting and implementation of the Bay Trail gap north of Ravenswood Open Space Preserve to open up 80 continuous miles of the Bay Trail. FY21 SCOPE Finalize construction and continue plant maintenance and monitoring. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $20,418 $31,148 $74,822 $13,729 $0 $0 $0 $140,117 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 30,850 780 0 0 0 0 0 31,630 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 329,810 137,254 90,000 0 0 0 0 557,064 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 41,185 148,209 244,528 61,528 0 0 0 495,450 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 7,763 0 127,000 0 0 0 0 134,763 8204–Permitting Fees 2,310 28,095 95,592 0 0 0 0 125,997 8205–Construction 29,538 4,250 3,831,701 125,000 0 0 0 3,990,489 Grand Total $461,874 $349,736 $4,463,643 $200,257 $0 $0 $0 $5,475,510 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 232,253 66,983 2,234,659 0 0 0 0 2,533,895 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 229,621 282,753 2,228,984 200,257 0 0 0 2,941,615 Grand Total $461,874 $349,736 $4,463,643 $200,257 $0 $0 $0 $5,475,510 97Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n PUBLIC ACCESS, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH La Honda Creek White Barn Structural Rehabilitation Project #: MAA05-008 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Repair the La Honda Creek White Barn for external viewing and interpretation. Repair the exterior, stabilize the structure, and exclude wildlife. FY21 SCOPE Environmental review and design development for structural stabilization of white barn. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $3,816 $9,714 $21,386 $0 $0 $0 $34,916 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 14,699 3,156 94,000 104,000 0 0 0 215,855 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 6,240 2,500 20,000 0 0 0 28,740 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 30,000 0 0 30,000 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 15,000 0 0 0 15,000 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 172,500 0 0 172,500 Grand Total $14,699 $13,212 $106,214 $160,386 $202,500 $0 $0 $497,011 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 14,699 13,212 106,214 160,386 202,500 0 0 497,011 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $14,699 $13,212 $106,214 $160,386 $202,500 $0 $0 $497,011 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 98 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 PUBLIC ACCESS, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin Assessment, Removal and Site Restoration Project #: MAA05-009 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conduct environmental review of proposed demolition of the redwood cabin and site restoration. Consultation with San Mateo County Planning and County Historic Resources Advisory Board. Demolition of the Redwood Cabin. FY21 SCOPE Environmental review for demolition of the Redwood Cabin. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $7,733 $21,386 $0 $0 $0 $29,119 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 3,221 127,000 0 0 0 0 130,221 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 2,500 0 20,000 0 0 22,500 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 10,000 20,000 0 0 30,000 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 20,000 0 0 20,000 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 402,500 0 0 402,500 Grand Total $0 $3,221 $137,233 $31,386 $462,500 $0 $0 $634,340 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 3,221 137,233 31,386 462,500 0 0 634,340 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $3,221 $137,233 $31,386 $462,500 $0 $0 $634,340 99Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n PUBLIC ACCESS, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Hawthorns Public Access Site Plan and CEQA Project #: MAA06-002 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Complete site-specific plan for public access trails and staging area, and conduct CEQA review and coordination with Town of Portola Valley permitting. FY21 SCOPE Work with contract planner/consultant to amend the Preliminary Use and Management Plan; develop and initiate stakeholder outreach plan with board committee; initiate design and engineering of public access improvements. Work closely with Town of Portola Valley to obtain use permit specific to public access project but tangentially with historic complex activities. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $850 $2,685 $10,000 $0 $0 $13,535 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0 15,000 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 65,000 50,000 0 0 115,000 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 18,113 50,000 35,000 17,000 0 0 120,113 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 20,000 0 0 20,000 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $18,113 $55,850 $107,685 $102,000 $0 $0 $283,648 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 18,113 55,850 107,685 102,000 0 0 283,648 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $18,113 $55,850 $107,685 $102,000 $0 $0 $283,648 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 100 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 PUBLIC ACCESS, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Phase II Loop Trails, Lower La Honda Creek OSP Project #: MAA07-011 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Phase II trail design and implementation: Implement La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Master Plan phase II trail improvements, including planning, technical studies (biological, cultural, geotechnical), design, permitting and construction. FY21 SCOPE Begin construction of easy access loop trail in pasture one of Lower La Honda, pending permitting approval. Perform biomonitoring, permitting assistance and begin mitigation implementation and revegetation/reseeding. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $8,629 $4,555 $104,292 $0 $0 $0 $117,476 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 27,058 73,335 20,000 15,000 0 0 0 135,393 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 11,384 45,000 35,000 0 0 0 91,384 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 7,637 20,000 5,000 0 0 0 32,637 8205–Construction 0 0 10,000 70,000 0 0 0 80,000 Grand Total $27,058 $100,985 $99,555 $229,292 $0 $0 $0 $456,890 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 27,058 100,985 99,555 229,292 0 0 0 456,890 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $27,058 $100,985 $99,555 $229,292 $0 $0 $0 $456,890 101Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n PUBLIC ACCESS, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Alpine Road Regional Trail, Coal Creek Project #: MAA10-001 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Engineer, complete CEQA review, permit and construct road improvements to enhance public access and reduce further erosion and sedimentation downstream. FY21 SCOPE Prepare design documents and garner permits for the construction of trail and drainage improvements. Perform biomonitoring and begin revegetation/reseeding activities. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $9,032 $12,283 $22,818 $10,000 $0 $0 $54,133 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 4,286 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,286 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 17,663 114,008 45,000 95,000 55,000 0 0 326,671 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 12,959 110,000 50,000 0 0 0 172,959 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 70,000 0 0 70,000 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 23,750 38,750 5,000 0 0 67,500 8205–Construction 0 5,000 0 0 2,875,000 0 0 2,880,000 Grand Total $21,949 $140,999 $191,033 $206,568 $3,015,000 $0 $0 $3,575,549 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 21,949 140,999 191,033 206,568 2,742,789 0 0 3,303,338 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 272,211 0 0 272,211 Grand Total $21,949 $140,999 $191,033 $206,568 $3,015,000 $0 $0 $3,575,549 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 102 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 PUBLIC ACCESS, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Rancho San Antonio – Deer Hollow Farm – White Barn Rehabilitation Project #: MAA11-002 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION White barn stabilization–structural/historic assessment, planning, design and implementation of repairs. FY21 SCOPE Complete construction for stabilization and weatherproofing improvements. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $1,654 $15,065 $44,000 $0 $0 $0 $60,719 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 29,511 0 105,000 86,250 0 0 0 220,761 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 1,225 10,000 10,000 0 0 0 21,225 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 22,000 0 0 0 22,000 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 5,000 2,000 0 0 0 7,000 8205–Construction 0 0 0 195,500 0 0 0 195,500 Grand Total $29,511 $2,879 $135,065 $359,750 $0 $0 $0 $527,205 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 132,455 29,750 0 0 0 162,205 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 29,511 2,879 2,610 330,000 0 0 0 365,000 Grand Total $29,511 $2,879 $135,065 $359,750 $0 $0 $0 $527,205 103Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n PUBLIC ACCESS, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Saratoga-to-the-Sea Regional Trail Connection Project #: MAA18-002 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Support the City of Saratoga’s 3.2-mile long trail connection from Saratoga Quarry Park to Sanborn County Park (Partnership Project). FY21 SCOPE Continue to provide the City of Saratoga with technical and financial support. The city anticipates completing phase I of construction (trail work) in FY20 and completing the phase II of construction (bridge construction) in FY21. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $3,293 $0 $0 $0 $3,293 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 133,991 0 0 0 0 133,991 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 416,009 550,000 0 0 0 966,009 Grand Total $0 $0 $550,000 $553,293 $0 $0 $0 $1,103,293 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 550,000 553,293 0 0 0 1,103,293 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $550,000 $553,293 $0 $0 $0 $1,103,293 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 104 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 PUBLIC ACCESS, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Bay Area Ridge Trail: Highway 17 Crossing Project #: MAA20-002 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Eight project alternatives have been developed for separate and/or shared wildlife/recreational trail crossings, and have been forwarded to Caltrans for review, known as their Project Study Report. Once reviewed, alternatives will undergo environmental analysis and permitting prior to construction, all in close alignment with Highway 17 Wildlife Crossing #MAA20-001. FY21 SCOPE Continue CEQA/NEPA and Caltrans PAED (environmental review documents). Continue working with consultant (TBD) to develop CEQA documents in conjunction with Caltrans lead on NEPA documents. Continue public and partner outreach, and seek funding opportunities. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $317 $0 $0 $67,452 $40,000 $0 $0 $107,769 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 63,880 58,500 8,000 0 3,250,000 3,510,000 6,890,380 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 225 39,000 200,000 135,000 0 0 374,225 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 22,400,000 22,400,000 Grand Total $317 $64,105 $97,500 $275,452 $175,000 $3,250,000 $25,910,000 $29,772,374 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 317 64,105 97,500 275,452 175,000 3,250,000 25,910,000 29,772,374 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $317 $64,105 $97,500 $275,452 $175,000 $3,250,000 $25,910,000 $29,772,374 105Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n PUBLIC ACCESS, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Bear Creek Stables Site Plan Implementation Project #: MAA21-004 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Implement maintenance and repairs plan to maintenance equestrian use. Evaluate long-term water needs and implement water infrastructure improvements for Bear Creek Stables operation. FY21 SCOPE Complete construction documents for stables site plan and water system. Continue to coordinate with Santa Clara County Planning regarding permitting as necessary. Confirm adequacy of the environmental impact report for the modified project. Prepare and release request for bids. Secure project permits. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $41,360 $1,088 $4,147 $37,398 $6,000 $0 $0 $89,993 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 58,067 0 0 0 0 0 0 58,067 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 331,524 1,784 385,000 425,000 65,000 0 0 1,208,308 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 10,000 5,000 15,000 0 0 30,000 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 24,000 52,000 0 0 76,000 8204–Permitting Fees 1,275 0 86,000 71,000 5,000 0 0 163,275 8205–Construction 40,999 0 0 0 3,850,000 0 0 3,890,999 Grand Total $473,225 $2,872 $485,147 $562,398 $3,993,000 $0 $0 $5,516,642 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 473,225 2,872 485,147 562,398 3,493,000 0 0 5,016,642 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 500,000 0 0 500,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $473,225 $2,872 $485,147 $562,398 $3,993,000 $0 $0 $5,516,642 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 106 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 PUBLIC ACCESS, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Bear Creek Redwoods – Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Project Project #: MAA21-006 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Implement the Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Plan: complete hazardous materials remediation and site cleanup, demolish several buildings, stabilize the chapel and 1934 library and install visitor amenities and interpretation. FY21 SCOPE Complete construction, including Upper Lake overflow and access. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $61,448 $52,249 $65,848 $72,622 $0 $0 $0 $252,167 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 8,865 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,865 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 368,113 223,568 90,000 125,000 0 0 0 806,681 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 188,280 5,210 19,500 60,000 0 0 0 272,990 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 21,111 6,379 32,500 90,000 0 0 0 149,990 8204–Permitting Fees 1,720 8,697 15,000 0 0 0 0 25,417 8205–Construction 43,287 27,769 5,752 4,255,000 0 0 0 4,331,808 Grand Total $692,824 $323,872 $228,600 $4,602,622 $0 $0 $0 $5,847,918 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 692,824 323,872 228,600 4,223,244 0 0 0 5,468,540 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 379,378 0 0 0 379,378 Grand Total $692,824 $323,872 $228,600 $4,602,622 $0 $0 $0 $5,847,918 107Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n PUBLIC ACCESS, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Phase II Trail Improvements, Bear Creek Redwoods OSP Project #: MAA21-011 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Implement phase II trail improvements to open eastern part of Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve to public access. Includes multiuse through trail connection. FY21 SCOPE Complete the planning and permitting for trail infrastructure requiring permits, while beginning in-house construction of trail segments that do not require permits. Complete the necessary traffic studies for the trailheads of the multiuse trail and begin the trailhead design. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $6,000 $84,718 $0 $0 $25,000 $115,718 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 275,000 215,000 85,000 8,500 0 583,500 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 15,000 35,000 0 0 0 50,000 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 10,000 15,000 0 25,000 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 52,250 0 0 0 52,250 8205–Construction 0 0 50,000 25,000 775,000 718,532 0 1,568,532 Grand Total $0 $0 $346,000 $411,968 $870,000 $742,032 $25,000 $2,395,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 346,000 411,968 870,000 742,032 25,000 2,395,000 Grand Total $0 $0 $346,000 $411,968 $870,000 $742,032 $25,000 $2,395,000 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 108 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 PUBLIC ACCESS, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Beatty Parking Area and Trail Connections Project #: MAA22-004 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Design and build a new parking lot at Beatty property and a trail connection to Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve. To fulfill the requirements of the 2008 conservation easement with Santa Clara County Parks, the trail should be constructed 15 years after the recording of the easement, which was April 8, 2008. Demolish Beatty property house. FY21 SCOPE Complete CEQA and finalize schematic design. Project scope includes continue parking area design and continue trail design. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $157 $16,544 $29,871 $125,500 $0 $112,900 $284,972 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 35,658 104,000 275,000 121,000 55,000 0 590,658 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 28,475 249,000 170,500 212,500 115,000 0 775,475 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 30,000 43,000 0 73,000 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 50,000 25,000 0 0 75,000 8205–Construction 0 0 0 10,000 479,800 1,529,600 79,400 2,098,800 Grand Total $0 $64,290 $369,544 $535,371 $993,800 $1,742,600 $192,300 $3,897,905 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 64,290 369,544 485,465 893,800 1,742,600 192,300 3,747,999 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 49,906 100,000 0 0 149,906 Grand Total $0 $64,290 $369,544 $535,371 $993,800 $1,742,600 $192,300 $3,897,905 109Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n PUBLIC ACCESS, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Area Feasibility and Planning Project #: VP03-003 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is a partnership opportunity with Peninsula Open Space Trust to complete an important regional trail connection from Purisima Creek Open Space Preserve to the Coastal Trail. FY21 SCOPE Pending acquisition of land rights, initiate a feasibility analysis in collaboration with POST to study parking area alternatives to facilitate the Purisima-to-the-Sea regional trail connection. Perform preliminary field reconnaissance for potential trail alignment depending on location of proposed parking area. Initiate preliminary technical studies and assessments (e.g., cultural resources, biological, geotechnical, traffic) to inform feasibility studies. