Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20230524 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 23-14 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Wednesday, May 24, 2023 Special meeting starts at 5:00 PM Regular meeting starts at 7:00 PM* REVISED A G E N D A TELECONFERENCE NOTICE Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953, Subdivision (b), Director Kersteen-Tucker will participate from 776 Buena Vista St. Moss Beach, CA 94038. This Notice and Agenda will be posted at the teleconference location. Accessibility to and public comment from this address will be provided as required by Government Code Section 549534(b)(3). Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board meetings are held in person at the District’s Administrative Office, and by teleconference pursuant to Government Code Section 54953. Members of the public can attend and participate in the meeting using the following methods: 1. In-person at the Midpen Administrative Office – 5050 El Camino Real, Los Altos, CA 94022. 2. Viewing the meeting in real-time at https://openspace.zoom.us/j/83451153211 or listening to the meeting by dialing (669) 900-6833 or (346) 248-7799 (Meeting ID 834 5115 3211). Members of the public may submit written comments to be provided to the Board, or register to make oral comments, as follows: • Written comments may be submitted via the public comment form at: https://www.openspace.org/public- comment. • Requests to provide oral comment must be submitted prior to the time public comment on the agenda item is closed. Requests to provide oral comments may be made by: o Submitting a request through the public comment form at: https://www.openspace.org/public- comment for those attending via Zoom. o Submitting a request via the paper-based public comment form at the meeting for those attending in-person. • 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 ROLL CALL Meeting 23-14 Rev. 1/3/20 1. Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Area Feasibility Study, Preferred Trail Alignment and Parking Area Conceptual Design (R-23-52) Staff Contact: Gretchen Laustsen, Senior Planner, Planning Department General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Review and affirm, with any final modifications as directed by the Board of Directors, the findings and recommendations of the Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Area Feasibility Study. 2. Accept the recommended Trail Alignment 1, Connectors Trails A, B, C and D, Trail Crossings 1, 2 and 3 and the Conceptual Parking Area Design Alterative C as the project scope and description to initiate environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. 3. Direct staff to collaborate with partners in identifying the lead agency for the implementation of Connector Trail D and Trail Crossing 1. ADJOURNMENT 7:00 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 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. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY Introduction of Staff • Stephanie Gross, Administrative Assistant Proclamation • In recognition of Finance Manager Andrew Taylor ADOPTION OF AGENDA BOARD BUSINESS Public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. 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 the March 8, 2023 Board meeting minutes 2. Claims Report 3. Award of Contract to Bay Area Tree Specialists for Wildland Fire Fuel Treatments and Tree Maintenance Services (R-23-53) Staff Contact: Christian Bonner, Field Resource Specialist, Land and Facilities Department Rev. 1/3/20 General Manager’s Recommendation: 1. Authorize the General Manager to execute an initial one-year term contract (Year 1) with Bay Area Tree Specialists of San Jose, California in the amount of $351,400 for District- wide wildland fire fuel treatments and tree maintenance services. 2. Authorize the General Manager to extend the contract with Bay Area Tree Specialists for up to four additional one-year terms, each at a $500,000 annual cost, based on contractor performance, for a not-to-exceed base contract amount of $2,351,400 over the five-year term. 3. Authorize a 15% contingency in the amount of $352,710 over the five-year term to address unforeseen issues, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $2,704,110 over the five- year term. 4. Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Feasibility Analysis, Project Goals, and Grant Application with the Wildlife Conservation Board (R-23-54) Staff Contact: Julie Andersen, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources Department General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Receive and accept the Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Feasibility Analysis. 2. Adopt the Project Goals, as reviewed and confirmed by the Project Stakeholders. 5. Contract Amendment for the La Honda Creek Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study at La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (R-23-55) Staff Contact: Melissa Borgesi, Planner II, Planning Department General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Authorize the General Manager to amend a contract with RHAA Landscape Architects of Mill Valley, California in the amount of $37,470 to conduct additional technical studies and support additional public engagement. 2. Authorize a 10% contingency in the amount of $19,700 to cover unforeseen tasks for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $431,884. 6. Highway 17 Wildlife and Trail Crossings Cooperative Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (R-23-56) Staff Contact: Jared Hart, AICP, Senior Planner, Planning Department General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority for the Plans, Specifications and Estimates phase of the Highway 17 Wildlife and Trail Crossings project. 2. Authorize the General Manager to amend the Cooperative Agreement in the future to specifically allow: (i) the disbursement of future grant funds to cover project costs, if obtained after the execution of the original agreement, and (ii) a six-month extension of the agreement term, if necessary. 7. Amendment to Board Policy 5.01 – Site Naming, Gift, and Special Recognition – related to Monetary Gift Acknowledgements (R-23-57) Staff Contact: Natalie Jolly, Public Affairs Specialist II General Manager’s Recommendation: Approve amendments to Board Policy 5.01 – Site Naming, Gift, and Special Recognition – to acknowledge all gifts annually in a standard Rev. 1/3/20 publication regardless of and without specifying the gift amount, as reviewed and supported by the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee. 8. Annual Display of the Pride Progress Flag in June (R-23-58) Staff Contact: Matt Anderson, Chief Ranger, Visitor Services Department General Manager’s Recommendation: Approve the annual display of the Pride Progress flag on flag poles at Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District facilities during the month of June, including the attached Proclamation. BOARD BUSINESS Public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. 9. Public Hearing on the Proposed Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget and Three-Year Capital Improvement and Action Plan (R-23-59) Staff Contact: Stefan Jaskulak, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Administrative Services General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Hold a public hearing to review the Proposed Fiscal Year 2023-24 (FY24) Budget and three-year (Fiscal Year 2023-24 to 2025-26) Capital Improvement and Action Plan, as recommended by the Action Plan and Budget Committee. 2. Direct either: a. The General Manager to bring the proposed FY24 Budget and Action Plan back for adoption at the June 14, 2023 regular meeting of the Board of Directors, or b. The Action Plan and Budget Committee to consider proposed changes to the FY24 Budget and Action Plan prior to the General Manager bringing the item back to the Board of Directors for adoption at a June 2023 regular meeting. 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 5050 El Camino Real, Los Altos, California 94022. CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA Rev. 1/3/20 I, Maria Soria, District Clerk for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that the foregoing agenda for the special and regular meetings of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for review on May 18, 2023, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 5050 El Camino Real, 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. Maria Soria, MMC, CPMC District Clerk SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Wednesday, May 24, 2023 Special meeting starts at 5:00 PM Regular meeting starts at 7:00 PM* A G E N D A Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board meetings are held in person at the District’s Administrative Office, and by teleconference pursuant to Government Code Section 54953. Members of the public can attend and participate in the meeting using the following methods: 1. In-person at the Midpen Administrative Office – 5050 El Camino Real, Los Altos, CA 94022. 2. Viewing the meeting in real-time at https://openspace.zoom.us/j/83451153211 or listening to the meeting by dialing (669) 900-6833 or (346) 248-7799 (Meeting ID 834 5115 3211). Members of the public may submit written comments to be provided to the Board, or register to make oral comments, as follows: • Written comments may be submitted via the public comment form at: https://www.openspace.org/public- comment. • Requests to provide oral comment must be submitted prior to the time public comment on the agenda item is closed. Requests to provide oral comments may be made by: o Submitting a request through the public comment form at: https://www.openspace.org/public- comment for those attending via Zoom. o Submitting a request via the paper-based public comment form at the meeting for those attending in-person. • 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 ROLL CALL 1. Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Area Feasibility Study, Preferred Trail Alignment and Parking Area Conceptual Design (R-23-52) Staff Contact: Gretchen Laustsen, Senior Planner, Planning Department General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Review and affirm, with any final modifications as directed by the Board of Directors, the findings and recommendations of the Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Area Feasibility Study. Meeting 23-14 Rev. 1/3/20 2. Accept the recommended Trail Alignment 1, Connectors Trails A, B, C and D, Trail Crossings 1, 2 and 3 and the Conceptual Parking Area Design Alterative C as the project scope and description to initiate environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. 3. Direct staff to collaborate with partners in identifying the lead agency for the implementation of Connector Trail D and Trail Crossing 1. ADJOURNMENT 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. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY Introduction of Staff • Stephanie Gross, Administrative Assistant Proclamation • In recognition of Finance Manager Andrew Taylor ADOPTION OF AGENDA BOARD BUSINESS Public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. 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 the March 8, 2023 Board meeting minutes 2. Claims Report 3. Award of Contract to Bay Area Tree Specialists for Wildland Fire Fuel Treatments and Tree Maintenance Services (R-23-53) Staff Contact: Christian Bonner, Field Resource Specialist, Land and Facilities Department General Manager’s Recommendation: 1. Authorize the General Manager to execute an initial one-year term contract (Year 1) with Bay Area Tree Specialists of San Jose, California in the amount of $351,400 for District- wide wildland fire fuel treatments and tree maintenance services. 2. Authorize the General Manager to extend the contract with Bay Area Tree Specialists for up to four additional one-year terms, each at a $500,000 annual cost, based on contractor performance, for a not-to-exceed base contract amount of $2,351,400 over the five-year term. 3. Authorize a 15% contingency in the amount of $352,710 over the five-year term to address unforeseen issues, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $2,704,110 over the five- year term. Rev. 1/3/20 4. Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Feasibility Analysis, Project Goals, and Grant Application with the Wildlife Conservation Board (R-23-54) Staff Contact: Julie Andersen, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources Department General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Receive and accept the Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Feasibility Analysis. 2. Adopt the Project Goals, as reviewed and confirmed by the Project Stakeholders. 5. Contract Amendment for the La Honda Creek Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study at La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (R-23-55) Staff Contact: Melissa Borgesi, Planner II, Planning Department General Manager’s Recommendations: 4. Authorize the General Manager to amend a contract with RHAA Landscape Architects of Mill Valley, California in the amount of $37,470 to conduct additional technical studies and support additional public engagement. 5. Authorize a 10% contingency in the amount of $19,700 to cover unforeseen tasks for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $431,884. 6. Highway 17 Wildlife and Trail Crossings Cooperative Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (R-23-56) Staff Contact: Jared Hart, AICP, Senior Planner, Planning Department General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority for the Plans, Specifications and Estimates phase of the Highway 17 Wildlife and Trail Crossings project. 2. Authorize the General Manager to amend the Cooperative Agreement in the future to specifically allow: (i) the disbursement of future grant funds to cover project costs, if obtained after the execution of the original agreement, and (ii) a six-month extension of the agreement term, if necessary. 7. Amendment to Board Policy 5.01 – Site Naming, Gift, and Special Recognition – related to Monetary Gift Acknowledgements (R-23-57) Staff Contact: Natalie Jolly, Public Affairs Specialist II General Manager’s Recommendation: Approve amendments to Board Policy 5.01 – Site Naming, Gift, and Special Recognition – to acknowledge all gifts annually in a standard publication regardless of and without specifying the gift amount, as reviewed and supported by the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee. 8. Annual Display of the Pride Progress Flag in June (R-23-58) Staff Contact: Matt Anderson, Chief Ranger, Visitor Services Department General Manager’s Recommendation: Approve the annual display of the Pride Progress flag on flag poles at Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District facilities during the month of June, including the attached Proclamation. BOARD BUSINESS Public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. Rev. 1/3/20 9. Public Hearing on the Proposed Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget and Three-Year Capital Improvement and Action Plan (R-23-59) Staff Contact: Stefan Jaskulak, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Administrative Services General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Hold a public hearing to review the Proposed Fiscal Year 2023-24 (FY24) Budget and three-year (Fiscal Year 2023-24 to 2025-26) Capital Improvement and Action Plan, as recommended by the Action Plan and Budget Committee. 2. Direct either: a. The General Manager to bring the proposed FY24 Budget and Action Plan back for adoption at the June 14, 2023 regular meeting of the Board of Directors, or b. The Action Plan and Budget Committee to consider proposed changes to the FY24 Budget and Action Plan prior to the General Manager bringing the item back to the Board of Directors for adoption at a June 2023 regular meeting. 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 5050 El Camino Real, Los Altos, California 94022. CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA I, Maria Soria, District Clerk for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that the foregoing agenda for the special and regular meetings of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for review on May 18, 2023, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 5050 El Camino Real, 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. Maria Soria, MMC, CPMC District Clerk Rev. 3/15/21 R-23-52 Meeting 23-14 May 24, 2023 SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA ITEM 1 AGENDA ITEM Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Area Feasibility Study, Preferred Trail Alignment and Parking Area Conceptual Design GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Review and affirm, with any final modifications as directed by the Board of Directors, the findings and recommendations of the Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Area Feasibility Study. 2. Accept the recommended Trail Alignment 1, Connector Trails A, B, C and D, Trail Crossings 1, 2 and 3 and the Conceptual Parking Area Design Alterative C as the project scope and description to initiate environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. 3. Direct staff to collaborate with partners in identifying the lead agency for the implementation of Connector Trail D and Trail Crossing 1. SUMMARY The Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Area (Project) Feasibility Study (Study) seeks to identify a new regional trail alignment to facilitate a link between Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (Preserve) and the existing Cowell-Purisima Coastal Trail as well as a new public access trailhead and parking area. This trail alignment will create a critical east-west link in the regional trail network between the Bay Area Ridge Trail and the California Coastal Trail and is intended to be a contributing alignment of the more extensive Bay to Sea Trail. Staff will present the findings and recommendations of the Study, including recommendations for the primary trail alignment, connector trails, trail crossings of Verde Road and Highway 1 and the conceptual parking area design. If the General Manager’s recommendations are accepted by the Board of Directors (Board), staff will initiate comprehensive planning and environmental review of the project and will collaborate with partners to identify the appropriate agency for implementing the project elements not located within Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) lands. Completion of the trail is a priority project as identified in the public- supported and Board-approved 2014 Vision Plan, with significant funding approved by the voters as part of Measure AA Portfolio #03: Purisima Creek Redwoods, Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail, Watershed Protection and Conservation Grazing. R-23-52 Page 2 FEASIBILITY STUDY BACKGROUND The purpose of the Feasibility Study is to analyze several key elements, including new trail alignment options, a new trailhead location with a parking area off Verde Road or Highway 1, and trail crossings at Verde Road and Highway 1 to ultimately facilitate a link between the Preserve and the existing Cowell-Purisima Coastal Trail. Ultimately, the Project would result in a critical 15-mile east-west link in the regional trail network between the Bay Area Ridge Trail and the California Coastal Trail and is anticipated to be a significant alignment of the more extensive Bay to Sea Trail. The Feasibility Study includes field investigations, as well as technical and planning studies and design exercises to analyze opportunities for a multi-use trail alignment, connector trails, parking area, trailhead, and pedestrian roadway crossings. This effort also includes significant stakeholder engagement and public outreach, as well as consultation with appropriate agencies, organizations, and neighbors. (Attachment 1: Study Area and Project Elements Map). Since initiation of the Feasibility Study in 2020, the following key tasks have been completed: Technical Studies • Biological Assessment • Archaeological / Cultural Resources Study • Boundary and Topographical Survey • Culvert Drainage Study • Traffic Study • Riparian Setback Analysis • Geotechnical Engineer Assessment Planning and Design • Vision and Goals • Existing Conditions / Opportunities and Constraints Analysis • Trail Alignment Alternatives • Conceptual Parking Area Design Alternatives • Caltrans / San Mateo County Road Consultation • Permitting Requirements Analysis • Preliminary Cost Estimates Engagement and Consultation • Neighbor, Stakeholder and Public Outreach and Engagement • Farm Bureau Consultation • Partner Coordination • Caltrans and County of San Mateo Consultation At the December 1, 2021 Board of Directors (Board) meeting, staff presented the results of the preliminary technical studies and the opportunities and constraints analysis (R-21-157). Staff also presented the proposed Project vision and goals, designed to guide the development and selection of elements to be incorporated into a comprehensive use and management plan, including trail alignment alternatives and conceptual parking area designs, as well as other use and management considerations for the Project. The vision and goals were informed by the findings of the opportunities and constraints analysis, public comments, and the 2014 Board- R-23-52 Page 3 approved Vision Plan and 2014 voter-approved Measure AA expenditure plan. The Board approved the Project’s vision and goals at the December 15, 2021 meeting (R-21-174). At the October 11, 2022 Planning and Natural Resources (PNR) Committee meeting, staff presented the identified trail alignment options and the conceptual parking area design alternatives. Staff described the trail scouting and alternatives analysis process, the factors considered, the design for the parking area layouts and the public engagement process and feedback received. The PNR Committee accepted the General Manager’s recommended Trail Alignment 1 and Connectors A and B, and the Conceptual Parking Area Design Alterative C to forward to the Board for consideration as the proposed project description to initiate environmental review (R-22-111). With the support of the PNR Committee on the preferred trail alignment and conceptual parking area design, staff initiated further analysis of the potential trail crossing locations and additional connector trails needed to connect the overall trail alignment to the Cowell-Purisima Coastal Trail. Following the fall PNR meeting, staff conducted an additional biological assessment, archaeological and cultural resources study, and boundary and topographical survey, developed conceptual trail crossing designs and consulted with regulatory agencies to confirm the feasibility of the necessary connector trails and trail crossings. DISCUSSION The intent of this agenda item is to present the findings and recommendations of the Feasibility Study. The following sections of the report describe the trail and parking area alternatives and the supporting information justifying the recommended project elements. The Board is asked to consider affirming the findings of the Feasibility Study and accepting the recommended Trail Alignment 1, Connector Trails A, B, C and D, Trail Crossings 1, 2 and 3 and the Conceptual Parking Area Design Alterative C as the project scope and description to initiate environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Attachment 2: Trail Alignment Options, Connectors and Crossings Map). Trail Alignment Options District trail crews began field scouting efforts in late 2020 to evaluate potential trail connections from the existing Irish Ridge Trail to the proposed parking area on Verde Road. Staff evaluated a trail connection from the proposed Verde Road parking area to the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) Trail Easement that would provide access to the Cowell-Purisima Coastal Trail. Based on the District’s trail design standards that aim to provide an optimal trail user experience in an ecologically sensitive way, the trail crew evaluated various trail options, including re-use of existing ranch roads, conversion of abandoned or poorly maintained roads to trails, and construction of new single-track trails. Potential trail alignments were identified using Lidar, contours, and satellite imagery maps and then ground-truthed in the field. During the trail scouting effort, staff considered many factors in evaluating feasible alignments. Some of these considerations included constructability and long-term maintenance, impacts to sensitive natural resources and associated regulatory permitting requirements, proximity to private property, visibility of trails from the Highway 1 scenic corridor, the onsite conservation grazing operation, trail user experience, and patrol/emergency access. As part of the feasibility assessment, consulting biologists and cultural resource experts joined District staff to complete R-23-52 Page 4 reconnaissance-level surveys for rare plants and plant communities, wetlands and riparian habitats, and determine the potential for cultural and archaeological resources. The findings of these surveys factored into defining the proposed trail alignments. Through the field scouting effort and subsequent biological and cultural resource surveys, three primary trail alignment alternatives were identified, along with two connector trail options. For all trail options, relocation of critical cattle grazing infrastructure may be necessary to balance public access with the grazing operation. Due to site constraints, the three trail alternatives converge in the eastern portion of the project area where there is only one feasible connection (shown in gold on Attachment 2) that connects to the existing Irish Ridge Trail in the current Preserve trail network. The existing Irish Ridge Trail is steep in certain locations, and staff will evaluate opportunities to re-route this existing trail in the future, however, this area is constrained due to steep topography, intermittent and ephemeral drainages, and property boundaries. The two connector trails provide access to the primary trail alignment. Connector A provides the most direct access to the Preserve trail system while Connector B, which would parallel Verde Road, would provide a more direct access to the Coastal Trail via the POST trail easement. Connector B would cross the front of the South Cowell residence, which is scheduled to be under District ownership by the end of June (R-23-40). The table below further describes each trail alignment alternative: Alternative Mileage Opportunities Constraints Irish Ridge to Lobitos Creek Connection 3.5 • The only feasible, sustainable trail alignment to connect from the existing trail network to the convergence of Alignments 1 - 3 • The trail is a combination of new trail and segments of repurposed legacy and ranching road • Proximity to riparian habitat and other sensitive resources • Multiple crossings of Lobitos tributaries and one crossing of Lobitos Creek mainstem 1 2.2 • New trail with low average trail grade • Minimizes interaction with conservation grazing and associated infrastructure • Offers vistas of the Pacific Coast to the west, Purisima Creek Canyon to the north, and Lobitos Creek drainage to the south • Construction cost will be higher due to proposed new trail development • New trail construction is typically more impactful than repurposing existing/legacy roads due to a new development footprint on the land • Several self-closing gates would be necessary due to trail crossing in and out of grazing lease area 2 2 • Utilizes existing ranch road to minimize natural resource concerns • Traverses the ridgeline, providing panoramic vistas • Provides highest potential for patrol and emergency access • Overlaps with existing grazing infrastructure resulting in higher potential for cattle/visitor interactions • Grades are steep in some locations (>18%) and require rock surfacing to allow for increased use R-23-52 Page 5 3 2.5 • Avoids drainage crossings since it stays high in the watershed • New trail with low average trail grade • Offers panoramic vistas • Higher visibility of trail with switchbacks on the hillside • Closest alignment to adjacent private property (>100’) • Trail is near stock ponds and traverses an active pasture • New trail construction is more costly and typically more impactful than repurposing existing/legacy roads due to a new development footprint on the land Connector A 1 • Utilizes existing ranch road • Provides excellent vistas after short climb to hilltop • Opportunity for short loop trail in conjunction with Connector B • Requires use of the main ranch road that connects to Verde Road; same road is also used by the grazing tenant to access the property • Will likely require additional fencing and relocation of grazing infrastructure • May require periodic closure to allow for grazing tenant to move cattle to the corral Connector B 0.5 • Provides the most direct route from the proposed Verde Road parking area to the POST trail easement • Opportunity for short loop trail in conjunction with Connector A • Encourages the public to use the trail adjacent to Verde Road rather than the road itself • Requires multiple minor/ moderate drainage crossing improvements • Crosses the driveway of the South Cowell residence • Likely will require fence relocation to separate visitors/ cattle Alignment 1 has been identified as the preferred trail alignment as it provides a sustainable new trail alignment with panoramic vistas of the Pacific Coast to the west, Purisima Creek Canyon to the north, and the Lobitos Creek Drainage to the south. Alignment 1 minimizes the overlap of public access with grazing activities and infrastructure. Alignment 1 provides an enjoyable trail user experience while avoiding/minimizing impacts to known sensitive resources and supporting the ongoing operation of working/grazing lands. Moreover, Connector Trails A and B are also recommended to provide a unique loop trail opportunity from the proposed parking area. The total mileage of this proposed trail alignment is over seven (7) miles, and encompasses the Lobitos Ridge to Irish Ridge connection, Alignment 1, and the Trail Connector Loop (Connectors A & B). Approximately 4.4 miles would be new trail construction and 2.8 miles would be improvements to existing roads/trails. Adjustments to the final trail alignment may be required as a result of future resource surveys, technical studies, and the design and engineering process. R-23-52 Page 6 Additional Trail Connections and Crossings (Outside of District Lands) Trail Connections Connector Trail C (Attachment 2) would provide a link between the proposed parking area and the primary trail alignment’s Connectors A and B. Connector C runs along the edge of the South Cowell Farm Property. As part of the ongoing South Cowell land division, the District would receive a Public Trail Easement across the Farm Property along a short segment of Verde Road to provide for a safe crossing of the road (R-23-40). Connector Trail D allows for a trail link between Verde Road and Highway 1 across the Purisima Farms Property. The Purisima Farms Property is subject to a trail easement held by POST and allows for public trails. The 25-foot-wide trail easement area runs along the southern boundary of the farm parcel and is adjacent to active agricultural fields. The site is designated as Unique Farmland according to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program and currently serves as an agricultural access road. Trail Crossings Trail Crossing 1 (Attachment 2) would connect the Trail Connector D to the Cowell-Purisima Trailhead and parking area that are located on the west side of Highway 1. The crossing of Highway 1 is within the Caltrans Right-of-Way. The conceptual design of the crossing infrastructure is based on the sight distance, posted vehicle speeds and traffic volumes in accordance with the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The conceptual design identifies the minimum standards to meet Caltrans design guidelines and consultation with Caltrans confirmed that the minimum standards have been correctly identified. Caltrans agreed that over or under crossings structures are not warranted based on the site conditions. The conceptual design includes advanced warning pedestrian crossing signage, rectangular rapid flashing beacons, ladder crosswalk, and yield to pedestrian signage. However additional pedestrian safety measures can be proposed during the design and permitting process (Attachment 3: Conceptual Trail Crossing Designs). Trail Crossings 2 and 3 are within San Mateo County Right-of-Way. Trail Crossing 2 would connect the primary Trail Alignment 1 (and Connectors A and B) to Trail Connector D. Trail Crossing 3 would connect the proposed new trailhead and parking area to the primary Trail Alignment 1 (and Connectors A and B). The conceptual designs for both crossings are identical to Crossing 1 and include the advanced warning pedestrian crossing signage, rectangular rapid flashing beacons, ladder crosswalk, and yield to pedestrian signage. Based on the site conditions along Verde Road, including line of sight, traffic speeds and volume, the rapid flashing beacon is not a requirement. However, the design includes these minimum measures to provide consistency among all three proposed crossings that are within close proximity and for added safety. Conceptual Parking Area Design Alternatives Staff developed various preliminary parking area site designs for two locations, one on the east side of Verde Road, and one on the west side of Verde Road. Key considerations of the design process include public safety, sensitive habitats, riparian setbacks, scenic resources, the grazing operations, and adjacent farmlands. Additionally, the designs incorporate transportation demand R-23-52 Page 7 management (TDMs) strategy recommendations from the Purisima Multimodal Access Study (R-22-123). The potential for locating a parking area to the east side of Verde Road that meets the Project’s goals is highly limited due to required riparian setbacks and existing grazing infrastructure that limit the number of viable parking spaces. Three conceptual parking area design alternatives have been identified that primarily focuses development on the west side of Verde Road (Attachment 4: Conceptual Parking Area Design Alternatives). Design elements common to each alternative are as follows: • Works with existing topography • Incorporates the necessary riparian corridor protections • Minimizes environmental impacts • Minimizes impacts to the existing grazing infrastructure • Incorporates TDM strategies • Includes ADA-accessible trailhead and restroom, pathways, signage and overlook • Includes a setback from the scenic corridor along Highway 1 The parking area alternatives differ in the following ways: • Parking lot size and capacity • Entry road configuration and trailhead location • Equestrian parking layout and capacity • Use of the potential parking area to the east of Verde Road Alternative A • Smallest project footprint (~40 general parking spaces, ~20 priority spaces, including ADA-parking spaces, 4 equestrian/shuttle/large vehicle spaces) • Minimizes user conflicts with grazing operations and avoids grazing infrastructure • Central pull-through for equestrian trailer/bus lot • Entry road is located to the north of the trailhead and trail access pathway • No development east of Verde Road Alternative B • Intermediate project footprint west of Verde Road (~40 general parking spaces, ~35 priority spaces, including ADA-parking spaces, 2 equestrian/shuttle/large vehicle spaces) • Limited development footprint east of Verde Road (restroom, education area, equestrian/bus parking) • Entry road is located to the south of the trailhead and trail connector pathway Alternative C (Recommended) • Larger project footprint (~70 general parking spaces, ~35 priority spaces, including ADA-accessible parking spaces, ~6 equestrian/shuttle/large vehicle spaces) • Equestrian/shuttle/large vehicle lot along perimeter of the parking lot for ease of circulation and pull-through parking • Most effectively incorporates TDM strategies, including an overflow parking/expansion area (potential for ~80 additional parking spaces) • Entry road is located to the south of the trailhead and trail access pathway R-23-52 Page 8 • No development east of Verde Road • Minimizes impacts on the existing grazing operation by avoiding existing grazing infrastructure Alternative C is identified as the preferred parking area design alternative. First, this alternative provides the parking capacity that most effectively accommodates the recommended TDM strategies, such as priority parking spaces, additional parking supply, and bicycle infrastructure. In addition, Alternative C includes the potential for overflow parking, or a future parking expansion, with minimal impacts to the initial site improvements. Finally, Alternative C minimizes the impact of the new public access improvements on the existing grazing operation by avoiding the area with existing grazing infrastructure. Conservation and Trail Easements The project area parcels are subject to conservation and trail easements. South Cowell Conservation Easement The parking area and much of the primary trail alignment are located on the South Cowell Ranch property, which is subject to a Restated and Amended Grant of Conservation Easement (conservation easement) recently entered into by the tenants-in-common owners (Marsh Trust, POST, and the District). The conservation easement was recorded in September 2022 and is now held by POST. The conservation easement combines and modernizes the 1989 conservation easement, which was held by the California Coastal Conservancy, and a 1991 conservation easement held by POST over the South Cowell property. The conservation easement continues to protect the land’s conservation values (agriculture, scenic, habitat and natural resources, open space and recreation), and modifies the conditions of the allowable subdivision for the ownership of the South Cowell Upland property by the District, providing flexibility in locating public trails and eliminating the potential to develop a second residential site on the Upland parcel. Additionally, a third trail easement will be granted to the District to allow for the potential public trail connector along Verde Road (Connector C) from the proposed parking area to the southern Verde Road trail crossing (Crossing 3). Purisima Upland Conservation Easement A segment of preferred Trail Alignment 1 traverses the Purisima Upland Property. The Purisima Upland Property is subject to a conservation easement and a trail and conservation easement, both held by POST. The conservation easement protects the land’s conservation values and the trail and conservation easement allows flexibility in locating public trails on the Purisima Upland Property. Purisima Farms Conservation Easement Connector Trail D traverses the Purisima Farms Property. The Purisima Farms Property is subject to a trail easement and a trail and conservation easement, both held by POST. The trail easement was established because the site was identified as highly desirable for a future trail linkage to be managed in a manner that is compatible with the existing agricultural use. The trail easement allows for a public trail within a 25-foot wide easement running from Verde Road to Highway 1 along the southern parcel boundary. The conservation easement protects the conservation values and agricultural use of the Property. R-23-52 Page 9 Construction Cost Estimates (2027 Dollars*) Project Element Conceptual Cost Estimate Trail Alignment Options (with Connector A and B) Trail Alignment 1 (Preferred Alignment) $3.4 M Trail Alignment 2 $3.3 M Trail Alignment 3 $3.8 M Connector Trails C and D $500K Trail Crossings 1, 2, and 3 $400 K Conceptual Parking Area Design Alternatives Alternative A $3.1M Alternative B $4.1 M Alternative C (Recommended Alternative) $4.5 M *Construction costs have been escalated to Fiscal Year 2026-27 dollars to reflect likely construction costs based on the tentative project schedule. Preliminary cost estimates are based on the findings of the site assessment and geotechnical assessment and include recommended construction methods and soil treatments to address the highly expansive soils within the project location. These cost estimates were developed after the Fiscal Year 2023-24 budget and action plan process therefore these refined estimates are not reflected in the MAA03-009 and MAA03-010 budgets listed in the fiscal impact section below. Budget refinements will be included in the Fiscal Year 2024-25 budget and action plan cycle. Public Engagement and Feedback Public engagement has consisted of focused stakeholder meetings, one-on-one meetings, public workshops and open houses, visitor surveys and pop-up events in the community, many of which were held with the Purisima Multimodal and Highway 35 Multi-use Trail Crossing and Parking Study Projects. Attachment 5 lists the various meetings and events held to date and the groups involved, which include Purisima neighbors and visitors, agricultural community members, local agencies, advocacy groups and subject matter experts. The Purisima-to-the-Sea and Purisima Multimodal project teams collaborated to develop and release a joint visitor survey that ran online from April 2022 to May 2022. The goal of the survey was to solicit feedback on the desired trail experience, parking lot size preference, configuration, amenities, parking needs, proposed TDMs and visitor likelihood of using them, e.g., bicycling to the Preserve, taking a shuttle, using a reservation system, paying for parking, utilizing a carpool priority lot, etc. Over 400 responses were received. The project team also solicited input on the preferred parking area conceptual design alternatives at two community open house events (in- person and virtual). Attachment 6 summarizes the key themes and topics emerging through the visitor surveys and public and stakeholder engagement. The feedback confirmed the preference for prioritizing biological site attributes balanced with maximizing parking capacity to accommodate TDMs recommended from the Purisima Multimodal project. The additional feedback received revealed the following: • Regardless of activity, most visitors will not travel the entire distance of the proposed trail network, supporting the need for mid-trail facilities. Survey R-23-52 Page 10 respondents expressed a strong preference for a rest area/bench and a restroom along the trail route. o Equestrian amenities would also be suitable mid-trail, including a hitching post, mounting block, and water trough. o Additionally, there was interest in a backpack camp along the proposed trail network (Note: camping is prohibited within the District’s Coastal Service Plan Area, therefore, consideration of this use, if pursued, would need to be restricted to areas within the Preserve that are outside of the Coastal Service Plan Area). • Preference for multi-use trail. Cyclists expressed interest in narrow, purpose-built trail with a moderate gradient. • Preference for a loop trail experience. • Support for the largest parking area (Alternative C) to accommodate TDM strategies. • Importance of educating the public on the value of the conservation grazing program and sharing the trail with cattle. • Visitors coming to Purisima primarily come to see the Preserve’s unique features. • Minimize trail user conflicts with vehicles by locating the pedestrian crossing away from the driveway entrance. • Interest in maximizing the quantity of equestrian parking and locating it on the perimeter of the proposed parking area. A little over a third of survey respondents identifying as an equestrian indicated they would use the proposed Verde Road lot at least once a month. • Support for flexible parking uses during different times. • Support for interpretive signage, in particular discussing wildlife, Native American history, and ecosystems. Feedback also garnered concerns such as: • Road safety and emergency vehicle access. • Trespassing over private property. • Lack of stormwater drainage on the coastside as it relates to impervious surfaces. • Safety of the at-grade crossing along Highway 1. • Overdevelopment of the site, quantity of infrastructure and amenities. • Compliance with the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program • Delineated parking as it relates to parking capacity and the need to pave surfaces. • Impacts to prime agricultural land, sensitive habitats, and views. • Designation of trail uses, balancing user conflict, and allowing for various user types. R-23-52 Page 11 The Project and the recommendations before the Board have been informed by the public and stakeholder feedback received through these extensive outreach and engagement opportunities. FISCAL IMPACT The General Manager’s recommendation has no immediate fiscal impact. The FY23 adopted budget includes $176,000 for the Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Area - Phase I Feasibility Study project. Funding for future implementation efforts will be requested and incorporated in future years budgets in the MAA03-009 Purisima-to-the-Sea Parking, MAA03- 010 Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail, and MAA03-012 Purisima-to-the-Sea Comprehensive Use and Management Plan projects. Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Area - Phase I Feasibility Study MAA03-005 Prior Year Actuals FY23 Adopted FY24 Projected Estimated Future Years TOTAL District Funded (Fund 30): $288,596 $115,237 $0 $0 $403,833 Grant Amount: $154,063 $60,763 $0 $0 $214,826 Total Budget: $442,659 $176,000 $0 $0 $618,659 Spent-to-Date (as of 05/01/23): ($442,659) ($82,110) $0 $0 ($524,769) Encumbrances: $0 ($81,249) $0 $0 ($81,249) Budget Remaining (Proposed): $0 $12,640 $0 $0 $12,640 The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio #03 Purisima Creek Redwoods — Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail, Watershed Protection and Conservation Grazing allocation, costs-to- date, projected future project expenditures and projected portfolio balance remaining. There is a ~$7.8 million funding gap projected in the portfolio. A future reallocation of MAA funds, allocation of interest earnings, or general fund reserves will be needed to close the funding gap. MAA03 Purisima Creek Redwoods — Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail, Watershed Protection and Conservation Grazing Portfolio Allocation: $7,608,000 Grant Income (through FY26): $292,306 Interest Income Allocation: $450,000 Total Portfolio Allocation: $8,350,306 Life-to-Date Spent (as of 5/01/23): ($6,885,401) Encumbrances: ($83,441) Remaining FY23 Project Budgets: ($1,334,863) Future MAA03 project costs (projected through FY26): ($7,836,189) Total Portfolio Expenditures: ($16,139,894) Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): ($7,789,588) The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio 03 allocation, costs to date, and the fiscal impact related to the Property purchase. MAA03 Purisima Creek Redwoods — Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail, Watershed Protection and Conservation Grazing Portfolio Allocation: $7,608,000 Grant Income (through FY26): $292,306 Interest Income Allocation: $450,000 Total Portfolio Allocation: $8,350,306 Projected Project Expenditures (life of project):   R-23-52 Page 12 03-001 Purisima Uplands Lot Line Adjustment and Property Transfer ($425,113) 03-002 Purisima Upland Site Clean up and Soil Remediation ($922,823) 03-003 Purisima Creek Fence Construction ($169,190) 03-004 Harkins Bridge Replacement ($516,916) 03-005 Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Area - Phase I Feasibility Study ($618,659) 03-006 South Cowell Upland Land Conservation ($6,252,707) 03-007 Purisima-to-the-Sea Habitat Enhancement and Water Supply Improvement Plan ($568,674) 03-008 Rieser-Nelson Land Purchase ($16,715) 03-009 Purisima-to-the-Sea Parking* ($3,991,687) 03-010 Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail* ($2,120,000) 03-011 Lobitos Creek Fisheries Restoration ($397,410) 03-012 Purisima-to-the-Sea Comprehensive Use and Management Plan ($140,000) Total Portfolio Expenditures: ($16,139,894) Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): ($7,789,588) * The MAA03-009 and MAA03-010 project budget allocations in the proposed FY24 Budget (separate Agenda Item) were developed prior to the refined preliminary cost estimates shown in the above table. Budget refinements will be included in the Fiscal Year 2024-25 budget and action plan cycle. Based on the preliminary numbers, the funding shortage in this portfolio will increase. PRIOR BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW October 28, 2020 Board Meeting: Proposed purchase of an undivided 54% interest in the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) South Cowell Property, located at 1000 Verde Road, Half Moon Bay, in unincorporated San Mateo County, as an addition to Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (R-20-122, meeting minutes) December 1, 2021 Special Board Meeting: Purisima-to-the-Sea Regional Trail and Parking Area Feasibility Study – Opportunities and Constraints Analysis and Project Vision and Goals (R-21-157, meeting minutes) December 15, 2021 Board Meeting: Purisima-to-the-Sea Regional Trail and Parking Area Project Vision and Goals (R-21-174, meeting minutes) March 15, 2022 PNR Committee Meeting: Preliminary Findings from the Purisima Creek Preserve Multimodal Access Project (R-22-38, meeting minutes) August 2, 2022 PNR Meeting: Proposed Transportation Demand Management Strategies and Preliminary Recommendations from the Purisima Creek Preserve Multimodal Access Project (R- 22-87, meeting minutes) October 11, 2022 PNR Committee Meeting: Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Area Feasibility Study – Trail Alignment Options and Parking Area Conceptual Design Alternatives (R-22-111, meeting minutes) November 9, 2022 Board Meeting: Affirmation of the Findings and Recommendations of the Purisima Multimodal Access and Transportation Demand Management Study Report (R-22-123, meeting minutes) R-23-52 Page 13 April 12, 2023 Board Meeting: Proposed Purchase of a Remaining 33% Undivided Interest in the 611.7-acre South Cowell Property from Peninsula Open Space Trust, which is located at 1000 Verde Road, Half Moon Bay, in unincorporated San Mateo County, as an addition to Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (R-23-40). PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. In addition, post cards were sent to project area neighbors within the Coastal Service Area and public email notices were sent to interested parties of the Preserve and hiking, biking, equestrian, accessibility, Regional Trails, and Coastal interested parties. CEQA COMPLIANCE If the Board of Directors accepts the General Manager’s recommendation, staff will conduct environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with Trail Alignment 1, Connectors Trails A, B, C and D, Trail Crossings 1, 2 and 3 and the Conceptual Parking Area Design Alterative C as the project scope and project description NEXT STEPS If the Board of Directors accepts the General Manager’s recommendation, staff will initiate environmental review under CEQA and incorporate the Project recommendations into a Comprehensive Use and Management Plan (CUMP). The CUMP would include recommendations from this Project and other ongoing Preserve projects, including: • Purisima-to-the-Sea Preferred Project Elements (Trail Alignment 1, Connectors Trails A, B, C and D, Trail Crossings 1, 2 and 3 and the Conceptual Parking Area Design Alterative C) • Highway 35 Multi-use Trail Crossing and North Ridge Parking Expansion (pending Board approval of preferred project alternative) • Purisima Multimodal Access Study Priority Recommendations Additional future tasks and the related schedule for the Project is as follows: Project Phase Tentative Project Schedule Develop Purisima Comprehensive Use and Management Plan / Conduct Environmental Review FY 24 – 25 Partner Collaboration on Connector Trail D and Trail Crossing 1 Ongoing Design Development / Permitting FY 24 – 26 Parking Area Construction FY 27 – 28 Trail Construction FY 27 – 29 Attachment(s) 1. Study Area and Project Elements Map 2. Trail Alignment Options, Connectors and Crossings Map 3. Conceptual Trail Crossing Designs 4. Conceptual Parking Area Design Alternatives 5. Summary of Engagement Activities 6. Summary of Public Feedback R-23-52 Page 14 Responsible Department Head: Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Department Prepared by: Gretchen Laustsen, Senior Planner, Planning Department Bryan Apple, Capital Projects Field Manager, Land and Facilities Department Contact person: Gretchen Laustsen, Senior Planner, Planning Department Graphics prepared by: Anna Costanza, GIS Technician, IST Department Bryan Apple, Capital Projects Field Manager, Land and Facilities Department SWCA Environmental Consultants SAN MATEO CO. COMM. COLL. PURISIMA CREEK REDW OODS OPEN SPACE PRESERVE Parking study area COAS T S I D E P R O T E C T I O N A R E A Trail alignment study area POST trail easment Exisiting Cowell-Purisima parking lot Lobitos CreekTrail TunitasCreekRd Native SonsRd. TunitasCreek Rd ÄÆ1 VerdeRd Lob i t o s C r e e k R d Pur isima Cr eek Tunitas Creek Lobitos C r e e k P urisima Creek Rd 140 0 1000 12 0 0 10 0 0 800 60 0 1000 600 40 0 20 0 60 0 400 20 0 0 60 0 40 0 16 0 0 1200 1200 80 0 800 40 0 180 0 12 0 0 10 0 0 80 0 80 0 80 0 80 0 800 600 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) 7/29/2022 Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Area Feasibility Study Area and Project Elements Pa t h : \ \ f i l e s e r v \ G I S _ D r i v e \ P r o j e c t s \ P u r i s i m a _ C r e e k _ R e d w o o d s \ P u r i s i m a _ t o _ t h e _ S e a \ P u r i s i m a T o T h e S e a _ F e a s i b i l i t y _ 2 0 2 2 0 7 2 9 4 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : a c o s t a n z a 0 0.50.25 Miles I 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. Midpen easement Area of Detail ÄÆ82 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ1 ÄÆ84ÄÆ92 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ1 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ92 ÄÆ280 Half Moon Bay Redwood City San Carlos Foster City San Mateo Menlo Park POST easement $$Trail alignment study area Cowell-Purisima Trail & Coastal Trail Existing Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail Midpen preserves Pedestrian crossing and connector trail study area Existing public trail South Cowell property Parking study area Study Areas Connector trail options Attachment 1 æ æ Tun i t a s C r e e k TunitasCreek Rd Tunitas Creek Rd Purisim a Creek Rd Cowell-PurisimaTrail Irish Rid ge Road Far m R o a d A L obitos Creek Trail Irish Ridge Trail Cowell-Purisima Trail Farm Road B Lucy Ln Ver d e R d DurhamRoad Lob i t o s C r e e k R d ÄÆ1 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community±0.55 0 0.550.275 Connection to existing trail network via Irish Ridge Trail POST Tra i l E a s e m e n t Potential connection to Cowell-Purisima Trail 1 2 3 Alignment Alternative 1 Alignment Alternative 2 Alignment Alternative 3 South Cowell Property Boundary New Trail Construction Improve Existing Road/Trail POST Trail Easement Alignment Linking Irish Ridge Road to Alternatives 1-3 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail Alignment Alternatives PURISIMA CREEK REDWOODS OPEN SPACE PRESERVE Preferred Trail Alignment æ æ Tun i t a s C r e e k TunitasCree k Rd Tunita s Creek Rd P uri si m a Creek Rd Cowell-PurisimaTrail Irish Ri d ge Road Far m R o a d A L obitos Creek Trail Irish Ridge Trail Cowell-Purisima Trail Farm Road B Lucy Ln Ver d e R d DurhamRoad Lob i t o s C r e e k R d ÄÆ1 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community ±0.55 0 0.550.275 Miles Connection to existing trail network via Irish Ridge Trail POST Tra i l E a s e m e n t Potential connection to Cowell-Purisima Trail 1 2 3 Alignment Alternative 1 Alignment Alternative 2 Alignment Alternative 3 South Cowell Property Boundary New Trail Construction Improve Existing Road/Trail POST Trail Easement Alignment Linking Irish RidgeRoad to Alternatives 1-3Midpeninsula RegionalOpen Space District(Midpen)Purisima-to-the-SeaTrail Alignment Alternatives PURISIMA CREEK REDWOODS OPEN SPACE PRESERVE A B Preferred Trail Alignment C D VER D E R O A D 1 2 3 HIG H W A Y O N E 1 B Proposed Roadway Crossing Connector Trail SEE INSET INSET MAP © 2023 Microsoft Corporation © 2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus DS BKF ENGINEERS255 SHORELINE DRIVESUITE 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065(650) 482-6300www.bkf.com BKF No. 20201657SAN MATEO COUNTY, CA PURISIMA TRAIL PEDESTRIAN CROSSING CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - HIGHWAY 1 Attachment 3 © 2023 Microsoft Corporation © 2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus DS BKF ENGINEERS255 SHORELINE DRIVESUITE 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065(650) 482-6300www.bkf.com BKF No. 20201657SAN MATEO COUNTY, CA PURISIMA TRAIL PEDESTRIAN CROSSING CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - VERDE ROAD © 2023 Microsoft Corporation © 2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus DS BKF ENGINEERS255 SHORELINE DRIVESUITE 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065(650) 482-6300www.bkf.com BKF No. 20201657SAN MATEO COUNTY, CA PURISIMA TRAIL PEDESTRIAN CROSSING CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - VERDE ROAD Attachment 4 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 5: Purisima-to-the-Sea – Summary of Engagement Activities May 24, 2023 Date Meeting / Event July 13, 2021 Purisima-to-the-Sea Neighbor Meeting July 27, 2021 Coastal and Trail User Community Meeting August 18, 2021 Peninsula Trails Team (Bay Area Ridge Trail, Santa Cruz Mountains Stewardship Network, National Park Service, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, County of San Mateo) September 28, 2021 Agricultural Community Onsite Meeting November 4, 2021 Make It Main Street (Half Moon Bay community event) November 9, 2021 Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council December 1, 2021* Purisima-to-the-Sea Public Open House and Special Meeting December 15, 2021* Purisima-to-the-Sea Revised Vision and Goals December 18, 2021 Tabling at Coastside Farmers Market (Half Moon Bay) February 23, 2022 Midcoast Community Council March 15, 2022 Kings Mountain Association May 14, 2022 College of San Mateo Farmer’s Market May 15, 2022 Purisima hike with Spanish speaking group June 07, 2022 San Mateo County Farm Bureau consultation June 29, 2022 Purisima projects open house (in-person) July 12, 2022 Purisima projects open house (virtual) July 27, 2022 Green Foothills staff September 21, 2022 Trail User Stakeholder Meeting September 29, 2022 Trail User Stakeholder Meeting October 11, 2022* Purisima-to-the-Sea Feasibility Study Trail Alignment and Conceptual Parking Area Design Alternatives May 1-2, 2023 Neighbor Consultation May 8, 2023 Partner Consultation May 24, 2023* Purisima-to-the-Sea Feasibility Study Findings and Recommendations * Board or Committee Meeting Page 1 of 3 Attachment 6: Summary of Public Feedback Received to Date Purisima-to-the-Sea Feasibility Study – Trail Alignment Options and Parking Area Conceptual Design Alternatives May 24, 2023 Theme/Topic General Feedback/Comments1 Visitor Behavior • 95% are hikers, with a preference for 4 to 7-mile hikes. • 45% ride their bicycle or horse, with a preference for 10 to 15-mile rides. • 90% prefer a loop trail, as opposed to 7% preferring out and back, and 3% preferring a one-way with shuttle. • 75% stated they come to Purisima either on weekday mornings or afternoons; 50% visit on weekday mornings. Destinations people are interested in seeing when coming to Purisima • 50% prefer Purisima’s unique features. • 19% prefer the nearby inland vistas and viewpoints. • 15% prefer the coastal overlooks and beaches. Priorities of survey respondents • When asked about the most important factors that should be considered in planning for the Purisima-to-the-Sea project, 50% prioritized biological site attributes, and 25% prioritized physical site attributes. Preferred parking design alternative • At open house events, members of the public overwhelmingly supported a larger parking area to accommodate TDM strategies. • Survey respondents heavily favored standard and larger parking area sizes. Impacts to Parking Lot Design and amenities • Trail Access o Preference for accessing the trail without having to cross the drive aisle near the parking area’s drive entrance. • Shuttle Pick-Up/Drop-Off o 50% reported that they would use a shuttle if their preferred parking area was full; 25% said that they may be interested. o Design should consider shuttle pick-up/drop-off area and parking quantity to accommodate those taking the shuttle in addition to parking for those using the trailhead. • Electric vehicle parking: o Public expressed interest in electric vehicle parking. • Flexible Parking Uses o 66% were open to flexible parking uses at different times. o Commenters noted that flexible parking areas would need to be clearly signed. Education would be necessary to inform the public. Page 2 of 3 • Bikes o ~50% indicated they would visit by bike o Interest in bike racks, bike lockers, and bike repair stations o Bike brushes to remove debris off tires and prevent spread of Sudden Oak Death o E-bike charging station • Equestrians o Majority of those parking with equestrian trailers would like to see at least 4 equestrian trailer spaces at the new lot. o ~66% prefer having a natural surface parking area and pathways o ~50% expressed interest in having hitching posts and mounting blocks available. o Preference for having equestrian parking on the outer ring in the parking alternatives • Parking / Parking Surface o Interest in loading zone adjacent to / back of parking spaces o Commenters note that the coastal areas lack storm water drainage and that the proposed parking should incorporate impervious surfaces into the design o If overflow lot is proposed, there was interest in natural surface for overflow parking. • Restroom o Interest in having a second vault toilet near equestrian parking. • Other amenities suggested: o Availability of restrooms o Stroller and wheelchair rentals o Seating / rest area o Potable water / drinking fountains o Trash collection o Pay phone o Connections to other transit o Signboard w/ maps, showing nearby points of interest o Interpretive signage o WiFi o Cell phone charging o Wayfinding signage o Animal waste bags o Fire lanes / loading zones Mid-Trail facilities • 89% expressed interest in a rest area / bench and 82% in a restroom as mid-trail (interior preserve) amenities. • 22% were interested in a picnic area as a mid-trail amenity • Hitching post, mounting block, and non-potable water trough received support from 8% of respondents Page 3 of 3 • Over half of survey respondents identifying as equestrians would like to see a hitching post, mounting block, and water trough at a mid-trail location. • Backpack camping Impacts to Grazing • When asked what measures the District should consider to ensure compatibility of the existing conservation grazing and future recreational access, 50% supported providing on-site education about the value of the conservation grazing program. ~25% supported providing education on sharing the trail with cattle. Interpretive Signage Topics • Survey respondents had a preference for interpretive signage topics discussing wildlife (20%), Native American history (19%) and Ecosystems (19%). Trail Uses • Interest in allowing multi-uses on trails • Interest in single-track bike trails Highway Crossing • Concerns about at grade crossing • Suggestions for above grade or below grade crossings o Underpass study to accommodate wildlife crossing Equity • Signage available in English and Spanish Additional comments / concerns • Road safety and emergency vehicle access • Traffic circulation safety for vehicles traveling to and from parking lot • Concerns about preserve visitors trespassing over private property • Consider that Cowell Ranch Beach trailhead exceeds capacity on good weather days, this lot may be used as an overflow lot for beach use and other nearby open space destinations. • Ensure project is compatible with San Mateo Local Coastal Program. • Consider impacts to prime agricultural land, sensitive habitats, views. • Balance square footage of parking area with protecting habitat • Allow backpacking and reservation camping • Allow dog access • Real-time parking information • Clear signage, and enforcement of violations • Strong etiquette education program • Allow e-bike use • Limit equestrian use / limit bike use • Minimize infrastructure in parking areas 1Feedback noted above is based on visitor survey and input received during engagement activities; percentages reflect respondent responses from the visitor survey. Andrew Taylor served as the Senior Accountant and Finance Manager for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) fro m Apr WHEREAS, Andrew will forever be known as Midpen’s most beloved Barista and wine connoisseur.il 2013 through May 2023; Proclamation of the MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Given to Honor Andrew Taylor WHEREAS, Andrew Taylor has served as the Senior Accountant and Finance Manager for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) from April 2013 through May 2023; WHEREAS, Andrew was hired to take Midpen’s accounting to the next level with his level of bookkeeping and financial oversight, ensuring clean audit opinions and meeting critical requirements in managing the Measure AA General Obligation Bonds; and WHEREAS, in his role as financial gatekeeper, Andrew often had the frustrating job of coaxing the departments in adhering to procurement, accounting, and budget standards; and WHEREAS, Andrew has always demonstrated a keen eye and sound judgment in addressing claims and invoices for accounts payable to ensure public funds are used appropriately and in the most cost-effective manner; and WHEREAS, Andrew has had the uncanny knack of noticing the rare and unusual or out-of-place transactions, or charges to mistaken accounts, and was always curious to investigate and follow up; and WHEREAS, Andrew worked diligently with Human Resources as a “check & balance” for issues related to payroll, providing a good sounding board and resource to trouble-shoot issues; and WHEREAS, although Andrew could be tough like a dog with a bone, he would also show compassion for those in need and experiencing personal difficulty; and WHEREAS, Andrew was not bashful about sharing his strong opinions about all sorts of topics, leading you often to pull up a chair for an engaging and digressive conversation; and WHEREAS, Andrew will forever be known as Midpen’s most beloved Barista and wine connoisseur. WHEREAS, Andrew is recognized by his peers, District staff, and the Board of Directors for his hard- work, can-do attitude, persistence, ethics, and determination; and NOW, THEREFORE, LET IS BE RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District extends its appreciation of Andrew Taylor for his excellent service to the District over his 10 year tenure. _________________________________________ YORIKO KISHIMOTO, BOARD PRESIDENT _________________________________________ MARGARET MACNIVEN, BOARD VICE-PRESIDENT _________________________________________ CRAIG GLEASON, DIRECTOR, WARD 1 _________________________________________ JED CYR, DIRECTOR, WARD 3 _________________________________________ CURT RIFFLE, DIRECTOR, WARD 4 _________________________________________ KAREN HOLMAN, DIRECTOR, WARD 5 _________________________________________ ZOE KERSTEEN-TUCKER, DIRECTOR, WARD 7 March 8, 2023 Board Meeting 23-08 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Wednesday, March 8, 2023 The Board of Directors conducted this meeting in accordance with California Government Code section 54953. DRAFT MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT – CLOSED SESSION President Kishimoto called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 6:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Craig Gleason, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Yoriko Kishimoto, Margaret McNiven, and Curt Riffle Members Absent: Karen Holman Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager Brian Malone, Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Maria Soria President Kishimoto announced this meeting is being held in accordance with Government Code section 54953. 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. Director Holman arrived at 6:05 p.m. 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL, EXISTING LITIGATION, 2 Cases (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)) 1. Ashford v. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District; Santa Clara County Superior Court Case Number 22CV407741 Meeting 23-08 Page 2 2. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District v. Ashford; Santa Clara County Superior Court Case Number 23CV410606 Public comment opened at 6:06 p.m. District Clerk Maria Soria reported there were no public speakers for this item. Public comment closed at 6:06 p.m. The Board convened into closed session. ADJOURNMENT President Kishimoto adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 7:00 p.m. REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT President Kishimoto called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Craig Gleason, Karen Holman, Yoriko Kishimoto, Margaret McNiven, and Curt Riffle Members Absent: Zoe Kersteen-Tucker Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager Brian Malone, Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Maria Soria, Governmental Affairs Program Manager Josh Hugg, Human Resources Manager Candice Basnight, Public Affairs Manager Kori Skinner, Senior Resource Management Specialist Coty Sifuentes-Winter President Kishimoto announced this meeting is being held in accordance with Government Code section 54953. 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. CLOSED SESSION REPORT President Kishimoto reported the Board convened in closed session and no reportable action was taken. Meeting 23-08 Page 3 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS District Clerk Maria Soria reported there were no public speakers for this item. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Holman seconded the motion to adopt the agenda. ROLL CALL VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Kersteen-Tucker absent) CONSENT CALENDAR Public comment opened at 7:07 p.m. Ms. Soria reported there were no public speakers for this item. Public comment closed at 7:07 p.m. Motion: Director MacNiven moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to approve the Consent Calendar. ROLL CALL VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Kersteen-Tucker absent) 1. Approve the December 14, 2022 Board meeting minutes 2. Approve Claims Report 3. Extension to an Agreement with the City of Mountain View to provide the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District with Radio Dispatch Services (R-23-28) General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to approve a five-year contract extension with the City of Mountain View to provide 24-hour radio dispatch services for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $1,553,034. Annual not-to-exceed amounts would be as follows: $281,060 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 (FY24), $295,113 for FY25, $309,869 for FY26, $325,362 for FY27, and $341,630 for FY28. BOARD BUSINESS 4. Legislative Position Recommendations (R-23-29) Governmental Affairs Program Manager Josh Hugg provided the staff presentation stating that there were 2,700 bills released this legislative session. The bills went through a vetting process by the District’s lobbyist and department managers to review all key bills of interest and identify recommended positions and priorities for each. Based on their review, approximately 140 bills are currently being tracked, and at this time, 6 bills are recommended as priority 1 and 25 bills as priority 2. Board members requested and received clarification regarding various legislative bills. Meeting 23-08 Page 4 President Kishimoto inquired if there could be a consideration to support AB 99 (State highways: vegetation management: herbicides and pesticide) with conditions. Senior Resource Management Specialist Coty Sifuentes-Winter expressed his concerns with AB 99 and stated that an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach could be supported as an IPM approach seeks to minimize the use of herbicides. He also spoke about the issues with mowing and how it can spread invasive species. In addition, some species react differently to mowing, such as French Broom, which become much bushier, increasing the fire risk greatly after 3 years. President Kishimoto inquired if staff could add in the summary that the District would propose the use of an IPM approach. Mr. Hugg reported that he reviewed the proposed language by Assemblymember Connolly’s office and noted that counties seeking to prohibit herbicide use will prioritize alternative methods when it is possible. Public comment opened at 7:42 p.m. District Clerk Maria Soria reported there were no public speakers for this item. Public comment closed at 7:42 p.m. Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Gleason seconded to approve the recommended list of legislative positions for the 2023 state legislative session. ROLL CALL VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Kersteen-Tucker absent) 5. Oral Presentation – Human Resources Department Overview Human Resources Manager Candice Basnight provided an overview of the Human Resource Department. Ms. Basnight reviewed the departmental core functions, organizational chart, and reporting structure. Ms. Basnight highlighted programs within the Human Resources department such as recruitment, classification and compensation, benefits, employee relations, training and development, employee recognition, safety compliance, workforce planning, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Director Holman complimented Ms. Basnight, saying she admires her can-do attitude and sense of humor, and thanked her for her work. Director Riffle requested to receive a future briefing of the DEI program. General Manager Ana Ruiz stated that a DEI briefing would most likely be presented to the Board during summer of 2023. Director Gleason inquired if the DEI staff committee is focused primarily on the organization itself or also focused externally. Meeting 23-08 Page 5 Ms. Basnight stated that the DEI staff committee includes two subcommittees, one focused on internal matters and the other focused on external matters, such as community engagement and drawing visitors to District preserves. Director Cyr complimented staff and stated that the staff are the most cohesive, creative, and friendly staff of any organization. Furthermore, that the Human Resources department is a significant component of the organization. General Manager Ruiz commented that Ms. Basnight has been a tremendous asset to the District and described her as a thought partner. They frequently discuss the organization, and Ms. Basnight was commended for her leadership and thoughtfulness. Ms. Ruiz, complimented her and the Human Resources team on their efforts, noting that they routinely manage numerous tasks and functions at once despite the extra workload that has been added such as furthering the agency’s DEI efforts and carrying out the Strategic Leadership Training Program. President Kishimoto on behalf of the Board of Directors thanked Ms. Basnight and her team for their work. Public comment opened at 8:16 p.m. District Clerk Maria Soria reported there were no public speakers for this item. Public comment closed at 8:16 p.m. 6. Oral Presentation - Public Affairs Department Overview Public Affairs Manager Kori Skinner provided an overview of the Public Affairs Department, presenting on the departmental purpose and core functions, including management of editorial content, social media, website content, legislative relations, media relations, and general community outreach. Ms. Skinner reviewed the current fiscal year priority one and two projects, the departmental structure, and the communications path for increasing public engagement of District activities. Director Cyr thanked Ms. Skinner and the team for their efforts and expressed gratitude for their ability to create a vision for the 50th anniversary celebrations and move forward with it. President Kishimoto expressed her appreciation for Ms. Skinner's efforts to create a solid strategic framework for public communications and public relations. General Manager Ruiz commended Ms. Skinner's efforts, particularly those related to the District's 50th anniversary, for achieving the goal of having the events and activities involve all facets of the community to be part of the celebration while also inspiring the public to continue to be part of District activities. In addition, she thanked Ms. Skinner for always pushing the boundary a little bit further by coming up with new ideas that have been beneficial for the District and the public. President Kishimoto extended the Board of Director’s appreciation to her and the department. Public comment opened at 8:37 p.m. Meeting 23-08 Page 6 District Clerk Maria Soria reported there were no public speakers for this item. Public comment closed at 8:37 p.m. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS A. Committee Reports No committee reports. B. Staff Reports Assistant General Manager Brian Malone provided an update on preserve closures in light of the approaching high winds and rainstorms, in particular along the ridgeline where significant snow damage has already occurred. C. Director Reports Director Riffle reported that he attended a virtual presentation given by Green Foothills and hosted by the Los Altos History Museum honoring Wallace Stegner. The presentation provided background for the public about Green Foothills and, during the presentation, the District was mentioned several times and praised for the work is has done. Director MacNiven reported she attend the Farm Bureau meeting on Monday, March 5. President Kishimoto reported that a brown bag meeting occurred on February 23, in honor of Black History month, telling the story of “Sam” Emmanuel McDonald. It was well attended, and the speaker was outstanding. President Kishimoto also reported that she attended a BCDC meeting on March 2. She acknowledged the staff for an excellent presentation at the March 7 Board Retreat. She also mentioned a meeting she attended with the Friends of Stevens Creek Trail on March 8. Director Holman reported that the Palo Alto City Council considered whether to allow e-bikes in its four nature preserves and ultimately decided to follow the District's lead using the District’s year-long study and analysis. Director Gleason reported that he attended and enjoyed the February 23 brown bag meeting, and that he attended a Bay Area Ridge Trail advocacy meeting and reported that they have updated some of their plans in the south bay, which partly involves the area around Sierra Azul. He suggested receiving a presentation from the Bay Area Ridge Trail to learn more about their new plans. ADJOURNMENT President Kishimoto adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District into a special meeting at 8:49 p.m. ________________________________ Meeting 23-08 Page 7 Maria Soria, MMC District Clerk MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CLAIMS REPORT MEETING # 23-14 MEETING DATE: May 24, 2023 Fiscal Year 21-22 EFT:66.38% Fiscal Year 22-23 EFT:60.95% Payment Number Payment Type Payment Date Notes Vendor Name/Number Blank Invoice Description Blank2 Payment Amount 6936 T - EFT 05/12/2023 10343 - Granite Rock Company Retainage payable to vendor Alpine Road Project 76,196.15 6940 T - EFT 05/12/2023 12002 - Noll & Tam Architects New Administrative Office (AO) Facility Jan - Mar 2023 53,830.63 6914 T - EFT 05/05/2023 12113 - Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz, & Assoc. Inc 2022 Awareness Study 44,500.00 6905 T - EFT 05/05/2023 11470 - Aecom Technical Services Inc Alma Bridge RD Newt Passage 12/2/22-2/10/23 42,373.75 6943 T - EFT 05/12/2023 12013 - Rincon Consultants, Inc.Cultural Resources at BCR Feb-Mar 2023 24,434.50 6897 P - Printed 05/05/2023 11141 - Jarvis Fay LLP Legal Services Agreement - MAR 2023 23,894.00 6915 T - EFT 05/05/2023 11998 - Hanford Applied Restoration & Conservation BCR IPM Mar 2023 20,475.00 6938 T - EFT 05/12/2023 10190 - MetroMobile Communications Six Ranger handheld radios, Radio repair M23, Radio install M29 12,719.88 6941 T - EFT 05/12/2023 10079 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.Redwood Cabin Removal Proj Mar 2023 12,366.48 6937 T - EFT 05/12/2023 11859 - Horizon Water and Environment, LLC Programmatic Environmental Consulting Mar 2023 11,390.98 6930 P - Printed 05/12/2023 12248 - Creative Security Company, Inc.Background checks - ranger candidates 9,873.54 6932 P - Printed 05/12/2023 12197 - Old La Honda General Engineering Task Order 1 - Driveway Repair 8,074.00 6948 T - EFT 05/12/2023 10216 - Valley Oil Company Fuel for district vehicles 7,185.99 6911 T - EFT 05/05/2023 10032 - Del Rey Building Maintenance AO-FFO-SAO-Nature Ctr, Janitorial Serv. April 23 7,109.50 6913 T - EFT 05/05/2023 11748 - Environmental & Energy Consulting Legislative Consult/Lobbying Services 6,460.00 6924 T - EFT 05/05/2023 10216 - Valley Oil Company Fuel for district vehicles 6,251.36 6919 T - EFT 05/05/2023 10211 - Public Policy Advocates Legislative Consult/Lobbying Services 5,454.57 6931 P - Printed 05/12/2023 15018 - FlowWest, LLC Risk Analys, SanGreg.Habitat Apple Orchrd Mar 2023 4,984.67 6918 T - EFT 05/05/2023 15022 - Lawrence R. Jensen & Associates Legal Services - Trial Advance Increase - APR 2023 4,500.00 6912 T - EFT 05/05/2023 10546 - Ecological Concerns, Inc.Plant Install. & Maint. Multi Mitig Site Mar 2023 4,159.00 6928 P - Printed 05/12/2023 11863 - ALBION ENVIRONMENTAL INC BCR Landfill Characterization & Remediation 4,132.28 6925 T - EFT 05/05/2023 11665 - Waterways Consulting BH Reservs 1 & 3 Bathymetric Srvy 2/23/23-3/22/23 3,756.00 6917 T - EFT 05/05/2023 11859 - Horizon Water and Environment, LLC San Mateo County Master Permit Appl srvc Feb 2023 3,701.00 6934 P - Printed 05/12/2023 10102 - Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP Cloverdale and Johnson Rch-Legal svcs; Coastal Commission Litigation 3,209.86 6922 T - EFT 05/05/2023 12082 - Sicular Environmental Consulting LHC Forest Mgmt-Public outreach Forestry Mar 2023 3,160.63 6900 P - Printed 05/05/2023 15007 - Rayne Plumbing & Sewer Service Inc Sewer/water line repairs 3,150.86 6909 T - EFT 05/05/2023 12109 - Christine Sculati Task 1;Alma Bridge Newt Pass WCB 1/30-2/27/2023 2,781.25 6895 P - Printed 05/05/2023 12015 - Dudek Task 1 -On-Call; BCR Forest Health Grant Pro 2,436.17 6946 T - EFT 05/12/2023 10143 - Summit Uniforms Seasonal Ranger uniform items 2,314.38 6893 P - Printed 05/05/2023 10014 - CCOI Gate & Fence MtUm, SA, RV Gate Repair 2,202.95 6907 T - EFT 05/05/2023 10128 - American Tower Corporation Coyote Peak radio tower lease May 2023 2,174.81 6920 T - EFT 05/05/2023 11479 - Rootid, LLC Web Maintenance/Support 1,867.50 6923 T - EFT 05/05/2023 10146 - Tires On The Go Tire replacements P125/M221 1,803.93 6902 P - Printed 05/05/2023 12229 - Theia Marketing CRM Maintenance Srvcs Mar 2023 1,768.72 6910 T - EFT 05/05/2023 11318 - Confluence Restoration BCR Plant Installation & Maint Mar 2023 1,590.00 6947 T - EFT 05/12/2023 10152 - Tadco Supply Janitorial Supplies 1,235.40 6908 T - EFT 05/05/2023 11483 - Cartwright Design Studio Graphic Designer 1,202.03 6921 T - EFT 05/05/2023 10349 - Shelton Roofing Company Inc Roof Repairs & Sealing Wood Siding at FO Historic 905.00 6901 P - Printed 05/05/2023 10102 - Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP Johnston Ranch Legal Services 11/10/22-12/31/22 851.29 6933 P - Printed 05/12/2023 15007 - Rayne Plumbing & Sewer Service Inc Replace cleanout 835.29 6939 T - EFT 05/12/2023 11617 - Mig, Inc.Hwy 35 Spring 2023 Botanical Survey 755.00 6898 P - Printed 05/05/2023 11285 - Jordan Plotsky Productions Task 1 - On-Call; Videography and Photography 700.00 6904 P - Printed 05/05/2023 10115 - Vince Fontana Fence line repairs 700.00 6906 T - EFT 05/05/2023 10813 - Almaden Task 1 - On-Call; Printing and Mailing Services 602.37 6944 T - EFT 05/12/2023 10136 - San Jose Water Company Water Service MAR-APR 594.27 6935 T - EFT 05/12/2023 10187 - Gardenland Power Equipment RSA equip rental, Pole saw repair 591.53 6916 T - EFT 05/05/2023 10222 - Herc Rentals, Inc.Water Truck Rental- BCR Water System 550.98 6892 P - Printed 05/05/2023 12250 - Amy Woloszyn Task 1 - On-Call; Graphic Design Services 500.00 6896 P - Printed 05/05/2023 11701 - Eric Gouldsberry Art Direction Task 1 - On-Call; Graphic Design Services 423.75 6942 T - EFT 05/12/2023 10140 - Pine Cone Lumber Co Inc Lumber for Sign Posts Restock 316.24 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 2 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CLAIMS REPORT MEETING # 23-14 MEETING DATE: May 24, 2023 Fiscal Year 21-22 EFT:66.38% Fiscal Year 22-23 EFT:60.95% Payment Number Payment Type Payment Date Notes Vendor Name/Number Blank Invoice Description Blank2 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 6894 P - Printed 05/05/2023 10168 - Cintas FFO & SFO Shop Rag Cleaning/Exchange 269.38 6929 P - Printed 05/12/2023 11054 - County of San Mateo Human Resources Dept.2 Trainings 230.00 6927 P - Printed 05/12/2023 12090 - Action Towing Towing for P109 214.50 6945 T - EFT 05/12/2023 10447 - Simms Plumbing & Water Equip., Inc.Water repair service 180.00 6899 P - Printed 05/05/2023 10189 - Life Assist Mask Sys, Sodium Chloride, Saline Rinse 145.95 6903 P - Printed 05/05/2023 10201 - Turf & Industrial Equip. Co.SAO - T67 Gator 2 Keys made 11.09 Total of Payments:438,098.41 A### = Administrative Office Vehicle HC = Hendry's Creek P### = Patrol Vehicle SCNT = Stevens Creek Nature Trail AO2, AO3, AO4 = Leased Office Space HR = Human Resources PCR = Purisima Creek Redwoods SCS = Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Area BCR = Bear Creek Redwoods IPM = Invasive Plant Maintenance PIC= Picchetti Ranch SFO = Skyline Field Office BMTB = Bear Meadow Trail Bridge ISM = Invasive Species Management PR = Pulgas Ridge SG = Saratoga Gap CAO = Coastal Area Office LH = La Honda Creek RR = Russian Ridge SJH = Saint Joseph's Hill CC = Coal Creek LR = Long Ridge RR/MIN = Russian Ridge - Mindego Hill SR= Skyline Ridge DHF = Dear Hollow Farm LT = Los Trancos RSA = Rancho San Antonio T### = Tractor or Trailer ECdM = El Corte de Madera M### = Maintenance Vehicle RV = Ravenswood TC = Tunitas Creek ES = El Sereno MB = Monte Bello SA = Sierra Azul TH = Teague Hill FFO = Foothills Field Office MR = Miramontes Ridge SAO = South Area Office TR = Toto Ranch FOOSP = Fremont Older Open Space Pres.OSP = Open Space Preserve SAU = Mount Umunhum TW = Thornewood Abbreviations page 2 of 2 Rev. 3/15/21 R-23-53 Meeting 23-14 May 24, 2023 AGENDA ITEM 3 AGENDA ITEM Award of Contract to Bay Area Tree Specialists for Wildland Fire Fuel Treatments and Tree Maintenance Services GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Authorize the General Manager to execute an initial one-year term contract (Year 1) with Bay Area Tree Specialists of San Jose, California in the amount of $351,400 for District- wide wildland fire fuel treatments and tree maintenance services. 2. Authorize the General Manager to extend the contract with Bay Area Tree Specialists for up to four additional one-year terms, each at a $500,000 annual cost, based on contractor performance, for a not-to-exceed base contract amount of $2,351,400 over the five-year term. 3. Authorize a 15% contingency in the amount of $352,710 over the five-year term to address unforeseen issues, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $2,704,110 over the five-year term. SUMMARY Wildland fire fuel treatments and tree maintenance are essential land management functions of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District). The District issued a Request for Bids (RFB) on March 9, 2023 for wildland fire fuel treatments and tree maintenance services. These services will support the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program (WFRP) and general tree management throughout all 26 (soon to be 27) open space preserves. The District received four (4) bid proposals on April 11, 2023. The General Manager recommends awarding an initial one- year contract (Contract) to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder, Bay Area Tree Specialists, for a base contract amount of $351,400 to perform fuel treatment and tree maintenance services District-wide. The General Manager also requests authorization to amend the Contract to extend the term for four (4) additional one-year terms at $500,000 per year, subject to contractor performance, for a total not-to-exceed Contract amount of $2,351,400 over the five-year term. In the event additional unanticipated work is required during each contract year, the General Manager also recommends authorizing a 15% contingency, bringing the total not-to-exceed five-year contract amount to $2,704,110 (assuming all annual extensions are executed). The adopted Fiscal Year 2022-23 (FY23) budget includes sufficient funds to cover the work through the end of the fiscal year. Funding for future fiscal years will be requested as part of the annual budget and action plan process. R-23-53 Page 2 DISCUSSION The Project includes key components of the WFRP work plan. Enhanced fire management and non-native tree removal in Skyline Ridge and Windy Hill Open Space Preserve (Preserves) are part of the Project scope. These areas were identified using the tiered prioritization process specified in the WFRP and are partially funded by a State Coastal Conservancy (SCC) Grant for Wildland Fire and Capacity Building. The Enhanced Fire Management component of the Project supports the goals of the WFRP by treating ladder fuels and thinning overcrowded forests that have developed as the result of decades of fire suppression activities. Over 80% of the wildland fuel treatment work specified in the Project is within either a Tier 1 or Tier 2 prioritization area. The Project will also implement a proactive tree assessment within Tree Management Zones (TMZ) across the District. TMZ's are high use areas in District preserves having a greater likelihood of impacts due to tree failure. TMZs include areas such as storage structures; field and administrative offices; designated preserve parking lots; picnic tables; and campground areas. The Project will develop maintenance recommendations, which will be used to prioritize both enhanced fire management and tree maintenance within the TMZ. The proposed Contract includes funding for the tree management work, at the discretion of the District, that results from the assessment of TMZs. The Contract has been prepared so that after the initial contract year, the District would have the option of annual extensions based on contractor performance for up to four additional years. The first calendar year of work extends through December 31, 2023 (Year 1). At the District’s option, based on contractor performance and WFRP and TMZ work priorities, the District and Contractor will meet in the fall of each year to develop the scope of work for the subsequent calendar year (Annual Work Plan) using the WFRP prioritization process and the recommendations generated from the TMZ assessment. Project Description The purpose of the Contract is to provide ecologically sensitive enhanced fire management & tree maintenance at various sites throughout District preserves. The scope of the fuel reduction work includes mechanical, manual, and limited pesticide use (e.g., treating cut stumps with herbicide) to create fuel breaks, shaded fuel breaks, and community escape routes. The Contract includes fuel reduction treatments at multiple locations during Year 1. The Year 1 Annual Work Plan includes an 11-acre emergency access/evacuation escape route planned in lower Windy Hill Preserve (Attachment 1) along Alpine Road (Alpine) and the Meadow Trail Driveway Bypass. The work will enhance connectivity to Alpine Road and safe passage for emergency response personnel, preserve visitors, and community members in the event of a wildfire. The treatment site ties into previous work completed by the District near the Windy Hill parking lot and the Sequoias Portola Valley retirement community as well as fuel reduction along Alpine Road completed by the Woodside Fire Protection District. The work includes the mechanical and manual treatment of ladder fuels in oak woodland and savanna using masticators, hand crews and chippers. The terrain includes steep slopes greater than 30% and is adjacent to several sensitive natural communities, including both valley oak and bigleaf maple forest and woodlands, in the riparian corridor along Corte Madera Creek. This work is partially funded by the SCC. R-23-53 Page 3 Another project site location is a planned 25-acre shaded fuel break in Skyline Ridge Preserve (Attachment 2) southwest of Alpine Road and Skyline Boulevard in the vicinity of the David C. Daniels Nature Center and the Skyline Field Office (SFO). This work will create a shaded fuel break along Alpine Road. The scope of work includes manual & mechanical fuel reduction in coyote brush scrub, coast live and canyon live oak woodland and forest biomes, including slopes greater than 30%. A component of the fuel reduction work at the SFO project site also includes the removal of approximately 80 trees greater than 8 inches in diameter at breast height, which are primarily non-native evergreen conifers. The purpose of the tree treatments is to selectively remove trees that are either dead, dying, damaged, diseased, or a non-native introduced species in order to interrupt the horizontal continuity of wildland fire fuels by decreasing tree stand density (or basal area per acre) while also increasing forest health. This work is partially funded by the SCC. Work in future years is anticipated to extend this fuel break to the west along Alpine Road in Skyline Ridge and Russian Ridge Preserves. Additionally, in preserves such as Thornewood, Coal Creek, and Bear Creek Redwoods, WFRP work has been conducted or is under way to create an emergency access/evacuation route and shaded fuel breaks. To enhance and maintain these fuel management sites, 36 large (greater than 8 inches in diameter at breast height) trees are planned for removal. Similar to the tree removal discussed above, the purpose is to selectively remove trees that are either dead, dying, damaged, diseased, or non-native introduced species in order reduce the risk of wildfire by interrupting the horizontal continuity of wildland fire fuels by decreasing tree stand density (or basal area per acre) while also increasing forest health. The scope of the tree maintenance includes tree pruning, removal, arborist services (such as tree inspections, inventory data collection, and arborist reports), and the provision and maintenance of a tree inventory system. There are elements of tree maintenance services (primarily tree removal) included in the planned fuel reduction work. Lastly, a significant component of the work is to complete an assessment of Tree Maintenance Zones (TMZs). TMZs have been identified in areas, such as designated preserve parking areas, where visitor use is higher than in other less developed areas of District lands. The assessment will include inspection and inventory all the trees in the TMZs to evaluate their condition so that tree maintenance needs can be identified and managed. Contractor Selection A Request for Bids (RFB) was issued on March 9, 2023, via BidSync and released to five builders’ exchanges. Legal notices were posted in the San Jose Mercury News and the San Mateo County Times, and a link to the solicitation was posted on the District website. A mandatory pre-bid site walk was held on March 17, 2022, with 11 contractors in attendance. The following bids were publicly opened by the District on April 11, 2023: Bidder Location Total Bid Percent Difference from Cost Estimate of $400,000 Bay Area Tree Specialist San Jose, CA $251,400 -46% Julian Tree Service Richmond, CA $380,850 -5% Professional Tree Care Company Berkeley, CA $502,700 23% West Coast Arborists Anaheim, CA $1,274,674 105% R-23-53 Page 4 The General Manager recommends awarding the contract to Bay Area Tree Specialist as the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. After bids were received and the lowest responsible and responsive bidder was identified, staff negotiated the Year 1 Contract scope of work and final price to add additional hours for tree maintenance and cleanup work (partly in response to the storm damage experienced this past winter and to capture future TMZ recommendations) and other related fuel treatment and tree management activities. The final Year 1 Contract amount comes to $351,400 and is based on pricing provided in the original bid. Bay Area Tree Service is aware of this additional work, which will be assigned by task order and charged based on unit and hourly pricing. Anticipated Annual Contract Amount in Future Years Each year the District will go through a process to evaluate new Tier 1 and tier 2 priority projects and previous work that requires maintenance as part of the WFRP in the upcoming year. In addition, tree maintenance work will be prioritized and scheduled annually, at the discretion of the District, based on the needs identified in the tree inventory and assessment generated in the Year 1 of the Contract. It is anticipated that the base work for each subsequent year will be $500,000 per year. Contingency Amount A contingency of 15% is recommended to address unexpected complexities in carrying out the work, such as: additional natural resource protection measures; limited accessibility to project sites for equipment and labor based on changing road and soil conditions; and the unforeseen need for special equipment (such as aerial tower or crane) to safely remove trees in proximity to infrastructure. Three of the Year 1 project sites are located adjacent to sensitive natural communities and/or sensitive species. The WFRP work is immediately adjacent to arroyo thickets and known habitats for Western pond turtles, Californian wood rats, and potential red legged frog habitat. The WFRP work in Windy Hill is adjacent to several sensitive natural communities, including valley oak and bigleaf maple forest and woodlands and the riparian corridor along Corte Madera Creek. Lastly the tree removal work in Thornewood is located immediately adjacent to redwood forest communities. In addition, all the project sites have steep topography with slopes greater than 30%, constraining access and work zones. These factors can create delays and add costs. Tree removal work in Skyline Ridge, Bear Creek Redwoods, Coal Creek, and Thornewood is immediately adjacent to sensitive cultural resources and infrastructure (e.g., buildings and utilities). Removal work may require the use of rigging and special equipment to safely conduct tree work if structural weaknesses, such as extensive wood decay, are encountered. Moreover, additional priority tree removal and pruning may be identified by the District based on the TMZ findings. Also, if future winter storms generate significant tree debris and down material, the contingency can be used to treat these areas. FISCAL IMPACT There are sufficient funds in the amended FY23 budget to cover the cost of the recommendations through the end of the fiscal year. Funds will be recommended in future fiscal year budgets as a part of the annual Budget and Action Plan process. R-23-53 Page 5 PRIOR BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW This contract was not previously presented to the Board or Committees. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, the District has determined that the tree maintenance and wildland fire fuel treatment activities as contemplated herein is within the scope of the approved Wildland Fire Resiliency Program, and the Final Environmental Impact Report to the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program, and Addenda thereto, adopted by Board Resolution No. 2114 on May 12, 2021; and Integrated Pest Management Program, and the Final Environmental Impact Report to the Integrated Pest Management Program, adopted by Board Resolution No. 14-37 on December 10, 2014. NEXT STEPS If approved by the Board, the General Manager will enter into a contract with Bay Area Tree Specialist to complete wildland fire fuel treatments and tree maintenance work for calendar year 2023. Also, the District will evaluate Contractor performance each year and consider whether to extend the Contract annually for up to five total years. Attachments: Attachment 1 Windy Hill Project Location Map Attachment 2 Skyline Project Location Map Responsible Department Head: Brandon Stewart, Land and Facilities Department Prepared by / Contact person / Graphics prepared by: Christian Bonner, Field Resource Specialist, Land and Facilities Department Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) 3/22/2023 0 0.20.1 miI 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. 4b Lower Windy Hi ll/ Wil lowbrook Fuel Treatment References_9744 Paved Road Unpaved Road Unpaved Road Trail Abandoned / Unmaintained Road VegetationManagementAr... Fuel Treatment Area Preserve Boundary Da t a S o u r c e ( s ) : S o u r c e s : E s r i , A i r b u s D S , U S G S , N G A , N A S A , C G I A R , N R o b i n s o n , N C E A S , N L S , O S , N M A , G e o d a t a s t y r e l s e n , R i j k s w a t e r s t a a t , G S A , G e o l a n d , F E M A , I n t e r m a p a n d t h e G I S u s e r c o m m u n i t y Web AppBuil der for ArcGIS ÄÆ17 ÄÆ82 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ1 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ85 Campbell Redwood City East Palo Alto Los Altos Mountain ViewPalo Alto Menlo Park Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Milpitas Santa ClaraSunnyvale San Jose ATTACHMENT 1 -. 1',,, I__.;;,. � - 1-' h j �,1/Y�•s spp Cypress s�ypr ess spp Cypress Cypress spp Pine spp Pine sp�pp Pine�ne sppPine spp (Dpress spp Cypress spp spp ' 2.a, 2b -SFO/Alpine Nature Center TMZ, Fuel Reduction & Tree Removal References_9744 VegetationManagementAr ... --Paved Road --Unpaved Road Fuel Reduction Area TreeManagementZonelnventor ... - -Unpaved Road O Tree Removal PointTrail Pine spp. Pine spp. i Monterey pine 0 .f nterey pine Monterey p.in Monterey pine Live oa - Monterey p1 ne '&,�� �0�c VI' Mon terey P'-·o Monterey pinn �onterey pine Mont erey pffl'te,l Monterey pine Monterf)pine oAnter ey pine OMonter ey pine Monterey pine 0 Doug fi ULJ' .0 sequoia Monterey pineO o,Ao nter Monterey pi n� Seq Monterey pine Mo nter�--�•--onterey pine --- Monterey pine n e Monterey pine pin Mont erey p1 ne Monterey pineO (f'onterey pine Monterey pineOM�y pi ne Monterey �nterey pine _ Monter�P· e M t p· Monterey P,ne Stone pine on erey me .ft.. _ _ 0 Mont ne� . a,Mont�y Pine Monterey Pine Monterey Pine Monterey Pine --- Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) 3/22/2023 Q mio ____ o_•o=2s===o::::i_os W.b,.,_pp&.,ldo-/o,M:GIS While the Oi$lrict strives to use the be$! ovcild:ile digital cblo, thesedolo do not re,:.-esento leg al $Urley and ore merely o grofY!ic illu$lrolioo of geog,ophic features. ATTACHMENT 2 Rev. 3/15/21 R-23-53 Meeting 23-14 May 24, 2023 AGENDA ITEM 4 AGENDA ITEM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Feasibility Analysis, Project Goals, and Grant Application with the Wildlife Conservation Board GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Receive and accept the Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Feasibility Analysis. 2. Adopt the Project Goals, as reviewed and confirmed by the Project Stakeholders. SUMMARY The Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project (Project) is a partnership between the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) and Santa Clara County (County) to provide wildlife passage (specifically for California newts) across Alma Bridge Road adjacent to Lexington Reservoir in Santa Clara County (Attachment 1). The Project consultant team (AECOM) recently completed Phase I Task 2: Identify Corrective Actions and Perform Feasibility Analysis. This task, with input and review from project stakeholders, identified and reviewed the feasibility of various preliminary corrective actions and refined the Project goals to reflect the diverse perspectives and different land uses represented within the Project area. The final Feasibility Analysis, including the Project goals as confirmed by the Project stakeholders are found in Attachment 2. The General Manager recommends Board of Directors (Board) adoption of the Project goals to establish clear and well-defined goals for protecting the sustainability of the newt population for the foreseeable future while accepting that not all newt road mortality can be eliminated. District Grants Program staff, with support of Project stakeholders, identified potential Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB) funding for Phase II (VP22-002 – Alma Bridge Road Wildlife Passage) to advance the project into environmental review, design and permitting. Grants Program staff will continue to identify potential funding for additional Phase II work and Phase III implementation. BACKGROUND In November 2017, a dedicated trail patrol volunteer first observed and began recording newt roadkill on Alma Bridge Road. The District and other Project stakeholders were made aware of the issue and began to further investigate by working with a consultant biologist to analyze R-23-54 Page 2 volunteer collected data. That effort led to the Alma Bridge Road-Related Newt Mortality Study that was completed in November 2021. The Study found a 39.2% road-based mortality rate of newts during migration to and from Lexington reservoir for breeding. Modeling predicts this level of mortality may result in a reduction of the population and possible local extirpation in approximately 57 years. Based on community science, advocacy, and results from the Alma Bridge Road-Related Newt Mortality Study (Study), the County, as the owner of the Right-of-Way known as Alma Bridge Road, and the District, whose mission is in part “to protect and restore the natural environment”, entered into a Cooperative Agreement for Phase I of the Project to provide wildlife passage (specifically for California newt) across Alma Bridge Road adjacent to Lexington Reservoir in Santa Clara County. Phase I includes feasibility analysis, initial design, and environmental and engineering services. At the completion of Phase I, the County and District will consider amending the Cooperative Agreement to complete future phases of the Project. Early preliminary Project studies were funded by Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) and the District. Phase I work is funded by the District and the County. District Grants Program staff confirmed with the Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB) that the District is eligible to apply for WCB funding for Phase II to advance the Project into environmental review, design and permitting. The grant application requires Board approval of a resolution before it can be brought to the WCB Board for consideration. If the application is supported by WCB staff, District staff will bring a resolution to the District Board for approval. Should funding be awarded by the WCB, Phase II work would begin in Fiscal Year 2023-24 (FY24). DISCUSSION Project goals were developed during Phase I with input and review from Project stakeholders comprised of both government and non-government agencies and organizations. The Project Goals are to: • Reduce roadkill and provide habitat connectivity to sustain the local newt population • Be correctly scaled – i.e., can be designed, environmentally cleared, permitted, and implemented • Be cost effective • Be maintainable • Not impede road safety, hydrology, or public use • Facilitate existing and future use of Alma Bridge Road and the surrounding areas and facilities: o Allow continued vehicle use of the roadway and parking areas o Allow continued and future recreational access to existing facilities and trails, as well as future parking and trails (such as the former Beatty Trust property Parking Area and Trails Project) • Have support from stakeholders These goals are included in the final Feasibility Analysis (Attachment 2) and the WCB grant application for Phase II and are supported by Project stakeholders. R-23-54 Page 3 Feasibility Analysis During Phase I, AECOM prepared a Feasibility Analysis that studied the Alma Bridge Road right-of-way east of Lexington Reservoir. This analysis included months of collaboration between AECOM, the District, technical experts, and Project stakeholders. Work began in September 2022 to examine environmental and engineering constraints and opportunities. AECOM and technical experts from the team developed a suite of built and non-built Corrective Action combinations to reduce newt mortality within identified roadkill Priority Zones. The Corrective Actions were informed by the Task 1 Technical Review. Priority Zones were identified where corrective actions would be installed to potentially achieve the Project goals of decreased California newt mortality and increased habitat permeability. Combinations of options were analyzed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) subconsultant team for their predicted effects on newt population viability, mortality, and permeability. Those that achieved the Project objectives of no further newt population decline and increased permeability were analyzed further and combined into a suite of four preliminary alternatives that were then evaluated for environmental and engineering feasibility. The findings of this rigorous process comprise the final Feasibility Analysis (Attachment 2). Further refinement of the four preliminary alternatives is underway between AECOM, the District, and County Roads to better understand design constraints and opportunities that will inform the decision on which of the preliminary Alternatives to advance into more detailed evaluation and refinement. Advancement of alternatives for additional review will require County approval. Final County and District approval will depend on further analysis and refinement. Refinement may include adjusting the number, type, location etc., of corrective actions within each alternative to ensure they can be built and maintained while still meeting Project goals. Public Engagement During Phase I, AECOM developed a stakeholder working group by outreaching to existing partner and stakeholder agencies, environmental advocacy groups, neighbors, and recreational user organizations. The final stakeholder working group was formed with representatives from the following groups: Partner and stakeholder agency representatives: • California Department of Fish and Wildlife • Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) • Santa Clara County Parks • Santa Clara Valley Water District • Santa Clara County Roads and Airports (County Roads) • Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) • San Jose Water Company Neighbors: • Five individuals who live and/or work in the Project area, including a representative from Vulcan Materials Company who operates the Lexington Quarry Environmental Advocacy Groups: • Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society • Center for Biological Diversity • Sierra Club R-23-54 Page 4 Recreational Users: • Bay Area Ridge Trail • Los Gatos Rowing Club • Santa Cruz Mountains Trail Stewardship In addition, representatives from the USGS, Community Scientist Newt Patrol, and a local consulting firm, H.T. Harvey (for project continuity), are members of the AECOM project team. The stakeholder working group meets at key milestones to review Project materials, disseminate information to their larger groups and provide feedback to the Project team during development of key deliverables. To date, two of three identified stakeholder meetings and a site visit with applicable stakeholders has been completed. The stakeholder group is supportive of District and County efforts to apply for WCB funding for Phase II and provided letters of support for the grant application. Preliminary Alternatives Preliminary Alternatives identified in the Feasibility Analysis include wildlife crossing structures ranging from a two-lane vehicular bridge, to elevated roadway segments with repeating purpose- built passage structures and associated features, to micro passages and associated fencing for directing newts to the crossings in three identified priority zones throughout the Project area. See Figures 5a-5d of the Feasibility Analysis. Effectiveness of the preliminary treatment alternatives, if implemented, ranges from a 56 to 84% increase in newt population size after 30 years and would achieve newt population persistence to year 100. Preliminary treatment alternatives would treat between 56 and 68% of the newt population that crosses the road within the Project footprint. Construction costs to implement the preliminary treatment alternatives range from $1M to $40M dollars. It is not anticipated that the higher cost alternative ($21M-40M) will advance unless other alternatives ($1M –10M) are determined to be infeasible to construct and maintain. Costs will continue to be refined during remaining Phase I tasks (Alternatives Analysis/Basis of Design) and during Phase II Project Design. The estimated timeline for planning, design and implementation of each alternative ranges from 2.5 to 8 total years (beginning in fall 2023). Final timeline depends on which alternative is selected, level of environmental review required, design requirements, and if implementation is phased over time (funding dependent). See Table 9 of the Feasibility Analysis for a detailed summary of Project alternatives, effectiveness, cost, schedule and other factors. WCB Funding The Fiscal Year 2020-21 State Budget passed by the state legislature and signed by the Governor on June 29, 2020 reappropriated $10,000,000 in funding to the WCB. The original $10 million appropriation requested by Senator Beall was to support San Jose Water Company land acquisitions. The Senator secured an expanded use of the funds at the time of reappropriation to include a broader array of public benefits that align with the District’s mission, including R-23-54 Page 5 reduction in barriers to wildlife mobility and improvements for habitat connectivity. A total of $2,120,000 of this funding, administered by WCB in a non-competitive grant process, may potentially support the Project and deliverables for Phase II. Anticipated WCB review of the District’s full grant application proposal is expected to take place in advance of the August 2023 WCB Board meeting. If the proposal is recommended to advance by WCB, District staff will bring a resolution for Board consideration authorizing the General Manager to negotiate and enter into a grant funding agreement prior to the WCB Board meeting. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed FY24 budget for the Alma Bridge Road Wildlife Passage VP22-002 project includes $500,000 to cover consultant, environmental and engineering costs through the end of the fiscal year. If WCB funds are awarded, the Project would receive approximately $2,120,000 in grant funding to support Phase II of the project. The current projected total budget does not include additional Phase II costs estimated between $2.6 to $6.3 million or the estimated construction costs ranging from $1 million to $40 million (depending on level of complexity of the selected alternative). Alma Bridge Road Wildlife Passage VP22-002 Prior Year Actuals FY24 Projected FY25 Projected FY26 Projected Estimated Future Years TOTAL Total Budget: $0 $500,000 $250,000 $1,250,000 $130,000 $2,130,000 Spent-to-Date (as of 05/03/23): $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Encumbrances: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Remaining (Proposed): $0 $500,000 $250,000 $1,250,000 $130,000 $2,130,000 This project is not currently funded by Measure AA. However, implementation of capital improvements may be eligible for Measure AA reimbursements and/or additional grant funds. This project supports MAA portfolio 22: Sierra Azul—Cathedral Oaks Public Access and Conservation Projects. PRIOR BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW • PNR meeting (R-20-07, Minutes) on January 14, 2020. Newt migration across Alma Bridge Road area was described in a Biological and Cultural Resources Opportunities and Constraints Memo for the District's Beatty Parking Area and Trails Project. • FYI on July 8, 2020. Discussed District and other stakeholder roles in relation to efforts being undertaken to study and reduce newt mortality along Alma Bridge Road. • PNR meeting (R-20-83, Minutes) on August 4, 2020. Provided an update on a proposed newt study for Alma Bridge Road and identified a seasonal permit only option for the Beatty Parking Area and Trails Project until newt enhancements could be studied and implemented. R-23-54 Page 6 • Board Agenda Item (R-20-104, Minutes) on September 23, 2020. Authorized a Funding Agreement with Peninsula Open Space Trust to conduct a Newt Mortality and Population Study along Alma Bridge Road in collaboration with partners. • FYI dated December 8, 2021. Provided results of Alma Bridge Road-Related Newt Mortality Study and restated Board direction to defer Beatty Parking Lot and Trails Project until a design solution to reduce newt mortality along Alma Bridge Road is identified. • Board Agenda Item (R-22-61, Minutes) on May 25, 2022 to Award a Professional Services Contract to provide Feasibility Studies, prepare an Alternatives Analysis and Preliminary Wildlife Crossing Design, and associated Environmental and Engineering Services to improve Wildlife Connectivity for Newts across Alma Bridge Road • FYI dated January 11, 2023. Provided a project update that a stakeholder working group had been established for the Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project, background review completed, and identified next steps to be undertaken to continue to advance the project and identify feasible corrective actions to reduce road related newt mortality. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE The Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Feasibility Analysis is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Environmental review is anticipated to occur in a future fiscal year, pending Board approval of a final recommended Project alternative. Application for grant funding is not a project subject to CEQA. NEXT STEPS If approved by the Board, the General Manager will apply for WCB funding to support Phase II of the Project. The Project team will continue working on Phase I tasks for the remainder of this fiscal year and into the upcoming fiscal year (FY24), including: • Evaluate and refine preliminary alternatives and prepare a basis of design • Ongoing stakeholder collaboration and stakeholder meetings • Bring final Alternatives Analysis, Basis of Design, Recommended Alternatives(s) and CEQA approach to the Board for approval in late summer/fall 2023 o Amend County Cooperative Agreement to include Phase II o Amend AECOM contract to begin Phase II • If grant application is supported by WCB, bring the associated grant agreement to the Board in fall 2023 • Begin Phase II in fall/winter 2023 • Continue to update to the Project website to keep interested parties informed Attachment(s) 1. Project Area Map 2. Feasibility Analysis R-23-54 Page 7 Responsible Department Heads: Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Department Manager and Stefan Jaskulak, Chief Financial Officer, Administrative Services Prepared by: Julie Andersen, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources Department and Deborah Hirst, Grants Program Manager, Administrative Services Contact person: Julie Andersen, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources Department Graphics prepared by: AECOM LosGatosBlvd BearCreekRd Ke n n edy Rd E M a i n S t ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 RinconCreek B l a c k C r e e k ShearCreek Guadalupe C reek Ross Creek Moo d y G u l c h Z ayant e Cr eek B r i g g s C r e e k Los Ga t os C r e e k Aldercroft Creek H e n d r y s C r e e k P h easant Cre e k B e a r C r e e k Los Gatos C r e ek T r o u t Creek LexingtonReservoir Lake RanchReservoir HowellReservoir TisdaleReservoir LexingtonHills Los Gatos S a n t a C l a r a C o u n t y S a n t a C r u z C o u n t y AlmaBridge Rd Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(Midpen) 8/15/2022 Figure 1: Project Location Created By: sally.shatford Path: \\na.aecomnet.com\lfs\AMER\Oakland-USOAK01\DCS\Projects\GIS\Projects\60687532_AlmaBridgeRoad\02_Maps\02_Report_Maps\Technical Review\Figure 1_Project Location.mxd 0 10.5 MilesI 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. Area ofDetail ÄÆ101 MontereyBay ÄÆ680 ÄÆ880 ÄÆ280 San JoseSunnyvale Santa Cruz Study Area (along Alma Bridge Rd) Midpen Open Access Other Protected Land ATTACHMENT 1 i Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis (Phase I, Task 2) Prepared by: AECOM 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 T: 510.893.3600 F: 510.874.3268 www.aecom.com April 12, 2023 ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 i Table of Contents 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Task 1 ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2. Task 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3. Task 3 ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Corrective Action Opportunities ................................................................................................................. 5 2.1. Corrective Actions ................................................................................................................................................................ 6 2.1.1. Type 4 Purpose-Built Passage Structure ......................................................................................................... 7 2.1.2. Type 5 Micro-Passage ............................................................................................................................................ 8 2.1.3. Type 6 Elevated Road Segment ........................................................................................................................... 8 2.1.4. Modified Cattle Grate ............................................................................................................................................... 9 2.2. Corrective Action Constraints ........................................................................................................................................ 10 3. Preliminary Investigation Site Visit .......................................................................................................... 12 4. Site-Specific Corrective Actions ............................................................................................................. 13 4.1. Wildlife Crossing Conceptual Design Workshop...................................................................................................... 13 4.1.1. Priority Zones ........................................................................................................................................................... 14 4.1.2. Options ...................................................................................................................................................................... 16 5. Effectiveness Modeling ............................................................................................................................... 27 5.1. Effectiveness Modeling Part 1 ........................................................................................................................................ 27 5.1.1. Scenarios (Part 1) ................................................................................................................................................... 27 5.1.2. Discussion (Part 1) .................................................................................................................................................. 30 5.2. Effectiveness Modeling Part 2 ........................................................................................................................................ 30 5.2.1. Scenarios (Part 2) .................................................................................................................................................... 30 5.2.2. Discussion (Part 2) .................................................................................................................................................. 31 6. Preliminary Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 34 6.1. Preliminary Alternative 1 ................................................................................................................................................... 34 6.2. Preliminary Alternative 2 ................................................................................................................................................... 34 6.3. Preliminary Alternative 3 ................................................................................................................................................... 34 6.4. Preliminary Alternative 4 ................................................................................................................................................... 38 7. Feasibility Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 41 7.1. Alternative 1 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 41 7.1.1. Corrective Actions .................................................................................................................................................. 41 7.1.2. Alternative 1 Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 44 7.2. Alternative 2 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 46 7.2.1. Corrective Actions .................................................................................................................................................. 46 7.2.2. Alternative 2 Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 49 7.3. Alternative 3 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 50 7.3.1. Corrective Actions .................................................................................................................................................. 50 7.3.2. Alternative 3 Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 53 7.4. Alternative 4 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 55 7.4.1. Corrective Actions .................................................................................................................................................. 55 ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 ii 7.4.2. Alternative 4 Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 57 7.5. Secondary Zone ................................................................................................................................................................... 59 7.5.1. Traffic Control and Calming................................................................................................................................. 59 7.5.2. Other Considerations ............................................................................................................................................ 60 8. Feasibility Analysis Findings ...................................................................................................................... 62 8.1. Alternative Effectiveness Modeling Summary .......................................................................................................... 62 8.2. Corrective Action Constraints ........................................................................................................................................ 62 8.3. Phased Implementation ..................................................................................................................................................... 63 8.4. Additional Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................... 63 8.4.1. Adaptive Management and Monitoring ........................................................................................................... 63 8.4.2. Future Studies .......................................................................................................................................................... 64 8.5. Feasibility Analysis Limitations ....................................................................................................................................... 65 9. References ........................................................................................................................................................ 72 List of Figures Figure 1. Project Location ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Priority and Secondary Zones .......................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 3a. Zone 1 – Option 1: Bridge (+ partial road closure) ................................................................................................... 17 Figure 3b. Zone 1 – Option 2: Elevated Road Segment (“Straightaway”) *and* Option 2a: Alternating Dedicated Wildlife Crossing Structures (“Hairpin”) ..................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 3c. Zone 1 – Option 2b: Elevated Road Segment (“Extended Straightaway”) *and* Option 3: Dedicated Wildlife Crossing Structures (“Curve”) ....................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 3d. Zone 2 and 2a – Option 4: Elevated Road Segment and Micro-passages ..................................................... 20 Figure 3e. Zone 2 and 2a – Option 5: Elevated Road Segment ............................................................................................... 21 Figure 3f. Zone 3 – Option 6: Elevated Road Segment and Micro-passages .................................................................... 22 Figure 3g. Zone 3 – Option 7: Elevated Road Segment ............................................................................................................. 23 Figure 3h. Secondary Zone ................................................................................................................................................................. 24 Figure 4. Modeled newt abundance over time for all scenarios ............................................................................................. 33 Figure 5a. Preliminary Alternative 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 35 Figure 5b. Preliminary Alternative 2 ................................................................................................................................................. 36 Figure 5c. Preliminary Alternative 3 .................................................................................................................................................. 37 Figure 5d. Preliminary Alternative 4 ................................................................................................................................................. 39 Figure 6. Proposed Bay Area Ridge Trails ...................................................................................................................................... 61 Figure 7. Preliminary Utility Locations ............................................................................................................................................. 66 List of Tables Table 1. Preliminary Corrective Action Opportunities Identified ............................................................................................. 5 Table 2. Description of Priority Zone Options .............................................................................................................................. 16 Table 3. Effectiveness Modeling Scenario Description and Rank ......................................................................................... 28 Table 4: Effectiveness of Preliminary Alternatives ..................................................................................................................... 40 Table 5. Preliminary Feasibility Analysis for Alternative 1 ........................................................................................................ 42 Table 6. Preliminary Feasibility Analysis for Alternative 2 ........................................................................................................ 47 Table 7. Preliminary Feasibility Analysis for Alternative 3 ........................................................................................................ 50 Table 8. Preliminary Feasibility Analysis for Alternative 4 ........................................................................................................ 55 Table 9. Summary of Feasibility Analysis for Preliminary Alternatives 1 through 4 and Secondary Zone .............. 68 ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 1 1. Introduction Since 2017, approximately 29,000 California newts (Taricha torosa) have been recorded dead on the road as the result of vehicle traffic along Alma Bridge Road where it borders the east side of Lexington Reservoir in Santa Clara County, California (Newt Patrol 2022, Parsons 2021) (Figure 1). At an estimated road mortality rate for migratory newts of 39.2%, this local population may be under possible threat of extirpation (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2021, Wilkinson and Romansic 2022). Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) and partner Santa Clara County, along with project stakeholders Valley Water and Peninsula Open Space Trust, are looking to provide safe road passage for California newts, rough-skinned newts (T. granulosa), and other herpetofauna species across Alma Bridge Road. This effort is collectively referred to as the Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project (Project). Project goals were developed to address the local roadkill threat to California newts and other migratory herpetofauna in a manner that is feasible, evidence-based, cost effective, and maintains recreational and other human uses of the Alma Bridge Road area. The Project Goals are to: • Reduce roadkill and provide habitat connectivity to sustain the local newt population • Be correctly scaled – can be designed, environmentally cleared, permitted, and implemented • Be cost effective • Be maintainable • Not impede road safety, hydrology, or public use • Facilitate existing and future use of Alma Bridge Road and the surrounding areas and facilities o Continued vehicle use of the roadway and parking areas o Continued and future recreational access to existing facilities and trails, as well as future parking and trails (such as the former Beatty Trust property Parking Area and Trails Project) • Have support from stakeholders - comprised of both government and non-government agencies and organizations (District; County; CDFW; Peninsula Open Space Trust; and Valley Water); neighborhood representatives including the local quarry and nearby residents; advocacy group representatives (Audubon Society, Center for Biological Diversity, and Sierra Club); and recreational user group representatives (Bay Area Ridge Trail, Los Gatos Rowing Club and Sant Cruz Mountain Trail Stewards) These goals and the Project itself are the product of collaboration between diverse Project partners and stakeholders. Through Midpen’s commitment to an inclusive process, the Project will continue to seek and incorporate the input of the community to meet these goals and identify the best solution for wildlife, commuters, residents, and recreationalists. To put the Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project in perspective, this is among one of the first wildlife connectivity improvement projects in California to apply a rigorous feasibility analysis to inform project design, all backed by modeling the effectiveness of various Corrective Action opportunities project-wide together with a consideration of non-environmental constraints such as engineering, design, cost, schedule, and recreation use. Specifically, this project is taking advantage of expected permeability modeling early in the conceptual design phase based on passage size and passage structure characteristics paired with what is known about migrating amphibians from existing road ecology literature (e.g., turn-around distances) to plan for population persistence. ATTACHMENT 2 LosGatosBlvd BearCreekRd Ke n n edy Rd E M a i n S t ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 RinconCreek B l a c k C r e e k ShearCreek Guadalupe C reek Ross Creek Moo d y G u l c h Z ayant e Cr eek B r i g g s C r e e k Los Ga t os C r e e k Aldercroft Creek H e n d r y s C r e e k P h easant Cre e k B e a r C r e e k Los Gatos C r e ek T r o u t Creek LexingtonReservoir Lake RanchReservoir HowellReservoir TisdaleReservoir LexingtonHills Los Gatos S a n t a C l a r a C o u n t y S a n t a C r u z C o u n t y AlmaBridge Rd Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(Midpen) 8/15/2022 Figure 1: Project Location Created By: sally.shatford Path: \\na.aecomnet.com\lfs\AMER\Oakland-USOAK01\DCS\Projects\GIS\Projects\60687532_AlmaBridgeRoad\02_Maps\02_Report_Maps\Technical Review\Figure 1_Project Location.mxd 0 10.5 MilesI 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. Area ofDetail ÄÆ101 MontereyBay ÄÆ680 ÄÆ880 ÄÆ280 San JoseSunnyvale Santa Cruz Study Area (along Alma Bridge Rd) Midpen Open Access Other Protected Land ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 3 1.1. Task 1 Under Task 1 of the Project, AECOM prepared the Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project – Technical Review (Technical Review) Memorandum in October 2022 (AECOM 2022). This Technical Memorandum provides a review of the Project history, the natural history of the California newt, existing site conditions as they relate to Alma Bridge Road as a dispersal and migration impediment between upland habitat and breeding habitat at Lexington Reservoir, road crossing best management practices (BMPs), crossing design guidance, and Corrective Action opportunities. The Technical Memorandum also provides background information on the environmental and physical setting, along with land ownership, land use, and recreation uses. Collectively, this information was prepared to better understand the constraints and opportunities posed by the current conditions at Alma Bridge Road, inform the understanding of existing newt natural history at the site, and help identify measures to anticipate future public access, including parking and trail connections on the former Beatty Trust property. The Technical Review also established the background which any recommended or novel-built or non-built “Corrective Actions” may be applied to decrease newt mortality and increase habitat permeability under subsequent Project tasks. In particular, the Technical Review established two possible thresholds to determine whether Corrective Actions measurably decrease newt mortality and increase habitat permeability based on the previously prepared Population Growth Model (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2021). Specifically, reducing road-based mortality to between 17.667% and 20% would allow the population to persist beyond 200 years, but the population would slowly decline. However, reducing the mortality rate to 17.667% or less (an approximately 45% reduction from current levels) would sustain the population at its current size beyond 200 years (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2021). The Technical Review also provides a high-level review of past studies, road crossing BMPs, and crossing design guidance (Task 1) pertaining to this Project. This Technical Review helps identify and recommend future Corrective Actions and feasibility analyses (Tasks 2 and 3). 1.2. Task 2 Under Task 2 of the Project, AECOM has prepared this Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis (Feasibility Analysis). This is the product of months of collaboration between AECOM, Midpen, technical experts, and stakeholders. The work began with a September 26, 2022 site visit (see Section 3) to examine environmental and engineering constraints and opportunities. Following the site visit, AECOM and technical experts from the team developed a suite of novel-built and non-built Corrective Action combinations (“Options”) (see Section 4.1.2) to mitigate the road mortality recorded within a particular Priority Zone (see Section 4.1.1). The Corrective Actions identified were informed by the Task 1 Technical Review. Options were combined across Priority Zones into “Scenarios” (see Section 5) which, in concert with each other, would potentially achieve the Project goals of decreased California newt mortality and increased habitat permeability. These Scenarios were then analyzed by the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) team for their predicted effects on newt population viability, mortality, and permeability (see Section 5.1). Those Scenarios that achieved the Project objectives of no further decline and increased permeability were analyzed further (see Section 5.2) and combined into a final suite of four “Alternatives” (see Section 6). Each Alternative was then evaluated for its environmental and engineering feasibility (see Section 7). The findings of this rigorous process are synthesized in the following Feasibility Analysis. Although environmental considerations were used as the basis for establishing Zones, Corrective Action placement, and preliminary Alternatives, this Feasibility Analysis considered other, equally important factors such as engineering, permitting, public safety, cost, and schedule that could be triggered by the implementation of any Alternative. All such considerations are given equal weight, and the findings of this preliminary process are described and discussed in the sections that follow. Preliminary feedback from County Roads suggests that certain aspects of Corrective Actions discussed herein may not be feasible due to safety concerns. Further refinement is currently underway between AECOM, ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 4 Midpen, and County Roads to better understand the constraints and opportunities associated with each Corrective Action, Option, and Alternative to inform the Alternatives that will advance to Task 3 for more detailed evaluation. 1.3. Task 3 Under Task 3 of the Project, AECOM will prepare an Alternatives Evaluation/Basis of Design technical memorandum that will further refine the preliminary Project alternatives based on input provided by Stakeholders during Task 2. The Alternatives Evaluation will include a more thorough review of potential environmental impacts and anticipated mitigation requirements, required regulatory permits, impacts to existing facilities, hydraulic and hydrology, maintenance needs, constructability, and high-level cost estimates with an emphasis on a subset of the Alternatives. As part of this task, the AECOM team will also develop a Basis of Design (BOD) that will include the proposed Corrective Actions as alternatives, the design criteria, the decision-making process, draft schedule, preliminary construction costs as order of magnitude, permits required, proposed CEQA approach, and project phasing. The findings of the Alternatives Evaluation and BOD will be used to prepare an Alma Bridge Road Wildlife Connectivity Improvements Project – Alternatives Evaluation/Basis of Design technical memorandum that will recommend a suite of Alternatives from the menu of proposed or novel Corrective Actions identified in the Feasibility Analysis. This evaluation will address the following considerations: • Rationale (decision making process, constructability) • Type(s) of structures • Placement location(s) • Extent (number/frequency) • Dimensions • Design criteria • Preliminary hydraulics/hydrology calculations • Tentative schedule • Project phasing recommendations • Preliminary cost (material) estimate (order of magnitude) for each corrective action • Construction costs (labor) • Identification of (a) scale, (b) equipment, and (c) timing needed to perform ongoing maintenance of each corrective action (if needed) This evaluation will also address a recommended CEQA approach and permitting strategy that covers: • Permitting analysis (permits required), recommendations, and constraints for each corrective action alternative • Review of pre-construction, construction and post-construction mitigation and monitoring requirements (if any) When completed, this Alternatives Evaluation/BOD technical memorandum will provide a menu of options for the Midpen Board of Directors and Project Partners to consider two to three Alternatives during Phase 2. ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 5 2. Corrective Action Opportunities The Task 1 Technical Review (AECOM 2022) identified the following “Corrective Actions” (Table 1) that may simultaneously decrease newt mortality and increase habitat permeability. Together, these Corrective Actions were used to inform the preliminary investigation site visit and feasibility analysis, herein. Table 1. Preliminary Corrective Action Opportunities Identified Corrective Action Type Corrective Action Goal Wildlife Passage System Crossing Structures Type 1A (mountain/hill tunnel) Direct wildlife movement over roadway Type 1B (open span bridge) Direct wildlife movement under roadway Type 2 (small [60-120 ft] open span bridge) Direct wildlife movement under roadway Type 3 (small road underpass) Direct wildlife movement under roadway Type 4 (small culvert) Direct wildlife movement under roadway Type 5 (small culvert/passage) Direct wildlife movement under roadway Type 6 (microbridge/elevated road segment [ERS]) Raise traffic above movement corridor Barriers Guide Walls Redirect wildlife movement Fencing 1 Redirect wildlife movement Traffic Control and Calming Signage Destination and Distance Signs Shorten route(s), minimize travel time and distance Street Name Signs Shorten route(s), minimize travel time and distance Advance Street Name Signs Shorten route(s), minimize travel time and distance Islands and Medians Raised Island Discourage additional traffic to the area Channelizing Island Discourage additional traffic to the area Transverse Rumble Strip Markings and Perceptual Treatments Rumble Strips Heighten driver awareness to speed reduction Perceptual Treatments Heighten driver awareness to speed reduction Speed Bumps/Speed Humps Speed Bumps/Humps Discourage additional traffic to the area Lighting Directional Lighting Discourage species residency Lighting Existing Signs Heighten driver awareness of newt crossing Temporary Area and Road Closures and/or Permit Only Road Usage (considered but not feasible) Temporary (or Seasonal) Area Closures or Permit Only Use Lessen traffic during peak migration periods Temporary (or Seasonal) Road Closures or permit only use Eliminate traffic during peak migration months Habitat Creation 1 Temporary fencing to redirect wildlife to Type 5 micro-passages could require annual inspections, maintenance, and periodic replacement in perpetuity. Temporary fencing placement would be determined during future design phases of the Project ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 6 Corrective Action Type Corrective Action Goal Accessible Breeding Habitat Establish New Breeding Sites Direct wildlife to breed in created ponds east of the roadway to provide alternative breeding locations for the local newt population In addition to a Type 1B bridge, four additional Corrective Action crossing structure types were identified during Task 1 that are further explored here in Task 2. Each of these crossing structure types are described in more detail below. During the selection process, other Corrective Actions were considered that were determined infeasible due to site constraints and the resulting engineering, permitting, maintenance, public safety, and recreation consequences (among others) and their influence on inhibiting the Project from sufficiently decreasing newt mortality and increasing habitat permeability. The rationale behind why certain Corrective Actions were not advanced, and why some of those Corrective Actions that were advanced may not be feasible due to safety concerns, is addressed below. 2.1. Corrective Actions In addition to a Type 1B bridge, four primary Corrective Actions identified during Task 1 were identified for further consideration during the Wildlife Crossing Conceptual Design Workshops (see Section 4.1): • Type 4 purpose-built passage structure with built-in guide walls and climbing barriers, • Type 5 micro-passage with directional fencing, • Type 6 elevated road segment, and • Modified cattle grate. In general, any corrective action utilizing an elevated road segment would involve the use of Type 4 purpose- built passage structures, and modified cattle grates are recommended at the beginning and end of any elevated road segment. The exact lengths and placements of directional fencing associated with Type 5 micro-passages and modified cattle grates will be determined during Task 3, based on finer scale review of exact site conditions. Additionally, any recommendations for Corrective Action types may change during subsequent review of crossing structure Type designs in Task 3; for example, a recommendation for repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures may be replaced by Type 6 elevated road segments if the recommended frequency or the modified design specifications of the purpose-built Type 4 passage structure more closely matches the characteristics of a Type 6 elevated road segment. Due to the current traffic/usage level of the road, including Alma Bridge Road’s emergency access designation, road closures and/or permit only use of the road is not considered feasible. Furthermore, these options would divert road traffic onto other local roadways, preclude and limit recreational use of the area, and be challenging to effectively implement and enforce. Given this, permanent road closures are not considered further as a potential Corrective Action. Furthermore permanent closure of Alma Bridge Road is not feasible because California law sets forth limitations on permanently closing roads. Alma Bridge Road is under the jurisdiction of the County of Santa Clara, whereby Streets & Highways Code (“SHC”) Section 942.5 states that a county may only permanently close a county highway when the closing is necessary for protection of the public, protection of the highway during storms, or during construction/improvement/maintenance operations. Vehicle Code (“VC”) Section 21101 only allows for permanent road closure when the road is no longer needed for vehicular traffic. Any “full” road closures described in this document refer specifically to temporary closures that could take place in Zone 1 under Option 1 during the construction of the bridge, which may be necessary for a limited time to establish the primary staging area, import bridge materials, or during the construction of the landward footing(s). ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 7 Culvert modifications were considered as part of Task 1 and Task 2 analyses and feasibility studies but were not identified as an optimal solution. To optimize an existing culvert to serve the double purpose as a drainage culvert and a wildlife crossing would require directional fencing that may impair the culvert’s primary drainage functions on the uphill side. During high-flow events, the drainage culvert would become inaccessible to wildlife movement in both directions. Those drainage culverts in the Project area that terminate on the down-hill side via an overhanging culvert would need to be shortened flush with the embankment, which would require energy dissipation measures such as rip-rap or an apron to reduce erosive conditions that could impair wildlife movement approaching the culverts from the Reservoir side (heading east) and could require earthmoving, additional permitting, and maintenance, as well as landowner coordination, encroachment permits, licenses, and land rights acquisitions. 2.1.1. Type 4 Purpose-Built Passage Structure Type 4 passage structures typically consist of small to medium sized (< 10 ft wide) box culverts or drainage culverts that may serve the primary purpose of drainage (i.e., any dry, ephemeral, intermittent, or annual drainage structure), or may be instead repurposed or purpose-built to address wildlife movement (Illustration A). Type 4 passage structures are typically repurposed culverts constructed from concrete, galvanized steel, or High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE), and can be square, rectangular, arched, round, half or three-quarters round (FHWA 2011, Langton and Clevenger 2021). Elevated road segments would require raising the road above the existing grade to a height of between 8 inches up to two feet. Illustration A. Examples of Type 4 Passage Structures. Variations include design considerations to facilitate drainage as a primary or secondary function, material, size, shape, and substrate (e.g., soil vs concrete bottom) type. Such structures may be designed to accommodate a wet channel or moist passage base and may include a grated top to provide ambient lighting and easy access for maintenance. (Source: https://www.fs.usda.gov/wildlifecrossings/glossary/common-types2.php ) At Alma Bridge Road, several Type 4 passage structures could be considered, including pre-cast box culverts, bridge culverts (i.e. a specific type of culvert whose design is technically similar in form and function to a formal bridge, but on a reduced scale), and/or culverts that would be designed with either a horizontal or drain-style metal grate on the road level (see Illustration A. “slotted drain”). A grated top to the culvert would provide easier access for routine maintenance, and allow for ambient lighting necessary for migratory orientation and continuous ambient moisture to enhance permeability for migrating newts. A grated top may also require additional maintenance, upkeep, repair, and replacement, and may require additional design considerations for pedestrian and bicycle safety. Type 4 culverts may either have a concrete or natural soil bottom throughout the passage. Any at-grade grate-work in the active roadway would be bicycle-proof for visitor safety. Repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures would be placed at regularly spaced intervals (“repeating”) along/underneath elevated road segments that would serve the primary purpose of wildlife movement and ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 8 would include built-in guide walls and climbing barrier. Type 4 passage structures are also likely to convey runoff under the roadway when located in low lying areas. Additional analysis of the hydrologic and hydraulic conditions specific to the placement of a Type 4 passage structure would be required. Use of Type 4 passage structures may require the placement of energy dissipation measures such as an apron to prevent erosive conditions due to increased velocities at newly formed concentrated outfall locations. 2.1.2. Type 5 Micro-Passage Type 5 structures typically consist of smaller (< 3 ft wide, 17-20 inch tall) at-grade drainage culverts that may serve the primary purpose of drainage (i.e., any dry, ephemeral, or intermittent drainage structure), as well as purpose-built wildlife micro-passages designed for wildlife movement (Illustration B). Exact dimensions of the crossing may vary depending on the road conditions. Type 5 crossing structures are sometimes achieved through the repurposing or construction of small cross-road drainage culverts constructed from concrete, galvanized steel, or HDPE, or the installation of purpose-built commercial wildlife passage structures, often designed specifically for reptiles and amphibians (FHWA 2011, Langton and Clevenger 2021). Illustration B. Examples of Type 5 Micro-passages. Micro-passages flush with the road surface maximize exposure to ambient environmental conditions and weather, including prevailing light and rainfall conditions. (Langton and Clevenger 2021) At Alma Bridge Road, the recommended Type 5 crossing structures proposed for use throughout the project (where indicated) would consist of a commercial high-strength, slotted surface micro-passage that would serve the primary purpose of wildlife movement. Like the Type 4 passage structures, Type 5 micro-passages are also likely to convey runoff under the roadway when located in low lying areas. Additional analysis of the hydrologic and hydraulic conditions specific to the placement of a Type 5 micro-passages structure would be required. Type 5 micro-passages may require the placement of energy dissipation measures such as an apron to prevent erosive conditions due to increased velocities at newly formed concentrated outfall locations. 2.1.3. Type 6 Elevated Road Segment Type 6 structures typically consist of microbridges and continuous elevated road segments, raising the road between 8 inches up to several feet above an existing roadway, forming a low viaduct (Illustration C). These are ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 9 typically designed to span and preserve existing wildlife movement corridors (Langton and Clevenger 2021, Brehme and Fisher 2021, Brehme et al. 2022). At Alma Bridge Road, the recommended elevated road segment proposed for use throughout the project (where indicated) would require raising the roadway up to 2 feet from existing grade to accommodate Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built-in guide walls and climbing barrier, as previously described, placed at regularly spaced intervals along this portion of road. Built-in guide walls would function to redirect wildlife movement to each Type 4 crossing structure and climbing barriers would prevent wildlife from over-topping the guide wall to access the roadway. Illustration C. Example of a Type 6 Elevated Road Segment, as represented in this abbreviated representative view (Brehme et al. 2022). Typical elevated road segments would be permanent (non-timber, concrete-enforced type structures) and confined to the existing road prism and available shoulder and would consist of a gradually-ramped approach (ramp-up, ramp-down) at either end of one continuous long section. Throughout each continuous elevated road segment, repeating Type 4 passage structures would be placed below the road surface. In each Zone where a section of elevated road segment is proposed, it would consist of a single gradually- ramped approach (ramp-up) ranging anywhere from 50 to 155 feet with approach grades ranging anywhere from 1.40% to 10.0%, with a single gradually-ramped end-point (ramp-down) at the end of the section. No more than one continuous section of elevated road segment would be placed in any one Zone. The shortest distance between sections of elevated road segment is approximately 250 feet between Zone 2 and 2a; however, elsewhere throughout the Project, the estimated distance between elevated road segments would be 750 feet (0.14 mile) between Zone 1 and Zone 2, and 5,560 feet (1.05 miles) between Zone 2a and Zone 3. Throughout each continuous elevated road segment, repeating Type 4 passage structures would be placed below the section of elevated road. Wherever possible, sections of elevated road segment would be placed strategically in line with the existing natural change in elevation of the roadway to ensure that drivers traveling along Alma Bridge Road would not experience a noticeable grade change. The elevated road segments would have minimal impacts to local drainage by allowing runoff that would typically cross the roadway to remain as sheet flow conditions. Ramp placement may have localized drainage impacts but those are anticipated to be minimal. Placed Type 4 passage structures would require additional hydrologic and hydraulic impact analysis. Any elevated roadway structures would be permanent (non-timber, concrete-enforced type structures), confined to the existing road prism and available shoulder (e.g. would not require additional widening), and accommodate bicyclists consistent with existing conditions on-site, and are subject to further design; however, due to the possibility that such structures may require additional maintenance if the underlying Type 4 passage structures cannot be feasibly designed with grated tops, elevated road segments may not ultimately be supported by the County. 2.1.4. Modified Cattle Grate Modified cattle grates typically consist of 8.5-foot-wide cattle grates with an approximately 5-inch-deep open passage below that can facilitate herpetofauna movement but could be modified to accommodate a project’s Repeating Type 4 passage structures ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 10 specific needs (Illustration D). The cattle grate extends across the full width of the roadway and can be constructed with round-top steel pipe, flat-top steel pipe, or steel structural H- and I-beams. Modified cattle grates can function in two ways. When paired with directional fencing alone, modified cattle grates can act as a wildlife passage structure (similar to a Type 4 purpose-build passage structure or a Type 5 micro-passage) by directing wildlife underneath an active roadway. When paired with directional fencing and placed at either end of an elevated road segment, however, modified cattle grates would redirect newts that encounter the grate while approaching the elevated road segment along the road surface. When the newt encounters the open grate, they should fall safely through the openings into the protected passage below, where they can complete their migratory movement without further risk of a vehicle strike. Modified cattle grates require an open end at each side of the road to allow species passage. Illustration D. Example of a Modified Cattle Grate, as represented in this typical cross section from Caltrans SR-108 design. As depicted here, the steel structural I-beams create both an at-grade grated travel surface for vehicles passing overhead, and a travel path below-grade for wildlife traveling between each I-beam. (courtesy of Cheryl Brehme, USGS) At Alma Bridge Road, cattle grates are recommended at either end of elevated road segments and other crossing structures to redirect newts traveling along the road instead of across it. Cattle grates would be outfitted with grating or smooth surface on top to safely accommodate bicycle traffic. 2.2. Corrective Action Constraints Throughout the Project footprint, a limiting factor that influenced where Type 5 micro-passages could be placed was the narrow road shoulders, especially on the uphill (east) side of Alma Bridge Road. For Type 5 micro-passages to function optimally, ample space is required to install directional fencing angled suitably to redirect wildlife away from the active roadway toward the micro-passages. To adequately place micro-passages and directional fencing at these locations where the road shoulders are narrow or non-existent, additional earthmoving activity would be required to construct and place each Type 5 micro- passage. This work would involve additional cutslope and earthmoving, retaining walls, land acquisition, engineering design, permits, natural habitat impact and mitigation, land easements, etc. In contrast, through the use of Type 4 crossing structures along sections of elevated road segments, the raised roadway with built-in guide walls and climbing barriers would double as the wildlife barrier and would not require extensive work on the uphill slope to install. In general, Corrective Actions with a larger opening (Type 4 passage structure) provide greater permeability than smaller openings (Type 5 micro-passage). As such, a greater number of Type 5 micro-passages would be required to achieve the same permeability as a Type 4 passage structure. The installation of repeating Type 5 micro-passages in the existing roadway at a higher frequency could impair the structural integrity of the roadway by creating deficiencies (as a consequence of the installation process) that could compound over ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 11 time, leading to additional inspections and maintenance. Each Type 5 micro-passage would require at-grade directional fencing along both sides of the existing road shoulder that may constrict the travel path and reduce the width of road shoulders for bicyclists and pedestrians, and could be subject to damage from vehicle strikes, leading to additional maintenance costs. Preliminary feedback from County Roads suggests, for example, that elevated road segments paired with Type 4 micro-passages may not be feasible due to safety concerns, and that the installation of repeating Type 5 micro-passages in the existing roadway could impair the structural integrity of the roadway by creating deficiencies. Specifically, the multimodal nature of Alma Bridge Road requires that the roadway remain accessible to multiple users, including vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Depending on site conditions and final design, elevated road segments may constrict the travel path and reduce the width of road shoulders for bicyclists and pedestrians, putting these users at risk. Further refinement is currently underway between AECOM, Midpen, and County Roads to better understand the constraints and opportunities associated with each Corrective Action, Option, and Alternative. Such discussion will inform the Alternatives that advance to Task 3 for rigorous evaluation and ensure the stated goals of sufficiently decreasing newt mortality and increasing habitat permeability are met. ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 12 3. Preliminary Investigation Site Visit The Project team convened for an Alma Bridge Road site visit on September 26, 2022 to ground-truth desktop review findings, collect data on unmapped environmental and road features such as the location of drainage facilities and culverts, and examine the feasibility of numerous crossing Options. Attendees including representatives from Midpen, Santa Clara County Roads and Airports, Santa Clara County Parks, and the AECOM Consulting Team, and numerous technical experts representing various biology and engineering disciplines. In addition to collecting data, the site visit allowed the interdisciplinary team to collaboratively develop unique and cutting-edge solutions and have a productive dialogue on the diverse goals of increased passage success, continued human access for recreational and residential purposes, and sound engineering design. Members of the Project team visited the full extent of Alma Bridge Road along Lexington Reservoir, stopping at the following key locations to discuss opportunities and constraints: • Lexington County Park parking lot (north end of the Project area) • Limekiln Canyon Trail parking area and associated newt mortality hotspot • Priest Rock Trail parking area • Former Beatty Trust property for proposed future parking area • Miller Point parking area • North end of Soda Springs Canyon parking area and associated newt mortality hotspot • South end of Soda Springs Canyon parking area and associated newt mortality hotspot • Cathedral Oaks (South end of the Project area) Additional information about these locations is provided in the Task 1 Technical Review (AECOM 2022). Along the full extent of Alma Bridge Road, data were collected on the mobile application ArcGIS Field Maps to ground-truth and add to existing datasets. Principally, locations of any topographic, hydrological, or engineered feature that may inform the effectiveness of proposed Corrective Actions were collected. These include berms and washouts that impede or divert newt movement; steep slopes and narrow corridors that may inhibit construction of passages and elevated roadways; and existing culverts and drainage facilities that may be retrofitted or otherwise improved to facilitate safe newt passage. The team also collected data on road segments, such as wide intersections and blind turns, that may be appropriate locations for signage, speed control, and other driving behavior-mitigating solutions. For each feature recorded, location data, qualitative descriptions, and, where pertinent, dimensions were recorded on ArcGIS Field Maps. These data were integrated into a webmap on ArcGIS Online, along with other relevant geospatial data from the Newt Patrol, USGS, H.T. Harvey & Associates, HDR Inc., Midpen, Valley Water, and the County. These data were essential to the development of the subsequent Corrective Actions, Options, Scenarios, and Alternatives, as defined in the sections that follow, considered during the Feasibility Analysis task. ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 13 4. Site-Specific Corrective Actions To prescribe site-specific Corrective Actions to the various newt mortality hotspots, three key Priority Zones representing the most important areas for treatment, based on newt mortality hotspot data, were designated. Within each Priority Zone (also referred to simply as a “Zone”), Corrective Actions like elevated road segments and modified cattle grates were combined into “Options” that synergize well to address site-specific mortality. These Options were developed at the Wildlife Crossing Conceptual Design Workshop and are defined and described in greater detail below. 4.1. Wildlife Crossing Conceptual Design Workshop Based on the results of the Task 1 Technical Review and the Task 2 preliminary investigation site visit, Project team subject matter experts, biologist, engineers, hydrologists, and permitting specialists convened as part of a wildlife crossing conceptual design workshop. The intent of the workshop was to arrive at a recommendation of preliminary Scenarios—and eventually Project Alternatives—consisting of possible Corrective Actions Options based on the Project criteria of decreased California newt mortality and increased habitat permeability, while still meeting recreation and residential access needs. Of the Alternatives identified during the workshop, no more than four preliminary Alternatives (i.e., the Preliminary Alternatives) are considered during this formal Feasibility Analysis (Task 2), which will be refined during the forthcoming Alternatives Evaluation/Basis of Design (Task 3). The details of the workshop are described below. On December 1 and December 8, 2022, Project team members Thomas Langton (technical expert), Cheryl Brehme (USGS; technical expert), Dr. Philip Gould (USGS; biostatistics), Dr. Merav Vonshak (Newt Patrol), and Dr. Jeff Wilkinson (H.T. Harvey; technical expert) collaborated with AECOM biologists and engineers and HDR Inc. hydrologists in a conceptual design workshop to identify preliminary Project Alternatives consisting of possible Corrective Actions Options based on Project criteria. The team discussed the engineering, hydrological, and environmental constraints of each proposed Corrective Action and its associated area along Alma Bridge Road. During this workshop, the following naming conventions were established: • Segment: One of 334 discrete 65-foot-long sections along Alma Bridge Road designated to subdivide the Project Footprint for road mortality modeling and analyses. • Priority Zone (Zone): Discrete, designated areas consisting of a subset of segments that encompass a heightened area of newt mortality; four Priority Zones were identified – Zones 1, 2, 2a, and 3) (see Section 4.1.1). • Corrective Action: A single wildlife crossing structure or traffic calming solution implemented to reduce newt mortality (i.e., Type 1 through Type 6 + signage, rumble strips, etc.) proposed at selected segments within a Priority Zone. • Option: A single Corrective Action type (e.g., Type 3), or a combination of several Corrective Action types (e.g., Type 3 + Type 6), assigned to all, or a part of, a Priority Zone to reduce mortality within that Zone (see Section 4.1.2). • Scenarios: A combination of Options across one or several Zones selected for analysis purposes to evaluate their effect as part of the feasibility analysis (see Section 5.1.1). • Alternatives: One, or a combination of multiple, Scenarios evaluated to determine their modeled effects in reducing California newt mortality across the entire Project Footprint (see Section 6.1). The foremost area of evaluation was across Priority Zones. Within each Priority Zones, a combination of Corrective Actions, known as Options, were considered. Each of the four Priority Zones, and the suite of ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 14 Options considered in each Zone, are described below. The Scenarios and Alternatives identified as part of the Effectiveness Modeling are described in Section 5. 4.1.1. Priority Zones Prior to the workshop, the Project Footprint was sub-divided into 334 discrete 65-foot-long (20 m) segments along Alma Bridge Road for analyzing road mortality rates since 2017. All subsequent data analyses and modeling were performed on a per segment basis further subdivided into 3.28 ft (1 m) sections. During the workshop, participants identified three key Priority Zones (Priority Zones 1, 2, and 3), also called “Zones,” that were later modified to include an additional Priority sub-Zone (Priority Zone 2a) (Figure 2). The Priority Zones were labelled from north to south along Alma Bridge Road for the entirety of the Project Area and do not correspond to importance for mortality reduction. Zone 2a, immediately south of Zone 2, was added because the moderate newt mortality observed in this area may increase if traffic changes in response to the development of the former Beatty Trust parking area. These four discrete areas were identified based on the USGS hotspot modeling, which categorized observed newt mortality throughout the Project Footprint from low to high by segment. Hotspots were developed by analyzing Newt Patrol-observed mortality rates over the last five years along Alma Bridge Road (Newt Patrol 2022). Each Priority Zone encompasses an area of heightened newt mortality. Priority Zone 1 Priority Zone 1 is approximately located between stations 2 22+50 and 58+00 (Figure 2) and consists of approximately 0.66 mile (3,504 feet) of the existing 24-ft wide, two-lane county road. Priority Zone 2 Priority Zone 2 is located between stations 61+50 and 76+50 (Figure 2) and consists of approximately 0.29 mile (1,540 feet) of the existing 24-ft wide, two-lane county road. Priority Zone 2a Priority Zone 2a is located between stations 76+50 and 87+00 (Figure 2) and consists of approximately 0.20 mile (1,037 feet) of the existing 24-ft wide, two-lane county road. Priority Zone 2a abuts the south end of Priority Zone 2. Priority Zone 3 Priority Zone 3 is located between stations 144+00 and 172+50 (Figure 2) and consists of approximately 0.54 mile (2,877 feet) of the existing 24-ft wide, two-lane county road. Secondary Zone Alma Bridge Road’s Secondary Zone consists of all road segments between station 3+50 and station 223+50 that fall outside of Priority Zones 1 through 3 (Figure 2). As with the majority of Alma Bridge Road, these interstitial segments comprise the remaining approximately 4.15 miles (21,915 feet) of the existing 24-ft wide, two-lane county road. Within each Zone, participants collaborated on recommendations for one or a combination of Corrective Actions (i.e., wildlife crossing structures and traffic calming solutions) to reduce newt mortality. Collectively, these groupings of Corrective Actions, or Options, were assigned to all, or a part of, a Priority Zone to help reduce mortality. At times, several discrete or overlapping Options (e.g., either a bridge, or an elevated road section) were proposed within a Priority Zone to allow for flexibility during the future Alternatives Analysis, taking into account the variability associated with engineering constraints, recreation and local resident use, costs, permitting needs, schedule constraints, hydrology, and migrating newt permeability. 2 Stationing: linear measurements tied to a baseline, used in the absence of designated mile markers ATTACHMENT 2 Figure 3 f, g Figure 3 d, e Figure 3 a, b, c Figure 3 d, e Figure 3 h Figure 3 h Priority Zone 3 Priority Zone 2 Priority Zone 1 Priority Zone 2a Lexington CountyParking Lot LimekilnCanyon TrailParking Area Priest Rock TrailParking Area Former Beatty TrustProperty for ProposedFuture Parking Area Miller PointParking Area North End of SodaSprings CanyonParking Area South End of SodaSprings CanyonParking Area CathedralOaks Bear CreekRd ÄÆ17 ÄÆ17 T r o u t C r e e k B l a c k C r e e k H e n d r y s C r e e k Aldercroft C r e e k LexingtonReservoir B la c kPo n d 0+00 10+00 20+00 30+00 40+00 50+00 60+00 70+00 80+00 90+00 100+00 110+00 120+00 130+00 140+00 150+00160+00 170+00 180+00 190+00 200+00 210+00 220+00 J ones TrailLos Gatos Cr e e k T r a i l L i mek i l n Tr a i l Pr i e s t Roc k T r a i l Los Ga t o s C r e e k L i m e k i l n G u l c h B r i g g s C r e e k So d a Springs CreekBearCreek Rd Idylwild Rd Wright Dr Ol d Santa Cruz Hwy Aldercroft Hts Limeki ln Canyon Rd Soda Springs Rd AlmaBridgeRd Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(Midpen) 3/29/2023 Figure 2: Priority and Secondary ZonesCre a t e d B y : s a l l y . s h a t f o r d P a t h : \ \ n a . a e c o m n e t . c o m \ l f s \ A M E R \ O a k l a n d - U S O A K 0 1 \ D C S \ P r o j e c t s \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 6 8 7 5 3 2 _ A l m a B r i d g e R o a d \ 0 2 _ M a p s \ 0 2 _ R e p o r t _ M a p s \ T e c h n i c a l A n a l y s i s \ F i g u r e 2 _ P r i o r i t y Z o n e s . m x d 0 2,0001,000 FeetI 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. Existing Trail Priority Zone Secondary Zone Newt Mortality (USGS) Extremely High Very High High Medium High Medium Low Very Low ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 16 4.1.2. Options Based on the workshop, five Options were identified in Priority Zone 1, two Options were identified in Priority Zone 2 and Zone 2a, and two Options were identified in Priority Zone 3 (Table 2, Figures 3a through 3h). In the absence of selecting one of these Options, a no-build decision in a particular Priority Zone would not mitigate the current observed newt mortality rate at that location. The next section (Section 5) discusses which Options/combination of Options described below would be most successful in reducing newt mortality. Table 2. Description of Priority Zone Options Project Location Priority Zone Corrective Action Descriptions Description Location within the Zone Zone 1 Option 1 Bridge (+ Partial Road Closure) Throughout Zone 1 Option 2 Elevated Road Segment w/ Type 4 Purpose-Built Passage Structures The “Straightaway” Option 2a Alternating Type 5 Micro-passages and Type 4 Purpose-Built Passage Structures The “Hairpin” turn Option 2b Elevated Road Segment w/ Type 4 Purpose-Built Passage Structures The “Extended Straightaway” Option 3 Elevated Road Segment w/ Type 4 Purpose-Built Passage Structures The “Curve” Zone 2 + 2a Option 4 Elevated Road Segment w/ Type 4 Purpose-Built Passage Structures Priority Zone 2 Type 5 Micro-passages Priority Zone 2a Option 5 Elevated Road Segment w/ Type 4 Purpose-Built Passage Structures Priority Zone 2 and 2b Zone 3 Option 6 Elevated Road Segment w/ Type 4 Purpose-Built Passage Structures Northern half of Zone 3 Type 5 Micro-passages Southern half of Zone 3 Option 7 Elevated Road Segment w/ Type 4 Purpose-Built Passage Structures Throughout Zone 3 The identified Options include the following: Zone 1 – Option 1: Bridge (+ partial road closure) The goal of Option 1 (Figure 3a) is to reduce traffic-related mortality along this section of Alma Bridge Road by constructing an approximately 850-900-foot multiple span bridge across the Limekiln Canyon inlet of the Lexington Reservoir and, after construction, closing the portion of Alma Bridge Road to non-quarry thru-traffic between either end of the bridge touchdown points. Quarry traffic would be preserved through to its private driveway, along which some newt mortality might persist at non-significant levels. Post-construction, this Option would restore between 3,541 linear feet (0.67 mile) of roadway located in Priority Zone 1 that currently presents a substantial source of road mortality for newts migrating between terrestrial upland habitat and Lexington Reservoir for annual breeding. ATTACHMENT 2 Limekiln Canyon Rd LexingtonReservoir Valley Water Property L i m e k i l n Tr a i l Pr i est R o c k T r a i l Alma Bridge Rd Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(Midpen) 3/29/2023 Figure 3a: Option 1 (Bridge)Cre a t e d B y : s a l l y . s h a t f o r d P a t h : \ \ n a . a e c o m n e t . c o m \ l f s \ A M E R \ O a k l a n d - U S O A K 0 1 \ D C S \ P r o j e c t s \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 6 8 7 5 3 2 _ A l m a B r i d g e R o a d \ 0 2 _ M a p s \ 0 2 _ R e p o r t _ M a p s \ T e c h n i c a l A n a l y s i s \ F i g u r e 3 a _ O p t i o n 1 . m x d 0 200100 FeetI 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. Alma Bridge Rd Existing Trail Land Ownership Valley Water Option 1 Multi-Span Bridge Full Road Closure (No Vehicle Access) Partial Road Closure (Quarry Traffic Only) ATTACHMENT 2 □||| □||| □||| □||| □||| □||| | | | | |□ |□ LimekilnCanyonRd LexingtonReservoir Valley Water Property L i mek i ln Trai l Pr i est R o c k T r a i l Alma Bri dge Rd Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(Midpen) 3/29/2023 Figure 3b: Option 2 (Straightaway) and 2a (Hairpin)Cre a t e d B y : s a l l y . s h a t f o r d P a t h : \ \ n a . a e c o m n e t . c o m \ l f s \ A M E R \ O a k l a n d - U S O A K 0 1 \ D C S \ P r o j e c t s \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 6 8 7 5 3 2 _ A l m a B r i d g e R o a d \ 0 2 _ M a p s \ 0 2 _ R e p o r t _ M a p s \ T e c h n i c a l A n a l y s i s \ F i g u r e 3 b _ O p t i o n 2 a n d 2 a . m x d 0 200100 FeetI 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. Alma Bridge Rd Existing Trail Land Ownership Valley Water Option 2 Type 4 Purpose-Built Passage Structure□|||Modified Cattle Grate Type 6 Elevated Road Segment Option 2a Type 5 Micro-Passage□|||Modified Cattle Grate ATTACHMENT 2 □||| □||| || | || | |□|□ |□ LimekilnCanyonRd LexingtonReservoir Valley Water Property L i mek i ln Trai l Pr i est R o c k T r a i l AlmaBridgeRd Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(Midpen) 3/29/2023 Figure 3c: Option 2b (Extended Straightaway) and 3 (Curve)Cre a t e d B y : s a l l y . s h a t f o r d P a t h : \ \ n a . a e c o m n e t . c o m \ l f s \ A M E R \ O a k l a n d - U S O A K 0 1 \ D C S \ P r o j e c t s \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 6 8 7 5 3 2 _ A l m a B r i d g e R o a d \ 0 2 _ M a p s \ 0 2 _ R e p o r t _ M a p s \ T e c h n i c a l A n a l y s i s \ F i g u r e 3 c _ O p t i o n 2 b a n d 3 . m x d 0 200100 FeetI 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. Alma Bridge Rd Existing Trail Land Ownership Valley Water Option 2b Type 4 Purpose-Built Passage Structure□|||Modified Cattle Grate Type 6 Elevated Road Segment Option 3 Type 5 Micro-Passage□|||Modified Cattle Grate ATTACHMENT 2 | | | | |□ |□ LexingtonReservoir Midpen Preserve Property SJWC Property Valley Water Property Alm a B r i d g e R d Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(Midpen) 3/29/2023 Figure 3d: Option 4Cre a t e d B y : s a l l y . s h a t f o r d P a t h : \ \ n a . a e c o m n e t . c o m \ l f s \ A M E R \ O a k l a n d - U S O A K 0 1 \ D C S \ P r o j e c t s \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 6 8 7 5 3 2 _ A l m a B r i d g e R o a d \ 0 2 _ M a p s \ 0 2 _ R e p o r t _ M a p s \ T e c h n i c a l A n a l y s i s \ F i g u r e 3 d _ O p t i o n 4 . m x d 0 200100 FeetI 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. Alma Bridge Rd Existing Trail Land Ownership Midpen Preserve Valley Water SJWC Former Beatty Trust Property Option 4 Type 4 Purpose-Built Passage Structure Type 5 Micro-Passage□|||Modified Cattle Grate Type 6 Elevated Road Segment ATTACHMENT 2 | | | | | | | | |□ |□ |□ |□ LexingtonReservoir Midpen Preserve Property SJWC Property Valley Water Property AlmaBridge Rd Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(Midpen) 3/29/2023 Figure 3e: Option 5Cre a t e d B y : s a l l y . s h a t f o r d P a t h : \ \ n a . a e c o m n e t . c o m \ l f s \ A M E R \ O a k l a n d - U S O A K 0 1 \ D C S \ P r o j e c t s \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 6 8 7 5 3 2 _ A l m a B r i d g e R o a d \ 0 2 _ M a p s \ 0 2 _ R e p o r t _ M a p s \ T e c h n i c a l A n a l y s i s \ F i g u r e 3 e _ O p t i o n 5 . m x d 0 200100 FeetI 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. Alma Bridge Rd Existing Trail Land Ownership Midpen Preserve Valley Water SJWC Former Beatty Trust Property Option 5 Type 4 Purpose-Built Passage Structure□|||Modified Cattle Grate Type 6 Elevated Road Segment ATTACHMENT 2 | | | | | | | | |□ |□ |□|□ Limekiln CanyonRd LexingtonReservoir Alma B r i d g e R d Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(Midpen) 3/8/2023 Figure 3f: Option 6Cre a t e d B y : s a l l y . s h a t f o r d P a t h : \ \ n a . a e c o m n e t . c o m \ l f s \ A M E R \ O a k l a n d - U S O A K 0 1 \ D C S \ P r o j e c t s \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 6 8 7 5 3 2 _ A l m a B r i d g e R o a d \ 0 2 _ M a p s \ 0 2 _ R e p o r t _ M a p s \ T e c h n i c a l A n a l y s i s \ F i g u r e 3 f _ O p t i o n 6 . m x d 0 200100 FeetI 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. Alma Bridge Rd Existing Trail Option 6 Type 4 Purpose-Built Passage Structure Type 5 Micro-Passage□|||Modified Cattle Grate Type 6 Elevated Road Segment ATTACHMENT 2 | | | | |□ |□ Limekiln CanyonRd LexingtonReservoir AlmaBridgeRd Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(Midpen) 3/8/2023 Figure 3g: Option 7Cre a t e d B y : s a l l y . s h a t f o r d P a t h : \ \ n a . a e c o m n e t . c o m \ l f s \ A M E R \ O a k l a n d - U S O A K 0 1 \ D C S \ P r o j e c t s \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 6 8 7 5 3 2 _ A l m a B r i d g e R o a d \ 0 2 _ M a p s \ 0 2 _ R e p o r t _ M a p s \ T e c h n i c a l A n a l y s i s \ F i g u r e 3 g _ O p t i o n 7 . m x d 0 200100 FeetI 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. Alma Bridge Rd Existing Trail Option 7 Type 4 Purpose-Built Passage Structure Type 5 Micro-Passage□|||Modified Cattle Grate Type 6 Elevated Road Segment ATTACHMENT 2 Limekiln Trail Priority Zone 3 Priority Zone 2 Priority Zone 1 Priority Zone 2a BearCreekRd ÄÆ17 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ17 T r o u t C r e e k B l a c k C r e e k H e n d r y s C r e e k Aldercroft C r e e k LexingtonReservoir B la c kPo n d 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 3 J ones TrailLos Gatos Cr e e k T r a i l L i mek i l n Tr a i l Pr i e s t Roc k T r a i l Los Ga t o s C r e e k L i m e k i l n G u l c h B r i g g s C r e e k Soda S p r i n g s C r e e k Bear C r e ek Rd Idylwild Rd Wright Dr Ol d Santa Cruz Hwy Aldercroft Hts Limekiln Canyon Rd Soda Springs RdAlmaBridgeRd Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(Midpen) 2/24/2023 Figure 3h: Secondary ZoneCre a t e d B y : s a l l y . s h a t f o r d P a t h : \ \ n a . a e c o m n e t . c o m \ l f s \ A M E R \ O a k l a n d - U S O A K 0 1 \ D C S \ P r o j e c t s \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 6 8 7 5 3 2 _ A l m a B r i d g e R o a d \ 0 2 _ M a p s \ 0 2 _ R e p o r t _ M a p s \ T e c h n i c a l A n a l y s i s \ F i g u r e 3 h _ S e c o n d a r y Z o n e s . m x d 0 2,0001,000 FeetI 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. Existing Trail Priority Zone Secondary Zone Major Intersection 1. Highway 17 (northbound)/Alma Bridge Rd 2. Alma Bridge Rd/Limekiln Canyon Rd 3. Alma Bridge Rd/Soda Springs Rd 4. Alma Bridge Rd/Aldercroft Heights Rd 5. Hwy 17 (southbound)/Bear Creek Rd Overcrossing 6. Bear Creek Rd/Old Santa Cruz Hwy 7. Old Santa Cruz Hwy/Aldercroft Heights Rd 8. Wright Dr (north)/Old Santa Cruz Hwy 9. Wright Dr (south)/Old Santa Cruz Hwy Secondary Zone Island/Median Placement Start of Rumble Strip/Perceptual Treatment Zone (northbound) Start of Rumble Strip/Perceptual Treatment Zone (southbound) ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 25 Under this Option, public access to recreational facilities like the Limekiln Trail and unofficial parking turn outs or road shoulder parking areas could be preserved by constructing (or repurposing) a designated dirt, gravel, or paved parking lot as an official parking lot on an abandoned portion of Alma Bridge Road accessible from the southern bridge touchdown paired with extending the Limekiln Trail trailhead south to connect with the relocated parking area. Zone 1 – Option 2: Elevated Road Segment (“Straightaway”) The goal of Option 2 (Figure 3b), also known as the “Straightaway,” is to reduce traffic-related newt mortality along this section of Alma Bridge Road by installing an elevated road segment that incorporates repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, and a modified cattle grate at either end. Post-construction, this Option would enhance habitat permeability along 1,800 linear feet (0.34 mile) of roadway located in a high-use newt movement corridor that currently presents a substantial source of road mortality for newts migrating between terrestrial upland habitat and Lexington Reservoir for annual breeding. The unofficial Priest Rock Trail shoulder parking would be elevated along with the elevated road segment that encompasses it. The unofficial Limekiln Trail shoulder parking would not be affected. Zone 1 – Option 2a: Alternating Dedicated Wildlife Crossing Structures (“Hairpin”) The goal of Option 2a (Figure 3b), also known as the “Hairpin,” is to reduce traffic-related newt mortality along this section of Alma Bridge Road by installing alternating Type 5 micro-passages and modified cattle grates paired with directional fencing. Post-construction, this Option would enhance habitat permeability along 744 linear feet (0.14 mile) of roadway located in a high-use newt movement corridor that currently presents a substantial source of road mortality for newts migrating between terrestrial upland habitat and Lexington Reservoir for annual breeding. Zone 1 – Option 2b: Elevated Road Segment (“Extended Straightaway”) The goal of Option 2b (Figure 3c; Figure 3c shows both Option 2b and Option 3, but they are separate Options), also known as the “Extended Straightaway,” is to reduce traffic-related newt mortality along this section of Alma Bridge Road by installing an extended elevated road segment (compared to Option 2) that incorporates repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate at either end between Limekiln Creek through to the southern boundary of Zone 1. Post- construction, this Option would enhance habitat permeability along 2,161 linear feet (0.41 mile) of roadway located in a high-use newt movement corridor that currently presents a substantial source of road mortality for newts migrating between terrestrial upland habitat and Lexington Reservoir for annual breeding. Unofficial Limekiln Trail and Priest Rock Trail shoulder parking would be elevated along with this stretch of roadway, allowing for continued access. Zone 1 – Option 3: Dedicated Wildlife Crossing Structures (“Curve”) The goal of Option 3 (Figure 3c; Figure 3c shows both Option 2b and Option 3, but they are separate Options) is to reduce traffic-related newt mortality along this section of Alma Bridge Road by installing a pair of Type 5 micro-passages, a modified cattle grate at either end and directional fencing. Post-construction, this Option would enhance habitat permeability along 241 linear feet (0.05 mile) of roadway located in a high-use newt movement corridor currently presents a substantial source of road mortality for newts migrating between terrestrial upland habitat and Lexington Reservoir for annual breeding. Zone 2 and 2a – Option 4 The goal of Option 4 (Figure 3d) is to reduce traffic-related newt mortality in the vicinity of the Miller Point parking lot and the former Beatty Trust property by installing an elevated road segment that incorporates repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, and a modified cattle grate at either end in Zone 2, combined with three Type 5 micro-passages and directional fencing at three mortality hotspots in Zone 2a. Post-construction, this Option would enhance habitat permeability along 2,169 linear feet (0.41 mile) of roadway located in a high-use newt movement corridor that currently presents a substantial source of road mortality for newts migrating between terrestrial upland habitat and Lexington Reservoir for annual breeding. ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 26 Zones 2 and 2a – Option 5 The goal of Option 5 (Figure 3e) is to reduce traffic-related newt mortality in the vicinity of the Miller Point parking lot and the former Beatty Trust property by installing two elevated road segments that incorporate repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier in Zone 2 and Zone 2a, with modified cattle grates at either end of the elevated segments. Post-construction, this Option would enhance habitat permeability along 2,265 linear feet (0.43 mile) of roadway located in a high-use newt movement corridor that currently presents a substantial source of road mortality for newts migrating between terrestrial upland habitat and Lexington Reservoir for annual breeding. Zone 3 – Option 6 The goal of Option 6 (Figure 3f) is to reduce traffic-related newt mortality along this section of Alma Bridge Road by installing an elevated road segment that incorporates repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, and modified cattle grates at each end of the northern portion of the Zone combined with a pair of Type 5 micro-passages and modified cattle grates with directional fencing to either side of an unnamed drainage in the southern portion of the Zone. Post-construction, this Option is predicted to enhance habitat permeability along 1,882 linear feet (0.36 mile) of roadway located in a high-use newt movement corridor that currently presents a substantial source of road mortality for newts migrating between terrestrial upland habitat and Lexington Reservoir for annual breeding. Zone 3 – Option 7 The goal of Option 7 (Figure 3g) is to reduce traffic-related newt mortality along this section of Alma Bridge Road by installing an elevated road segment that incorporates repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier throughout the entire Zone, with modified cattle grates at each end. Post-construction, this Option would enhance habitat permeability along 2,656 linear feet (0.50 mile) of roadway located in a high-use newt movement corridor that currently presents a substantial source of road mortality for newts migrating between terrestrial upland habitat and Lexington Reservoir for annual breeding. Secondary Zone The goal of Corrective Actions in the Secondary Zone (Figure 3h) is to reduce traffic-related newt mortality along these sections of Alma Bridge Road, and by extension, within Zones 1 through 3, by installing traffic control and calming measures that include improved signage, islands and medians, and transverse rumble strips and perceptual treatments to shorten route(s), minimize travel time and distance, discourage additional traffic to the area, heighten driver awareness to speed reduction zones and newt crossing areas, improve driver safety, and heighten visitor awareness of the Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project. No-Build Option In the absence of selecting any of these Options altogether, a no-build decision in the Project Area would not mitigate the current observed newt mortality rate that has been recorded at Alma Bridge Road, and the local California newt population is expected to continue to decline. After the workshop, a series of Scenarios, consisting of a combination of Options across one or several Zones, were evaluated as part of the Effectiveness Modeling portion of Task 2. After a preliminary review of the Scenarios, the various Options were re-evaluated to identify a suite of Alternatives for further analysis. These steps are described below. ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 27 5. Effectiveness Modeling To assess whether the workshop-developed Corrective Actions meet the Project goals of habitat connectivity and species persistence, the effectiveness of various Corrective Action Options was analyzed. To accomplish this, Dr. Phillip Gould (USGS) worked with Cheryl Brehme (USGS) to model spatially explicit newt population- level road permeability along Alma Bridge Road for each suite of Corrective Actions, or Options, developed. Due to the lack of information on California newt, this was based on existing research on the responses of migratory amphibians (principally, salamanders and toads) to road passages and barriers, the most recent four years of Newt Patrol road mortality data, the Newt Patrol carcass persistence study, and the study of newt road mortality versus successful road crossings by H.T. Harvey (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2021, Parsons 2021, Newt Patrol 2022; see AECOM 2022). Estimates from the permeability models for all design Scenarios were then incorporated into a USGS-modified, scientifically defensible, Bayesian version of H.T. Harvey & Associates’ 2021 newt population viability assessment model (PVA) to estimate long-term projections of newt population persistence over the next 100 years. The model included an estimate that 5% of the population breeds without encountering Alma Bridge Road; this accounts for the possibility that a small proportion of newts may use large culverts at Limekiln Canyon and Soda Springs, or perhaps unknown ephemeral breeding habitats, to breed. Up to 8 different design Scenarios and a no-build decision were considered during the modeling. This was an iterative process working with the broader AECOM team. Part 1 of the Effectiveness Modeling looked at one or several Options (see Section 4.1.2) in combinations known as Scenarios (Table 3), and modeled the population viability, expected future road mortality, and permeability of each Scenario. For each Scenario (Scenarios 1 through 9; Table 3), the modeling predicted whether the Scenarios might decrease California newt mortality and increase road permeability sufficiently to support population persistence over 100 years. Trend metrics for each option included overall permeability (successful crossings), road mortality, and predicted population size. The information gathered in Part 1 was then used in Part 2 of the Effectiveness Modeling analysis to further refine the most permeable Options into a second suite of Scenarios (Scenarios 10 through 13; Table 3) known as the Preliminary Alternatives. An overview of each Scenario and the underlying Corrective Actions proposed for each Zone are provided in Table 3. Each Scenario is ranked from the greatest (1st) to least (13th) modeled overall effectiveness. Designs that meet the criteria of projected long-term newt population persistence, habitat connectivity, cost, and maintainability will be considered in the Alternatives Evaluation/Basis of Design process (Task 3). Parts 1 and 2 of the Effectiveness Modeling are described below. 5.1. Effectiveness Modeling Part 1 During Part 1 of Effectiveness Modeling, each of the nine Scenarios were modeled (Table 3), including one “no-build” Scenario. Scenarios include a large open span bridge (Type 1B), micro-passages (Type 5), elevated roadways (Type 6) with repeating Type 4 passage structures (Type 4), modified cattle grates, and directional fencing. These Scenarios were input into a preliminary round of modeling by the USGS that analyzes population viability, predicted road mortality, and permeability. 5.1.1. Scenarios (Part 1) Scenario 1 Scenario 1 consists of the no-build decision, in which no Corrective Actions are implemented within the Project Footprint. Scenario 2 Scenario 2 consists of the construction of a bridge spanning the Limekiln Canyon inlet, and the partial road closure of a section of Alma Bridge Road between the northern and southern bridge touchdowns. ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 28 Table 3. Effectiveness Modeling Scenario Description and Rank Priority Zone Corrective Action Descriptions Scenario Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 2a Zone 3 Ranking a Scenario 1 No-Build No-Build No-Build No-Build 13th Scenario 2* Bridge (+ Partial Road Closure) No-Build No-Build No-Build 6th Scenario 3* ERS [30m] + MP [30m] + CG No-Build No-Build No-Build 9th Scenario 4* ERS [12.5m] + MP [12.5m] + CG No-Build No-Build No-Build 8th Scenario 5 ERS [60m] + MP [60m] + CG No-Build No-Build No-Build 12th Scenario 6* ERS [30m] + MP [30m] + CG ERS [30m] No-Build ERS [30m] + 2 MP + CG 4th Scenario 7 No-Build ERS [30m] No-Build No-Build 10th Scenario 8 No-Build No-Build No-Build ERS [30m] + 2 MP + CG 11th Scenario 9* ERS [30m] + MP [30m] + CG No-Build No-Build ERS [30m] + 2 MP + CG 7th Scenario 10** (Alt. 1) Bridge (+ Partial Road Closure) ERS [28m] ERS [30m] ERS [30m] 1st Scenario 11** (Alt. 2) ERS [30m] [“extended straightaway”] ERS [28m] ERS [30m] ERS [30m] 2nd Scenario 12** (Alt. 3) ERS [30m] + MP [22m] + CG [“hairpin”] ERS [28m] 3 MP ERS [30m] + 2 MP + CG 5th Scenario 13** (Alt. 4) ERS [30m] + MP [22m] + CG [“hairpin”] ERS [30m] ERS [30m] ERS [30m] 3rd ERS = Elevated Road Section, which includes Type 4 passage structures and modified cattle grates MP = Micro-passage CG = Modified cattle grate * Preliminary scenario that resulted in no further newt population decline. ** Refined scenarios that also result in no further newt population decline. a Refer to Appendices A and B for more details on ranking designations. ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 29 Scenario 3 Scenario 3 consists of the construction of alternating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures and Type 6 modified cattle grates at the “curve” and the “hairpin” turns spaced 30 meters 3 (98.42 feet) apart, followed by elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier spaced 30 meters apart, with modified cattle grates at the beginning/end of each discrete section in Zone 1. Scenario 4 Scenario 4 consists of the construction of alternating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures and Type 6 modified cattle grates at the “curve” and the “hairpin” turns spaced 12.5 meters (41.01 feet) apart, followed by elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier spaced 12.5 meters apart, with modified cattle grates at the beginning/end of each discrete section in Zone 1. Scenario 5 Scenario 5 consists of the construction of alternating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures and Type 6 modified cattle grates at the “curve” and the “hairpin” turns spaced 60 meters (196.85 feet) apart, followed by elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier spaced 60 meters apart, with modified cattle grates at the beginning/end of each discrete section in Zone 1. Scenario 6 Scenario 6 consists of the construction of alternating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures and Type 6 modified cattle grates at the “curve” and the “hairpin” turns spaced 30 meters apart, followed by elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier spaced 30 meters apart, with modified cattle grates at the beginning/end of each discrete section in Zone 1. Zone 3 consists of the construction of an elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier spaced 30 meters apart, with modified cattle grates at the beginning/end of each discrete section in Zone 3. Additionally, Scenario 6 involves the installation of one Type 5 micro-passage on each side of an unnamed drainage. Scenario 7 Scenario 7 consists of the construction of elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier spaced 30 meters apart, with modified cattle grates at the beginning/end of each discrete section in Zone 2. Scenario 8 Scenario 8 consists of the construction of an elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier spaced 30 meters apart, with modified cattle grates at the beginning/end of each discrete section in Zone 3. Additionally, Scenario 8 involves the installation of one Type 5 micro-passage on each side of an unnamed drainage. Scenario 9 Scenario 9 consists of the construction of an elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier spaced 30 meters apart, with modified cattle grates at the beginning/end of each discrete section in Zone 3. Additionally, Scenario 9 involves the installation of one Type 5 micro-passage on each side of an unnamed drainage. 3 All USGS effectiveness modeling was performed using the “meter” as the standard unit of measure, and is therefore reported as such throughout Section 5. ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 30 5.1.2. Discussion (Part 1) The preliminary modeling of all nine Scenarios provided insights into which parameters (e.g., spacing between tunnels or type of crossing) are estimated to be most effective using this approach. These findings allowed the Project team to refine the model and develop an improved suite of Scenarios that were analyzed during a final round of modeling. Detailed results of the Effectiveness Modeling (Part 1) can be found in Appendix A. Signage and other proposed traffic mitigating solutions under consideration for the Secondary Zone were not modeled. Of the nine Scenarios (Scenarios 1 through 9) evaluated during the Effectiveness Modeling (Part 1), five of the nine Scenarios met the objective of no further population decline; these were Scenarios 2, 3, 4, 6, and 9. Examination of these successful Scenarios determined that based on modeling, Zone 1 appears to be the most important for mitigation, followed by Zone 3 and then Zone 2. However, Scenarios that address all Priority Zones scored the highest overall, especially in maintaining population viability and reducing newt mortality, indicating that future Scenario modeling should include Corrective Actions at all Priority Zones. The preliminary modeling also indicated that 30-meter spacing or less between Type 4 structures along elevated road segments was predicted to meet criteria for population viability and mortality. Models using 60 m spacing between passages predicted a population decline comparable or worse than no road mitigation due to very low levels of permeability. As expected, 12.5-meter spacing scored higher in site permeability. Scenarios 1, 5, 7, and 8 did not meet the objective of no further population decline. For example, although Scenario 5 primarily uses the same crossing types (elevated road segments, Type 4 wildlife crossings, and cattle grates) as Scenarios 3 and 4 but at 60-meter spacing, the permeability would worsen compared to current conditions. Scenario 5’s permeability loss is likely attributable to inadequate spacing of crossings. This creates an additional barrier that may cause newts to turn around after an unsuccessful migration attempt. Scenario 5 also showed unsatisfactory improvements to population viability and reducing road mortality, scoring 6th for each metric. Scenarios 7 and 8 each targeted one Priority Zone, Zone 2 and Zone 3, respectively. Newt Patrol mortality monitoring and preliminary modeling suggest Priority Zone 1 is the most important mortality hotspot to mitigate. While Scenario 7 was able to effectively enhance permeability in Zone 2, both Scenarios were among the worst in maintaining newt abundance and stemming road mortality. Finally, Scenario 1, the no-build Scenario, scored the worst overall. According to the model, continued lack of intervention would lead to the weakest population viability, the greatest road mortality, and the second worst permeability, behind Scenario 5. These findings made clear that Scenarios 1, 5, 7, and 8 were most deficient in maintaining a viable newt population, reducing road mortality, and improving permeability. Based on these findings, the second round of Effectiveness Modeling was refined by prioritizing the most optimal, or permeable, Options to further investigate the best combinations of Corrective Actions that achieve all objectives, are logistically feasible, and represent a breadth of costs. 5.2. Effectiveness Modeling Part 2 During Part 2 of Effectiveness Modeling, four additional Scenarios were modeled (Scenarios 10 through 13; Table 3) to refine the possible Corrective Action Options into optimal Preliminary Alternatives. Takeaways from the initial round of modeling informed which Scenarios and parameters of crossing Options (such as spacing and Priority Zone) were best suited to meet Project goals. These additional Scenarios were input into a second round of modeling by the USGS that analyzes population viability, predicted road mortality, and permeability. 5.2.1. Scenarios (Part 2) Scenario 10 (Preliminary Alternative 1) Scenario 10 consists of the construction of a bridge spanning the Limekiln Canyon inlet, and the partial road closure of a section of Alma Bridge Road between the northern and southern bridge touchdowns in Zone 1. ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 31 Zones 2 and 2a consist of the construction of elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier spaced 28 meters (91.86 feet) (Zone 2) to 30 meters (Zone 2a) apart, with a modified cattle grate at either end of the approach. Zone 3 consists of the construction of elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier spaced 30 meters, with a modified cattle grate on either end of the approach. Scenario 11 (Preliminary Alternative 2) Scenario 11 consists of the construction of elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier spaced 30 meters apart, with a modified cattle grate at either end of the approach in Zone 1 along the “extended straightaway”. Zones 2 and 2a consist of the construction of elevated road segments with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier spaced 28 meters (Zone 2) to 30 meters (Zone 2a) apart, with a modified cattle grate at either end of the approach. Zone 3 consists of the construction of an elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier spaced 30 meters, with a modified cattle grate on either end of the approach. Scenario 12 (Preliminary Alternative 3) Scenario 12 consists of the construction of an elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier spaced 30 meters apart, with a modified cattle grate at either end of the approach in Zone 1 along the “straightaway”, paired with alternating, repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures and Type 5 micro-passages spaced 22 meters (72.18 feet) apart in Zone 1 along the “hairpin.” Zone 2 consists of the construction of an elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier spaced 28 meters apart, with a modified cattle grate at either end of the approach, followed by the construction of three type 5 micro-passages placed at three unnamed drainages) in Zone 2a. Zone 3 consists of the construction of an elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier spaced 30 meters, with a modified cattle grate on either end of the approach, followed by the construction of a pair of Type 5 micro-passages and a pair of modified cattle grates placed adjacent to an unnamed drainage. Scenario 13 (Preliminary Alternative 4) Scenario 13 consists of the construction of an elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier spaced 30 meters apart, with a modified cattle grate at either end of the approach in Zone 1 along the “straightaway”, paired with alternating repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures and Type 5 micro-passages spaced 22 meters apart in Zone 1 along the “hairpin”. Zones 2 and 2a consist of the construction of two elevated road segments with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier spaced 30 meters apart, with a modified cattle grate at either end of the approach. Zone 3 consists of the construction of an elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier spaced 30 meters, with a modified cattle grate on either end of the approach. 5.2.2. Discussion (Part 2) The preliminary modeling of all nine Scenarios was used to inform the secondary modeling of the additional four Scenarios. Doing so allowed the Project team to further refine the model and develop an improved suite of ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 32 Scenarios for consideration. The results of the Effectiveness Modeling (Part 2) can be found in Appendix B. Signage and other proposed traffic mitigating solutions under consideration for the Secondary Zone were not modeled. Appendix B, Table 5 summarizes how each Scenario performed compared to the others. Each Scenario was ranked based on their contributions to predicted increased abundance, reduction in mortality, and permeability of the mitigation design. Finally, the table reports if each Scenario achieved predicted population persistence through 100 years. Figure 4 provides a visual representation of the modeled population abundance of California newt projected across 100 years and illustrates the predicted population persistence of each modeled Scenario analyzed. The dotted line in Figure 4 represents the current estimate of population size (37,844 newts) from the mortality data and persistence analysis. Based on the 13 Scenarios considered, eight (Scenarios 2, 3, 4, 6, 9,10, 11, 12, and 13) result in the minimum standard for success of no further population decline, which is achieved through a reduction in the road mortality rate to 17.667% or lower (approximately a 45% reduction from current levels). All four Preliminary Alternatives (Scenarios 10, 11, 12, and 13) – which had been preliminarily selected for their permeability – achieved the Project goals of increased population persistence and improved habitat permeability. Compared to the complete suite of 13 Scenarios modeled, Scenarios 10, 11, 12, and 13 ranked 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 3rd, respectively (Appendix B, Table 5), with Scenarios 11 and 13 showing minimal differences between them. Scenario 10 also stands out in the Permeability category. While Scenarios 11, 12, and 13 perform better than all other Scenarios (except for Scenario 2, which also features a bridge in Zone 1), Scenario 10 yields significantly more permeability than the other scenarios. This can be attributed to Scenario 10’s bridge providing 100% permeability to the highest priority hotspot. ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 33 Figure 4. Modeled newt abundance over time for all scenarios ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 34 6. Preliminary Alternatives Of the 13 Scenarios considered during the Effectiveness Modeling, four Scenarios (Scenarios 10, 11, 12, and 13) have been identified as Preliminary Alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively), all of which were successfully modeled to achieve the Project goals of increased population persistence and improved habitat permeability. Each preliminary Alternative was identified based on the results of the Effectiveness Modeling (Parts 1 and 2) to create a selection of Option combinations consisting of different levels of Corrective Actions that represent a wide range of costs and effort. Each Alternative is described below. 6.1. Preliminary Alternative 1 Preliminary Alternative 1 (Scenario 10) consists of the following Corrective Action Options (Figure 5a): • Zone 1: construction of a bridge spanning the Limekiln Canyon inlet, and the partial road closure of a section of Alma Bridge Road between the northern and southern bridge touchdowns • Zone 2: elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate at either end of the approach • Zone 2a: elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate on either end of the approach • Zone 3: elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate on either end of the approach 6.2. Preliminary Alternative 2 Preliminary Alternative 2 (Scenario 11) consists of the following Corrective Action Options (Figure 5b): • Zone 1: elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate at either end of the approach • Zone 2: elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate at either end of the approach • Zone 2a: elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate on either end of the approach • Zone 3: elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate on either end of the approach 6.3. Preliminary Alternative 3 Preliminary Alternative 3 (Scenario 12) consists of the following Corrective Action Options (Figure 5c): • Zone 1: a combination of alternating Type 5 micro-passages and modified cattle grates between the Limekiln Quarry driveway and Limekiln Trail unofficial parking pullout, followed by section of elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate at either end of the approach • Zone 2: elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate at either end of the approach • Zone 2a: three type 5 micro-passages placed adjacent to three unnamed drainages in the areas of highest newt mortality within the Priority Zone. ATTACHMENT 2 Old Santa Cruz Hwy V i n a Dr LexingtonSchoolRd El Corto Montevina Rd Soda Springs R d AlmaCollegeRd V ist a GrandeW ay Alma Bridge R d B l ack Rd Alma Bridge R d Bear Creek Rd ÄÆ17 ÄÆ17 B r i g g s C r e e k LexingtonReservoir BlackPond SJWC Property County Parks Property Midpen Preserve Property Valley Water Property Priest R o c k Trail Jone s T r a i l Lime k i ln Trai l Alma BridgeRd Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(Midpen) 3/29/2023 Figure 5a: Alternative 1 (Option 1 + 5 + 7)Cre a t e d B y : s a l l y . s h a t f o r d P a t h : \ \ n a . a e c o m n e t . c o m \ l f s \ A M E R \ O a k l a n d - U S O A K 0 1 \ D C S \ P r o j e c t s \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 6 8 7 5 3 2 _ A l m a B r i d g e R o a d \ 0 2 _ M a p s \ 0 2 _ R e p o r t _ M a p s \ T e c h n i c a l A n a l y s i s \ F i g u r e 5 a _ A l t e r n a t i v e 1 . m x d 0 1,000500 Feet I 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. Alma Bridge Rd Existing Trail Land Ownership Midpen Preserve Valley Water SJWC County Parks Alternative 1 Type 4 Purpose-Built Passage Structure Type 5 Micro-Passage Modified Cattle Grate Multi-Span Bridge Full Road Closure (No Vehicle Access) Partial Road Closure (Non-Quarry Traffic) Type 6 Elevated Road Segment ATTACHMENT 2 Old Santa Cruz Hwy V i n a Dr LexingtonSchoolRd El Corto Montevina Rd Soda Springs R d AlmaCollegeRd V ist a GrandeW ay Alma Bridge R d B l ack Rd Alma Bridge R d Bear Creek Rd ÄÆ17 ÄÆ17 B r i g g s C r e e k LexingtonReservoir BlackPond SJWCProperty SJWC Property County Parks Property Midpen Preserve Property Midpen Preserve Property Valley Water Property PrivateProperty Priest R o c k Trail Jone s T r a i l Lime k i ln Trai l Alma BridgeRd Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(Midpen) 3/29/2023 Figure 5b: Alternative 2 (Option 2b + 5 + 7)Cre a t e d B y : s a l l y . s h a t f o r d P a t h : \ \ n a . a e c o m n e t . c o m \ l f s \ A M E R \ O a k l a n d - U S O A K 0 1 \ D C S \ P r o j e c t s \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 6 8 7 5 3 2 _ A l m a B r i d g e R o a d \ 0 2 _ M a p s \ 0 2 _ R e p o r t _ M a p s \ T e c h n i c a l A n a l y s i s \ F i g u r e 5 b _ A l t e r n a t i v e 2 . m x d 0 1,000500 Feet I 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. Alma Bridge Rd Existing Trail Land Ownership Midpen Preserve Valley Water Private SJWC County Parks Alternative 2 Type 4 Purpose-Built Passage Structure Type 5 Micro-Passage Modified Cattle Grate Type 6 Elevated Road Segment ATTACHMENT 2 Old Santa Cruz Hwy V i n a Dr LexingtonSchoolRd El Corto Montevina Rd Soda Springs R d AlmaCollegeRd V ist a GrandeW ay Alma Bridge R d B l ack Rd Alma Bridge Rd Bear Creek Rd ÄÆ17 ÄÆ17 B r i g g s C r e e k LexingtonReservoir BlackPond SJWCProperty SJWC Property County Parks Property Midpen Preserve Property Midpen Preserve Property Valley Water Property PrivateProperty Priest R o c k Trail Jone s T r a i l Lime k i ln Trai l Alma BridgeRd Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(Midpen) 3/29/2023 Figure 5c: Alternative 3 (Option 2 + 2a + 4 + 6)Cre a t e d B y : s a l l y . s h a t f o r d P a t h : \ \ n a . a e c o m n e t . c o m \ l f s \ A M E R \ O a k l a n d - U S O A K 0 1 \ D C S \ P r o j e c t s \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 6 8 7 5 3 2 _ A l m a B r i d g e R o a d \ 0 2 _ M a p s \ 0 2 _ R e p o r t _ M a p s \ T e c h n i c a l A n a l y s i s \ F i g u r e 5 c _ A l t e r n a t i v e 3 . m x d 0 1,000500 FeetI 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. Alma Bridge Rd Existing Trail Land Ownership Midpen Preserve Valley Water Private SJWC County Parks Alternative 3 Type 4 Purpose-Built Passage Structure Type 5 Micro-Passage Modified Cattle Grate Type 6 Elevated Road Segment ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 38 • Zone 3: elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate on either end of the approach, along with a Type 5 micro-passage, directional fencing, and a modified cattle grate placed on each side of an existing culvert (unnamed drainage) 6.4. Preliminary Alternative 4 Preliminary Alternative 4 (Scenario 13) consists of the following Corrective Action Options (Figure 5d): • Zone 1: a combination of alternating Type 5 micro-passage and modified cattle grates between the Limekiln Quarry driveway and Limekiln Trail unofficial parking lot, followed by section of elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate at either end of the approach • Zone 2: elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate at either end of the approach • Zone 2a: elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate on either end of the approach • Zone 3: elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate on either end of the approach As outlined in Table 4, the effectiveness of each Preliminary Alternative is represented by the estimated proportion of the California newt population that each Option might mitigate within either a specific Priority Zone, or throughout the Project Footprint. The “Priority Zone” Effectiveness column in Table 4 shows the proportion of California newts within that specific Priority Zone that are treated under that particular Alternative. While this metric is helpful, the “Project Footprint” Effectiveness column aids in understanding the effectiveness of each Option across the Project as a whole. For example under Preliminary Alternative 1, the bridge and partial road closure (Option 1) would treat 37.8% of the total Alma Bridge Road newt population; Elevated road segments in Zones 2 and 2a (Option 5) would affect 9.8% and 4.4% of the population, respectively; and an elevated road segment in Zone 3 (Option 7) would affect 16.5% of the population. Cumulatively, the implementation of Options 1, 5, and 7 together in Priority Zones 1, 2/2a, and 3 respectively, is estimated to result in the treatment of 68.4 percent of the newt population throughout the Project Footprint (Table 4). ATTACHMENT 2 Old Santa Cruz Hwy V i n a Dr LexingtonSchoolRd El Corto Montevina Rd Soda Springs R d AlmaCollegeRd V ist a GrandeW ay Alma Bridge R d B l ack Rd Alma Bridge R d Bear Creek Rd ÄÆ17 ÄÆ17 B r i g g s C r e e k LexingtonReservoir BlackPond SJWCProperty SJWC Property County Parks Property Midpen Preserve Property Midpen Preserve Property Valley Water Property PrivateProperty Priest R o c k Trail Jone s T r a i l Lime k i ln Trai l AlmaBridgeRd Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(Midpen) 3/29/2023 Figure 5d: Alternative 4 (Option 2 + 2a + 4 + 5 + 7)Cre a t e d B y : s a l l y . s h a t f o r d P a t h : \ \ n a . a e c o m n e t . c o m \ l f s \ A M E R \ O a k l a n d - U S O A K 0 1 \ D C S \ P r o j e c t s \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 6 8 7 5 3 2 _ A l m a B r i d g e R o a d \ 0 2 _ M a p s \ 0 2 _ R e p o r t _ M a p s \ T e c h n i c a l A n a l y s i s \ F i g u r e 5 d _ A l t e r n a t i v e 4 . m x d 0 1,000500 FeetI 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. Alma Bridge Rd Existing Trail Land Ownership Midpen Preserve Valley Water Private SJWC County Parks Alternative 4 Type 4 Purpose-Built Passage Structure Type 5 Micro-Passage Modified Cattle Grate Type 6 Elevated Road Segment ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 40 Table 4: Effectiveness of Preliminary Alternatives Zone # Option(s) Notes Effectiveness Priority Zone1 Project Footprint2 Preliminary Alternative #1 Zone 1 Option 1 Option 1 (Bridge + partial road closure) 0.996 0.378 Zone 2 Option 5 Zone 2 (ERS) 0.846 0.098 Zone 2a Option 5 Zone 2a (ERS) 1.000 0.044 Zone 3 Option 7 Option 7 (ERS) 0.960 0.165 --- 0.684 Preliminary Alternative #2 Zone 1 Option 2b Option 2b (extended straightaway) 0.778 0.295 Zone 2 Option 5 Zone 2 (ERS) 0.846 0.098 Zone 2a Option 5 Zone 2a (ERS) 1.000 0.044 Zone 3 Option 7 Option 7 (ERS) 0.960 0.165 --- 0.602 Preliminary Alternative #3 Zone 1 Option 2 + 2a Option 2 (straightaway) + Option 2a (hairpin) 0.860 0.326 Zone 2 Option 4 Zone 2 (ERS) 0.846 0.098 Zone 2a Option 4 Zone 2a (MP) 0.191 0.008 Zone 3 Option 6 Option 6 (ERS + MP) 0.719 0.123 --- 0.556 Preliminary Alternative #4 Zone 1 Option 2 + 2a Option 2 (straightaway) + Option 2a (hairpin) 0.860 0.326 Zone 2 Option 4 Zone 2 (ERS) 0.846 0.098 Zone 2a Option 5 Zone 2a (ERS) 1.000 0.044 Zone 3 Option 7 Option 7 (ERS) 0.960 0.165 --- 0.633 1 Proportion of California newts within that specific Priority Zone that are treated by the corresponding Option. 2 Proportion of California newts across the entire Project area that are treated by the corresponding Option. ERS = Elevated Road Section MP = Micro-passage CG = Cattle Grate ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 41 7. Feasibility Analysis Based on the four Preliminary Alternatives identified during the Effectiveness Modeling, a feasibility analysis was performed for each Preliminary Alterative to identify any additional constraints and opportunities posed by field-observed, engineering, environmental, and/or permitting constraints of each underlying Option by Zone, including constructability; environmental impact minimization; existing facilities impact minimization; maintenance needs/costs; environmental clearance, permits, and approvals; permitting schedule; construction schedule; and costs. Although environmental considerations were used as the basis for establishing Zones, Corrective Action placement, and preliminary Alternatives, this Feasibility Analysis considered other, equally important factors such as engineering, permitting, public safety, cost, and schedule that could be triggered by the implementation of any Alternative. All such considerations are given equal weight, and the findings of this preliminary process are described and discussed below. All Alternatives described herein are pending the County’s agreement and approval and will be further analyzed and agreed upon after further refinement in Task 3. Depending on the final design specifications, the level of maintenance required by at-grade structures like Type 4 purpose-built passage structures and Type 5 micro-passages are unknown but could be more extensive than standard road maintenance/inspections. In lieu of a formal cost estimate for maintenance, the numbers for each crossing structure type is provided in the tables below for order-of-magnitude estimation purposes. 7.1. Alternative 1 7.1.1. Corrective Actions Based on the Effectiveness Modeling, Alternative 1 provides the most effective combination of Corrective Action Options to address newt mortality and persistence of the local newt population (Table 5; Figure 5a). Alternative 1 would consist of the following Corrective Action Options: • Zone 1: construction of a bridge spanning the Limekiln Canyon inlet, and the partial road closure of a section of Alma Bridge Road between the northern and southern bridge touchdowns • Zone 2: elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate at either end of the approach • Zone 2a: elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate on either end of the approach • Zone 3: elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate on either end of the approach ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 42 Table 5. Preliminary Feasibility Analysis for Alternative 1 Design Consideration Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 2a Zone 3 Effectiveness Estimated 84% increase in population size after 30 years. Predicted population persistence to Year 100. Crossing Structure Count Bridge: 1 Type 4: 11 Cattle Grate: 2 Type 4: 10 Cattle Grate: 2 Type 4: 19 Type 5: 2 Cattle Grate: 2 Constructability Temporary road closures over 5 years, intermittent full road closures during discrete phases of construction over 5 years, partial closure of ABR segment (quarry), full abandonment of ABR segment, construction of steel beam or precast concrete girder bridge, redesign of Limekiln Trail unofficial turnouts/shoulders, realignment of Limekiln Trail trailhead Temporary road closure over 1 year, raise ABR up to two feet, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining wall, utility relocation, MGS railing, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign, Miller Point parking area guide fencing Temporary road closure over 1 year, raise ABR up to two feet, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining wall, utility relocation, MGS railing, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign Temporary road closure over 1-2 years, raise ABR up to two feet, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining wall, utility relocation, MGS railing, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign, elevation transition of Soda Springs Rd-Alma Bridge Rd intersection Environmental Impact Minimization Impacts: Bridge abutments (reservoir bank), footings (reservoir bed), utility relocation, staging areas, redesign of Limekiln Trail unofficial turnouts/shoulders Minimization: Pre- construction surveys, seasonal work restrictions, potential for on-site mitigation ( roadbed restoration), repurpose ABR as official parking area, recommend AMMs Impacts: Staging areas, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining walls, utility relocation, unofficial parking area redesign Minimization: Limit work to road prism, recommend AMMs, seasonal work restrictions Impacts: Staging areas, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining walls, utility relocation, unofficial parking area redesign Minimization: Limit work to road prism, recommend AMMs, seasonal work restrictions Impacts: Staging areas, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining walls, utility relocation, unofficial parking area redesign Minimization: Limit work to road prism, recommend AMMs, seasonal work restrictions Existing Facilities Impact Minimization Impacts: Temporary/full road closures over 5 years, ABR segment abandonment, Limekiln Trail parking lot/trailhead abandonment Minimization: Reversible traffic during temporary road closures, full road closure to non-quarry Impacts: Temporary road closure, raise ABR up to two feet, utilities relocation, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign, Miller Point parking area guide fencing Minimization: Reversible traffic during temporary road Impacts: Temporary road closure, raise ABR up to two feet, utilities relocation, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign Minimization: Reversible traffic during temporary road closures, limit work to Impacts: Temporary road closure, raise ABR up to two feet, utilities relocation, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign, short-term construction at Soda Springs Rd- ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 43 Design Consideration Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 2a Zone 3 traffic, partial road closure to allow quarry traffic, Limekiln Trail trailhead relocation, redesign of Limekiln Trail unofficial turnouts/ shoulders closures, limit work to road prism, redesign of unofficial turnouts/ shoulders road prism, redesign of unofficial turnouts/ shoulders Alma Bridge Rd intersection Minimization: Reversible traffic during temporary road closures, limit work to road prism, redesign of unofficial turnouts/ shoulders Maintenance Needs/Costs Bridge preventative maintenance Standard County road maintenance/ inspections, annual inspection of crossing structures (minimum; based on final Corrective Action design) Standard County road maintenance/ inspections, annual inspection of crossing structures (minimum; based on final Corrective Action design) Standard County road maintenance/ inspections, annual inspection of crossing structures (minimum; based on final Corrective Action design) Environmental Clearance, Permits, and Approvals CEQA: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report NEPA: TBD1 but likely Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment Permits/: 404, 401, ITP, 1602 LSAA, BO Approvals: landowner coordination, encroachment permits, licenses, and land rights acquisitions CEQA: Statutory Exemption2, Categorical Exemption, or Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration NEPA: TBD1 but likely Categorical Exclusion Permits: 404, 401, ITP, 1602, BO Approvals: landowner coordination, encroachment permits, licenses, and land rights acquisitions CEQA: Statutory Exemption2, Categorical Exemption, or Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration NEPA: TBD1 but likely Categorical Exclusion Permits: 404, 401, ITP, 1602, BO Approvals: landowner coordination, encroachment permits, licenses, and land rights acquisitions CEQA: Statutory Exemption2, Categorical Exemption, or Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration NEPA: TBD1 but likely Categorical Exclusion Permits: 404, 401, ITP, 1602, BO Approvals: landowner coordination, encroachment permits, licenses, and land rights acquisitions Total Estimated Project Schedule 2 years for environmental clearance and preliminary design, 1 additional year from time of 65% design for permitting 1 to 1.5 years for environmental clearance and preliminary design, 6 to 12 additional months from time of 65% design for permitting 1 to 1.5 years for environmental clearance and preliminary design, 6 to 12 additional months from time of 65% design for permitting 1 to 1.5 years for environmental clearance and preliminary design, 6 to 12 additional months from time of 65% design for permitting Construction Schedule 2 – 5 years 1 year 1 year 1 – 2 years ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 44 Design Consideration Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 2a Zone 3 Construction Cost $$$$ $ $ $$ $ = $1M - $3M $$ = $4M - $10M $$$ = $11M - $20M $$$$ = $21M - $40M ABR = Alma Bridge Road AMMs = Avoidance & Minimization Measures MGS = Midwest Guardrail System railing EIR = Environmental Impact Report LSAA = Lake & Streambed Agreement BO = Biological Opinion NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act 1 The need for and type of NEPA clearance would depend on whether the Project has federal funding. If not, it is assumed that NEPA would be completed by the USACE as part of the 404 permitting process. 2 In 2021, California Public Resources Code Section 21080.56 was added to provide a new CEQA statutory exemption until January 1, 2025, for fish and wildlife restoration projects that meet certain requirements, to be determined in coordination with CDFW. 7.1.2. Alternative 1 Discussion Zone 1 In Zone 1, the construction of a bridge across Limekiln Canyon inlet would involve temporary single-lane road closures throughout construction over 5 years; during that same time period, intermittent full road closures could take place during discrete phases of construction which may be necessary for a limited time to establish the primary staging area, import bridge materials, or during the construction of the landward footing(s). After construction is complete, a partial road closure of Alma Bridge Road would be enforced between the northern bridge touchdown (station 22+50) and the Limekiln Quarry driveway (31+00) for all non-quarry vehicle traffic, and a full road closure of Alma Bridge Road between the Limekiln Quarry driveway and the southern the bridge touchdown (31+00 to 58+00) would be enforced to the public and quarry traffic. Under this Alternative, public access to recreational facilities like the Limekiln Trail and unofficial parking turn outs or road shoulder parking areas could be preserved by relocating the existing unofficial turn outs and parking areas and staging area. This could be done by constructing (or repurposing) a designated dirt, gravel, or paved parking lot as an official parking lot on an abandoned portion of Alma Bridge Road accessible from either direction at the southern bridge touchdown paired with extending the Limekiln Trail trailhead south to connect with the relocated parking area. Any future official or unofficial parking areas should consider design elements that would minimize mortality and permit or enhance newt movement, including directional fencing and/or guide walls. Alternate uses for this abandoned roadway could include restoring the former roadbed to a natural condition, removing the existing road and culvert crossing Limekiln Creek, restoring the Limekiln Creek streambed and riparian corridor to its natural condition, and/or replacing all or a portion of the former roadbed with a recreational trail and informational kiosks. Zones 2 and 2a In Zone 2 and 2a, the construction of an elevated road segment involving repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, and modified cattle grates at either end of a segment would take place in two discrete locations: in Zone 2 between the upper end of Zone 2 and a location immediately north of the Miller Point parking lot, and throughout Zone 2a. The portion of Alma Bridge Road along the Miller Point parking lot would be left at the current grade to avoid any need to raise the entire parking lot. In lieu of modifying the parking lot, guide walls could be placed along the west/water-facing side of the parking lot to redirect newt movement around the parking lot. Under this Alternative, the proposed elevated road segment in Zone 2a would not involve the recommendation to modify the proposed former Beatty Trust property parking area project driveway(s) (as proposed under ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 45 Alternative 3). This elevated road segment in Zone 2a is proposed to address the likely increase in vehicle traffic and associated wildlife mortality from the development of new recreational facilities. Zone 3 In Zone 3, the construction of an elevated road segment involving repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate at each end of the elevated roadway, would take place throughout Zone 3. To accommodate the raised roadway at the Soda Springs Road/Alma Bridge Road intersection, minor modifications to Soda Springs Road, such as an elevated transition from Soda Springs Road, may be necessary. Effectiveness Preliminary Alternative 1 is estimated to protect approximately 68.5 percent of the migrating California newt population against road mortality, result in an estimated 84% increase in population size after 30 years, and is predicted to meet the goal of population persistence to Year 100. Engineering Considerations (Constructability/Maintenance) In Zone 1, possible engineering considerations include the need for staging areas, temporary full road closures to build the approach roadways and bridge abutments, structural engineer input, Santa Clara County Roads and Airport staff coordination during the design process. In Zones 2, 2a, and 3, possible engineering considerations would include the installation of Midwest Guardrail System railing, staging areas, the need for uphill cutslope and downhill retaining walls along all or portions of the treatment areas, speed reduction signage at select areas (due to reduced stopping sight distance along sharp horizontal curves), overhead utility pole relocation/raise, underground utility investigation/survey, the redesign (raise and reconstruct) of pullout areas along sections of raised roadway, and phased construction to maintain reversible traffic control during construction. Any unofficial parking turn outs or road shoulder parking areas adjacent to elevated road segments would need to be raised and include design elements that would minimize mortality and permit or enhance newt movement, including directional fencing and/or guide walls. To both preserve and repair the bridge and its components against deterioration over time, bridge preventive maintenance would be required in perpetuity, which could include washing and cleaning, sealing deck joints and overlays, clearing drainage areas, sealing cracks, painting exposed elements, removing trash and debris, protecting against scour, lubricating bearings, concrete repair, paint/coat all steel components, installing cathodic protection systems, installing jackets and other protective systems around concrete piles, and repairing/replacing fatigue- and fracture-prone components. Such activities may take place as frequently as every one to two years, or as infrequently as every five, ten, fifteen, or twenty years. Depending on the final design specifications, the level of maintenance required by at-grade structures like Type 4 purpose-built passage structures and Type 5 micro-passages could be more extensive than standard road maintenance/inspections, and will be further investigated in either Task 3 or Phase 2. Existing Facilities Impact Minimization To minimize impacts to existing facilities, minimization measures could include implementing reversible traffic during temporary road closures, implementing a partial road closure to non-quarry public between the northern bridge landing and the private quarry driveway, implementing a full road closure to public traffic beyond the northern bridge landing, the relocation of the Limekiln Trail trailhead, the redesign of the Limekiln Trail unofficial turnouts/shoulders, limiting work to the road prism, and the redesign of any additional unofficial turnouts/shoulders. Environmental Impact Minimization To minimize impacts to the environment during construction, minimization measures could include conducting pre-construction surveys prior to construction of the bridge, seasonal work restrictions, on-site restoration (i.e., restoring former Alma Bridge Road roadbed), repurposing portions of Alma Bridge Road as official parking areas for the Limekiln Trail trailhead, and implementing standard construction avoidance and minimization ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 46 measures (i.e., pre-construction nesting bird surveys, erosion control, seasonal work restrictions), and will be further investigated with Stakeholder input in either Task 3 or Phase 2. Environmental Clearance, Permits, and Approvals The Project’s final environmental clearance, permits, and approval needs are uncertain at this early stage in the planning process, and will depend on future Stakeholder input, the Alternative(s) selected, the project footprint, and detailed design specifications. Probable project permits and approvals required may include an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report under CEQA, a Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment under NEPA, and a Regional Water Quality Board (RWQCB) 401 permit, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) 404 permit, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Incidental Take Permit (ITP), CDFW 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Opinion (BO). In addition, approvals such as landowner coordination, encroachment permits, licenses, and land rights acquisitions may be necessary. The Project’s final environmental clearance, permits, and approval needs will be further investigated during Task 3 and refined in Phase 2. Total Estimated Project Schedule To construct a bridge in Priority Zone 1, the total estimated Project schedule could range from 2 years to complete environmental clearance and preliminary design, and 1 year from the time of 65% design to permit the project. To construct Corrective Actions throughout the remainder of the Project Footprint, the total estimated Project schedule could range from 1 to 1.5 years to complete environmental clearance and preliminary design, and an estimated 6 to 12 months from the time of 65% design to permit the project. Construction Schedule Project construction could take anywhere from one year if phased by individual Zones, to as many as 2-5 years if built altogether. Construction Cost Estimated costs range from $21M to $40M for Priority Zone 1, $1M to $2M apiece for Priority Zones 2 and 2a, and $4M to $10M for Priority Zone 3, for a total of $27M to $54M across the Project footprint. 7.2. Alternative 2 7.2.1. Corrective Actions Based on the Effectiveness Modeling, Alternative 2 provides the second most effective combination of Corrective Action Options, along with Alternative 4, to address newt mortality and persistence of the local newt population (Table 6; Figure 5b). Alternative 2 would consist of the following Corrective Action Options: • Zone 1: elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate at either end of the approach • Zone 2: elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate at either end of the approach • Zone 2a: elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate on either end of the approach • Zone 3: elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate on either end of the approach ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 47 Table 6. Preliminary Feasibility Analysis for Alternative 2 Design Consideration Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 2a Zone 3 Effectiveness Estimated 72% increase in population size after 30 years. Predicted population persistence to Year 100. Crossing Structure Count Type 4: 21 Cattle Grate: 3 Type 4: 11 Cattle Grate: 2 Type 4: 10 Cattle Grate: 2 Type 4: 19 Type 5: 2 Cattle Grate: 2 Constructability Temporary road closure over 1-3 years, raise ABR up to two feet, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining wall, utility relocation, MGS railing, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign, redesign of Limekiln Trail unofficial turnouts/ shoulders, Temporary road closure over 1 year, raise ABR up to two feet, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining wall, utility relocation, MGS railing, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign, Miller Point parking area guide fencing Temporary road closure over 1 year, raise ABR up to two feet, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining wall, utility relocation, MGS railing, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign Temporary road closure over 1-2 years, raise ABR up to two feet, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining wall, utility relocation, MGS railing, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign, elevation transition of Soda Springs Rd- Alma Bridge Rd intersection Environmental Impact Minimization Impacts: Staging areas, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining walls, utility relocation, Limekiln Trail unofficial parking area redesign Minimization: Limit work to road prism, recommend AMMs, seasonal work restrictions Impacts: Staging areas, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining walls, utility relocation, unofficial parking area redesign Minimization: Limit work to road prism, recommend AMMs, seasonal work restrictions Impacts: Staging areas, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining walls, utility relocation, unofficial parking area redesign Minimization: Limit work to road prism, recommend AMMs, seasonal work restrictions Impacts: Staging areas, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining walls, utility relocation, unofficial parking area redesign Minimization: Limit work to road prism, recommend AMMs, seasonal work restrictions Existing Facilities Impact Minimization Impacts: Temporary road closure, raise ABR up to two feet, utilities relocation, staging areas, Limekiln Trail unofficial parking area redesign Minimization: Reversible traffic control during temporary road closures, limit work to road prism, redesign of Limekiln Trail unofficial parking area Impacts: Temporary road closure, raise ABR up to two feet, utilities relocation, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign, Miller Point parking area guide fencing Minimization: Reversible traffic during temporary road closures, limit work to road prism, redesign of unofficial turnouts/shoulders Impacts: Temporary road closure, raise ABR up to two feet, utilities relocation, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign Minimization: Reversible traffic during temporary road closures, limit work to road prism, redesign of unofficial turnouts/shoulders Impacts: Temporary road closure, raise ABR up to two feet, utilities relocation, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign, short- term construction at Soda Springs Rd- Alma Bridge Rd intersection Minimization: Reversible traffic during temporary road closures, limit work to road prism, redesign of unofficial turnouts/shoulders ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 48 Design Consideration Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 2a Zone 3 Maintenance Needs/Costs Standard County road maintenance/ inspections, annual inspection of crossing structures (minimum; based on final Corrective Action design) Standard County road maintenance/ inspections, annual inspection of crossing structures (minimum; based on final Corrective Action design) Standard County road maintenance/ inspections, annual inspection of crossing structures (minimum; based on final Corrective Action design) Standard County road maintenance/ inspections, annual inspection of crossing structures (minimum; based on final Corrective Action design) Environmental Clearance CEQA: Statutory Exemption2, Categorical Exemption, or Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration NEPA: TBD1 but likely Categorical Exclusion Permits: 404, 401, ITP, 1602, BO Approvals: landowner coordination, encroachment permits, licenses, and land rights acquisitions CEQA: Statutory Exemption2, Categorical Exemption, or Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration NEPA: TBD1 but likely Categorical Exclusion Permits: 404, 401, ITP, 1602, BO Approvals: landowner coordination, encroachment permits, licenses, and land rights acquisitions CEQA: Statutory Exemption2, Categorical Exemption, or Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration NEPA: TBD1 but likely Categorical Exclusion Permits: 404, 401, ITP, 1602, BO Approvals: landowner coordination, encroachment permits, licenses, and land rights acquisitions CEQA: Statutory Exemption2, Categorical Exemption, or Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration NEPA: TBD1 but likely Categorical Exclusion Permits: 404, 401, ITP, 1602, BO Approvals: landowner coordination, encroachment permits, licenses, and land rights acquisitions Total Estimated Project Schedule 1 to 1.5 years for environmental clearance and preliminary design, 6 to 12 additional months from time of 65% design for permitting 1 to 1.5 years for environmental clearance and preliminary design, 6 to 12 additional months from time of 65% design for permitting 1 to 1.5 years for environmental clearance and preliminary design, 6 to 12 additional months from time of 65% design for permitting 1 to 1.5 years for environmental clearance and preliminary design, 6 to 12 months additional from time of 65% design for permitting Construction Schedule 1 – 3 years 1 year 1 year 1-2 years Construction Cost $$ $ $ $$ $ = $1M - $3M $$ = $4M - $10M $$$ = $11M - $20M $$$$ = $21M - $40M ABR = Alma Bridge Road AMMs = Avoidance & Minimization Measures MGS = Midwest Guardrail System railing EIR = Environmental Impact Report LSAA = Lake & Streambed Agreement BO = Biological Opinion NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act 1 The need for and type of NEPA clearance would depend on whether the Project has federal funding. If not, it is assumed that NEPA would be completed by the USACE as part of the 404 permitting process. 2 In 2021, California Public Resources Code Section 21080.56 was added to provide a new CEQA statutory exemption until January 1, 2025, for fish and wildlife restoration projects that meet certain requirements, to be determined in coordination with CDFW. ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 49 7.2.2. Alternative 2 Discussion Zone 1 In Zone 1, the construction of an extended length of elevated road segment involving repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, and a modified cattle grate at each end would take place from Limekiln Creek (station 35+50) along the Limekiln Trail unofficial parking areas to the south end of Zone 1 (57+00). Under this Alternative, the change in grade of the roadway would require raising the informal parking areas to maintain public access to recreational facilities like the Limekiln Trail. This would involve constructing raised, designated paved parking and staging areas that incorporate newt passages extending underneath. Any future designated parking area should consider design elements that would minimize mortality and permit or enhance newt movement, including directional fencing and/or guide walls. Zones 2 and 2a In Zone 2 and 2a, the construction of an elevated road segment involving repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, and modified cattle grates at either end of a segment would take place in two discrete locations: in Zone 2 between the upper end of Zone 2 and a location immediately north of the Miller Point parking lot, and throughout Zone 2a. The portion of Alma Bridge Road along the Miller Point parking lot would be left at the current grade to avoid any need to raise the entire parking lot. In place of modifying the parking lot, guide walls could be placed along the west/water-facing side of the parking lot to redirect newt movement around the parking lot. Under this Alternative, the proposed elevated road segment in Zone 2a would not involve the recommendation to modify the proposed former Beatty Trust property parking area project driveway(s) (as proposed under Alternative 3). This elevated road segment in Zone 2a is proposed to address the likely increase in vehicle traffic and associated newt mortality from the development of new recreational facilities. Zone 3 In Zone 3, the construction of an elevated road segment involving repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate at each end of the elevated roadway, would take place throughout Zone 3. To accommodate the raised roadway at the Soda Springs Road/Alma Bridge Road intersection, minor modifications to Soda Springs Road, such as an elevated transition from Soda Springs Road, may be necessary. Effectiveness Preliminary Alternative 2 is estimated to protect approximately 60.2 percent of the migrating California newt population against road mortality, result in an estimated 72% increase in population size after 30 years, and is predicted to meet the goal of population persistence to Year 100. Engineering Considerations (Constructability/Maintenance) In Zones 1, 2, 2a, and 3, possible engineering considerations include the installation of Midwest Guardrail System railing, staging areas, the need for uphill cutslope and downhill retaining walls along all or portions of the treatment areas, speed reduction signage at select areas (due to reduced stopping sight distance along sharp horizontal curves), overhead utility pole relocation/raise, underground utility investigation/survey, the redesign (raise and reconstruct) of pullout areas along sections of raised roadway, and phased construction to maintain reversible traffic control during construction. Any unofficial parking turn outs or road shoulder parking areas adjacent to elevated road segments would need to be raised, and include design elements that would minimize mortality and permit or enhance newt movement, including directional fencing and/or guide walls. Depending on the final design specifications, the level of maintenance required by at-grade structures like Type 4 purpose-built passage structures and Type 5 micro-passages could be more extensive than standard road maintenance/inspections. ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 50 Existing Facilities Impact Minimization To minimize impacts to existing facilities, minimization measures could include implementing reversible traffic during temporary road closures, the redesign of the Limekiln Trail unofficial turnouts/shoulders, limiting work to the road prism, and the redesign of any additional unofficial turnouts/shoulders. Environmental Impact Minimization To minimize impacts to the environment during construction, minimization measures could include limiting work to the road prism, seasonal work restrictions, and implementing standard construction avoidance and minimization measures (i.e., pre-construction nesting bird surveys, erosion control, seasonal work restrictions). Environmental Clearance, Permits, and Approvals The Project’s final environmental clearance, permits, and approval needs are uncertain at this early stage in the planning process, and will depend on future Stakeholder input, the Alternative(s) selected, the project footprint, and detailed design specifications. Probable project permits and approvals required may include a Statutory Exemption, Categorical Exemption, or Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA, a Categorical Exclusion under NEPA, and a RWQCB 401 permit, USACE 404 permit, CDFW ITP and 1602 LSAA, and USFWS BO. In addition, approvals such as landowner coordination, encroachment permits, licenses, and land rights acquisitions may be necessary. The Project’s final environmental clearance, permits, and approval needs will be further investigated during Task 3 and refined in Phase 2. Total Estimated Project Schedule To construct Corrective Actions throughout the Project Footprint, the total estimated Project schedule could range from 1 to 1.5 years to complete environmental clearance and preliminary design, and 6 to 12 months from the time of 65% design to permit the project. Construction Schedule Project construction could take anywhere from one year if phased by individual Zones, to as many as 2-3 years if built altogether. Construction Cost Estimated costs range from $1M to $2M apiece for Priority Zones 2 and 2a, and $4M to $10M apiece for Priority Zones 1 and 3, for a total of $10M to $24M across the full Project footprint. 7.3. Alternative 3 7.3.1. Corrective Actions Based on the Effectiveness Modeling, Alternative 3 provides the least effective combination of Corrective Action Options to address newt mortality and persistence of the local newt population (Table 7; Figure 5c). Alternative 3 would consist of the following Corrective Action Options: • Zone 1: a combination of alternating Type 5 micro-passages and modified cattle grates between the Limekiln Quarry driveway and Limekiln Trail unofficial parking pullout, followed by section of elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate at either end of the approach • Zone 2: elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate at either end of the approach • Zone 2a: three type 5 micro-passages placed adjacent to three unnamed drainages in the areas of highest newt mortality within the Priority Zone. • Zone 3: elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate on either end of the approach, along with a Type 5 micro-passage, directional fencing, and a modified cattle grate placed on each side of an existing culvert (unnamed drainage)Table 7. Preliminary Feasibility Analysis for Alternative 3 ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 51 Design Consideration Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 2a Zone 3 Effectiveness Estimated 56% increase in population size after 30 years. Predicted population persistence to Year 100. Crossing Structure Count Type 4: 18 Type 5: 5 Cattle Grate: 8 Type 4: 10 Cattle Grate: 2 Type 5: 3 Type 4: 10 Type 5: 2 Cattle Grate: 4 Constructability Temporary road closure over 1-3 years, raise ABR up to two feet, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining wall, utility relocation, MGS railing, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign, redesign of Limekiln Trail unofficial turnouts/shoulders Temporary road closure over 1 year, raise ABR up to two feet, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining wall, utility relocation, MGS railing, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign, Miller Point parking area guide fencing Temporary road closure over 1 year, raise ABR up to two feet, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining wall, utility relocation, MGS railing, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign, redesign of former Beatty Trust property project access points Temporary road closure over 2 years, raise ABR up to two feet, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining wall, utility relocation, MGS railing, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign, elevation transition of Soda Springs Rd-Alma Bridge Rd intersection Environmental Impact Minimization Impacts: Staging areas, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining walls, utility relocation, Limekiln Trail unofficial parking area redesign Minimization: Limit work to road prism, recommend AMMs, seasonal work restrictions Impacts: Staging areas, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining walls, utility relocation, unofficial parking area redesign Minimization: Limit work to road prism, recommend AMMs, seasonal work restrictions Impacts: Staging areas, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining walls, utility relocation, unofficial parking area redesign, redesign of former Beatty Trust property project access points Minimization: Limit work to road prism, recommend AMMs, redesign of former Beatty Trust property project access points, seasonal work restrictions Impacts: Staging areas, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining walls, utility relocation, unofficial parking area redesign Minimization: Limit work to road prism, recommend AMMs, seasonal work restrictions Existing Facilities Impact Minimization Impacts: Temporary road closure, raise ABR up to two feet, utilities relocation, staging areas, Limekiln Trail unofficial parking area redesign Minimization: Reversible traffic control during temporary road closures, limit work to road prism, Impacts: Temporary road closure, raise ABR up to two feet, utilities relocation, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign, Miller Point parking area guide fencing Minimization: Reversible traffic during temporary road closures, limit work to road prism, Impacts: Temporary road closure, raise ABR up to two feet, utilities relocation, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign, redesign of former Beatty Trust property project access points Minimization: Reversible traffic during temporary Impacts: Temporary road closure, raise ABR up to two feet, utilities relocation, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign, short- term construction at Soda Springs Rd- Alma Bridge Rd intersection Minimization: Reversible traffic during temporary ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 52 Design Consideration Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 2a Zone 3 redesign of Limekiln Trail unofficial parking area redesign of unofficial turnouts/shoulders road closures, limit work to road prism, redesign of unofficial turnouts/shoulders, redesign of former Beatty Trust property project access points road closures, limit work to road prism, redesign of unofficial turnouts/shoulders Maintenance Needs/Costs Standard County road maintenance/ inspections, annual inspection of crossing structures (minimum; based on final Corrective Action design) Standard County road maintenance/ inspections, annual inspection of crossing structures (minimum; based on final Corrective Action design) Standard County road maintenance/ inspections, annual inspection of crossing structures (minimum; based on final Corrective Action design) Standard County road maintenance/ inspections, annual inspection of crossing structures (minimum; based on final Corrective Action design) Environmental Clearance CEQA: Statutory Exemption2, Categorical Exemption, or Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration NEPA: TBD1 but likely Categorical Exclusion Permits: 404, 401, ITP, 1602, BO Approvals: landowner coordination, encroachment permits, licenses, and land rights acquisitions CEQA: Statutory Exemption2, Categorical Exemption, or Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration NEPA: TBD1 but likely Categorical Exclusion Permits: 404, 401, ITP, 1602, BO Approvals: landowner coordination, encroachment permits, licenses, and land rights acquisitions CEQA: Statutory Exemption2, Categorical Exemption, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report NEPA: TBD1 but likely Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment Permits: 404, 401, ITP, 1602, BO Approvals: landowner coordination, encroachment permits, licenses, and land rights acquisitions CEQA: Statutory Exemption2, Categorical Exemption, or Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration NEPA: TBD1 but likely Categorical Exclusion Permits: 404, 401, ITP, 1602, BO Approvals: landowner coordination, encroachment permits, licenses, and land rights acquisitions Total Estimated Project Schedule 1 to 1.5 years for environmental clearance and preliminary design, 6 to 12 additional months from time of 65% design for permitting 1 to 1.5 years for environmental clearance and preliminary design, 6 to 12 additional months from time of 65% design for permitting 1 to 1.5 years for environmental clearance and preliminary design, 6 to 12 additional months from time of 65% design for permitting 1 to 1.5 years for environmental clearance and preliminary design, 6 to 12 additional months from time of 65% design for permitting Construction Schedule 1 – 3 years 1 year 1 year 1-2 years ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 53 Design Consideration Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 2a Zone 3 Construction Cost $$ $ $ $ $ = $1M - $3M $$ = $4M - $10M $$$ = $11M - $20M $$$$ = $21M - $40M ABR = Alma Bridge Road AMMs = Avoidance & Minimization Measures MGS = Midwest Guardrail System railing EIR = Environmental Impact Report LSAA = Lake & Streambed Agreement BO = Biological Opinion NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act 1 The need for and type of NEPA clearance would depend on whether the Project has federal funding. If not, it is assumed that NEPA would be completed by the USACE as part of the 404 permitting process. 2 In 2021, California Public Resources Code Section 21080.56 was added to provide a new CEQA statutory exemption until January 1, 2025, for fish and wildlife restoration projects that meet certain requirements, to be determined in coordination with CDFW. 7.3.2. Alternative 3 Discussion Zone 1 In Zone 1, alternating modified cattle grates and Type 5 micro-passages with directional fencing would be constructed throughout the hairpin turn between the Limekiln Quarry driveway and unofficial Limekiln Trail parking turnout. Additionally, an elevated road segment involving repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier would be built from south of the Limekiln Trail unofficial parking area to the end of Zone 1 (57+00). Under this Alternative, the change in grade of the roadway would require raising the informal parking areas to maintain public access to recreational facilities like the Limekiln Trail. This would involve constructing raised, designated paved parking and staging areas that incorporate newt passages extending underneath. Any future designated parking area should consider design elements that would minimize mortality and permit or enhance newt movement, including directional fencing and/or guide walls. Zones 2 and 2a In Zone 2 and 2a, the construction of an elevated road segment involving repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier would take place in between the upper end of Zone 2 (approximately station 64+00) and a location immediately north of the Miller Point parking lot, followed by Type 5 micro-passages placed adjacent to three existing culverts (unnamed drainages) in Zone 2a where newt mortality is highest within the Priority Zone. The roadway along the Miller Point parking lot would be left at the current grade to avoid any need to raise the entire parking lot; in place of modifying the parking lot, guide walls could be place along the west/water-facing side of the parking lot to redirect newt movement around the parking lot. Under this Alternative, the lack of elevated road segment in Zone 2a would accompany the recommendation to modify the proposed former Beatty Trust property parking area by relocating the proposed parking lot public access point to a single driveway in Zone 2 located immediately opposite the Miller Point parking lot, creating a new 4-way intersection. Relocating the former Beatty Trust property driveway would focus vehicle traffic in Zone 2, and prevent additional vehicles, and vehicle-related newt mortality, from encroaching from Zone 2 into Zone 2a. Zone 3 In Zone 3, the construction of an elevated road segment involving repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier with modified cattle grates on either end would take place throughout the first half of Zone 3 between the Soda Springs Road/Alma Bridge Road junction (station 146+00) and station 158+50. Further south along Alma Bridge Road, Type 5 micro-passages, modified cattle ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 54 grates, and directional fencing would be placed on each side of an existing culvert (unnamed drainage) by station 163+00. To accommodate the raised roadway at the Soda Springs Road/Alma Bridge Road junction, minor modifications to Soda Springs Road, such as an elevated transition from Soda Springs Road onto Alma Bridge Road, may be necessary. Effectiveness Preliminary Alternative 3 is estimated to protect approximately 53.1 percent of the migrating California newt population against road mortality, result in an estimated 56% increase in population size after 30 years, and is predicted to meet the goal of population persistence to Year 100. Engineering Considerations (Constructability/Maintenance) In Zones 1, 2, 2a, and 3, possible engineering considerations would include the installation of Midwest Guardrail System railing, staging areas, the need for uphill cutslope and downhill retaining walls along all or portions of the treatment areas, speed reduction signage at select areas (due to reduced stopping sight distance along sharp horizontal curves), overhead utility pole relocation/raise, underground utility investigation/survey, the redesign (raise and reconstruct) of pullout areas along sections of raised roadway, and phased construction to maintain reversible traffic control during construction. Any unofficial parking turn outs or road shoulder parking areas adjacent to elevated road segments would need to be raised and include design elements that would minimize mortality and permit or enhance newt movement, including directional fencing and/or guide walls. In Zone 1, the placement of alternating modified cattle grates and Type 5 micro-passages with directional fencing throughout the hairpin turn between the Limekiln Quarry driveway and unofficial Limekiln Trail parking turnout was identified as requiring additional engineering consideration. Along the western/uphill side of this hairpin turn, there may not be sufficient room to accommodate Type 5 micro-passages and directional fencing without elevating this section of roadway. The costs associated with these additional engineering considerations, when compared to the mortality rate recorded at these locations, may not justify mitigating the entire length of the hairpin turn. As a result of this finding, the Option 2b. Extended Straightaway was developed as a hybrid of the hairpin turn and the straightaway. Depending on the final design specifications, the level of maintenance required by at-grade structures like Type 4 purpose-built passage structures and Type 5 micro-passages could be more extensive than standard road maintenance/ inspections. Existing Facilities Impact Minimization To minimize impacts to existing facilities, minimization measures could include implementing reversible traffic during temporary road closures, the redesign of the Limekiln Trail unofficial turnouts/shoulders, limiting work to the road prism, and the redesign of any additional unofficial turnouts/shoulders. Environmental Impact Minimization To minimize impacts to the environment during construction, minimization measures could include limiting work to the road prism, seasonal work restrictions, and implementing standard construction avoidance and minimization measures (i.e., pre-construction nesting bird surveys, erosion control, seasonal work restrictions). Environmental Clearance, Permits, and Approvals The Project’s final environmental clearance, permits, and approval needs are uncertain at this early stage in the planning process, and will depend on future Stakeholder input, the Alternative(s) selected, the project footprint, and detailed design specifications. Probable project permits and approvals required may include a Statutory Exemption, Categorical Exemption, or Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA, a Categorical Exclusion under NEPA, and a RWQCB 401 permit, USACE 404 permit, CDFW ITP and 1602 LSAA, and USFWS BO. In addition, approvals such as landowner coordination, encroachment permits, licenses, and land rights acquisitions may be necessary. The Project’s final environmental clearance, permits, and approval needs will be further investigated during Task 3 and refined in Phase 2. ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 55 Total Estimated Project Schedule To construct Corrective Actions throughout the Project Footprint, the total estimated Project schedule could range from 1 to 1.5 years to complete environmental clearance and preliminary design, and 6 to 12 months from the time of 65% design to permit the project. Construction Schedule Project construction could take anywhere from one year if phased by individual Zones, to as many as 2-3 years if built altogether. Construction Cost Estimated costs range from $1M to $2M apiece for Priority Zones 2, 2a, and 3, and $4M to $10M for Priority Zone 1, for a total of $7M to $16M across the Project footprint. 7.4. Alternative 4 7.4.1. Corrective Actions Based on the Effectiveness Modeling, Alternative 4 provides the second most effective combination of Corrective Action Options, along with Alternative 2, to address newt mortality and persistence of the local newt population (Table 8; Figure 5d). Alternative 4 would consist of the following Corrective Action Options: • Zone 1: a combination of alternating Type 5 micro-passage and modified cattle grates between the Limekiln Quarry driveway and Limekiln Trail unofficial parking lot, followed by section of elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate at either end of the approach • Zone 2: elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate at either end of the approach • Zone 2a: elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate on either end of the approach • Zone 3: elevated road segment with repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate on either end of the approach Table 8. Preliminary Feasibility Analysis for Alternative 4 Design Consideration Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 2a Zone 3 Effectiveness Estimated 70% increase in population size after 30 years. Predicted population persistence to Year 100. Crossing Structure Count Type 4: 18 Type 5: 5 Cattle Grate: 8 Type 4: 10 Cattle Grate: 2 Type 4: 10 Cattle Grate: 2 Type 4: 19 Type 5: 2 Cattle Grate: 2 Constructability Temporary road closure over 1-3 years, raise ABR up to two feet, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining wall, utility relocation, MGS railing, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign, redesign of Limekiln Trail Temporary road closure over 1 year, raise ABR up to two feet, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining wall, utility relocation, MGS railing, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign, Miller Point parking area guide fencing Temporary road closure over 1 year, raise ABR up to two feet, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining wall, utility relocation, MGS railing, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign Temporary road closure over 1-2 years, raise ABR up to two feet, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining wall, utility relocation, MGS railing, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign, elevation transition of Soda Springs Rd- ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 56 Design Consideration Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 2a Zone 3 unofficial turnouts/shoulders Alma Bridge Rd intersection Environmental Impact Minimization Impacts: Staging areas, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining walls, utility relocation, Limekiln Trail unofficial parking area redesign Minimization: Limit work to road prism, recommend AMMs, seasonal work restrictions Impacts: Staging areas, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining walls, utility relocation, unofficial parking area redesign Minimization: Limit work to road prism, recommend AMMs, seasonal work restrictions Impacts: Staging areas, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining walls, utility relocation, unofficial parking area redesign Minimization: Limit work to road prism, recommend AMMs, seasonal work restrictions Impacts: Staging areas, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining walls, utility relocation, unofficial parking area redesign Minimization: Limit work to road prism, recommend AMMs, seasonal work restrictions Existing Facilities Impact Minimization Impacts: Temporary road closure, raise ABR up to two feet, utilities relocation, staging areas, Limekiln Trail unofficial parking area redesign Minimization: Reversible traffic control during temporary road closures, limit work to road prism, redesign of Limekiln Trail unofficial parking area Impacts: Temporary road closure, raise ABR up to two feet, utilities relocation, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign, Miller Point parking area guide fencing Minimization: Reversible traffic during temporary road closures, limit work to road prism, redesign of unofficial turnouts/shoulders Impacts: Temporary road closure, raise ABR up to two feet, utilities relocation, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign Minimization: Reversible traffic during temporary road closures, limit work to road prism, redesign of unofficial turnouts/shoulders Impacts: Temporary road closure, raise ABR up to two feet, utilities relocation, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign, short- term construction at Soda Springs Rd- Alma Bridge Rd intersection Minimization: Reversible traffic during temporary road closures, limit work to road prism, redesign of unofficial turnouts/shoulders Maintenance Needs/Costs Standard County road maintenance/ inspections, annual inspection of crossing structures (minimum; based on final Corrective Action design) Standard County road maintenance/ inspections, annual inspection of crossing structures (minimum; based on final Corrective Action design) Standard County road maintenance/ inspections, annual inspection of crossing structures (minimum; based on final Corrective Action design) Standard County road maintenance/ inspections, annual inspection of crossing structures (minimum; based on final Corrective Action design) Environmental Clearance CEQA: Statutory Exemption2, Categorical Exemption, or Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration NEPA: TBD1 but likely Categorical Exclusion Permits: 404, 401, ITP, 1602, BO Approvals: landowner coordination, encroachment CEQA: Statutory Exemption2, Categorical Exemption, or Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration NEPA: TBD1 but likely Categorical Exclusion Permits: 404, 401, ITP, 1602, BO Approvals: landowner CEQA: Statutory Exemption2, Categorical Exemption, or Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration NEPA: TBD1 but likely Categorical Exclusion Permits: 404, 401, ITP, 1602, BO Approvals: landowner CEQA: Statutory Exemption2, Categorical Exemption, or Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration NEPA: TBD1 but likely Categorical Exclusion Permits: 404, 401, ITP, 1602, BO Approvals: landowner ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 57 Design Consideration Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 2a Zone 3 permits, licenses, and land rights acquisitions coordination, encroachment permits, licenses, and land rights acquisitions coordination, encroachment permits, licenses, and land rights acquisitions coordination, encroachment permits, licenses, and land rights acquisitions Total Estimated Project Schedule 1 to 1.5 years for environmental clearance and preliminary design, 6 to 12 additional months from time of 65% design for permitting 1 to 1.5 years for environmental clearance and preliminary design, 6 to 12 additional months from time of 65% design for permitting 1 to 1.5 years for environmental clearance and preliminary design, 6 to 12 additional months from time of 65% design for permitting 1 to 1.5 years for environmental clearance and preliminary design, 6 to 12 additional months from time of 65% design for permitting Construction Schedule 1 – 3 years 1 year 1 year 1 – 2 years Construction Cost $$ $ $ $$ $ = $1M - $3M $$ = $4M - $10M $$$ = $11M - $20M $$$$ = $21M - $40M ABR = Alma Bridge Road AMMs = Avoidance & Minimization Measures MGS = Midwest Guardrail System railing EIR = Environmental Impact Report LSAA = Lake & Streambed Agreement BO = Biological Opinion NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act 1 The need for and type of NEPA clearance would depend on whether the Project has federal funding. If not, it is assumed that NEPA would be completed by the USACE as part of the 404 permitting process. 2 In 2021, California Public Resources Code Section 21080.56 was added to provide a new CEQA statutory exemption until January 1, 2025, for fish and wildlife restoration projects that meet certain requirements, to be determined in coordination with CDFW. 7.4.2. Alternative 4 Discussion Zone 1 In Zone 1, alternating modified cattle grates and Type 5 micro-passages with directional fencing would be constructed throughout the hairpin turn between the Limekiln Quarry driveway and the Limekiln Trail unofficial road shoulder parking area. Additionally, an elevated road segment involving repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier would be built from south of the Limekiln Trail unofficial road shoulder parking area to the end of Zone 1. Under this Alternative, the change in grade of the roadway would require raising the informal parking areas to maintain public access to recreational facilities like the Limekiln Trail. This would involve constructing raised, designated paved parking and staging areas that incorporate newt passages extending underneath. Any future designated parking area should consider design elements that would minimize mortality and permit or enhance newt movement, including directional fencing and/or guide walls. Zones 2 and 2a In Zone 2 and 2a, the construction of an elevated road segment involving repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, and modified cattle grates at either end of a segment would take place in two discrete locations: in Zone 2 between the upper end of Zone 2 and a location immediately north of the Miller Point parking lot, and throughout Zone 2a. The portion of Alma Bridge Road along the Miller Point parking lot would be left at the current grade to avoid any need to raise the entire parking ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 58 lot. In place of modifying the parking lot, guide walls could be placed along the west/water-facing side of the parking lot to redirect newt movement around the parking lot. Under this Alternative, the proposed elevated road segment in Zone 2a would not involve the recommendation to modify the proposed former Beatty Trust property project driveway(s) (as proposed under Alternative 3). This elevated road segment in Zone 2a is proposed to address the likely increase in vehicle traffic and associated newt mortality from the development of new recreational facilities. Zone 3 In Zone 3, the construction of an elevated road segment involving repeating Type 4 purpose-built passage structures with built in guide walls and climbing barrier, with a modified cattle grate at each end of the elevated roadway, would take place throughout Zone 3. To accommodate the raised roadway at the Soda Springs Road/Alma Bridge Road intersection, minor modifications to Soda Springs Road, such as an elevated transition from Soda Springs Road, may be necessary. Effectiveness Preliminary Alternative 4 is estimated to protect approximately 60.9 percent of the migrating California newt population against road mortality, result in an estimated 70% increase in population size after 30 years, and is predicted to meet the goal of population persistence to Year 100. Engineering Considerations (Constructability/Maintenance) In Zones 1, 2, 2a, and 3, possible engineering considerations would include the installation of Midwest Guardrail System railing, staging areas, the need for uphill cutslope and downhill retaining walls along all or portions of the treatment areas, speed reduction signage at select areas (due to reduced stopping sight distance along sharp horizontal curves), overhead utility pole relocation/raise, underground utility investigation/survey, the redesign (raise and reconstruct) of pullout areas along sections of raised roadway, and phased construction to maintain reversible traffic control during construction. Any unofficial parking turnouts or road shoulder parking areas adjacent to elevated road segments would need to be raised and include design elements that would minimize mortality and permit or enhance newt movement, including directional fencing and/or guide walls. Depending on the final design specifications, the level of maintenance required by at-grade structures like Type 4 purpose-built passage structures and Type 5 micro-passages could be more extensive than standard road maintenance/inspections. Existing Facilities Impact Minimization To minimize impacts to existing facilities, minimization measures could include implementing reversible traffic during temporary road closures, the redesign of the Limekiln Trail unofficial turnouts/shoulders, limiting work to the road prism, and the redesign of any additional unofficial turnouts/shoulders. Environmental Impact Minimization To minimize impacts to the environment during construction, minimization measures could include limiting work to the road prism, seasonal work restrictions, and implementing standard construction avoidance and minimization measures (i.e., pre-construction nesting bird surveys, erosion control, seasonal work restrictions). Environmental Clearance, Permits, and Approvals The Project’s final environmental clearance, permits, and approval needs are uncertain at this early stage in the planning process, and will depend on future Stakeholder input, the Alternative(s) selected, the project footprint, and detailed design specifications. Probable project permits and approvals required may include a Statutory Exemption, Categorical Exemption, or Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA, a Categorical Exclusion under NEPA, and a RWQCB 401 permit, USACE 404 permit, CDFW ITP and 1602 LSAA, and USFWS BO. In addition, approvals such as landowner coordination, encroachment permits, licenses, and land rights acquisitions may be necessary. The Project’s final environmental clearance, permits, and approval needs will be further investigated during Task 3 and refined in Phase 2. ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 59 Total Estimated Project Schedule To construct Corrective Actions throughout the Project Footprint, the total estimated Project schedule could range from 1 to 1.5 years to complete environmental clearance and preliminary design, and 6 to 12 months from the time of 65% design to permit the project. Construction Schedule Project construction could take anywhere from one year if phased by individual Zones, to as many as 2-3 years if built altogether. Construction Cost Estimated costs range from $1M to $2M apiece for Priority Zones 2 and 2a, and $4M to $10M apiece for Priority Zones 1 and 3, for a total of $10M to $24M. 7.5. Secondary Zone Under each of the Alternatives analyzed above, a suite of traffic control and calming options and other considerations are recommended to decrease newt mortality throughout the Project Area (Figure 3h). A no-build decision in the Secondary Zone would result in no additional wildlife crossing structures or traffic calming options and would not help mitigate the current observed newt mortality rate. None of the proposed Alternatives can treat the entire road, so the following measures are critical to protect newts in the Secondary Zone where there would be no formal wildlife passage systems installed. 