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 143,500 143,500 0 0 287,000 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $143,500 $143,500 $0 $0 $287,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 143,500 143,500 0 0 287,500 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $143,500 $143,500 $0 $0 $287,000 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 110 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 PUBLIC ACCESS, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH La Honda Creek Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study (former Red Barn) Project #: VP05-002 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating PROJECT DESCRIPTION PENDING BOARD DIRECTION anticipated July/August 2020 following Public Access Working Group input and PNR recommendations to conduct a feasibility study for public access to the central area of the preserve. FY21 SCOPE PENDING BOARD DIRECTION anticipated July/August 2020 following Public Access Working Group input and PNR recommendations. Conduct feasibility study and technical analyses for public access alternative(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 25,000 25,000 0 0 0 50,000 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 111Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n PUBLIC ACCESS, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Rancho San Antonio (RSA) Multimodal Access Study Project #: VP11-001 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project engages stakeholders and partner agencies to explore non-motorized mobility, transit options and parking alternatives for Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. Currently underway, this project would provide significant benefits for recreational users and leverage partnerships. FY21 SCOPE Planning multimodal access study: Complete multimodal access study and identify strategies for reducing parking issues. The analysis will expand upon a suite of recommendations developed by Midpen staff for managing parking demand and improving multimodal access and present a menu of short-, med-, and long-term strategies to the board. Implement short-term measures. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 56,000 50,000 0 0 0 106,000 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $56,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $106,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $56,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $106,000 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $56,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $106,000 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 112 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 PUBLIC ACCESS, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Traffic Study for Mt. Umunhum Road Project #: VP23-002 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating PROJECT DESCRIPTION Finalize traffic study and implement selected signage, striping and pavement improvements. FY21 SCOPE Finalize construction and implement selected signage, striping and pavement improvements; completion anticipated by fall 2020. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 173,000 107,500 0 0 0 280,500 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $173,000 $107,500 $0 $0 $0 $280,500 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $173,000 $107,500 $0 $0 $0 $280,500 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $173,000 $107,500 $0 $0 $0 $280,500 113Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n PUBLIC ACCESS, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Mt. Umunhum – Radar Tower Repair Project #: VP23-003 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Completion of Mount Umunhum radar tower assessment, design and repairs. All work is anticipated to be complete by 2020 year end. FY21 SCOPE Complete Mount Umunhum radar tower repair design, acquire permits and begin construction. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 60,000 0 0 0 60,000 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 75,000 0 0 0 75,000 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 5,000 8205–Construction 0 0 0 753,000 1,555,000 0 0 2,308,000 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $893,000 $1,555,000 $0 $0 $2,448,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 893,000 1,555,000 0 0 2,448,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $893,000 $1,555,000 $0 $0 $2,448,000 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 114 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Assets and Organizational Support Project#Project Name FY21 FY22 FY23 3-Year Total 10001 Records Management $220,000 $60,000 $60,000 $340,000 10002 San Mateo County Master Permit 50,000 0 0 50,000 31202 New Administration Office (AO) Facility 8,488,000 18,825,000 0 27,313,000 31601 New South Area Field Office Facility 3,473,483 0 0 3,473,483 35004 Sierra Azul Ranger Residence 285,000 290,000 0 575,000 51701 Work Order and Asset Management System 57,000 55,000 45,000 157,000 51703 Real Property Database 35,000 0 0 35,000 51704 Ward Boundary Redistricting Plan 42,500 49,500 0 92,000 61001 Tunitas Creek–Toto Ranch Driveway Improvements*0 423,112 0 423,112 61002 Russian Ridge–Bergman Residences Driveway Improvement*0 332,450 0 332,450 61005 4150 Sears Ranch Road Water and Driveway*0 39,250 382,000 421,250 61009 Russian Ridge–Bergman Residences Reconstruction 209,000 0 0 209,000 61010 Toto Ranch Well Drilling and Construction, Tunitas Creek 277,425 0 0 277,425 61011 Install Solar Panels at Skyline Field Office 150,000 0 0 150,000 61015 Bear Creek Stables Operator RFP/Lease 28,750 0 0 28,750 61016 Burkhart Spring Construction 38,750 21,250 0 60,000 61019 Repaint Red Barn 60,000 0 0 60,000 61020 Thornewood Residence Evaluation 46,000 0 0 46,000 65407 Radio System Assessment and Upgrade*0 640,000 523,000 1,163,000 VP06-001 Hawthorns Historic Complex Partnership and Lease 48,000 31,000 0 79,000 VP07-002 Agricultural Workforce Housing–La Honda Creek 317,500 0 0 317,500 None Vehicle and Machinery/Equipment Purchases 263,420 625,000 465,000 1,353,420 Total $14,039,828 $21,391,562 $1,475,000 $36,906,390 *The entire project budget for this project has been shifted out by a year due to changes in project timelines and workload capacity because of the impacts of COVID-19 and the shelter-in-place order in San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties. 115Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n OPERATING PROJECTS The table below lists operating projects by name and includes the project purpose and lead department. While the operating projects listed below may incur real expenses, they are only included in the lead department’s operating budget. Project Name Project Purpose Lead Department 50th Anniversary Planning Commemorate 50 years of public open space preservation, restoration and connection. Public Affairs Basic Policy Update Update the Basic Policy to incorporate the Coastal Annexation Area.Planning Citation Management System The current citations database is built on a legacy system that does not provide necessary end-user functionality and requires constant maintenance. Updating the citations database to modern software will increase its functionality and stability. Information Systems and Technology Coastside Lands Management Plan Develop Management Plan for existing and future Coastal Preserves evaluating potential new land purchase opportunities, management, restoration and future public access priorities to identify staffing and facilities needs on the San Mateo Coast. Real Property/General Manager’s Office Customer Relationship Management Primarily, to provide for more efficient management of public notification and engagement. Secondarily, to create consistent contact management for partners, vendors and other organizations. Public Affairs/Information Systems and Technology Digital Asset Management Provide staff with an efficient online tool for archive, retrieval and distribution of photos (and potentially other digital assets) to be used in internal and external digital and print publications. Public Affairs/Information Systems and Technology Emergency/Disaster Preparedness Response and Recovery Plan Conduct a review of agency policies, practices and industry best practices to develop a comprehensive District-wide Emergency/Disaster Preparedness, Response and Recovery Plan. General Manager’s Office Fire Suppression Program: Review Staffing, Equipment and Training Review and update District Fire Suppression Program.General Manager’s Office Good Neighbor Policy Update Ground truth policy against goals, strategy and practices.Public Affairs Historic Resources Procedural Guide/Inventory Develop an administrative historic resources procedural guide as a guiding document for consistent historic resource management and update existing database to a comprehensive historic resources inventory. Planning/Information Systems and Technology Human Resources Information System A Human Resources Information System (HRIS) is needed to streamline HR’s training, performance management and recruitment. Information Systems and Technology Interim Coastal Area Field Office Finalize permitting and environmental review for Interim Coastal Area Field Office. Planning/Land and Facilities Services SharePoint–Document Management System Continue building out Midpen’s SharePoint platform on Office 365.Information Systems and Technology Volunteer and Docent Management System The current website hosts the Volunteer and Docent Management System; however, the website is being upgraded and can no longer support this functionality. As a result, a new Volunteer and Docent Management System needs to be developed and implemented. Information Systems and Technology *The entire project budget for this project has been shifted out by a year due to changes in project timelines and workload capacity because of the impacts of COVID-19 and the shelter-in-place order in San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties. Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 116 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 ASSETS AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT Records Management Project #: 10001 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating PROJECT DESCRIPTION To prepare for Midpen’s move to a new office building in spring 2022, staff will use the board-approved retention schedule to inventory and digitize paper files. FY21 SCOPE Select and implement an electronic document management system. Perform records inventory and disposition of records in accordance with board-adopted records retention schedule. Begin document scanning, digitization and input of digital records into EDMS. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 220,000 60,000 60,000 0 340,000 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $220,000 $60,000 $60,000 $0 $340,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $220,000 $60,000 $60,000 $0 $340,000 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $220,000 $60,000 $60,000 $0 $340,000 117Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n ASSETS AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT San Mateo County Master Permit Project #: 10002 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating PROJECT DESCRIPTION Develop a Master Permit with San Mateo County to streamline project implementation. FY21 SCOPE Complete zoning and subdivision ordinance amendments with the County of San Mateo to streamline land divisions. Complete master permit application; begin stakeholders engagement. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 50,000 0 0 0 50,000 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 118 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 ASSETS AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT New Administrative Office (AO) Facility Project #: 31202 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Prepare 5050 El Camino for new administrative office. FY21 SCOPE Finalize design and begin construction. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 68,910 0 0 0 0 0 0 68,910 8101–Real Estate Services 0 31,742,406 0 0 0 0 0 31,742,406 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 66,232 466,041 512,133 347,000 345,000 0 0 1,736,406 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 172,500 230,000 0 0 402,500 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 111,611 120,000 0 0 0 231,611 8205–Construction 0 0 0 7,762,500 17,250,000 0 0 25,012,500 8301 - Furniture 0 0 0 86,000 1,000,000 0 0 1,086,000 Grand Total $135,142 $32,208,447 $623,744 $8,488,000 $18,825,000 $0 $0 $60,280,333 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 135,142 32,208,447 623,744 8,488,000 18,825,000 0 0 60,280,333 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $135,142 $32,208,447 $623,744 $8,488,000 $18,825,000 $0 $0 $60,280,333 119Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n ASSETS AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT New South Area Field Office Facility Project #: 31601 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Renovate an existing industrial warehouse building in Campbell as the new, permanent South Area Field Office that will accommodate anticipated field staff growth, expedite MAA project delivery and further enhance service delivery. FY21 SCOPE Complete construction and receive building occupancy. Purchase, setup and install technology. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 41,483 6,600 0 0 0 0 0 48,083 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 70,865 185,144 57,787 49,233 0 0 0 363,029 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 86,990 24,250 0 0 0 111,240 8204–Permitting Fees 0 20,489 40,806 20,000 0 0 0 81,295 8205–Construction 0 399 1,030,000 3,200,000 0 0 0 4,230,399 8301 - Furniture 0 0 0 100,000 0 0 0 100,000 8303–Computer Equipment 0 0 0 80,000 0 0 0 80,000 Grand Total $112,348 $212,632 $1,215,583 $3,473,483 $0 $0 $0 $5,014,046 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 112,348 212,632 1,215,583 3,473,483 0 0 0 5,014,046 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $112,348 $212,632 $1,215,583 $3,473,483 $0 $0 $0 $5,014,046 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 120 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 ASSETS AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT Sierra Azul Ranger Residence Project #: 35004 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Develop a new permanent residence in or adjacent to Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve for improved site presence and monitoring. Structural assessment and implementation of recommended improvements to align with future site uses. Repave driveway from Pheasant to South Area Outpost. FY21 SCOPE Continue design and begin construction. Complete the structural assessment and receive direction on future uses. Continue to work closely with County of Santa Clara Planning Department to address and resolve violation and updated Conditional Use Permit. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 52,019 29,635 35,000 100,000 0 0 0 216,654 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 8,682 0 0 10,000 20,000 0 0 38,682 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 6,579 0 20,000 20,000 0 0 46,579 8204–Permitting Fees 0 591 15,000 40,000 20,000 0 0 75,591 8205–Construction 0 0 50,000 115,000 230,000 0 0 395,000 Grand Total $60,701 $36,805 $100,000 $285,000 $290,000 $0 $0 $772,506 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 60,701 36,805 100,000 285,000 290,000 0 0 772,506 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $60,701 $36,805 $100,000 $285,000 $290,000 $0 $0 $772,506 121Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n ASSETS AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT Work Order and Asset Management System Project #: 51701 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating PROJECT DESCRIPTION The IST Strategic Plan recommends a work order asset management system to streamline the maintenance and management of Midpen land and infrastructure assets. FY21 SCOPE Conducting phase II for Natural Resources. Migrate SharePoint request form to CityWorks. All NR requests will go through CityWorks thereafter. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 64,975 75,495 63,500 57,000 55,000 45,000 0 360,970 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $64,975 $75,495 $63,500 $57,000 $55,000 $45,000 $0 $360,970 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $64,975 $75,495 $63,500 $57,000 $55,000 $45,000 $0 $360,970 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $64,975 $75,495 $63,500 $57,000 $55,000 $45,000 $0 $360,970 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 122 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 ASSETS AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT Real Property Database Project #: 51703 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating PROJECT DESCRIPTION The IT Master Plan recommends upgrading legacy data management systems to modern software platforms that increase functionality, reporting accuracy, integration and user experience. The current real property database, created over 12 years ago, is a legacy system. To follow master plan recommendations, a new real property database will be implemented. This will be an enterprise geographic information system integrated data management system, capable of providing reports on all aspects of Midpen’s land transactions. FY21 SCOPE Migrate legacy content into new database, develop web applications, provide user training, go live with new system and retire old database. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 21,100 35,000 0 0 0 56,100 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $21,100 $35,000 $0 $0 $0 $56,100 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $21,100 $35,000 $0 $0 $0 $56,100 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $21,100 $35,000 $0 $0 $0 $56,100 123Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n ASSETS AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT Ward Boundary Redistricting Plan Project #: 51704 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating PROJECT DESCRIPTION Work with the board on redistricting Midpen’s seven ward boundaries following the release of the 2020 census data. Midpen is required by California Elections Code Section 22000 and the federal Voting Rights Act to adjust its ward boundaries prior to the next biennial general election following each federal decennial census. FY21 SCOPE Host board study sessions to introduce the redistricting process, review relevant federal laws and state guidelines, and finalize redistricting criteria. Begin analyzing census and demographic data and develop potential boundary realignment scenarios. Develop communication plan and web page for public information. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 42,500 49,500 0 0 92,000 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $42,500 $49,500 $0 $0 $92,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $42,500 $49,500 $0 $0 $92,000 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $42,500 $49,500 $0 $0 $92,000 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 124 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 ASSETS AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT Tunitas Creek – Toto Ranch Driveway Improvements Project #: 61001 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Repair and resurface entrance driveway for Toto Ranch. FY22 SCOPE Design, specs and costs are complete. Initiate permitting process with the County of San Mateo and the CEQA process for the work. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 13,870 3,360 10,000 0 5,000 0 0 32,230 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 4,344 0 0 7,000 0 0 11,344 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 32,000 0 0 32,000 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 2,500 0 0 2,500 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 376,612 0 0 376,612 Grand Total $13,870 $7,704 $10,000 $0 $423,112 $0 $0 $454,686 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 13,870 7,704 10,000 0 423,112 0 0 454,686 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $13,870 $7,704 $10,000 $0 $423,112 $0 $0 $454,686 125Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n ASSETS AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT Russian Ridge – Bergman Residences Driveway Improvement Project #: 61002 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Repair and rerock the driveway from the edge of the chip seal section through 20000 Skyline Blvd. (Bergman) to potentially 20300 Skyline Blvd. (Quam) to provide safe access to staff, tenants and inholding property. Staff will work with in hold tenant for reimbursement of improvements on their section of driveway. This project is to be completed in two phases: Phase I–install culverts and driveway improvements. Phase II–rock complete driveway and improve oil screen. FY22 SCOPE Repair Bergman residence driveway. Pending board disposition of Quam residence and associated driveway extension, either repair lower Quam driveway or demolish Quam residence. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 13,870 3,837 0 0 46,700 0 0 64,407 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 5,000 0 0 5,000 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 40,000 0 0 40,000 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 5,000 0 0 5,000 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 235,750 0 0 235,750 Grand Total $13,870 $3,837 $0 $0 $332,450 $0 $0 $350,157 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 13,870 3,837 0 0 332,450 0 0 350,157 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $13,870 $3,837 $0 $0 $332,450 $0 $0 $350,157 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 126 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 ASSETS AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT 4150 Sears Ranch Road Water and Driveway Project #: 61005 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Repair residence driveway. FY22 SCOPE Work with consultants to design water system and driveway repairs. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 28,750 5,000 0 33,750 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 7,500 0 0 7,500 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 32,000 0 32,000 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 3,000 0 0 3,000 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 345,000 0 345,000 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,250 $382,000 $0 $421,250 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 39,250 382,000 0 421,250 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,250 $382,000 $0 $421,250 127Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n ASSETS AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT Russian Ridge – Bergman Residences Reconstruction Project #: 61009 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Perform cleanup of the Bergman housing complex, prepare drawings and warrant the main, old, guest and carriage houses with the County of San Mateo. These residences will be improved to provide three rental residences. The stables structure and grandma house will be demolished. FY21 SCOPE Demolish grandma house, stable building and small shed. Natural Resources to provide biomonitoring. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 30,213 21,063 5,750 3,500 0 0 0 60,526 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 9,829 0 10,000 0 0 0 19,829 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 3,900 37,250 22,500 0 0 0 63,650 8204–Permitting Fees 0 3,378 2,300 500 0 0 0 6,178 8205–Construction 32,220 258,688 281,750 172,500 0 0 0 745,158 Grand Total $62,433 $296,858 $327,050 $209,000 $0 $0 $0 $895,341 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 62,433 296,858 327,050 209,000 0 0 0 895,341 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $62,433 $296,858 $327,050 $209,000 $0 $0 $0 $895,341 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 128 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 ASSETS AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT Toto Ranch Well Drilling and Construction, Tunitas Creek Project #: 61010 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Locate, drill and plumb a well to provide a consistent water source for the Toto residence. The current water source for the house is a seasonal spring that has been unreliable. FY21 SCOPE Finalize permitting and construction of well. Planning to assist with permitting as needed. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 28,750 0 0 0 0 28,750 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 5,750 3,000 0 0 0 8,750 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 45,000 0 0 0 45,000 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 17,500 0 0 0 0 17,500 8205–Construction 0 159 0 229,425 0 0 0 229,584 Grand Total $0 $159 $52,000 $277,425 $0 $0 $0 $329,584 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 159 52,000 277,425 0 0 0 329,584 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $159 $52,000 $277,425 $0 $0 $0 $329,584 129Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n ASSETS AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT Install Solar Panels at Skyline Field Office Project #: 61011 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Research and install solar panels at the Skyline Field Office to produce clean, green energy that will help meet Midpen’s greenhouse gas reduction goals. FY21 SCOPE Solar panel installation slated for completion in FY20; may continue into FY21 to complete work. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 10,000 0 0 0 10,000 8205–Construction 0 0 0 140,000 0 0 0 140,000 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 150,000 0 0 0 150,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 130 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 ASSETS AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT Bear Creek Stables Operator RFP/Lease Project #: 61015 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating PROJECT DESCRIPTION Identify a new long-term tenant for Bear Creek Stables through RFP process. Negotiate new lease. FY21 SCOPE Issue RFP for new tenant and negotiate lease. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 28,750 0 0 0 28,750 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $28,750 $0 $0 $0 $28,750 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $28,750 $0 $0 $0 $28,750 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $28,750 $0 $0 $0 $28,750 131Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n ASSETS AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT Burkhart Spring Construction Project #: 61016 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating PROJECT DESCRIPTION Rebuild damaged spring box. Repair lines, add water lines, storage and connection for the neighbor. FY21 SCOPE Permitting and construction. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 38,750 21,250 0 0 60,000 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $38,750 $21,250 $0 $0 $60,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $38,750 $21,250 $0 $0 $60,000 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $38,750 $21,250 $0 $0 $60,000 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 132 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 ASSETS AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT Repaint Red Barn Project #: 61019 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating PROJECT DESCRIPTION Assess current condition of exterior siding for any necessary repairs and repaint red barn. FY21 SCOPE Repaint red barn at La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 60,000 0 0 0 60,000 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $60,000 $0 $0 $0 $60,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $60,000 $0 $0 $0 $60,000 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $60,000 $0 $0 $0 $60,000 133Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n ASSETS AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT Thornewood Residence Evaluation Project #: 61020 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Complete historic evaluation and structural evaluation of the Thornewood residence. FY21 SCOPE Complete historic evaluation and structural evaluation of the Thornewood residence. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 23,000 0 0 0 23,000 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 23,000 0 0 0 23,000 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $46,000 $0 $0 $0 $46,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 46,000 0 0 0 46,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $46,000 $0 $0 $0 $46,000 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 134 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 ASSETS AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT Radio System Assessment and Upgrade Project #: 65407 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Research options to expand Midpen radio coverage to Coastal areas, improve radio coverage in selected high-use areas and replace equipment reaching end of life. FY22 SCOPE Create technical specifications for, develop and release vendor request for proposal. Review proposals and select vendor. Oversee and guide vendor design and planning, build and ship, and installation of new radio system. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 56,000 0 266,000 133,000 0 455,000 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 374,000 390,000 0 764,000 Grand Total $0 $0 $56,000 $0 $640,000 $523,000 $0 $1,219,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 56,000 0 640,000 523,000 0 1,219,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $56,000 $0 $640,000 $523,000 $0 $1,219,000 135Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n ASSETS AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT Hawthorns Historic Complex Partnership and Lease Project #: VP06-001 Fund: 20 – Hawthorns Fund PROJECT DESCRIPTION Evaluate the Hawthorns house for potential stabilization options for board input. Perform structural repairs and maintenance of the house based on board directions. Continue to explore partnership opportunities for long- term reuse, care and maintenance of historic complex. Determine the viability of a proposed partnership with the potential partner. If viable, retain a historic preservation/architectural consultant to evaluate the partner’s proposed plans for rehabilitation and reuse of the historic complex. Coordinate with Peninsula Open Space Trust on the development proposal review and consistency with the conservation easement if applicable. FY21 SCOPE Evaluate and implement short term measures to prevent deterioration of the Hawthorns house. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 42,000 10,000 0 0 52,000 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 6,000 21,000 0 0 27,000 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $48,000 $31,000 $0 $0 $79,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 48,000 31,000 0 0 79,000 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $48,000 $31,000 $0 $0 $79,000 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n 136 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 ASSETS AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT Agricultural Workforce Housing – La Honda Creek Project #: VP07-002 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Establish designated agricultural workforce housing to support Midpen’s conservation grazing program. FY21 SCOPE Begin and complete construction. Natural Resources to provide biomonitoring and begin revegetation/reseeding. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 25,739 0 106,000 15,000 0 0 0 146,739 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 1,634 0 15,000 0 0 0 16,634 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 287,500 0 0 0 287,500 Grand Total $25,739 $1,634 $106,000 $317,500 $0 $0 $0 $450,873 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 25,739 1,634 106,000 317,500 0 0 0 450,873 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $25,739 $1,634 $106,000 $317,500 $0 $0 $0 $450,873 137Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n ASSETS AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT Vehicle and Machinery/Equipment Purchases Project #: None Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase necessary vehicles and equipment for administrative and field office staff. FY21 SCOPE Vehicles: Replace two Patrol vehicles and one maintenance vehicle that have reached their mileage and/or years in service limit. New patrol vehicles are planned to be Ford F-350 or similar to accommodate the additional load for water tanks and pumps to support the fire suppression program. In anticipation of ongoing social distancing requirements staff will evaluate all viable alternatives for transporting crews to safely perform planned field work. This will include exploring all green and fuel efficient modes of transportation, identifying vehicles that need to be replaced in the near future (beyond FY21), and vehicles that can be kept in service longer than anticipated. Machinery: Replace one mini excavator that has reached its end of life and isn’t cost effective to repair. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201–Architect/ Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/ Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/ Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8204–Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8205–Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8410–Machinery 339,642 319,325 188,000 40,000 240,000 165,000 0 1,291,967 8501–Vehicles 687,553 503,929 391,500 223,420 385,000 300,000 0 2,491,402 Grand Total $1,027,195 $823,254 $579,500 $263,420 $625,000 $465,000 $0 $3,783,369 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY19 Actuals FY20 Estimated Actuals FY21 Budget FY22 Projections FY23 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorns Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 1,027,195 823,254 579,500 263,420 625,000 465,000 0 3,783,369 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $1,027,195 $823,254 $579,500 $263,420 $625,000 $465,000 $0 $3,783,369 138 Section III • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I I I Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d A c t i o n P l a n La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve by Kimberley Wong Section IV Department Summaries Midpen Staff by Erin Ashford 139Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I V Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s 140 Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Windy Hill Open Space Preserve by Sharon Hori 141Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Departments Overview Midpen is structured to deliver on project commitments in support of Midpen’s mission and goals and is organized by function into three business lines: Project Planning and Delivery, Visitor and Field Services, and Administrative Services. All business lines report to the General Manager and are structured as follows: ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Administrative Services ———————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————— Budget and Analysis———————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————— Finance———————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————Grants———————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————— Human Resources———————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————— Information Systems and Technology———————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————— Procurement——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Project Planning and Delivery ———————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————— Engineering and Construction———————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————— Planning———————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————— Real Property——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Public Affairs ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Visitor and Field Services ———————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————— Land and Facilities———————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————— Natural Resources———————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————Visitor Services——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— This section identifies each of Midpen’s departments, their mission and core function, staffing levels, objectives, performance metrics and proposed FY21 budget. Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s 142 Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Administrative Services MISSION STATEMENT Provide overall financial, human resources, information systems and other administrative support to serve Midpen’s mission and goals. CORE FUNCTIONS——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Provide financial management, budgeting and accounting services.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Administer Human Resources programs and coordinate employee relations activities.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Manage Midpen’s Information Technology and Geographic Information Systems and services.——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————Provide Midpen with an overall IT strategy that fosters organizational innovation and efficiencies. ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Provide office management and public reception/customer service at the Administrative Office.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Coordinate grants application, award and compliance.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Manage Midpen procurement.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Organizational Chart CFO/Director of Administrative Services HR Supervisor Management Analyst II Management Analyst II Grants Program Manager Controller Data Administrator Applications Engineer Human Resources Manager IST Manager HR Intern HR Technician (Half-time) Training and Safety Specialist HR Technician IT Technician II IT Technician I IST Program Administrator GIS Program Administrator Data Analyst II Data Analyst I GIS Technician Accounting Technician (Half-time) Senior Accountant Senior Finance and Accounting Technician Management Analyst II Management Analyst I Budget and Analysis Manager Procurement and Contracts Specialist Finance Manager Senior Finance and Accounting Technician (Half-time) Administrative Assistant Senior Finance and Accounting Technician (Half-time) 143Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Staffing Levels Position FY17 Adopted FTE FY18 Adopted FTE FY19 Amended FTE FY20 Adopted FTE FY21 Proposed FTE Change from FY20 Modified Accounting Technician 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 Administrative Assistant 1 1 1 1 1 0 Applications Engineer 0 0 1 1 1 0 Budget & Analysis Manager 1 1 1 1 1 0 Controller 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0 Data Administrator 1 1 1 1 1 0 Data Analyst 2 2 2 2 2 0 Finance Manager 1 1 1 1 1 0 GIS Program Administrator 1 1 1 1 1 0 GIS Intern 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 GIS Technician 0 0 1 1 1 0 Grants Program Manager (formerly Grants Specialist)1 1 1 1 1 0 Human Resources Intern 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 Human Resources Manager 1 1 1 1 1 0 Human Resources Supervisor 1 1 1 1 1 0 Human Resources Technician 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0 IST Manager 1 1 1 1 1 0 IT Program Administrator 1 1 1 1 1 0 IT Technician I 0 0 1 1 1 0 IT Technician II 1 1 1 1 1 0 Management Analyst I 1 1 2 2 1 -1 Management Analyst II 3 3 2 2 3 1 Procurement and Contracts Specialist 1 1 1 1 1 0 Senior Accountant 1 1 1 1 1 0 Senior Finance and Accounting Technician 2 2 1 2 2 0 Training and Safety Specialist 1 1 1 1 1 0 Total FTE 24.75 24.75 26.75 27.75 27.75 0 144 Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Administrative Services aligns project deliverables to Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives primarily through: ——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————Goal 4 – Strengthen organizational capacity and long-term financial sustainability to fulfill the mission——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Objectives Strategic Plan Linkage Project Number Objective Target Completion Goal 4 51701 Work Order and Asset Management System Phase II FY2021 Goal 4 51703 Real Property Database FY2021 Goal 4 51704 Ward Boundary Redistricting Plan FY2022 Goal 4 Operating Citation Management System FY2022 Goal 4 Operating Customer Relationship Management FY2022 Goal 4 Operating Digital Asset Management FY2021 Goal 4 Operating Historic Resources Procedural Guide/Inventory FY2025 Goal 4 Operating Human Resources Information System FY2022 Goal 4 Operating SharePoint–Document Management System Phase I FY2022 Goal 4 Operating Volunteer and Docent Management System FY2021 For the full statement of Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives, see page 6; project details are included in Section III. Performance Metrics Strategic Plan Linkage Indicator FY19 Target FY19 Actuals FY20 Target FY21 Target Goal 4 Percent of job recruitments completed within target timeline 32 Information Not Available 32 32 Goal 4 Employee retention rate <10%12%<10%<10% Goal 4 Percent of FTEs using web and mobile enterprise GIS 15%27%30%60% Goal 4 Percent of total District files in Office 365 10%19%25%40% Goal 4 Percent spent of adopted and final adjusted budget 90% / 90%90% / 95%90% / 90%90% / 90% Goal 4 Budget Book receives GFOA Award for Distinguished Budget Presentation Yes Yes Yes Yes Goal 4 Obtain GFOA Award of Excellence in Financial Reporting for the CAFR Yes Yes Yes Yes Goal 4 CAFR issued with unmodified opinion Yes Yes Yes Yes Goal 4 General Fund reserve balance policy target met Yes Yes Yes Yes Goal 4 Legal Debt limit not exceeded Yes Yes Yes Yes Goal 4 Credit Rating from Fitch's and Standard and Poor’s AAA AAA AAA AAA Goal 4 Percent of electronic invoice payments 10%47%40%50% Budget Midpen Budget by Expenditure Category FY19 Actuals FY20 Adopted Budget FY21 Proposed Budget $ Change from FY20 Adopted Budget % Change from FY20 Adopted Budget Administrative Services Salaries and Benefits $3,717,154 $4,973,351 $5,357,276 $383,925 8% Services and Supplies 1,020,528 1,750,108 1,776,690 26,582 2% Total Operating Expenditures 4,737,681 6,723,459 7,133,966 410,507 6% General Fund Capital 232,779 80,000 80,000 0 0% Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0% Total Capital Expenditures 0 80,000 80,000 0 0% Total Administrative Services Expenditures $4,970,461 $6,803,459 $7,213,966 $410,507 6% Monte Bello Open Space Preserve by Cass Kalinski 145Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Engineering and Construction Department MISSION STATEMENT Implement large-scale capital projects to improve and maintain Midpen’s infrastructure and facilities that are necessary to facilitate ecologically sensitive and safe public access and ongoing stewardship and care for the land. CORE FUNCTIONS——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Oversee and manage the design and engineering, permitting, bidding, and construction of large-scale capital improvement projects.