7.5.1. Traffic Control and Calming Signage: To shorten route(s) and minimize travel time and distance, improved signage is recommended at the following key intersections (see Figure 3h): • Highway 17 (northbound)/Alma Bridge Road (#1) • Alma Bridge Road/Limekiln Canyon Road (#2) • Alma Bridge Road/Soda Springs Road (#3) • Alma Bridge Road/Aldercroft Heights Road (#4) • Highway 17 (southbound)/Bear Creek Road-Gillian Cichowski Memorial Overcrossing (#5) • Bear Creek Road/Old Santa Cruz Highway (#6) • Old Santa Cruz Highway/Aldercroft Heights Road (#7) • Wright Drive (north)/Old Santa Cruz Highway (#8) • Wright Drive (south)/Old Santa Cruz Highway (#9) • Old Santa Cruz Highway/Idylwild Drive (#10) At each of these locations, a study should be performed that includes: (a) a least cost path analysis to determine how new or improved destination, distance, street name, and advance street name signage might influence travel time and distance to key attractions along Alma Bridge Road (e.g. trailheads, Lupin Lodge, residential neighborhoods, recreational amenities), (b) visibility of existing signs, with recommendations on the need to relocate, replace, or remove obstructions (e.g., overgrown vegetation, tree limbs) or increase visibility (e.g., reflectivity) during day- and night-time conditions, (c) alternative route signage to redirect thru-traffic around Alma Bridge Road in response to road-closures or peak traffic along Highway 17. Islands and Medians: To discourage additional traffic to the area related to street racing and sideshows, islands/medians are recommended at two primary intersections: • intersection of Alma Bridge Road and Soda Springs Road, • intersection of Alma Bridge Road and Aldercroft Heights Road ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 60 Because raised channelizing islands and medians may function similarly to a barrier wall to migratory newts; jump-outs or other considerations for newt movement would be a necessary component of the island design, although newts are expected to traverse small impediments like curbs or islands easily. Transverse Rumble Strips/Perceptual Treatments: To heighten driver awareness to speed reduction zones and newt crossing areas, and to improve driver safety, transverse rumble strips or perceptual treatments are recommended at the approach to all elevated road segments 7.5.2. Other Considerations Bay Area Ridge Trail: At present, the Priest Rock Trail in Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve (OSP) is part of the Bay Area Ridge Trail (Ridge Trail) (Figure 6). As such, the trailhead for the Priest Rock Trail and the nearby Banjo Point parking area on Alma Bridge Road may attract additional visitors and recreational access to portions of the road in Priority Zone 1 that currently experience a heightened newt mortality rate. Midpen’s Highway 17 Wildlife and Regional Trail Crossings and Trail Connections Project includes potential trail improvements in this area. Two Options are proposed to help close east-west gaps between Ridge Trail segments to the east and west of SR 17. Only one of the two options would be constructed. The first option is the Jones Trail to Priest Rock Trail (Trail #6), which would improve trail access along Alma Bridge Road between the two existing trailheads. The western end of this trail option would be at the Jones Trailhead along Alma Bridge Road, directly across from the Lexington Reservoir County Park parking lot near Lenihan Dam. The Lexington Reservoir County Park parking lot supports 32 official parking spaces (4 mini spaces, 1 handicap, and 27 regular spaces) appears to have sufficient space to accommodate additional recreational traffic in an area outside of any known newt mortality hotspots. The eastern end of this trail option would be the trailhead for Priest Rock Trail. This trail option could help to reduce automotive traffic on Alma Bridge Road associated with the Ridge Trail, especially with implementation of a public information campaign encouraging Ridge Trail users to park at the lot near Lenihan Dam. Although trail users would still cross through Priority Zone 1 on foot or bicycles, this option could reduce newt mortality compared to the existing condition. The second option is a combination of new and improved existing trail segments, the Manzanita Trail to Limekiln Trail (Trail #5) and the Alma Bridge Road to Manzanita Trail (Trail #7), which would provide a Ridge Trail connection through open space and private lands to the north of Alma Bridge Road. As with the first option, the western end of this trail option would be at the Jones Trailhead. The eastern end of this trail option would connect to the existing Limekiln Trail, which intersects with the Priest Rock Trail 2.2 miles east of the Limekiln Trailhead on Alma Bridge Road. This option would require public access rights to be secured and part of the Ridge Trail (and Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail, or Anza Trail) to be redesignated from the Priest Rock Trail to the Limekiln Trail, Manzanita Trail, and Jones Trail. These requirements would require coordination with private landowners, Bay Area Ridge Trail Council, and the National Park Service, and would therefore involve additional time and cost. However, this trail option would have a greater potential to reduce newt mortality than the Trail #6 option because it would allow for all traffic related to the Ridge Trail to bypass Alma Bridge Road between the trailheads for the Jones Trail and the Priest Rock Trail, and thereby reduce travel through Priority Zone 1. Educational/Interpretive Signage and Brochures: Educational and interpretive signage and brochures placed at parking areas and trailheads/kiosks, and other key attractions may be instrumental in helping to educate the public about the local population of newts and other herpetofauna, wildlife migration and dispersal, and the importance of wildlife crossings to provide safe passage for newts and other species across Alma Bridge Road. ATTACHMENT 2 NorthernOvercrossingAlternative WildlifeUndercrossing SouthernOvercrossingAlternative ÄÆ17 Bay Area R i d g e T r a i l Bay Area Ridge Trail &Juan Bautista de Anza Trail Bay Area Ridge Trail &Juan Bautista de Anza Trail Los Gatos Creek Trai l Bear Creek Rd Bear Creek RedwoodsOpen Space Preserve LexingtonReservoirCounty Park SanbornCounty Park Sierra AzulOpen SpacePreserve El Sereno OpenSpace Preserve St Joseph's HillOpen Space Preserve W Main S t E M a i n S t Lo s Gatos Blvd ÄÆ17 LosGa t o s Creek L i m e k i l n C r e e k Lyn d o n C a n y o n C r e e k SanTom a s A quinoCreek Trout Creek LexingtonReservoir HowellReservoir Black Pond Los Gatos Town of Los GatosNovitiatePark PM 5.8 PM 4.1 9 6 3 8 2 4 7 5 1 PG&E ServiceRoad (no currentpublic access) Bo h lmanRd Montevina Rd MontevinaRd Black Rd AlmaBridgeRd Black A r r o w R d Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(Midpen) 1/6/2023 Figure 6: Proposed Trails Created By: sally.shatford Path: \\na.aecomnet.com\lfs\AMER\Oakland-USOAK01\DCS\Projects\GIS\Projects\60635999_Hwy17_Crossings\02_Maps\02_Report_Maps\Project Design\Figure 3_Project Vicinity Trails.mxd 0 0.50.25 MilesI 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. Project Post Mile River/Stream Midpen Open Space Other Protected Land Trails Proposed Trail Existing Trail - Proposed Improvements Proposed Overcrossing Trail Existing Trail Bay Area Ridge Trail Bay Area Ridge Trail & Juan Bautista de Anza Trail Los Gatos Creek Trail 1. Southern Overcrossing to Serenity Trail 2. Northern Overcrossing to Serenity Trail 3. Montevina Ridge Trail to Sanborn County Park 4. El Sereno OSP - Future Loop Trail Connector 5. Manzanita Trail to Limekiln Trail 6. Jones Trail to Priest Rock Trail 7. Alma Bridge Road to Manzanita Trail 8. Los Gatos Creek Trail to Jones Trail 9. Southern Overcrossing to Los Gatos Creek Trail ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 62 8. Feasibility Analysis Findings 8.1. Alternative Effectiveness Modeling Summary As stated, all four Alternatives are predicted to achieve the Project goals of increased population persistence and improved habitat permeability according to the modeling conducted. Alternative 1 stands out as the most effective option due to its inclusion in Zone 1 of the bridge with a partial road closure. Alternatives 2 and 4 follow, showing minimal overall differences between them. Alternative 3 performs the poorest in all analyzed categories (abundance, mortality, and permeability). Under Preliminary Alternative 1, the construction of a bridge paired with a partial road closure would not only maximize permeability in Zone 1, but also create additional opportunities for on-site restoration in the Limekiln Canyon watershed. Such opportunities include restoring or repurposing portions of the former Alma Bridge Road roadway to native vegetation or an extension of the Limekiln Trail. Due to the potential for increased costs and schedule delays associated with any Alternative that includes the construction of a bridge under Option 1, finding other ways to maximize crossing success in Zone 1 is paramount. A key finding of the Alternatives Effectiveness Modeling concerns Zone 1 and the significance of mitigating mortality along the hairpin turn in Priority Zone 1. USGS modeling determined that Alternatives that mitigate the hairpin turn (Option 2a) and the straightaway (Option 2), including the extended straightaway (Option 2b) that represents a hybrid of the hairpin and straightaway, as opposed to the straightaway alone (Option 2), have a significant beneficial effect on preventing newt extirpation. Under Preliminary Alternative 3, Zone 2a includes the recommendation to modify the proposed former Beatty Trust property project (Figure 3d and 3e) by relocating the former Beatty Trust property parking area public access point to a single driveway in Zone 2 located immediately opposite the Miller Point parking lot. This would create a new 4-way intersection to, and focus vehicle traffic in, Zone 2, preventing additional vehicles and vehicle-related newt mortality from encroaching from Zone 2 into Zone 2a. Under this recommendation, Zone 2a vehicle mortality would instead be mitigated through the placement of Type 5 micro-passages at key mortality hotspots rather than the more costly elevated road segment. The former Beatty Trust property, which has yet to be developed and opened to the public, was identified as a key location where proposed development influenced Option design and Corrective Action placement in the Project Footprint. The section of Alma Bridge Road that parallels the proposed future parking at the former Beatty Trust property (Priority Zone 2a) is not currently a newt mortality hotspot. One possible explanation for low mortality along this section of Alma Bridge Road is that the Miller Point parking lot, located immediately north (Priority Zone 2) and accessed by car predominantly from the north, is currently the focal point for recreational traffic. With the future development of the proposed former Beatty Trust property, however, recreational traffic is likely going to continue farther south to take advantage of the additional parking facilities and trail access. Given that this section of Alma Bridge Road (Priority Zone 2a) currently experiences a lower level of traffic than sections north of the Miller Point parking lot (Priority Zone 2), newt mortality could also increase into Zone 2a after the former Beatty Trust property is developed. Time/schedule, costs, and permitting needs will be vital to consider as well, especially when choosing Alternatives or Options with similar newt crossing effectiveness. Due to the cost of the bridge, Alternative 1 would be the costliest to construct. Alternatives 2 and 4 are very similar in their effectiveness, and Alternative 3 is the most inexpensive. 8.2. Corrective Action Constraints Due to the Project’s prevailing condition consisting of narrow road shoulders, especially on the uphill (east) side of Alma Bridge Road, the predominant Corrective Action recommended consists of elevated road segments paired with Type 4 passage structures. However, preliminary feedback from County Roads suggests, for ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 63 example, that elevated road segments paired with Type 4 micro-passages may not be feasible due to safety concerns related to the multimodal nature of Alma Bridge Road which requires that the roadway remain accessible to multiple users, including vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Depending on site conditions and final design, elevated road segments may constrict the travel path and reduce the width of road shoulders for bicyclists and pedestrians, putting these users at risk. However, by replacing elevated road segments (paired with Type 4 passage structures) with Type 5 micro-passages, the Project may not be able to achieve the stated goal of sufficiently decreasing newt mortality and increasing habitat permeability. For Type 5 micro-passages to function optimally, ample space is required to install directional fencing angled suitably to redirect wildlife away from the active roadway toward the micro-passages. The work required to install Type 5 micro-passages would involve additional cutslope and earthmoving, retaining walls, land acquisition, engineering design, permits, natural habitat impact and mitigation, land easements, etc. Additionally, a greater number of Type 5 micro-passages would be required to achieve the same permeability as a Type 4 passage structure. However, the installation of repeating Type 5 micro-passages in the existing roadway at a higher frequency could impair the structural integrity of the roadway by creating deficiencies (as a consequence of the installation process) that could compound over time, leading to additional inspections and maintenance. Each Type 5 micro-passage would require at-grade directional fencing along both sides of the existing road shoulder that may constrict the travel path and reduce the width of road shoulders for bicyclists and pedestrians, and could be subject to damage from vehicle strikes, leading to additional maintenance costs. The concerns raised above are examples of potential issues related to County approval and safety, Other concerns may be identified during future Project development that require additional consideration. Given these constraints, further refinement is currently underway between AECOM, Midpen, and County Roads to better understand the constraints and opportunities associated with each Corrective Action, Option, and Alternative to inform the Alternatives that advance to Task 3 for more detailed evaluation. 8.3. Phased Implementation In addition to the selection of a preferred Alternative, special consideration should be taken regarding the ability to phase the implementation of a recommended Alternative in parts, sequentially, to allow time to sufficiently fund, implement, and monitor the success of each Corrective Action. For example, by phasing Project implementation by Priority Zone (Year 1: Zone 1, Year 3: Zone 2+2a, Year 5: Zone 3), ample time could be built into the Project to allow for an intermediate study of a given Corrective Action’s ability to achieve the expected performance and success criteria and allow time to integrate adaptive management into subsequent design plans. Additionally, the Alternatives Analysis helped determine the highest Priority Zones for mitigation. In particular, the analysis determined that Zone 1 is the highest priority for mitigation because it contains the hotspots with the greatest newt mortality and highest newt carrying capacity. Zone 3 is the second highest Priority Zone, followed by Zone 2 (Appendices A and B). If funding, permitting, or other logistics require a phased approach, treatment of these zones can be ordered accordingly. Priority Zones 1, 2, 2a, and 3 were identified and delineated during the Task 2 Wildlife Crossing Conceptual Design Workshop from north to south in the Project Area. Any future recommendations for phased implementation and order of importance (i.e., Zone 1, Zone 3, Zone 2, and Zone 2a) are based on the newt mortality observed and are independent of each Zone’s designation number in the Project Area (i.e., Zone 1, Zone 2, Zone 2a, and Zone 3). In other words, the nomenclature used to designate each Zone should not be confused with future recommendations of phased implementation order. 8.4. Additional Recommendations 8.4.1. Adaptive Management and Monitoring To allow for the need for adaptive management, USGS will develop a monitoring program to determine the efficacy of road passage system after construction. This program would include a monitoring protocol to ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 64 determine the permeability of passages and barriers to newt movement and to estimate annual road mortality along Alma Bridge Road after construction. The protocol would include both data collection and analysis methods. In the future, USGS would update the persistence probabilities based upon updated permeability information to inform efficacy of the newt connectivity improvements and conservation efforts. 8.4.2. Future Studies To complement the implementation of the final preferred Alternative selected, additional studies may be warranted regarding the following topics. Predatory Fish In addition to road mortality, another source of mortality that may be influencing the success of the local California newt population at Lexington Reservoir is the presence of predatory fish species. Future investigations could include a review of past recreational survey data or present-day creel surveys (aka angler surveys) to determine the composition and relative abundance of fish in Lexington Reservoir, and determine what impact, if any, predatory fish may have on newt recruitment. Habitat Creation During the conceptual design workshop, the creation of breeding habitat was identified as possible a Corrective Action, and in some cases could serve as an alternative to wildlife crossing structures. In theory, the construction of an artificial breeding pond on the uphill (east) side of Alma Bridge Road could attract and focus breeding activity at that location (rather than Lexington Reservoir), thereby shortening the dispersal distance during seasonal migratory movement, removing Alma Bridge Road as a barrier to movement, and obviating the need for wildlife crossing structures along that specific section of road. At present, only one breeding location is known outside of Lexington Reservoir (notwithstanding any breeding that may take place along Limekiln Creek, Soda Springs Creek, or Hendrys Creek, or unnamed drainages in the vicinity). This breeding site consists of a small seep and pooling water in a concrete cistern located at the Priest Rock Trail staging area and has been confirmed as a location where successful breeding has been observed for several years (Newt Patrol, pers. comm.). Additional study would be necessary to determine whether this seep could be augmented or enhanced in a way to attract and support additional breeding at this location; however, modifications to this existing breeding pool also come with the risk of irreversibly altering this breeding site in such a way as to discourage breeding activity if the enhancement is unsuccessful. Given the steep terrain, the availability of suitable level ground on the uphill (east) side of Alma Bridge Road to accommodate the construction of a breeding pond is limited. However, one such location that might be able to accommodate a wetland is the former Beatty Trust property. As before, further study would be necessary to determine whether the soils, grade, and hydrology on site are suitable to support wetland creation. This may also be a suitable location for educational signage and other outreach about newt conservation and wildlife movement. The creation of breeding habitat alone, without the implementation of any additional Corrective Actions, would not be a viable solution for several reasons. Firstly, newts have high site fidelity for breeding and dispersal sites and tend to reproduce where they were born. Additionally, hypothetical breeding ponds would attract only a portion of the overall breeding population whose existing travel path during breeding and dispersal events passes within a certain distance from the newly constructed pond. All newts north or south of the created pond with breeding or dispersal activity centered on Lexington Reservoir would still be subject to the same levels of mortality and habitat fragmentation from Alma Bridge Road. Furthermore, of the portion of newts drawn to a created breeding pond, a subset of those individuals might still approach and cross Alma Bridge Road as they travel to and from the pond. Barrier fencing along Alma Bridge Road could prevent road mortality at this localized location but would only treat that specific location unless it was part of a greater, more expansive suite of Corrective Actions implemented throughout the Project. In and of itself, habitat creation is not a viable cure-all to meet the Project’s goals. ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 65 Natural History/Baseline Conditions During future adaptive management and monitoring activities, future investigation should prioritize collecting additional data on the following topics to better inform our understanding of California newt natural history: local population size (i.e. geographic boundaries), estimated population decline as a result of road mortality, first year newt survival/annual recruitment as a result of road mortality, juvenile-to-adult dispersal distance (maximum, 90%), newt breeding surveys to identify core breeding habitat (i.e., surrounding creeks, ponds, wetlands, seasonal water bodies), carrying capacity of different micro-habitats, effects of road mortality on age structure and life expectancy/survival, habitat use south and west of Lexington Reservoir, permeability of Corrective Action types, newt response (e.g. “give up distance”) to movement barriers, additional traffic profiles during daytime and nighttime conditions. Utilities All Options identified above could result in impacts to existing utilities. A desktop review of potential utilities in the Project Footprint identified overhead electrical poles/lines, as well as underground utilities indicated by the presence of at-grade utility boxes (Figure 7). Additional investigations and formal utility mapping will be necessary to inform future design phases, which could include contacting utility agencies, preparing refined utility maps, field surveys, and investigatory potholing. 8.5. Feasibility Analysis Limitations The best available data has been used to inform the parameters of the modeling and preliminary Corrective Action recommendations. Inherent in the exercise of modeling a natural system is the need to make certain assumptions to predict the system’s response to change based on the best available evidence. As a non-listed species, research into the basic life history elements of the California newt’s natural history is limited. This lack of a baseline understanding is reflected in the scientific literature and carries into the assumptions that are made if modeling is used to estimate this population’s response to movement barriers and vehicle mortality, as well as their response to the Corrective Actions proposed to mitigate their effects. The USGS’s spatially explicit model of newt population-level road permeability along Alma Bridge Road was based on existing research on the responses of migratory amphibians (principally, salamanders and toads) to road passages and barriers, the most recent four years of Newt Patrol road mortality data, the Newt Patrol carcass persistence study, and the study of newt road mortality versus successful road crossings by H.T. Harvey (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2021, Parsons 2021, Newt Patrol 2022). The model developed for the H.T. Harvey study (H. T. Harvey & Associates 2021, Wilkinson and Romansic 2022) in particular was conditioned on Lexington Reservoir and inlet streams on the reservoir side of Alma Bridge Road being the only breeding source for this population and the adult newts in this population crossing Alma Bridge Road to breed. However, it is possible that there are adult newts in other upland areas around Lexington Reservoir that breed in the reservoir without crossing Alma Bridge Road. Also, there are likely other breeding sources for this population besides Lexington Reservoir. For example, newts breed in the upper reaches of Limekiln Creek (approximately 16 km of creek distance upstream of Alma Bridge Road) and Soda Springs Creek (approximately 19 km of creek distance upstream of Alma Bridge Road). If newts are breeding in Lexington Reservoir without crossing Alma Bridge Road or are breeding in these other locations, annual recruitments from the reservoir or these other sources might be sustaining or supplementing the population, even though the high mortality rate of crossing Alma Bridge Road to breed would represent a population sink for the overall metapopulation. The H.T. Harvey study also assumed that all adults in the California newt population attempt to breed (i.e., undergo the breeding migration) every year. In some salamander populations, males may attempt to breed every year while females skip at least some years between attempts, foregoing the breeding migration in some years to avoid unfavorable conditions or to acquire energy for use in later breeding attempts. Also, there may be a higher annual breeding potential of the females than their assumed 0.5%. ATTACHMENT 2 Bear CreekRd ÄÆ17 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ17 T r o u t C r e e k B l a c k C r e e k H e n d r y s C r e e k Aldercroft C r e e k LexingtonReservoir B la c kPo n d Jone s T r a i l Los Gatos Cr e e k T r a i l L i mek i l n Tr a i l Pr i e s t Roc k T r a i l Los Ga t o s C r e e k L i m e k i l n G u l c h B r i g g s C r e e k Soda S p r i n g s C r e e k Bear C r e ek Rd Idylwild Rd Wright Dr Ol d Santa Cruz Hwy Aldercroft Hts Limekiln Canyon Rd Soda Springs RdAlma Bri d g e R d Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(Midpen) 2/24/2023 Figure 7: Preliminary Utility LocationsCre a t e d B y : s a l l y . s h a t f o r d P a t h : \ \ n a . a e c o m n e t . c o m \ l f s \ A M E R \ O a k l a n d - U S O A K 0 1 \ D C S \ P r o j e c t s \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 6 8 7 5 3 2 _ A l m a B r i d g e R o a d \ 0 2 _ M a p s \ 0 2 _ R e p o r t _ M a p s \ T e c h n i c a l A n a l y s i s \ F i g u r e 7 _ E x i s t i n g U t i l i t i e s . m x d 0 2,0001,000 FeetI 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. Existing Trail 100-ft Buffer Existing Utility Overhead Utility Underground Utility Overhead Utility ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 67 If any of these assumptions are incorrect, then the H.T. Harvey model may be over or underestimating the population size and mortality rate for this population. The USGS model of newt population-level road permeability also relied on assumptions. The current estimates of movement distances are based on California tiger salamander data. The USGS models do not consider the potential for future traffic patterns to change, which may alter the estimated road mortality rate. The estimates of vital rates, especially larval/juvenile survival, are somewhat less informed than other metrics; consequently, these place limitations on rates at which the model allows populations to grow, favoring more conservative growth patterns, rather than allowing rapid growth. There is an altogether lack of information regarding passage permeability, due in part to a lack of information on the natural movements of migrating amphibians (vs non-migrating amphibians), specifically California newts. During the design phase, certain changes to the characteristics of Type 4 purpose-built passage structure or other passage structures (i.e., not allowing open top for moisture and night sky visibility) are expected to reduce passage permeability. There is the least amount of data on the permeability of modified cattle guards; however, early data from Yosemite toads on State Route 108 is promising. Designs that incorporate greater numbers of passages inherently are less certain. If assumptions about passage permeability or fence movement are incorrect, these uncertainties would more strongly impact alternatives with more passages or greater passage spacing. As most designs included permeability, the overall interpretation of relative efficacy should not vary. ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 68 Table 9. Summary of Feasibility Analysis for Preliminary Alternatives 1 through 4 and Secondary Zone Design Consideration Preliminary Alternative 1 Preliminary Alternative 2 Preliminary Alternative 3 Preliminary Alternative 4 Secondary Zone Effectiveness Estimated 84% increase in population size after 30 years. Achieves population persistence to Year 100. Estimated 72% increase in population size after 30 years. Achieves population persistence to Year 100. Estimated 56% increase in population size after 30 years. Achieves population persistence to Year 100. Estimated 70% increase in population size after 30 years. Achieves population persistence to Year 100. Not modeled. Crossing Structure Count Structure: Bridge Type 4: 40 Type 5: 2 Cattle Grate: 6 Type 4: 61 Type 5: 2 Cattle Grate: 9 Type 4: 38 Type 5: 10 Cattle Grate: 14 Type 4: 57 Type 5: 7 Cattle Grate: 14 Constructability Temporary/full road closures over 5 years, partial closure of ABR segment (quarry), full abandonment of ABR segment, construction of steel beam or precast concrete girder bridge, redesign of Limekiln Trail unofficial turnouts/shoulders, realignment of Limekiln Trail trailhead, raise ABR up to two feet, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining wall, utility relocation, MGS railing, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign, Miller Point parking area guide fencing, elevation transition of Soda Springs Rd-Alma Temporary road closure up to 1 year, raise ABR up to two feet, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining wall, utility relocation, MGS railing, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign, redesign of Limekiln Trail unofficial turnouts/shoulders, Miller Point parking area guide fencing, elevation transition of Soda Springs Rd-Alma Bridge Rd intersection. Temporary road closure up to 1 year, raise ABR up to two feet, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining wall, utility relocation, MGS railing, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign, redesign of Limekiln Trail unofficial turnouts/shoulders, Miller Point parking area guide fencing, redesign of former Beatty Trust property project access points, elevation transition of Soda Springs Rd-Alma Bridge Rd intersection. Temporary road closure up to 1-2 years, raise ABR up to two feet, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining wall, utility relocation, MGS railing, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign, redesign of Limekiln Trail unofficial turnouts/shoulders, Miller Point parking area guide fencing, elevation transition of Soda Springs Rd-Alma Bridge Rd intersection. Traffic Control Traffic study (i.e., least cost path analysis, visibility, alternate route signage), temporary road closure, signage replacement/ enhancement, islands/medians, transverse rumble strips/ perceptual treatments Bay Area Ridge Trail Trail designation(s), construction, improvements ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 69 Design Consideration Preliminary Alternative 1 Preliminary Alternative 2 Preliminary Alternative 3 Preliminary Alternative 4 Secondary Zone Bridge Rd intersection. Environmental Impact Minimization Impacts: Bridge abutments (reservoir bank), footings (reservoir bed), utility relocation, staging areas, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining walls, unofficial parking area redesign, redesign of Limekiln Trail unofficial turnouts/shoulders Minimization: Pre- construction surveys, potential for on-site mitigation (roadbed restoration), repurpose ABR as official parking area, limit work to road prism, recommend AMMs Impacts: Utility relocation, staging areas, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining walls, unofficial parking area redesign Minimization: Limit work to road prism, recommend AMMs Impacts: Utility relocation, staging areas, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining walls, unofficial parking area redesign Minimization: Limit work to road prism, recommend AMMs Impacts: Utility relocation, staging areas, uphill cutslope, downhill retaining walls, unofficial parking area redesign Minimization: Limit work to road prism, recommend AMMs Traffic Control None (all work on paved surfaces) Bay Area Ridge Trail To be determined Existing Facilities Impact Minimization Impacts: Temporary/ full road closures over 5 years, ABR segment abandonment, Limekiln Trail parking lot/trailhead abandonment, raise ABR up to two feet, utilities relocation, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign, Miller Point parking area guide fencing Impacts: Temporary road closures, raise ABR up to two feet, utilities relocation, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign, Miller Point parking area guide fencing Minimization: Reversible traffic during temporary road closures, limit work to road prism, redesign of unofficial turnouts/shoulders Impacts: Temporary road closures, raise ABR up to two feet, utilities relocation, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign, redesign of former Beatty Trust property project access points, Miller Point parking area guide fencing Minimization: Reversible traffic during temporary road closures, limit work to road prism, redesign of unofficial Impacts: Temporary road closures, raise ABR up to two feet, utilities relocation, staging areas, unofficial parking area redesign, Miller Point parking area guide fencing Minimization: Reversible traffic during temporary road closures, limit work to road prism, redesign of unofficial turnouts/shoulders Traffic Control Impacts: Existing signage removal/replacement, temporary road closures, staging areas Minimization: Reversible traffic during temporary road closures, limit work to road prism Bay Area Ridge Trail Impact: Trail designation(s), ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 70 Design Consideration Preliminary Alternative 1 Preliminary Alternative 2 Preliminary Alternative 3 Preliminary Alternative 4 Secondary Zone Minimization: Reversible traffic during temporary road closures, full road closure to non-quarry traffic, partial road closure to allow quarry traffic, Limekiln Trail trailhead relocation, redesign of Limekiln Trail unofficial turnouts/shoulders, limit work to road prism, redesign of unofficial turnouts/ shoulders turnouts/shoulders, new driveway to connect former Beatty Trust property to the Miller Point parking area intersection construction, improvements Minimization: To be determined Maintenance Needs/Costs Bridge preventative maintenance, standard County road maintenance/ inspections, annual inspection of crossing structures Standard County road maintenance/ inspections, annual inspection of crossing structures (minimum; based on final Corrective Action design) Standard County road maintenance/inspections, annual inspection of crossing structures (minimum; based on final Corrective Action design) Standard County road maintenance/ inspections, annual inspection of crossing structures (minimum; based on final Corrective Action design) Standard County road maintenance/inspections Environmental Clearance CEQA: Statutory Exemption2, Categorical Exemption, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report NEPA: TBD1 but likely Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment Permits/: 404, 401, ITP, 1602 LSAA, BO Approvals: landowner CEQA: Statutory Exemption2, Categorical Exemption, or Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration NEPA: TBD1 but likely Categorical Exclusion Permits: 404, 401, ITP, 1602, BO Approvals: landowner coordination, encroachment permits, licenses, and land rights acquisitions CEQA: Statutory Exemption2, Categorical Exemption, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report NEPA: TBD1 but likely Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment Permits: 404, 401, ITP, 1602, BO Approvals: landowner coordination, CEQA: Statutory Exemption2, Categorical Exemption, or Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration NEPA: TBD1 but likely Categorical Exclusion Permits: 404, 401, ITP, 1602, BO Approvals: landowner coordination, encroachment permits, licenses, and land rights acquisitions Traffic Control CEQA: Statutory Exemption2 or Categorical Exemption NEPA: Categorical Exclusion Permits/Approvals: ITP/BO (unlikely) Bay Area Ridge Trail To be determined ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 71 Design Consideration Preliminary Alternative 1 Preliminary Alternative 2 Preliminary Alternative 3 Preliminary Alternative 4 Secondary Zone coordination, encroachment permits, licenses, and land rights acquisitions encroachment permits, licenses, and land rights acquisitions Total Estimated Project Schedule 2 years for environmental clearance and preliminary design, 1 additional year from time of 65% design for permitting 1 to 1.5 years for environmental clearance and preliminary design, 6 to 12 additional months from time of 65% design for permitting 1 to 1.5 years for environmental clearance and preliminary design, 6 to 12 additional months from time of 65% design for permitting 1 to 1.5 years for environmental clearance and preliminary design, 6 to 12 additional months from time of 65% design for permitting 6 to 12 months for environmental clearance and preliminary design, 6 to 12 additional months from time of 65% design for permitting Construction Schedule (once funding acquired) 2-5 years 1-3 years 1-3 years 1-3 years 1-2 years Construction Cost $$$$ $$ $$ $$ $ $ = $1M - $3M $$ = $4M - $10M $$$ = $11M - $20M $$$$ = $21M - $40M ABR = Alma Bridge Road AMMs = Avoidance & Minimization Measures MGS = Midwest Guardrail System railing EIR = Environmental Impact Report LSAA = Lake & Streambed Agreement BO = Biological Opinion NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act 1 The need for and type of NEPA clearance would depend on whether the Project has federal funding. If not, it is assumed that NEPA would be completed by the USACE as part of the 404 permitting process. 2 In 2021, California Public Resources Code Section 21080.56 was added to provide a new CEQA statutory exemption until January 1, 2025, for fish and wildlife restoration projects that meet certain requirements, to be determined in coordination with CDFW. ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 72 9. References AECOM. 2022. Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project: Technical Review (Phase I, Task 1). Technical Report. Prepared for Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and Santa Clara County. October. 46 pp. Brehme, Cheryl S. and Robert N. Fisher. 2021. Research to Inform Caltrans Best Management Practices for Reptile and Amphibian Road Crossings. USGS Cooperator Report to California Department of Transportation, Division of Research, Innovation and System Information. 65A0553. Brehme, Cheryl S., Stephanie Barnes, Brittany Ewing, Cassie Vaughan, Michael Hobbs, Charles Tornaci, Philip Gould, Sarah Holm, Hanna Sheldon, and Robert N. Fisher. 2022. Research to Inform Passage Spacing for Migratory Amphibians and to Evaluate Efficacy and Designs for Open Elevated Road Passages. USGS Cooperator Report to Nevada Department of Transportation, Transportation Pooled Fund Program Project P342-20-803. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2011. Wildlife Crossing Structure Handbook, Design and Evaluation in North America. U.S. Department of Transportation. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=134712 H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2021. Alma Bridge Road-Related Newt Mortality Study (Project #4301-02). Technical report prepared for Midpeninsula Open Space District and Peninsula Open Space Trust. 12 November. 57 pp. Langton, Thomas E. and Anthony P. Clevenger. 2021 Measures to Reduce Road impacts on Amphibians and Reptiles in California. Best Management Practices and Technical Guidance. Prepared by Western Transportation Institute for California Department of Transportation, Division of Research, Innovation and System Information. March. 127 pp. Newt Patrol. 2022. Pacific Newt Roadkill (Main Project) - Lexington Reservoir. iNaturalist open source software. Retrieved October 7, 2022, from https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/pacific-newt-roadkill -main- project-lexington-reservoir Parsons, Anne. 2021. Mass Mortality of Pacific Newts at Lexington Reservoir: Bearing Witness to the Decimation of Two Populations - Summary of Four Migration Seasons (Nov. 2017 – May 2021). Technical Report. 5 June. 52 pp. Wilkinson, Jeffery A. and John M. Romansic. 2022. The effect of road-based mortality on a local population of newts along a narrow two-lane road in California. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 10:944848. ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 Appendix Appendix A USGS Effectiveness Modeling (Part 1) ATTACHMENT 2 AECOM Alma Bridge Road Newt Passage Project Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2023 Appendix Appendix B USGS Effectiveness Modeling (Part 2) ATTACHMENT 2 Rev. 3/15/21 R-23-55 Meeting 23-14 May 24, 2023 AGENDA ITEM 5 AGENDA ITEM Contract Amendment for the La Honda Creek Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study at La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Authorize the General Manager to amend a contract with RHAA Landscape Architects of Mill Valley, California in the amount of $37,470 to conduct additional technical studies and support additional public engagement. 2. Authorize a 10% contingency in the amount of $19,700 to cover unforeseen tasks for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $431,884. SUMMARY RHAA Landscape Architects (RHAA) are supporting the La Honda Creek Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study Project (Project) and are concluding the existing conditions phase and moving into the conceptual design and feasibility study phase. To address additional traffic analysis, agency coordination and time needed to complete the existing conditions phase and allow initiation of the feasibility study phase for this complex project, a contract amendment is requested. The General Manager recommends a contract amendment in the amount of $37,470 for additional tasks beyond those approved as part of the original contract scope of work to complete the Feasibility Study. The General Manager also recommends an additional $19,700 in contingency funds (equating to approximately 5% of the original total contract amount) to cover any additional unforeseen tasks for a new total not-to-exceed contract amount of $431,884 (comprised of original contract amount ($340,649), original contingency amount ($34,065), additional service requested ($37,470), and new contingency amount ($19,700)). The Fiscal Year 2022-23 (FY23) budget includes sufficient funds to cover the recommended contract amendment and expenditures through the end of the fiscal year. BACKGROUND The La Honda Creek Parking Area and Trailhead Feasibility Study Project (Project) seeks to provide ecologically sensitive public access to the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (Preserve) and offer opportunities to connect visitors to the upper and lower reaches of the Preserve. This Project is included in Phase I and Phase II of the Board-approved 2012 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Master Plan. The Project scope is based on the La Honda Public Access Working Group recommendations, which the Board approved for further R-23-55 Page 2 study in October 2020. The recommendations distribute visitor access, amenities, and uses across different sites and form the basis of this Project’s scope of work. A total of four sites are evaluated under this Project. The Project analyzes various access elements, which differ per site, including trailheads, parking areas, restrooms, and a bridge replacement, to ultimately facilitate a link between the northern and southern ends of the Preserve. The findings of the recently completed existing conditions phase will inform the conceptual design options that are developed for each site. On September 22, 2021, the Board awarded a contract to RHAA in the amount of $340,649 and authorized a contingency in the amount $34,065. Since then, RHAA has completed multiple technical studies, including traffic, boundary, topographical, geotechnical, biological and botanical studies. Staff presented the findings from these technical studies to the Planning and Natural Resource Committee (PNR Committee) on December 13, 2022 for review and feedback. The next steps of the Project include developing conceptual designs and cost estimates, conducting agency coordination, and developing a permitting strategy. This information will be summarized in a feasibility study document and shared with the PNR Committee for feedback, and then, pending the PNR’s recommendation, forwarded to the full Board for review and concurrence. Subsequent implementation steps would include environmental review, final Board approval of the Project elements, final design, permitting, and construction. Timing for the implementation of each individual element or site will be dependent on Board input, available funding and staff capacity. DISCUSSION Contract Contingency Spent to Date The original contract included $34,065 of contingency funds. To date, $32,916 of the contingency funds have been spent on unanticipated technical study work. The funds were used for additional coordination with the traffic engineer and preparation of traffic sketches that were required to better illustrate the line of sight at each study site for the December PNR Committee presentation. Other unanticipated work included an additional site visit and an expanded tree survey to assess feasibility of the Project elements. The unanticipated work stems from the complexity of the project that includes four different site locations, the desire to accommodate a variety of uses, and the consideration of possible highway infrastructure improvements to improve overall traffic safety along the adjacent highway corridor. Additional Services A contract amendment is recommended to augment RHAA’s current contract and address new tasks arising from the December 13, 2022 PNR meeting, described in more detail below and followed by a summary of fees (Table 1). In order to respond to questions received from the PNR Committee and members of the public regarding traffic, RHAA and their traffic sub- consultant, LSA, need to perform additional work. This work includes implementing a summer traffic count, studying whether weather conditions affect traffic conditions, assessing bicycle- related traffic considerations and conducting additional agency coordination with local fire agencies. Findings from the additional traffic analysis will then be incorporated into the Existing Conditions and Opportunities and Constraints report. District staff and RHAA have negotiated R-23-55 Page 3 the fee and identified cost-effective approaches to streamline these additional tasks to efficiently deliver the data collection and analyses. Traffic Consultant Meeting Attendance Members of the public and PNR Committee asked for additional information regarding the traffic counts and analyses presented at the December 13, 2022 PNR meeting. LSA’s traffic consultant was not originally scoped to attend PNR and Board meetings. For future public meetings, the traffic consultant’s attendance will enable the project team to provide responses in real time to questions received. Their attendance will be virtual to avoid additional travel costs and is included in the new contract amendment. Additional Traffic Analyses At the December 13, 2022 PNR meeting, staff were asked if bicycle recommendations could be provided based on speed surveys and sight distance at the proposed driveways, how rain and fog may affect the site distance, if weather conditions could alter the traffic engineers’ recommendations, and if line of sight would be sufficient at the Red Barn site entrance driveway. The traffic engineer’s analysis would study how the proposed driveways can be designed to consider bicycle use on Highway 84. The additional study of sight distances, including how weather conditions may affect them, will confirm if the traffic recommendations require any refinements. Traffic and highway safety are critical elements for the project and if the additional services and contract amendment are approved, the traffic engineer will conduct additional analysis in response to these questions, which will be shared at the next PNR meeting. A member of the public also expressed concern regarding the traffic count since the earlier counts were conducted outside the summer months. To augment the traffic data used in the traffic engineer’s recommendations, an additional traffic count would be completed in Summer 2023 under the proposed contract amendment. Existing Conditions and Opportunities and Constraints (ECOC) Report Revisions The ECOC Report would need to be revised to incorporate the findings of the new traffic analyses described above. Along with updating the report, new illustrations would be developed as needed for each site for presentation to the PNR and public. Agency Coordination The original scope did not include coordination with San Mateo County Fire and/or La Honda Fire Brigade to discuss traffic safety. The intent is to keep both agencies involved early on in the project. This additional work will involve convening an on-site meeting with the agency staff and holding follow-up meetings with the traffic consultant to discuss any recommendations. Conceptual Design - Incorporating New Traffic Analyses New traffic recommendations resulting from the additional traffic analyses or due to guidance resulting from consultation with Caltrans or the County of San Mateo could result in the incorporation of new design elements not already being contemplated. This additional work has been folded into the proposed contract amendment. R-23-55 Page 4 FISCAL IMPACT There are sufficient funds in the amended FY23 budget to cover the cost of the recommendation. Funds will be recommended in future fiscal year budgets as a part of the annual Budget and Action Plan process. PRIOR BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW • July 28, 2020: PNR forwarded the PAWG recommendations to the full Board. o PNR Report o Minutes • October 21, 2020: The Board approved the PAWG recommendations. o Board Report o Minutes • March 10, 2021: The Board received a presentation on best practices from the PAWG. pilot process o Board Report o Minutes • September 22, 2021: Award of Contract with RHAA Landscape Architects o Board Report o Minutes • December 13, 2022: PNR reviewed the Existing Conditions/Site Opportunities and Constraints Analysis Report o Board Report o Minutes 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 If approved, the General Manager will amend the contract with RHAA to conduct additional traffic analysis and proceed with conceptual designs, agency coordination and cost estimating. The findings will be summarized within a feasibility study document and presented to the PNR Committee. Project Schedule: Project Phase Tentative Project Schedule Technical Studies - Conduct Traffic Count Summer 2023 Conceptual Design, Agency Coordination, Cost Estimating and Feasibility Analysis Fall/Winter 2023 R-23-55 Page 5 PNR Meeting #2 Winter 2023/2024 Board Meeting Winter 2023/2024 Responsible Department Head: Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager, Planning Department Prepared by / Contact person: Melissa Borgesi, Planner II, Planning Department Rev. 3/15/21 R-23-56 Meeting 23-14 May 24, 2023 AGENDA ITEM 6 AGENDA ITEM Highway 17 Wildlife and Trail Crossings Cooperative Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority for the Plans, Specifications and Estimates phase of the Highway 17 Wildlife and Trail Crossings project. 2. Authorize the General Manager to amend the Cooperative Agreement in the future to specifically allow: (i) the disbursement of future grant funds to cover project costs, if obtained after the execution of the original agreement, and (ii) a six-month extension of the agreement term, if necessary. SUMMARY Together, the Highway 17 Wildlife Crossing (MAA20-001) and Regional Trail Crossing (MAA20-002) Projects (collectively the Highway 17 Project or Project) were one of the highest ranked priority actions during the Vision Plan Process in 2014. The Project supports the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (District) goal of providing safe, regional wildlife and trail access across Highway 17 near the Lexington Reservoir just south of the towns of Monte Sereno and Los Gatos. In October 2019, the Board of Directors (Board) approved moving forward with the environmental analysis of four crossing alternatives for the Highway 17 Project (R-19-136) as part of the Caltrans Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase. Work on the PA&ED phase is underway, and staff is currently working with the District’s consultant (AECOM) to complete preliminary engineering designs and environmental review, anticipated to be completed in fall 2023. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) will be the project lead during the next Caltrans phase of work (Plans, Specifications and Estimates) (PS&E), which includes detailed designs and an analysis of right-of-way and other property acquisitions necessary to accomplish the Project (ROW Study). The General Manager recommends entering into a Cooperative Agreement with VTA to complete the PS&E phase of the Project. Because the PS&E Cooperative Agreement only authorizes the expenditure of outside grant funds received for the Project, the General Manager’s recommendation has no direct, immediate fiscal impact on the District’s discretionary revenue. R-23-56 Page 2 DISCUSSION Background The Highway 17 Project proposes significant new transportation infrastructure outside of the District’s open space preserves, including a wildlife undercrossing and multi-use trail overcrossing traversing State Route 17 near Lexington Reservoir. The District does not typically deliver transportation projects of this scale and does not have the ability to maintain infrastructure within the state highway system. Additionally, because the District is not a transportation agency, it is ineligible for federal transportation funds that could fund construction of the Project. For these reasons, the District has explored partnership opportunities with Caltrans, VTA, and County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports to bring the project through final design and construction. As described in the February 9, 2022 Project Status Update Informational Report, VTA was identified as the best suited partner because of their shared goals, ability to encumber federal transportation funds, technical expertise, and their experience in delivering transportation infrastructure projects through the Caltrans process. On October 9, 2021, the General Manager submitted a letter to VTA requesting that VTA consider becoming the Project Sponsor during the PA&ED phase and enter into discussions with the District to become the Project Delivery Partner during the subsequent phase (PS&E). On March 3, 2022, VTA’s Board of Directors adopted a resolution (Resolution No. 2022.03.10) to approve VTA as a project sponsor, allowing federal funding to be programmed for the Project and positioning VTA to deliver the Highway 17 Project on the District’s behalf. As a Project Delivery Partner, VTA would lead the PS&E and construction phases of the Highway 17 Project, working collaboratively with the District and Caltrans. VTA would manage a prime consultant to complete final designs and ROW Study work, develop an operation and maintenance agreement, and move the components of the Project within the Caltrans right-of-way through permitting and construction. Proposed Cooperative Agreement with VTA for the PS&E phase VTA and the District have mutually agreed that entering into a Cooperative Agreement is the correct pathway to move the project forward into the PS&E phase of the Project. The proposed Cooperative Agreement with VTA as a Project Delivery Partner defines the scope of work, roles and responsibilities, and funding for PS&E. Through the Cooperative Agreement, the District would act as the lead funding agency and VTA would deliver the Project on the District’s behalf. Under the proposed Cooperative Agreement, VTA would be responsible for managing detailed designs and right-of-way studies, negotiating and executing a cooperative agreement with Caltrans for the PS&E phase, and obtaining necessary permits and approvals so that, subject to any identified property rights acquisitions, the Project is ready for bidding and construction (Attachment B). The District would be responsible for funding the costs of consultants during PS&E phase, including VTA’s administrative costs to procure and manage its consultants. The District may directly manage an environmental consultant for any necessary updates to the environmental documents identified during the PS&E phase. The District would also actively participate and coordinate with VTA during the preparation of Requests for Proposals and selection of consultants and participate in Project Development Team meetings with Caltrans. R-23-56 Page 3 Additionally, under the Cooperative Agreement the District will retain the right to review and comment on submittals and deliverables, and work with VTA to arrive at agreements. Ultimately, Caltrans has final approval authority of deliverables as the agency who owns the right-of-way. The proposed Cooperative Agreement specifies that the District would contribute District- awarded grant funds to pay for the PS&E costs. The awarded grants are being administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB), California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR), the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and an anonymous private funder. VTA would invoice the District on a quarterly basis for the reimbursement of allowable costs. In the event of cost overruns, VTA and the District are obligated to work together to seek additional grant funds to cover the shortfall. The Cooperative Agreement does not require the District to contribute its own funds unless approved in advance by the Board. The term of the proposed Cooperative Agreement is through December 31, 2026, with a built-in one-year extension clause if additional time is needed to complete the tasks identified in the scope of work. In order to provide added flexibility during the PS&E Phase, the General Manager requests Board authorization to amend the Cooperative Agreement specifically to: (i) authorize the disbursement of future new grant funds that might be secured after execution of the contract, and (ii) extend the agreement further for an additional six-month term, for a contract term ending June 30, 2028. All other amendments, including those requiring the District to contribute its own funds directly or extending the agreement beyond June 30, 2028, would require approval by the Board of Directors. VTA and the District anticipate executing future additional cooperative agreements, or amendments to the proposed PS&E Cooperative Agreement, that address the actual acquisition and disposition of right-of-way and real property interests as well as the construction phase. These future agreements are not part of this report or the proposed Agreement, and would require the General Manager to return to the Board for approval. FISCAL IMPACT Disbursement of funds under the proposed Cooperative Agreement would come from grants awarded to the District specifically for the Project that are administered by WCB, CDPR, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and a private fund. The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio 20 South Bay Foothills — Wildlife Passage and Ridge Trail Improvements allocation, costs-to-date, projected future project expenditures and projected portfolio balance remaining. MAA20 South Bay Foothills — Wildlife Passage and Ridge Trail Improvements Portfolio Allocation: $13,966,000 Grant Income (through FY26): $5,380,497 Additional Grants/Fund 40 Allocation: $18,100,000 Total Portfolio Allocation: $37,446,497 Life-to-Date Spent (as of 4/4/23): ($2,307,332) Encumbrances: ($297,909) R-23-56 Page 4 Remaining FY23 Project Budgets: ($50,522) Future MAA20 project costs (projected through FY26): ($34,619,101) Total Portfolio Expenditures: ($37,274,864) Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $171,633 The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio 20 allocation, projected life of project expenditures and projected portfolio balance remaining. MAA20 South Bay Foothills — Wildlife Passage and Ridge Trail Improvements Portfolio Allocation: $13,966,000 Grant Income (through FY26): $5,380,497 Additional Grants/Fund 40 Allocation: $18,100,000 Total Portfolio Allocation: $37,446,497 Projected Project Expenditures (life of project):   20-001 Wildlife Corridor: Highway 17 Crossing ($12,627,672) 20-002 Bay Area Ridge Trail: Highway 17 Crossing ($24,428,192) 20-004 Spooky Knoll Trail/new Hwy 17 Trail Connections ($219,000) Total Portfolio Expenditures: ($37,274,864) Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $171,633 PRIOR BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW • February 24, 2016: Award of contract to Trail People to proceed with the conceptual design and feasibility study (R-16-18, meeting minutes) • August 24, 2016: Caltrans cooperative agreement for the Project Initiation Document phase (R-16-105, meeting minutes) • October 12, 2016: Contract Amendment with Trail People for additional Caltrans analysis (R-16-126, meeting minutes) • November 9, 2016: Resolution and approval of a Caltrans cooperative agreement (R-16- 147, meeting minutes) • June 27, 2018: Advancement of eight alternatives to the Caltrans PSR-PDS phase and approval of a contract amendment with Trail People (R-18-66, meeting minutes) • October 24, 2018: FYI noticing the Board of an upcoming public meeting for feedback on crossing alternatives (FYI memo, meeting minutes) • February 13, 2019: FYI Final Revised Alternatives Report (FYI memo, meeting minutes) • September 17, 2019: Planning & Natural Resources Committee, Crossing alternatives, Caltrans Project Study Report, environmental review, public outreach and funding (R-19- 124, meeting minutes) • October 23, 2019: Approval of the Caltrans PSR-PDS document and Cooperative Agreement to begin the PA&ED phase (R-19-136, meeting minutes) • May 27, 2020: Award of Contract to AECOM for the PA&ED phase, CEQA/NEPA (R- 20-53, meeting minutes) R-23-56 Page 5 • December 9, 2020: Application for Grant Funding from the Wildlife Conservation Board (R-20-144, meeting minutes) • August 25, 2021: Contract Amendment with AECOM (R-21-113, meeting minutes) • February 9, 2022: FYI Highway 17 Wildlife and Regional Trail Crossings Project Status Update (FYI memo, meeting meetings) • May 25, 2022: FYI Highway 17 Crossings Design Aesthetics (FYI Memo, meeting minutes) • September 13, 2022: Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee, Guiding Principles for the Design Enhancements of the Highway 17 Crossings (R-22-91, meeting minutes) • October 26, 2022: Guiding Principles for Highway 17 Crossings Design Enhancements (R-22-118, meeting minutes) PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE This item does not constitute a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The District is currently conducting environmental review for construction of the Project to satisfy CEQA and NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act). Board consideration of the environmental review is tentatively scheduled for Fall 2023. NEXT STEPS If approved by the Board, the General Manager will sign the proposed Cooperative Agreement with VTA to begin the PS&E phase of the project. VTA will begin the RFP process in Spring 2023 to competitively select a consultant to prepare detailed designs of Project components within the Caltrans right-of-way. To allow for an uninterrupted transition from the current phase of the project to the next, VTA, in coordination with the District, would also begin working with Caltrans on the development and execution of a separate cooperative agreement (between VTA and Caltrans) for the PS&E phase. The current overall Highway 17 Project schedule for construction of the multi-use trail overcrossing, connecting trails, wildlife undercrossing, and associated directional fencing is as follows: Milestones Tentative Timeline Board consideration of CEQA and NEPA review Caltrans PA&ED approval Fall 2023 PS&E 2023 - 2025 Bidding and Construction (funding dependent) 2026 - 2028 R-23-56 Page 6 Attachments: 1. Project Area Map 2. Highway 17 Wildlife and Trail Crossings Cooperative Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Responsible Department Heads: Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Manager Prepared by: Jared Hart, AICP, Senior Planner Julie Andersen, Senior Resource Management Specialist Aaron Peth, Planner III Deborah Hirst, Grants Program Manager Contact person: Jared Hart, AICP, Senior Planner, Planning Department ST ST ST LexingtonReservoir EL SERENO OPEN SPACE PRESERVE ST. JOSEPH'S HILL OPEN SPACE PRESERVE SIERRA AZUL OPEN SPACE PRESERVE SANBORN COUNTY PARK BEAR CREEK REDWOODS OPEN SPACE PRESERVE LEXINGTON RES. CO. PARK SIERRA AZUL OPEN SPACE PRESERVE Lime k iln Trail John NicholasTr. NORTHERN TRAIL OVERCROSSING WILDLIFE UNDERCROSSING SOUTHERN TRAIL OVERRCROSSING A l d e r cr o f t C r e e k L y ndon Canyon C r e ek L i m eki l n C r e ek Dy e r C r eek C o l l i ns Cr e ek Trout Creek B r i ggs C r e e k W e b b C r e e k H e n d r y s C r e e k ÄÆ9 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 Be arCreek Road Black Road Montevina Road ÄÆ17 Alm a Bridge Road 2 3a 5a 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 \ H w y 1 7 _ W i l d l i f e _ C r o s s i n g \ _ M a p s \ O v e r v i e w M a p s \ H w y 1 7 _ O v e r v i e w _ w C r o s s i n g L a b e l s _ 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 5 . m x d Cre a t e d B y : a p e t h 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. ÄÆ84 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ35ÄÆ236 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ1 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ1 ÄÆ92 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 Redwood City Belmont East Palo Alto Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Newark Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area ofDetail Bay Are a R i d g e T r a i l a n d Juan Ba u t i s t a d e A n z a T r a i l Priest Rock Trail SerenityTrail Los Gatos Creek Trail Bay Area Ridge Trail Bay Are a R i d g e T r a i l a n d Juan Ba u t i s t a d e A n z a T r a i l Existing Trail Existing Bay Area Ridge Trail Existing Los Gatos Creek Trail Existing Juan Bautista de Anza Trail September 202200.50.25 MilesI Highway 17 Project Overview Midpen Preserves Private Property Other Protected Lands Crossing AlternativeST# ATTACHMENT 1 1 VTA/MIDPEN COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT #1-PS&E/ROW STUDY_2023 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT #1 BETWEEN SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT FOR STATE ROUTE 17 BIKE/PED TRAIL AND WILDLIFE CROSSING PROJECT PS&E AND ROW STUDY PHASES This COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT #1 (“Agreement”) dated ___________________ is made and entered into by and between SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, a public agency organized as a special district under California law ("VTA") and MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, an independent special district of the State of California (“Midpen”). Hereinafter, VTA and Midpen may be individually referred to as a "Party" or collectively as the "Parties." RECITALS A.WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”), VTA, and Midpen have been pursuing a project to environmentally clear, design, permit and construct a wildlife undercrossing and a separate regional multi -use trail overcrossing of Highway 17 near Lexington Reservoir, south of the Town of Los Gatos in Santa Clara County (hereinafter referred to as the “Project”); B.WHEREAS, the Project is in the Project Approval and Environmental Document (“PA&ED”) phase and the Parties anticipate executing a series of Cooperative Agreements and/or amendments to this Agreement as the Project progresses through later phases to further define their cooperative efforts as additional information is developed; and C.WHEREAS, Midpen is currently working with Caltrans in PA&ED to environmentally clear the Project; and D.WHEREAS, Midpen has secured five grants to date totaling $9.13 million for the Project’s PA&ED and design phases, two of which, totaling approximately $6 million, have been allocated to the design and other activities covered by this Agreement; and E.WHEREAS, on March 3, 2022 the VTA Board of Directors adopted a resolution (Resolution No. 2022.03.10) to approve VTA as a project sponsor for the Project allowing separate federal funding to be programmed for the Project and to position VTA to deliver the Project on Midpen’s behalf; and F.WHEREAS, the Project aligns with VTA’s and Midpen’s strategic plan goals by partnering to effectively deliver a capital project that provides safety benefits to vehicular traffic, pedestrians, and wildlife and closes a gap in the regional trail network. G.WHEREAS, VTA and Midpen have agreed that, once the Project is environmentally ATTACHMENT 2 2 VTA/MIDPEN COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT #1-PS&E/ROW STUDY_2023 cleared, VTA will serve as the Project sponsor for purposes of programming and using federal funds on the Project as well as the implementing agency primarily responsible for managing the Project through completion and acceptance, including the following phases (each a “Phase”): (i) Design, Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (“PS&E”), (ii) plans and studies for the acquisition of additional right-of- way and/or property rights necessary to carry out the Project (“ROW Study”), and (iii) construction; and H. WHEREAS, the Parties wish to specify via this Agreement the terms and conditions and their respective obligations in regard to the performance and funding of the PS&E Phase and the ROW Study Phase of the Project; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained in this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. PS&E and ROW Study Phases. This Agreement will govern the PS&E Phase and the ROW Study Phase of the Project. Subsequent activities and phases of the Project, such as potential property acquisitions and agreements and the construction phase will be governed by future cooperative agreements and/or amendments to this Agreement; provided, however, that neither VTA nor Midpen are committing through this Agreement to any future activities or phases of the Project other than those expressly addressed herein. 2. VTA Scope of Work. VTA activities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement (“Scope of Work”) will include but will not be limited to: (i) obtaining all necessary permits and approvals required from all governmental or regulatory agencies and/or entities having jurisdiction over the Project; (ii) negotiating and executing cooperation or similar agreements with Caltrans and other stakeholders as necessary to carry out the work; (iii) coordinating with Midpen on all major decisions that might impact schedule, cost or other material aspects of the Project, including inviting Midpen to all Project Development Team meetings; and (iv) performing and/or supervising and managing the design and real property activities necessary to complete the PS&E and ROW Study Phases so that, subject to any property right acquisitions identified during the ROW Study Phase, the Project is ready for public bidding and construction. A detailed Scope of Work is included in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. Midpen’s Role in PS&E and ROW Study Phases. Midpen will provide staff to participate in the PS&E and ROW Study Phases, coordinate with VTA and provide necessary and appropriate coordination with all Midpen departments. Midpen is not required to take on an administrative role or hire consultants for the PS&E and ROW Study Phases, provided that Midpen will prepare and manag e any additional environmental studies that may be needed as a result of the PS&E and ROW Study Phases. Midpen will issue, if required, necessary permits to VTA and its consultants for the Project at no cost where the work meets Midpen’s permit requirements. After reasonable opportunity to review required Project submittals and deliverables and ATTACHMENT 2 3 VTA/MIDPEN COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT #1-PS&E/ROW STUDY_2023 subject to Midpen’s reasonable discretion, Midpen will provide timely reviews, comments, and approvals of Project documents. Midpen’s administrative costs incurred to procure and manage consultants or administer and participate in the PS&E and ROW Study Phases are not allowable costs against Midpen's Contribution (as defined in Section 4 below). 4. Midpen’s Financial Contribution . Midpen agrees to contribute $5.7 million of the funds from the grants identified in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (“Grant Funding”) to the Scope of Work and other activities required by this Agreement (“Midpen’s Contribution”). Midpen’s Contribution does not include any amount other than $5.7 million of the Grant Funding, except to the extent approved by Midpen in its sole discretion. Midpen will determine which grants or portions of grants constitute Midpen’s Contribution. 5. Use of Midpen’s Contribution. The Parties will use Midpen’s Contribution and the interest earned thereon only for Allowable Costs (as defined below). Upon execution of the Agreement, VTA will invoice Midpen for $1,000,000 of Midpen’s Contribution (“Initial Invoice”), and upon receipt, will deposit Midpen’s Contribution into an interest-bearing account to be used solely for Allowable Costs in accordance with this Agreement (“Initial Deposit”). Midpen will make the Initial Deposit within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of VTA’s Initial Invoice. The Initial Deposit and any interest thereon, will remain in the account and will not be drawn down until the remainder of Midpen’s Contribution has been paid to VTA unless approved in advance by VTA and Midpen. Any unspent funds from the Initial Deposit shall be returned to Midpen at the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. For any Allowable Costs incurred pursuant to this Agreement, VTA will invoice Midpen on a quarterly basis. All VTA invoices must contain sufficient information to determine whether the amount deemed due and payable is accurate, including, without limitation, a brief description of services performed, the date services were performed, the number of hours spent and by whom, a brief description of any costs incurred and a VTA representative’s signature. The Parties’ respective performance of the Agreement will be in compliance with all applicable Grant Funding requirements. The Parties acknowledge that they have reviewed and are familiar with the requirements contained in the Grant Fund ing agreements and that the terms and conditions of the Grant Funding are incorporated into this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. 6. Costs. (a) Allowable Costs. For purposes of this Agreement, “Allowable Costs” means the actual, direct costs and expenses to perform tasks and activities under this Agreement provided such costs and expenses are directly related to and reasonably necessary for a Party’s performance of their obligations under this Agreement. Subject to other requirements in this Agreement, Allowable Costs shall include: ATTACHMENT 2 4 VTA/MIDPEN COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT #1-PS&E/ROW STUDY_2023 i. VTA’s administrative costs to procure and manage consultants; ii. VTA’s actual costs for retaining consultants to perform the Scope of Work; iii. VTA’s staff costs to perform the Scope of Work; (b) Project Cost Updates. VTA will manage the PS&E and ROW Study Phase work to control costs and provide timely project deliverables. VTA will monitor actual Project expenditures to ensure that Midpen’s Contribution is used only for Allowable Costs. (c) Additional Funds. Midpen will not be obligated to provide any funding greater than Midpen’s Contribution and VTA will not perform any work for which there are no funds allocated and will cease work before Midpen’s Contribution is fully depleted. If VTA determines that any amounts exceeding Midpen’s Contribution will be required to complete the Scope of Work, VTA will so notify Midpen no less than ninety (90) calendar days before such costs are expected to be incurred in order to allow VTA and Midpen time to negotiate and present an amendment increasing such reimbursement to the Midpen Board for consideration, if necessary. With the notice, VTA will provide Midpen with a summary of the reasons for the need for additional funds as well as a projection of how much additional funding will be required. The Parties will thereafter negotiate in good faith to amend this Agreement to provide such additional funds as are necessary to complete the Scope of Work, including, without limitation, applying for and assisting one another with securing additional grant funds. The Parties hereby agree that such assistance will include taking all actions reasonably necessary or expedient to securing such grant funds. 7. Term of Agreement. This Agreement will become effective upon full execution and will remain in effect through the earlier of (i) December 31, 2026, or (ii) completion of the Scope of Work. If the PS&E and ROW Study phases of the Project are delayed beyond December 31, 2026, or cancelled completely, either Party may terminate this Agreement, which can be accomplished by either Party giving 30-days written notice of such termination to the other Party. Upon such termination, any unused portion of Midpen’s Contribution will be returned. Upon written request of VTA, Midpen may extend the term of the Agreement for up to twelve (12) months after the initial termination date, upon written notice to VTA and without formal amendment of this Agreement. 8. Audit and Record Retention. Midpen may audit the expenses incurred in the performance of this Agreement. VTA will retain all records related to the Project for three (3) years after the completion of the Project or such longer period as may be required by Grant Funding. During this period, VTA will make these records available to Midpen for inspection within a reasonable time, upon Midpen’s written request. VTA will repay any portion of Midpen’s Contribution used for expenses other than Allowable Costs as determined by the audit. ATTACHMENT 2 5 VTA/MIDPEN COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT #1-PS&E/ROW STUDY_2023 9. Parties’ Representatives. VTA’s General Manager, or their designee, will be VTA’s representative for all purposes under this Agreement. Midpen’s General Manager, or their designee, will be the representative of Midpen for all purposes under this Agreement. Each Party may change its respective designee by providing written notice to the other Party as provided herein. 10. Indemnification. a. Neither VTA nor any officer or employee thereof will be responsible for any costs, expenses, damages or liability occurring by reason of Midpen’s negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction associated with th is Agreement. In addition, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, Midpen will fully indemnify, defend and hold VTA harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code §810.8) to the extent occurring by reason of Midpen’s negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to Midpen under this Agreement. b. Neither Midpen nor any officer or employee thereof will be responsible for any costs, expenses, damages or liability occurring by reason of VTA’s negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct in the completion of any work associated with this Agreement. In addition, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, VTA will fully indemnify, defend and hold Midpen harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code §810.8) to the extent occurring by reason of VTA’s negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct in the completion of the work, undertaken by VTA pursuant to this Agreement. 11. No Waiver. The failure of either Party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the terms of this Agreement will not be deemed a waiver of any right or remedy that either Party may have, and will not be deemed a waiver of their right to require strict performance of all of the terms thereafter. 12. Notice. Any notice required to be given by either Party, or which either Party may wish to give, shall be in writing and served either by personal delivery or sent by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: To VTA: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chief Engineering & Program Delivery Officer 3331 North First Street, Bldg. A San José, CA 95134-1906 To Midpen: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Engineering & Construction Department Manager 5050 El Camino Real Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 ATTACHMENT 2 6 VTA/MIDPEN COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT #1-PS&E/ROW STUDY_2023 Notice will be deemed effective on the date personally delivered or, if mailed, three (3) days after deposit in the United States mail. 13. Dispute Resolution. If a question arises regarding interpretation of this Agreement or its performance, or the alleged failure of a Party to perform, the Party raising the question or making the allegation will give written notice thereof to the other Party. The Parties will promptly meet at the staff level in an effort to resolve the issues raised. If the Parties fail to resolve the issues raised at the staff level, they will raise the issues at the management level, if the issues remain unresolved, alternative forms of dispute resolution, including mediation or arbitration, may be pursued by mutual agreement , however there will be no affirmative duty on either Party to participate in such alternative forms of dispute resolution. It is the intent of the Parties to the extent possible that litigation be avoided as a method of dispute resolution. 14. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties pertaining to the subject matter contained herein and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous agreements, representations, and understandings of the Parties relative thereto. 15. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to the performance of every provision of this Agreement in which time of performance is a factor . The Parties acknowledge that timely performance of services is essential to maintaining the overall Project schedule and agree to work in a collaborative manner to minimize any delays. 16. Amendments. No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement will be valid unless made in writing and signed by both of the Parties hereto, and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein will be binding on any of the Parties hereto. 17. Warranty of Authority to Execute Agreement. Each Party to this Agreement represents and warrants that each person whose signature appears hereon has been duly authorized and has the full authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the entity that is a Party to this Agreement. 18. Severability. If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, will to any extent be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the terms, covenants, conditions and provisions of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, will remain in full force and effect and will in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated thereby. 19. Governing Law / Venue. The laws of the State of California will govern this Agreement, as well as any dispute that might arise between VTA and Midpen, without regard to conflict of law provisions. The Parties agree that venue for any lawsuit or legal action arising from this Agreement shall be in Santa Clara County, California. 20. Captions. The captions and subject headings of this Agreement are included for convenience only and will not affect the interpretation or construction of this Agreement. ATTACHMENT 2 7 VTA/MIDPEN COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT #1-PS&E/ROW STUDY_2023 21. Survival. The provisions in Sections 8, 10, 13, 18, 19 and 21 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 22. Counterparts / Electronic Signature. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed to be an original, but such counterparts together will constitute one and the same instrument. Each Party (i) has agreed to permit the use, from time to time and when allowed by law, of electronic signatures in order to expedite the transaction contemplated by this Agreement, (ii) intends to be bound by electronic signature, (iii) is aware that the other will rely on the electronic signature, and (iv) acknowledges such reliance and waives any defenses (other than fraud) to the enforcement of any document based on the fact that a signature was sent electronically. As used herein, the term “electronic signature” includes any signature sent via email in portable document format (“.pdf”). ATTACHMENT 2 8 VTA/MIDPEN COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT #1-PS&E/ROW STUDY_2023 WITNESS THE EXECUTION HEREOF the day and year first hereinabove set forth. “Midpen” Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District a public agency Ana Ruiz General Manager Date “VTA” Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority a California special district Carolyn M. Gonot General Manager/CEO Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: Hilary Stevenson General Counsel APPROVED AS TO FORM: Victor Pappalardo Deputy General Counsel ATTACHMENT 2 9 VTA/MIDPEN COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT #1-PS&E/ROW STUDY_2023 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK The Scope of Work for this Agreement will consist of the following tasks and deliverables for the PS&E and ROW Study Phases of the Project: I. Tasks Applicable to All Phases (a) Tasks. VTA will be responsible for the following tasks that apply to all phases under this Agreement: i. Prepare a Project Management Plan (“PMP”) for the PS&E and ROW Study Phases to further refine the scope of work required during the PS&E and ROW Study Phases. The PMP will address, at a minimum: (i) VTA and consultant staffing plans, including designations of positions and general assignments as well as billing rates; (ii) cost estimates for PS&E and ROW Study activities; (iii) a detailed description of Project tasks by each Phase; and (iv) a schedule for the PS&E and ROW Study Phases. The PMP will also contain an approvals matrix that identifies key deliverables and the entity responsible for approving each . VTA will be primarily responsible developing the PMP, but will coordinate with Midpen and provide draft plans for Midpen’s review and approval prior to finalizing. Following finalization, VTA will manage and update the PMP, as necessary, and provide Midpen the opportunity to review and approve any updates before finalizing. ii. Serve as project manager for the Project. iii. Coordinate with Caltrans, permitting agencies, Midpen and other relevant stakeholders as necessary to allow for timely review s and approvals of Project. (b) Deliverables. VTA will provide the following deliverables to complete the activities applicable to all phases in accordance with each deliverable’s milestone: i. Draft PMP ii. Final PMP II. PS&E Phase (a) Tasks. VTA will perform and/or be responsible for the following tasks to complete the PS&E Phase: i. Completion of all activities identified in the PMP necessary to provide the PS&E deliverables; ii. Coordination with Midpen to allow for Midpen’s review and approval of the deliverables for which Midpen has approval authority under the PMP, including aesthetic design treatments, trail signage and open space site amenities; iii. Coordination and cooperation with Midpen on submission of grant applications and grant requirements for PS&E, ROW and Construction Phases; (b) Deliverables. VTA will provide the following deliverables to complete the ATTACHMENT 2 10 VTA/MIDPEN COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT #1-PS&E/ROW STUDY_2023 PS&E Phase in accordance with each deliverable’s milestone: i. Conceptual Design ii. Detailed Design iii. Final Design iv. Details and Specifications and Costs including: a. Permits and schedule for obtaining Caltrans approval of final PS&E b. Cost estimate for Construction phase including construction capital and support cost III. ROW Study Phase (a) Tasks. VTA will perform and/or be responsible for the following tasks to complete the ROW Study Phase: i. In conjunction with the PS&E activities, identify and evaluate what additional property interests or agreements, including additional Caltrans right-of-way, are necessary to complete the Project. This task includes, without limitation: obtaining title reports and appraisals; conducting environmental and other real property-related research and investigations, as necessary; and outreach and negotiations for utility relocation work. ii. Develop proposals and alternatives for the acquisition, transfer and disposition of necessary property interests for the Project. iii. Identify and conduct outreach and negotiations with property owners, as necessary or appropriate. (b) Deliverables. VTA will provide the following deliverables to complete the ROW Study Phase in accordance with each deliverable’s milestone: i. Final ROW Requirement/Certificate of Sufficiency ii. Appraisal Reports iii. Draft Utility Relocation Plans and Agreements (Utility Relocations) as applicable iv. Draft ROW Certification IV. VTA Staffing. VTA will provide VTA staff necessary to perform services for the Project as specified in this Scope of Work. VTA must maintain a separate accounting of staff time directly attributable to the Project. Only the VTA staff positions identified in the attached Exhibit A-1 are authorized to perform services on the Project, unless Midpen approves other VTA staff positions in advance through the PMP process. V. Consultants. VTA may retain consultants to perform any of the activities set forth in this Scope of Work. VTA will select consultants through VTA’s typical competitive procurement processes. VTA will allow Midpen to participate in the selection of any consultants, including, without limitation, determining the professional areas of expertise for which consultants are procured, the content of RFPs, and participation in the evaluation panel for each consultant procurement. VTA will be responsible for managing any consultants it hires and will ensure that each consultant’s work meets applicable laws and standards of performance specified in the consultant agreements , including, if ATTACHMENT 2 11 VTA/MIDPEN COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT #1-PS&E/ROW STUDY_2023 necessary, pursuing claims for and resolving design errors and omissions . VTA will consult with Midpen prior to settling claims and disputes if such settlement has the potential to impact Project cost or schedule. All reports, designs, drawings, plans, specifications, schedules, studies, memoranda, and other documents assembled for or prepared by or for; in the process of be ing assembled or prepared by or for; or furnished to VTA or Midpen under any consultant contract executed pursuant to this Agreement (“Work Product”) are the joint property of the Parties. Each Party is entitled to copies of and access to all Work Product during the progress of the Project and upon completion of the Scope of Work or termination of this Agreement. Each Party may retain and use copies of all Work Product produced pursuant to any consultant agreement entered into in furtherance of the Project. VI. Other Project Management Duties. VTA will include Midpen staff as an active participant within VTA's project management process to the same extent that Caltrans, MTC or other governmental partners are included , as appropriate and in accordance with the Scope of Work and PMP. VTA will hold periodic Project Development Team meetings as agreed upon by the Project team to assess Project progress and any separate meetings with Midpen as necessary to address Project issues that affect Midpen’s interests as they arise. ATTACHMENT 2 12 VTA/MIDPEN COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT #1-PS&E/ROW STUDY_2023 EXHIBIT A-1 CLASSIFICATIONS OF VTA’S TECHNICAL STAFF The classifications of VTA’s technical staff authorized to bill on the Project are set forth below. Any additional classifications must be approved by Midpen through the PMP process. 1. Assistant Counsel / Sr. Assistant Counsel / Deputy General Counsel / General Counsel 2. Contracts Manager (Compliance) 3. Contracts Compliance Officer 4. SBE/DBE Coordinator / Manager 5. Contract Compliance (Inspector) 6. Contracts Manager (Professional Service Procurement) 7. Contract Administrator I, II, III (Professional Service Procureme nt) 8. Contracts Manager (Construction Contract Procurement) 9. Contract Administrator I, II. III (Construction Contract Procurement) 10. Public Community Outreach Manager / Public Community Outreach Specialist 11. Environmental Manager 12. Sr. Environmental Planner / Environmental Project Manager 13. Environmental Analyst I, II, III 14. Sr. Real Estate Agent / Real Estate Agent 15. Sr. Transportation Planner (Bike/ped)/ Transportation Planner I, II, III (Bike/Ped) 16. Sr. Transportation Planner (Traffic Forecast / Modeling) 17. Transportation Planner (Traffic Forecast / Modeling) 18. Sr. Transportation Engineer (Traffic) / Traffic Engineer 19. Utility Coordinator Manager / Utility Coordinator 20. Survey Manager / Sr. Surveyor / Surveyor 21. Sr. Engineer (Hazardous Waste) / Assistant Engineer (Hazardous Waste) 22. Sr. Scheduler / Scheduler 23. Sr. Planner (Programing & Grants) / Planner I, II, III (Programming & Grants) 24. Highway Capital Program Manager 25. Sr. Management Analyst (Highway) / Management Analysis (Highway) 26. Sr. Project Manager (Highway) / Project Manager (Highway) 27. Project Engineer (Highway) 28. Sr. Cost Estimator / Cost Estimator 29. Encroachment Permit Coordinator / ROW Coordinator 30. Construction Manager 31. Resident Engineer 32. Structures Representative 33. Office Engineer 34. Construction Inspector (Civil) / Construction Inspector (Structure) 35. Sr. Construction Scheduler / Construction Scheduler 36. Document Controller / Document Specialist 37. Sr. Environmental Engineer / Construction Environmental Engineer/Inspector 38. Team Lead (Value Engineering) / Value Analysis Engineer ATTACHMENT 2 13 VTA/MIDPEN COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT #1-PS&E/ROW STUDY_2023 EXHIBIT B GRANT FUNDING The Parties agree to carry out their obligations under this Agreement in compliance with the following grants, each as may be amended from time to time : • California Department of Parks and Recreation - Highway 17 Trail Crossing Plans - $2,000,000 (Contract Number C5054044) • Wildlife Conservation Board - Highway 17 Wildlife and Trail Crossings Planning and Design - $4,000,000 of $5,000,000 total award (Grant Agreement Number WC2080DC) o PS&E Phase - $4,000,000 o PA&ED Phase - $1,000,000 (this portion of the grant is identified for reference purposes only and covers the PA&ED Phase, which is not addressed by this Agreement) ATTACHMENT 2 Rev. 3/15/21 R-23-57 Meeting 23-14 May 24, 2023 AGENDA ITEM 7 AGENDA ITEM Amendment to Board Policy 5.01 – Site Naming, Gift, and Special Recognition – related to Monetary Gift Acknowledgements GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Approve amendments to Board Policy 5.01 – Site Naming, Gift, and Special Recognition – to acknowledge all gifts annually in a standard publication regardless of and without specifying the gift amount, as reviewed and supported by the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee. SUMMARY Section II, paragraph A of Board Policy 5.01 - Site Naming, Gift and Special Recognition states that the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) recognizes unsolicited cash gift contributions through postcards or letters for all gift amounts, and offers additional optional recognition for gifts in excess of $5,000. Over the past three years, the District has received nearly $1.5 million in donations, including 10 atypically large donations totaling nearly $905,000 and ranging between $10,000 to $468,500 in Fiscal Years 2021 and 2022. Aside from those few large donations, the District receives about 300 donations per year, averaging $605 per donation. Staff recently discovered that for several years, all donors were being recognized annually in a District publication, rather than only donors who gave $10,000 or more. The General Manager recommends continuing this recognition practice and modifying the policy language to include that all monetary gift donations, regardless of dollar amount, be recognized annually in a District publication. Further, because an increasing number of the unsolicited cash gifts are received through a link on openspace.org, the General Manager recommends modifying the language to allow more flexibility in gift acknowledgements that will streamline the workflow, reduce staff time, and postage costs. On March 28, 2023, the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee (LFPAC, Committee) reviewed the proposed modifications and approved forwarding the item and recommendations to the full Board of Directors (Board). DISCUSSION The purpose of the gift recognition policy is to provide an opportunity for the District to recognize individuals or groups who have made significant contributions of cash, equipment, materials, goods or professional services to the District, its programs, and its facilities. R-23-57 Page 2 Section II, paragraph A of Board Policy 5.01 - Site Naming, Gift and Special Recognition currently outlines the following recognition schedule for 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. In practice, gifts received through the openspace.org online donation form receive an immediate acknowledgement via an email receipt, and District staff mails gift acknowledgements for all gifts received via online or mail on a monthly basis. Each January, staff compiles a list of donor names (removing duplicates and anonymous donors) to acknowledge gifts received the previous calendar year via an online post at openspace.org/donations and in the annual April e-newsletter. For gifts of $2,000 or more, a District gift item, framed photograph, and/or Resolution are also offered. However, the vast majority of these donors decline the offer, and an increasing number of all donors ask to receive their acknowledgement letter via email versus paper correspondence. In the current policy, acknowledgement of the donor in a District publication is only granted to donations of $10,000 or more. However, staff recently discovered that for several years, all donors were being recognized annually in a District publication. The recommended language modification would continue the acknowledgement of all donors regardless of dollar amount donated unless a specific request is made to exclude the donor from the acknowledgement. The modified language is reflected in Attachment 1 as follows: Up to $1,999.99 Thank you by email or letter $2,000 to $4,999.99* Thank you by email or letter with offer of District gift item (note cards, etc.) $5,000 to $9,999.99* Thank you by email or letter with offer of framed photograph of favorite District preserve $10,000 or more* Thank you by email or letter with offer of Resolution and framed photograph of District preserve *These items will be provided only if desired by the donor. All gifts will be recognized annually in a District publication unless donor requests to be excluded. FISCAL IMPACT None R-23-57 Page 3 PRIOR BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW On March 28, 2023, LFPAC reviewed and provided input on the proposed policy amendment and took action to forward the item to the full Board for approval with their recommended changes incorporated (R-23-36, minutes). PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE No compliance is required as this action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). NEXT STEPS If approved by the Board, the policy amendment would take effect immediately. Attachment(s) 1. Revised Board Policy 5.01 – Site Naming, Gift, and Special Recognition Responsible Department Head: Korrine Skinner, Public Affairs Prepared by / Contact person: Natalie Jolly, Public Affairs Specialist II Board Policy 5.01 Page 1 of 5 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 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: preserve; a) Geographical features of broad, general significance to the 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 1 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 Up to $1,999.99 Thank you by email or letter $2,000 to $4,999.99 *Thank you by email or letter with offer of Letter signed by President of the Board and District gift item (note cards, etc.) $5,000 to $9,999.99 *Thank you by email or letter with offer of Letter signed by President of the Board and framed photograph of favorite District preserve $10,000 or more* Thank you by email or letter with offer of 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 All gifts will be recognized annually on the District website. 