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Provide design, project management, construction management and/or construction oversight of large-scale capital projects.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Ensure that capital projects comply with all necessary requirements and regulations related to construction, including building code requirements, mitigation measures, permit conditions and federal regulations.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Develop and assist with cost estimations and constructability assessments during the planning, scoping and early design phase of capital projects.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Stay abreast of current codes and construction regulations and ensure Midpen’s construction standards remain current.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Organizational Chart Engineering and Construction Manager Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s 146 Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Senior Capital Project Manager Capital Project Manager III Capital Project Manager II Senior Capital Project Manager Capital Project Manager II Capital Project Manager III Administrative Assistant Staffing Levels Position FY17 Adopted FTE FY18 Adopted FTE FY19 Amended FTE FY20 Adopted FTE FY21 Proposed FTE Change from FY20 Modified Manager 1 1 1 1 1 0 Senior Capital Project Manager 0 2 2 2 2 0 Capital Project Manager II 1 1 1 1 1 0 Capital Project Manager III 3 3 3 3 3 0 Total FTE 5 7 7 7 7 0 Engineering and Construction aligns project deliverables to the Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives primarily through: ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Goal 1 – Promote, establish, and implement a regional environmental protection vision with partners——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————Goal 2 – Protect the positive environmental values of open space lands ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Goal 3 – Connect people to open space and a regional environmental protection vision——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Goal 4 – Strengthen organizational capacity and long-term financial sustainability to fulfill the mission——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 147Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Ravenswood Open Space Preserve by Mike Kahn/Midpen Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s 148 Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Objectives Strategic Plan Linkage Project Number Objective Target Completion Goal 4 31202 New Administrative Office (AO) Facility FY2022 Goal 4 31601 New South Area Field Office Facility FY2021 Goal 3 31901 ADA Barrier Removal Ongoing Goal 4 35004 Sierra Azul Ranger Residence FY2021 Goal 4 35006 Restroom Replacements FY2022 Goal 3 MAA02-002 Ravenswood Bay Trail Design and Implementation FY2021 Goal 1 & 3 MAA03-002 Purisima Upland Site Clean Up and Soil Remediation Assessment FY2021 Goal 4 MAA05-008 La Honda Creek White Barn Structural Rehabilitation FY2022 Goal 4 MAA05-009 La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin Assessment, Removal and Site Restoration FY2022 Goal 1 MAA09-003 Russian Ridge Mindego Pond Improvement FY2021 Goal 1 MAA11-002 Rancho San Antonio–Deer Hollow Farm–White Barn Rehabilitation FY2021 Goal 3 & 4 MAA21-004 Bear Creek Redwoods Stables Site Plan Implementation FY2022 Goal 3 MAA21-006 Bear Creek Redwoods–Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation FY2021 Goal 2 VP07-002 Agricultural Workforce Housing–La Honda Creek FY2021 Goal 4 VP23-002 Traffic Study for Mt. Umunhum Road FY2021 Goal 4 VP23-003 Mt. Umunhum–Radar Tower Repair FY2021 For the full statement of Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives, see page 6; project details are included in Section III. Fremont Older Open Space Preserve by Eric Chang Performance Metrics Strategic Plan Linkage Indicator FY19 Target FY19 Actuals FY20 Target FY21 Target Goal 4 Percent of projects finished within Board approved budget (base bid and contingency) 80%100%80%80% Goal 4 Percent of projects finished within schedule indicated at the time of award of contract 80%88%80%80% Budget Midpen Budget by Expenditure Category FY19 Actuals FY20 Adopted Budget FY21 Proposed Budget $ Change from FY20 Adopted Budget % Change from FY20 Adopted Budget Engineering and Construction Salaries and Benefits $940,169 $1,104,405 $1,145,128 $40,723 4% Less: MAA Reimbursable Staff Costs (197,551)(295,426)(353,055)(57,629)20% Net Salaries and Benefits 742,618 808,979 792,073 (16,906)- 2% Services and Supplies 94,135 79,023 186,768 107,745 136% Total Operating Expenditures 836,754 888,002 978,841 90,839 10% General Fund Capital 950,441 2,745,470 13,941,983 11,196,513 408% Measure AA Capital 5,021,283 6,361,226 7,300,555 939,329 15% Total Capital Expenditures 5,971,724 9,106,696 21,242,538 12,135,842 133% Total Engineering and Construction Expenditures $6,808,477 $9,994,698 $22,221,379 $12,226,681 122% Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve by Madhur Kulkarni 149Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s 150 Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Office of the General Counsel MISSION STATEMENT Provide legal services and counsel to the board of directors, committees and Midpen departments. CORE FUNCTIONS——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————Provide legal review and advice to the Midpen Board and staff.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Represent Midpen in litigation and legal matters with outside agencies.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Administer Midpen’s risk management program.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Organizational Chart General Counsel La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve by Jindrich Zejda Assistant General Counsel Management Analyst--Risk Management Executive Assistant 151Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Staffing Levels Position FY17 Adopted FTE FY18 Adopted FTE FY19 Amended FTE FY20 Adopted FTE FY21 Proposed FTE Change from FY20 Modified General Counsel 1 1 1 1 1 0 Assistant General Counsel 1 1 1 1 1 0 Management Analyst–Risk Management 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 Executive Assistant 0 0 1 1 1 0 Total FTE 2.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 0 General Counsel aligns project deliverables to Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives primarily through: ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Goal 1 – Promote, establish, and implement a regional environmental protection vision with partners——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Goal 2 – Protect the positive environmental values of open space lands ——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————Goal 3 – Connect people to open space and a regional environmental protection vision——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Goal 4 – Strengthen organizational capacity and long-term financial sustainability to fulfill the mission——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Objectives Strategic Plan Linkage Project Number Objective Target Completion Goal 1 Operating Assist with land preservation projects on the San Mateo County Coast FY2023 Goal 2 Operating Facilitate use of Design Build contract for Mindego Pond restoration and potential future projects FY2021 Goal 4 51704 Assist in Ward Boundary Redistricting Plan FY2022 Goal 1 Operating Water resources program–develop legal strategies to improve sustainable watersheds Ongoing For the full statement of Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives, see page 6; project details are included in Section III. Budget Midpen Budget by Expenditure Category FY19 Actuals FY20 Adopted Budget FY21 Proposed Budget $ Change from FY20 Adopted Budget % Change from FY20 Adopted Budget General Counsel Salaries and Benefits $404,045 $657,770 $701,221 $43,451 7% Services and Supplies 108,004 94,650 99,185 4,535 5% Total Operating Expenditures 512,049 752,420 800,406 47,986 6% Total General Counsel Expenditures $512,049 $752,420 $800,406 $47,986 6% Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s 152 Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Office of the General Manager MISSION STATEMENT Responsible for the overall operation of Midpen. Under policy direction from the board of directors, the General Manager carries out Midpen’s adopted Strategic Plan goals and objectives and Vision Plan priority actions and works through the executive team to provide leadership, direction, resources and tools to Midpen departments to ensure effective, efficient, and financially-prudent project and service delivery for public benefit. CORE FUNCTIONS——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Provide leadership, oversight and direction for Midpen functions.——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————Accomplish the goals and objectives set out in the board of directors’ Strategic Plan.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Implement Midpen’s Vision Plan priority actions.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Ensure that Midpen’s policies and procedures are fiscally sustainable.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Provide legislative support to the board of directors, including duties associated with the board of directors’ agenda and actions, officiating all Midpen elections and maintaining all official records.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Organizational Chart Staffing Levels Position FY17 Adopted FTE FY18 Adopted FTE FY19 Amended FTE FY20 Adopted FTE FY21 Proposed FTE Change from FY20 Modified Administrative Assistant 1 1 1 1 1 0 Assistant General Manager 2 2 2 2 2 0 Chief Financial Officer 1 1 1 1 1 0 District Clerk/Assistant to General Manager 1 1 1 1 1 0 Executive Assistant/Deputy Clerk 1 1 1 1 1 0 General Manager 1 1 1 1 1 0 Management Analyst II 1 1 1 1 1 0 Total FTE 8 8 8 8 8 0 General Manager Executive Assistant/Deputy District Clerk District Clerk/ Assistant to the General Manager Administrative Assistant Management Analyst II Visitor and Field Services Assistant General Manager Project Planning and Delivery Assistant General Manager CFO Director of Administrative Services 153Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s General Manager aligns project deliverables to Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives primarily through: ——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————Goal 1 – Promote, establish, and implement a regional environmental protection vision with partners——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Goal 2 – Protect the positive environmental values of open space lands ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Goal 3 – Connect people to open space and a regional environmental protection vision——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Goal 4 – Strengthen organizational capacity and long-term financial sustainability to fulfill the mission——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Objectives Strategic Plan Linkage Project Number Objective Target Completion Goal 4 10001 Records Management FY2023 Goal 4 10002 San Mateo County Master Permit FY2022 Goal 3 31901 ADA Barrier Removal Ongoing Goal 1 & 4 VP06-001 Hawthorns Historic Complex Partnership and Lease FY2021 Goal 1 & 4 Operating Coastside Lands Management Plan FY2022 Goal 3 Operating Cooley Landing Park Business and Operation Plan FY2021 Goal 3 Operating Cooley Landing Site Use Agreements FY2021 Goal 2 & 4 Operating Emergency/Disaster Preparedness Response and Recovery Plan FY2021 Goal 2 Operating Fire Suppression Program: Review Staffing, Equipment and Training FY2021 Goal 1 & 4 Operating Land Conservation Guidance Document FY2022 Goal 3 Operating Preserve Use Survey Implementation FY2022 Goal 4 Operating Complete negotiations with Field Employee Association (FEA) FY2021 For the full statement of Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives, see page 6; project details are included in Section III. Performance Metrics Strategic Plan Linkage Indicator FY19 Target FY19 Actuals FY20 Target FY21 Target Goal 1 Number of public meetings held per year 65 52 60 60 Budget Midpen Budget by Expenditure Category FY19 Actuals FY20 Adopted Budget FY21 Proposed Budget $ Change from FY20 Adopted Budget % Change from FY20 Adopted Budget General Manager Salaries and Benefits $1,366,167 $1,647,485 $1,741,796 $94,311 6% Services and Supplies 875,151 450,325 476,825 26,500 6% Total Operating Expenditures 2,241,317 2,097,810 2,218,621 120,811 6% Total General Manger Expenditures $2,241,317 $2,097,810 $2,218,621 $120,811 6% Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s 154 Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Land and Facilities Services Department MISSION STATEMENT Improve, restore and maintain Midpen lands in a manner that ensures protection and stewardship of the lands, that provides public access to explore and enjoy the lands, and that is consistent with ecological values and public safety. Provide and maintain Midpen facilities and trails for public use, field and administrative facilities for staff use, and rentals. Manage grazing, agricultural and other facility leases to support Midpen’s mission. CORE FUNCTIONS——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Maintain and construct an enjoyable and sustainable trail system.——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————Provide in-the-field services to protect and restore natural resources.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Protect public health and safety through fire prevention and safe access.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Foster neighbor, partner, and jurisdictional-oversight agency relationships and engage in multi-stakeholder efforts to further Midpen goals.——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————Maintain Midpen facilities to ensure safety, comfort and the public’s enjoyment.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Manage grazing, agricultural and other facility leases to further Midpen goals.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Provide and maintain field and administrative facilities for staff use.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Manage revenue-producing properties.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Organizational Chart Equipment Mechanics/ Operators Open Space Technicians (Lead, Regular, and Seasonal) Land and Facilities Manager Property Management Specialist II Administrative Assistant Equipment Mechanics/ Operators Maintenance Supervisors Maintenance Supervisors Senior Property Management Specialist Foothills Area Manager Open Space Technicians (Lead, Regular, and Seasonal) Administrative Assistant Capital Field Projects Manager Farm Maintenance Worker Facilities Maintenance Specialist Management Analyst II Administrative Assistant Modified Duty Staff Equipment Mechanics/ Operators Open Space Technicians (Lead, Regular, and Seasonal) Maintenance Supervisors Skyline Area Manager Facilities Maintenance Supervisor Property Management Specialist I 155Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Staffing Levels Position FY17 Adopted FTE FY18 Adopted FTE FY19 Amended FTE FY20 Adopted FTE FY21 Proposed FTE Change from FY20 Modified Administrative Assistant 3 3 3 3 3 0 Area Manager 2 2 2 2 2 0 Capital Projects Field Manager 1 1 1 1 1 0 Equipment Mechanic/Operator 6 6 7 7 7 0 Facilities Maintenance Specialist 0 1 1 1 1 0 Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 1 1 1 1 1 0 Farm Maintenance Worker 1 1 1 1 1 0 Land and Facilities Manager 1 1 1 1 1 0 Lead Open Space Technician 5 6 6 7 7 0 Maintenance Supervisor 5 6 6 6 6 0 Management Analyst II 1 1 1 1 1 0 Open Space Technician 14 15 15 15 15 0 Property Management Specialist I 1 1 1 1 1 0 Property Management Specialist II 1 1 1 1 1 0 Seasonal Open Space Technician 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 0 Senior Property Management Specialist 1 1 1 1 1 0 Total FTE 51.3 55.3 56.3 57.3 57.3 0 Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s 156 Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Land and Facilities Services aligns project deliverables to Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives primarily through: ——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————Goal 1 – Promote, establish, and implement a regional environmental protection vision with partners——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Goal 2 – Protect the positive environmental values of open space lands ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Goal 3 – Connect people to open space and a regional environmental protection vision——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Goal 4 – Strengthen organizational capacity and long-term financial sustainability to fulfill the mission——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Objectives Strategic Plan Linkage Project Number Objective Target Completion Goal 3 31901 ADA Barrier Removal Ongoing Goal 2 61008 Los Trancos–Page Mill Fire Safety Eucalyptus Removal FY2021 Goal 4 61009 Russian Ridge - Bergman Residences Reconstruction FY2021 Goal 2 61010 Toto Ranch Well Drilling and Construction, Tunitas Creek FY2021 Goal 2 61011 Install Solar Panels at Skyline Field Office FY2021 Goal 2 61014 BCR Stables Road Drainage Repairs and Mitigation FY2021 Goal 3 & 4 61015 Bear Creek Stables Operator RFP/Lease FY2021 Goal 2 & 4 61016 Burkhart Spring Construction FY2022 Goal 2 61017 Fuel Reduction Implementation Ongoing Goal 4 61019 Repaint Red Barn FY2021 Goal 2 61020 Thornewood Residence Evaluation FY2022 Goal 2 & 4 61021 Toto Ranch North Water Line FY2021 Goal 2 MAA05-011 Lone Madrone Ranch Fence Installation TBD Goal 3 MAA07-011 Phase II Loop Trails, Lower La Honda Creek OSP FY2021 Goal 2 & 4 MAA09-006 Mindego Ranch South Pasture FY2021 Goal 3 & 4 MAA10-001 Alpine Road Regional Trail, Coal Creek FY2022 Goal 3 & 4 MAA21-011 Phase II Trail lmprovements, Bear Creek Redwoods OSP FY2023 Goal 2 Operating Fire Suppression Program: Review Staffing, Equipment and Training FY2021 Goal 3 & 4 Operating Interim Coastal Area Field Office FY2021 Goal 3 Operating La Honda Elementary Path to Pond FY2021 Goal 4 Operating South Area Outpost/Residence Driveway Repaving FY2021 Goal 2 Operating Wildfire Fuel Reduction Projects & SJCC Fuel Reduction Contract Work Ongoing Goal 4 N/A Vehicle and Machinery/Equipment Purchases Ongoing For the full statement of Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives, see page 6; project details are included in Section III. 157Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Performance Metrics Strategic Plan Linkage Indicator FY19 Target FY19 Actuals FY20 Target FY21 Target Goal 3 Miles of single-track trail brushed annually 73 73 78 84 Goal 3 Miles of trails built annually 4 4 2 2 Budget Midpen Budget by Expenditure Category FY19 Actuals FY20 Adopted Budget FY21 Proposed Budget $ Change from FY20 Adopted Budget % Change from FY20 Adopted Budget Land and Facilities Salaries and Benefits $5,796,491 $6,649,054 $6,599,123 ($49,931)- 1% Less: MAA Reimbursable Staff Costs (600,642)(146,119)(216,175)(70,056)48% Net Salaries and Benefits 5,195,849 6,502,935 6,382,948 (119,987)- 2% Services and Supplies 3,244,052 3,803,987 3,544,930 (259,057)- 7% Total Operating Expenditures 8,439,901 10,306,922 9,927,878 (379,044)- 4% Services and Supplies 30,888 92,200 62,200 (30,000)- 33% Total Hawthorns Expenditures 30,888 92,200 62,200 (30,000)- 33% General Fund Capital 1,532,952 2,372,125 1,247,845 (1,124,280)- 47% Measure AA Capital 1,328,632 935,169 696,500 (238,669)- 26% Total Capital Expenditures 2,861,585 3,307,294 1,944,345 (1,362,949)- 41% Total Land and Facilities Expenditures $11,332,374 $13,706,416 $11,934,423 ($1,771,993)- 13% Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve by Lubor Ptacek Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s 158 Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Resource Management Specialist II Resource Management Specialist I IPM Coordinator Resource Management Specialist II Natural Resources Department MISSION STATEMENT Protect and restore the natural diversity and integrity of Midpen’s resources for their value to the environment and the public and provide for the use of the preserves consistent with resource protection. CORE FUNCTIONS——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Plan, implement, and design projects to protect and restore the natural resources.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and resource agency regulation requirements.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Work with other entities to obtain funding, plan for, and protect Midpen and regional natural resources.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Steward Midpen working landscapes to protect natural resource values and provide sustainable agricultural uses.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Organizational Chart Natural Resources Manager Senior Resource Management Specialist Senior Resource Management Specialist Water Resources Specialist Senior Resource Management Specialist Natural Resources Intern (Half-time) Resource Management Specialist II Natural Resources Intern (Half-time) Management Analyst I 159Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Staffing Levels Position FY17 Adopted FTE FY18 Adopted FTE FY19 Amended FTE FY20 Adopted FTE FY21 Proposed FTE Change from FY20 Modified Manager 1 1 1 1 1 0 Senior Resource Management Specialist 2 2 3 3 3 0 Resource Management Specialist III 1 1 0 0 0 0 Resource Management Specialist II 1 3 3 3 3 0 Resource Management Specialist I 2 1 1 1 1 0 Water Resources Specialist 1 1 1 1 1 0 Management Analyst I (formerly Climate Resiliency Fellow) 0 1 1 1 1 0 Integrated Pest Management Coordinator 1 1 1 1 1 0 Natural Resources Intern*1 1 1 1 1 0 Senior Finance and Budget Technician 1 0 0 0 0 0 Total FTE 11 12 12 12 12 0 *Two Natural Resources Interns, each at half-time. Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve by Renate Elster Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s 160 Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Natural Resource aligns project deliverables to Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives primarily through: ——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————Goal 1 – Promote, establish, and implement a regional environmental protection vision with partners——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Goal 2 – Protect the positive environmental values of open space lands ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Objectives Strategic Plan Linkage Project Number Objective Target Completion Goal 2 80054 Badger/Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment FY2022 Goal 2 80059 Groundwater Well Decommissioning FY2022 Goal 1 80063 San Mateo County Vegetation Map FY2022 Goal 2 80065 IPM Implementation of Santa Clara Valley Water District Grant FY2023 Goal 1 80068 Santa Clara & Santa Cruz Vegetation Mapping FY2023 Goal 2 80003-10 Wildland Fire Resiliency Program FY2022 Goal 1 80034-44 Programmatic State and Federal Environmental Permitting FY2021 Goal 2 MAA01-004 Remediation Plan Development and Ranch Debris Site Clean Up–Madonna Creek Ranch FY2021 Goal 2 MAA05-010 Restoration Forestry Demonstration Project FY2026 Goal 1 MAA20-001 Wildlife Corridor: Highway 17 Crossing FY2024 Goal 1 & 2 MAA21-007 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan: Invasive Weed Treatment and Restoration FY2024 Goal 1 & 2 MAA21-010 Bear Creek Redwoods Landfill Characterization and Remediation FY2021 Goal 2 Operating Mountain Lion Collaring Effort–Rancho San Antonio FY2026 Goal 2 Operating Fire Suppression Program: Review Staffing, Equipment and Training FY2020 Goal 1 Operating Science Advisory Panel FY2022 Goal 2 Operating Agricultural Policy Review and Development FY2021 Goal 2 Operating Grazing Management Policy Amendment FY2021 For the full statement of Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives, see page 6; project details are included in Section III. Performance Metrics Strategic Plan Linkage Indicator FY19 Target FY19 Actuals FY20 Target FY21 Target Goal 1 Proportion of special status species managed: Enhance habitat for a majority of rare, threatened, or endangered plant and animal species found on Midpen lands 70%52%70%70% Goal 1 Acres managed: Enhance environmental quality by treating Midpen lands for invasive weeds, restoring degraded sites, and managing wildland fire fuels 80% of Acreage Specific in Annual IPM Plan 84.5% of Acreage Specific in Annual IPM Plan 70% of Acreage Specific in Annual IPM Plan 70% of Acreage Specific in Annual IPM Plan 161Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Budget Midpen Budget by Expenditure Category FY19 Actuals FY20 Adopted Budget FY21 Proposed Budget $ Change from FY20 Adopted Budget % Change from FY20 Adopted Budget Natural Resources Salaries and Benefits $1,526,797 $1,674,307 $1,702,139 $27,832 2% Less: MAA Reimbursable Staff Costs (28,121)(30,150)(55,256)(25,106)83% Net Salaries and Benefits 1,498,676 1,644,157 1,646,883 2,726 0% Services and Supplies 1,567,470 3,235,389 2,851,933 (383,456)- 12% Total Operating Expenditures 3,066,146 4,879,546 4,498,816 (380,730)- 8% General Fund Capital 4,133 160,000 95,000 (65,000)- 41% Measure AA Capital 733,658 947,150 1,086,756 139,606 15% Total Capital Expenditures 737,790 1,107,150 1,181,756 74,606 7% Total Natural Resources Expenditures $3,803,936 $5,986,696 $5,680,572 ($306,124)- 5% Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve by Mike Kahn Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s 162 Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Planner IIPlanner III Planner I Planning Department MISSION STATEMENT Respecting the natural diversity and integrity of Midpen’s resources, work with and encourage public and private agencies to preserve, maintain and enhance open space; work cooperatively with other governmental agencies and community organizations to facilitate planning and development of recreation facilities and of public use; encourage public input and involvement in Midpen’s decision-making process and other activities; participate in the public review processes of land use plans of other agencies and development proposals that affect Midpen’s mission; and follow management policies for quality care of the land and provision of public access appropriate to the nature of the land, and consistent with ecological values and public safety. CORE FUNCTIONS——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Oversee and manage projects for public access, staff facilities and stewardship of cultural and historic resources through scoping, feasibility, programming early design, and land use permitting.——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————Provide ongoing planning support during final design, permitting and project construction.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Develop and maintain current and long-range use and management plans, policies and procedures for Preserves.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Comply with all applicable federal, state, and local codes and regulations, and permitting requirements for project planning and early design (e.g. California Environmental Quality Act, American for Disabilities Act, National Preservation Act, etc.).——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Seek partnership opportunities, new grant and other funding sources to further Midpen’s mission, Vision Plan, ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Strategic Plan goals and leverage Measure AA funding.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Participate in long-term, multi-year regional planning and coordination efforts (e.g. San Francisco Bay Trail, Bay Area Ridge Trail, Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail, etc.) for a regionally integrated approach to open space preservation and public access.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Engage the public and partner agencies in Midpen’s planning activities.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Plan and design signage for preserves and trails.——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————Review external planning activities and projects that may affect Midpen’s interests.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Comply and document long-term mitigation and monitoring requirements for public access projects.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Provide accessibility review of new public access improvement plans.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Organizational Chart Planning Manager Administrative Assistant (shared with E&C) Senior Planner Planner IIPlanner III Senior PlannerSenior Planner Planner I 163Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Staffing Levels Position FY17 Adopted FTE FY18 Adopted FTE FY19 Amended FTE FY20 Adopted FTE FY21 Proposed FTE Change from FY20 Modified Manager 1 1 1 1 1 0 Senior Planner 2 2 2 2 3 1 Planner III 2 3 3 3 2 -1 Planner II 3 3 3 2 2 0 Planner I 1 1 1 2 2 0 Administrative Assistant*1 1 1 1 1 0 Total FTE 10 11 11 11 11 0 *Administrative Assistant is shared with Engineering and Construction but budgeted within the Planning Department. Planning aligns project deliverables to Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives primarily through: ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Goal 1 – Promote, establish, and implement a regional environmental protection vision with partners——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Goal 2 – Protect the positive environmental values of open space lands ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Goal 3 – Connect people to open space and a regional environmental protection vision——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Goal 4 – Strengthen organizational capacity and long-term financial sustainability to fulfill the mission——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Objectives Strategic Plan Linkage Project Number Objective Target Completion Goal 3 31901 ADA Barrier Removal Ongoing Goal 3 31903 Hwy 35 Multi-use Trail Crossing and Parking/Multimodal Access Study FY2023 Goal 3 MAA02-001 Cooley Landing Interpretive Facilities Design and Implementation FY2022 Goal 1 & 3 MAA06-002 Hawthorns Public Access Site Plan and CEQA FY2023 Goal 1 & 3 MAA18-002 Saratoga-to-the-Sea Regional Trail Connection FY2021 Goal 1 & 3 MAA20-002 Bay Area Ridge Trail: Highway 17 Crossing FY2026 Goal 3 & 4 MAA21-004 Bear Creek Stables Site Plan Implementation FY2022 Goal 3 & 4 MAA21-011 Phase II Trail lmprovements, Bear Creek Redwoods OSP FY2022 Goal 3 MAA22-004 Beatty Parking Area and Trail Connections FY2023 Goal 1 & 3 VP03-003 Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Area Feasibility and Planning FY2024 Goal 3 VP05-002 La Honda Creek Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study FY2022 Goal 1 & 3 VP11-001 Rancho San Antonio (RSA) Multimodal Access Study FY2023 Goal 2 & 3 Operating Basic Policy Update FY2022 Goal 4 Operating Historic Resources Procedural Guide/Inventory FY2025 Goal 3 Operating Regional Trails Planning and Coordination Ongoing Goal 3 Operating Stevens Creek Trail Signage FY2021 Goal 3 & 4 Operating Interim Coastal Area Field Office FY2021 Goal 3 Operating La Honda Elementary Path to Pond FY2021 Goal 3 Operating Parking Area Naming Conventions FY2022 For the full statement of Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives, see page 6; project details are included in Section III. Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s 164 Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Performance Metrics Strategic Plan Linkage Indicator FY19 Target FY19 Actuals FY20 Target FY21 Target Goal 1 Number of projects leveraged with partnerships 90% of annual target (Target 8 projects) 88% (7 of 8 projects) 90% of annual target (Target 3 projects) 90% of annual target (Target 3 projects) Goal 3 % of planning milestones completed for a project 90% of annual target (Target 6 project milestones) 100% (6 milestones met) 90% of annual target (Target 6 project milestones) 90% of annual target (Target 6 project milestones) Budget Midpen Budget by Expenditure Category FY19 Actuals FY20 Adopted Budget FY21 Proposed Budget $ Change from FY20 Adopted Budget % Change from FY20 Adopted Budget Planning Salaries and Benefits $1,325,662 $1,553,224 $1,611,040 $57,816 4% Less: MAA Reimbursable Staff Costs (102)0 (44,749)(44,749) Net Salaries and Benefits 1,325,560 1,553,224 1,566,291 13,067 1% Services and Supplies 90,696 225,944 455,611 229,667 102% Total Operating Expenditures 1,416,256 1,779,168 2,021,902 242,734 14% Hawthorns Capital 0 48,000 48,000 0 0% Total Hawthorns Expenditures 0 48,000 48,000 0 0% General Fund Capital 164,893 87,500 51,500 (36,000)- 41% Measure AA Capital 1,614,267 1,190,600 1,207,777 17,177 1% Total Capital Expenditures 1,779,161 1,278,100 1,259,277 (18,823)- 1% Total Planning Expenditures $3,195,416 $3,105,268 $3,329,179 $223,911 7% 165Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve by Ian Lee Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s 166 Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Public Affairs Department MISSION STATEMENT Make clearly visible to the public the purposes and actions of Midpen, and actively encourage public input and involvement in Midpen’s decision-making process and other activities. CORE FUNCTIONS——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Maximize public awareness and understanding of Midpen and its activities.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Engage the public through outreach and communication efforts that educate and involve the community and expand Midpen’s capacity to reach diverse audiences.——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————Collect and evaluate constituent feedback and recommend action.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Review and recommend legislation that affects and/or benefits Midpen’s ability to carry out its mission.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Organizational Chart Staffing Levels Position FY17 Adopted FTE FY18 Adopted FTE FY19 Amended FTE FY20 Adopted FTE FY21 Proposed FTE Change from FY20 Modified Administrative Assistant 1 1 1 1 1 0 Communications Supervisor 1 0 0 0 0 0 Community Outreach Specialist 1 0 0 0 0 0 Governmental Affairs Specialist 1 1 1 1 1 0 Public Affairs Assistant 1 0 0 0 0 0 Public Affairs Intern 0 1 1 0 0 0 Public Affairs Manager 1 1 1 1 1 0 Public Affairs Specialist I 0 1 1 1 1 0 Public Affairs Specialist II 2 3 3 4 3 -1 Total FTE 8 8 8 8 7 -1 Public Affairs Manager Public Affairs Specialist II Government Affairs Specialist Public Affairs Specialist II Public Affairs Specialist I Public Affairs Specialist II Administrative Assistant Public Affairs aligns project deliverables to Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives primarily through: ——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————Goal 1 – Promote, establish, and implement a regional environmental protection vision with partners——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Goal 2 – Protect the positive environmental values of open space lands ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Goal 3 – Connect people to open space and a regional environmental protection vision——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Goal 4 – Strengthen organizational capacity and long-term financial sustainability to fulfill the mission——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Objectives Strategic Plan Linkage Project Number Objective Target Completion Goal 4 40011 Website Redesign FY2021 Goal 3 Operating 50th Anniversary Planning FY2022 Goal 4 Operating Customer Relationship Management FY2022 Goal 4 Operating Digital Asset Management FY2021 Goal 3 Operating Good Neighbor Policy Update FY2021 For the full statement of Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives, see page 6; project details are included in Section III. Performance Metrics Strategic Plan Linkage Indicator FY19 Target FY19 Actuals FY20 Target FY21 Target Goal 3 Number of individuals reached through Youth Engagement Program 1,000 9,500 6,000 10,500 Goal 3 Number of earned news stories about Midpen 100 199 50 151 Goal 3 Number of incoming information requests/ complaints answered within two business days leveraging new Customer Response Management system 90%91%90%90% Goal 3 Number of website visits 525,000 524,387 500,000 525,000 Budget Midpen Budget by Expenditure Category FY19 Actuals FY20 Adopted Budget FY21 Proposed Budget $ Change from FY20 Adopted Budget % Change from FY20 Adopted Budget Public Affairs Salaries and Benefits $924,052 $1,116,318 $967,506 ($148,812)- 13% Services and Supplies 536,691 902,209 889,381 (12,828)- 1% Total Operating Expenditures 1,460,743 2,018,527 1,856,887 (161,640)- 8% Total Public Affairs Expenditures $1,460,743 $2,018,527 $1,856,887 ($161,640)- 8% 167Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s 168 Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Real Property Department MISSION STATEMENT Purchase or otherwise acquire interest in strategic open space land; connect Midpen open space lands with federal, state, county, city, and other protected open space lands, parklands and watershed lands. CORE FUNCTIONS——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Provide comprehensive land conservation planning and analysis to guide the land purchase program in coordination with other departments.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Create and take advantage of opportunities to conserve a greenbelt of protected open space lands along the ridgelines, foothills and baylands.