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. ATTACHMENT 1 Board Policy 5.01 Page 3 of 5 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: 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 ATTACHMENT 1 Board Policy 5.01 Page 4 of 5 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. "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. ATTACHMENT 1 Board Policy 5.01 Page 5 of 5 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, 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 1 Rev. 3/15/21 R-23-58 Meeting 23-14 May 24, 2023 AGENDA ITEM 8 AGENDA ITEM Annual Display of the Pride Progress Flag in June GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Approve the annual display of the Pride Progress flag on flag poles at Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District facilities during the month of June, including the attached Proclamation. SUMMARY The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) Administrative Policy 1.03 Display of Flags provides standards for the care and display of the flags of the United States of America and the State of California at the Administrative Office, the Foothills Field Office, South Area Office, and the Skyline Field Office. The display of other flags requires Board of Directors approval (refer to Attachment 1). The policy requires that requests to display other flags be submitted to the Visitor Services Manager who will determine whether to recommend the flag display for Board of Directors (Board) consideration at a Board meeting. The Visitor Services Manager and General Manager both recommend the annual display of the Pride Progress Flag during the month of June, consistent with the Board’s Diversity Policy and in light of focused efforts to pursue diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) goals. If approved, the fiscal impact would be minimal (primarily the purchase of flags), with sufficient funds in the current fiscal year budget to cover the cost of the recommendation. DISCUSSION A request to display the Pride Progress flag during the month of June has been discussed and supported by District Department Managers, Executive staff, and the District DEI Staff Committee. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Plus (LGBTQ+) Pride Month occurs in June to celebrate and commemorate LGBTQ+ pride. Pride Month began after the Stonewall riots, a series of gay liberation protests in 1969, and has since spread throughout and outside the United States. The LGBTQ+ Pride or rainbow flag has been part of the LGBTQ+ movement since 1978, designed by Gilbert Baker at the request of Harvey Milk (the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in the United States). The flag is widely recognized as a symbol of pride, inclusion, and support for social movements that advocate for LGBTQ+ people in society. R-23-58 Page 2 There are many versions of the Pride flag, however, the Progress Pride Flag is what has become the preferred standard. The Progress Pride Flag was designed in 2018 by artist Daniel Quasar, adding a 5-colored chevron to the LGBTQ+ Rainbow Flag to place a greater emphasis on inclusion and progression. The black and brown stripes represent marginalized LGBTQ+ communities of color, community members lost to HIV/AIDS, and those currently living with HIV/AIDS. The white, pink, and blue stripes represent the transgender community. The chevron represents a need for forward movement. The redesigned flag aims to draw attention to the need to center and support black and brown queer and trans people, as well as those living with HIV/AIDS. Many local government agencies have ordered the Progress Pride Flag to be flown at agency facilities and adopted proclamations declaring June as Pride Month. See Attachment 2 for the proposed proclamation. Local agencies that display the Pride Flag include: City, County or Agency Atherton Redwood City Belmont San Bruno Brisbane San Carlos Campbell City of San Jose Cupertino San Jose Police Department East Palo Alto San Mateo Foster City Santa Clara Gilroy Saratoga Half Moon Bay Sunnyvale Menlo Park Valley Water City of Mountain View Woodside Morgan Hill County of Santa Clara Pacifica County of San Mateo Pescadero Portola Valley R-23-58 Page 3 FISCAL IMPACT There are sufficient funds in the adopted FY23 Budget to cover the cost of the recommendation, namely the purchase of Pride Progress flags. PRIOR BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW None PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided for this matter as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. NEXT STEPS If approved, Pride Progress flags will be purchased by staff and raised on the flagpoles at the Administration Office, Foothills Field Office, Skyline Field Office, and the South Area Field Office every year during the month of June. Attachments: 1.Administrative Policy 1.03 – Display of Flags 2. Pride Month Proclamation Responsible Managers: Ana M. Ruiz, General Manager Matt Anderson, Chief Ranger, Visitor Services Department Prepared by / Contact person: Matt Anderson, Chief Ranger, Visitor Services Department Display of Flags Administrative Policy Manual Chapter 1 – Administration Policy 1.03 Responsible Department: Visitor Services Effective Date: 12/21/22 Attachments: A. Flag Folding B. Flag Etiquette Prior Versions: 09/12/02, 01/27/14 Page 1 of 3 Purpose In order to ensure consistency between the offices, and proper respect for flags of honor, the following standards are adopted for the care and display of the flags of the United States of America and the State of California. The display of other flags requires Board of Directors approval. Policy It is the policy of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) that flags should be displayed in conformance with Federal and State Policies, as stated in the Federal “Our Flag” publication of the Congress, House Document No. 96-144; and the State of California Government Code Section 430, et seq. At a minimum, the national flag of the United States shall be displayed in the following District facilities. x Board of Directors Chambers x Outside the main Administrative Office, Foothills Field Office, South Area Office, and Skyline Field Office Indoor Display of Flags When displaying the national flag of the United States within an interior space, the flag should be displayed to the right of the speakers/dais, or on the left side of the stage from the audience’s point of view. If other flags are also displayed, the flag of the United States shall always be placed in the position of highest honor by placing it higher than any other non- national flag, and either at the center of a group of flags or closest to the audience if only displaying two flags. Procedures I. Care of the Flag A. Flags flown outdoors shall be all-weather flags. B. Upon being removed from the flagpole, the national flag should be folded into the shape of a triangle. See the attached pages for information regarding how to properly fold the flag. Note that this only applies to the national flag, not the state flag.          ATTACHMENT 1 Page 2 of 3 C.When not on the flagpole, the flags should not be left unfolded, nor should they be allowed to touch or lie on the ground. D.If the flags are not lit, then they shall be raised after sunrise, and lowered prior to sunset from the flagpole daily. E.Questions regarding the display or care of the flags should be directed to the Visitor Services Manager. II.Flying the Flag at Half Staff The national flag of the United States shall be displayed at half-staff on specific National days of remembrance and by order of the President of the United States, usually upon the death of principal figures of the United States government or to commemorate other days of observance. The flag of the United States shall also be displayed at half-staff upon proclamation of the governor to acknowledge the death of an official of the state government or the death of a member of the armed services from California. The General Manager or their designee may order the flag to be lowered to half-staff in honor of the death of a District Founder, Significant Supporter or Volunteer, or Staff Member killed in the line of duty. The flag of the State of California should be removed when the United States flag is flown at half-staff. A.The flying of the national flag at half-staff shall be coordinated among the District’s offices. The Visitor Services Manager is responsible for coordinating this, and approval shall be obtained from him/her prior to flying the flag at half-staff. When a staff member is aware of a situation that would seem to be appropriate to fly the flag at half-staff (i.e., death of an appropriate ranking national or international figure or local public safety officer) he/she should advise the Visitor Services Manager and obtain direction. B.The flag should also be flown at half staff on the following days: May 15 – Peace Officers’ Memorial Day Memorial Day – (last Monday in May, United States flag shall be flown at half staff until noon) September 11 – Patriot Day December 7 – Pearl Harbor Day          ATTACHMENT 1 Page 3 of 3 C.To display the flag at half staff, first raise it briskly to the full height, and then lower it ceremoniously to half staff. D.When an office is closed, and no staff is available to lower the flag to half-staff, then the flag should not be flown. III. Flags other than the national flag of the United States and state flag of California The display of flags other than the national flag of the United States and the state flag of the State of California requires approval from the Board of Directors. Requests to display other flags can be submitted to the Visitor Services Manager who will determine whether to recommend the flag display for Board of Directors consideration at a Board meeting. General Manager’s Signature: Dated: _________________________________________ _________________________________________           ATTACHMENT 1 Attachment A          ATTACHMENT 1 Attachment A          ATTACHMENT 1 Attachment A          ATTACHMENT 1 Attachment B          ATTACHMENT 1 Attachment B          ATTACHMENT 1 Attachment B          ATTACHMENT 1 Andrew Taylor served as the Senior Accountant and Finance Manager for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) fro m Apr WHEREAS, Andrew will forever be known as Midpen’s most beloved Barista and wine connoisseur.il 2013 through May 2023; Proclamation of the MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Recognizing the month of June as Pride Month WHEREAS, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District recognizes and proclaims the month of June as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Plus (LGBTQ+) “Pride Month” ; and WHEREAS, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District observes Pride Month to honor the history of the LGBTQ+ liberation movement and to support the rights of all citizens to experience equality and freedom from discrimination; and WHEREAS, the rainbow flag is widely recognized as a symbol of pride, inclusion, and support for social movements that advocate for LGBTQ+ people in society; and WHEREAS, all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. LGBTQ+ individuals have had immeasurable impact to the cultural, civic and economic successes of our country; and WHEREAS, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is committed to supporting visibility, dignity and equality for LGBTQ+ people in our diverse community; and WHEREAS, while society at large increasingly supports LGBTQ+ equality, it is essential to acknowledge that the need for education and awareness remains vital to end discrimination and prejudice; and WHEREAS, this nation was founded on the principle that every individual has infinite dignity and worth, and the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District calls upon the public, staff, and volunteers to embrace this principle and work to eliminate prejudice everywhere it exists; and WHEREAS, celebrating Pride Month influences awareness and provides support and advocacy for the LGBTQ community, and is an opportunity to take action and engage in dialogue to strengthen alliances, build acceptance and advance equal rights. WHEREAS, that the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District herby proclaims the month of June as Pride Month in support of the LGBTQ+ community. NOW, THEREFORE, LET IS BE RESOLVED, that the rainbow flag will be raised on June 1, 2023 and annually every June, recognizing all LGBTQ residents whose influential and lasting contributions strengthen the vibrancy and diversity of our society where we all work, live, and play. _________________________________________ YORIKO KISHIMOTO, BOARD PRESIDENT _________________________________________ MARGARET MACNIVEN, BOARD VICE-PRESIDENT _________________________________________ CRAIG GLEASON, DIRECTOR, WARD 1 _________________________________________ JED CYR, DIRECTOR, WARD 3 _________________________________________ CURT RIFFLE, DIRECTOR, WARD 4 _________________________________________ KAREN HOLMAN, DIRECTOR, WARD 5 _________________________________________ ZOE KERSTEEN-TUCKER, DIRECTOR, WARD 7 Photo Credit: Anne Scanlan Rohrer, 2020 ATTACHMENT 2 R-23-59 Meeting 23-14 May 24, 2023 AGENDA ITEM 9 AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing on the Proposed Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget and Three-Year Capital Improvement and Action Plan GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Hold a public hearing to review the Proposed Fiscal Year 2023-24 (FY24) Budget and three- year (Fiscal Year 2023-24 to 2025-26) Capital Improvement and Action Plan, as recommended by the Action Plan and Budget Committee. 2. Direct either: a. The General Manager to bring the proposed FY24 Budget and Action Plan back for adoption at the June 14, 2023 regular meeting of the Board of Directors, or b. The Action Plan and Budget Committee to consider proposed changes to the FY24 Budget and Action Plan prior to the General Manager bringing the item back to the Board of Directors for adoption at a June 2023 regular meeting. SUMMARY On December 6, 2022, the Board of Directors (Board) held the annual retreat to review the environmental scan prepared by staff and adjust the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (District) Strategic Goals and Objectives for Fiscal Year 2023-24 (FY24). Following adjustment of the Strategic Goals and Objectives, the Board held a second retreat on March 7, 2023 to establish priorities for inclusion into the FY24 Budget and Action Plan. The proposed annual Budget and Capital Improvement and Action Plan (CIAP) was prepared in support of Board priorities. The FY24 CIAP is comprised of 109 Key Projects and 15 Supporting Projects. While the Board adopts the budget and CIAP on a yearly basis, the Board has the opportunity to review a three-year CIAP (FY24-26), which lists projects for the upcoming three years, to understand which projects (or phases of projects) the District expects to pursue in the near term. The District’s FY24 revenue estimate totals $83.7 million, a reduction of about $12.1 million from FY23 projections, due in large part to two revenue sources that will be received earlier than expected (by the end of FY23 versus FY24). These two revenue sources arise from the $10.4 million sale of the former 330 Distel Circle Administrative Office and $9.9 million in outside grant funding to be received for the Cloverdale acquisition (MAA13-003) by end of June 2023 (these two revenue sources will therefore be posted to FY23 versus FY24). R-23-59 Page 2 The proposed FY24 expenditures total $82.8 million, reflecting a net total budget decrease of 1% as compared to the FY23 adopted budget. The primary decrease is in Fund 50 Debt Service due to having paid off two debt service obligations in FY23. The General Fund 40 Capital budget, however, is increasing by $3.4 million compared to the FY23 adopted budget. The General Fund increase is primarily driven by repair work needed to mitigate the unprecedented storm damage sustained in late 2022 and early 2023. DISCUSSION Revenue Proposed FY24 revenues are projected at $83.7 million, with the vast majority coming from property tax receipts. The District receives additional annual revenues from grants, interest income, rental income, and a small amount of miscellaneous income. Annual property taxes, which will make up 86% of total revenues, are estimated at $71.9 million for FY24. Property tax revenues are anticipated to be up by $3.1 million when compared to the projected current fiscal year ($68.8 million in FY23). The total estimated FY24 revenue and other funding sources are summarized by fund below. FY24 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 $66,497,000 $5,449,000 $71,946,000 Grants Awarded 1,353,000 4,781,010 239,000 6,373,010 Interest Income 2,264,000 60,000 662,000 90,000 3,076,000 Rental Income 1,525,645 1,525,645 Rental Income - 5050 El Camino Real 312,288 312,288 Rancho San Antonio Agreement 410,732 410,732 Miscellaneous 100,000 100,000 Total Revenues 72,462,665 60,000 5,443,010 239,000 5,539,000 83,743,675 Other Funding Sources Bond Reimbursements 7,357,637 7,357,637 Hawthorns Funds (22,800) (22,800) Assigned Fund Balance Transfers 0 Committed for Infrastructure Transfer 0 Committed for Future Acquisitions & Capital Projects (2,062,386) (2,062,386) Committed for Capital Maintenance (2,059,535) (2,059,535) Unassigned Fund Balance (4,014,200) (4,014,200) General Fund Transfers (18,838,051) 10,057,776 8,780,275 0 Total Other Funding Sources (26,974,171) (22,800) 7,357,637 10,057,776 8,780,275 (801,283) Grand Total: Revenues & Other Funding Sources 45,488,494 37,200 12,800,647 10,296,776 14,319,275 82,942,392 Other funding sources shown in the table above consist primarily of internal fund transfers (such as funding for Vision Plan/non-Measure AA capital projects and funding for the General Fund R-23-59 Page 3 debt service payments). Measure AA Bonds also serve as a significant funding source for qualified capital projects. A transfer of approximately $2.1 million commitment each for future acquisition and capital maintenance is proposed, along with a $4 million increase in unassigned fund balance transfers to accommodate the proposed change in unassigned fund policy going from 30% of property tax revenue to 30% of all total revenues (adoption of the policy amendment, which is supported by the ABC and Controller, will be before the Board at the June 2023 Budget Hearing). The $4 million increase is an estimate of the additional funds needed to meet the minimum unassigned fund balance of 30% of total revenues. When compared to the current fiscal year estimate, total revenues of $83.7 million are down by $12.1 million, or 13% from the amended $95.8 million FY23 projection due largely to two revenue sources that will be received earlier than expected (by the end of FY23 versus in FY24). These two revenue sources include the $10.4 million sale of the former Administrative Office and $9.9 million in grant funding for the Cloverdale acquisition (MAA13-003). If these two one- time revenue sources are excluded, the District would be increasing in total revenue year-over- year by 11%. As the Board is aware, the District is applying for approximately $7.5 million in FEMA funds to support the storm damage repair work. Early indications are positive that at least a portion of this grant request will be funded. This amount is not reflected below, as these grant funds are not yet secured. Year-over-year revenue trends are shown in the following graph. Expenditures Comparing the proposed FY24 budget ($82.8 million) to the adopted FY23 budget ($84 million), the budget is decreasing by 1% ($1.2 million). The primary decrease is in Fund 50 Debt Service due to having paid off two debt service obligations in FY23. This decrease is partially offset by an increase in the General Fund 40 Capital budget of $3.4 million compared to the FY23 adopted 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 FY19 Actual FY20 Actual FY21 Actual FY22 Actual FY23 Updated Estimate FY24 Projected Mil l i o n s Property Tax Grants Interest Rental Income and Other R-23-59 Page 4 budget. This increase is primarily driven by repair work needed to mitigate the unprecedented storm damage sustained in late 2022 and early 2023. The following table shows the total budget by funding source for FY24, and the percent change as compared to the adopted FY23 adopted budget. FY22 FY23 FY24 $ Change From % Change From District Budget By Actuals Adopted Proposed FY23 FY23 Funding Source Budget Annual Budget Adopted Budget Adopted Budget Fund 10 – General Fund Operating $34,889,145 $42,665,113 $45,488,494 $2,823,381 7% Fund 20 – Hawthorns 14,439 37,200 37,200 0 0% Fund 30 – MAA Land/Capital 5,969,148 10,407,114 12,800,647 2,393,533 23% Fund 40 – General Fund Land/Capital 2,708,518 6,784,600 9,831,776 3,047,176 45% Fund 50 – Debt Service 16,044,888 23,943,488 14,171,263 (9,772,225) -41% Subtotal District Budget 59,626,138 83,837,515 82,329,380 (1,508,135) -2% Fund 40 – General Fund Land/Capital One Time Expenses 16,821,007 146,000 465,000 319,000 218% Total District Budget $76,447,145 $83,983,515 $82,794,380 ($1,189,135) -1% Primary drivers within each fund are discussed below: • Fund 10 – General Fund Operating The General Fund Operating budget increase of 7%, or $2.8 million, includes Salaries and Benefits as well as Services and Supplies. Net Salaries and Benefits represent $1.8 million of the Fund 10 increase; this is due to new proposed positions (described further below), the annualized cost of new positions that were added in FY23, base wage adjustments, and annual salary step and benefit increases. Services and Supplies increased by $1 million. This reflects an increased effort to reduce fire fuels and increase wildland fire resiliency work, as well as repair storm damage sustained in late 2022 and early 2023. • Fund 20 – Hawthorns The Hawthorns fund includes funding for fuel reduction and fire clearance work, as well as pest control work to prevent the deterioration of historic resources. Potential major work on the historical structures is awaiting Board direction as the District develops potential disposition options for the 13 structures based in part on the recent findings of a structural assessment; these options are planned to come before the Board for review in late 2023. Board decisions on each structure will generate future implementation projects with budgets that will be added to this or future fiscal year workplans. • Fund 30 – Measure AA Land/Capital The Measure AA (MAA) Capital Fund increase of 23%, or $2.4 million, in projected annual expenses reflects that many of the MAA projects are proceeding into construction as well as the upfront inclusion of a prior Board-approved land acquisition project (Eberhard Property). Normally, mid-year budget adjustments are made for the purchase cost of land acquisitions given the speculative nature of land negotiations and approvals. In total, the proposed CIAP includes 33 MAA projects, including the following three projects: Bear Creek Redwoods Phase II Trail Improvements, Alpine Road Regional R-23-59 Page 5 Trail repairs in Coal Creek, and the La Honda Creek White Barn Structural Rehabilitation. Additional projects include the conservation of important coastal agricultural and upper watershed lands, progress on furthering the Highway 17 Wildlife and Trail Crossing project, the next phase of work for the Restoration Forestry Demonstration project, and development of the Hawthorns Area Plan. • Fund 40 – General Fund Land/Capital The General Fund Land/Capital budget is increasing by $3.4 million compared to the FY23 adopted budget. The increase is primarily driven by the unprecedented storm damage sustained in late 2022 and early 2023 given the multiple atmospheric river events experienced in the Bay Area. After cyclonic winds and record-setting rains, the District is now facing approximately $8.4 million in repair work and many repair projects, 13 in total, 11 of which were recently added to the proposed FY24 budget and Capital Improvement and Action Plan (storm repair scope was also added to 2 existing projects). Much of this work is anticipated to be accomplished using FEMA disaster relief funds. • Fund 50 – Debt Service The Debt Service Fund for FY24 decreased by approximately $9.8 million from FY23, or 41%. In FY23, a large debt service payment of $6.4 million was made to retire the remaining balance of the 2017 Parity Bonds (Series B) upon the 5-year call date in December. This is being paid by the proceeds from the sale of the 330 Distel Circle building (the former main Administrative Office site). The year-over-year expense trends from actuals in FY20 to those projected in FY24 are shown in the graph below. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 FY20 Actual FY21 Actual FY22 Actual FY23 Adopted FY23 Amended FY24 Projected Mi l l i o n s 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 R-23-59 Page 6 Capital Improvement and Action Plan (CIAP) The proposed FY24-FY26 CIAP is developed with projects that align with and deliver on the District’s Mission and Coastside Mission and respond to the Board-adopted FY24 Strategic Goals and Objectives (Attachment 1 – Section 1: Introduction). Projects that are $50,000 or more are included (Attachment 1 – Section 3: Capital Improvement and Action Plan). Projects below this threshold, while they may incur expenses, are included in the department operating budgets in the Department Summary section of the budget book (Attachment 1 – Section 4: Department Summaries). These projects were described as Supporting Projects during the March 7, 2023 Board retreat. The CIAP is organized into the following four programs, with the distribution shown above. 1. Land Acquisition and Preservation 2. Natural Resources Protection and Restoration 3. Public Access, Education and Outreach 4. Assets and Organizational Support The General Manager remains mindful of the Board’s list of success criteria that emphasize delivery of Vision Plan and Measure AA commitments, projects completed on time and on budget, pacing of projects, balanced delivery of the mission, exceptional work recognizing time and budget constraints, project delivery innovation, creating an exceptional organization, and careful long-term fiscal stewardship. To support these important organizational norms, the General Manager approaches new projects and initiatives objectively and thoroughly to understand the impacts on capacity, as well as project and staffing interdependencies. To this end, all departments completed comprehensive resource loading on the proposed FY24- FY26 CIAP projects in January 2023 to confirm capacity assumptions. The General Manager reviewed each project scope, schedule, and budget with staff from the General Manager’s Office in February to adjust as necessary the proposed pacing and budget for each project in preparation for previewing the draft project list with the Board at their March 7, 2023 Priority Setting Retreat. After understanding the extent of storm damage experienced by recent winter storms, the General Manager directed District staff to reassess the project list in late March and early April. This reassessment has resulted in newly proposed modifications to the draft Budget and CIAP to incorporate many unanticipated storm-damage repair projects, including those that are expected to receive FEMA funding. A total of 11 new projects were added to address the storm damage. To accommodate these new projects, many of which are time sensitive to avoid further damage from future (2023/24) storms, protect sensitive habitat, and reopen critical access roads and trail connections, numerous other projects are proposed to be either deferred or to have the schedules Land Acquisition and Preservation 12% Natural Resource Protection and Restoration 40% Public Access, Education and Outreach 26% Assets and Organizational Support 22% FY24 Proposed CIAP by Program (project count) R-23-59 Page 7 extended (i.e., less scope completed next fiscal year). Although no changes were made to the Restoration Forestry Demonstration (MAA05-010) project, it is noted below as a project that could also potentially be impacted. The following recent changes are included in the proposed FY24-FY26 CIAP and update the original project list that was presented to the Board at the March 2023 retreat. Storm repair projects added: • Bear Creek Redwoods - Alma Trail Slide (located outside newly repair segments) • Bear Creek Redwoods - Parking Lot Culvert • District-wide Culvert Repair Permanent Work • District-wide Trail Repair Permanent Work • El Corte de Madera - Spring Board Trail culvert and Bridge • Miramontes Ridge - Johnston Ranch Ponds • Miramontes Ridge - Madonna Creek Dam Repair • Miramontes Ridge - Madonna Creek Stables • Purisima Creek Redwoods - Purisima Ponds • Sierra Azul - Limekiln Trail Slide • Skyline Ridge - Skyline Ridge Road at Big Dipper Inholding Project adjustments to accommodate new storm repair projects (scope reduced): • ADA Barrier Removal (31901) • Structure Disposition (35010) • FFO Trail Bridge Replacements (61025) • Badger/Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment (80054) • Carbon Storage Study - Pilot Project, San Gregorio watershed (80070) • Irish Ridge Restoration (80072) • Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Area Restoration (MAA02-004) • Purisima Upland Site Cleanup and Soil Remediation (MAA03-002) • Prescribed Fire Plan Implementation Projects fully deferred to a future fiscal year: • Kennedy Trailhead Parking Area Improvement (35006) • Fremont Older Parking Area Improvements (35013) • Rancho San Antonio Road Repair (35015) • Science Summit (Supporting Project) • Update to the District CEQA Guidelines (Supporting Project) Projects with scope expanded or schedule accelerated to include storm repair work: • Quam Residence Road Repair (scope expanded) (61026) • Purisima Creek Road Vehicle Access (scope expanded) • Prospect Road Culvert Replacement (schedule accelerated) Projects with no changes but may potentially be impacted: • Restoration Forestry Demonstration Project (MAA05-010) The proposed final total budgets were presented to the Controller, who confirmed that the budget is sustainable per the 30-year fiscal model. R-23-59 Page 8 The annual CIAP (Attachment 1 – Section 3: Capital Improvement and Action Plan) forms the fiscal year work program and includes all of the projects and key initiatives that the District proposes to pursue in the upcoming fiscal year (FY24) and the next two years (FY25 and FY26). The FY24 CIAP encompasses 109 Key Action Plan Projects and 15 Supporting Projects spread throughout the District’s four programs, as shown in the table below. There are 13 more projects proposed in FY24 as compared to FY23 adopted. A comparison of the total projects by Program between FY23 adopted and FY24 proposed is shown below: FY23 FY24 Key Sup Total As a % Key Sup Total As a % Land Acquisition and Preservation 11 1 12 11% 11 0 11 9% Natural Resource Protection and Restoration 38 3 41 37% 41 1 42 34% Public Access, Education and Outreach 25 3 28 25% 35 6 41 33% Assets and Organizational Support 21 9 30 27% 22 8 30 24% Total 95 16 111 100% 109 15 124 100% Compared to the FY23 adopted budget, the FY24 Land Acquisition and Preservation program budget is increasing by $3.1 million (556%). The key driver for this change is the $3.3 million budget for a known (Eberhard) land purchase under MAA05-015 and MAA15-005. The property purchase falls under two eligible portfolios: MAA Portfolio 05 – La Honda Creek: Upper Area Recreation, Habitat Restoration, and Conservation Grazing Projects and MAA Portfolio 15 - Regional: Redwood Protection and Salmon Fishery Conservation. The biggest increase by a program is the Natural Resource Protection and Restoration program, which is increasing by $2.3 million (42%). The District’s efforts in the Wildland Fire Resiliency program continue to expand and require additional resources, with $2.6 million in fire resiliency and fuel reduction projects projected in FY24. The Public Access, Education and Outreach program is increasing by about $0.5 million (4%), mainly because the MAA21-011 Bear Creek Redwoods Phase II Trail Improvements project is nearing completion, therefore there is more budgeted in construction in FY24 than FY23. The Assets and Organizational Support is increasing by about $0.4 million (8%), mainly because there is $0.6 million more budgeted in Vehicles and Machinery in FY24 than FY23. Due to the ongoing global supply chain issues, there have been many delays to the production and shipping of vehicles. For example, two vehicles that were ordered in FY23 are now expected to be received in FY24. Consequently, the District has been unable to retire some vehicles that are up for replacement per the District’s Vehicle Replacement Guidelines. The FY24 proposed budget includes the replacement of this backlog of older vehicles that need replacement and are now resulting in increased vehicle repair and maintenance costs. In total, the Vehicles and Machinery budget include the purchase of four maintenance vehicles, six patrol vehicles, and one administrative vehicle. R-23-59 Page 9 CIAP Summary by Program Sum of FY23 Budget Sum of FY24 Budget $ Change from FY23 Adopted % Change from FY23 Adopted Land Acquisition and Preservation 563,500 3,697,951 3,134,451 556% Natural Resource Protection and Restoration 5,421,374 7,719,234 2,297,860 42% Public Access, Education and Outreach 10,952,940 11,403,815 450,875 4% Assets and Organizational Support 4,530,890 4,894,176 363,286 8% Total 21,468,704 27,715,176 6,246,472 29% Note: the land budget typically 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. Regular Position Requests The proposed changes to staffing positions would add the equivalent of three new FTEs. Two of the changes would bring two half-time positions each to full-time. This proposed change responds to high demands in the Grants Program to administer the growth in existing grants (numbers, dollars, and sources) and continue the ramp up to secure additional funds for future projects. Continuing to split the responsibilities of an existing position to provide half-time support to the Grants Program and half-time support to the Procurement Program is no longer meeting business needs and much of the time is now being absorbed to address grant issues, reducing the position’s ability to support procurement needs. Another change would expand the level of Information Technology (IT) support by an additional position in response to the growth in IT systems, technology, software, number of offices, number of staff, and use of remote/hybrid communications. The final addition would further address ranger coverage and minimum staffing levels District-wide. The level of staffing growth as a result of the proposed new regular FTEs was anticipated and modeled in the Financial and Operational Sustainability Model (FOSM) as shown below. Business Line FOSM Projected Growth by 2020 Previously approved through 2020 FOSM Projected Growth between 2020 to 2045 Previously approved Recommended New FY24 Permanent Positions Remaining FOSM Projected Positions Through 2045 Planning and Project Delivery 10 to 13 10 TBD / 4 0 0 TBD / 4 Visitor and Field Services 20 to 25 29 37 to 45 9 1 27 to 35 Finance and Administrative Services 9 to 11 11 6 to 8 2 2 2 to 4 General Manager’s Office 2 2 0 0 0 0 Total 41 to 51 52 43 to 57 11 3 29 to 43 Consistent with the FOSM, the recommended 3 net new regular FTEs are within the agency- wide anticipated total growth numbers for existing projections that extend between 2020 to 2045. Associated costs in FY24 and FY25 for the recommended positions are shown in the table below followed by position descriptions. R-23-59 Page 10 FY24 FY25 Additional Regular Full-Time Positions FTE Net Impact Prorated Cost and beyond 1. Senior Grants Technician 0.5 $55,429 $76,123 2. Senior Procurement Technician 0.5 55,429 76,123 3. Senior Technologist 1 148,598 204,075 4. Ranger (Overfill) 1 36,778 151,524 Total 3 $296,234 $507,844 Business Need and Job Duties of the Proposed New Regular Full-Time Positions (FTE) Administrative Services Business Line Senior Grants Technician (net 0.5 FTE) This request would create a full-time technician for the Grants Program, which is currently shared half-time with Procurement. Making this position full-time would support the growth of the Grants Program by maintaining active grants, coordinating the Grantmaking Program (e.g., solicitations and proposal review process), assisting with contracts for grant writers, assisting with grant applications, and sourcing information (both internal and external) to include in grant applications and solicitations. The Grants Program continues to expand the amount of funds it brings to the District and is now applying to many more grant programs and establishing connections with non-traditional sources of funding. This growth requires additional administrative support to manage new task orders for grant writers, coordinate reimbursement requests, prepare/submit quarterly reports for grant funded projects, track multiple grants for large projects, ensure compliance of grant deliverables and agreement requirements, as well as process payments and deliverables for the District’s Grantmaking Program awards. Senior Procurement Technician (net 0.5 FTE) This request would create a full-time technician for Procurement, which is currently shared half- time with Grants. Making this position full-time would (1) ensure that the position remains sufficiently focused to support procurement needs and (2) increase the level of procurement support in preparing and routing purchase orders and contracts, verifying data for accuracy, and entering data into the enterprise resource planning (ERP) system. The demands of the Grants Program have absorbed much of the current half-time position, severely limiting the capacity of the Procurement Program to support the number of contracts and purchase orders generated, track the expiration dates of contracts and contingency spending amounts, assist with managing online solicitations, track internal electronic contract routing, and support troubleshooting related to the transition to a new enterprise resource planning (ERP) system. The current limited capacity of the incumbent is creating prolonged posting solicitations and delays in routing contracts for processing and entering contracts and purchase order in the ERP system, which ultimately delays project and program delivery throughout the District. Senior Technologist (1 FTE) The Senior Technologist would support the Information Systems & Technology (IST) Department by implementing cybersecurity projects and performing complex technical support on District computer systems. This position will play a crucial role in ensuring the smooth operation of IT systems. Key responsibilities include maintaining systems, ensuring technology security, optimizing staff processes, and minimizing user downtime. The goal is to ensure the technology infrastructure (hardware, software, systems) is reliable, secure, and enables the organization to operate effectively. In the past five years, the District has rapidly advanced its R-23-59 Page 11 technology to meet the evolving needs of the organization. These new systems (including cloud- based, remote/hybrid systems) that are located and utilized across five offices plus remote stations (including ranger vehicles) and have a higher level of technical complexity that has increased the workload for IT staff. Visitor and Field Services Business Line Ranger (Overfill, 1 FTE) Over the last four years the District has recruited at least once a year for rangers and this trend is expected to continue. Filling a ranger vacancy takes 15 to 18 months, from recruitment to the time they are released from training when they can patrol as a solo ranger. The extensive recruitment and hiring process includes interviews, background checks, meeting the requirements of the conditional job offer, and completion of both the ranger academy and District field training program. Having a second overfill ranger would allow the District to place them in a vacant position immediately and/or deploy them to ensure sufficient geographic coverage and minimum staffing levels in response to extended leaves of absence due to injury, family medical leave, or internal promotions, resignations, or the need to place rangers on a light-duty assignment. Ranger staffing is based on a seven-day-a-week shift coverage with very little room to absorb unexpected shift shortages or vacancies. This position would provide added relief capacity for these ongoing challenges. The proposed organizational growth is aligned with the FOSM. The FOSM growth projections are embedded in the Controller’s 30-year model, which was deemed financially sustainable. Temporary/Limited-Term Positions An increase in Seasonal Open Space Technicians (which are seasonal, temporary field positions) is also requested for additional support to address storm repairs, fuels treatments, vegetation management, and field maintenance needs. Seasonals are budgeted on an hourly basis. An addition of 2,375 hours is proposed, which would result in a budget increase of approximately $80,000. The budget also includes funding to expand the District’s limited-term internship program, which is proving to be an effective tool in furthering the agency’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion goals, establishing a recruitment pipeline for entry-level positions, and providing project and program level support for the agency. The Internship Program is designed to provide motivated college students and recent graduates with a unique learning experience in local government. Interns can expect to work alongside and learn from seasoned District employees and contribute their talents to a variety of projects. Two new interns, one in the Project Planning and Delivery business line (within the Engineering and Construction Department) and one in the Finance & Administrative Services business line (within the Information Systems & Technology Department), are proposed to be added in FY24 for a total of ten interns across several departments. New to FY24 FY24 Interns or Existing Annual Cost 1. HR Intern Existing $31,827 2. IST Intern Existing 31,827 3. GIS Intern New 31,827 4. Natural Resources #1 Existing 31,827 5. Natural Resources #2 Existing 31,827 6. Planning Intern #1 Existing 31,827 R-23-59 Page 12 7. Planning Intern #2 Existing 31,827 8. E&C Intern New 31,827 9. Public Affairs Intern #1 Existing 31,827 10. Public Affairs Intern #2 Existing 31,827 Total $318,270 FISCAL IMPACT Final adoption of the Proposed FY24 Budget and Action Plan by the Board would authorize spending of $55.8 million from the General Fund (Funds 10 and 40), $37,200 from the Hawthorns Fund (Fund 20), $12.8 million from Measure AA (Fund 30), and $14.2 million from Debt Service (Fund 50) to accomplish the District’s work plan for the next fiscal year. The Controller has reviewed and incorporated the proposed FY24 Budget and CIAP into the 30- year fiscal model. The proposed budget is within the parameters and expectations of the 30-year fiscal model. The table below provides an overview of the FY24 budget by District funds. The Controller's Report is included as Attachment 3 for early viewing by the Board of Directors. The content of the report will be presented by the Controller at the June 14, 2023 meeting, when the Board will consider adoption of the proposed FY24 Budget and CIAP. FY24 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 $66,497,000 $5,449,000 $71,946,000 Grants Awarded 1,353,000 4,781,010 239,000 6,373,010 Interest Income 2,264,000 60,000 662,000 90,000 3,076,000 Rental Income 1,525,645 1,525,645 Rental Income - 5050 El Camino Real 312,288 312,288 Rancho San Antonio Agreement 410,732 410,732 Miscellaneous 100,000 100,000 Total Revenues 72,462,665 60,000 5,443,010 239,000 5,539,000 83,743,675 Other Funding Sources Bond Reimbursements 7,357,637 7,357,637 Hawthorns Funds (22,800) (22,800) Assigned Fund Balance Transfers 0 Committed for Infrastructure Transfer 0 Committed for Future Acquisitions & Capital Projects (2,062,386) (2,062,386) Committed for Capital Maintenance (2,059,535) (2,059,535) Unassigned Fund Balance (4,014,200) (4,014,200) General Fund Transfers (18,838,051) 10,057,776 8,780,275 0 Total Other Funding Sources (26,974,171) (22,800) 7,357,637 10,057,776 8,780,275 (801,283) Grand Total: Revenues & Other Funding Sources 45,488,494 37,200 12,800,647 10,296,776 14,319,275 82,942,392 Expenses R-23-59 Page 13 Operating 41,490,722 37,200 41,527,922 Labor Reimbursement (619,981) (619,981) Capital & Projects 4,617,753 12,800,647 10,296,776 27,715,176 Debt Service (General Fund Debt) 8,870,275 8,870,275 Debt Service (Measure AA Debt) 5,300,988 5,300,988 Total Expenses 45,488,494 $37,200 $12,800,647 $10,296,776 $14,171,263 $82,794,380 Change in Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $148,012 $148,012 PRIOR BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW • December 6, 2022: Board adoption of the FY24 Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives (R-22-137, minutes) • March 7, 2023: Board review and affirmation of the FY24-FY26 Capital Improvement and Action Plan (R-23-27, draft minutes) • May 3, 2023: Overview of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget and Action Plan (R-23-45, draft minutes) • May 16, 2022: Continuation of the Overview of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget and Action Plan (R-23-45, draft minutes (Attachment 2)) 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 Board will determine whether the Action Plan and Budget Committee (ABC) shall further discuss and refine the Proposed FY24 Budget and Action Plan. If so, the ABC will consider any changes to the Proposed FY24 Budget and Action Plan on May 30, 2023. The Board will consider adoption of the Proposed FY24 Budget and Action Plan, and approval of new positions at a June 2023 Board Meeting. Attachments: 1. FY24 Budget and Action Plan 2. Draft Budget and Action Plan meeting minutes for May 16, 2023 3. Controller’s Report 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 R-23-59 Page 14 Prepared by: Rafaela Oceguera, Budget & Finance Manager Elissa Martinez, Management Analyst II Lupe Hernandez, Management Analyst II Jordan McDaniel, Management Analyst I Budget and Action Plan F I S C A L Y E A R E N D I N G J U N E 3 0 , 2 0 2 4 A D O P T E D J U N E X , 2 0 2 3 Attachment 1 F R O N T C O V E R P H O T O C R E D I T S Top: Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve (Mark Hehir) Lower left: Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve (Lex Fletcher) Lower middle: Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve (Jack Gescheidt) Lower right: Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve (Basim Jaber) Long Ridge Open Space Preserve (Frances Freyberg) Table of Contents Click on the table of contents below to jump to that page. You can also click on the table of contents icon at the bottom of every page to jump back to this table of contents. 4 S E C T I O N 1 : I N T R O D U C T I O N 4 General Manager’s Transmittal 6 Board of Directors and Management 7 Organizational Chart 8 Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives 10 Regional Map 11 About Us 12 Demographics 14 Board Resolution 17 S E C T I O N 2 : B U D G E T S U M M A RY A N D O V E R V I E W 18 Budget Summary and Overview 20 Revenues 22 Expenditures 26 Staffing 31 Hawthorns Fund 32 Measure AA Projects 34 Vision Plan 37 Debt Service 40 Grants Program 42 General Fund Balance 44 Long-Range Financial Planning 45 Climate Action Plan 46 Delivering on the Mission 48 Budget Process 51 Financial Policies 53 S E C T I O N 3 : C A 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 Capital Improvement and Action Plan Overview 61 Land Acquisition and Preservation 79 Natural Resource Protection and Restoration 127 Public Access, Education and Outreach 173 Assets and Organizational Support 209 S E C T I O N 4 : D E PA R T M E N T S U M M A R I E S 211 Departments Overview 212 Administrative Services Business Line 216 Engineering and Construction 220 Office of the General Counsel 222 Office of the General Manager 224 Land and Facilities Services 228 Natural Resources 232 Planning 236 Public Affairs 238 Real Property 242 Visitor Services 246 V I S I O N P L A N A C T I O N S O V E R V I E W 248 G L O S S A RY 3Section 1 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 1 • In t r o d u c t i o n Se c t i o n 1 • In t r o d u c t i o n General Manager’s Transmittal Dear Board of Directors and Midpen Constituents, I am pleased to present Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s Budget and Action Plan for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024, a Districtwide spending plan totaling $82.8 million that projects our planned progress for the coming year in service of our mission to preserve, protect and care for over 70,000 acres of open space and agricultural lands across the greater Santa Cruz Mountains and portions of the Baylands in perpetuity. As this FY24 plan was being compiled, a series of strong winter storms struck the region and many Midpen preserves and trails sustained significant damage. Cleanup efforts began immediately, and by early spring, crews had removed more than 1,000 trees brought down by high winds, unclogged more than 100 culverts and cleared dozens of landslides. Work continues to repair access to roads and trails that have washed out and severely damaged. Hard- hit areas will take some time to reopen safely. Overall, the storms caused at least $8 million in damages. This Budget and Action Plan has been adjusted, reflecting the need to reassign staff from other planned projects and focus on the extensive storm-damage repair work. Scientists attribute the intensity of these storms to our changing climate. Open space lands play a vital role in building climate resiliency and much of Midpen’s primary work in natural resource protection and restoring the ecosystem functions of natural and working lands forms part of the solution to address this challenging issue. Priorities for this fiscal year include progress on restoration projects, improvements to conservation grazing infrastructure, creating safe wildlife passages, continuing our fuel reduction work and adding prescribed fire to our Wildland Fire Resiliency Program toolbox. The proposed FY24 budget also finalizes the payment of a significant new land acquisition to preserve 650 acres of significant open space and agricultural lands at Johnston Ranch from Peninsula Open Space Trust, the nonprofit land trust partnership that Midpen helped create in 1972. This purchase will ensure the continued protection of rare and important coastal grassland ecosystems while preserving local agricultural and rural character. In addition, funds are also allocated to complete the purchase of redwood forested upper watershed lands in San Mateo County. Both of these lands are important for connecting wildlife habitat and regional trails for ecologically sensitive public access. As our region continues to develop and the human population continues to grow, the essential need for public access to nature for community well-being also increases. Work continues on several large-scale Midpen projects to improve access this coming fiscal year, including the Highway 35 Multi-Use Trail Crossing and Parking project, Upper and Middle Stevens Creek Trail Connections, the Purisima-to-the-Sea Regional Trail, Alpine Road Regional Trail, Bay Area Ridge Trail and Highway 17 Trail Crossing and Connections. Midpen is also working on expanding its existing trail systems as part of the Black Mountain Trail in Monte Bello, connecting Eagle Rock to Devils Canyon in Long Ridge, and through the development of the Hawthorns Area Plan. Additionally, feasibility studies for improved multimodal options and parking to connect people to the preserves are underway. More than 10 miles of new trail will be under construction and more than 19 miles will be in the planning phases through FY24. Our local wildlife also depend on these lands, and Midpen’s wildlife research continues with a focus on habitat assessments and enhancements for native species like mountain lions, newts and the Santa Cruz kangaroo rat. Wildlife corridor projects like the Highway 17 Wildlife Crossing and Alma Bridge Road Wildlife Passage will establish safer, connected natural habitats for wildlife traveling across major roadways in known roadkill hot spots. Compared to most city and county government agencies, Midpen’s operating budget accounts for a much lower percentage of the total budget (55%), reflecting the organization’s focus on project delivery. Capital projects and land acquisition account for 28% of the budget and debt service totals 17%. Total revenues and other funding sources are projected at $83 million, which include property tax revenues at $71.9 million, bond reimbursements at $7.4 million and other funding sources at $3.6 million, balancing a budget of $82.8 million in expenses. Respectfully submitted, /s/Ana María Ruiz Ana María Ruiz General Manager 4 Section 1 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 1 • In t r o d u c t i o n Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (Paolo Vescia)5Section 1 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 1 • In t r o d u c t i o n Board of Directors and Management District Wards (Effective November 8, 2022)Left to right: Craig Gleason, Karen Holman, Margaret MacNiven, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Jed Cyr Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt Riffle ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————————————— Craig Gleason–Board Secretary Ward 1: Cupertino, Lexington Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Saratoga——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————————————— Yoriko Kishimoto–Board President Ward 2: Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Loyola, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Stanford ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————————————— Jed Cyr Ward 3: Cupertino, Sunnyvale ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————————————— Curt Riffle–Board Treasurer Ward 4: Cupertino, Los Altos, Mountain View, Sunnyvale ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————————————— Karen Holman Ward 5: East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————————————— Margaret MacNiven–Board Vice Ward 6: Atherton, La Honda, Ladera, Loma Mar, Menlo Park, North Fair Oaks, President Pescadero, Portola Valley, Redwood City, West Menlo Park, Woodside——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————————————— Zoe Kersteen-Tucker Ward 7: El Granada, Emerald Lake Hills, Half Moon Bay, Montara, Moss Beach, Redwood City, San Carlos, Woodside——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————————————— 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 ——————————————————————————–––––—————————————————–––––––—————————————————————————————— 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. 6 Section 1 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 1 • In t r o d u c t i o n Budget Document Preparation Rafaela Oceguera –Budget and Analysis Manager Elissa Martinez–Management Analyst Lupe Hernandez–Management Analyst Jordan McDaniel –Management Analyst Management Team Matthew Anderson–Visitor Services Candice Basnight–Human Resources Casey Hiatt–Information Systems and Technology Brandon Stewart–Land and Facilities Services Kirk Lenington–Natural Resources Jason Lin–Engineering and Construction Jane Mark–Planning Rafaela Oceguera –Budget and Analysis Korrine Skinner–Public Affairs Andrew Taylor–Finance Mike Williams–Real Property Maria Soria–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 Project Planning and Delivery Assistant General Manager Planning Department Real Property Department Engineering and Construction Department Visitor and Field Services Assistant General Manager Natural Resources Department Visitor Services Department Land and Facilities Department Finance and Administrative Services CFO-Director of Administrative Services Budget and Finance Department Information Systems and Technology Department Grants Program Human Resources Department 7Section 1 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Procurement Program Se c t i o n 1 • In t r o d u c t i o n FY24 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 FY24 Strategic Plan provides high-level direction for the annual Budget and Action Plan. G O A L 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 and other elected officials to advocate environmental protection goals ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Objective 4 – Preserve and connect open space and agricultural lands of local and regional significance ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— G O A L 2 Protect the positive environmental values of open space and agricultural lands ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Objective 1 – Take a regional leadership role in promoting the benefits of open space ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Objective 2 – Protect and restore the natural environment to preserve healthy natural systems and biodiversity ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Objective 3 – Implement the Climate Action Plan, expand regional resiliency, and implement climate change adaptation strategies ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Objective 4 – 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 5 – Support the viability of sustainable agriculture and protect the character of rural communities ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— G O A L 3 Connect people to open space and a regional environmental protection vision ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Objective 1 – Engage the public in realizing the benefits and responsibilities of a regional environmental protection vision to further the District’s achievements in protecting open space and agricultural lands ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Objective 2 – Implement and sustain diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) strategies to build and strengthen partnerships, increase broad and inclusive public outreach and engagement, and instill DEI values across all levels of the organization ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Objective 3 – Expand opportunities, including multimodal options, to equitably connect people to their public open space preserves in balance with the protection of natural resources ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Objective 4 – Reflect the diverse communities we serve in the District’s visitors, staff, volunteers, and partners ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— G O A L 4 Strengthen organizational capacity and long-term financial sustainability to fulfill the mission ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Objective 1 – Provide the necessary resources, tools, training, and infrastructure, including technology upgrades and capacity building ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Objective 2 – Update the financial and operational sustainability model to guide strategic growth and areas of focus to effectively and efficiently deliver Vision Plan projects and priority initiatives ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Objective 3 – Maintain a state of readiness for potential disruptions and leverage new resiliency practices and procedures to improve business operations, public participation, and communications ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Objective 4 – Remain financially sustainable by preparing for, pursuing, and cultivating discretionary funding opportunities and partnerships——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Objective 5 – Ensure large operational and capital expenses, including land acquisitions, 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——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 8 Section 1 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 1 • In t r o d u c t i o n Based on the Board-approved FY24 Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives, staff prepared the FY24-FY26 Three-Year Capital Improvement and Action Plan (CIAP), included in Section 3, for Board approval. Below is a summary of CIAP budget allocations by Strategic Plan Goal and Objective. Many of the projects fulfill more than one goal and/or objective. The first table below summarizes the funding allocated to projects that primarily support the goal and objective listed. The second table represents the funding allocation to projects that support other goals and objectives in a secondary capacity. Refer to Section 4–Department Summaries to view operational programs and functions associated with the Goals and Objectives. Three-Year CIAP by Primary Goal and Objective CIAP Summary by Primary Goal & Objective FY24 FY25 FY26 Three-Year Total Goal 1, Objective 2 $1,558,655 $2,191,385 $1,390,600 $5,140,640 Goal 1, Objective 3 50,000 0 0 50,000 Goal 1, Objective 4 3,841,642 2,417,000 334,000 6,592,642 Goal 1 Total 5,450,297 4,608,385 1,724,600 11,783,282 Goal 2, Objective 1 821,400 551,400 1,495,252 2,868,052 Goal 2, Objective 2 2,460,358 2,718,976 3,015,505 8,194,839 Goal 2, Objective 4 2,075,880 1,894,800 965,000 4,935,680 Goal 2, Objective 5 274,250 170,000 65,500 509,750 Goal 2 Total 5,631,888 5,335,176 5,541,257 16,508,321 Goal 3, Objective 2 60,000 50,000 25,000 135,000 Goal 3, Objective 3 10,498,815 12,318,808 4,898,793 27,716,416 Goal 3 Total 10,558,815 12,368,808 4,923,793 27,851,416 Goal 4, Objective 1 4,834,476 2,860,000 4,187,500 11,881,976 Goal 4, Objective 2 100,000 0 0 100,000 Goal 4, Objective 5 1,139,700 1,161,450 1,056,200 3,357,350 Goal 4 Total 6,074,176 4,021,450 5,243,700 15,339,326 Total CIAP $27,715,176 $26,333,819 $17,433,350 $71,482,345 Three-Year CIAP by Secondary Goal and Objective CIAP Summary by Secondary Goal & Objective FY24 FY25 FY26 Three-Year Total Goal 1, Objective 2 1,306,821 6,130,385 1,137,698 8,574,904 Goal 1, Objective 3 198,556 83,194 12,737 294,487 Goal 1, Objective 4 251,224 249,949 0 501,173 Goal 1 Total 1,756,601 6,463,528 1,150,435 9,370,564 Goal 2, Objective 1 75,000 18,000 18,000 111,000 Goal 2, Objective 2 4,510,765 1,844,100 1,053,100 7,407,965 Goal 2, Objective 3 2,404,962 1,939,800 1,555,000 5,899,762 Goal 2, Objective 4 600,100 1,077,600 1,012,600 2,690,300 Goal 2, Objective 5 1,110,684 2,185,809 813,606 4,110,099 Goal 2 Total 8,701,511 7,065,309 4,452,306 20,219,126 Goal 3, Objective 1 0 110,000 135,000 245,000 Goal 3, Objective 2 4,451,083 3,781,314 2,084,121 10,316,518 Goal 3, Objective 3 3,637,288 690,000 180,000 4,507,288 Goal 3, Objective 4 60,000 50,000 25,000 135,000 Goal 3 Total 8,148,371 4,631,314 2,424,121 15,203,806 Goal 4, Objective 1 25,867 44,866 83,500 154,233 Goal 4, Objective 4 50,000 100,000 100,000 250,000 Goal 4, Objective 5 3,954,000 2,593,000 3,947,500 10,494,500 Goal 4 Total 4,029,867 2,737,866 4,131,000 10,898,733 Total CIAP $22,636,350 $20,898,017 $12,157,862 $55,692,229 9Section 1 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 1 • In t r o d u c t i o n Regional Map 10 Section 1 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 *This map is being updated to include Cloverdale Ranch as Midpen’s 27th preserve. Se c t i o n 1 • 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 more than 70,000 acres of 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 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 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, 365 days a year, and provide an extensive trail network for low-impact recreation. Our programming connects people to nature through 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 resilience and refuge. H I S T O RY 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. District residents voted to expand Midpen’s boundary into southern San Mateo County in 1976, and again 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 the land to our organizational mission. G O V E R N A N C E 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: 5050 El Camino Real, Los Altos, CA. S T A F F I N G The staff currently includes over 195 employees in 12 departments: budget and finance, engineering and construction, general manager’s office, general counsel’s office, human resources, information systems and technology, land and facilities services, natural resources, planning, public affairs, real property and visitor services. Though not part of department, the Controller is also part of the staffing numbers and like the General Manager and General Counsel, reports directly to the Board of Directors. For more information about Midpen, visit openspace.org. Midpen At A Glance Founded in 1972 More Than 70,000 Acres Preserved 250 Miles of Trails 27 Preserves 195.65 FTEs Over 2 Million Visitors Per Year $83 Million Budget Over 763,000 Residents Founded in 1972 More Than 70,000 Acres Preserved 250 Miles of Trails 27 Preserves 195.65 FTEs Over 2 Million Visitors Per Year $83 Million Budget Over 763,000 Residents 11Section 1 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Demographics and Economic Statistics The District encompasses over 550 square miles of land located in the County of Santa Clara (approximately 200 square miles out of 1,304), the County of San Mateo (approximately 350 square miles out of 744) and the County of Santa Cruz County (approximately 2.6 square miles out of 607). 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 10 Fiscal Years ———————————————————————————— County of Santa Clara Fiscal Year Population1 Personal Income2 (in millions) Per Capita Personal Income2 Median Age3 School Enrollment4 County Unemployment Rate5 2013 1,863,975 $130,624 $70,151 36.7 273.701 7.6% 2014 1,887,079 141,874 74,883 37.0 276,175 6.1% 2015 1,911,670 158,729 82,756 37.2 276,689 4.6% 2016 1,928,438 170,673 88,920 37.0 274,948 4.0% 2017 1,937,008 190,002 98,032 37.1 273,264 3.5% 2018 1,943,579 209,020 107,877 37.2 271,400 2.9% 2019 1,944,733 223,625 115,997 37.4 267,224 2.6% 2020 1,945,166 235,835 123,661 37.2 263,449 10.7% 2021 1,907,693 * * 38.2 253,624 5.2% 2022 1,894,783 * * * 241,326 2.2% County of San Mateo Calendar Year Population1 Personal Income2 (in millions) Per Capita Personal Income2 Median Age3 School Enrollment4 County Unemployment Rate5 2013 747,550 $65,656 $87,501 39.3 93,931 5.7% 2014 754,234 71,027 93,802 39.4 94,567 4.2% 2015 761,621 78,525 102,639 39.8 95,187 3.3% 2016 767,099 82,681 107,670 39.5 95,502 3.3% 2017 769,401 90,766 118,047 39.9 95,620 2.9% 2018 770,927 98,568 128,230 39.9 95,103 2.5% 2019 771,160 102,803 134,107 39.9 94,234 2.2% 2020 771,061 107,559 141,841 39.8 93,554 10.8% 2021 751,596 * * 40.8 90,315 5.0% 2022 744.662 * * * 86,442 2.1% *Information not available Data Sources 1 State of California Department of Finance –https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-4/2021-22/ 2U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis (includes retroactive revisions) 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 (includes retroactive revisions) Notes: Starting fiscal year (FY) 2015-16 the District changed from a fiscal year end date of March 31st to June 30th. As a result, FY2015-16 is a fifteen (15) month period rather than a twelve (12) month period. 12 Section 1 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 1 • In t r o d u c t i o n Se c t i o n 1 • In t r o d u c t i o n Principal Employers Most Current Year and Nine Years Ago ———————————————————————————— County of Santa Clara 2022 2013 Employer Number of Employees1 Rank Percentage of Total Employment Number of Employees2 Rank Percentage of Total Employment Google LLC 41,665 1 4.10%11,000 6 1.27% Apple Inc.25,000 2 2.46%12,000 5 1.39% Tesla Motors Inc. 22,000 3 2.16%** County of Santa Clara 20,912 4 2.06%15,564 2 1.80% Stanford University 15,750 5 1.55%14,369 3 1.66% Stanford Health Care 15,708 6 1.54%7,936 7 0.92% Kaiser Permanente Northern California 14,675 7 1.44%13,500 4 1.56% Cisco Systems Inc.10.847 8 1.07%16,494 1 1.90% Applied Materials Inc.8,500 9 0.84%* * City of San Jose 7,627 10 0.75%5,495 9 0.63% Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co.**6,800 8 0.79% Intel Corporation * * 5,400 10 0.62% Total 182,684 17.97%108,558 12.54% County of San Mateo 3 20214 2013 Employer Number of Employees Rank Percentage of Total Employment Number of Employees Rank Percentage of Total Employment Meta (Facebook, Inc.)15,407 1 3.51%2,865 7 Genentech Inc. 12,000 2 2.73%8,800 2 2.37% Oracle Corp. 9,147 3 2.08%6,524 3 2.43% United Airlines 7,894 4 1.80%10,000 1 1.89% County of San Mateo 5,705 5 1.30%5,929 4 1.57% Gilead Sciences, Inc.4,190 6 0.95% YouTube 2,384 7 0.54% Sony Interactive Entertainment 1,855 8 0.42% Alaska Airlines 1,591 9 0.36% Electronic Arts Inc.1,478 10 0.34% Visa/USA/Visa International 2,895 6 1.06% Kaiser Permanente 3,911 5 1.00% Mills-Peninsula Health Services 2,200 9 0.76% Safeway, Inc. 2,195 10 0.67% Total 57,882 14.03%47,915 12.33% *Information not available Data Sources 1 Silicon Valley Business Journal, July 8-14, 2022 2 County of Santa Clara Finance Department. FY2012-13 CAFR 3San Francisco Business Times–2022 Book of Lists and California Employment Development Department 4Latest information available for principal employers in the County of San Mateo 13Section 1 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 1 • In t r o d u c t i o n Resolution No. 23-XX 14 Section 1 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 1 • In t r o d u c t i o n 15Section 1 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) of the United States and Canada presented a Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for its annual FY23 budget. To receive this award, a governmental unit must publish a budget document that meets program criteria as a policy document, financial plan, operations guide and communications device. This award is valid for a period of one year only. We believe our current FY24 budget continues to conform to program requirements and we are submitting it to GFOA to determine its eligibility for an award. 16 Section 1 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 1 • In t r o d u c t i o n Fremont Older Open Space Preserve (Karl Gohl) Section 2 Budget Summary and Overview 17Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w Budget Summary and Overview The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (Midpen) Proposed FY24 Budget reflects Midpen’s priorities established by the Board of Directors (Board) in December 2022 as part of its annual Strategic Plan update. Based upon these priorities, staff prepared the FY24-FY26 Three-Year Capital Improvement and Action Plan (included in Section 3: Capital Improvement and Action Plan) for Board approval. Subsequently, staff developed a detailed budget by department and fund, which is included in the current section and Section 4: Department Summaries. F Y 2 4 F I N A N C I A L O V E R V I E W 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 Vision Plan Project Portfolios are eligible for Measure AA (MAA) funding (Fund 30 is a major fund).——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Fund 40: General Fund Capital. This includes vehicles, equipment, and facilities, as well as capital projects and land acquisitions that are either not eligible for MAA funding or are beyond what MAA is able to fund (includes projects from the 54 Vision Plan priority Project Portfolios) (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 (55%), reflecting the organization’s focus on project delivery. Capital projects and land acquisition account for 28% of the budget and debt service totals 17%. 18 Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 2 • B u 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 FY24 or a positive change in fund balance. Once adopted, appropriations are made for all funds at the fund level. FY24 Budget by Fund FY24 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 $66,497,000 $5,449,000 $71,946,000 Grants (Awarded)1,353,000 4,781,010 239,000 6,373,010 Interest Income 2,264,000 60,000 662,000 90,000 3,076,000 Rental Income 1,525,645 1,525,645 Rental Income (5050 El Camino Real) 312,288 312,288 Rancho San Antonio Agreement 410,732 410,732 Miscellaneous 100,000 100,000 Total Revenues 72,462,665 60,000 5,443,010 239,000 5,539,000 83,743,675 Other Funding Sources Bond Reimbursements 7,357,637 7,357,637 Hawthorns Funds (22,800)(22,800) Assigned Fund Balance Transfers 0 Committed for Infrastructure Transfer 0 Committed for Future Acquisitions & Capital Projects (2,062,386)(2,062,386) Committed for Capital Maintenance (2,059,535)(2,059,535) Unassigned Fund Balance (4,014,200)(4,014,200) General Fund Transfers (18,838,051)10,057,776 8,780,275 0 Total Other Funding Sources (26,974,171)(22,800)7,357,637 10,057,776 8,780,275 (801,283) Grand Total: Revenues & Other Funding Sources 45,488,494 37,200 12,800,647 10,296,776 14,319,275 82,942,392 Expenses Operating 41,490,722 37,200 41,527,922 Labor Reimbursement (619,981)(619,981) Capital & Projects 4,617,753 12,800,647 10,296,776 27,715,176 Debt Service (General Fund Debt)8,870,275 8,870,275 Debt Service (Measure AA Debt)5,300,988 5,300,988 Total Expenses 45,488,494 $37,200 $12,800,647 $10,296,776 $14,171,263 $82,794,380 Change in Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $148,012 $148,012 19Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w Revenues Midpen’s FY24 revenue estimate totals $83.7 million, a decrease of $12.1 million from the FY23 amended of $95.8 million. The vast majority of revenue, 86% or $71.9 million, comes from property tax receipts and represents a total increase of 4% from FY23. The increase in property tax revenue reflects a robust real estate market in the San Francisco Bay Area, despite the effects of the post COVID-19 pandemic economy. Grant revenue from secured grants is lower in FY24 compared to FY23 by $6.5 million due to a substantial $9.9 million received in late June for the Cloverdale acquisition (MAA13-003). Interest income is projected to increase by $1.4 million. Rental Income and Other is projected to decrease by $10.1 million due in large part to two revenue sources that will be received earlier than expected, by the end of FY23 versus in FY24. These two revenue sources arise from the $10.4 million sale of the former 330 Distel Circle Administrative Office and $9.9 million in outside grant funds that will be received for the Cloverdale acquisition (MAA13-003) by June 2023 (these two sources are therefore now posted to FY23 versus FY24). Note that Other Revenues refers to anything that doesn’t fall under the other three categories, such as donations, camping fee payments, insurance claims, etc. The chart below provides a breakdown of projected FY24 revenue by source. FY24 Revenue by Source ● Property Tax (86%) ● Grants (7%) ● Interest (4%) ● Rental Income and Other (3%) Property Tax Grants Interest Rental Income & Other*Total Amount $71,946,000 $6,373,010 $3,076,000 $2,348,665 $83,743,675 Percent 86%7%4%3%100% *Other Revenues consist of donations, permits, merchandise sales and other miscellaneous revenues. Total Revenue Trend (in millions) $ 95 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 90 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 85 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 80 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 75 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 70 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 65 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 60 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 55 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 50 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 45 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 40 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 35 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 30 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 25 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 20 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 15 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 10 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 5 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 0 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— FY19 Actual FY20 Actual FY21 Actual FY22 Actual FY23 Updated Estimate FY24 Projected ■ Property Tax ■ Grants ■ Interest ■ Rental Income and Other 20 Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w Revenue FY19 Actuals FY20 Actuals FY21 Actuals FY22 Actuals FY23 Updated Estimate FY24 Projected Property Tax $54,395,054 $57,282,061 $62,545,468 $64,409,628 $68,852,000 $71,946,000 Grants 1,874,272 3,262,087 2,815,930 3,884,075 12,889,865 6,373,010 Interest Income 3,627,639 2,307,192 1,978,946 (896,478) 1,643,000 3,076,000 Rental Income and Other 3,442,075 2,916,880 3,305,560 2,332,512 12,426,400 2,348,665 Total $63,339,040 $65,768,220 $70,645,902 $69,729,737 $95,811,265 $83,743,675 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) $ 70 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 60 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 50 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 40 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 30 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 20 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 10 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 0 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 Actual Actual Actual* Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Updated Projected Estimate *FY16 reflects15 months of revenue due to changing the fiscal year start from April 1 to July 1. Santa Clara Valley and the Peninsula continue to see high real estate prices where demand for housing exceeds supply. Additionally, the maximum allowed inflation adjustment factor of 2% is applied to the base value of eligible properties. Correspondingly, General Fund property tax revenues (excluding the Measure AA Ad Valorem levy) are projected to have a healthy growth rate of 5% from FY23 to FY24 and 4% annually for the future years. 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. 2020-2024 General Fund Tax Revenue Actual FY20 Actual FY21 Actual FY22 Budget FY23 Updated Estimate FY23 Budget FY24 % Increase* Santa Clara County Current Secured $31,381,565 $33,817,054 $35,602,710 $38,664,000 $38,362,000 $40,472,000 5.5% Current Unsecured 2,064,710 2,179,811 2,021,764 2,140,000 2,111,000 2,153,000 2.0% Total Santa Clara County 33,446,275 35,996,866 37,624,474 40,804,000 40,473,000 42,625,000 5.3% San Mateo County Current Secured 14,369,471 15,836,224 17,343,424 18,297,000 18,365,000 19,467,000 6.0% Current Unsecured 646,610 1,319,653 24,591 542,000 568,000 579,000 1.9% Total San Mateo County 15,016,082 17,155,876 17,368,015 18,839,000 18,933,000 20,046,000 5.9% Supplement + HOPTR 2,211,617 2,944,895 2,755,723 1,350,000 1,908,000 1,784,000 -6.5% Redevelopment 1,381,765 1,012,815 1,090,879 1,411,000 2,042,000 2,042,000 0.0% Total Tax Revenue $52,055,738 $57,110,452 $58,839,091 $62,404,000 $63,356,000 $66,497,000 5.0% *Percentage increase compares FY23 Updated Estimate to FY24 Budget. 21Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w Expenditures FY24 expenditures total $82.8 million, reflecting a net total budget decrease of 1% as compared to the FY23 adopted budget. The primary decrease is in Fund 50 Debt Service due to having paid off two debt service obligations in FY23. However, the General Fund 40 Capital budget is increasing by $3.4 million compared to the FY23 adopted budget. This increase is primarily driven by repair work needed to mitigate the unprecedented storm damage Midpen lands sustained during the 2022-2023 strong winter storms. 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 land budget only accounts for appraisals and other costs associated with property purchase research and early negotiations. FY24 Budget by Fund ● Fund 10–General Fund Operating (55%) ● Fund 20–Hawthorns (<1%) ● Fund 30–MAA Land/Capital (15%) ● Fund 40–General Fund Land/Capital (12%) ● Fund 40–General Fund Land/Capital One Time Expenses (<1%) ● Fund 50–Debt Service (17%) Midpen Budget by Funding Source FY22 Actuals FY23 Adopted Budget FY24 Proposed Annual Budget $ Change From FY23 Adopted Budget % Change From FY23 Adopted Budget Fund 10–General Fund Operating $34,889,145 $42,665,113 $45,488,494 $2,823,381 7% Fund 20–Hawthorns 14,439 37,200 37,200 0 0% Fund 30–MAA Land/Capital 5,969,148 10,407,114 12,800,647 2,393,533 23% Fund 40–General Fund Land/Capital 2,708,518 6,784,600 9,831,776 3,047,176 45% Fund 50–Debt Service 16,044,888 23,943,488 14,171,263 (9,772,225)-41% Subtotal Midpen Budget 59,626,138 83,837,515 82,329,380 (1,508,135)-2% Fund 40–General Fund Land/Capital One Time Expenses 16,821,007 146,000 465,000 319,000 218% Total Midpen Budget $76,447,145 $83,983,515 $82,794,380 ($1,189,135)-1% 22 Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 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 ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— FY20 Actual FY21 Actual FY22 Actual FY23 Adopted FY23 Amended FY24 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 F U N D 10 – G E N E R A L F U N D O P E R A T I N G The General Fund Operating budget increase of 7%, or $2.8 million, includes Salaries and Benefits as well as Services and Supplies. Net Salaries and Benefits represent $1.8 million of the Fund 10 increase; this is due to new proposed positions (described further below), the annualized cost of new positions that were added in FY23, cost-of-living- adjustments, and annual salary step and benefit increases. Services and Supplies increased by $1 million. This reflects an increased effort to reduce fire fuels and increase wildland fire resiliency work, as well as working on mitigating storm damage caused in FY23. F U N D 2 0 – H A W T H O R N S The Hawthorns fund includes funding for fuel reduction and fire clearance work, as well as pest control work to prevent deterioration of historic resources. Potential major work on the historical structures is awaiting Board direction as Midpen develops potential disposition options for the 13 structures based in part on the recent findings of a structural assessment—these options are planned to come before the Board for review in late 2023. Board decisions on each structure will generate future implementation projects with budgets that will be added to this or future fiscal year workplans. F U N D 3 0 – M E A S U R E A A L A N D / C A P I T A L The Measure AA (MAA) Capital Fund increase of 23%, or $2.4 million, in projected annual expenses reflects the upfront inclusion of a previously approved land acquisition project (Eberhard Property). Normally, budget adjustments for the purchase cost of land acquisitions are made at the time of approval, given the speculative nature of land negotiations and approvals. Excluding the land acquisition project, the MAA Capital Fund is decreasing by 9%, or $0.9 million as many large projects are in their completion phase. In total, the proposed CIAP includes 33 MAA projects, including the completion of the following three projects: Bear Creek Redwoods Phase II Trail Improvements, Alpine Road Regional Trail repairs in Coal Creek, and the La Honda Creek White Barn Structural Rehabilitation. Additional projects include the conservation of important coastal agricultural and upper watershed lands (including closing escrow on the Eberhard Property), progress on furthering the Highway 17 Wildlife and Trail Crossing project, the next phase of work for the Restoration Forestry Demonstration project, and development of the Hawthorns Area Plan. 23Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w F U N D 4 0 – G E N E R A L F U N D L A N D / C A P I T A L The General Fund Land/Capital budget is increasing by $3.4 million compared to the FY23 adopted budget. The increase is primarily driven by the unprecedented storm damage sustained in late 2022 and early 2023 given the multiple atmospheric river events experienced in the Bay Area. After cyclonic winds and record-setting rains, Midpen is now facing approximately $8.4 million in repair work and many repair projects, 13 of which are storm damage projects, 11 of which were recently added to the proposed FY24 budget and Capital Improvement and Action Plan (storm damage scope was added to 2 existing projects). Much of this work is anticipated to be accomplished using FEMA disaster relief funds. F U N D 5 0 – D E B T S E R V I C E The Debt Service Fund for FY24 decreased by approximately $9.8 million from FY23, or 41%. In FY23, a large debt service payment of $6.4 million was made to retire the remaining balance of the 2017 Parity Bonds (Series B) upon the 5-year call date in December. This is being paid by the proceeds from the sale of the 330 Distel Circle building (the former main Administrative Office site). E X P E N D I T U R E S U M M A RY For FY24, operating expenses are expected to increase at a moderate rate; the inclusion of three net regular full-time positions and budgeting for two more interns supports continued project and program delivery of Midpen’s mission to the public. On the following page, the first table illustrates the breakdown of the FY24 budget by fund and breaks out the General Fund between salaries and services and supplies. The second table breaks out the budget by department. Additional budget information is provided in Section 4: Department Summaries. 24 Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Long Ridge Open Space Preserve (Shari Horton) Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w FY24 Budget by Fund and Expenditure Type Midpen Budget by Expenditure Category FY22 Actuals FY23 Adopted Budget FY24 Proposed Budget $ Change From FY23 Adopted Budget % Change From FY23 Adopted Budget Salaries and Benefits $25,963,012 $30,988,161 $32,784,484 $1,796,323 6% Less: MAA Reimbursable Staff Costs (397,294)(669,235)(619,981)49,254 -7% Net Salaries and Benefits 25,565,718 30,318,926 32,164,503 1,845,577 6% Services and Supplies 9,323,427 12,346,187 13,323,991 977,804 8% Total Operating Expenditures 34,889,145 42,665,113 45,488,494 2,823,381 7% Hawthorns Operating 189 37,200 37,200 0 0% Hawthorns Capital 14,250 0 0 0 0% Total Hawthorns Expenditures 14,439 37,200 37,200 0 0% Measure AA Capital (Fund 30) 5,631,050 10,317,114 9,348,467 (968,647)-9% General Fund Capital (Fund 40)2,615,804 6,273,600 9,481,776 3,208,176 51% General Fund Capital (Fund 40)–One Time Expenses 16,821,007 146,000 465,000 319,000 218% Total Capital Expenditures 25,067,860 16,736,714 19,295,243 2,558,529 15% Measure AA Land and Associated Costs (Fund 30) 338,098 90,000 3,452,180 3,362,180 3736% General Fund Land and Associated Costs (Fund 40) 92,715 511,000 350,000 (161,000)-32% Total Land and Associated Costs 430,813 601,000 3,802,180 3,201,180 533% Debt Service 16,044,888 23,943,488 14,171,263 (9,772,225)-41% Total Debt Service (Fund 50)16,044,888 23,943,488 14,171,263 (9,772,225)-41% Total Midpen Budget $76,447,145 $83,983,515 $82,794,380 ($1,189,135)-1% FY24 Budget by Department Midpen Budget by Department FY22 Actuals FY23 Adopted Budget FY24 Proposed Budget $ Change From FY23 Adopted Budget % Change From FY23 Adopted Budget Administrative Services Business Line $7,428,694 $8,401,683 $9,192,833 $791,150 9% Engineering and Construction 7,090,080 11,420,286 11,051,046 (369,240)-3% General Counsel 767,210 1,019,996 1,041,173 21,177 2% General Manager 1,894,382 2,550,603 2,567,282 16,679 1% Land and Facilities 10,720,326 13,832,383 18,918,414 5,086,031 37% Natural Resources 4,022,833 7,245,067 7,678,440 433,373 6% Planning 2,525,569 3,042,686 3,186,876 144,190 5% Public Affairs 2,030,710 2,185,311 1,725,382 (459,929)-21% Real Property 1,282,469 1,520,275 4,737,797 3,217,522 212% Visitor Services 5,818,980 8,675,737 8,058,876 (616,861)-7% Debt Service 16,044,888 23,943,488 14,171,263 (9,772,225)-41% Total Midpen Budget 59,626,138 83,837,515 82,329,380 (1,508,135)-2% One Time Expense: Fund 40 Land/Buildings 16,821,007 146,000 465,000 319,000 218% Grand Total: Midpen Budget $76,447,145 $83,983,515 $82,794,380 ($1,189,135)-1% 25Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w Staffing Midpen staffing for FY24 is budgeted for 195.65 Full Time Equivalents (FTE), representing a recommended increase of the equivalent of three net regular full-time positions (FTEs) as compared to the FY23 adopted staffing level of 191.45 FTEs. The FY24 budget also includes funds for two more interns and more seasonal open space technicians than budgeted for in FY23. Activity since the inception of the Financial and Operational Sustainability Model (FOSM), which was approved in 2014 is summarized in the first table in this section. Consistent with the FOSM, the recommended new FTEs are within the agencywide anticipated total growth numbers. Regular Positions by Department Department FY20 Adopted FTE FY21 Adopted FTE FY22 Adopted FTE FY23 Adopted FTE FY24 Proposed FTE Change from FY23 Modified Administrative Services Business Line 26.25 26.25 27.25 29.25 31.25 2.00 Engineering and Construction 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00 General Counsel 3.50 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 General Manager 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 0.00 Land and Facilities 49.00 49.00 51.00 54.00 54.00 0.00 Natural Resources 11.00 11.00 11.00 12.00 12.00 0.00 Planning 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 0.00 Public Affairs 8.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00 Real Property 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 Visitor Services 41.00 41.00 42.00 44.00 45.00 1.00 Subtotal FTE 169.75 169.25 173.25 181.25 184.25 3.00 Seasonals 10.20 10.20 10.20 10.20 11.40 1.20 Total FTE 179.95 179.45 183.45 191.45 195.65 4.20 Interns and limited term positions are not included in the FOSM projections or the regular FTE positions table. A separate table for interns and limited term positions is show below. A D M I N I S T R A T I V E S E R V I C E S B U S I N E S S L I N E Senior Grants Technician (net 0.5 FTE) This request would create a full-time technician for the Grants Program, which is currently shared half-time with Procurement. Making this position full-time would support the growth of the Grants Program by maintaining active grants, coordinating the Grantmaking Program (e.g., solicitations and proposal review process), assisting with contracts for grant writers, assisting with grant applications, and sourcing information (both internal and external) to include in grant applications and solicitations. The Grants Program continues to expand the amount of funds it brings to Midpen and is now applying to many more grant programs and establishing connections with non-traditional sources of funding. This growth requires additional administrative support to manage new task orders for grant writers, coordinate reimbursement requests, prepare/submit quarterly reports for grant funded projects, track multiple grants for large projects, ensure compliance of grant deliverables and agreement requirements, as well as process payments and deliverables for Midpen’s Grantmaking Program awards. 