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Provide technical assistance to protect and secure Midpen public open space property rights and interests (including fee and easement interests).——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Develop and strengthen neighbor, conservation partner and agency relationships to facilitate land conservation and protection.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Organizational Chart Real Property Manager Senior Real Property Agent Planner III Real Property Specialist I/II Administrative Assistant Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve by Jeffrey Schwegman 169Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Staffing Levels Position FY17 Adopted FTE FY18 Adopted FTE FY19 Amended FTE FY20 Adopted FTE FY21 Proposed FTE Change from FY20 Modified Manager 1 1 1 1 1 0 Senior Real Property Agent 1 1 1 1 1 0 Real Property Specialist I/II 1 1 1 1 1 0 Planner III 1 1 1 1 1 0 Administrative Assistant*1 1 1 1 1 0 Total FTE 5 5 5 5 5 0 *Administrative Assistant is shared with Natural Resources, but budgeted within the Real Property Department. Real Property aligns project deliverables to Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives primarily through: ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Goal 1 – Promote, establish, and implement a regional environmental protection vision with partners——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————Goal 2 – Protect the positive environmental values of open space lands ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Goal 3 – Connect people to open space and a regional environmental protection vision——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Goal 4 – Strengthen organizational capacity and long-term financial sustainability to fulfill the mission——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Objectives Strategic Plan Linkage Project Number Objective Target Completion Goal 1 & 3 20125 Cal-Water Land Exchange, Teague Hill Preserve FY2021 Goal 1 & 2 MAA15-004 Irish Ridge Land Conservation FY2021 Goal 1 & 2 VP01-001 Miramontes Ridge Land Conservation FY2021 Goal 1 & 3 VP03-002 South Cowell Upland Land Conservation FY2020 Goal 1 VP08-001 Upper San Gregorio Land Conservation FY2021 Goal 1 & 2 VP13-001 Cloverdale Ranch Land Opportunity FY2022 Goal 1 & 2 VP15-001 Redwood Forest Land Opportunity FY2021 Goal 1 & 3 VP19-001 El Sereno Trails, Wildlife Corridors and Land Conservation FY2020 Goal 1 & 3 VP19-002 El Sereno Land Conservation FY2021 Goal 1 & 3 VP24-002 SCVWD Exchange Agreement at Rancho de Guadalupe Area of SAOSP FY2021 Goal 1 & 2 VP25-001 Sierra Azul Loma Prieta Land Conservation FY2021 Goal 1 & 2 VP39-001 Lower San Gregorio Creek Watershed Land Conservation FY2021 Goal 1 & 3 N/A District-wide purchase options and low-value Land Fund Ongoing Goal 1 & 4 Operating Coastside Lands Management Plan FY2022 Goal 1 & 4 Operating Land Conservation Guidance Document FY2022 Goal 3 Operating Regional Trails Planning and Coordination Ongoing For the full statement of Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives, see page 6; project details are included in Section III. Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s 170 Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Performance Metrics Strategic Plan Linkage Indicator FY19 Target FY19 Actuals FY20 Target FY21 Target Goal 1 Number of Preserves N/A 26 N/A N/A Goal 1 Land Conservation N/A 433.61*N/A N/A Goal 1 Total number of acres protected N/A 63,927*N/A N/A Goal 2 Land Conservation Connectivity Purisima to Cowell/Purisima Coastal Trail Purisima to Cowell/Purisima Coastal Trail* N/A N/A Goal 3 New Staff Facilities New Administrative Office New Administrative Office N/A N/A Goal 1 Coastal Service Plan–15 Year Land Acquisitions 11,105 Acres 11,105* Acres 100%100% *Escrow for the Purisima Upland property closed on July 3, 2019. Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study Area by Kwon Chiu 171Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Budget Midpen Budget by Expenditure Category FY19 Actuals FY20 Adopted Budget FY21 Proposed Budget $ Change from FY20 Adopted Budget % Change from FY20 Adopted Budget Real Property Salaries and Benefits $660,410 $812,727 $786,376 ($26,351)- 3% Services and Supplies 135,801 148,866 138,884 (9,982)- 7% Total Operating Expenditures 796,211 961,593 925,260 (36,333)- 4% General Fund Capital 420,286 835,500 440,000 (395,500)- 47% Measure AA Capital 2,174,026 13,500 1,577,000 1,563,500 11,581% Total Capital Expenditures 2,594,312 849,000 2,017,000 1,168,000 138% Total Real Property Expenditures 3,390,523 1,810,593 2,942,260 1,131,667 63% One Time Expense: Fund 40 Land/Buildings 31,550,000 3,800,000 0 (3,800,000)- 100% Grand Total Real Property Expenditures $34,940,523 $5,610,593 $2,942,260 ($2,668,333)- 48% Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve by David Henry Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s 172 Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Visitor Services Department MISSION STATEMENT Ensure protection and stewardship of the land and visitor safety, manage public access consistent with ecological values and public safety, and provide opportunities for enrichment of visitors through interpretation, environmental education, stewardship and volunteerism. CORE FUNCTIONS——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Protect public health and safety through proactive patrol and presence, enforcement of Midpen’s rules and regulations, fire protection and emergency medical response.——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————Provide frontline public contact and services on Midpen lands.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Manage the Volunteer and Interpretation and Education programs.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Foster neighbor, partner, and public safety agency relationships and engage in collaborative efforts to further Midpen’s goals.——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————Manage conditional preserve use through an online permit system.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Organizational Chart Visitor Services Manager and Chief Ranger Skyline Area Superintendent Management Analyst II Supervising Rangers Seasonal Rangers and Ranger Aides Administrative Assistant Modified Duty Staff Visitor Services Intern Environmental Education Specialist Volunteer Program Manager Volunteer Program LeadsInterpretation and Education Program Manager Foothill Area Superintendent Supervising Rangers Seasonal Rangers and Ranger Aides Lead Rangers Rangers Ranger Aides Lead Rangers Rangers Ranger Aides Program Coordinator Interpretation Specialist Staffing Levels Position FY17 Adopted FTE FY18 Adopted FTE FY19 Amended FTE FY20 Adopted FTE FY21 Proposed FTE Change from FY20 Modified Administrative Assistant 1 1 1 1 1 0 Area Superintendents 2 2 2 2 2 0 Interpretation & Education Program Manager (formerly Docent Program Manager) 1 1 1 1 1 0 Program Coordinator (formerly Docent Program Coordinator) 1 1 1 1 1 0 Environmental Education Specialist 0 0 1 1 1 0 Interpretive Specialist 0 0 0 1 1 0 Lead Ranger 4 4 5 5 5 0 Ranger 19 19 19 19 19 0 Seasonal Ranger 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 Seasonal Ranger Aide 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 Supervising Ranger 5 5 5 5 5 0 Management Analyst II 1 1 1 1 1 0 Visitor Services Intern 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 Visitor Services Manager/Chief Ranger 1 1 1 1 1 0 Volunteer Program Manager 1 1 1 1 1 0 Volunteer Program Lead 2 2 2 2 2 0 Total FTE 39.9 39.9 41.9 43.4 43.4 0 Visitor Services aligns project deliverables to Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives primarily through: ——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————Goal 2 – Protect the positive environmental values of open space lands ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Goal 3 – Connect people to open space and a regional environmental protection vision——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Goal 4 – Strengthen organizational capacity and long-term financial sustainability to fulfill the mission——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— Objectives Strategic Plan Linkage Project Number Objective Target Completion Goal 2 Operating Fire Suppression Program: Review Staffing, Equipment and Training FY2021 Goal 3 Operating Nature Center Web Camera FY2021 Goal 2 Operating Participate in the Wildfire Coordinating Committee to improve the District’s preparation for and response to prescribed burns and wildland fires on District lands. FY2022 Goal 4 Operating Citation Management System FY2021 Goal 4 Operating E-Bike Policy Evaluation FY2021 For the full statement of Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives, see page 6; project details are included in Section III. 173Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s 174 Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Performance Metrics Strategic Plan Linkage Indicator FY19 Target FY19 Actuals FY20 Target FY21 Target Goal 3 Annual number of Nature Center visitors 3,200 3,200 3,500 3,500 Goal 3 Number of permits issued 3,000 3,740 4,000 3,700 Goal 3 Number of stewardship volunteer hours 18,000 17,500 17,500 17,500 Goal 3 Number of interpretation and education docent hours 5,000 4,553 5,000 5,000 Budget Midpen Budget by Expenditure Category FY19 Actuals FY20 Adopted Budget FY21 Proposed Budget $ Change from FY20 Adopted Budget % Change from FY20 Adopted Budget Visitor Services Salaries and Benefits $4,893,030 $5,632,894 $5,690,801 $57,907 1% Services and Supplies 383,290 963,509 720,447 (243,062)- 25% Total Operating Expenditures 5,276,320 6,596,403 6,411,248 (185,155)- 3% General Fund Capital 0 466,000 0 (466,000)- 100% Total Operating Expenditures 0 466,000 0 (466,000)- 100% Total Visitor Services Expenditures $5,276,320 $7,062,403 $6,411,248 ($651,155)- 9% Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve by James Snyder Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve by James Snyder 175Section IV • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Se c t i o n I V De p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s 176 Vision Plan Actions Overview • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Vi s i o n P l a n A c t i o n s O v e r v i e w Vision Plan Actions Overview # VISION PLAN ACTION——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 01 Miramontes Ridge: Gateway to the San Mateo Coast Public Access, Stream Restoration, and Agriculture Enhancement Projects——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 02 Regional: Bayfront Habitat Protection and Public Access Partnerships——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 03 Purisima Creek Redwoods: Purisima-to-Sea Trail Completion, Watershed Protection, and Conservation Grazing Projects——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 04 El Corte de Madera Creek: Bike Trail and Water Quality Projects——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 05 La Honda Creek: Upper Area Recreation, Habitat Restoration, and Conservation Grazing Projects——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 06 Windy Hill: Trail Improvements, Preservation, and Hawthorns Area Historic Partnership——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 07 La Honda Creek: Driscoll Ranch Area Public Access, Endangered Wildlife Protection, and Conservation Grazing Projects——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 08 La Honda Creek/Russian Ridge: Preservation of Upper San Gregorio Watershed and Ridge Trail Completion——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 09 Russian Ridge: Public Recreation, Grazing, and Wildlife Protection Projects——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 10 Coal Creek: Reopen Alpine Road for Trail Use——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 11 Rancho San Antonio: Interpretive Improvements, Refurbishing, and Transit Solutions——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 12 Peninsula and South Bay Cities: Partner to Complete Middle Stevens Creek Trail——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 13 Cloverdale Ranch: Wildlife Protection, Grazing, and Trail Connections——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 14 Regional: Trail Connections and Campgrounds——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 15 Regional: Redwood Protection and Salmon Fishery Conservation——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 16 Long Ridge: Trail, Conservation, and Habitat Restoration Projects——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 17 Regional: Complete Upper Stevens Creek Trail——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 18 South Bay Foothills: Saratoga-to-Sea Trail and Wildlife Corridor——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 19 El Sereno: Dog Trails and Connections——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 20 South Bay Foothills: Wildlife Passage and Ridge Trail Improvements——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 21 Bear Creek Redwoods: Public Recreation and Interpretive Projects——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 22 Sierra Azul: Cathedral Oaks Public Access and Conservation Projects——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 23 Sierra Azul: Mount Umunhum Public Access and Interpretation Projects——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 24 Sierra Azul: Rancho de Guadalupe Family Recreation and Interpretive Projects——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 25 Sierra Azul: Loma Prieta Area Public Access, Regional Trails, and Habitat Projects——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 177Vision Plan Actions Overview • Budget and Action Plan FY21 # VISION PLAN ACTION——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 26 Pulgas Ridge: Regional and Neighborhood Trail Extensions——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 27 Miramontes Ridge/Purisima Creek Redwoods: Coastside Environmental Education Partnerships——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 28 Miramontes Ridge/Purisima Creek Redwoods: Mills Creek /Arroyo Leon Watershed Protection, Stream Restoration, and Regional Trail Connections——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 29 Regional: Advocate to Protect Coastal Vistas of North San Mateo County Coast——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 30 Regional: Support California Coastal Trail——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 31 Miramontes Ridge/Purisima Creek Redwoods: Fire Management and Risk Reduction——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 32 Tunitas Creek: Additional Watershed Preservation and Conservation Grazing——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 33 Purisima Creek Redwoods: Parking and Repair Projects——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 34 Teague Hill: West Union Creek Watershed Restoration Partnership——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 35 Peninsula and South Bay Cities: Major Roadway Signage——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 36 Regional: Collaborate to Restore San Francisquito Creek Fish Habitat——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 37 Peninsula and South Bay Cities: San Francisquito Creek Restoration Partnership——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 38 Ravenswood: Cooley Landing Nature Center Partnership——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 39 La Honda Creek/El Corte de Madera Creek: San Gregorio Watershed and Agriculture Preservation Projects——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 40 Regional: San Andreas Fault Interpretive Trail Program——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 41 Rancho San Antonio: Hidden Villa Access and Preservation Projects——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 42 Regional: Advocate to Protect Coastal Vistas of South San Mateo County Coast——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 43 Lower Pomponio Creek: Watershed Preservation and Conservation Grazing——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 44 Lower Pescadero Creek: Watershed Preservation and Conservation Grazing——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 45 Skyline Subregion: Fire Management and Forest Restoration Projects——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 46 Skyline Ridge: Education Facilities, Trails, and Wildlife Conservation Projects——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 47 Monte Bello: Campfire Talks and Habitat Projects——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 48 Gazos Creek Watershed: Redwood Preservation, Long-distance Trails, Fish Habitat Improvements——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 49 Saratoga Gap: Stevens Canyon Ranch Family Food Education Projects——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 50 Picchetti Ranch: Family Nature Play Program——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 51 Fremont Older: Historic Woodhills Restoration and Overall Parking Improvements——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 52 Peninsula and South Bay Cities: Los Gatos Creek Trail Connections——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 53 Sierra Azul: Expand Access in the Kennedy-Limekiln Area——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 54 Sierra Azul: Fire Management——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Vi s i o n P l a n A c t i o n s O v e r v i e w 178 Glossary • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Gl o s s a r y Glossary TERM DESCRIPTION——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Accrual An expense which is outstanding at the end of a financial period and which needs to be included in the accounting results for the period.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Action Plan The work plan that includes all of the projects and key initiatives that Midpen pursues.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— ADA Americans with Disabilities Act——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Adopted Budget The adopted budget is Midpen’s annual fiscal plan, which is approved by the board of directors. The adopted budget establishes the legal authority for the expenditure of funds, as created by the appropriation resolution. The adopted budget includes all reserves, transfers, allocations, supplemental appropriations and other legally authorized legislative and executive changes.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— AGM Assistant General Manager——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Americans with Disabilities Act The ADA is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all areas of public life, including all public and private places that are open to the general public.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— AO Administrative Office (Midpen headquarters)——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— AP Accounts Payable——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Appropriation A legal authorization granted by the board of directors to make expenditures and to incur obligations for specific purposes. An appropriation usually is limited in amount and to the time in which it may be expended.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Audit An official examination and verification of accounts and records, especially of financial accounts.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Balanced Budget A budget in which expenses do not exceed revenues. Specifically, resources, including estimated revenue and other sources such as bond proceeds, transfers in and approved fund balances/net assets, meet or exceed uses, including appropriations and transfers out.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Basis of Accounting Basis of accounting refers to when revenues and expenditures are recognized in the accounts and reported in the financial statements. Government-wide financial statements are prepared using the accrual basis of accounting. Budgets are developed using the modified accrual basis of accounting.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— BCR Bear Creek Redwoods (Preserve)——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Bond A fixed income instrument that represents a loan made by an investor to a borrower.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Budget The plan of expenditures and revenues for a specific period of time.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Budget Categories Midpen’s budget is divided into five budget categories: Salaries and Benefits, Services and Supplies, Land and Associated Costs, Capital and Fixed Assets (non-land purchases), and Debt Service.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— CAFR Comprehensive Annual Financial Report——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 179Glossary • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Gl o s s a r y TERM DESCRIPTION——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— California Environmental California law (California Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) that Quality Act requires development projects to submit documentation of their potential environmental impact.——————————————————————————––––––––––––————————————————————————————————CalPERS California Public Employee Retirement System——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— CAPEX Capital expenditures——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Capital Budget Expenditures that are used to improve Midpen’s infrastructure and assets of the District.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Capital Improvement and Midpen’s Capital Improvement Program and Action Plan for project and program Action Plan delivery——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Capital Improvement Program A multi-year plan for capital expenditures, with details on anticipated annual expenditures and information about the resources estimated to be available to finance the projected expenditures.——————————————————————————––––––––––––————————————————————————————————Capitalized Expenditures Expenditures resulting in the acquisition and/or construction of fixed assets, such as land, land improvements, infrastructure, and equipment.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Cash basis Cash basis is a method of recording accounting transactions for revenue and expenses only when the corresponding cash is received, or payments are made.——————————————————————————––––––––––––————————————————————————————————CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— CEQA California Environmental Quality Act——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— CFO Chief Financial Officer——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— CIAP Capital Improvement and Action Plan——————————————————————————––––––––––––————————————————————————————————CIP Capital Improvement Program/Project——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Debt Service Debt service is the payment of the principal and interest on an obligation resulting from the issuance of bonds and/or promissory notes.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Debt Service Fund A fund that accounts for accumulation of resources to be used for debt service payments, as well as principal and interest payments and associated administrative costs.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Deficit The result of an excess of expenditures over resources.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Designation of Fund Balance Unreserved fund balance may be designated by Midpen to be set aside for a specific purpose. The designation indicates that a portion of fund equity is not available for current appropriation, as it has been set aside to comply with Midpen’s plan for future uses.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Design-Build Design-build is a method of project delivery in which one entity–the design-build team–works under a single contract with the project owner to provide design and construction services.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— District Generally refers to the geographic boundaries of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District.——————————————————————————––––––––––––————————————————————————————————E&C Engineering and Construction (Department)——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— eDNA Environmental DNA——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— EIR Environmental Impact Report——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— EIS Environmental Impact Statement——————————————————————————––––––––––––————————————————————————————————Encumbrances Commitments for unperformed contracts for goods and services.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 180 Glossary • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Gl o s s a r y TERM DESCRIPTION——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Enterprise Resource Planning An ERP management information system integrates areas such as purchasing, finance, and human resources.——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————— Environmental DNA DNA that is collected from a variety of environmental samples such as soil, seawater, or even air rather than directly sampled from an individual organism. This method allows for biomonitoring without requiring collection of the living organism, creating the ability to study organisms that are invasive, elusive, or endangered without introducing anthropogenic stress on the organism.——————————————————————————––––––––––––————————————————————————————————ERP Enterprise Resource Planning——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— ESRI GIS software——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Fiscal Year A 12-month period to which the annual operating budget applies and at the end of which Midpen determines its financial position and the results of its operations. Midpen’s fiscal year is from July 1 through June 30 and is shown as FY21 to indicate fiscal year ending June 20, 2021.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Fixed Assets Land and other long-lived assets, such as buildings, improvements, vehicles/ equipment, with a value greater than the capitalization amount, stated in the Midpen’s Capital Asset and Inventory Control Policy. In 2009 the policy was updated to capitalize vehicles/equipment with a cost exceeding $25,000, and improvements/infrastructure with a cost exceeding $100,000.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— FOSM The Financial and Organizational Sustainability Model is a comprehensive report that provides Midpen with recommendation on strengthening organizational capacity to fulfill its mission of land preservation, natural resource protection, and public access and education.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— FTE Full Time Equivalent——————————————————————————––––––––––––————————————————————————————————Full-Time Equivalent Measure of dedicated staff. One FTE is equivalent to 2080 hours of work per year. Some positions are part-time and are budgeted based on hours that are then converted to a full-time equivalent of a position.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Fund Midpen’s accounts are organized on the basis of funds, each of which is considered a separate accounting entity. The operations of each fund are accounted for with a separate set of self-balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues and expenditures. Governmental resources are allocated to, and accounted for, in individual funds based upon the purposes for which they are to be spent and the means by which spending activities are controlled.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Fund Balance Fund balance is the difference between governmental fund assets and fund liabilities.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Funds Different revenue sources used for specific purposed dependent on the type of Midpen activity.——————————————————————————––––––––––––————————————————————————————————FY Fiscal Year——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— GAAP Generally Accepted Accounting Principles——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— GASB Governmental Accounting Standards Board——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— General Fund Midpen’s main governmental operating fund. The General Fund is primarily used to fund personnel costs, routine operational and maintenance expenses, and debt service.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— General Obligation Bond GO Bond is a local governmental debt issue that is secured by a broad government pledge to use its tax revenues to repay the bond holders.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 181Glossary • Budget and Action Plan FY21 Gl o s s a r y TERM DESCRIPTION——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Generally Accepted Uniform standards and guidelines for financial accounting and reporting. Accounting Principles——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— GFOA Government Finance Officers Association——————————————————————————––––––––––––————————————————————————————————GHG Greenhouse gas——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— GIS Geographic Information System——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— GL or G/L General Ledger——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— GM General Manager——————————————————————————––––––––––––————————————————————————————————GO General Obligation (bonds)——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Grants Contributions or gifts of cash or other assets to/from another government agency, foundation or private entity, to be used for a specific purpose.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Hawthorns Endowment This fund may only be used for expenses required to maintain the Hawthorn property. Includes both operating and capital expenditures.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— HR Human Resources (Department)——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— IST Information Systems Technology (Department)——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— L&F Land and Facilities (Department)——————————————————————————––––––––––––————————————————————————————————MAA Measure AA——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Major Fund Funds whose revenues, expenditures/expenses, assets, or liabilities (excluding extraordinary items) are at least 10 percent of corresponding totals for all governmental or enterprise funds and at least 5 percent of the aggregate amount for all governmental and enterprise funds.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Measure AA Voter-approved general obligation bond to be used on improvement projects to deliver the 25 Project Portfolios included in the bond measure.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Midpen Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District——————————————————————————––––––––––––————————————————————————————————Modified Accrual The accrual basis of accounting is an accounting method which recognizes expenses at the time a liability is incurred. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, expenditures are generally recognized in the accounting period in which the related fund liability is incurred, but debt service expenditures are recorded only when payment is due.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— New World System An ERP management information system with features and functionality to support local government administration.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— NR Natural Resources (Department)——————————————————————————––––––––––––————————————————————————————————NWS New World System——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— OPEB Other Post-Employment Benefits——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Operating Budget Projects costs for salaries and benefits, and services and supplies.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— OPEX Operational expenditures——————————————————————————––––––––––––————————————————————————————————OSP Open Space Preserve——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— PA Public Affairs (Department)——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Peninsula Open Space Trust A private land trust supporting land conservation in San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 182 Glossary • Budget and Action Plan FY21 TERM DESCRIPTION——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— PL Planning (Department)——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— PNR Planning and Natural Resources (Midpen project review committee)——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— POST Peninsula Open Space Trust——————————————————————————––––––––––––————————————————————————————————Projected The projected amount of expenditures and/or revenues for Midpen, before the account books have been closed for the fiscal year and a financial audit has been conducted.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Property Tax The tax is imposed on real property and is based on the value of the property. It is collected by San Mateo and Santa Clara counties within Midpen’s boundary.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Proprietary Funds Used to account for activities that are similar to activities that may be performed by a commercial enterprise. The purpose of the proprietary fund is to provide a service or product at a reasonable cost. Midpen’s only proprietary funds are internal service funds.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Reimbursements Repayments of amounts remitted on behalf of another fund or agency.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Reserve (1) An account used to earmark a portion of fund balance to indicate that it is not appropriate for expenditure; and (2) an account used to earmark a portion of fund equity as legally segregated for a specific future use.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Reserved Fund Balance The portion of fund balance that is not available to finance expenditures of the subsequent accounting period, including items such as encumbrances, inventory, prepaid items, and notes receivable.——————————————————————————––––––––––––————————————————————————————————Resources Total revenue, inter-departmental charges and bond proceeds budgeted for the fiscal year.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Revenue The amount of funds received by Midpen from taxes, fees, rental income, interest, intergovernmental sources, and other sources during the fiscal year.——————————————————————————––––––––––––————————————————————————————————RFB Request for Bid——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— RFP Request for Proposal——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— RFPQ Request For Proposal Quote/Qualifications——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Risk Management Management efforts to protect Midpen from potential claims, including the avoidance of accidental loss or minimization of consequences if loss does occur.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— RP Real Property (Department)——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— RWQCB San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Sinking Fund A fund formed by periodically setting aside money for the gradual repayment of a debt or replacement of a wasting asset.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— SOD Sudden Oak Death——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Sudden Oak Death A non-native plant disease infecting forests of many coastal California counties. The disease is caused by the microscopic pathogen Phytophthora ramoru.——————————————————————————––––––––––––————————————————————————————————Tranche A portion of something, especially money.——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Valley Water Valley Water, formerly known as Santa Clara Valley Water District or SCVWD——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— VS Visitor Services (Department)——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— YTD Year To Date——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— Gl o s s a r y Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve by Strether Smith 183Budget and Action Plan FY21 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, California 94022-1404 650-691-1200 info@openspace.org openspace.org PRINTED ON POST CONSUMER WASTE PAPER Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve by Katie Nelson Resolutions/2020/20-__ApproveC&CPlan 1 RESOLUTION NO. 20-XX RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT APPROVING THE POSITION CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does resolve as follows: SECTION ONE. Approve the Position Classification and Compensation Plan for Fiscal Year 2020-21 as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on ______, 2020, at a Regular Meeting thereof, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: Secretary Board of Directors President Board of Directors APPROVED AS TO FORM: General Counsel I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly held and called on the above day. District Clerk Attachment 2 Step Full/Part Range #Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Time Seasonal Open Space Technician 6 21.9638 27.4232 3,807 4,753 45,685 57,040 PT Seasonal Ranger Aide 6 21.9638 27.4232 3,807 4,753 45,685 57,040 PT Seasonal Ranger 16 28.0347 35.0009 4,859 6,067 58,312 72,802 PT Administrative Assistant 20 30.9095 38.5816 5,358 6,687 64,292 80,250 FT Farm Maintenance Worker 20 30.9095 38.5816 5,358 6,687 64,292 80,250 FT Open Space Technician* 20 30.9095 38.5816 5,358 6,687 64,292 80,250 FT Accounting Technician 22 32.4414 40.5108 5,623 7,022 67,478 84,262 FT Human Resources Technician 22 32.4414 40.5108 5,623 7,022 67,478 84,262FT Information Technology Technician I 22 32.4414 40.5108 5,623 7,022 67,478 84,262 FT GIS Technician 23 33.2609 41.5320 5,765 7,199 69,183 86,387 FT Facilities Maintenance Specialist 24 34.0616 42.5469 5,904 7,375 70,848 88,498 FT Lead Open Space Technician* 24 34.0616 42.5469 5,904 7,375 70,848 88,498 FT Risk Management Coordinator 24 34.0616 42.5469 5,904 7,375 70,848 88,498 FT Senior Administrative Assistant 24 34.0616 42.5469 5,904 7,375 70,848 88,498 FT Visitor Services Program Coordinator 25 34.9190 43.6061 6,053 7,558 72,632 90,701 FT Volunteer Program Lead 25 34.9190 43.6061 6,053 7,558 72,632 90,701 FT Ranger 26 35.7637 44.6652 6,199 7,742 74,388 92,904 FT Senior Finance & Accounting Technician 26 35.7637 44.6652 6,199 7,742 74,388 92,904 FT Executive Assistant 27 36.6588 45.7874 6,354 7,936 76,250 95,238 FT Information Technology Technician II 27 36.6588 45.7874 6,354 7,936 76,250 95,238 FT Public Affairs Specialist I 27 36.6588 45.7874 6,354 7,936 76,250 95,238 FT Equipment Mechanic/Operator 28 37.5604 46.8968 6,510 8,129 78,126 97,545 FT Lead Ranger 28 37.5604 46.8968 6,510 8,129 78,126 97,545 FT Property Management Specialist I 28 37.5604 46.8968 6,510 8,129 78,126 97,545 FT Real Property Specialist I 28 37.5604 46.8968 6,510 8,129 78,126 97,545FT Executive Assistant/Deputy District Clerk 29 38.4998 48.0695 6,673 8,332 80,080 99,985 FT Executive Assistant/Legal Secretary 29 38.4998 48.0695 6,673 8,332 80,080 99,985 FT Planner I 29 38.4998 48.0695 6,673 8,332 80,080 99,985 FT Data Analyst I 30 39.4391 49.2483 6,836 8,536 82,033 102,436 FT Resource Management Specialist I 30 39.4391 49.2483 6,836 8,536 82,033 102,436 FT Accountant 31 40.4226 50.4713 7,007 8,748 84,079 104,980 FT Capital Project Manager II 31 40.4226 50.4713 7,007 8,748 84,079 104,980 FT Environmental Education Specialist 31 40.4226 50.4713 7,007 8,748 84,079 104,980 FT Interpretive Specialist 31 40.4226 50.4713 7,007 8,748 84,079 104,980 FT Management Analyst I 31 40.4226 50.4713 7,007 8,748 84,079 104,980 FT Planner II 31 40.4226 50.4713 7,007 8,748 84,079 104,980 FT Data Analyst II 34 43.4737 54.2980 7,535 9,412 90,425 112,940 FT Resource Management Specialist II 34 43.4737 54.2980 7,535 9,412 90,425 112,940 FT Grants Program Manager 35 44.5580 55.6472 7,723 9,646 92,681 115,746 FT Interpretation & Education Program Manager 35 44.5580 55.6472 7,723 9,646 92,681 115,746 FT Maintenance, Construction & Resource Supv. 35 44.5580 55.6472 7,723 9,646 92,681 115,746 FT Management Analyst II 35 44.5580 55.6472 7,723 9,646 92,681 115,746 FT Procurement & Contracting Agent/Specialist 35 44.5580 55.6472 7,723 9,646 92,681 115,746 FT Property Management Specialist II 35 44.5580 55.6472 7,723 9,646 92,681 115,746 FT Real Property Specialist II 35 44.5580 55.6472 7,723 9,646 92,681 115,746 FT Supervising Ranger 35 44.5580 55.6472 7,723 9,646 92,681 115,746 FT Training & Safety Specialist 35 44.5580 55.6472 7,723 9,646 92,681 115,746 FT Volunteer Program Manager 35 44.5580 55.6472 7,723 9,646 92,681 115,746FT Applications Engineer 36 45.6550 57.0089 7,914 9,882 94,962 118,579 FT Public Affairs Specialist II 36 45.6550 57.0089 7,914 9,882 94,962 118,579 FT Data Administrator 38 47.9308 59.8709 8,308 10,378 99,696 124,531 FT Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ‐ CLASSIFICATION & COMPENSATION PLAN Fiscal Year 2020/2021 ‐ Effective June 29, 2020 (Pay Period 20‐15) Last revised: 6/24/2020, 11/13/19, 6/26/2019, 3/27/2019, 2/27/2019, 12/12/2018, 11/19/2018, 10/10/2018, 9/26/2018, 8/8/2018 Classification Title Hourly Range $ Monthly Range $ Annual Range $ Step Full/Part Range #Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Time Classification Title Hourly Range $ Monthly Range $ Annual Range $ Governmental Affairs Specialist 38 47.9308 59.8709 8,308 10,378 99,696 124,531 FT Senior Technologist 38 47.9308 59.8709 8,308 10,378 99,696 124,531 FT Capital Project Manager III 39 49.1286 61.3461 8,516 10,633 102,187 127,600 FT Capital Projects Field Manager 39 49.1286 61.3461 8,516 10,633 102,187 127,600 FT Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 39 49.1286 61.3461 8,516 10,633 102,187 127,600 FT Planner III 39 49.1286 61.3461 8,516 10,633 102,187 127,600 FT Public Affairs Specialist III 39 49.1286 61.3461 8,516 10,633 102,187 127,600 FT Resource Management Specialist III 39 49.1286 61.3461 8,516 10,633 102,187 127,600 FT Special Projects Manager 40 50.3327 62.8528 8,724 10,894 104,692 130,734 FT Senior Accountant 41 51.5810 64.4289 8,941 11,168 107,288 134,012 FT Senior Management Analyst 41 51.5810 64.4289 8,941 11,168 107,288 134,012 FT Area Manager 43 54.1656 67.6503 9,389 11,726 112,664 140,713 FT Area Superintendent 43 54.1656 67.6503 9,389 11,726 112,664 140,713 FT District Clerk/Assistant to General Manager 43 54.1656 67.6503 9,389 11,726 112,664 140,713 FT GIS Program Administrator 43 54.1656 67.6503 9,389 11,726 112,664 140,713 FT Human Resources Supervisor 43 54.1656 67.6503 9,389 11,726 112,664 140,713 FT Information Technology Program Administrator 43 54.1656 67.6503 9,389 11,726 112,664 140,713 FT Senior Capital Project Manager 43 54.1656 67.6503 9,389 11,726 112,664 140,713 FT Senior Planner 43 54.1656 67.6503 9,389 11,726 112,664 140,713 FT Senior Property Management Specialist 43 54.1656 67.6503 9,389 11,726 112,664 140,713 FT Senior Real Property Specialist 43 54.1656 67.6503 9,389 11,726 112,664 140,713 FT Senior Resource Management Specialist 43 54.1656 67.6503 9,389 11,726 112,664 140,713 FT Budget & Analysis Manager 48 61.1759 76.4005 10,604 13,243 127,246 158,913 FT Finance Manager 48 61.1759 76.4005 10,604 13,243 127,246 158,913 FT Human Resources Manager 48 61.1759 76.4005 10,604 13,243 127,246 158,913 FT Information Systems & Technology Manager 48 61.1759 76.4005 10,604 13,243 127,246 158,913 FT Engineering & Construction Manager 51 65.8347 82.2256 11,411 14,252 136,936 171,029 FT Land & Facilities Services Manager 51 65.8347 82.2256 11,411 14,252 136,936 171,029 FT Natural Resources Manager 51 65.8347 82.2256 11,411 14,252 136,936 171,029 FT Operations Manager 51 65.8347 82.2256 11,411 14,252 136,936 171,029 FT Planning Manager 51 65.8347 82.2256 11,411 14,252 136,936 171,029 FT Public Affairs Manager 51 65.8347 82.2256 11,411 14,252 136,936 171,029FT Real Property Manager 51 65.8347 82.2256 11,411 14,252 136,936 171,029 FT Visitor Services Manager 51 65.8347 82.2256 11,411 14,252 136,936 171,029 FT Assistant General Counsel I 53 69.1255 86.3359 11,982 14,965 143,781 179,579 FT Assistant General Counsel II 55 72.5865 90.6543 12,582 15,713 150,980 188,561 FT Assistant General Manager 59 80.0317 99.9467 13,872 17,324 166,466 207,889 FT Chief Financial Officer/Director Administrative Services 59 80.0317 99.9467 13,872 17,324 166,466 207,889 FT * OST will receive an additional 1% stipend for Class A or B license; Lead OST 1% for Class A. Board Appointee Group Compensation Hourly Monthly Annual Effective General Manager $118.9904 $20,625 $247,500 7/1/2019 Controller ‐ Part‐time position $90.1481 $3,906 $46,877 7/1/2019 General Counsel $108.4135 $18,792 $225,500 7/1/2019 Elected Officials Compensation Board Director $100.00 $600.00 1/23/2019 The District’s Personnel Policies and Procedures provide that the compensation for an employee’s temporary out‐of‐class / Acting Assignment shall be at least 5% but not more than 10% more than her/his current salary. Pursuant to Government Code 20480, out of class appointments shall not exceed a total of 960 hours in each fiscal year. Last Revised 11/13/2019 11/13/2019 11/13/2019 Per Meeting Monthly Maximum Effective Date Page 1 of 5 DATE June 24, 2020 MEMO TO: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors THROUGH: Ana Ruiz, AICP, General Manager FROM: Tina Hugg, Senior Planner; Jane Mark, Planning Manager; Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager; Casey Hiatt, IST Manager; Jamie Hawk, GIS Administrator SUBJECT: Updates regarding the administrative historic resources procedural guide, historic resources database, and historic resources training program _____________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) recently completed a thorough review of internal policies, procedures and practices related to historic resources, including a comprehensive comparison analysis of other park and open space agencies, and found that Board Policies are up to date, consistent with current laws, and remain consistent throughout with varying degrees of specificity based on the intent of the policy; therefore, no policy changes were recommended. On February 26, 2020, the Board of Directors voted evenly on the General Manager’s recommendations (2-2, with 3 Board members absent). Considering the split vote, the General Manager stated her plans to move forward with (1) creating an administrative historic resources procedural guide, (2) updating the District’s assets database to establish a comprehensive historic resources inventory and documenting the process to maintain that inventory, and (3) implementing regular District-wide historic resources training for staff. This memo broadly describes the scope of work and steps to implement these tasks. This work begins in July and was added as an operational project to the FY2020-21 Budget and Action Plan. BACKGROUND The General Manager’s recommendations from the February 26, 2020 Board meeting included: 1. Review and discuss other park and open space agency policies and best practices related to the disposition of historic structures/buildings. 2. Based on a comprehensive review of internal policies and practices, confirm that no Board Policy changes are warranted; instead, the General Manager will proceed with making administrative procedural improvements and clarifications consistent with existing Board Policy, as stated in this report. The General Manager’s recommendations were further described in the Board report as follows. Page 2 of 5 Based on a comprehensive review of Board policies that concludes that Board policies adhere to current legal requirements, are internally consistent, and do not have policy guidance gaps, the General Manager recommends keeping Board policies status quo. However, there is a potential benefit in improving administrative procedures to ensure consistency Districtwide. As such, the General Manager will implement an administrative historic resources procedural manual that compiles all relevant Board policies, ensures compliance with federal, state, and local laws, and provides process clarifications as a resource tool for current and future District staff. In addition, the General Manager plans to update and refine the District’s historic resources inventory and develop a centralized process for maintaining historic resources files. Finally, the General Manager will ensure that key District staff receive historic resources training. DISCUSSION Administrative Historic Resources Procedural Guide The General Manager committed to creating an administrative historic resources procedural guide (administrative guide) that cites all relevant District policies related to historic resources and other key information, such as the District’s historic resource management processes and inventory. The guide coupled with regular staff training will serve as an online resource for both existing and new staff to ensure long-term Districtwide consistency related to historic resource management. The administrative guide will: 1. Cite and include a link to the February 26, 2020 Board report and attachments as context. 2. Cite and include links to all District policies related to historic resources and reference their basic tenets. 3. Reference and provide links to federal, state and all local policies and decision-making bodies overseeing historic resources and reference their basic tenets. 4. Identify the District Planning Department as the lead department in overseeing the management of historic resources. 5. Outline a framework for soliciting consultant services, including utilization of on-call historic resource consultants, for technical guidance, assessments, and project support. 6. Include a checklist to document and inventory information on existing and/or newly- acquired buildings, structures, objects, historic districts, sites for inclusion in the District’s historic resources inventory (Enterprise GIS), workorder and asset management system (Cityworks), and document management system (SharePoint). The GIS system houses the information for all assets and integrates with Cityworks and SharePoint to assist with tracking and scheduling of periodic inspections, maintenance, and repairs. Refer below to Historic Resources Inventory and Documentation Process for more information. 7. Include a decision tree on historic resource management processes and practices. The first part of the historic resources procedural guide will be completed in FY20-21 (compilation of policies, rules, regulations, best practices, initial checklist of historic resources assessment process, etc.). The procedural guide will be continuously updated in subsequent years as additional information is gathered or updated (e.g. checklist/decision tree), and as the historic resources inventory is refined and expanded. Page 3 of 5 Historic Resources Inventory and Documentation Process The General Manager will direct staff to strengthen the District’s documentation and inventory practices, and as part of this work, to standardize terminology to align with the National Park Service Secretary of Interior (SOI) Standards. In order to ensure conformance to SOI Standards, this effort will require the services of either a historic resources consultant or qualified graduate level students whose work is overseen by expert professionals. A Districtwide historic resources inventory will be supported by and rely on the integration of the following three systems: 1. Electronic document management system (SharePoint). SharePoint serves as the District’s intranet, project management platform, and online document repository. 2. Enterprise geographic information system (GIS). The enterprise GIS platform serves as the District’s centralized GIS database and hosts various web mapping applications for staff to view, edit, and query hundreds of dataset layers. 3. Work order and asset management system (Cityworks). Cityworks serves as the District’s centralized maintenance management system and is used to create, schedule, and manage service requests, workorders, and inspections, including routing maintenance work. Cityworks is fully integrated with the enterprise GIS platform. The GIS database currently contains hundreds of dataset layers containing features on the land that have been added organically as the District completed acquisitions, maintenance activities, and capital improvements over time. Similarly, historic resource information has been collected via assessments performed on a case-by-case basis for new acquisitions, capital improvement projects, and maintenance activities and incorporated incrementally to the GIS database. Buildings and structures are included along with a wide variety of other features that are mapped and tracked for day-to-day operations. Over time, the District has populated the inventory with over 500 buildings mapped in the system. The GIS database can be improved by incorporating the historic status values for building features where information is missing. As sites and structures are evaluated, the GIS historic resources attribute data will be confirmed, expanded, and updated to continuously update and improve the database. Also, staff will develop a new tool to ensure consistency in how historic assessments are performed and how the data is then gathered and logged into the District’s database systems. More specifically, to update and refine the historic resources inventory and documentation process, staff will complete the following tasks over the next two years. A number of actions listed below will require extensive inter-department coordination to complete and maintain into the future (minimally between Planning, Engineering & Construction, Information Systems & Technology, Land & Facilities, Natural Resources, and Real Property): 1. Establish a clear and methodical process to document historic status information related to current and future acquisitions, capital and operating projects, and maintenance activities. Document workflows of departments as they intersect with historic resources and formalize the process by which historic resource information is collected and documented. The documentation process will identify what information to collect, what and how to photograph the resource, and how to enter the information into the document management system (SharePoint), workorder and asset management system (Cityworks), and GIS database. Page 4 of 5 2. Refine the GIS database design to support centralizing historic resources features and information, ensuring relevant dataset feature layers are integrated with the work order and asset management system. Refine the existing GIS database design to enable effective capture of historic information based on the five different elements defined in the SOI Standards (buildings, structures, objects, districts, sites). 3. Develop an online library in the electronic document management system where written and photographic documentation is logged and centralized for the management of historic resources, ensuring document library tagging conventions align with GIS database feature attributes. 4. Assess the work order and asset management system workflows through the lens of historic resources maintenance and identify potential system enhancements. 5. Standardize and document the process to input, maintain, and query any historic resource information added to the GIS database, work order and asset management system, and document management system in conformance with terminology and standards per the SOI. Develop internal web mapping applications for staff to create, edit, and/or query historic resource dataset layers and ensure features are integrated with Cityworks and SharePoint systems to further support information centralization. Following the development of the above systems and documentation process, staff will work with multiple departments to locate and centralize past historic evaluation and assessment documentation, in both electronic and paper format. In addition, with the assistance of a historic resources consultant/outside resources, staff review the 500 building features within the existing database, potentially ground truth them, and verify and update the GIS attribute data, including historic status values, for each building feature. The work may include field verifying buildings in the dataset to update and confirm their disposition status. Populating and updating the existing building dataset with the data mined from the past documentation and field work is expected to take at least two years. Periodic Historic Resources Training Moving forward, the General Manager will also ensure that regular historic resources training is provided to all key staff, particularly in the Real Property, Planning, Engineering and Construction, Natural Resources, Land and Facilities, and Information Systems and Technology departments to ensure that staff are fully informed of the steps required for historic resources evaluation and management. Historic resources consultant Page & Turnbull provided broad historic resources training to District staff on January 30, 2020, and similar training opportunities will be incorporated into the District’s training program at an appropriate interval for new staff and as a refresher to existing staff. NEXT STEPS Planning will initiate this work pending Board approval of the FY2020-21 Budget and Action Plan. All tasks are expected to be completed by 2023-24. FY2020-21: Lead department: Planning Coordinating departments: Information Systems & Technology, Engineering & Construction, Land & Facilities, Natural Resources, and Real Property Page 5 of 5 Scope: Prepare the historic resources procedural guide as follows: (1) Research, compile, and centralize District, federal, state, and local policy information and assess what District resources are on federal, state, and local lists; (2) Review and consolidate policies, practices, procedures and processes into one cloud-based procedural guide for staff use (note, this item is expected to be continuously updated through the years as new information is gathered); (3) Identify information gaps to be addressed in subsequent years; (4) Retain a historic resources consultant or outside expert(s) to guide the development of the historic resource inventory using terminology and framework consistent with the National Park Service Secretary of Interior standards. FY2021-22 Lead departments: Planning and Information Systems & Technology Coordinating departments: Engineering & Construction, Land & Facilities, Natural Resources, and Real Property Scope: Based on outside expert guidance, develop the framework for the improved historic resources inventory. Design and modify existing database systems to support the framework. Begin populating the historic resource inventory with expanded information and attributes. FY2022-23 Lead department: Planning Coordinating departments: Engineering & Construction, Information Systems & Technology, Land & Facilities, Natural Resources, and Real Property Scope: Locate and transfer paper files of historic evaluations and assessments into the improved historic resources inventory. Continue populating and updating GIS datasets with historic resources assessment data. Complete data entry on existing buildings, structures, objects, districts, and sites that are (1) listed in a federal, state, or local historic register, and/or (2) previously assessed within a historic resource evaluation report. FY2023-24 Lead department: Planning Coordinating departments: Engineering & Construction, Information Systems & Technology Land & Facilities, Natural Resources, and Real Property Scope: Continue populating the historic resources inventory with additional information on remaining qualified buildings that are (1) occupied or used by tenants, (2) maintained by the Land & Facilities department, and (3) included on the three-year Capital Improvements and Action Plan project list. Approx. every 3 years: Schedule a Historic Resources Training for key staff