26 Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w Senior Procurement Technician (net 0.5 FTE) This request would create a full-time technician for Procurement, which is currently shared half-time with Grants. Making this position full-time would (1) ensure that the position remains sufficiently focused to support procurement needs and (2) increase the level of procurement support in preparing and routing purchase orders and contracts, verifying data for accuracy, and entering data into the enterprise resource planning (ERP) system. The demands of the Grants Program have absorbed much of the current half-time position, severely limiting the capacity of the Procurement Program to support the number of contracts and purchase orders generated, track the expiration dates of contracts and contingency spending amounts, assist with managing online solicitations, track internal electronic contract routing, and support trouble-shooting related to the transition to a new enterprise resource planning (ERP) system. The current limited capacity of the incumbent is creating prolonged posting solicitations and delays in routing contracts for processing and entering contracts and purchase order in the ERP system, which ultimately delays project and program delivery throughout Midpen. Senior Technologist (1 FTE) The Senior Technologist would support the Information Systems & Technology (IST) Department by implementing cybersecurity projects and performing complex technical support on Midpen computer systems. This position will play a crucial role in ensuring the smooth operation of IT systems. Key responsibilities include maintaining systems, ensuring technology security, optimizing staff processes, and minimizing user downtime. The goal is to ensure the technology infrastructure (hardware, software, systems) is reliable, secure, and enables the organization to operate effectively. In the past five years, Midpen has rapidly advanced its technology to meet the evolving needs of the organization. These new systems (including cloud-based, remote/hybrid systems) that are located and utilized across five offices plus remote stations (including ranger vehicles) and have a higher level of technical complexity that has increased the workload for IT staff. V I S I T O R A N D F I E L D S E R V I C E S B U S I N E S S L I N E Ranger (Overfill, 1 FTE) Over the last four years Midpen has recruited at least once a year for rangers and this trend is expected to continue. Filling a ranger vacancy takes 15 to 18 months, from recruitment to the time they are released from training when they can patrol as a solo ranger. The extensive recruitment and hiring process includes interviews, background checks, meeting the requirements of the conditional job offer, and completion of both the ranger academy and Midpen field training program. Having a second overfill ranger would allow Midpen to place them in a vacant position immediately and/or deploy them to ensure sufficient geographic coverage and minimum staffing levels in response to extended leaves of absence due to injury, family medical leave, or internal promotions, resignations, or the need to place rangers on a light-duty assignment. Ranger staffing is based on a seven-day-a-week shift coverage with very little room to absorb unexpected shift shortages or vacancies. This position would provide added relief capacity for these ongoing challenges. Interns and Limited Term Positions by Department Department FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 Change from FY23 Administrative Services Business Line 2 2 1 2 3 1 Engineering and Construction 0 0 0 0 1 1 General Counsel 0 0 0 0 0 0 General Manager 0 0 0 0 0 0 Land and Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Resources 2 2 2 2 2 0 Planning 0 0 2 2 2 0 Public Affairs 0 0 2 3 2 -1 Real Property 0 0 0 0 0 0 Visitor Services 1 1 1 0 0 0 Total FTE 5 5 8 9 10 1 27Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w I N T E R N S H I P P R O G R A M The budget also includes funding to expand Midpen’s limited-term internship program, which is proving to be an effective tool in furthering the agency’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion goals, establishing a recruitment pipeline for entry-level positions, and providing project and program level support for the agency. The Internship Program is designed to provide motivated college students and recent graduates with a unique learning experience in local government. Interns can expect to work alongside and learn from seasoned Midpen employees and contribute their talents to a variety of projects. Two new interns, one in the Project Planning and Delivery business line (within the Engineering and Construction Department) and one in the Finance & Administrative Services business line (within the GIS Program of the Information Systems & Technology (IST) Department), are proposed to be added in FY24 for a total of ten interns across several departments. Proposed New Interns (2) Engineering and Construction Department (1 Intern) Under close guidance of seasoned project management staff, the Engineering and Construction Intern would support professional level engineering and construction project management activities, including the design and implementation of capital improvement and natural resource preservation and protection projects; coordinate project related assignments with other Midpen staff, outside consultants, contractors and regulatory agencies; assist with bidding process and construction efforts; and perform related work as required. Geographic Information Systems in the IST Department (under Administrative Services Business Line) (1 intern) The GIS Intern would gain experience in cartography, data collection/management, web/software support, and customer service by performing entry level GIS services that support Midpen operations and projects. The GIS Intern would support the GIS mapping and data entry needs of Vision Plan and Measure AA projects and of field-related programs, including the tracking of fuel and vegetation treatment related to the Wildland Fire Resiliency and Integrated Pest Management Programs. Current Intern Roster (8) Human Resources Department (1 intern) The Human Resources (HR) Intern gains valuable work experience and exposure to various HR functions and the public sector, including: recruitment, selection and retention activities; onboarding and offboarding employees; staff training, staff development and recognition; research of employee benefits; HR metrics and demographics tracking, analysis and reporting; policy research; assistance with compensation studies; data entry into the Human Resources Information System (HRIS) and employee/customer service. Interns participate in the HR functions in the lifecycle of Midpen employees and provide a myriad of HR support. The interns receive feedback, coaching and practical experience needed to advance as a professional in Human Resources. Information Systems and Technology Department (1 intern) The IST intern is exposed to government information technology. They gain applicable experience to prepare them for an IT Technician job. This intern also participates in new cybersecurity projects, software integration and provide hands-on helpdesk support. In addition, they are exposed to contracting and overall IT management processes. The move to the new administrative office required additional IT systems and assets to manage the ‘smart’ building, providing additional IT learning opportunities. Natural Resources Department (two interns) The Wildlife Biology Intern assists with essential projects and programs like the wildlife camera program, the mountain lion collaring project, and wildlife monitoring, including purple martin monitoring at Mt. Thayer, California red-legged frog monitoring and other biological monitoring to support capital and routine work. The intern also assists with reviewing and preparing permits for outside researchers. Training is provided in a variety of wildlife identification and field survey techniques as well as desktop review of wildlife imagery and data entry and management. 28 Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w The Conservation Biology Intern assists with essential projects and programs like the Conservation Grazing Program, Mitigation and Monitoring Programs, and capital improvement projects as a biological monitor. Training is provided in a variety of natural resource identification and field survey techniques. In addition, the intern assists with the Request for Qualifications and Proposals and/or Requests for Bids process as needed. Planning (two interns) Planning interns are trained to conduct data collection/entry and site verification and photo documentation in the field (50%-60%), assisting Midpen Planners and GIS staff with critical projects such as the Trail Information Project and Historic Resources Library/Database. The Planning Interns also work on a broad range of duties, responsibilities and assignments balancing field work, online research and analysis, the application of computer and GIS skills, and support public meetings to round out their exposure to Planning. Public Affairs (two interns) Interns are engaged with supporting outreach and event planning; editorial planning; digital content management; and public/media relations planning. Interns learn and practice project management skills; strategic content creation; interviewing skills; and public engagement strategies. The summer/fall Public Affairs interns work on a wide variety of assignments and projects, including: research and writing for publications; creating social media posts and campaigns; creating and updating website content; drafting, proofreading and production of various informational materials; and special projects. The winter/spring Public Affairs intern work on a wide variety of assignments and projects, including: research and writing for publications; creating social media posts and campaigns; creating and updating website content; drafting, proofreading and production of various informational materials; and supporting governmental relations projects. C O M P E N S A T I O N A N D B E N E F I T S Salaries and benefits make up the largest component of expenditures, estimated at 39% of total FY24 expenditures. This category includes all personnel-related costs. Midpen has two represented groups: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Field Employees Association and the Midpeninsula Rangers Peace Officers 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, 3 days of personal leave per year, administrative leave (if eligible), 12 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 incentive 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 $380 per month toward CalPERS retiree medical, which is above the PEMHCA minimum amount of $151 per month (a lifetime benefit). 29Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w FOSM Projections and Staffing Growth Business Line FOSM Projected Growth by 2020 Positions approved through 2020 FOSM Projected Growth between 2020 to 2045 Previously approved Recommended New FY24 Permanent Positions Remaining FOSM Projected Positions through 2045 Planning and Project Delivery 10 to 13 10 TBD / 4 0 0 TBD / 4 Visitor and Field Services 20 to 25 29 37 to 45 9 1 27 to 35 Finance and Administrative Services 9 to 11 11 6 to 8 2 2 2 to 4 General Manager’s Office 2 2 0 0 0 0 Total 41 to 51 52 43 to 57 11 3 29 to 43 F U T U R E G R O W T H I N S T A F F I N G The 2015 FOSM initially projected growth in Midpen staffing 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 an additional 57 new positions, for a grand cumulative total of up to 108 positions. Since December 2014, 52 new positions have been approved by the Board, completing the first growth phase. Since June 2022, 11 new positions have been approved by the Board and the equivalent of 3 more are proposed now in the second growth phase. The above recommendations, if approved by the Board, would raise the total regular new full-time equivalent positions since 2014 to 66. Considering the magnitude of Midpen’s restructuring as of 2014, it has been important to spend time working with the expanded organization to evaluate how the synergies among new capacities provide added efficiencies and expand access to outside revenue sources. In FY23, almost 10 years after the 2015 FOSM study, Midpen started the process of updating the FOSM based on new information, commitments, programs, projects and acquisitions to provide an modernized roadmap with refreshed metrics to guide future growth. Based on the FOSM update and related reforecast of Midpen’s 30-year financial model, future additional positions would be submitted for Board consideration as part of new fiscal year budget approvals. Such additional position requests would remain consistent with the updated FOSM projections and the re-forecasted 30-year fiscal model to ensure long-term financially sustainability. 30 Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 31Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Hawthorns Fund Hawthorns, a 79-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 FY24 annual budget for the Hawthorns endowment totals $37,200, which is the same as the FY23 adopted budget. Capital repairs are on the historical structures is awaiting Board direction as Midpen develops potential disposition options for the 13 structures based in part on the recent findings of a structural assessment—these options are planned to come before the Board for review in late 2023. Board decisions on each structure will generate future implementation projects with budgets that will be added to this or future fiscal year workplans. Other maintenance efforts to mitigate deterioration of the structures and to maintain defensible space, as required by the Woodside Fire Protection District, are included in the $37,200 operating budget. The endowment fund balance at the end of FY24 is projected to be $1,587,622 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 FY17 $63,815 ($546,389)1,535,871 FY18 Actual 5,147 (40,412)1,500,606 FY19 Actual 63,321 (30,888)1,533,039 FY20 Actual 66,906 (12,838)1,587,107 FY21 Actual 13,500 (23,186)1,577,421 FY22 Actual (57,960)(14,439)1,505,022 FY23 Estimated Actual 60,000 (200)1,564,822 FY24 Projected 60,000 (37,200)1,587,622 Projected Ending Balance $1,587,622 Windy Hill Open Space Preserve (Midpen Staff) Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 32 Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Measure AA Projects In June 2014, voters approved Measure AA (MAA), 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. FY24 will mark the tenth year of funding. As of June 30, 2023, an estimated $88.4 million in MAA funds will be expended and the proposed FY24 budget brings the total to $95.2 million, or 31.7% 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, 2023, the amounts budgeted for FY24, and the amount remaining for each allocation net of grants awarded, are illustrated in the Measure AA Projects Budget Overview graph below and the table on the following page. Measure AA Expenditures by Fiscal Year (in millions) $ 0 5 10 15 20 25 FY15 Actual $5.4 FY16 Actual $15.3 FY17 Actual $16.9 FY18 Actual $12.0 FY19 Actual $10.9 FY20 Actual $8.0 FY21 Actual $12.4 FY22 Actual $6.0 FY23 Adopted $10.4 FY23 Amended $22.3 FY24 Projected $12.8 Total expenditures are not net of grants awarded. Measure AA Expenditures by Portfolio (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 6/30/23 ■ FY24 Budget ■ Remaining Portfolio Balance as of 6/30/24 Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 33Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Measure AA Projects Budget Overview Tier 1 Vision Plan Priority Actions Although some of the portfolios show little or no expenditures to date, many projects are underway but are currently a Vision Plan project until they are considered capital projects and hence MAA eligible. In addition, land purchase costs are budgeted only upon Board approval. Information on all MAA accomplishments as of FY22 can be found in the Measure AA Bond Annual Accountability Report. MAA#Measure AA Portfolio Expenditure Plan (Adopted 2014) Total Life-To- Date Estimate through 6/30/23 FY24 Proposed Balance Remaining % Expended 01 Miramontes Ridge: Gateway to the Coast Public Access, Stream Restoration and Agriculture Enhancement $27,774,000 $607,060 ($566,085)$27,733,025 0.1% 02 Regional: Bayfront Habitat Protection and Public Access Partnership 5,052,000 3,422,368 $60,000 1,569,632 68.9% 03 Purisima Creek Redwoods: Purisima-to-Sea Trail, Watershed Protection and Conservation Grazing 7,608,000 7,599,642 $577,913 (569,555)107.5%* 04 El Corte de Madera Creek: Bike Trail and Water Quality Projects 8,376,000 966,168 0 7,409,832 11.5% 05 La Honda Creek: Upper Area Recreation, Habitat Restoration and Conservation Grazing Projects 11,733,000 3,619,933 2,058,244 6,054,823 48.4% 06 Windy Hill: Trail Improvements, Preservation and Hawthorns Area Historic Partnership 12,740,000 234,883 293,670 12,211,447 4.1% 07 La Honda Creek: Driscoll Ranch Public Access, Endangered Wildlife Protection and Conservation Grazing 14,825,000 12,425,307 205,915 2,193,778 85.2% 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 5,560,000 628,202 0 4,931,798 11.3% 10 Coal Creek: Reopen Alpine Road for Trail Use 8,017,000 2,141,960 1,106,763 4,768,277 40.5% 11 Rancho San Antonio: Interpretive Improvements, Refurbishing, and Transit Solutions 10,811,000 347,352 50,867 10,412,781 3.7% 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 5,971,718 162,500 9,577,782 39.0% 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 3,110,818 2,291,597 45,325,585 10.6% 16 Long Ridge: Trail, Conservation and Habitat Restoration Projects (Saratoga) 5,140,000 0 65,000 5,075,000 1.3% 17 Regional: Complete Upper Stevens Creek Trail 7,760,000 1,646,441 65,000 6,048,559 22.1% 18 South Bay Foothills: Saratoga-to-Sea Trail and Wildlife Corridor 1,365,000 1,164,189 0 200,811 85.3% 19 El Sereno: Dog Trails and Connections 2,254,000 298,187 0 1,955,813 13.2% 20 South Bay Foothills: Wildlife Passage and Ridge Trail Improvements 13,966,000 920,266 (1,530,009)14,575,743 -4.4% 21 Bear Creek Redwoods: Public Recreation and Interpretive Projects 17,478,000 13,884,396 1,980,034 1,613,570 90.8% 22 Sierra Azul: Cathedral Oaks Public Access and Conservation Projects 6,714,000 1,477,890 0 5,236,110 22.0% 23 Sierra Azul: Mount Umunhum Public Access and Interpretive Projects 27,972,000 21,814,891 0 6,157,109 78.0% 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 2,398,668 0 5,587,332 30.0% TOTAL MAA Bond $300,000,000 $88,426,245 $6,821,409 $204,752,346 31.7% MAA Portfolio numbers do not coincide with Regional Map locations 1-26. Total life-to-date and proposed expenditures are net of grants awarded. *Pending MAA portfolio reallocation Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 34 Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Vision Plan Through a comprehensive community engagement process and a thorough resource assessment, Midpen developed 54 priority action portfolios focused on the various legs of the mission: land protection, habitat restoration, low-intensity recreation, and support of local agriculture. These portfolios 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 (of which many are included in the MAA portfolios, which is capped at accomplishing $300M in capital projects over a 30-year term) 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.——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 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 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 35Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 T I E R 2 V I S I O N P L A N P R I O R I T Y A C T I O N S 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/what-we-do/our-vision Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 36 Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 The following maps identify the location of new trails on Midpen lands since 2014. Most of these trails were accomplished due to available Measure AA funds. Others utilized grant sources, General Fund monies, and/or other contributions. Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w Debt Service L E G A L D E B T L I M I T 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 15% of the assessed valuation of property situated in the District. As of June 30, 2023, the assessed value of all property within the District’s jurisdictional boundaries totaled $332.919 billion, resulting in a legal debt limit of $49.937 billion. In 2017 and 2018, both Standard & Poor’s and Fitch Ratings awarded AAA ratings to Midpen’s new 2017 Green Bonds Refunding, the 2017 Parity Bonds, and the 2018 General Obligation Bonds. All of Midpen’s Refunding Promissory Notes and Bonds remain at AAA as of April 2023 with Stable Outlook. O U T S T A N D I N G D E B T O B L I G A T I O N S As of June 30, 2023, 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, 2023 2012 Refunding Promissory Notes*2033 3% to 5.44%$8,705,601 $6,580,601 2015 Refunding Promissory Notes 2034 2% to 5%23,630,000 17,100,000 2016 Green Bonds Refunding 2039 3% to 5%57,410,000 36,505,000 2017 Green Bonds Refunding 2038 3% to 5% 25,025,000 25,025,000 General Fund 114,770,601 85,210,601 2015 General Obligation Bonds 2045 1.5% to 5%45,000,000 38,705,000 2018 General Obligation Bonds 2049 2% to 5%50,000,000 43,975,000 Measure AA Fund 95,000,000 82,680,000 Total Debt $209,770,601 $167,890,601 * The 2024–2029 and 2035–2042 maturities of the 2012 Revenue Bonds were refunded through Midpen’s 2017 Green Bonds Refunding. G E N E R A L F U N D B O N D 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. 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. 37Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 2017 Green Bonds Refunding (Series A) On December 13, 2017, Midpen advance refunded $11.6 million of the 2012 Revenue Bonds Current Interest Notes and $8.9 million of the 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. General Fund Annual Debt Service (in millions) $ 10 ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 9 ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 8 ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 7 ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 6 ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 5 ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 4 ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 3 ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 2 ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 1 ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 0 ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33 FY34 FY35 FY36 FY37 FY38 FY39 FY40 FY41 ■ 2012 Refunding Notes ■ 2015 Refunding Notes ■ 2016 Refunding Green Bonds ■ 2017 Green Bonds (Series A Refunding 2012s) Five-Year General Fund Debt Payment Projection Type of Debt FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 2012 Refunding Notes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2015 Refunding Notes 1,995,750 1,990,875 2,002,750 1,996,250 2,006,250 2016 Green Bonds Refunding 5,852,325 5,893,575 5,678,075 5,457,200 5,211,700 2017 Green Bonds Refunding (Series A Refunding 2012s)1,022,200 1,022,200 1,343,950 1,342,075 1,344,325 Total 8,870,275 8,906,650 9,024,775 8,795,525 8,562,275 Total General Fund Principal 5,415,000 5,730,000 6,145,000 6,225,000 6,305,000 Total General Fund Interest 3,455,275 3,176,650 2,879,775 2,570,525 2,257,275 Grand Total $8,870,275 $8,906,650 $9,024,775 $8,795,525 $8,562,275 38 Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w M A A B O N D F U N D MAA Tax Levy Debt service payments on the MAA Bonds are paid through ad valorem taxes on all taxable property within the District. The District 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. For FY24, the ad valorem property tax levy is projected at $0.0013 per $100 or $1.3 per $100,000 in assessed value. 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 $.0015 per $100 of assessed valuation——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 2021-22 $.0015 per $100 of assessed valuation——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 2022-23 $.0013 per $100 of assessed valuation——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 2023-24 $.0013 per $100 of assessed valuation (projected)——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— The following bond issuances 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. 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). 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. 39Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w MAA Annual Debt Service (in millions) $ 6 ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 5 ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 4 ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 3 ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 2 ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 1 ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 0 ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ■ Measure AA 2015 Series A (Tax-Exempt) ■ Measure AA 2018 Series GO Green Bonds Five-Year Measure AA Debt Payment Projection FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 Measure AA 2015 Series A (Tax-Exempt)$2,570,788 $2,573,163 $2,567,913 $2,569,913 $2,568,913 Measure AA 2018 Series GO Green Bonds 2,730,200 2,721,350 2,720,600 2,717,350 2,716,475 Total 5,300,988 5,294,513 5,288,513 5,287,263 5,285,388 Total Measure AA Principal 1,980,000 2,070,000 2,170,000 2,280,000 2,395,000 Total Measure AA Interest 3,320,988 3,224,513 3,118,513 3,007,263 2,890,388 Grand Total $5,300,988 $5,294,513 $5,288,513 $5,287,263 $5,285,388 Grants Program Midpen recognizes that it cannot accomplish its mission alone. The ambitious goals and objectives set forth by the Vision Plan requires the organization to think strategically about how to broaden its impact, in partnership with the conservation community, and leverage existing revenue sources. These revenue resources can support Vision Plan project priorities, including projects funded by Measure AA to augment funding gaps, including those between the original benchmark Measure AA conceptual cost estimates and present-day cost estimates. In early 2017, Midpen created a formal Grants Program focused on increasing grant revenue for the organization and deepening relationships with external partners. The objective of the Grants Program is to bring in additional revenue to accomplish the Vision Plan project priorities, which include MAA obligations, and work in concert with partner organizations to strengthen the collective impact of the conservation community while remaining responsive to community needs and trends. Midpen will continue to build the capacity of the Grants Program, work collaboratively with 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. 40 Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 FY2 4 FY2 5 FY2 6 FY2 7 FY2 8 FY2 9 FY3 0 FY31 FY3 2 FY3 3 FY3 4 FY3 5 FY3 6 FY3 7 FY3 8 FY3 9 FY4 0 FY41 FY4 2 FY4 3 FY4 5 FY4 6 FY4 7 FY4 8 FY4 9 FY4 4 Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 41Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Grants Program Revenue Trend (Received) (in millions) $14 ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 12 ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 10 ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 8 ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 6 ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 4 ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 2 ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 0 ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Estimated Grants Program Revenue Projections Grant Status FY24 FY25 FY26 Awarded $6,373,010 $5,309,094 $336,000 In Progress*5,588,100 2,752,550 1,456,650 Grand Total $11,961,110 $8,061,644 $1,792,650 *Grant application or agreement in progress; includes assumptions for potential FEMA disbursements for each fiscal year G R A N T M A K I N G P R O G R A M The long-term goals of the Grants Program are 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 expanded its Grantmaking Program, which provides modest conservation grants through a competitive process to partners working on projects that align with Midpen’s mission. The Grantmaking Program’s purpose is to advance Midpen’s mission by supporting projects that promote conservation, strengthen the capacity of public, academic and nonprofit institutions within the conservation field, and build and fortify partnerships that facilitate our mission. To this end, Midpen increased its investment in its Grantmaking Program and broadened the categories of eligible funding to align with the organization’s current priorities. Midpen prioritizes funding in three areas: Access, Interpretation and Education, Applied Science and Network and Partnership Support. Midpen’s Access, Interpretation and Education funding is dedicated to promoting equitable access to open space, providing opportunities for nature study, environmental stewardship, and outdoor engagement, offering nature- based education and interpretive experiences, and fostering understanding and appreciation of natural systems. Applied Science funding is reserved for projects that advance scientific understanding of natural processes, ensure sound resource stewardship, and strengthen partnerships with academic institutions. Finally, Network and Partnership Support funding seeks to cultivate, sustain, and grow conservation networks, foster partnerships to address long-term conservation challenges and maintain an engaged partnership community. The Grantmaking Program consists of two funding tiers: up to $25,000 in Tier 1 and up to $50,000 in Tier 2. In 2018, Midpen funded seven partner agencies totaling $249,940 in grant awards. In 2021, Midpen funded ten partner agencies totaling $341,977 in grant funding. 2024 welcomes a new grant round opportunity totaling in $250,000 in funding, with execution anticipated winter/spring 2024. Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 42 Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Grantmaking Program Awards by Funding Priority $700,000 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— $600,000 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— $500,000 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— $400,000 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— $300,000 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— $200,000 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— $100,000 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— $0 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 2018 Grant Round 2021 Grant Round Total ■ Network and Partnership Support ■ Applied Science ■ Access, Interpretation and Education Priority Funding Area 2018 Grant Round 2021 Grant Round Total Access, Interpretation and Education $149,025 $217,013 $366,038 Applied Science 75,915 124,964 200,879 Network and Partnership Support 25,000 0 25,000 Total $249,940 $341,977 $591,917 General Fund Balance The projected FY24 Total Fund Balance in the General Fund is increasing due to a projected increase across most revenue sources. If approved by the Board, the Unassigned Fund Balance Policy will be updated starting in FY24 to reflect 30% of total General Fund revenues instead of 30% of property tax revenue. The chart below shows the flow of non-expended funds. Projected General Fund Balance FY19 Actual FY20 Actual FY21 Actual FY22 Actual FY23 Projected FY24 Budget Nonspendable $185,984 $205,929 $291,297 $839,609 $839,609 $839,609 Restricted 3,962,747 5,527,352 7,875,733 8,348,599 8,408,399 8,408,399 Committed 29,288,465 33,518,465 40,587,084 36,985,087 51,625,087 55,747,008 Assigned 1,400,000 710,000 2,891,390 1,266,474 1,266,474 1,266,474 Unassigned 16,515,392 16,978,717 17,973,643 19,263,060 21,155,760 25,169,960 Total Fund Balance $51,352,588 $56,940,463 $69,619,147 $66,702,829 $83,295,329 $91,431,449 Minimum Unassigned Fund Balance*$14,493,900 $15,616,722 $17,133,100 $17,547,300 $19,006,800 $21,738,800 *Calculated as 30% of total annual Fund 10 property tax revenues. Pending Board approval, starting in FY24, the minimum unassigned fund balance will be calculated as 30% of total annual Fund 10 revenues (includes property tax, grants, interest income, rental income, and other miscellaneous revenues). General fund balances include Fund 10 General Fund and Fund 20 Hawthorns Fund, as presented in Midpen’s audited financial statements. Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 43Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Treatment of Non-Expended Funds Flowchart C H A N G E I N F U N D B A L A N C E 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 FY24 projected balance in each fund is based on FY23 projected fund balances at fiscal year-end; audited financial statements are not available at the time of budget development. The change in fund balance for Fund 30 is due to the projected $27 million new Measure AA bond proceeds, projected to be issued in FY24. 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 MAA Capital Fund 40 General Fund Capital Fund 50 Debt Service Total FY22 Audited Fund Balance $65,158,981 $1,543,848 $19,530,564 $0 $4,148,795 $90,382,188 Change in Fund Balance 16,532,700 59,800 0 0 223,487 16,815,987 FY23 Projected Balance $81,691,681 $1,603,648 $19,530,564 $0 $4,372,282 $107,198,175 Change in Fund Balance 8,136,120 0 27,000,000 0 148,012 35,248,132 FY24 Projected Balance $89,827,801 $1,603,648 $46,530,564 $0 $4,520,294 $142,482,307 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. Treatment of Non-Expended Funds Fund 20: Hawthorns Fund 30: Measure AA Capital Fund 50: Debt Service Fund 40: General Fund Capital Fund 10: General Fund Operating Restricted Assigned Unassigned Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 44 Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Long-Range Financial Planning I N T E N T I O N S A N D A S S U M P T I O N S This Long-Range Financial Plan looks forward for five years, projecting revenues and expenditures, while testing the financial resiliency of Midpen beyond FY24. Information is included for the two prior year actuals for reference. Annual revenues are based on the Controller’s conservative revenue projections; property taxes are expected to grow at 4% each year throughout the forecast years. The one-time revenue of $10.5 million in FY23 represents the sale of the former administrative office property. Expenditures include salaries and benefits, inflated at 5% per year beginning in FY25 and the inclusion of four new FTEs per year at various salary ranges, which is a conservative assumption for modeling purposes while noting that actual FTE requests fluctuate each year as evidenced by a request for 8 FTEs in FY23 and a request for 3 new FTEs in FY24. Additional annual expenditures include services and supplies inflated at 5% per year, capital expenditures in the General Fund and MAA Fund at 5% per year, land acquisition in the General Fund at 2.5% per year and known one- time expenditures in the General Fund. New bond issuance is expected in FY24 and FY27 for Measure AA projects. Long-Range Financial Plan (in thousands) FY22 Actuals FY23 Projected FY24 Budget FY25 Projected FY26 Projected FY27 Projected FY28 Projected Fund balance beginning $96,467 $90,382 $107,198 $142,482 $147,905 $144,230 $174,123 Revenue Property Taxes 64,410 68,852 71,946 75,231 78,610 81,477 84,469 Grant Income 3,884 12,890 6,373 5,650 343 1,020 1,030 Interest Income (896)1,643 3,076 3,107 3,138 3,169 3,201 Rental Income 1,490 403 1,838 1,856 1,875 1,894 1,913 Other Revenues 842 1,508 511 503 511 519 524 One-Time Revenues 0 10,516 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenues 69,730 95,811 83,744 86,346 84,477 88,079 91,137 Other Funding Sources Use of Bond Proceeds 0 10,176 7,358 0 0 0 0 New Bond Proceeds & Debt Service Premiums 0 0 27,000 0 0 32,000 0 Transfers In / (Out)0 2,969 (23)0 0 0 0 Total Other Funding Sources 0 13,145 34,335 0 0 32,000 0 Grand Total: Revenues & Other Funding Sources 69,730 108,956 118,079 86,346 84,477 120,079 91,137 Expenses General Fund, Hawthorns & GF Capital (10, 20 & 40) Salaries and Benefits 25,566 30,315 32,165 33,773 35,462 37,235 39,097 Salaries and Benefits (4 add’l FTEs per year)0 0 0 690 1,449 2,282 3,195 Total Salaries and Benefits 25,566 30,315 32,165 34,463 36,911 39,517 42,292 Services and Supplies 9,324 11,810 13,361 14,176 15,041 15,959 16,932 General Fund Capital Outlay 2,630 2,063 9,482 6,600 6,930 7,280 7,640 General Fund Land Acquisition 93 223 350 250 256 263 269 Other One-Time Expenditures 16,821 1,520 465 0 6,000 3,000 0 General Fund, Hawthorns & GF Capital Total 54,433 45,931 55,822 55,489 65,138 66,019 67,133 Measure AA Fund (30) Measure AA Funded Capital Outlay 5,631 5,315 9,348 7,333 7,700 8,085 8,489 Measure AA Land Acquisition 338 16,950 3,452 3,900 1,000 2,000 2,000 Measure AA Fund Total 5,969 22,266 12,801 11,233 8,700 10,085 10,489 Debt Service Fund (50) Debt Service 16,045 23,943 14,171 14,201 14,313 14,083 13,848 Total Expenses $76,447 $92,140 $82,794 $80,924 $88,151 $90,186 $91,470 Net changes in fund balance ($6,717)$16,816 $35,284 $5,423 ($3,675)$29,893 ($333) Fund Balance Ending General Fund $65,159 $81,692 $89,828 $100,330 $103,889 $109,532 $117,342 Hawthorns Endowment Fund 1,544 1,604 1,604 1,529 1,454 1,379 1,304 Measure AA Capital Projects Fund (Bond Proceeds)19,531 19,531 46,531 40,747 32,190 55,124 45,665 General Fund Capital Projects Fund (Bond Proceeds)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Debt Service Fund 4,149 4,372 4,520 5,299 6,698 8,088 9,479 Fund balance ending $90,382 $107,198 $142,482 $147,905 $144,230 $174,123 $173,790 Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 45Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 C O N C L U S I O N S Beginning FY24 cash balances, estimated at a total of $107.2 million, and future projected revenues are both adequate to cover projected debt service, operating expenses, capital expenditures, and reserve requirements. Ending FY28 cash balances are estimated at a total of $173.8 million. Midpen’s long-term financial projections indicate that the proposed FY24 budget is balanced, sustainable and aligned with Midpen’s long-term plans and objectives. Climate Action Plan C L I M A T E A C T I O N P L A N O V E R V I E W The Board adopted the Climate Action Plan and Climate Change Policy in October 2018 to chart a course for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agency operations. The plan and policy identify Midpen’s goals for reducing GHG emissions as follows: 20% below 2016 baseline by 2022, 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050. Midpen has made significant progress in reducing GHG emissions and has surpassed the 2022 goal with 30% reductions—but continued, innovative action is still necessary to stay on track for the more ambitious 2030 and 2050 goals. Actions taken in FY24 will focus on vehicle emissions, the development of a fleet action plan to transition away from fossil fuel reliant vehicles, and the addition of two electric trucks to the fleet. Minor energy efficiency improvements are also planned for a few Midpen owned houses. Moreover, Midpen will study soil treatment with biochar, a potential byproduct of fuel management activities, as a means to increase carbon sequestration within grasslands. If the study shows a neutral or positive effect on native plant health and biodiversity, this treatment may be incorporated into the conservation grazing program to increase carbon sequestration. Finally, significant staff time, primarily from the IST department, continues to go toward technology and web support needs related to the new hybrid schedules, which has reduced the number of employee vehicle-miles-traveled for work. The shift to hybrid relies on advanced technology solutions to securely maintain computers remotely and support paperless processes. The following table describes these and other Climate Action Plan items that will be implemented or continue in FY24. The Climate Action Plan and past greenhouse gas inventory reports can be found on Midpen’s website at openspace.org/climate. FY24 Climate Action Plan Implementation Actions Climate Action Plan Item Budget*Department Commute-4: Continue incentives for employees commuting via carpool, public transit, bike, or walking $15,000 Administrative Services Vehicles-2: When a viable electric truck option comes on the market, acquire and test utility for operations. (Two EV trucks for FY 2024) $170,000 Land and Facilities Vehicles-14: Purchase carbon offsets for business flights $500 Natural Resources Vehicles-X: Develop a transition plan to decarbonize Midpen’s fleet $109,936 Land and Facilities Residences-3: Make basic energy efficiency upgrades to a few residences e.g. weather stripping, insulation, and double-paned windows. $20,000 Land and Facilities Transportation-3: Assess options for installing EV chargers at preserve parking lots $0*Land and Facilities, Engineering and Construction, Planning Commute-1: Expand and encourage telecommuting (IT support for hybrid work)$0*Information Systems and Technology Livestock-3: Implement carbon sequestration projects identified in carbon farming plan $25,000 Natural Resources Develop carbon sequestration and storage baseline and monitoring plans for La Honda Creek redwood forest treatment sites. $10,000 Natural Resources *Staff time only: Midpen recognizes staff time as an indirect cost of implementing the Climate Action Plan actions. Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 46 Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R E S S To track progress towards the climate change goals, staff conduct a GHG inventory every two years to measure emissions and assess change over time. The inventory of 2022 emissions showed that Midpen reduced emissions by 30% from 2016 to 2022, surpassing the 2022 goal of 20% reductions from baseline. Actions that reduced and avoided emissions in 2022 include the new hybrid work schedule for administrative staff, lower levels of business travel thanks to the widespread availability of virtual options for trainings etc., continued use of renewable diesel, and the move from the old offices into the energy-efficient 5050 El Camino building. Delivering on Midpen’s Mission A G R I C U LT U R E In keeping with Strategic Plan Goal 1, Objective 4: preserve and connect open space and agricultural lands of local and regional significance and Goal 2, Objective 5: support the viability of sustainable agriculture and protect the character of rural communities, Midpen has prioritized 18 projects to support regional agriculture and sustain conservation grazing on District lands such as the Lobitos Creek Fencing and Lower Turtle Pond Repair Projects. W I L D L A N D F I R E R E S I L I E N C Y Climate change has created a new wildfire reality in California: fires are becoming more frequent and catastrophic. In support of Goal 2, Objective 4, Midpen has prioritized 10 fire prevention projects, including an emphasis on fuels reduction and wildland fire readiness. Projects include Fuel Reduction Implementation and the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program projects. D I V E R S I T Y, E Q U I T Y, A N D I N C L U S I O N In support of Goal 3, Objective 2 to implement and sustain diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) strategies, Midpen has prioritized 21 projects to connect diverse communities to their public open space preserves, including the Rancho San Antonio ADA Path to Deer Hollow Farm. In addition to the 21 projects to connect diverse communities to their open space preserves, Midpen programs expand outreach to diverse communities through our grantmaking program, community partnerships, sponsorships and other activities. For more details on Midpen’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, refer to pages 46, 47, and 60. B A C KG R O U N D O N P R I O R A N D O N G O I N G D I V E R S I T Y, E Q U I T Y, A N D I N C L U S I O N E F F O R T S On March 23, 2016, the Board adopted policy 6.08 “Equality, Diversity and Inclusion”, reflecting the commitment “to supporting equality, diversity, and inclusion of all facets of society, the principles of which include fairness of treatment, recognition of rights, acceptance of responsibilities, commitment to equality, and dedication to expanding opportunities for all.” On June 22, 2016, the Board formed a Diversity Outreach Ad Hoc Committee to enhance Board member involvement in increasing outreach to and participation of diverse communities. The Committee’s Board-approved goals included: ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Goal 1. Promote the District and its interpretive programs through collaborative partnerships with diverse community organizations. ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Goal 2. Engage with communities through public meetings and other means to increase awareness about the District and its projects. ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Goal 3. Reflect the diversity of the surrounding community in District activities and functions. ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Goal 4. Expand existing partnerships and enter into new, non-traditional partnerships to complete projects and improve programs that serve a diverse community.——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— The Committee provided guidance on several initiatives, including consideration of a citizen advisory committee, outreach training for the Board, a visitor use survey, development of a youth engagement plan, expansion of the Visitor Services programs, expanded employee training and broader recruitment outreach, and creation of a Board policy on equity, diversity and inclusion. The goal of the initiatives, now completed, was to emphasize the value of diversity and inclusion and expand Midpen’s own diversity awareness. Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 47Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 In the late spring and summer of 2020, as the nation was in the midst of a dramatic reckoning with race and systemic injustices, Midpen responded by reaffirming its stance on the value of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and adopting Resolution 21-11, upholding Midpen’s “long-standing values of diversity, equity, and inclusion and condemning discrimination, hate, and bigotry in all forms.” In addition, the General Manager formed two staff DEI committees, focused on community outreach, partnerships, recruitment and staff development to further the Midpen’s DEI work, consistent with the Midpen’s mission, Board policy, and Board-adopted Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives. The following strategies and implementation actions were identified and prioritized based on various considerations, including anticipated level of beneficial impact; level of urgency; level of initial and long-term staffing resources needed; cost; implementation duration; and synergy with existing Midpen programs and initiatives. Each strategy below includes a list of potential supporting implementation actions. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Strategy and Implementation Actions D E I C O M M I T T E E – S U B C O M M I T T E E S DEI Consultant Recruitment Outreach • RFP for a DEI consultant to inventory existing efforts and develop strategy for change management and accountability. • Work with DEI consultant to create and administer training specifically for staff on hiring panels or otherwise involved in hiring process. • General cultural competency training. • Work with consultant to conduct a needs assessment, identify Midpen’s weaknesses and recommend trainings to address them. • Create a recruitment specialist HR position focused on DEI outreach and marketing. • Identify job application assistance resources and broadcast alongside recruitments. • Inventory groups/organizations that Midpen already engages with and share this as a resource amongst all departments. • Survey partner agencies for strategies to identify target audiences (e.g. Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority’s deep engagement model). A sustained commitment and effort involving all levels of the organization to pursue the strategies and implementation actions listed above will further Midpen efforts in advancing its DEI goals. Many of these strategies and implementation actions can be folded into current operations, while others will require additional funding and allocated resources. As this work continues into FY24 and beyond, the expectation is that DEI goals will be infused in all aspects of Midpen practices, procedures, workflow, and culture and will evolve as Midpen’s knowledge in DEI work expands. The first phase of recommended Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion action items continue to be worked on and are included in the FY24 Budget, and Capital Improvement and Action Plan (CIAP). Subsequent phases will be programmed in later fiscal year as funding and capacity allow. Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome. (Image © 2017 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation) Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 4448 Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Budget Process Midpen’s annual budget development process begins in December each year. At an annual public retreat, the Board reviews and updates Midpen’s Strategic Plan based on the findings of an environmental scan with input from department managers and reviews the prior year’s accomplishments. Staff then begins capacity planning for ongoing projects and proposed new projects. In March, the Board holds a second public retreat with executive management and department managers to establish priorities for the upcoming fiscal year and provide staff with strategic direction regarding the CIAP. Departments begin developing the annual CIAP in February/March in accordance with Board priorities, and 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 and public hearing of the proposed Annual Budget and Action Plan in May and formally adopts it in June. Budget Development Process • Conduct Environmental Scan • Update Strategic Plan Goals & Objectives • Board Retreat #1 (Strategic Planning) • Measure AA Reprioritization, if needed • Project Scoping, Development and Resource Loading • Board Retreat #2 (Priority Setting) • Finalize OpEx/CapEx Budgets and CIAP • Initialize Budget in ERP System • Review Budget and CIAP with GM • Budget and CIAP Presented at ABC Committe Meeting • Follow-Up Presentations to ABC, if needed • Board Conducts Initial Review of Budget and CIAP • Board Adopts Budget and CIAP In addition to holding these public retreats and meetings, Midpen puts together public advisory committees as needed to incorporate community input for topics of high interest. Examples include the Community Advisory Committee that helped develop the Vision Plan and the La Honda Public Access Working Group that worked with staff on the La Honda Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study. In FY24, Midpen will be working with a new Hawthorns Public Access Working Group to develop recommendations for public access that consider natural and cultural resources protections, operational and management constraints, existing conditions, and stakeholder input. Following the second Board retreat in March, Midpen staff always review and update the draft CIAP to ensure a realistic projection of work that can be completed with available staff and funding. After understanding the extent of storm damage experienced by recent winter storms, the General Manager directed Midpen staff to reassess the project list in late March and early April. This reassessment has resulted in newly proposed modifications to the draft Budget and CIAP to incorporate many unanticipated storm-damage repair projects, including those that are anticipated to receive FEMA funding. A total of 11 new projects were added to address the storm damage. In order to accommodate these projects, many of which are time sensitive to avoid further damage from future (2023/24) storms, protect sensitive habitat, and reopen critical access roads and trail connections, numerous other projects are proposed to be either deferred or to have the schedules extended. These changes are listed on the next page: Strategic Planning (Nov-Jan) Action Plan Development (Nov-Mar) Board Review (Apr-Jun) Budget Preparation (Jan-Apr) Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 49Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Storm Repair Projects Added ———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 35017 Bear Creek Redwoods–Parking Lot Culvert ———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 35018 Miramontes Ridge–Madonna Creek Dam Repair ———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 61033 Miramontes Ridge–Johnston Ranch Ponds ———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 61034 Miramontes Ridge–Madonna Creek Stables ———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 61035 Sierra Azul–Limekiln Trail Slide ———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 61036 Bear Creek Redwood–Alma Trail Slide (located outside newly repair segments) ———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 61037 El Corte de Madera–Spring Board Trail culvert and Bridge ———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 61038 Purisima Creek Redwoods–Purisima Ponds ———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 61039 Skyline Ridge–Skyline Ridge Road at Big Dipper Inholding ———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 61040 District-wide Culvert Repair Permanent Work ———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 61041 District-wide Trail Repair Permanent Work ———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Project Adjustments to Accommodate New Strom Damage Projects: ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Scope reduced: ———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 31901 ADA Barrier Removal———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 35010 Structure Disposition———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 61025 FFO Trail Bridge Replacements———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 80054 Badger/Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 80070 Carbon Storage Study–Pilot Project, San Gregorio watershed———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 80072 Irish Ridge Restoration———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 80086 Prescribed Fire Plan Implementation ———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— MAA02-004 Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Area Restoration———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— MAA03-002 Purisima Upland Site Cleanup and Soil Remediation——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Project Full Deferred to a Future Fiscal Year: ———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 35006 Kennedy Trailhead Parking Area Improvement———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 35013 Fremont Older Parking Area Improvements———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 35015 Rancho San Antonio Road Repair———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Supporting Project Science Summit———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Supporting Project Update to the District CEQA Guidelines ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Scope Expanded or Schedule Accelerated due to Storm Damage Repair: ———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 35019 Prospect Road Culvert Replacement———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 35020 Purisima Creek Road Vehicle Access———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 61026 Quam Residence Road Repair——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Projects With No Changes But May Potentially be Impacted: ———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— MAA05-010 Restoration Forestry Demonstration Project———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 4450 Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Budget Management Process (Fiscal Year Starting July 1) • Departments are expected to review OpEx/CapEx budgets throughout the fiscal year to ensure expenditures are trending to the adopted budget • Budget and Analysis sends quarterly budget performance reports to departments • General Manager may approve net-zero adjustments up to $50,000 • 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 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. ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 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 Monitoring Budget Amendments (Quarterly) GM Review Board Approval Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 51Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Financial Policies Each year, the General Manager, Chief Financial Officer, and Controller all review Midpen’s finance policies in preparation for an annual Board review and affirmation of the policies. v This symbol indicates that the proposed fiscal year budget complies with the financial policy mentioned. B U D G E T P O L I C Y v 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——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 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. D E B T M A N A G E M E N T P O L I C Y v 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. La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (Carol Daniels) Se c t i o n 2 • B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d O v e r v i e w 52 Section 2 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 F U N D B A L A N C E P O L I C Y v Fund balance is the difference between governmental fund assets and fund liabilities. 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. The minimum amount of unassigned fund balance is calculated as 30% of the Budgeted General Fund Tax Revenue. Any spending from this minimum general fund reserve requires the approval of the Board. Any such spending will be reimbursed within two years. If such reimbursement exceeds 5% of the Budgeted General Fund Tax Revenue, the Board may decide to limit the reimbursement at 5% and extend the reimbursement period beyond two years, as needed. The minimum reserve amount calculation will be reviewed annually as part of the annual budget process.——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 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. I N V E S T M E N T P O L I C Y v 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. 53Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Unknown Section 3 Capital Improvement and Action Plan Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • C a 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 Capital Improvement and Action Plan Overview Midpen’s Capital Improvement and Action Plan, or CIAP, provides multiyear budget information and a consolidated view of the major projects and activities at Midpen. The CIAP forms the fiscal year work program and includes the projects and key initiatives that the organization will pursue and dedicate staff and financial resources over the next 3 fiscal years. Projects are limited to those that begin or have activity in FY24, FY25, or FY26 and potentially continue as multiyear projects. However, budgets are preliminary for FY25 and beyond. The Board continues to adopt the budget one fiscal year at a time. Midpen staff prepared the FY24-FY26 CIAP in accordance with the Board’s Priority Setting Retreat on March 7, 2023 and in response to recent storm damages experienced in late 2022 and early 2023, resulting in the following projects spread throughout Midpen’s four Programs: ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–——————————————————————————— Land Acquisition and Preservation: Midpen seeks to purchase or otherwise acquire interest in the maximum feasible area of strategic open space land within the District, including baylands, foothills and ridgelines, and link its open space lands with federal, state, county and city parklands and watershed lands.——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–——————————————————————————— Natural Resource Protection and Restoration: Midpen protects and restores the natural diversity and integrity of its resources for their value to the environment and the public.——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–——————————————————————————— Public Access, Education and Outreach: Midpen provides public access to the open space lands for low- intensity recreational uses to everyone, regardless of physical abilities or economic status.——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–——————————————————————————— Assets and Organizational Support: Midpen employs a highly capable and professional staff and provides them with the facilities and resources needed to run an efficient and responsible organization on behalf of the public.——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–——————————————————————————— FY24 CIAP by Program FY25 CIAP by Program FY26 CIAP by Program ● Land Acquisition and Preservation ● Natural Resource Protection and Restoration ● Public Access, Education and Outreach ● Assets and Organizational Support 20%10% 38% 32% 15%12% 39%34% 54 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 20%12% 36% 33% Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 Three-Year CIAP Projects by Program and Fund Fund Fiscal Year Land Acquisition and Preservation Natural Resource Protection and Restoration Public Access, Education, and Outreach Assets and Organizational Support Grand Total 10 – General Fund Operating FY24 0 22 5 8 35 FY25 0 22 5 6 33 FY26 0 16 5 3 24 TOTAL 0 60 15 17 92 20 – Hawthorns Fund FY24 0 0 0 0 0 FY25 0 0 0 0 0 FY26 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 30 – Measure AA Capital FY24 4 11 18 0 33 FY25 3 11 16 0 30 FY26 2 11 13 0 26 TOTAL 9 33 47 0 89 40 – General Fund Capital FY24 7 8 12 14 41 FY25 9 8 14 10 41 FY26 9 6 12 15 42 TOTAL 25 22 38 39 124 Grand Total FY24 11 41 35 22 109 FY25 12 41 35 16 104 FY26 11 33 30 18 92 TOTAL 34 115 100 56 305 In FY24, 8 of the 41 total projects in Fund 40 are in support of MAA, of which 4 of them will become MAA eligible. Once properties are purchased, project budgets and expenditures will shift to Fund 30. Acquisition projects are rarely listed as MAA projects until the purchase is certain or complete given the speculative nature of land purchase projects during the research, due diligence, and early negotiation phase of the work. Three-Year CIAP Projects by Program and Fund Fiscal Year # Fund 10 – General Fund Operating % Fund 10 – General Fund Operating # Fund 40 – General Fund Capital % Fund 40 – General Fund Capital # Fund 30 – Measure AA Capital % Fund 30 – Measure AA Capital Grand Total FY24 35 32%41 38%33 30%109 FY25 33 32%41 39%30 29%104 FY26 24 26%42 46%26 28%92 From a funding perspective, 68% of the FY24 and FY25 CIAP projects are capital projects or land acquisition while the remaining 32% are included in the operating budget (excluding supporting projects). For FY26, 74% of the CIAP projects are capital projects or land acquisition while the remaining 26% are included in the operating budget. Three-Year CIAP New and Continuing Projects New Continuing Grand Total FY24 22 87 109 FY25 11 93 104 FY26 11 81 92 The number of new and continuing projects by Program Area is included in each of the Program Area summaries. 55Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 P R O J E C T N U M B E R I N G 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 MAA10-001 indicates MAA portfolio number 10 (Coal Creek: Reopen Alpine Road for Trail Use), and project number 001 (Alpine Road Regional Trail, Coal Creek). Vision Plan related projects are also designated by portfolio and project number, for example VP21-005 indicates Vision Plan portfolio number 21 (Bear Creek Redwoods: Public Recreation and Interpretive Projects), and project number 005 (Bear Creek Redwoods North Parking Area). Vision Plan portfolio numbers 01 through 25 represent Midpen-funded efforts to implement the top 25 (Tier 1) Vision Plan Priority 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. S U P P O R T I N G P R O J E C T S Supporting projects are important activities undertaken each year that do not meet CIAP project criteria (typically with expenses less than $50,000 over the lifetime of the project). While the supporting projects included in this section may incur real expenses, those expenses will only be included in department operating budgets listed in Section 4: Department Summary. O P E R A T I N G I M PA C T Within the FY24-FY26 CIAP, Midpen has identified over 72 projects (or 51% 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 require three to five years of ongoing monitoring work (for example, ensuring native plants are well established after being planted can take over three years). New areas that are opened to the public require long-term patrol and maintenance work; this may result in additional staff. Staff are 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. I C O N S To highlight projects that support Midpen programs or areas of interest and improve readability, icons are included as applicable throughout Section 3: Capital Improvement and Action Plan. 56 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Land Acquisition and Preservation Natural Resource Protection and Restoration Public Access, Education and Outreach Assets and Organizational Support Agriculture Diversity Wildland Fire Resiliency Coastside Supports Climate Action Plan implementation Project has an ongoing impact on the operating budget Grant Funded Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 FY24-FY26 CIAP Budget The FY24-FY26 CIAP identifies the capital and operating projects and associated costs for FY24 through FY26 and provides funding of $71 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. Per past experience, Midpen assumes unexpected shifts in project timelines due to unforeseen circumstances will continue to occur each fiscal year (e.g., new partnership opportunity, new land purchase opportunity, storm damage repairs). Leaving some capacity in future fiscal years will accommodate any additional capacity needed due to project timeline shifts. For these reasons, it is reasonable to see the total count in project numbers drop slightly year over year under the three-year CIAP. Three-Year CIAP by Program* CIAP Summary by Program FY24 FY25 FY26 3-Year Total Land Acquisition and Preservation**$3,697,951 $1,920,000 $332,000 $5,949,951 Natural Resource Protection and Restoration 7,719,234 8,403,561 7,182,768 23,305,563 Public Access, Education and Outreach 11,403,815 13,653,808 7,499,882 32,557,505 Assets and Organizational Support 4,894,176 2,356,450 2,418,700 9,669,326 Total CIAP $27,715,176 $26,333,819 $17,433,350 $71,482,345 *FY24/FY25/FY26 projects are limited to those that begin or have activity in FY24, FY25, or FY26 and potentially continue as multiyear projects. **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. Three-Year CIAP Funding Sources CIAP Summary by Funding Source FY24 FY25 FY26 3-Year Total Fund 10 – General Fund Operating $3,264,753 $3,768,800 $3,432,352 $10,465,905 Fund 20 – Hawthorns 0 0 0 0 Fund 30 – Measure AA Capital 8,019,637 7,096,375 4,876,198 19,992,210 Fund 40 – General Fund Capital 10,057,776 10,159,550 8,788,800 29,006,126 Grants/Partnerships/Other 6,373,010 5,309,094 336,000 12,018,104 Total CIAP $27,715,176 $26,333,819 $17,433,350 $71,482,345 With the support of the Grants Program, additional revenue is secured annually to support Midpen’s mission, leveraging existing financial resources to relieve funding gaps and ensure project delivery. A summary of CIAP projects with awarded external funding sources is included below. Grants applied for but not yet awarded are not included in the budget or the table below. Related, Midpen is applying for approximately $7.5 million in FEMA funds to support storm damage repair work due to the 2022/2023 storm events. Early indications are positive that at least a portion of the grant request will be funded. This amount is not reflected below, as these grant funds are not yet secured. 57Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 Three-Year CIAP Grant Income Project #Project Name Grant/Partnership/Other FY24 FY25 FY26 3-Year Total 61023 Los Gatos Creek Watershed – Wildland Fire Resiliency Wildlife Conservation Board $825,000 $375,000 $0 $1,200,000 61031 Wildland Fire Capacity State Coastal Conservancy 141,000 382,000 16,000 539,000 80065 IPM Implementation of Valley Water Grant Valley Water 275,000 275,000 275,000 825,000 80083 Santa Cruz Kangaroo Rat Habitat and Population Management Project Wildlife Conservation Board 112,000 95,000 0 207,000 80086 Prescribed Fire Plan Implementation State Coastal Conservancy 0 45,000 45,000 90,000 MAA03-002 Purisima Upland Site Clean up and Soil Remediation Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery 0 77,480 0 77,480 MAA20-001 Wildlife Corridor: Highway 17 Crossing California Department of Parks and Recreation 2,000,000 0 0 2,000,000 MAA20-001 Wildlife Corridor: Highway 17 Crossing Wildlife Conservation Board 1,369,503 3,000,000 0 4,369,503 MAA21-011 Phase II Trail Improvements, Bear Creek Redwoods OSP California Natural Resources Agency 1,411,507 1,059,614 0 2,471,121 None Vehicle and Machinery/ Equipment Purchases State Coastal Conservancy 239,000 0 0 239,000 Grand Total $6,373,010 $5,309,094 $336,000 $12,018,104 Areas of Interest Midpen has identified several key areas of interest in addition to the four CIAP programs. ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–——————————————————————————— Agriculture: Supporting agriculture and sustaining conservation grazing programs on Midpen lands furthers both the mission and Board-adopted Strategic Goals and Objectives (Goal 1, Objective 4 and Goal 2, Objective 5).——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–——————————————————————————— Diversity, Equity and Inclusion: Connecting diverse communities to their public open space preserves through the support of regional partnerships and expanded outreach to youth and underserved communities (Goal 3, Objectives 2, 3, and 4).——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–——————————————————————————— Wildland Fire Resiliency: Working with local fire agencies and surrounding communities to enhance Midpen’s wildland fire preparedness and responsiveness (Goal 2, Objective 4).——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–——————————————————————————— CIAP project summary tables for these three areas of interest are included below. 58 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 Agriculture Project #Project Name FY24 FY25 FY26 3-Year Total 31907 Johnston Ranch Loop Trail and Parking Area $0 $110,000 $135,000 $245,000 35012 Driscoll Ranch New Agricultural Well 72,000 32,500 15,500 120,000 35016 Toto Ranch New Agricultural Well(s)20,000 55,500 0 75,500 61024 Lobitos Creek Fencing 326,000 0 0 326,000 61030 Toto Ranch Agricultural Plan 51,000 75,000 0 126,000 MAA01-005 Johnston Ranch Land Acquisition 37,000 5,000 5,000 47,000 MAA01-006 Madonna Creek Habitat Enhancement, Water Supply and Bridge Replacement 96,915 204,451 207,695 509,061 MAA03-006 South Cowell Upland Land Conservation 5,354 5,000 5,000 15,354 MAA03-007 Purisima-to-the-Sea Habitat Enhancement and Water Supply Improvement Plan 205,000 70,000 175,000 450,000 MAA05-011 Lone Madrone Ranch Fence Installation 131,250 0 0 131,250 MAA05-014 Lone Madrone Corrals 0 7,000 50,000 57,000 MAA07-008 Lower Turtle Pond Repair 205,915 116,858 0 322,773 MAA13-001 Cloverdale – Operational Road System Review and Repairs 0 70,000 138,911 208,911 MAA13-002 Cloverdale Reservoir Monitoring Improvements 87,500 87,500 120,000 295,000 MAA13-003 Cloverdale Ranch Land Opportunity 75,000 1,520,000 0 1,595,000 VP39-001 Lower San Gregorio Creek Land Conservation 50,000 85,000 75,000 210,000 Total $1,362,934 $2,443,809 $927,106 $4,733,849 59Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Project #Project Name FY24 FY25 FY26 3-Year Total 10003 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Program Actions $60,000 $50,000 $25,000 $135,000 31901 ADA Barrier Removal 30,000 1,525,000 50,000 1,605,000 35015 Rancho San Antonio Road Repair 0 226,000 111,000 337,000 61027 Rancho San Antonio ADA Path to Deer Hollow Farm 183,000 157,000 112,000 452,000 61029 Monte Bello Black Mountain Trail Extension 50,000 100,000 155,000 305,000 MAA05-007 La Honda Creek Phase 2 Trail Connections 201,412 302,082 360,672 864,166 MAA05-013 La Honda Parking and Trailhead Access – Phase 2 Implementation 0 0 111,875 111,875 MAA06-002 Hawthorns Area Plan 293,670 109,514 51,560 454,744 MAA11-003 Rancho San Antonio Multimodal Access – Implementation (MAA Eligible) 25,000 0 0 25,000 MAA16-001 Long Ridge Trail Connection to Eagle Rock and Devils Canyon 65,000 175,000 323,726 563,726 MAA17-005 Upper Stevens Creek Trail Connection 65,000 50,000 48,911 163,911 MAA21-006 Bear Creek Redwoods – Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation 159,887 84,038 30,713 274,638 MAA21-011 Phase 2 Trail Improvements, Bear Creek Redwoods 2,788,766 681,000 2,000 3,471,766 VP05-002 La Honda Creek Parking and Trailhead Access – Phase 1 Feasibility Study and CEQA Review 89,000 100,000 0 189,000 VP07-003 La Honda Parking Area – South Area 0 50,000 50,000 100,000 VP11-001 Rancho San Antonio Multimodal Access – Implementation (Non- MAA Funded) 50,000 10,000 0 60,000 VP21-005 Bear Creek Redwoods North Parking Area 105,000 80,000 870,500 1,055,500 Total $4,165,735 $3,699,634 $2,302,957 $10,168,326 In addition to these 17 projects to connect diverse communities to their open space preserves, Midpen programs expand outreach to diverse communities through our grantmaking program, community partnerships, sponsorships and other activities. Wildland Fire Resiliency Project #Project Name FY24 FY25 FY26 3-Year Total 61017 Fuel Reduction Implementation $965,000 $965,000 $965,000 $2,895,000 61023 Los Gatos Creek Watershed – Wildland Fire Resiliency 1,110,880 929,800 0 2,040,680 61031 Wildland Fire Capacity 517,600 517,600 517,600 1,552,800 80072 Irish Ridge Restoration 45,000 385,000 405,000 835,000 80076 CEQA Review for IPM Program 20,000 101,000 0 121,000 80079 Miramontes Ridge Reforestation 0 100,000 15,000 115,000 80085 Long Ridge Forest Health Treatment 50,000 5,000 5,000 60,000 80086 Prescribed Fire Plan Implementation 37,500 75,000 75,000 187,500 MAA05-010 Restoration Forestry Demonstration Project 279,082 40,000 540,000 859,082 MAA21-007 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan: Invasive Weed Treatment and Restoration 110,501 100,000 100,000 310,501 Total $3,135,563 $3,218,400 $2,622,600 $8,976,563 60 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 New in FY24 Continuing in FY24 Total for FY24 Number of Projects 1 11 12 Total CIAP Budget $15,000 $3,682,951 $3,697,951 *Fund 10 0 0 0 Fund 30 0 5 5 Fund 40 1 6 7 *Excludes supporting projects Project #Project Name Fiscal Year FY24 FY25 FY26 3-Year Total Page # 20125 Cal-Water Land Exchange, Teague Hill Preserve FY24-FY26 $24,000 $15,000 $0 $39,000 62 MAA01-005 Johnston Ranch Land Acquisition FY24-FY26 37,000 5,000 5,000 47,000 63 MAA03-006 South Cowell Upland Land Conservation FY24-FY26 5,354 5,000 5,000 15,354 64 **MAA05-015 Upper La Honda Creek Land Conservation (Eberhard) FY24 1,000,000 0 0 1,000,000 65 MAA13-003 Cloverdale Ranch Land Opportunity FY24-FY25 75,000 1,520,000 0 1,595,000 66 **MAA15-005 Upper La Honda Creek Land Conservation (Eberhard) FY24 2,291,597 0 0 2,291,597 67 VP06-002 El Mirador Land Conservation FY24-FY25 15,000 65,000 0 80,000 68 VP08-002 Upper Alpine Creek Land Conservation FY25-FY26 0 12,000 12,000 24,000 69 VP10-003 Transfer of Upper Alpine Road from San Mateo County FY25 0 13,000 0 13,000 70 VP15-001 Redwood Forest Land Opportunity FY26 0 0 5,000 5,000 71 VP15-005 Upper Oil Creek Redwood Land Conservation FY26 0 0 30,000 30,000 72 VP20-003 Quint Trail Easement FY24 23,000 0 0 23,000 73 VP23-004 Mt. Umunhum Land Conservation FY25-FY26 0 23,000 23,000 46,000 74 VP24-002 Valley Water Exchange Agreement at Rancho de Guadalupe Area of Sierra Azul Preserve FY24-FY26 5,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 75 VP25-001 Sierra Azul Loma Prieta Land Conservation FY24-FY26 22,000 22,000 22,000 66,000 76 VP39-001 Lower San Gregorio Creek Land Conservation FY24-FY26 50,000 85,000 75,000 210,000 77 None Districtwide Purchase Options and Low- Value Land Fund Reoccurring 150,000 150,000 150,000 450,000 78 Total $3,697,951 $1,920,000 $332,000 $5,949,951 * Pre-acquisition activity for land purchases is typically budgeted in Fund 40 (unless the purchase is certain and eligible for MAA reimbursement, the funds are then budgeted in Fund 30). The land budget typically 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 fee titles or easements are subsequently budgeted upon approval by the Board and reflected in year-end expenses. Once a MAA-eligible VP property is purchased, a budget adjustment request is made to transfer the General Capital Fund 40 budget to MAA Fund 30. **MAA05-015 and MAA15-005 are the same project. MAA Portfolio #05 does not have sufficient funds to cover the proposed Eberhard purchase. Portfolio #15 will be used to offset the cost of the purchase which aligns with the priority actions of this portfolio. 61Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 L A N D A C Q U I S I T I O N A N D P R E S E R VA T I O N Cal Water Land Exchange, Teague Hill Preserve Project #: 20125 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Pursue trail connections between Huddart Park and Teague Hill Preserve, and pursue future land conservation protections in the Bear Gulch watershed in exchange for land rights to allow the installation of Cal Water water tanks at El Corte de Madera Preserve. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Negotiate and finalize all transactional documents and bring a proposed agreement to the Board for approval. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Land & Facilities and Planning to identify the alignment of the new trail route on Cal Water property to set the permanent location of the trail easement corridor. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Complete the exchange of property rights. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 4,000 0 0 0 4,000 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 20,000 15,000 0 0 35,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $24,000 $15,000 $0 $0 $39,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 24,000 15,000 0 0 39,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $24,000 $15,000 $0 $0 $39,000 62 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 L A N D A C Q U I S I T I O N A N D P R E S E R VA T I O N Johnston Ranch Land Acquisition Project #: MAA01-005 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Complete necessary steps to the purchase and preservation of the upland portion of the Johnston Ranch property as an addition to Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Work with granting agencies to authorize grant change for fee and partial interest purchase of the Johnston upland property. Bring purchase amendment to Board for approval. F Y 2 5 S C O P E After litigation is resolved, complete 100% fee transfer escrow. F Y 2 6 S C O P E After litigation is resolved, complete 100% fee transfer escrow. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 82,856 33,000 37,000 5,000 5,000 0 162,856 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 50 0 0 0 0 0 50 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $82,906 $33,000 $37,000 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $162,906 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 82,906 33,000 37,000 5,000 5,000 0 162,906 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $82,906 $33,000 $37,000 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $162,906 63Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 L A N D A C Q U I S I T I O N A N D P R E S E R VA T I O N South Cowell Upland Land Conservation Project #: MAA03-006 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Complete land division application with San Mateo County for future fee transfer of upland property and adjacent residence to preserve upland grassland habitat and support opportunities for parking, patrol and trail access for the planned Purisima-to-the-Sea regional trail corridor. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Complete land division application with San Mateo County for future fee transfer of upland property and adjacent residence to preserve upland grassland habitat and support opportunities for parking, patrol and trail access for the planned Purisima-to-the-Sea regional trail corridor. F Y 2 5 S C O P E After litigation is resolved, complete 100% fee transfer escrow. F Y 2 6 S C O P E After litigation is resolved, complete 100% fee transfer escrow. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $354 $0 $0 $0 $354 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 4,909,748 1,266,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 6,190,748 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 26,959 0 0 0 0 0 26,959 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $4,936,707 $1,266,000 $5,354 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $6,218,061 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 4,936,707 1,266,000 5,354 5,000 5,000 0 6,218,061 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $4,936,707 $1,266,000 $5,354 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $6,218,061 64 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 65Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 L A N D A C Q U I S I T I O N A N D P R E S E R VA T I O N Upper La Honda Creek Land Conservation (Eberhard) Project #: MAA05-015 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Complete land purchase in the headwaters of La Honda Creek for habitat protection and to help close the Bay Area Ridge Trail gap between the La Honda Creek and El Corte de Madera Creek preserves. Purchase was originally budgeted in MAA portfolio 05 but partially moved to MAA portfolio 15 as MAA portfolio 05 does not currently have sufficient funds for the entire purchase. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Pursue lot line adjustment approval with San Mateo County to complete the purchase of the Eberhard property as an addition to La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8101–Real Estate Services 0 28,400 1,000,000 0 0 0 1,028,400 8201–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8202–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8203–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 1,745 0 0 0 0 1,745 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $30,145 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,030,145 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 30,145 1,000,000 0 0 0 1,030,145 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $30,145 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,030,145 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 L A N D A C Q U I S I T I O N A N D P R E S E R VA T I O N Cloverdale Ranch Land Opportunity Project #: MAA13-003 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Continue with the potential Phase 3 purchase of the Cloverdale Ranch property owned by Peninsula Open Space Trust. Continue due diligence work, including clarification and division of operational responsibilities related to the Lake Lucerne Water Company and identify preliminary land and resource management goals for the potential Phase 3 property. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Continue due diligence for Phase 3 of the Cloverdale Ranch purchase. Work with POST and shareholders of Lake Lucerne Mutual Water Company to address future water infrastructure improvements and clearly define maintenance and repair responsibilities. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Bring exercise of option to Board to consider approval of Phase 3 of the Cloverdale Ranch purchase. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 14,900,000 75,000 1,520,000 0 0 16,495,000 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $14,900,000 $75,000 $1,520,000 $0 $0 $16,495,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 4,971,718 75,000 1,520,000 0 0 6,566,718 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 9,928,282 0 0 0 0 9,928,282 Grand Total $0 $14,900,000 $75,000 $1,520,000 $0 $0 $16,495,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 67Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 L A N D A C Q U I S I T I O N A N D P R E S E R VA T I O N Upper La Honda Creek Land Conservation (Eberhard) Project #: MAA15-005 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Complete land purchase in the headwaters of La Honda Creek for habitat protection and to help close the Bay Area Ridge Trail gap between the La Honda Creek and El Corte de Madera Creek preserves. Purchase was originally budgeted in MAA portfolio 05 but partially moved to MAA portfolio 15 as MAA portfolio 05 does not currently have sufficient funds for the entire purchase. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Pursue lot line adjustment approval with San Mateo County to complete the purchase of the Eberhard property as an addition to La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $1,417 $0 $0 $0 $1,417 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 2,290,180 0 0 0 2,290,180 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $2,291,597 $0 $0 $0 $2,291,597 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 2,291,597 0 0 0 2,291,597 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $2,291,597 $0 $0 $0 $2,291,597 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 L A N D A C Q U I S I T I O N A N D P R E S E R VA T I O N El Mirador Land Conservation Project #: VP06-002 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E In partnership with POST, pursue an opportunity for a lot-line adjustment and associated purchase of 200 acres of mature second growth redwoods as an addition to Windy Hill Open Space Preserve. F Y 2 4 S C O P E In partnership with POST, develop conservation options to work with private property owners to protect 150-year old second-growth redwood forest. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Pursue opportunity for a land division and purchase of El Mirador property with POST and, if approved by the Board, and complete the purchase as an addition to Windy Hill Preserve. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 15,000 65,000 0 0 80,000 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $15,000 $65,000 $0 $0 $80,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 15,000 65,000 0 0 80,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $15,000 $65,000 $0 $0 $80,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 69Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 L A N D A C Q U I S I T I O N A N D P R E S E R VA T I O N Upper Alpine Creek Land Conservation Project #: VP08-002 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Purchase property in the Upper Alpine Creek Area, including a 273-acre property located adjacent to Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Continue to pursue land opportunities. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Continue to pursue land opportunities. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 15,000 0 0 12,000 12,000 0 39,000 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $15,000 $0 $0 $12,000 $12,000 $0 $39,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 15,000 0 0 12,000 12,000 0 39,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $15,000 $0 $0 $12,000 $12,000 $0 $39,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 L A N D A C Q U I S I T I O N A N D P R E S E R VA T I O N Transfer of Upper Alpine Road from San Mateo County Project #: VP10-003 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Upon completion of the Upper Alpine (Road) Trail project, complete county transfer to Midpen of the Alpine (Road) Trail. Prepare quitclaim deed for transfer of the right of way and present to the Board for approval and acceptance. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Complete quitclaim deed transfer of the Upper Alpine (Road) Trail right‐of‐way for public trail use from San Mateo County. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 13,000 0 0 13,000 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $13,000 $0 $0 $13,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 13,000 0 0 13,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $13,000 $0 $0 $13,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 71Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 L A N D A C Q U I S I T I O N A N D P R E S E R VA T I O N Redwood Forest Land Opportunity Project #: VP15-001 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Pursue land purchase opportunities to grow Midpen’s contiguous greenbelt in redwood forests. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Deferred to FY26. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Deferred to FY26. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Pursue opportunities to purchase redwood forest lands in the Oil Creek watershed. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 5,000 0 5,000 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 5,000 0 5,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 L A N D A C Q U I S I T I O N A N D P R E S E R VA T I O N Upper Oil Creek Redwood Land Conservation Project #: VP15-005 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Pursue land purchase opportunities to grow Midpen’s contiguous greenbelt in redwood forests. Purchase forested land in the upper Pescadero watershed to protect redwoods and fish habitat as an addition to Long Ridge Open Space Preserve. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Complete the purchase of redwood forest land in the upper Oil Creek watershed. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 30,000 0 30,000 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000 $0 $30,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 30,000 0 30,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000 $0 $30,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 73Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 L A N D A C Q U I S I T I O N A N D P R E S E R VA T I O N Quint Trail Easement Project #: VP20-003 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Secure a trail easement to close a gap in the Bay Area Ridge Trail. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Secure a trail easement through private property. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 23,000 0 0 0 23,000 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $23,000 $0 $0 $0 $23,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 23,000 0 0 0 23,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $23,000 $0 $0 $0 $23,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 L A N D A C Q U I S I T I O N A N D P R E S E R VA T I O N Mt. Umunhum Land Conservation Project #: VP23-004 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Pursue land purchase opportunities as an addition to Sierra Azul Preserve, including property near Mount Umunhum and Mount Thayer. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Deferred to FY25. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Purchase land from willing sellers as opportunities present themselves. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Purchase land from willing sellers as opportunities present themselves. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 23,000 23,000 0 46,000 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $23,000 $23,000 $0 $46,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 23,000 23,000 0 46,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $23,000 $23,000 $0 $46,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 75Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 L A N D A C Q U I S I T I O N A N D P R E S E R VA T I O N Valley Water Exchange Agreement at Rancho de Guadalupe Area of Sierra Azul Preserve Project #: VP24-002 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Enter into an exchange agreement with Valley Water for license to use land at the intersection of Pheasant and Hicks roads as a staging area for the Guadalupe Dam repairs in exchange for Valley Water’s construction of a parking area to support public access to the Rancho de Guadalupe area of Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Execute an agreement with Valley Water allowing use of Midpen site for construction staging in exchange for building a parking area for public use. Continue working with Native American stakeholders to ensure protection of nearby cultural site. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Monitor Valley Water’s use of the site for construction staging. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Monitor Valley Water’s use of the site for construction staging. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 15,000 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $15,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 15,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $15,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 L A N D A C Q U I S I T I O N A N D P R E S E R VA T I O N Sierra Azul Loma Prieta Land Conservation Project #: VP25-001 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Pursue land purchase opportunities to grow Midpen’s contiguous greenbelt in the Loma Prieta area of Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Continue to pursue land opportunities. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Continue to pursue land opportunities. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Continue to pursue land opportunities. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 0 88,000 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $22,000 $22,000 $22,000 $22,000 $0 $88,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 0 88,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $22,000 $22,000 $22,000 $22,000 $0 $88,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 77Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 L A N D A C Q U I S I T I O N A N D P R E S E R VA T I O N Lower San Gregorio Creek Land Conservation Project #: VP39-001 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Protect watershed land and farmland in the Lower San Gregorio Creek watershed. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Complete exchange of water rights including protection and enhancement of riparian corridor, and transfer of domestic water rights to support farming operation. Hire consultant to begin monitoring the riparian easement. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Hire consultant to complete floodplain modeling and restoration design, and begin permitting. Continue easement monitoring. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Continue permitting and easement monitoring. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 24,215 2,500 30,000 0 0 0 56,715 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 0 100,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 20,000 35,000 25,000 10,000 90,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 200,000 200,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $24,215 $2,500 $50,000 $85,000 $75,000 $210,000 $446,715 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 24,215 2,500 50,000 85,000 75,000 210,000 446,715 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $24,215 $2,500 $50,000 $85,000 $75,000 $210,000 $446,715 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 L A N D A C Q U I S I T I O N A N D P R E S E R VA T I O N Districtwide Purchase Options and Low-Value Land Fund Project #: None Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Budget allocations for purchase option funds to enter into purchase and sale agreements for other open space lands with property owners. These funds are also used for low-value land purchases under the General Manager’s purchasing authority, such as small parcels, public trail easements or patrol and maintenance access easements. F Y 2 4 S C O P E As low-value purchase opportunities become available move to complete land purchases under the General Manager's authority. F Y 2 5 S C O P E As low-value purchase opportunities become available move to complete land purchases under the General Manager's authority. F Y 2 6 S C O P E As low-value purchase opportunities become available move to complete land purchases under the General Manager's authority. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 20,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 0 470,000 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $20,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $0 $470,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 20,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 0 470,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $20,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $0 $470,000 Natural Resource Protection and Restoration New in FY24 Continuing in FY24 Total for FY24 Number of Projects 7 34 41 Total CIAP Budget $875,500 $6,843,734 $7,719,234 *Fund 10 4 18 22 Fund 30 1 10 11 Fund 40 2 6 8 *Excludes supporting projects Project #Project Name Fiscal Year FY24 FY25 FY26 3-Year Total Page # 35012 Driscoll Ranch New Agricultural Well FY24-FY26 $72,000 $32,500 $15,500 $120,000 81 35016 Toto Ranch New Agricultural Well(s)FY24-FY25 20,000 55,500 0 75,500 82 *35018 Miramontes Ridge – Madonna Creek Dam Repair FY24-FY25 200,000 200,000 0 400,000 83 61017 Fuel Reduction Implementation FY24-FY26 965,000 965,000 965,000 2,895,000 84 61023 Los Gatos Creek Watershed–Wildland Fire Resiliency FY24-FY25 1,110,880 929,800 0 2,040,680 85 61024 Lobitos Creek Fencing FY24 326,000 0 0 326,000 86 61030 Toto Ranch Agricultural Plan FY24-FY25 51,000 75,000 0 126,000 87 61031 Wildland Fire Capacity FY24-FY26 517,600 517,600 517,600 1,552,800 88 *61033 Miramontes Ridge – Johnston Ranch Ponds FY24 25,000 0 0 25,000 89 *61034 Miramontes Ridge – Madonna Creek Stables FY24-FY26 10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 90 *61038 Purisima Creek Redwoods – Purisima Ponds FY24-FY26 100,000 100,000 100,000 300,000 91 80034-44 Programmatic State and Federal Environmental Permitting FY24-FY25 50,000 0 0 50,000 92 **80054 Badger/Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment FY24-FY26 50,000 144,000 0 194,000 93 80058 Districtwide Aquatic Habitat Assessment and eDNA Collection FY24-FY26 68,441 75,000 75,000 218,441 94 80059 Groundwater Well Decommissioning FY25-FY26 0 141,000 141,000 282,000 95 80065 IPM Implementation of Valley Water Grant FY24-FY26 220,000 200,000 200,000 620,000 96 80069 Mountain Lion Conservation Research FY24-FY26 101,400 101,400 45,252 248,052 97 **80070 Carbon Storage Study–Pilot Project, San Gregorio Watershed FY24-FY25 30,000 20,000 0 50,000 98 **80072 Irish Ridge Restoration FY24-FY26 45,000 385,000 405,000 835,000 99 80073 Oversight of Lehigh Quarry Activities FY24-FY26 75,000 18,000 18,000 111,000 100 80074 Science Advisory Panel FY24-FY25 10,000 50,000 0 60,000 101 80076 CEQA Review for IPM Program FY24-FY25 20,000 101,000 0 121,000 102 80079 Miramontes Ridge Reforestation FY25-FY26 0 100,000 15,000 115,000 103 80081 Pescadero Watershed Sediment Reduction Implementation FY24-FY26 175,000 85,000 70,000 330,000 104 80082 San Gregorio Water Quality Improvement Plan FY24-FY26 62,000 240,000 160,000 462,000 105 80083 Santa Cruz Kangaroo Rat Habitat and Population Management Project FY24-FY26 136,932 95,000 520,500 752,432 106 80084 Remediation of Planting Sites FY24-FY26 50,000 50,000 50,000 150,000 107 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 79Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 80085 Long Ridge Forest Health Treatment FY24-FY26 50,000 5,000 5,000 60,000 108 **80086 Prescribed Fire Plan Implementation FY24-FY26 37,500 75,000 75,000 187,500 109 80087 Restoration Prioritization and Implementation of Mitigation Policy FY24-FY26 50,000 100,000 100,000 250,000 110 80088 San Gregorio Creek Fish Habitat Enhancement FY24-FY26 130,500 148,000 5,000 283,500 111 MAA01-006 Madonna Creek Habitat Enhancement, Water Supply and Bridge Replacement FY24-FY26 96,915 204,451 207,695 509,061 112 **MAA02-004 Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Area Restoration FY24-FY26 60,000 418,167 178,310 656,477 113 **MAA03-002 Purisima Upland Site Cleanup and Soil Remediation FY24-FY26 143,691 520,000 25,000 688,691 114 MAA03-007 Purisima-to-the-Sea Habitat Enhancement and Water Supply Improvement Plan FY24-FY26 205,000 70,000 175,000 450,000 115 MAA03-011 Lobitos Creek Fisheries Restoration FY26 0 0 155,000 155,000 116 ***MAA05-010 Restoration Forestry Demonstration Project FY24-FY26 279,082 40,000 540,000 859,082 117 MAA05-011 Lone Madrone Ranch Fence Installation FY24 131,250 0 0 131,250 118 MAA05-014 Lone Madrone Corrals FY25-FY26 0 7,000 50,000 57,000 119 MAA07-008 Lower Turtle Pond Repair FY24-FY25 205,915 116,858 0 322,773 120 MAA13-001 Cloverdale–Operational Road System Review and Repairs FY25-FY26 0 70,000 138,911 208,911 121 MAA13-002 Cloverdale Reservoir Monitoring Improvements FY24-FY26 87,500 87,500 120,000 295,000 122 MAA20-001 Wildlife Corridor: Highway 17 Crossing FY24-FY26 920,554 1,500,785 750,000 3,171,339 123 MAA21-007 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan: Invasive Weed Treatment and Restoration FY24-FY26 110,501 100,000 100,000 310,501 124 MAA21-010 Bear Creek Redwoods Landfill Characterization and Remediation FY24 219,573 0 0 219,573 125 VP22-002 Alma Bridge Road Wildlife Passage FY24-FY26 500,000 250,000 1,250,000 2,000,000 126 Total $7,719,234 $8,403,561 $7,182,768 $23,305,563 *Storm damage project. **Project scope of work, budget, and staff capacity is subject to change following additional assessment from FEMA to address storm damage projects. ***Potential impacts to accommodate storm damage projects. S U P P O R T I N G P R O J E C T S Project Name Project Purpose Lead Department Fiscal Year Conservation Management Unit Designation Evaluate Midpen lands to determine need and location for additional Conservation Management Units (CMU) to protect sensitive habitats. Natural Resources FY24-FY25 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Driscoll Ranch New Agricultural Well Project #: 35012 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Provide a well as a new source of water for agricultural use at Driscoll Ranch to replace existing creek diversion and tie the new well into existing water distribution lines and tanks. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Secure permits and prepare bid package. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Bid, award contract and start construction. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Complete construction. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 15,000 10,000 5,000 3,000 0 33,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 15,000 15,500 8,000 4,000 0 42,500 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 5,000 8,000 3,000 3,000 0 19,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 38,500 16,500 5,500 0 60,500 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $35,000 $72,000 $32,500 $15,500 $0 $155,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 35,000 72,000 32,500 15,500 0 155,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $35,000 $72,000 $32,500 $15,500 $0 $155,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 81Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Toto Ranch New Agricultural Well(s) Project #: 35016 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Drill and install a new agricultural water well in Toto Ranch to replace two existing shallow wells that do not produce sufficient water. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Conduct well assessment. If a deeper well is feasible, complete CEQA review, secure permits and prepare bid package. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Solicit bids, award contract and start construction. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 10,000 15,000 5,000 0 0 30,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 15,000 0 5,000 0 0 20,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 5,000 5,000 7,000 0 0 17,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 38,500 0 0 38,500 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $30,000 $20,000 $55,500 $0 $0 $105,500 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 30,000 20,000 55,500 0 0 105,500 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $30,000 $20,000 $55,500 $0 $0 $105,500 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 83Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Miramontes Ridge–Madonna Creek Dam Repair Project #: 35018 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Downstream face of dam partially washed away when dam was overtopped. Repair will require additional work to stabilize dam. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Complete CEQA review. Repair and stabilize downstream face of dam. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from FEMA and staff. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Repair and stabilize downstream face of dam. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from FEMA and staff. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 200,000 200,000 0 0 400,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $400,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 200,000 200,000 0 0 400,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $400,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Fuel Reduction Implementation Project #: 61017 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Improve wildfire resiliency and protection of Midpen preserves. Implement fuel reduction work outlined in the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program–Vegetation Management Plan to reduce fuels that contribute to wildfire risks. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Continue fuel reduction work outlined in the Vegetation Management Plan to reduce fuels that contribute to wildfire risks. May need to split into additional projects. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Continue fuel reduction work outlined in the Vegetation Management Plan to reduce fuels that contribute to wildfire risks. May need to split into additional projects. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Continue fuel reduction work outlined in the Vegetation Management Plan to reduce fuels that contribute to wildfire risks. May need to split into additional projects. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 211,644 415,000 965,000 965,000 965,000 0 3,521,644 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $211,644 $415,000 $965,000 $965,000 $965,000 $0 $3,521,644 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $211,644 $415,000 $965,000 $965,000 $965,000 $0 $3,521,644 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $211,644 $415,000 $965,000 $965,000 $965,000 $0 $3,521,644 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 85Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Los Gatos Creek Watershed–Wildland Fire Resiliency Project #: 61023 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Implement grant-funded work within the Los Gatos Creek watershed that furthers the goals of the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program to complete ecologically sensitive vegetation management that reduces fuel loads and lessens wildfire risk (including in areas with extremely high infestation of Sudden Oak Death). F Y 2 4 S C O P E Implement second year of the fuel treatments/habitat restoration plan at Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve. Implement first year of the fuel treatment/habitat restoration plan in the Cathedral Oaks are of Sierra Azul Preserve. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Implement third year of the fuel treatment/habitat restoration plan at Bear Creek Redwoods. Implement second year of the fuel treatment/habitat restoration plan in the Cathedral Oaks area of Sierra Azul. Implement first year of treatment at Long Ridge and Saratoga Gap preserves. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $1,606 $44,000 $45,000 $44,000 $0 $0 $134,606 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 88,589 159,000 1,065,880 885,800 0 0 2,199,269 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $90,194 $203,000 $1,110,880 $929,800 $0 $0 $2,333,874 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $90,194 $(97,000) $285,880 $554,800 $0 $0 $833,874 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 300,000 825,000 375,000 0 0 1,500,000 Grand Total $90,194 $203,000 $1,110,880 $929,800 $0 $0 $2,333,874 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Lobitos Creek Fencing Project #: 61024 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Extend a southern fence line along Lobitos Creek to protect the riparian area from cattle access. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Solicit bids, award contract and complete construction. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 25,000 0 0 0 25,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 1,000 301,000 0 0 0 302,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $1,000 $326,000 $0 $0 $0 $327,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 1,000 326,000 0 0 0 327,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $1,000 $326,000 $0 $0 $0 $327,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 87Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Toto Ranch Agricultural Plan Project #: 61030 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Develop a sustainable agricultural plan for Toto Ranch to be used to establish an agricultural lease with the tenants. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Utilize the consultant's findings to prepare the agricultural plan and prepare a draft lease agreement. Initiate CEQA review. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Finalize and execute the agricultural lease agreement. Complete CEQA review. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 51,000 75,000 0 0 126,000 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $51,000 $75,000 $0 $0 $126,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $51,000 $75,000 $0 $0 $126,000 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $51,000 $75,000 $0 $0 $126,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Wildland Fire Capacity Project #: 61031 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Utilize $1.08 million in State Coastal Conservancy grant funding to build staff capacity, purchase additional fuel treatment equipment, and implement fuel reduction work in four preserves. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Plan for and start work along Alpine Road in Skyline Ridge and Russian Ridge preserves. Complete work along Alpine Road in Windy Hill. Start work on ecosystem fire resiliency for Kings Mountain manzanita at El Corte de Madera Creek Preserve. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Continue work along Alpine Road in Russian Ridge and Skyline Ridge preserves. Continue work for ecosystem fire resiliency for Kings Mountain manzanita at El Corte de Madera Creek Preserve. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Continue work along Alpine Road in Russian Ridge and Skyline Ridge preserves. Continue work for ecosystem fire resiliency for Kings Mountain manzanita at El Corte de Madera Creek Preserve. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $150,000 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 467,600 467,600 467,600 0 1,402,800 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $517,600 $517,600 $517,600 $0 $1,552,800 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $376,600 $135,600 $501,600 $0 $1,013,800 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 141,000 382,000 16,000 0 539,000 Grand Total $0 $0 $517,600 $517,600 $517,600 $0 $1,552,800 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 89Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Miramontes Ridge–Johnston Ranch Ponds Project #: 61033 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Pond berm damaged in storm. Erosion from overtopping was addressed in the emergency work. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Complete CEQA review. Repairs pond berm. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from FEMA and staff. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 25,000 0 0 0 25,000 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Miramontes Ridge–Madonna Creek Stables Project #: 61034 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Culvert failure and creek channel failure near stables. Repair or replace culvert and repair approximately 1500' of channel. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Complete CEQA review. Repair or replace culvert and repair approximately 1500' of channel. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from FEMA and staff. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Repair or replace culvert and repair approximately 1500' of channel. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from FEMA and staff. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Repair or replace culvert and repair approximately 1500' of channel. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from FEMA and staff. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 30,000 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $30,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $30,000 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $30,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 91Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Purisima Creek Redwoods–Purisima Ponds Project #: 61038 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Pond berm was damaged due to erosion from overtopping, and a full rebuild will be necessary. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Rebuild pond berm. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from FEMA and staff. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Rebuild pond berm. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from FEMA and staff. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Rebuild pond berm. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from FEMA and staff. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 300,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $0 $300,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 300,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $0 $300,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Programmatic State and Federal Environmental Permitting Project #: 80034-44 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Develop state and federal programmatic permits for compliance with Endangered Species and Clean Water acts. Facilitates streamlined implementation of projects, resource protection and partnering efforts. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Apply for updated U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Permit to match terms in final U.S. Army Corps and CA Department of Fish and Wildlife permits and to include updated provisions from Midpen's Prescribed Fire Program. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Finalize negotiations with regulatory agencies and receive final permits. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 533,573 36,000 50,000 0 0 0 619,573 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $533,573 $36,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $619,573 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $533,573 $36,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $619,573 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $533,573 $36,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $619,573 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 93Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Badger/Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment Project #: 80054 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Prepare a management plan of grasslands and upland habitat to protect and sustain badger and burrowing owl populations. Present project results to Midpen staff and regional wildlife community. Project involves genetic studies to determine viability of badger populations. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Continue engagement with regional partners to determine additional study needs and to inform the identification of enhancement implementation actions. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Explore best timing, partnerships and outside funding opportunities to implement habitat enhancement actions. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Pending partnerships and outside funding opportunities, initiate steps to implement habitat enhancement actions. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 228,813 13,200 50,000 144,000 0 0 436,013 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $228,813 $13,200 $50,000 $144,000 $0 $0 $436,013 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $228,813 $13,200 $50,000 $144,000 $0 $0 $436,013 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $228,813 $13,200 $50,000 $144,000 $0 $0 $436,013 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Districtwide Aquatic Habitat Assessment and eDNA Collection Project #: 80058 Fund: 10 – General Fund operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Conduct aquatic surveys Districtwide to understand aquatic habitat distribution and resident species composition to inform management and protection of aquatic habitats. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Conduct San Francisco garter snake resurvey at Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve and produce a final report. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Hire a consultant to resurvey Districtwide ponds for herpetofauna and complete year 1 surveys. If feasible incorporate use of eDNA detection methods for cryptic species such as yellow legged frog. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Continue to conduct surveys and produce a final report. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 55,000 68,441 75,000 75,000 0 273,441 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $55,000 $68,441 $75,000 $75,000 $0 $273,441 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $55,000 $68,441 $75,000 $75,000 $0 $273,441 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $55,000 $68,441 $75,000 $75,000 $0 $273,441 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 95Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Groundwater Well Decommissioning Project #: 80059 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Prevent groundwater contamination by sealing unused and abandoned wells. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Deferred to FY25. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Hire a contractor to assess and select wells for decommissioning, location TBD. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Hire a contractor to assess and select wells for decommissioning, location TBD. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 10,000 10,000 0 20,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 2,272 0 0 15,000 15,000 0 32,272 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 53 0 0 5,000 5,000 0 10,053 8600 –Construction 139,008 0 0 111,000 111,000 0 361,008 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $141,333 $0 $0 $141,000 $141,000 $0 $423,333 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 141,333 0 0 141,000 141,000 0 423,333 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $141,333 $0 $0 $141,000 $141,000 $0 $423,333 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N IPM Implementation of Valley Water Grant Project #: 80065 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Revitalize habitat for rare, threatened and endangered species and create a more contiguous native vegetation corridor for wildlife, including pollinators, by removing invasive plants and/or revegetating with native species. Funding is prioritized for projects that include community partnerships or provide education for nearby landowners and other stakeholder groups on the control of harmful species. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Year seven of project implementation. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Year eight of project implementation. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Year nine of project implementation. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 219,103 120,000 220,000 200,000 200,000 250,000 1,209,103 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $219,103 $120,000 $220,000 $200,000 $200,000 $250,000 $1,209,103 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $59,288 $(130,763) $(55,000) $(75,000) $(75,000) $578 $(275,897) 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 159,815 250,763 275,000 275,000 275,000 249,422 1,485,000 Grand Total $219,103 $120,000 $220,000 $200,000 $200,000 $250,000 $1,209,103 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 97Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Mountain Lion Conservation Research Project #: 80069 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Track mountain lion use of select preserves (focusing on Rancho San Antonio) to inform wildlife management and public use decisions that are protective of wildlife and reduce potential human interaction conflicts. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Receive year three status report, conduct effectiveness monitoring, wildlife camera analysis, and ongoing research. Begin data analysis phase. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Develop draft Human-Mountain Lion Interaction Management Plan to reduce potential conflicts with mountain lions in high visitor use areas and refine recommendations. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Receive final year status report and finalize strategies for implementation. Finalize Human-Mountain Lion Interaction Management Plan. Work with consultant on publication and presentation of findings at appropriate conferences and to partner organizations and regulatory agencies (CDFW). Begin CEQA process for implementation where needed. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 156,148 101,400 101,400 101,400 45,252 0 505,600 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $156,148 $101,400 $101,400 $101,400 $45,252 $0 $505,600 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $156,148 $101,400 $101,400 $101,400 $45,252 $0 $505,600 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $156,148 $101,400 $101,400 $101,400 $45,252 $0 $505,600 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Carbon Storage Study–Pilot Project, San Gregorio Watershed Project #: 80070 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Refine the understanding of carbon sequestration and storage in the San Gregorio watershed, and explore the potential for increasing resilience of carbon stocks in the long-term. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Design for a carbon resilience and/or sequestration project (TBD). The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. Permitting deferred to FY25 to accommodate storm damage projects. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Secure permits and implement the carbon resilience and/or sequestration project (TBD). The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 50,000 0 30,000 20,000 0 0 100,000 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $50,000 $0 $30,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $100,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $50,000 $0 $30,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $100,000 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $50,000 $0 $30,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $100,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 99Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Irish Ridge Restoration Project #: 80072 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Restore habitat on the Irish Ridge property. Plan, permit and implement habitat restoration for special status species, as well as climate change and wildland fire resiliency. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Begin CEQA and permitting. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Implement first year of the habitat restoration plan. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Implement second year of the habitat restoration plan. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 85,000 45,000 385,000 405,000 345,000 1,265,000 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $85,000 $45,000 $385,000 $405,000 $345,000 $1,265,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $85,000 $45,000 $385,000 $405,000 $345,000 $1,265,000 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $85,000 $45,000 $385,000 $405,000 $345,000 $1,265,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Oversight of Lehigh Quarry Activities Project #: 80073 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Protect Midpen interests throughout the Lehigh Quarry Reclamation Plan Review process and related activities. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Continue to work with partners, stakeholders, county and Lehigh to maximize protection of Midpen interests. Monitor Ridgeline Easement and report results to Santa Clara County. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Continue to work with partners, stakeholders, county and Lehigh to maximize protection of Midpen interests. Monitor Ridgeline Easement and report results to Santa Clara County. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Continue to work with partners, stakeholders, county and Lehigh to maximize protection of Midpen interests. Monitor Ridgeline Easement and report results to Santa Clara County. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 13,494 54,000 75,000 18,000 18,000 0 178,494 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $13,494 $54,000 $75,000 $18,000 $18,000 $0 $178,494 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $13,494 $54,000 $75,000 $18,000 $18,000 $0 $178,494 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $13,494 $54,000 $75,000 $18,000 $18,000 $0 $178,494 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 101Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Science Advisory Panel Project #: 80074 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Seek science-based findings from a Scientific Advisory Panel to help inform Midpen land management decisions. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Pending Board approval and staff capacity, determine new Science Advisory Panel process and scope of research topics. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Pending Board approval and staff capacity, consider researching new topic with the Science Advisory Panel. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 50,581 5,000 10,000 50,000 0 0 115,581 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $50,581 $5,000 $10,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $115,581 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $50,581 $5,000 $10,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $115,581 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $50,581 $5,000 $10,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $115,581 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N CEQA Review for IPM Program Project #: 80076 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Perform 10-year review of the IPM Program. Update the project description and confirm and/or update original CEQA findings. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Conduct internal review and stakeholder meetings on program updates. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Finalize CEQA and approve project. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 20,000 101,000 0 0 121,000 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $20,000 $101,000 $0 $0 $121,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $20,000 $101,000 $0 $0 $121,000 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $20,000 $101,000 $0 $0 $121,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 103Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Miramontes Ridge Reforestation Project #: 80079 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Implement ecosystem resiliency through reforestation near Hwy 35. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Develop the reforestation habitat restoration plan. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Complete CEQA Review. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 100,000 15,000 150,000 265,000 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $15,000 $150,000 $265,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $15,000 $150,000 $265,000 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $15,000 $150,000 $265,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Pescadero Watershed Sediment Reduction Implementation Project #: 80081 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Comply with San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations of the Total Maximum Daily Load for sediment in the Pescadero-Butano watershed. Identify and then address high priority sediment sources along road and trails in Skyline Ridge and Long Ridge preserves. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Continue conceptual designs. Coordinate with E&C (for ADA improvements) and VS (for work downstream of Alpine Pond) on scheduling and compliance with the recovery permit. Investigate streamlined permitting with resource agencies for highest priority sites, including the Alpine Pond Project (dam reconstruction and pond reconfiguration). Engage with neighbors where road agreements or easements exist. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Finalize designs/permitting of additional high priority sites, including areas along Old Page Mill Road (which will need to occur prior to draining Alpine Pond) and construct, if timing allows. Continue working with resource agencies on strategy to include Alpine Pond under recovery permit. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Work on Old La Honda Road (downstream of Alpine Pond); continue permitting efforts with regulatory agencies, develop bid and construction documents. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 135,000 30,000 0 0 165,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 40,000 55,000 70,000 50,000 215,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 120,000 120,000 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 450,000 450,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $175,000 $85,000 $70,000 $620,000 $950,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 175,000 85,000 70,000 620,000 950,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $175,000 $85,000 $70,000 $620,000 $950,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 105Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N San Gregorio Water Quality Improvement Plan Project #: 80082 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Address the sediment reduction goals set by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Water Quality Improvement Plan for the San Gregorio watershed. Implementation will be conducted over a long term period, beginning in FY24 or FY25, depending on the results of the FY23 study and plan. Sediment inventory report (similar to Pescadero Project #80081) is due to the Water Board in 2027 and Midpen is ahead of schedule. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Begin conceptual designs for several of the highest priority sites. Sites are anticipated to be eligible for programmatic (streamlined) permitting. Coordinate with Foothills Field Office (FFO) on scheduling. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Complete 60% designs and begin permitting for highest priority sites for potential construction starting in FY26. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Begin construction of high priority sites (if permitting allows). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 55,791 62,000 240,000 160,000 0 517,791 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $55,791 $62,000 $240,000 $160,000 $0 $517,791 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $55,791 $62,000 $240,000 $160,000 $0 $517,791 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $55,791 $62,000 $240,000 $160,000 $0 $517,791 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Santa Cruz Kangaroo Rat Habitat and Population Management Project Project #: 80083 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Assess habitat and support genetic research to inform the development of a habitat and population management plan (HPMP). The HPMP will identify opportunities for site-specific enhancements to increase species resiliency of Santa Cruz kangaroo rat. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Develop a HPMP, initiate CEQA and prepare permit applications. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Finalize CEQA and secure permits. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Implement habitat enhancements and begin long-term monitoring of kangaroo rat population response. Partner with State Parks and/or Open Space Authority for translocations if recommended. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 123,000 136,932 95,000 520,500 861,500 1,736,932 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $123,000 $136,932 $95,000 $520,500 $861,500 $1,736,932 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $58,000 $24,932 $0 $520,500 $861,500 $1,464,932 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 65,000 112,000 95,000 0 0 272,000 Grand Total $0 $123,000 $136,932 $95,000 $520,500 $861,500 $1,736,932 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 107Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Remediation of Planting Sites Project #: 80084 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Oregon State University to provide remediation recommendations for restoration sites contaminated with soil pathogens and preventative strategies for future restoration projects. Staff to then identify remedial actions to pursue based on capacity, costs, and other factors to manage for Phytophthora and protect the natural resources. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Determine locations and priority, including feasibility of remediation of restoration sites contaminated with soil pathogens. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Implement first year of remediation of restoration sites contaminated with soil pathogens. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Implement second year of remediation of restoration sites contaminated with soil pathogens. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 0 150,000 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $150,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $150,000 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $150,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Long Ridge Forest Health Treatment Project #: 80085 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Restore oak woodland habitat to improve resilience to climate change impacts and fire by removing encroaching Douglas fir that is overtopping the hardwoods. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Secure grant funding for Douglas fir removal. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Develop a treatment plan and begin CEQA analysis for Douglas fir removal and restoration of the oak woodland habitat. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Complete CEQA process. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 50,000 5,000 5,000 35,000 95,000 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $50,000 $5,000 $5,000 $35,000 $95,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $50,000 $5,000 $5,000 $35,000 $95,000 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $50,000 $5,000 $5,000 $35,000 $95,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 109Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Prescribed Fire Plan Implementation Project #: 80086 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Reintroduction of fire as a natural process for ecosystem resiliency and fire management. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Identify areas for prescribed fire. Draft up to two burn plans and implement at least one burn. Monitor and implement corrective actions, as needed. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Identify areas for prescribed fire. Draft up to three burn plans depending on prior years implementation and implement at least one burn. Monitor and implement corrective actions, as needed. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Identify areas for prescribed fire. Draft up to three burn plans depending on prior years implementation and implement at least one burn. Monitor and implement corrective actions, as needed. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 37,500 75,000 75,000 37,500 225,000 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $37,500 $75,000 $75,000 $37,500 $225,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $37,500 $30,000 $30,000 $37,500 $135,000 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 45,000 45,000 0 90,000 Grand Total $0 $0 $37,500 $75,000 $75,000 $37,500 $225,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Restoration Prioritization and Implementation of Mitigation Policy Project #: 80087 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Identify restoration priorities and assemble eligible mitigation projects for future offsets and to secure mitigation funds consistent with the Mitigation Policy. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Compile list, type, size and timing of priority restoration projects and sites. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Identify and prioritize additional restoration projects as needed to meet mitigation requests and needs. Design for and plan first set of restoration mitigation projects. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Continue to design and plan projects as needs arise. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 50,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 750,000 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000 $750,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000 $750,000 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000 $750,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 111Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N San Gregorio Creek Fish Habitat Enhancement Project #: 80088 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Enhance instream salmonid habitat in San Gregorio Creek at apple orchard by installing large woody debris. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Hire San Mateo Resource Conservation District to lead project implementation, including CEQA and permitting. Begin construction summer 2024. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Complete construction. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Conduct Year 1 of 5 of post-construction monitoring. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 63,250 21,500 0 0 84,750 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 50,000 0 5,000 5,000 60,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 28,750 0 0 28,750 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 17,250 97,750 0 0 115,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $130,500 $148,000 $5,000 $5,000 $288,500 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 130,500 148,000 5,000 5,000 288,500 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $130,500 $148,000 $5,000 $5,000 $288,500 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Madonna Creek Habitat Enhancement, Water Supply and Bridge Replacement Project #: MAA01-006 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Restore fish passage on Madonna Creek, provide alternative water supply to agricultural operations, and replace access bridges across Madonna Creek to enhance fisheries and habitat conditions. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Develop concept designs for habitat improvements and bridge replacement. If recommended, prepare for an alternative water supply to support agricultural operations. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Finalize designs, seek grant funding, and begin CEQA review. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Finalize CEQA and prepare permits applications. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $5,870 $1,915 $9,451 $12,695 $0 $29,931 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 68,417 0 75,000 90,000 60,000 90,000 383,417 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 22,000 20,000 105,000 35,000 60,000 242,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 14,000 0 0 0 0 14,000 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 100,000 0 100,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 350,000 350,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $68,417 $41,870 $96,915 $204,451 $207,695 $500,000 $1,119,348 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 68,417 41,870 96,915 204,451 207,695 500,000 1,119,348 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $68,417 $41,870 $96,915 $204,451 $207,695 $500,000 $1,119,348 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 113Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Area Restoration Project #: MAA02-004 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Make phased habitat improvements and infrastructure changes to Midpen parcel that align with regional shoreline resiliency planning. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Continue site enhancements, monitoring and progress toward Phase 2. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. Majority of scope and budget has been deferred to accommodate storm damage projects. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Continue site enhancements, monitoring and progress toward Phase 2. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Continue site enhancements, monitoring and progress toward Phase 2. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $5,086 $0 $18,167 $8,310 $5,137 $36,700 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 120,000 35,000 0 155,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 35,000 280,000 135,000 100,000 550,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 25,000 0 0 0 25,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $5,086 $60,000 $418,167 $178,310 $105,137 $766,700 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 5,086 60,000 418,167 178,310 105,137 766,700 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $5,086 $60,000 $418,167 $178,310 $105,137 $766,700 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Purisima Upland Site Cleanup and Soil Remediation Project #: MAA03-002 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Complete site cleanup and soil remediation around existing empty oil tank to protect natural resource values. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Finalize design, CEQA, and permitting. Begin the request for bids process for remediation project. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. Moved construction to FY25. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Remediate former oil facility and other areas, clean up debris, and install erosion control as needed. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project largely completed in prior fiscal year. Monitor and maintain site for next few years. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $18,288 $6,647 $13,691 $0 $0 $0 $38,626 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 65,571 0 0 0 0 0 65,571 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 87,911 50,000 30,000 30,000 0 0 197,911 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 54,624 20,000 0 20,000 0 0 94,624 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 32,420 0 0 45,000 0 0 77,420 8500 – Permitting Fees 7,196 0 0 0 0 0 7,196 8600 –Construction 2,045 0 100,000 425,000 25,000 25,000 577,045 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $268,055 $76,647 $143,691 $520,000 $25,000 $25,000 $1,058,393 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 268,055 76,647 143,691 442,520 25,000 25,000 980,913 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 77,480 0 0 77,480 Grand Total $268,055 $76,647 $143,691 $520,000 $25,000 $25,000 $1,058,393 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 115Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Purisima-to-the-Sea Habitat Enhancement and Water Supply Improvement Plan Project #: MAA03-007 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Develop pond management plan for Purisima-to-the-Sea properties to enhance pond habitat for native wildlife and to improve water supply source that supports conservation grazing program. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Execute contract to implement stockwater infrastructure improvements. Begin permitting and design phase of pond reconstruction. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Complete stockwater infrastructure improvements. Develop habitat management plan. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Construction phase of pond reconstruction. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 100,000 0 35,000 0 135,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 55,000 20,000 20,000 0 95,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 50,000 50,000 120,000 10,000 230,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $205,000 $70,000 $175,000 $10,000 $460,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 205,000 70,000 175,000 10,000 460,000 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $205,000 $70,000 $175,000 $10,000 $460,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Lobitos Creek Fisheries Restoration Project #: MAA03-011 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Restore fish passage to the Lobitos Creek watershed through improvements on Highway 1 (Caltrans) and Lobitos Creek Road (San Mateo County). F Y 2 4 S C O P E Project deferred to FY26. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project deferred to FY26. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Hire a consultant to collect topographic, habitat and other data to inform a high-level conceptual design and rough cost estimate for fish passage improvements across Highway 1. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $194,000 $194,000 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 100,000 180,000 280,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 85,000 85,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 55,000 40,000 95,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $155,000 $499,000 $654,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 155,000 499,000 654,000 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $155,000 $499,000 $654,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 117Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Restoration Forestry Demonstration Project Project #: MAA05-010 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Develop pilot project to restore degraded forest habitat and enhance fire resiliency. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Complete forest plan and road/sediment design. Begin procuring contractor services for fuels, roads, and forestry services. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Begin implementation of forest plan. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Continue implementation of forest plan. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $11,224 $14,082 $0 $0 $0 $25,306 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 15,000 0 0 0 15,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 36,767 32,695 250,000 40,000 40,000 0 399,462 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 29,000 0 0 0 29,000 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 500,000 500,000 1,000,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $36,767 $72,919 $279,082 $40,000 $540,000 $500,000 $1,468,768 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 36,767 72,919 279,082 40,000 540,000 500,000 1,468,768 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $36,767 $72,919 $279,082 $40,000 $540,000 $500,000 $1,468,768 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Lone Madrone Ranch Fence Installation Project #: MAA05-011 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Install fence along property boundary of northeast neighbor to contain livestock on Midpen property and protect riparian areas. Install fence in Pasture 4 to protect sensitive habitat while continuing to support the conservation grazing program. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Conduct competitive bid process, select contractor, and award construction fence contract. Fencing scheduled to be completed in FY24. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 13,000 10,000 0 0 0 23,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 3,750 0 0 0 3,750 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 63,364 50,000 117,500 0 0 0 230,864 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $63,364 $63,000 $131,250 $0 $0 $0 $257,614 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 63,364 63,000 131,250 0 0 0 257,614 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $63,364 $63,000 $131,250 $0 $0 $0 $257,614 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 119Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Lone Madrone Corrals Project #: MAA05-014 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Provide grazing tenant with functional corrals for unloading/loading, administering vaccinations and health checks of livestock on the Lone Madrone property. The property lacks accessible corrals for the onsite ranching tenant to ensure continuity of Midpen's conservation grazing program to maintain grassland habitats and reduce wildland fire fuel loads. This project would install new corrals that are accessible from the road and separated from future public access trails. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Prepare feasibility studies, determine location and prepare design documents, and complete CEQA review. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Bid, award contract and complete construction. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 6,000 0 0 6,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 1,000 50,000 0 51,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $7,000 $50,000 $0 $57,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 7,000 50,000 0 57,000 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $7,000 $50,000 $0 $57,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Lower Turtle Pond Repair Project #: MAA07-008 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Repair important wildlife habitat and stock watering pond in Lower La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Secure permits and begin implementing repairs to Lower Turtle Pond. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Finalize repairs to Lower Turtle Pond. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $1,915 $16,858 $0 $0 $18,773 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 28,214 0 30,000 0 0 0 58,214 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 18,188 0 24,000 0 0 0 42,188 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 150,000 100,000 0 0 250,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $46,401 $0 $205,915 $116,858 $0 $0 $369,174 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 46,401 0 205,915 116,858 0 0 369,174 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $46,401 $0 $205,915 $116,858 $0 $0 $369,174 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 121Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Cloverdale–Operational Road System Review and Repairs Project #: MAA13-001 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Use road inventory to determine what existing roads need to remain for operational purposes and what segments need repairs to keep the roads operational and protect surrounding watershed and habitats. Protect San Francisco garter snake habitat by moving existing ranch road away from wetland habitat. Decommission existing segment of ranch road in San Francisco garter snake habitat and replace by constructing a new road segment. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Pending acquisition in FY23, proceed with design and CEQA review of ranch road improvements. Prepare permits for submittal. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Continue permitting. Review results of the road inventory to identify the alignments that need to remain and be maintained long-term. Initiate technical studies. Develop a program for necessary repairs, realignments and decommissioning of road segments, with planned scopes, schedules and budget for implementation. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,911 $0 $8,911 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 70,000 65,000 50,000 185,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 30,000 25,000 55,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 35,000 15,000 50,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 340,000 340,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $70,000 $138,911 $480,000 $688,911 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 70,000 138,911 480,000 688,911 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $70,000 $138,911 $480,000 $688,911 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Cloverdale Reservoir Monitoring Improvements Project #: MAA13-002 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Improve reservoir monitoring infrastructure to manage water for habitat and agriculture. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Execute Phase 1 of consultant contract to install flow meters on diversion outlet and hydraulic valves in Reservoirs 2 and 3. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Execute Phase 2 of consultant contract to assess hydraulic valve system at Reservoirs 2 and 3, repair diversion stream gage, and modify pump intake locations. Continue to map critical water infrastructure. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Finish infrastructure improvements. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 0 150,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 10,000 10,000 20,000 0 40,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 15,000 15,000 25,000 0 55,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 12,500 12,500 25,000 0 50,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $87,500 $87,500 $120,000 $0 $295,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 87,500 87,500 120,000 0 295,000 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $87,500 $87,500 $120,000 $0 $295,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 123Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Wildlife Corridor: Highway 17 Crossing Project #: MAA20-001 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Work with partners to develop, engineer, and implement wildlife crossing improvements at Highway 17 to provide safe movement for wildlife connecting over 30,000 acres of protected public lands. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Complete CEQA/NEPA. Work with Valley Transportation Agency as project delivery partner to prepare design plans and permit applications. Continue work on Mitigation Credit Agreement. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Continue to work with Valley Transportation Agency to finalize design plan and secure permits. Begin preparing bid package materials for implementation. Finalize work on Mitigation Credit Agreement. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Continue to work with Valley Transportation Agency. If project has Caltrans approval, has received permits and funding, solicit bids, award contract and begin construction. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $66,868 $22,156 $30,154 $785 $0 $0 $119,963 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 20,000 0 0 0 20,000 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 243,639 0 750,000 1,500,000 750,000 0 3,243,639 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 380,009 262,500 120,400 0 0 0 762,909 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 79,841 0 0 0 0 13,500,000 13,579,841 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $770,357 $284,656 $920,554 $1,500,785 $750,000 $13,500,000 $17,726,352 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital (510,140) (115,344) (2,448,949) (1,499,215) 750,000 13,500,000 9,676,352 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 1,280,497 400,000 3,369,503 3,000,000 0 0 8,050,000 Grand Total $770,357 $284,656 $920,554 $1,500,785 $750,000 $13,500,000 $17,726,352 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan: Invasive Weed Treatment and Restoration Project #: MAA21-007 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Implement targeted treatments under the Integrated Pest Management Plan to control invasive weed populations at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve, and facilitate opening phases 2 and 3 of the preserve for public access. Implement targeted weed treatments to restore native habitats along roads and trails. Treatment sites are expected to require five years of treatment before requiring maintenance-level treatment (determined by species, habitat, infestation level and time span, and site-history). F Y 2 4 S C O P E Implement year five 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. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Complete second year of invasive species treatment in Phase 2 area of Bear Creek Redwoods. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Complete third year of invasive species treatment in Phase 2 area of Bear Creek Redwoods. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $1,690 $9,642 $10,501 $0 $0 $0 $21,833 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 1,165,708 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 2,065,708 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $1,167,398 $109,642 $110,501 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000 $2,087,541 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 652,398 109,642 110,501 100,000 100,000 500,000 1,572,541 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 515,000 0 0 0 0 0 515,000 Grand Total $1,167,398 $109,642 $110,501 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000 $2,087,541 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 125Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Bear Creek Redwoods Landfill Characterization and Remediation Project #: MAA21-010 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Remediate former landfill to restore natural open space values, protect public health and safety, and allow for Phase 2 public access at Bear Creek Redwoods. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Implement remedial design and cleanup. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $6,642 $9,573 $0 $0 $0 $16,215 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 132,135 107,000 50,000 0 0 0 289,135 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 160,000 0 0 0 160,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $132,135 $113,642 $219,573 $0 $0 $0 $465,350 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 132,135 113,642 219,573 0 0 0 465,350 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $132,135 $113,642 $219,573 $0 $0 $0 $465,350 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E P R O T E C T I O N A N D R E S T O R A T I O N Alma Bridge Road Wildlife Passage Project #: VP22-002 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Partner with Santa Clara County to complete CEQA, design, permitting and implementation to provide safe passage for wildlife (newts). Midpen will retain a consultant to provide CEQA and design services to provide safe passage for newts across Alma Bridge Road. Implementation to be led by Midpen or county. Long term operation and maintenance to shift to county. F Y 2 4 S C O P E In partnership with Santa Clara County, select preferred alternative(s) and begin CEQA, design and permitting. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Complete design, CEQA review and permitting. If funding is available, solicit bids for construction of a capital project to install wildlife crossing structure(s). F Y 2 6 S C O P E If funding is available, award construction bid and complete capital project to install wildlife crossing structure(s) and begin effectiveness monitoring. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 500,000 250,000 0 0 750,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 130,000 130,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 1,250,000 0 1,250,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $500,000 $250,000 $1,250,000 $130,000 $2,130,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 500,000 250,000 1,250,000 130,000 2,130,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $500,000 $250,000 $1,250,000 $130,000 $2,130,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 127Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Public Access, Education and Outreach New in FY24 Continuing in FY24 Total for FY24 Number of Projects 9 26 35 Total CIAP Budget $2,023,772 $9,380,043 $11,403,815 *Fund 10 0 5 5 Fund 30 5 13 18 Fund 40 4 8 12 *Excludes supporting projects Project #Project Name Fiscal Year FY24 FY25 FY26 3-Year Total Page # *31901 ADA Barrier Removal FY24-FY26 $30,000 $1,525,000 $50,000 $1,605,000 129 31903 Hwy 35 Multi-Use Trail Crossing and Parking (Phase 1 Feasibility Study, Phase 2 Concept Design, Phase 3 Final Design) FY24-FY26 90,000 75,000 175,000 340,000 130 31907 Johnston Ranch Loop Trail and Parking Area FY25-FY26 0 110,000 135,000 245,000 131 31908 Long Ridge Parking – Feasibility Study FY26 0 0 75,000 75,000 132 31909 Visitor Use Management and Carrying Capacity FY24-FY26 0 0 25,000 25,000 133 *35006 Kennedy Trailhead Parking Area Improvement FY25-FY26 0 35,000 80,000 115,000 134 35008 Kennedy Trail Retaining Wall FY25-FY26 0 147,000 73,000 220,000 135 *35013 Fremont Older Parking Area Improvements FY25-FY26 0 58,000 17,000 75,000 136 35014 Guadalupe Creek Crossing Replacement FY24-FY26 116,000 52,000 215,000 383,000 137 *35015 Rancho San Antonio Road Repair FY25-FY26 0 226,000 111,000 337,000 138 **35017 Bear Creek Redwoods – Parking Lot Culvert FY24-FY25 761,000 761,000 0 1,522,000 139 **35020 Purisima Creek Road Vehicle Access FY24-FY26 1,440,000 1,715,000 2,850,000 6,005,000 140 *61025 FFO Trail Bridge Replacements FY24-FY25 40,000 54,000 0 94,000 141 61027 Rancho San Antonio ADA Path to Deer Hollow Farm FY24-FY26 183,000 157,000 112,000 452,000 142 61029 Monte Bello Black Mountain Trail Extension FY24-FY26 50,000 100,000 155,000 305,000 143 **61035 Sierra Azul – Limekiln Trail Slide FY24 43,000 0 0 43,000 144 **61036 Bear Creek Redwoods – Alma Trail Slide FY24 60,000 0 0 60,000 145 **61037 El Corte de Madera – Spring Board Trail Culvert and Bridge FY24 1,329,000 0 0 1,329,000 146 **61040 District-wide Culvert Repair Permanent Work FY24-FY26 26,500 26,500 26,500 79,500 147 **61041 District-wide Trail Repair Permanent Work FY24-FY26 53,600 53,600 53,600 160,800 148 MAA03-009 Purisima-to-the-Sea Parking FY24-FY26 151,056 182,726 130,068 463,850 149 MAA03-010 Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail FY24-FY26 115,749 265,954 161,733 543,436 150 MAA03-012 Purisima Preserve Comprehensive Use and Management Plan FY24-FY25 30,000 30,000 0 60,000 151 MAA05-007 La Honda Creek Phase 2 Trail Connections FY24-FY26 201,412 302,082 360,672 864,166 152 MAA05-008 La Honda Creek White Barn Structural Rehabilitation FY24 258,543 0 0 258,543 153 MAA05-009 La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin Removal and Site Restoration FY24 19,401 0 0 19,401 154 MAA05-012 Paulin Culvert/Bridge Improvements FY24-FY26 168,556 63,194 12,737 244,487 155 MAA05-013 La Honda Parking and Trailhead Access – Phase 2 Implementation FY26 0 0 111,875 111,875 156 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 MAA06-002 Hawthorns Area Plan FY24-FY26 293,670 109,514 51,560 454,744 157 MAA10-001 Alpine Road Regional Trail, Coal Creek FY24-FY26 1,106,763 30,000 20,000 1,156,763 158 MAA11-003 Rancho San Antonio Multimodal Access – Implementation (MAA Eligible) FY24-FY25 25,000 0 0 25,000 159 MAA11-004 Rancho San Antonio Deer Hollow Farm Restroom FY24-FY26 25,867 44,866 83,500 154,233 160 MAA16-001 Long Ridge Trail Connection to Eagle Rock and Devils Canyon FY24-FY26 65,000 175,000 323,726 563,726 161 MAA17-005 Upper Stevens Creek Trail Connection FY24-FY26 65,000 50,000 48,911 163,911 162 MAA20-002 Bay Area Ridge Trail: Highway 17 Crossing FY24-FY26 1,067,716 1,551,987 1,088,787 3,708,490 163 MAA20-004 Spooky Knoll Trail and Other New Hwy 17 Trail Connections FY24-FY25 251,224 249,949 0 501,173 164 MAA21-004 Bear Creek Stables Project FY24-FY25 138,105 4,498,398 0 4,636,503 165 MAA21-006 Bear Creek Redwoods – Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation FY24-FY26 159,887 84,038 30,713 274,638 166 MAA21-011 Phase 2 Trail Improvements, Bear Creek Redwoods FY24-FY26 2,788,766 681,000 2,000 3,471,766 167 VP05-002 La Honda Creek Parking and Trailhead Access – Phase 1 Feasibility Study and CEQA Review FY24-FY25 89,000 100,000 0 189,000 168 VP07-003 La Honda Parking Area – South Area FY25-FY26 0 50,000 50,000 100,000 169 VP11-001 Rancho San Antonio Multimodal Access – Implementation (Non-MAA Funded) FY24-FY25 50,000 10,000 0 60,000 170 VP14-001 California Riding & Hiking Trails FY24 6,000 0 0 6,000 171 VP21-005 Bear Creek Redwoods North Parking Area FY24-FY26 105,000 80,000 870,500 1,055,500 172 Total 11,403,815 13,653,808 7,499,882 32,557,505 *Project scope of work, budget, and staff capacity is subject to change following additional assessment from FEMA to address storm damage projects. **Storm damage project. S U P P O R T I N G P R O J E C T S Project Name Project Purpose Lead Department Fiscal Year Cloverdale Interim Public Access Public access to Cloverdale has been provided under POST ownership for years at the Wilbur’s Watch parking lot and trailhead along Pigeon Point Road, South of Pescadero. This access will continue under Midpen management following ownership of the property. Provide additional public access to Cloverdale through a three-phased approach that includes community field days, Docent Naturalist-led hikes, and limited permit access. Visitor Services FY24-FY25 Middle Stevens Creek Trail Connection Partner with Santa Clara County Parks, Friends of Stevens Creek Trail, and the City of Cupertino to secure land rights for the middle section of the Stevens Creek Trail from Linda Vista Park to Stevens Creek County Park. Real Property FY24 Purisima Preserve Multimodal Access – Implementation Implement transportation demand management strategies at Purisima Creek Redwoods Preserve to reduce parking challenges and encourage multimodal access to the preserve. Project implements Board approved transportation demand management strategies not included as part of Purisima-to-the-Sea or Hwy 35 Multi-Use Trail projects. Planning FY24-FY26 Regional Trails and Active Transportation/Access to Open Space Planning and Coordination Provide technical and planning support on external regional trail and active transportation planning projects initiated by partners and other public agencies. Planning FY24-FY25 Trail Information System Provide enhanced quantitative trail data to the public to inform wayfinding, recreation, and accessibility decisions. Planning FY24-FY25 Trail Junction Numbering System Improve wayfinding on trails by adding unique trail junction numbers.Planning FY24-FY26 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 129Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H ADA Barrier Removal Project #: 31901 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Implement ADA barrier removals as identified and prioritized in the Board-approved ADA Transition Plan Update, including tracking and reporting accomplishments. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Complete year five of barrier removals. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. Land and Facilities scope of work deferred to accommodate storm damage projects. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Complete year six of barrier removals. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Complete year seven of barrier removals. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 210,946 58,000 30,000 80,000 50,000 0 428,946 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 28,841 70,000 0 15,000 0 0 113,841 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 27,924 0 0 20,000 0 0 47,924 8500 – Permitting Fees 46,998 30,000 0 0 0 0 76,998 8600 –Construction 590,140 0 0 1,410,000 0 0 2,000,140 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $904,849 $158,000 $30,000 $1,525,000 $50,000 $0 $2,667,849 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $(123,600) $(25,000)$0 $0 $0 $0 $(148,600) 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 904,849 158,000 30,000 1,525,000 50,000 0 2,667,849 Grants/Partnerships/Other 123,600 25,000 0 0 0 0 148,600 Grand Total $904,849 $158,000 $30,000 $1,525,000 $50,000 $0 $2,667,849 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Hwy 35 Multi-Use Trail Crossing and Parking (Phase 1 Feasibility Study, Phase 2 Concept Design, Phase 3 Final Design) Project #: 31903 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Explore feasibility for implementing a trail crossing across Highway 35 to connect the regional Bay Area Ridge Trail from the planned SFPUC Bay Area Ridge Trail Extension to Midpen’s Purisima Creek Redwoods Preserve, as well as opportunities for expanded parking at the North Ridge parking area. Conduct feasibility study, followed by environmental review and concept design of preferred alternative. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Pending Board approval of a preferred alternative, initiate the preliminary conceptual design and environmental review. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Complete the preliminary conceptual design and environmental review, and bring to the Board to certify the CEQA document/adopt the CEQA findings and approve the project description to finalize the conceptual design. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Move conceptual designs to 60-90% construction plans and prepare/submit for permits. Seek grant funding. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 23,471 65,000 90,000 75,000 175,000 0 428,471 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $23,471 $65,000 $90,000 $75,000 $175,000 $0 $428,471 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $(165,529) $65,000 $90,000 $75,000 $175,000 $0 $239,471 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 189,000 0 0 0 0 0 189,000 Grand Total $23,471 $65,000 $90,000 $75,000 $175,000 $0 $428,471 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 131Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Johnston Ranch Loop Trail and Parking Area Project #: 31907 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Complete improvements to existing parking area and new trail loop at Johnston Ranch property that aligns with City of Half Moon Bay’s Local Coastal Program and Parks Master Plan. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Project not yet started. City timeline to start unclear. F Y 2 5 S C O P E In coordination with the City of Half Moon Bay and Peninsula Open Space Trust, conduct site assessments, plan and initiate basis of conceptual design of improvements for the existing parking area and new loop trail. Initiate public and stakeholder outreach and engagement. Conduct trail scouting. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Present conceptual design options to the Planning and Natural Resources Committee at a community meeting and to the Board. Refine the conceptual design option(s). Develop project description for CEQA for Board consideration. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 30,000 0 0 30,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 60,000 0 0 60,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 20,000 0 20,000 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 20,000 0 0 20,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 115,000 0 115,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $110,000 $135,000 $0 $245,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 110,000 135,000 0 245,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $110,000 $135,000 $0 $245,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Long Ridge Parking–Feasibility Study Project #: 31908 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Provide a public access staging area (parking, restroom, trailhead) for Long Ridge Preserve and trails. Conduct feasibility study, develop opportunities and constraints and project alternatives for Board's consideration. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Initiate discussions with Santa Clara County Parks, Caltrans and other stakeholders in scoping potential sites for parking. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 75,000 35,000 110,000 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,000 $35,000 $110,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,000 $35,000 $110,000 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,000 $35,000 $110,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 133Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Visitor Use Management and Carrying Capacity Project #: 31909 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Develop framework for visitor use management to assess visitor use capacity and identify management strategies that protect resources and enhance the visitor experience for possible future implementation at one or more Midpen preserves. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Conduct background research, literature review, and partner agency engagement. Initiate the process to develop visitor use management goals for an area, select indicators, establish thresholds and identify management strategies. Initiate public and stakeholder engagement. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 25,000 0 25,000 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Kennedy Trailhead Parking Area Improvement Project #: 35006 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Expand and improve Kennedy Trailhead parking area to address community parking and access concerns, address ADA accessibility, and provide trailhead amenities. Plan, design, permit and construct an expanded parking area, vault restroom, bicycle racks and sign boards. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Deferred to FY25 to accommodate storm damage projects. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Release a Request for Proposals for consulting services to conduct feasibility studies for trailhead parking area improvements, develop project conceptual designs, conduct early stakeholder outreach, and present to the Planning and Natural Resources Committee for input. Forward conceptual design recommendation to the Board and seek Board approval of the CEQA project description. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Enter contract to complete the CEQA review. Conduct CEQA process and obtain Board certification of CEQA findings and approval of project to pursue development of construction-level plans. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 23,856 0 0 25,000 0 268,000 316,856 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 10,000 80,000 0 90,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $23,856 $0 $0 $35,000 $80,000 $268,000 $406,856 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 23,856 0 0 35,000 80,000 268,000 406,856 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $23,856 $0 $0 $35,000 $80,000 $268,000 $406,856 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 135Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Kennedy Trailhead Parking Area Improvement Project #: 35008 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Enhance safety for emergency vehicle access along a narrow segment of Kennedy Trail. Design, permit, bid and construct a new retaining wall to support the Kennedy Trail in Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Complete technical studies and prepare conceptual design. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Complete CEQA process and prepare regulatory permit applications. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 80,000 0 0 80,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 67,000 50,000 0 117,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 23,000 0 23,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 385,000 385,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $147,000 $73,000 $385,000 $605,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 147,000 73,000 385,000 605,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $147,000 $73,000 $385,000 $605,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Fremont Older Parking Area Improvements Project #: 35013 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Improve the parking configuration and traffic flow of the existing parking area, enhance ADA parking and improve parking surface. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Deferred to FY25 to accommodate storm damage projects. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Assess site conditions and prepare conceptual design documents. Present proposed improvements as the CEQA project description for review and approval by the Board. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Complete the environmental review and secure permits. Prepare bid package to solicit bids. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 58,000 1,000 0 59,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 5,000 0 5,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 11,000 0 11,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 253,000 253,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $58,000 $17,000 $253,000 $328,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 58,000 17,000 253,000 328,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $58,000 $17,000 $253,000 $328,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 137Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Guadalupe Creek Crossing Replacement Project #: 35014 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Assess and improve existing creek culvert crossing that is showing signs of failure. Replace existing culvert creek crossing with a bridge crossing. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Assess site conditions and prepare design documents. Initiate environmental review. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Complete environmental review, prepare and submit permit applications. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Secure permits, solicit bids and award construction contract. Initiate bridge replacement construction work. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 100,000 30,000 0 0 130,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 16,000 7,000 0 0 23,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 15,000 15,000 0 30,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 200,000 350,000 550,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $116,000 $52,000 $215,000 $350,000 $733,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 116,000 52,000 215,000 350,000 733,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $116,000 $52,000 $215,000 $350,000 $733,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 138 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Rancho San Antonio Road Repair Project #: 35015 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Improve existing service roads. Repair existing asphalt road, replace culverts (as needed), and improve ADA access from FFO to bridge near Deer Hollow Farm and the lower portion of Mora paved trail. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Deferred to FY25 to accommodate storm damage projects. Will complete minor patching up in FY24. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Initiate and finalize design, conduct CEQA review and secure permits. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Solicit bids, award a construction (repair) contract, and finalize repairs to the Deer Hollow Farm retaining wall and main access road. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 10,161 12,402 0 146,000 41,000 26,000 235,563 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 25,000 25,000 25,000 75,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 40,000 30,000 30,000 100,000 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 15,000 15,000 15,000 45,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 500,000 500,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $10,161 $12,402 $0 $226,000 $111,000 $596,000 $955,563 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 10,161 12,402 0 226,000 111,000 596,000 955,563 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $10,161 $12,402 $0 $226,000 $111,000 $596,000 $955,563 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 139Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Bear Creek Redwoods–Parking Lot Culvert Project #: 35017 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Storm damage to culvert below existing parking lot. Replace 60" 1500' culvert under parking lot and repair parking lot. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Complete CEQA review. Replace 60" 1500' culvert under parking lot and repair parking lot. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from FEMA and staff. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Replace 60" 1500' culvert under parking lot and repair parking lot. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from FEMA and staff. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 761,000 761,000 0 0 1,522,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $761,000 $761,000 $0 $0 $1,522,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 761,000 761,000 0 0 1,522,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $761,000 $761,000 $0 $0 $1,522,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 140 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Purisima Creek Road Vehicle Access Project #: 35020 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Purisima Creek Road is not passable due to a washout from the 2022-23 storms. Assess road for long-term viability as a road, including potential replacement of three bridges. Rebuild washouts and replace bridges for patrol and emergency vehicle access. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Begin technical assessments and conceptual design for road and bridge repairs. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from FEMA and staff. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Develop design and construction plans. Complete CEQA review. Submit permit applications. Develop bid package and release for bid. Select contractor. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from FEMA and staff. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Begin road and bridge repairs. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from FEMA and staff. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 55,000 370,000 95,000 55,000 575,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 105,000 85,000 50,000 25,000 265,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 20,000 0 110,000 95,000 225,000 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 35,000 0 35,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 1,260,000 1,260,000 2,560,000 1,500,000 6,580,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $1,440,000 $1,715,000 $2,850,000 $1,675,000 $7,680,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 1,440,000 1,715,000 2,850,000 1,675,000 7,680,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $1,440,000 $1,715,000 $2,850,000 $1,675,000 $7,680,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 141Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H FFO Trail Bridge Replacements Project #: 61025 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Maintain safe trail use to continue public access within preserves by replacing two wooden bridges on Bear Meadow Trail in Picchetti Ranch and on the Flume Trail in St. Joseph’s Hill. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Finalize design, secure permits and initiate bridge replacement work. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. Original scope of work has been reduced to accommodate storm damage projects. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Complete bridge replacement work. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 5,000 0 10,000 7,500 0 0 22,500 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 6,500 0 0 6,500 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 10,000 0 0 0 10,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 20,000 40,000 0 0 60,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $5,000 $0 $40,000 $54,000 $0 $0 $99,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 5,000 0 40,000 54,000 0 0 99,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $5,000 $0 $40,000 $54,000 $0 $0 $99,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 142 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Rancho San Antonio ADA Path to Deer Hollow Farm Project #: 61027 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Evaluate feasibility of new ADA-accessible pedestrian path that separates existing combined use of pedestrians and vehicles on road leading to Deer Hollow Farm to improve public accessibility and safety. Separate path may require one or more road crossings with vehicular stops and/or potential bridge. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Conduct public outreach. Hold Planning & Natural Resources Committee meeting to review proposed trail improvements and initiate CEQA review. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Finalize CEQA review and seek Board adoption of CEQA findings and approval of trail improvements. Prepare permit applications. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Secure permits, solicit bids and award a construction contract. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 30,000 183,000 157,000 112,000 0 482,000 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $30,000 $183,000 $157,000 $112,000 $0 $482,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $30,000 $183,000 $157,000 $112,000 $0 $482,000 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $30,000 $183,000 $157,000 $112,000 $0 $482,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 143Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Monte Bello Black Mountain Trail Extension Project #: 61029 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Utilize the existing trail easement through Lehigh Quarry lands to construct a route with a more gradual ascent of Black Mountain. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Initiate technical studies. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Prepare conceptual trail alignment and project description and initiate environmental review. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Obtain Board certification of CEQA findings and approval of trail alignment. Finalize the trail design & engineering and submit local & regulatory permit applications. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 25,000 25,000 15,000 7,500 72,500 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 25,000 65,000 20,000 0 110,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 20,000 0 20,000 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 10,000 25,000 0 35,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 75,000 180,000 255,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $50,000 $100,000 $155,000 $187,500 $492,500 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 50,000 100,000 155,000 187,500 492,500 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $50,000 $100,000 $155,000 $187,500 $492,500 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 144 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Sierra Azul–Limekiln Trail Slide Project #: 61035 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Landslide damage to culvert and resulting trail damage. Repair or replace culvert and repair trail. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Complete CEQA review. Repair or replace culvert and repair trail. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from FEMA and staff. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 43,000 0 0 0 43,000 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $43,000 $0 $0 $0 $43,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $43,000 $0 $0 $0 $43,000 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $43,000 $0 $0 $0 $43,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 145Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Bear Creek Redwoods–Alma Trail Slide Project #: 61036 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Landslide damage to culvert and resulting trail failure. Replace culvert and repair trail. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Complete CEQA review. Replace culvert and repair trail. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from FEMA and staff. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 60,000 0 0 0 60,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $60,000 $0 $0 $0 $60,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 60,000 0 0 0 60,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $60,000 $0 $0 $0 $60,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 146 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H El Corte de Madera–Spring Board Trail Culvert and Bridge Project #: 61037 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Storm-damaged bridge and four failed culverts. Repair or replacement of bridge and four culverts. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Repair and/or replace a damaged bridge and failed culverts. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from FEMA and staff. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 1,329,000 0 0 0 1,329,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $1,329,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,329,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 1,329,000 0 0 0 1,329,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $1,329,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,329,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 147Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H District-wide Culvert Repair Permanent Work Project #: 61040 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Storm damage to multiple culvert; damage requires replacements or repairs after scouring, damage and/or failure. Preserves include Long Ridge, Monte Bello, Miramontes Ridge, Purisma Creek Redwoods, Skyline Ridge. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Replace and/or repair culverts. Complete CEQA documentation. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from FEMA and staff. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Replace and/or repair culverts. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from FEMA and staff. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Replace and/or repair culverts. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from FEMA and staff. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 26,500 26,500 26,500 0 79,500 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $26,500 $26,500 $26,500 $0 $79,500 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 26,500 26,500 26,500 0 79,500 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $26,500 $26,500 $26,500 $0 $79,500 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 148 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H District-wide Trail Repair Permanent Work Project #: 61041 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Landslide damage to trails causing trail and bridge failures. Repair and possible replacement of bridges and repair to trails, inlet/outlets, and landslide damage. Preserves include: El Corte Madera Creek, Monte Bello, Purisma Creek Redwoods, Russian Ridge, Skyline Ridge, Thornewood, Windy Hill. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Complete CEQA documentation. Repair and/or replace bridges, trails and inlets/outlets. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from FEMA and staff. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Repair and/or replace bridges, trails and inlets/outlets. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from FEMA and staff. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Repair and/or replace bridges, trails and inlets/outlets. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from FEMA and staff. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 53,600 53,600 53,600 0 160,800 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $53,600 $53,600 $53,600 $0 $160,800 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 53,600 53,600 53,600 0 160,800 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $53,600 $53,600 $53,600 $0 $160,800 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 149Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Purisima-to-the-Sea Parking Project #: MAA03-009 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Provide a public access staging area and connections to the redwoods trail system and the Coastal Trail. Plan, design, permit and construct new parking area and trailhead amenities. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Hire a design consultant and begin conceptual designs (designs will inform CEQA review that is planned under the Purisima-to-the-Sea Comprehensive Use and Management Plan). F Y 2 5 S C O P E Complete final conceptual design and forward to the Board for approval. Begin design development. Prepare and submit regulatory permits.. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Complete design development and prepare construction documents. Prepare and submit local permits. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $1,056 $21,726 $12,068 $0 $34,850 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 110,000 116,000 100,000 75,000 401,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 25,000 25,000 0 0 50,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 15,000 0 0 60,000 75,000 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 20,000 18,000 8,000 46,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 4,025,000 4,025,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $151,056 $182,726 $130,068 $4,168,000 $4,631,850 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 151,056 182,726 130,068 4,168,000 4,631,850 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $151,056 $182,726 $130,068 $4,168,000 $4,631,850 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 150 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail Project #: MAA03-010 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Connect the existing Purisima Creek Redwoods trail system to the Pacific Ocean by completing the multi-use Purisima- to-the-Sea Trail. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Initiate trail design and engineering and conduct focused biological and cultural resource surveys on preferred trail alignment. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Complete trail design and engineering. Submit regulatory and county permit applications. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Secure permits. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $15,749 $25,954 $26,733 $0 $68,436 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 45,000 145,000 0 0 190,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 30,000 50,000 0 0 80,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 25,000 0 90,000 0 115,000 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 45,000 45,000 10,000 100,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 725,000 725,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $115,749 $265,954 $161,733 $735,000 $1,278,436 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 115,749 265,954 161,733 735,000 1,278,436 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $115,749 $265,954 $161,733 $735,000 $1,278,436 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 151Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Purisima Preserve Comprehensive Use and Management Plan Project #: MAA03-012 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Develop comprehensive plan for new public access improvements and resource and land management activities. Include recommended actions for the Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Area, Hwy 35 Trail Crossing and Parking Expansion, Purisima Multimodal Access. This conceptual plan would serve as the basis to conduct environmental (CEQA) review and initiate the permitting process. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Conduct additional technical studies as needed and develop draft CUMP. Conduct public outreach and review with Planning & Natural Recourses Committee to finalize the draft CUMP. Forward the CUMP to the Board to approve as the CEQA Project Description. Contract with CEQA consultant and initiate environmental review. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Complete the CEQA review and seek Board approval of the CUMP. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Complete the CEQA review and seek Board approval of the CUMP. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 30,000 30,000 0 0 60,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $30,000 $30,000 $0 $0 $60,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 30,000 30,000 0 0 60,000 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $30,000 $30,000 $0 $0 $60,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 152 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H La Honda Creek Phase 2 Trail Connections Project #: MAA05-007 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Implement master plan Phase 2 trails to connect visitors from the Harrington Creek Trail to the central and northern areas of La Honda Creek Preserve. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Secure permits. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Proceed with construction. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Complete construction and closeout permits. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $2,011 $5,000 $66,412 $129,582 $115,672 $0 $318,677 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 35,000 75,000 0 0 0 110,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 26,067 0 25,000 0 0 0 51,067 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 22,500 10,000 0 32,500 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 10,000 35,000 10,000 0 0 55,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 140,000 235,000 0 375,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $28,078 $50,000 $201,412 $302,082 $360,672 $0 $942,244 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 28,078 50,000 201,412 302,082 360,672 0 942,244 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $28,078 $50,000 $201,412 $302,082 $360,672 $0 $942,244 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 153Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H La Honda Creek White Barn Structural Rehabilitation Project #: MAA05-008 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Preserve the La Honda Creek White Barn as a historic resource. Repair the La Honda Creek White Barn for external viewing and interpretation. Repair the exterior, stabilize the structure and exclude wildlife. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Complete the structure rehabilitation work. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $47,522 $3,134 $10,043 $0 $0 $0 $60,699 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 143,320 36,000 0 0 0 0 179,320 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 52,928 0 15,000 0 0 0 67,928 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 30,000 0 0 0 30,000 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 15,000 0 0 0 0 15,000 8600 –Construction 542 500 203,500 0 0 0 204,542 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $244,312 $54,634 $258,543 $0 $0 $0 $557,489 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 244,312 54,634 258,543 0 0 0 557,489 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $244,312 $54,634 $258,543 $0 $0 $0 $557,489 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 154 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin Removal and Site Restoration Project #: MAA05-009 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Remove the La Honda Creek redwood cabin and enhance the natural resource values of the site. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Complete demolition work. Complete interpretive mitigation for the cabin, including submission of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Form. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $12,712 $14,000 $4,401 $0 $0 $0 $31,113 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 83,685 26,000 0 0 0 0 109,685 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 111,458 65,520 0 0 0 0 176,978 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 7,000 0 0 0 0 7,000 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 10,000 0 0 0 0 10,000 8600 –Construction 0 235,300 15,000 0 0 0 250,300 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $207,855 $357,820 $19,401 $0 $0 $0 $585,076 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 207,855 357,820 19,401 0 0 0 585,076 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $207,855 $357,820 $19,401 $0 $0 $0 $585,076 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 155Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Paulin Culvert/Bridge Improvements Project #: MAA05-012 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Assess the existing culvert/bridge crossing of La Honda Creek on the main patrol access road from Skyline Boulevard into La Honda Creek Preserve to determine whether the culvert and failing retaining walls should be replaced or repaired for maintenance, patrol, and emergency access. Implement assessment recommendations. Remove remains of dilapidated rail car bridge crossing north of redwood cabin site. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Complete design development and CEQA review. Secure permits. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Prepare bid package, solicit bids, award contract and begin construction. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Complete construction. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $2,300 $11,556 $13,194 $12,737 $0 $39,787 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 26,700 25,000 0 0 0 51,700 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 20,000 0 0 0 20,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 12,000 0 0 0 12,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 100,000 50,000 0 0 150,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $29,000 $168,556 $63,194 $12,737 $0 $273,487 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 29,000 168,556 63,194 12,737 0 273,487 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $29,000 $168,556 $63,194 $12,737 $0 $273,487 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 156 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H La Honda Parking and Trailhead Access–Phase 2 Implementation Project #: MAA05-013 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Provide access to the central area of the La Honda Creek Preserve. Design, permit, bid and construct parking area(s) as determined through the La Honda Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Pending completion of CEQA review and Board approval of the project elements, solicit proposals to hire a design consultant to begin schematic designs of the new public access improvements. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,875 $0 $16,875 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 30,000 460,000 490,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 60,000 100,000 160,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 5,000 100,000 105,000 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 70,000 70,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 2,756,000 2,756,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $111,875 $3,486,000 $3,597,875 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 111,875 3,486,000 3,597,875 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $111,875 $3,486,000 $3,597,875 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 157Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Hawthorns Area Plan Project #: MAA06-002 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Open the closed Hawthorns area of Windy Hill Open Space Preserve to the public. Develop a plan to guide ecologically sensitive public access improvements and future natural resource and land management activities through five phases: (1) establish vision and goals; (2) develop programming alternatives; (3) refine the alternatives, conduct feasibility studies, and prepare a comprehensive use and management plan; (4) conduct environmental review; and (5) obtain project approval. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Complete technical studies, develop resource and land management objectives to inform the program elements and conceptual site planning. Continue public engagement. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Prepare the Hawthorns Area Plan document and obtain Board approval of the project description to conduct the environmental review per the California Environmental Quality Act. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Complete environmental review and obtain Board approval of the Hawthorns Area Plan. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $3,306 $1,470 $1,514 $1,560 $0 $7,850 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 42,003 0 130,000 35,000 0 0 207,003 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 106,575 83,000 162,200 70,000 50,000 0 471,775 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 3,000 0 0 3,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $148,578 $86,306 $293,670 $109,514 $51,560 $0 $689,628 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 148,578 86,306 293,670 109,514 51,560 0 689,628 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $148,578 $86,306 $293,670 $109,514 $51,560 $0 $689,628 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 158 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Alpine Road Regional Trail, Coal Creek Project #: MAA10-001 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Complete repairs and improvements to repurpose the road alignment into a regional trail for public access and to reduce further erosion and sedimentation downstream. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Crew to construct a reroute of the bypass trail (Phase 3). Contractor to complete lower retaining wall construction. Close out all regulatory permits. Enter into negotiations with San Mateo County in accordance with MOU for transfer of right-of-way and other property rights. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Complete negotiations with San Mateo County in accordance with MOU for transfer of right-of-way and other property rights. Conduct regulatory monitoring. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Conduct regulatory monitoring. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $73,088 $46,737 $83,345 $0 $0 $0 $203,170 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 4,286 0 0 0 0 0 4,286 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 251,493 75,000 51,338 0 0 0 377,831 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 190,005 0 0 0 0 0 190,005 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 4,600 65,000 30,000 0 0 0 99,600 8500 – Permitting Fees 24,403 20,000 0 0 0 0 44,403 8600 –Construction 6,557 1,653,000 942,080 30,000 20,000 60,000 2,711,637 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $554,432 $1,859,737 $1,106,763 $30,000 $20,000 $60,000 $3,630,932 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 554,432 1,587,526 1,106,763 30,000 20,000 60,000 3,358,721 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 272,211 0 0 0 0 272,211 Grand Total $554,432 $1,859,737 $1,106,763 $30,000 $20,000 $60,000 $3,630,932 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 159Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Rancho San Antonio Multimodal Access–Implementation (MAA Eligible) Project #: MAA11-003 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Complete repairs and improvements to repurpose the road alignment into a regional trail for public access and to reduce further erosion and sedimentation downstream. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Crew to construct a reroute of the bypass trail (Phase 3). Contractor to complete lower retaining wall construction. Close out all regulatory permits. Enter into negotiations with San Mateo County in accordance with MOU for transfer of right-of-way and other property rights. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Complete negotiations with San Mateo County in accordance with MOU for transfer of right-of-way and other property rights. Conduct regulatory monitoring. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Conduct regulatory monitoring. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 10,000 25,000 0 0 0 35,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 55,000 0 0 0 0 55,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $65,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $90,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 65,000 25,000 0 0 0 90,000 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $65,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $90,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 160 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Rancho San Antonio Deer Hollow Farm Restroom Project #: MAA11-004 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Replace existing vault toilet at Deer Hollow Farm with new vault toilet. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Complete construction documents. Complete CEQA review. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Obtain permits, solicit bids, award contract and initiate construction. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Complete construction. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $1,867 $12,366 $0 $0 $14,233 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 11,000 0 0 0 11,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 9,500 4,000 1,000 0 14,500 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 2,500 6,000 0 8,500 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 3,500 1,000 1,500 0 6,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 25,000 75,000 0 100,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $25,867 $44,866 $83,500 $0 $154,233 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 25,867 44,866 83,500 0 154,233 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $25,867 $44,866 $83,500 $0 $154,233 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 161Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Long Ridge Trail Connection to Eagle Rock and Devils Canyon Project #: MAA16-001 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Replace existing vault toilet at Deer Hollow Farm with new vault toilet. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Complete construction documents. Complete CEQA review. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Obtain permits, solicit bids, award contract and initiate construction. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Complete construction. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,726 $0 $8,726 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 50,000 95,000 200,000 0 345,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 15,000 80,000 75,000 0 170,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 25,000 25,000 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 40,000 0 40,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 820,000 820,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $65,000 $175,000 $323,726 $845,000 $1,408,726 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 65,000 175,000 323,726 845,000 1,408,726 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $65,000 $175,000 $323,726 $845,000 $1,408,726 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 162 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Upper Stevens Creek Trail Connection Project #: MAA17-005 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Partner with Santa Clara County Parks to design and construct a new multi‐use trail connecting Picchetti Ranch and Monte Bello preserves with Upper Stevens Creek County Park, fulfilling legal commitment in conservation easement agreement. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Pending partnership agreement and agreed-upon project scope with Santa Clara County Parks, initiate technical studies, existing conditions and opportunities and constraints analysis. Initiate trail scouting. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Continue opportunities and constraints analysis, trail scouting, development of conceptual trail alignment options and identification of preferred trail alignment. Initiate stakeholder and public engagement. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Pending Board approval of project description, initiate environmental review. Continue stakeholder and public engagement. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,911 $0 $8,911 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 25,000 15,000 0 0 40,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 40,000 35,000 40,000 0 115,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $65,000 $50,000 $48,911 $0 $163,911 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 65,000 50,000 48,911 0 163,911 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $65,000 $50,000 $48,911 $0 $163,911 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 163Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Bay Area Ridge Trail: Highway 17 Crossing Project #: MAA20-002 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Provide a regional recreational trail crossing across Highway 17 in Santa Clara County by constructing a new overcrossing near Los Gatos and Lexington Reservoir in close alignment with the Highway 17 Wildlife Crossing project MAA20- 001. See project MAA20-004 for description of relevant new trails and connections associated with the overcrossing. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Complete Caltrans PA&ED phase, including CEQA/NEPA review for Board consideration. Work with VTA as project delivery partner to initiate Caltrans PS&E in coordination with Caltrans, including issuance of RFP for design consultant. Continue partnership agreement discussions and negotiations with partner agencies and organizations. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Continue collaboration with VTA on permitting and final design of crossing structure and improvements within the Caltrans ROW. Finalize property rights for connecting trails before constructing the trail crossing. Finalize partnership agreements with partner agencies and organizations. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Continue collaboration with VTA to begin construction on crossing structure and improvements within the Caltrans right-of-way, if project has Caltrans approval and permits are secured and if there is sufficient funding for construction. Finalize partnership agreements with partner agencies and organizations as needed. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $125,877 $47,225 $44,116 $26,987 $313,787 $500,000 $1,057,992 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 161,082 25,000 800,000 1,525,000 775,000 50,000 3,336,082 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 688,863 487,500 223,600 0 0 0 1,399,963 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 323 0 0 0 0 0 323 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 13,500,000 13,500,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $976,145 $559,725 $1,067,716 $1,551,987 $1,088,787 $14,050,000 $19,294,360 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 976,145 559,725 1,067,716 1,551,987 1,088,787 550,000 5,794,360 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 13,500,000 13,500,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $976,145 $559,725 $1,067,716 $1,551,987 $1,088,787 $14,050,000 $19,294,360 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 164 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Spooky Knoll Trail and Other New Hwy 17 Trail Connections Project #: MAA20-004 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Construct trails outside of Caltrans right-of-way that connect to the new Highway 17 trail crossing. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Secure permits to build new trail connections. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Complete trail construction and close out congressional earmark funding. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $119,224 $146,949 $0 $0 $266,173 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 30,000 20,000 0 0 50,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 3,000 3,000 0 0 6,000 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 19,000 0 0 0 19,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 80,000 80,000 0 0 160,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $251,224 $249,949 $0 $0 $501,173 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 251,224 249,949 0 0 501,173 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $251,224 $249,949 $0 $0 $501,173 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 165Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Bear Creek Stables Project Project #: MAA21-004 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Implement maintenance and repairs plan to maintain equestrian use at Bear Creek Stables, including water infrastructure improvements. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Complete construction documents. Obtain local building permits. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Solicit bids, award contract and complete construction. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $56,104 $30,454 $30,105 $22,898 $0 $0 $139,561 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 683,050 75,000 100,000 75,000 0 0 933,050 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 5,540 0 0 0 0 0 5,540 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 11,800 10,500 0 48,000 0 0 70,300 8500 – Permitting Fees 15,823 19,000 8,000 2,500 0 0 45,323 8600 –Construction 36,499 0 0 4,350,000 0 0 4,386,499 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $808,816 $134,954 $138,105 $4,498,398 $0 $0 $5,580,273 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 808,816 134,954 138,105 2,748,398 0 0 3,830,273 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 1,750,000 0 0 1,750,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $808,816 $134,954 $138,105 $4,498,398 $0 $0 $5,580,273 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 166 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Bear Creek Redwoods–Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Project #: MAA21-006 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Implement the planting plan associated with the Alma Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Plan. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Purchase and install year 2 of native nursery plants, seed, plant protections and fencing. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Purchase and install year 3 of native nursery plants, seed, plant protections and fencing. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Purchase and install final year (year 4) of native nursery plants, seed, plant protections and fencing. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $320,221 $23,583 $14,887 $9,038 $5,713 $0 $373,442 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 813,413 5,000 0 0 0 0 818,413 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 102,179 0 0 0 0 0 102,179 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 131,445 2,000 0 0 0 0 133,445 8500 – Permitting Fees 80,055 2,000 0 0 0 0 82,055 8600 –Construction 3,502,178 337,500 145,000 75,000 25,000 0 4,084,678 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $4,949,491 $370,083 $159,887 $84,038 $30,713 $0 $5,594,212 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 4,282,973 (555,956) 159,887 84,038 30,713 0 4,001,655 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 666,518 926,039 0 0 0 0 1,592,557 Grand Total $4,949,491 $370,083 $159,887 $84,038 $30,713 $0 $5,594,212 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 167Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Phase 2 Trail Improvements, Bear Creek Redwoods Project #: MAA21-011 Fund: 30 – Measure AA Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Implement Phase 2 trail improvements, including multi-use through-trail connection, to open northeastern part of Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve to public access. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Complete construction work. Close out regulatory and local permits. Close out grant. Conduct regulatory monitoring. Current scope assumes use of existing roads versus extensive new trail construction; if scope changes, schedule and budget will need to change. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Conduct regulatory monitoring. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Conduct regulatory monitoring. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $193,253 $235,352 $132,148 $0 $0 $0 $560,753 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 504,903 183,355 103,855 10,000 0 0 802,113 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 36,024 0 8,500 0 0 0 44,524 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 20,000 10,000 0 0 30,000 8500 – Permitting Fees 22,663 5,500 5,000 5,000 0 0 38,163 8600 –Construction 103,552 370,800 2,519,263 656,000 2,000 0 3,651,615 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $860,396 $795,007 $2,788,766 $681,000 $2,000 $0 $5,127,169 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 860,396 795,007 1,377,259 (378,614) 2,000 0 2,656,048 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 1,411,507 1,059,614 0 0 2,471,121 Grand Total $860,396 $795,007 $2,788,766 $681,000 $2,000 $0 $5,127,169 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 168 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H La Honda Creek Parking and Trailhead Access–Phase 1 Feasibility Study and CEQA Review Project #: VP05-002 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Provide parking, trailhead access and amenities to support opening the currently closed central portion of the Preserve to the public. Conduct technical studies and an analysis of existing conditions, opportunities and challenges to assess the feasibility of six sites recommended by the 2019-20 La Honda Public Access Working Group. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Present technical and feasibility analysis, findings, and PNR recommendations to the Board for review, input, and confirmation on direction for next steps. Select preferred site plan alternatives to advance into environmental review and design development. Continue public and stakeholder engagement. Hire environmental planning consultant and initiate environmental review. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Complete environmental review. Bring final proposed parking and trailhead access project to the Board to certify the CEQA document/adopt the CEQA findings and approve the project to proceed with design and implementation of site(s) prioritized by the Board. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Phase 1 completed in prior fiscal year(s). Phase 2 Implementation is discussed as part of Project MAA05-013. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 234,176 160,000 89,000 100,000 0 0 583,176 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $234,176 $160,000 $89,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $583,176 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $234,176 $160,000 $89,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $583,176 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $234,176 $160,000 $89,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $583,176 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 169Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H La Honda Parking Area–South Area Project #: VP07-003 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Develop a new parking area and trail with equestrian trailer parking in the southern reaches of the preserve per the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Master Plan. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Initiate technical studies, site opportunities and constraints analysis. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Develop conceptual site plan alternatives. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 0 100,000 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $100,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $100,000 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $100,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 170 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Rancho San Antonio Multimodal Access–Implementation (Non-MAA Funded) Project #: VP11-001 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Implement transportation demand management strategies at Rancho San Antonio to reduce parking challenges and encourage multimodal access to the preserve. *This project is the same as MAA11-003 but is separate as not all the work is MAA eligible. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Continue implementation of Tier 1 strategies. Evaluate pilot program effectiveness and consider long-term implementation if feasible. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Placeholder for evaluation of Tier 2 strategies, if needed. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 74,264 110,000 50,000 10,000 0 0 244,264 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $74,264 $110,000 $50,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $244,264 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $74,264 $110,000 $50,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $244,264 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $74,264 $110,000 $50,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $244,264 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 171Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H California Riding & Hiking Trails Project #: VP14-001 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Pursue viable sections of the California Riding & Hiking Trail (CRHT) at Russian Ridge, Teague Hill and Lower La Honda Creek to Sam McDonald County Park for expanding trail connection opportunities. Work with State Parks to receive quitclaim deed for existing CRHT easement along Woodruff Creek as connection between Russian Ridge and the Woodruff Redwoods addition to La Honda Creek Preserve, and work with San Mateo County Parks on connections between La Honda Creek Preserve and Sam McDonald Park. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Work with State to facilitate quitclaim of CRHT easements at Russian Ridge Preserve and for connection between La Honda Creek Preserve and County Parks and bring acceptance of CRHT easements to the Board for approval. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 6,000 0 0 0 6,000 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 6,000 0 0 0 6,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 172 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 P U B L I C A C C E S S , E D U C A T I O N A N D O U T R E A C H Bear Creek Redwoods North Parking Area Project #: VP21-005 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Construct new North Parking Area to expand and improve parking capacity at Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve as prioritized in Phase 3 of the preserve plan. The new paved parking lot is planned to include equestrian parking. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Complete technical studies. Complete public outreach and stakeholder engagement on conceptual site plan alternatives. Revise the conceptual design with Board and public input. Confirm the need for additional CEQA review. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Complete the design development and construction documentation. If required, complete additional CEQA review and obtain Board certification of CEQA findings. Begin local permitting. Begin interpretive element design. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Complete the design development and construction documentation. If required, complete additional CEQA review and obtain Board certification of CEQA findings. Begin local permitting. Begin interpretive element design. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 35,000 55,000 75,000 50,000 0 215,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 16,000 25,000 0 0 0 41,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 25,000 0 52,000 0 77,000 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 5,000 15,000 0 20,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 753,500 1,000,000 1,753,500 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $51,000 $105,000 $80,000 $870,500 $1,000,000 $2,106,500 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 51,000 105,000 80,000 870,500 1,000,000 2,106,500 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $51,000 $105,000 $80,000 $870,500 $1,000,000 $2,106,500 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 173Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Assets and Organizational Support New in FY24 Continuing in FY24 Total for FY24 Number of Projects 5 17 22 Total CIAP Budget $366,000 $4,528,176 $4,894,176 *Fund 10 1 7 8 Fund 30 0 0 0 Fund 40 4 10 14 *Excludes supporting projects Project #Project Name Fiscal Year FY24 FY25 FY26 3-Year Total Page # 10001 Records Management FY24 $40,000 $0 $0 $40,000 175 10002 San Mateo County Master Permit FY24 10,000 0 0 10,000 176 10003 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Program Actions FY24-FY26 60,000 50,000 25,000 135,000 177 10004 FOSM Update FY24 100,000 0 0 100,000 178 20131 Coastal Field Office FY24-FY25 55,000 10,000 0 65,000 179 31202-11- 100000 New Administrative Office (AO) Facility FY24 465,000 0 0 465,000 180 31910 Skyline Field Office Renovation FY24-FY26 100,000 105,000 208,000 413,000 181 35004 Sierra Azul Ranger Residence FY24 589,000 0 0 589,000 182 *35010 Structure Disposition FY24-FY26 247,700 660,200 660,200 1,568,100 183 *35019 Prospect Road Culvert Replacement FY24-FY26 121,000 226,250 116,000 463,250 184 35021 Resource Management Permit for the Former Event Center Site FY24-FY26 75,000 250,000 50,000 375,000 185 35022 Annex Building Repairs FY25-FY26 0 70,000 17,500 87,500 186 35023 Cunha House Repair FY25-FY26 0 43,000 122,000 165,000 187 35024 Allen Road Washout Repair FY26 0 0 60,000 60,000 188 35025 FFO Solar Panels/EV Chargers FY26 0 0 45,000 45,000 189 35026 Fremont Older Residence Roof Replacement FY26 0 0 30,000 30,000 190 35027 Lone Madrone Mobile Home Replacement FY26 0 0 45,000 45,000 191 35028 Schilling Lake Spillway Repair FY26 0 0 95,000 95,000 192 51705 Cybersecurity Audit FY24-FY25 40,000 25,000 0 65,000 193 51706 Cybersecurity Implementation FY25-FY26 0 70,000 135,000 205,000 194 51707 Districtwide Firewall Upgrade FY24-FY25 205,000 40,000 0 245,000 195 51708 Preserve Use Permit System FY24-FY25 25,000 75,000 0 100,000 196 61020 Thornewood Residence Evaluation FY24 253,000 0 0 253,000 197 **61026 Quam Residence Road Repair FY24 428,000 0 0 428,000 198 **61039 Skyline Ridge - Skyline Ridge Road at Big Dipper Inholding FY24 200,000 0 0 200,000 199 61042 Replace Bridge MRBR1 in Miramontes Ridge FY26 0 0 90,000 90,000 200 61043 Replace Roof on Coal Creek Barn FY26 0 0 50,000 50,000 201 65407 Radio System Assessment and Upgrade FY24 95,000 0 0 95,000 202 VP06-003 Hawthorns Historic Complex Partnership FY24-FY26 15,000 25,000 10,000 50,000 203 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 174 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 ***VP06-004 Hawthorns Structures Stabilization/ Repairs FY25-FY26 0 0 0 0 204 None District Office Server Refresh FY24 273,476 0 0 273,476 205 None Ranger Laptop Refresh FY24-FY25 137,000 47,000 0 184,000 206 None Vehicle and Machinery/Equipment Purchases Reoccurring 1,360,000 660,000 660,000 2,680,000 207 Total $4,894,176 $2,356,450 $2,418,700 $9,669,326 *Project scope of work, budget, and staff capacity is subject to change following additional assessment from FEMA to address storm damage projects. **Storm damage project. ***Project budget is pending board direction. S U P P O R T I N G P R O J E C T S Project Name Project Purpose Lead Department Fiscal Year Basic Policies for the Coastside Protection Area Develop basic policies for the Coastside Protection Area and incorporate into Midpen’s existing Basic Policy, originally adopted in 1999, to fulfill an obligation established by the 2003 Coastal Service Plan. General Manager’s Office FY24-FY25 Computer System Failover (Off-site) Maintain an off-site computer system failover for business continuity in the event physical servers are damaged by fire, natural disaster or cyberattack. Administrative Services FY25-FY26 Fleet Management Consistent with the IT Master Plan, implement a fleet management system to plan, program, and track the management (including replacements and maintenance) of the vehicle and equipment fleet. Administrative Services FY24-FY25 Fleet Transition Plan Create a medium- to long-term plan to transition the fleet away from fossil fuels, consistent with the Climate Action Plan. Land and Facilities FY24 GIS Strategic Plan Consistent with the IT Master Plan, develop a GIS Strategic Plan that establishes a unified vision, goals and objectives for the GIS Program and provides a framework for department staff and other stakeholders to efficiently and effectively use geospatial technology. Administrative Services FY24 GM Signature Authority Legislation Work with partner agencies to seek legislation allowing for General Manager purchasing authorization up to an amount not to exceed $200,000 for supplies, materials, labor, and other services, with the actual amount subject to Board approval and Board policy. Public Affairs FY24-FY25 Good Neighbor Policy Update Review and update the Good Neighbor Policy to ensure policy remains fresh and effective in maintaining positive relationships with neighbors/adjacent landowners. Public Affairs FY24 Historic Resources Procedural Guide/ Library Develop an administrative historic resources procedural guide as a guiding document for consistent historic resource management and update existing database. Planning FY24 IT Master Plan Update Improve Midpen’s technology tools by updating the IT Master Plan.Administrative Services FY25-FY26 *Midpen Science Summit Host event on applied science in land restoration and stewardship as a complement to statewide 30x30 efforts. Public Affairs FY25-FY26 SharePoint – Document Management System Continue building out the SharePoint platform on Office 365 to provide a cloud based document management system that supports remote work and ease of document retrieval/storage/transmittal/review. Administrative Services FY24 *Update to the District CEQA Guidelines Update the Board adopted 2001 District Guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to conform with current state law and Board policies. Planning FY25-FY26 *Project scope of work, budget, and staff capacity is subject to change following additional assessment from FEMA to address storm damage projects. Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 175Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T Records Management Project #: 10001 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Continue to support paperless solutions and increase remote access to Midpen documents; use the Board-approved retention schedule to inventory and digitize paper files. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Complete an inventory of electronic documents and input records into the Electronic Document Management System. (Note: prior completed work focused on paper documents.) F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 98,076 35,000 40,000 0 0 0 173,076 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $98,076 $35,000 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $173,076 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $98,076 $35,000 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $173,076 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $98,076 $35,000 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $173,076 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 176 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T San Mateo County Master Permit Project #: 10002 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Develop a Master Permit with San Mateo County to streamline project implementation. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Complete the county master permit approval process. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 5,534 25,000 10,000 0 0 0 40,534 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $5,534 $25,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $40,534 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $5,534 $25,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $40,534 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $5,534 $25,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $40,534 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 177Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Program Actions Project #: 10003 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Implement new actions to further the Board’s policy, goals and priorities related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Implement DEI recommendations that were developed in 2020-21 focused on (1) recruitment, hiring and staff development and (2) community outreach and partnerships. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Work with a DEI Consultant to conduct internal organizational assessment and create DEI Action Plan based on findings. Provide cultural awareness and competency trainings for staff. Engage with external partners and stakeholders to develop strategies and leverage partnerships to address how Midpen may better serve its constituents with a focus on equity and inclusion. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Complete internal organizational assessment report and DEI Action Plan. Initiate implementation of priority recommendations. Evaluate efficacy of DEI efforts completed to date. Continue with trainings and building leadership competencies. Continue engagement with external partners and stakeholders. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Continue implementation of DEI Action Plan recommendations and implement 2-4 additional new DEI priorities that were identified in 2020-21. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 20,000 60,000 50,000 25,000 0 155,000 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $20,000 $60,000 $50,000 $25,000 $0 $155,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $20,000 $60,000 $50,000 $25,000 $0 $155,000 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $20,000 $60,000 $50,000 $25,000 $0 $155,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 178 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T FOSM Update Project #: 10004 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Provide a comprehensive update of the Financial and Operational Sustainability Model with a focus on a 5-year detailed outlook on program delivery, organization, reporting structure, staffing and financial sustainability and a broader 30- to 40-year outlook. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Review report and finalize. Present report findings and recommendations to the Board. Prepare implementation measures for development of FY25 CIAP. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project completed in previous fiscal year(s). F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in previous fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 95,000 100,000 0 0 0 195,000 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $95,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $195,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $95,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $195,000 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $95,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $195,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 179Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T Coastal Field Office Project #: 20131 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Secure property to establish a coastal field office for field staff to support coastal land holdings. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Secure coastal field office site through lease or purchase. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Secure coastal field office site through lease or purchase. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 55,000 10,000 0 0 65,000 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $55,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $65,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 55,000 10,000 0 0 65,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $55,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $65,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 180 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T New Administrative Office (AO) Facility Project #: 31202-11-100000 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Prepare 5050 El Camino Real as the new administrative office. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Complete construction of rental suite reconfiguration and interpretive elements. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project completed in previous fiscal year(s). F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in previous fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 31,742,406 0 0 0 0 0 31,742,406 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 2,508,229 107,845 5,000 0 0 0 2,621,074 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 162,685 58,565 0 0 0 0 221,250 8500 – Permitting Fees 270,609 5,000 10,000 0 0 0 285,609 8600 –Construction 21,632,280 1,319,040 300,000 0 0 0 23,251,320 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 460,372 30,000 150,000 0 0 0 640,372 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $56,776,581 $1,520,450 $465,000 $0 $0 $0 $58,762,031 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 56,776,581 1,520,450 465,000 0 0 0 58,762,031 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $56,776,581 $1,520,450 $465,000 $0 $0 $0 $58,762,031 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 181Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T Skyline Field Office Renovation Project #: 31910 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Renovate existing or build new structures to continue supporting field staff operational needs in the Skyline Field Office (SFO) region. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Assess future SFO staffing and programming needs; use FOSM recommendation to guide the assessment. Present program recommendations to the Board for concurrence. Solicit proposals to initiate design of repairs and new site elements. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Develop design and construction plans. Conduct CEQA review. Submit permit applications. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Solicit a bids and award a construction contract. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 300,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 100,000 0 100,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 5,000 8,000 0 13,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $100,000 $105,000 $208,000 $0 $413,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 100,000 105,000 208,000 0 413,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $100,000 $105,000 $208,000 $0 $413,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 182 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T Sierra Azul Ranger Residence Project #: 35004 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Repurpose and repair existing structure as residence to enhance onsite presence, monitoring and off-hours response at Sierra Azul Preserve. Assess, design, permit and construct/remodel of existing single-family structure, with site improvements and driveway replacement F Y 2 4 S C O P E Complete design documents, submit permit applications, solicit bids, award contract and complete construction. Receive building occupancy permit. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project completed in previous fiscal year(s). F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in previous fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 100,219 58,674 5,000 0 0 0 163,893 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 3,000 0 0 0 3,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 6,579 0 25,000 0 0 0 31,579 8500 – Permitting Fees 1,126 5,000 6,000 0 0 0 12,126 8600 –Construction 820 0 550,000 0 0 0 550,820 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $108,744 $63,674 $589,000 $0 $0 $0 $761,418 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 108,744 63,674 589,000 0 0 0 761,418 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $108,744 $63,674 $589,000 $0 $0 $0 $761,418 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 183Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T Structure Disposition Project #: 35010 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Assess condition of vacant structures and gather information to determine long term disposition and implement Board- approved decisions. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Conduct research and assess conditions of an additional two to three structures and develop disposition recommendations for Board consideration. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. Deferred construction to FY25 and FY26. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Implement Board decisions for structures evaluated in FY23/FY24. Conduct research and assess conditions of an additional two to three structures and develop disposition recommendations for Board consideration. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Implement Board decisions for structures evaluated in FY24/FY25. Conduct research and assess conditions of an additional two to three structures and develop disposition recommendations for Board consideration. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 0 44,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 61,500 181,500 181,500 181,500 0 606,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 1,050 22,000 22,000 22,000 0 67,050 8500 – Permitting Fees 514 0 30,000 30,000 30,000 0 90,514 8600 –Construction 0 167,500 3,200 415,700 415,700 0 1,002,100 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $514 $241,050 $247,700 $660,200 $660,200 $0 $1,809,664 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 514 241,050 247,700 660,200 660,200 0 1,809,664 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $514 $241,050 $247,700 $660,200 $660,200 $0 $1,809,664 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 184 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T Prospect Road Culvert Replacement Project #: 35019 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Replace culvert on Prospect Road. Culvert is beginning to degrade and likely to fail. Prospect Road is the main access road into Fremont Older Preserve. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Design culvert replacement, retaining wall, and project mitigation plan. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. Not a storm damage project but scope accelerated from FY25 to FY24 due to urgency. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Solicit bids and hire contractor to initiate project. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Complete construction and project close out. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from staff. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 91,000 28,750 0 0 119,750 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 20,000 0 0 0 20,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 20,000 0 0 20,000 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 10,000 5,000 0 0 15,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 172,500 116,000 0 288,500 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $121,000 $226,250 $116,000 $0 $463,250 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 121,000 226,250 116,000 0 463,250 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $121,000 $226,250 $116,000 $0 $463,250 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 185Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T Resource Management Permit for the Former Event Center Site Project #: 35021 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Comply with conditions of approval to formalize and secure a County of San Mateo Resource Management Permit for the former Event Center site. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Hire consultant to provide evaluation, recommendations and cost estimates for upgrades and repairs (will likely include building repairs and potential barn demolition). Conduct environmental review. Initiate permit application process. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Begin site improvements as required by the county. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Complete site improvements. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 65,000 0 0 0 65,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 10,000 0 0 0 10,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 250,000 50,000 0 300,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $75,000 $250,000 $50,000 $0 $375,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 75,000 250,000 50,000 0 375,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $75,000 $250,000 $50,000 $0 $375,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 186 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T Annex Building Repairs Project #: 35022 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Repair foundation to the building and update interior office space. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Evaluate needed repairs to foundation and scope of work for repairs to kitchen, restroom and office space. Evaluate current use permit. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Prepare plans, submit for permits and solicit bids for construction. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 65,000 7,500 17,500 90,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 5,000 5,000 0 10,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 35,000 35,000 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 5,000 0 5,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 300,000 300,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $70,000 $17,500 $352,500 $440,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 70,000 17,500 352,500 440,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $70,000 $17,500 $352,500 $440,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 187Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T Cunha House Repair Project #: 35023 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Remodel attached one bedroom housing unit by replacing flooring, installing an updated bathroom, installing a kitchen, repairing the HVAC repair, and performing electrical repairs to meet current building code to expand housing offerings for staff. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Hire consultant to provide evaluation, recommendations and cost estimate for repairs. Select appropriate repairs. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Develop plans and submit for permit. Solicit bids, award contract and begin construction. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 40,000 10,000 0 50,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 3,000 2,000 0 5,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 5,000 5,000 10,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $43,000 $122,000 $215,000 $380,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 43,000 122,000 215,000 380,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $43,000 $122,000 $215,000 $380,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 188 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T Allen Road Washout Repair Project #: 35024 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Assess options to restore access for fire trucks after washout of Allen Road, a key fire road between Bechtel and Paulin properties. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Prepare design plans for a retaining wall or tree removal/slope repair. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 40,000 0 40,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 20,000 0 20,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 10,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 100,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,000 $110,000 $170,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 60,000 110,000 170,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,000 $110,000 $170,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 189Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T FFO Solar Panels/EV Chargers Project #: 35025 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Secure property to establish a coastal field office for field staff to support coastal land holdings. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Secure coastal field office site through lease or purchase. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Secure coastal field office site through lease or purchase. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 35,000 0 35,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 10,000 0 10,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 10,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 150,000 150,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $45,000 $160,000 $205,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 45,000 160,000 205,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $45,000 $160,000 $205,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 190 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T Fremont Older Residence Roof Replacement Project #: 35026 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Repair roof and associated framing to ensure longevity of structure. Permit, bid and repair roof and associated amenities. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Perform structural assessment, identify regulatory requirements to inform the repair, prepare cost estimates and prepare bid package. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 25,000 0 25,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 5,000 0 5,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 150,000 150,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000 $150,000 $180,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 30,000 150,000 180,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000 $150,000 $180,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 191Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T Lone Madrone Mobile Home Replacement Project #: 35027 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Replace existing mobile home that has reached the end of its useful life and remove/ demolish existing attached mobile home from barn structure. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Hire consultant to provide evaluation, recommendations and cost estimate for a mobile home replacement and site repairs. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 35,000 0 35,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 10,000 0 10,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 10,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 100,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $45,000 $110,000 $155,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 45,000 110,000 155,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $45,000 $110,000 $155,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 192 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T Schilling Lake Spillway Repair Project #: 35028 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Repair spillway culvert to prevent erosion of dam. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Design culvert replacement or spillway redesign. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 70,000 20,000 90,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 25,000 10,000 35,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 80,000 80,000 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 202,000 202,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $95,000 $312,000 $407,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 95,000 312,000 407,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $95,000 $312,000 $407,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 193Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T Cybersecurity Audit Project #: 51705 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Due to growing cybersecurity risks, an external cybersecurity audit is needed to improve security posture. This audit will identify areas that need greater protection from cyber threats and provide recommendations to further secure critical infrastructure. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Continue cybersecurity audit. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Continue cybersecurity audit. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 40,000 25,000 0 0 65,000 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $40,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $65,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $40,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $65,000 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $40,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $65,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 194 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T Cybersecurity Implementation Project #: 51706 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Improve Midpen’s cybersecurity posture by implementing projects identified in the cybersecurity audit. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Begin to implement recommendations identified in cybersecurity audit. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Continue to implement recommendations from the cybersecurity audit. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 70,000 135,000 0 205,000 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $70,000 $135,000 $0 $205,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $70,000 $135,000 $0 $205,000 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $70,000 $135,000 $0 $205,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 195Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T Districtwide Firewall Upgrade Project #: 51707 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Upgrade firewalls to provide additional information security. Midpen’s current firewalls are approaching 4 years in age. Due to the rapid change in technology and the growing need for additional security features, new firewalls are required. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Scope, research, solicit proposals and select vendor. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Procure and install firewalls. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 205,000 40,000 0 0 245,000 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $205,000 $40,000 $0 $0 $245,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 205,000 40,000 0 0 245,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $205,000 $40,000 $0 $0 $245,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 196 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T Preserve Use Permit System Project #: 51708 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E The IT Master Plan recommends replacing the current legacy access database and manual process for preserve use permits using an online permit system to improve efficiencies, expand automation, and improve tracking and metrics. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Scope, research and select permit management system. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Procure and go live with permit management system. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 25,000 75,000 0 0 100,000 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $25,000 $75,000 $0 $0 $100,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $25,000 $75,000 $0 $0 $100,000 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $25,000 $75,000 $0 $0 $100,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 197Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T Thornewood Residence Evaluation Project #: 61020 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Complete historic evaluation and structural evaluation of the Thornewood residence to inform repair plan of a historic structure. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Use property inspection report to implement repair plan. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 38,000 0 0 0 38,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 15,000 0 0 0 15,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 200,000 0 0 0 200,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $253,000 $0 $0 $0 $253,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 253,000 0 0 0 253,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $253,000 $0 $0 $0 $253,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 198 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T Quam Residence Road Repair Project #: 61026 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Repair driveway (including landslide damage) and associated drainage infrastructure to provide all-season vehicular access to the Quam Residence. Permit, bid and construct culvert replacements, road reshaping, and associated amenities. The Board previously approved the repair of the driveway with a caveat that the construction bid should not exceed $350K*. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Complete CEQA review. Start and complete driveway repairs and drainage improvements, including additional damage caused by a landslide during the winter 2022-23 storms. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from FEMA and staff. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 42,000 0 0 0 42,000 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 12,500 0 0 0 12,500 8600 –Construction 77,159 0 373,500 0 0 0 450,659 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $77,159 $0 $428,000 $0 $0 $0 $505,159 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 77,159 0 428,000 0 0 0 505,159 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $77,159 $0 $428,000 $0 $0 $0 $505,159 *The total budget exceeds $350K to include other costs such as inspection, CEQA review, and permitting. Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 199Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T Skyline Ridge–Skyline Ridge Road at Big Dipper Inholding Project #: 61039 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Skyline Ridge culvert and road failure at Big Dipper inholding. Repair or replace culvert and restore driveway road access. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Complete CEQA review. Repair or replace culvert and restore driveway road access. The scope of work and budget is subject to change following additional assessment from FEMA and staff. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 200,000 0 0 0 200,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 200,000 0 0 0 200,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 200 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T Replace Bridge MRBR1 in Miramontes Ridge Project #: 61042 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Replace existing underrated weight bridge at MRBR1 to a bridge or culvert rated greater than 10,000 pounds to improve a key fire access route. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Design replacement crossing (culvert or bridge). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 20,000 80,000 100,000 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 35,000 0 35,000 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 70,000 70,000 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 35,000 15,000 50,000 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 500,000 500,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $90,000 $665,000 $755,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 90,000 665,000 755,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $90,000 $665,000 $755,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 201Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T Replace Roof on Coal Creek Barn Project #: 61043 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Following storm damage to roof, perform structural assessment to determine the opportunities and constraints for rehabilitation, stabilization or repair; identify regulatory requirements for structure stabilization and provide options with high-level cost estimates. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Contract structural assessment and roof replacement. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 50,000 0 50,000 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $50,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 50,000 0 50,000 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $50,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 202 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T Radio System Assessment and Upgrade Project #: 65047 Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Ensure Midpen's radio system remains operational and reliable. Provide radio coverage within new land acquisitions and address coverage gaps in existing high-use areas. Research options to expand Midpen radio coverage to coastal areas, improve radio coverage in selected high-use areas, upgrade quality of system and replace equipment reaching end of life. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Continue engineering consultant efforts. If the vendor provides an acceptable proposal for the scope of work, a budget adjustment will be made for equipment and installation costs, as well as for other services associated with the project. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 122,865 101,000 95,000 0 0 0 318,865 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $122,865 $102,000 $95,000 $0 $0 $0 $319,865 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 122,865 102,000 95,000 0 0 0 319,865 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $122,865 $102,000 $95,000 $0 $0 $0 $319,865 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 203Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T Hawthorns Historic Complex Partnership Project #: VP06-003 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Determine long-term disposition of and use for existing structures in the Hawthorns Historic Complex and potential partnership opportunities. Through a public process and in coordination with the Town of Portola Valley and potential partner(s), develop disposition and use options for Board consideration and approval. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Utilize findings from the Hawthorns Historic Complex structural assessment to engage the Town of Portola Valley and potential partner(s) on potential long-term partnerships for use and disposition options of the various structures. Initiate public and stakeholder engagement. Present options to the Board for concurrence and initiate public and stakeholder engagement. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Present final recommendations to the Board as the proposed CEQA project description for approval and conduct environmental review. Continue public and stakeholder engagement. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Complete environmental review and obtain Board certification of CEQA findings and final project approval. Implementation to be assigned as a separate project. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 15,000 25,000 10,000 0 50,000 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $15,000 $25,000 $10,000 $0 $50,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $15,000 $25,000 $10,000 $0 $50,000 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $15,000 $25,000 $10,000 $0 $50,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 204 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T Hawthorns Structures Stabilization/Repairs Project #: VP06-004 Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Implement Board direction based on structure assessment findings. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Project not yet started. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Initiate implementation of Board decisions regarding the Hawthorns Historic Complex structures. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Continue with implementation. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 205Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T District Office Server Refresh Project #: None Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Upgrade current server infrastructure. Midpen’s current server infrastructure (Nutanix) is currently around five years old. Modern server hardware will allow expanded remote work options and improved performance on enterprise applications, such as GIS and Cityworks. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Purchase and set up new server infrastructure, including new hardware and software. Migrate current virtual server infrastructure to new system. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 273,476 0 0 0 273,476 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $273,476 $0 $0 $0 $273,476 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 273,476 0 0 0 273,476 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 $0 $273,476 $0 $0 $0 $273,476 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 206 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T Ranger Laptop Refresh Project #: None Fund: 10 – General Fund Operating P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Ranger laptops are over five years old and need upgrades to continue functioning properly. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Continue configuring and issuing of all ranger laptops. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Complete the configuration and issuance of ranger laptops. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Project completed in prior fiscal year(s). Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 28,000 137,000 47,000 0 0 212,000 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 28,000 137,000 47,000 $0 $0 212,000 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $28,000 $137,000 $47,000 $0 $0 $212,000 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $0 28,000 137,000 47,000 $0 $0 212,000 Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 207Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 A S S E T S A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S U P P O R T Vehicle and Machinery/Equipment Purchases Project #: None Fund: 40 – General Fund Capital P R O J E C T P U R P O S E Provide necessary vehicles and equipment for staff to further Midpen's mission and meet project delivery and service delivery commitments. F Y 2 4 S C O P E Purchase two vehicles (one patrol, one maintenance) that were to be procured in FY23 but will not arrive in time due to supply chain issues. Replace four maintenance vehicles, six patrol vehicles, and one administrative vehicle. Requesting an additional patrol truck (for the additional Ranger position). Request replacement of one large tractor and one smaller tractor loader, and purchase of one airburner. F Y 2 5 S C O P E Recommended new vehicles and equipment TBD based on recommendations from the Fleet Transition Plan. Budget line item is a placeholder. F Y 2 6 S C O P E Recommended new vehicles and equipment TBD based on recommendations from the Fleet Transition Plan. Budget line item is a placeholder. Summary of Estimated Costs Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 4000–Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5000-7000–Service & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8100–Real Estate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200–Architect/Engineering Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8300–Environmental/Planning Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8400–Inspection/Construction Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8500 – Permitting Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600 –Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8700 – Vehicles & Equipment 40,766 967,798 1,360,000 660,000 660,000 0 3,688,564 8800 –Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total $40,766 $967,798 $1,360,000 $660,000 $660,000 $0 $3,688,564 Funding Source Prior Year Actuals FY23 Estimated Actuals FY24 Budget FY25 Projections FY26 Projections Estimated Future Years Total 10–General Fund Operating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20–Hawthorn Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30–Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40–General Fund Capital 40,766 967,798 1,121,000 660,000 660,000 0 3,449,564 Grants/Partnerships/Other 0 0 239,000 0 0 0 239,000 Grand Total $40,766 $967,798 $1,360,000 $660,000 $660,000 $0 $3,688,564 Fremont Older Open Space Preserve (Ken Kobylenski) Se c t i o n 3 • C a 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 208 Section 3 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Section 4 Department Summaries Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve (Stacey Ryder) 209Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Monte Bello Open Space Preserve (Jack Gescheidt) 210 Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 4 • D e 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. These three business lines report to the General Manager. The General Manager is one of three Board Appointees who report directly to the Board of Directors. The organizational structure is as follows: ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Administrative Services Business Line ———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Budget and Analysis ———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Finance ———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Grants ———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Human Resources ———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Information Systems and Technology ———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Procurement——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Controller (listed here for completeness, however the Controller is not a department)——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Office of the General Counsel——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Office of the General Manager ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Public Affairs——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Project Planning and Delivery Business Line ———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Engineering and Construction ———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Planning ———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Real Property——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Visitor and Field Services Business Line ———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Land and Facilities ———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Natural Resources ———————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Visitor Services——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— This section identifies each of Midpen’s various departments, their mission and core functions, staffing levels, objectives, performance metrics and proposed FY24 budget. 211Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Administrative Services Business Line M I S S I O N S T A T E M E N T Provide overall financial, human resources, information systems and other administrative support to serve Midpen’s mission and goals. C O R E F U N C T I O N S ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 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 grant applications, awards and compliance.——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Manage Midpen procurement.——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Organizational Chart 212 Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 CFO/Director of Administrative Services Controller Grants Program Manager Senior Grants Technician Human Resources Manager HR Supervisor Training and Safety Specialist HR Technician HR Technician (Half-time) Management Analyst II Management Analyst II HR Intern IST Manager Data Administrator Applications Engineer IST Program Administrator Technologist IT Technician II GIS Program Administrator Technologist GIS Intern Data Analyst I Budget and Finance Manager Finance Supervisor Accountant Senior Finance and Accounting Technician Procurement Program Manager Management Analyst II Management Analyst I Senior Procurement Technician Administrative Assistant Management Analyst I/II DEI Management Analyst I/II IT Technician I GIS TechnicianIST Intern Accounting Technician (Half-time) Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Staffing Levels Position FY20 Adopted FTE FY21 Adopted FTE FY22 Adopted FTE FY23 Adopted FTE FY24 Proposed FTE Change from FY23 Modified Accountant 1 1 1 1 1 0 Accounting Technician 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 Administrative Assistant 1 1 1 1 1 0 Applications Engineer 1 1 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 I 1 1 1 1 1 0 Finance Supervisor (formerly Finance Manager)1 1 1 1 1 0 GIS Program Administrator 1 1 1 1 1 0 GIS Technician 0 0 1 1 1 0 Grants Program Manager (formerly Grants Specialist)1 1 1 1 1 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/II 2 2 2 2 2 0 Management Analyst I/II (Budget & Analysis)2 2 2 2 2 0 Management Analyst I/II (DEI)0 0 0 1 1 0 Management Analyst I/II (Grants)0 0 0 1 1 0 Management Analyst I/II (Human Resources)2 2 2 2 2 0 Procurement Program Manager 1 1 1 1 1 0 Senior Finance and Accounting Technician 1 1 1 1 1 0 Senior Grants Technician 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 Senior Procurement Technician 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 Senior Technologist 1 1 1 1 2 1 Training and Safety Specialist 1 1 1 1 1 0 Total FTE 26.25 26.25 27.25 29.25 31.25 2 Position FY20 Adopted FTE FY21 Adopted FTE FY22 Adopted FTE FY23 Adopted FTE FY24 Proposed FTE Change from FY23 Modified Interns 1 1 1 2 3 1 Limited Term Positions 1 1 0 0 0 0 Total FTE 2 2 1 2 3 1 213Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 4 • D e 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 Project Name Target Completion Fiscal Year Goal 4 51705 Cybersecurity Audit 2025 Goal 4 51706 Cybersecurity Implementation 2028 Goal 4 51707 Districtwide Firewall Upgrade 2025 Goal 4 51708 Preserve Use Permit System 2025 Goal 4 None District Office Server Refresh 2024 Goal 4 None Ranger Laptop Refresh 2025 Goal 4 Supporting Project Computer System Failover (Off-site)2025 Goal 4 Supporting Project Fleet Management 2025 Goal 4 Supporting Project GIS Strategic Plan 2024 Goal 4 Supporting Project IT Master Plan Update 2026 Goal 4 Supporting Project SharePoint–Document Management System 2024 For the full statement of Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives, see page 8; project details are included in Section 3. Performance Metrics Strategic Plan Linkage Indicator FY22 Target FY22 Actuals FY23 Target FY24 Target Goal 4 Number of job recruitments completed within target timeline 32 28 32 32 Goal 4 Employee retention rate ≥90%89%≥90%≥90% Goal 4 Percent of FTEs using web and mobile enterprise GIS 40%44%40%40% Goal 4 Percent of total District files in Office 365 60%60%60%70% Goal 4 Percent spent of adopted and final adjusted budget 90% / 90%85% / 89%90% / 90%90% / 90% Goal 4 Budget Book receives GFOA Award for Distinguished Budget Presentation Yes Yes Yes Yes Goal 4 Annual Report receives GFOA Award of Excellence in Financial Reporting Yes Yes Yes Yes Goal 4 Annual Report 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 and Standard and Poor’s AAA AAA AAA AAA Goal 4 Percent of electronic invoice payments 60%67%65%70% 214 Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Budget Midpen Budget by Expenditure Category FY22 Actuals FY23 Adopted Budget FY24 Proposed Budget $ Change from FY23 Adopted Budget % Change from FY23 Adopted Budget Administrative Services Salaries and Benefits $5,555,979 $6,258,011 $6,660,685 $402,674 6% Services and Supplies 1,872,714 2,053,672 2,053,672 0 0% Total Operating Expenditures 7,428,694 8,311,683 8,714,357 402,674 5% General Fund Capital 0 90,000 478,476 388,476 432% Measure AA Capital 0 0 0 0 0% Total Capital Expenditures 0 90,000 478,476 388,476 432% Total Administrative Services Expenditures $7,428,694 $8,401,683 $9,192,833 $791,150 9% Note: Salaries & Benefits increase includes annual PERS Unfunded Liability contribution in addition to step increases and an addition of 2 FTEs and 1 intern. General Fund Capital includes the District Office Server Refresh and District- wide Firewall Upgrade project. Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (Frances Freyberg) 215Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Engineering and Construction Department M I S S I O N S T A T E M E N T 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. C O R E F U N C T I O N S ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 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 216 Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Engineering and Construction Manager Administrative Assistant (shared with Planning) Senior Capital Project Manager Capital Project Manager II Capital Project Manager III Senior Capital Project Manager Capital Project Manager III Capital Project Manager III Engineering and Construction Intern Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Staffing Levels Position*FY20 Adopted FTE FY21 Adopted FTE FY22 Adopted FTE FY23 Adopted FTE FY24 Proposed FTE Change from FY23 Modified Capital Project Manager II 1 1 1 1 1 0 Capital Project Manager III 3 3 3 3 3 0 Engineering and Construction Manager 1 1 1 1 1 0 Senior Capital Project Manager 2 2 2 2 2 0 Total FTE 7 7 7 7 7 0 *The Administrative Assistant is shared with Planning and budgeted within the Planning Department (refer to Planning Department page). Position FY20 Adopted FTE FY21 Adopted FTE FY22 Adopted FTE FY23 Adopted FTE FY24 Proposed FTE Change from FY23 Modified Interns 0 0 0 0 1 1 Limited Term Positions 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total FTE 0 0 0 0 1 1 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (Randy Miller) 217Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s 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 and agricultural 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 Project Name Target Completion Fiscal Year Goal 4 31202-11-100000 New Administrative Office (AO) Facility 2024 Goal 3 31903 Hwy 35 Multi-Use Trail Crossing and Parking (Phase 1 Feasibility Study, Phase 2 Concept Design, Phase 3 Final Design) 2026 Goal 4 35004 Sierra Azul Ranger Residence 2024 Goal 3 35008 Kennedy Trail Retaining Wall 2027 Goal 4 35010 Structure Disposition 2026 Goal 2 35012 Driscoll Ranch New Agricultural Well 2026 Goal 3 35013 Fremont Older Parking Area Improvements 2026 Goal 3 35014 Guadalupe Creek Crossing Replacement 2026 Goal 3 35015 Rancho San Antonio Road Repair 2027 Goal 2 35016 Toto Ranch New Agricultural Well(s)2025 Goal 3 35017 Bear Creek Redwoods – Parking Lot Culvert 2025 Goal 3 35018 Miramontes Ridge – Madonna Creek Dam Repair 2025 Goal 4 35019 Prospect Road Culvert Replacement 2026 Goal 4 35020 Purisima Creek Road Vehicle Access 2028 Goal 4 35021 Resource Management Permit for the Former Event Center Site 2026 Goal 4 35022 Annex Building Repairs 2025 Goal 4 35023 Cunha House Repair 2026 Goal 4 35024 Allen Road Washout Repair 2027 Goal 4 35025 FFO Solar Panels/EV Chargers 2027 Goal 4 35026 Fremont Older Residence Roof Replacement 2027 Goal 4 35027 Lone Madrone Mobile Home Replacement 2026 Goal 4 35028 Schilling Lake Spillway Repair 2028 Goal 4 61026 Quam Residence Road Repair 2024 Goal 2 80059 Groundwater Well Decommissioning 2031 Goal 3 MAA03-009 Purisima-to-the-Sea Parking 2029 Goal 3 MAA05-008 La Honda Creek White Barn Structural Rehabilitation 2023 Goal 3 MAA05-009 La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin Removal and Site Restoration 2024 Goal 3 MAA05-012 Paulin Culvert/Bridge Improvements 2026 Goal 3 MAA05-013 La Honda Parking and Trailhead Access – Phase 2 Implementation 2029 Goal 3 MAA11-004 Rancho San Antonio Deer Hollow Farm Restroom 2027 Goal 2 MAA21-010 Bear Creek Redwoods Landfill Characterization and Remediation 2024 Goal 3 MAA21-004 Bear Creek Stables Project 2025 Goal 4 VP06-004 Hawthorns Structures Stabilization/Repairs 2026 For the full statement of Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives, see page 8; project details are included in Section 3. 218 Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Performance Metrics Strategic Plan Linkage Indicator FY22 Target FY22 Actuals FY23 Target FY24 Target Goal 4 Percent of projects finished within Board approved budget (base bid and contingency) 80%94%80%80% Goal 4 Percent of projects finished within schedule at the time of award of contract 80%78%80%80% Budget Midpen Budget by Expenditure Category FY22 Actuals FY23 Adopted Budget FY24 Proposed Budget $ Change from FY23 Adopted Budget % Change from FY23 Adopted Budget Engineering and Construction Salaries and Benefits $1,109,254 $1,239,826 $1,352,812 $112,986 9% Less: MAA Reimbursable Staff Costs (123,817)(132,647)(122,668)9,979 -8% Net Salaries and Benefits 985,437 1,107,179 1,230,144 122,965 11% Services and Supplies 80,827 247,785 154,498 (93,287)-38% Total Operating Expenditures 1,066,264 1,354,964 1,384,642 29,678 2% Hawthorns Capital 14,250 0 0 0 0% Total Hawthorns Expenditures 14,250 0 0 0 0% General Fund Capital *18,892,124 3,276,100 4,649,700 1,373,600 42% Measure AA Capital 3,938,449 6,935,222 5,481,704 (1,453,518)-21% Total Capital Expenditures 22,830,573 10,211,322 10,131,404 (79,918)-1% Total Engineering and Construction Expenditures $23,911,087 $11,566,286 $11,516,046 ($50,240)0% * FY22 General Fund Capital amount includes actuals for the Administrative Office building project, when a bulk of the construction was completed. Note: Salaries and Benefits includes new Engineering and Construction Intern. Measure AA Capital decrease due to the Bear Creek Stables project construction being pushed out to FY25 and redirecting resources to focus on storm damage repair projects. The main increase to General Fund Capital is due to the additional storm damage repair projects. 219Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Office of the General Counsel M I S S I O N S T A T E M E N T Provide legal services and counsel to the Board of Directors, Committees and Midpen departments. C O R E F U N C T I O N S ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 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 Assistant General Counsel Management Analyst–Risk Management Executive Assistant Fremont Older Open Space Preserve (Denise Lawrence) 220 Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Staffing Levels Position FY20 Adopted FTE FY21 Adopted FTE FY22 Adopted FTE FY23 Adopted FTE FY24 Proposed FTE Change from FY23 Modified Assistant General Counsel 1 1 1 1 1 0 General Counsel 1 1 1 1 1 0 Executive Assistant 1 1 1 1 1 0 Management Analyst – Risk Management 0.5 1 1 1 1 0 Total FTE 3.5 4 4 4 4 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 and agricultural 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 Project Name Target Completion Fiscal Year Goal 4 Supporting Project Update to the District CEQA Guidelines 2026 Budget Midpen Budget by Expenditure Category FY22 Actuals FY23 Adopted Budget FY24 Proposed Budget $ Change from FY23 Adopted Budget % Change from FY23 Adopted Budget General Counsel Salaries and Benefits $687,702 $923,286 $901,588 ($21,698)-2% Services and Supplies 79,507 96,710 139,585 42,875 44% Total Operating Expenditures 767,210 1,019,996 1,041,173 21,177 2% Total General Counsel Expenditures $767,210 $1,019,996 $1,041,173 $21,177 2% Note: Salaries and benefits decrease includes a bit less for temporary legal assistance. Services and supplies increase includes more for current litigation support. 221Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Office of the General Manager M I S S I O N S T A T E M E N T 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. C O R E F U N C T I O N S ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 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 FY20 Adopted FTE FY21 Adopted FTE FY22 Adopted FTE FY23 Adopted FTE FY24 Proposed FTE Change from FY23 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 I/II 1 1 1 1 1 0 Total FTE 8 8 8 8 8 0 222 Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 General Manager Executive Assistant/Deputy District Clerk District Clerk/ Assistant to the General Manager CFO Director of Administrative Services Project Planning and Delivery Assistant General Manager Visitor and Field Services Assistant General Manager Management Analyst II Administrative Assistant Se c t i o n 4 • D e 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 and agricultural 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 Project Name Target Completion Fiscal Year Goal 4 10001 Records Management 2024 Goal 4 10002 San Mateo County Master Permit 2024 Goal 2 & 3 10003 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Program Actions (Phase I)2027 Goal 4 10004 FOSM Update 2024 Goal 2 & 3 31901 ADA Barrier Removal 2026 Goal 2 & 3 MAA11-003 Rancho San Antonio Multimodal Access–Implementation (MAA Eligible)2025 Goal 1, 2 & 3 VP11-001 Rancho San Antonio Multimodal Access–Implementation (Non-MAA Funded)2025 Goal 2 & 3 Supporting Project Basic Policies for the Coastside Protection Area 2025 For the full statement of Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives, see page 8; project details are included in Section 3. Performance Metrics Strategic Plan Linkage Indicator FY22 Target FY22 Actuals FY23 Target FY24 Target Goal 1 Number of public meetings held per year 65 62 60 60 Budget Midpen Budget by Expenditure Category FY22 Actuals FY23 Adopted Budget FY24 Proposed Budget $ Change from FY23 Adopted Budget % Change from FY23 Adopted Budget General Manager Salaries and Benefits $1,784,433 $1,925,413 $2,008,342 $82,929 4% Services and Supplies 109,949 625,190 558,940 (66,250)-11% Total Operating Expenditures 1,894,382 2,550,603 2,567,282 16,679 1% Total General Manager Expenditures $1,894,382 $2,550,603 $2,567,282 $16,679 1% Note: Services and Supplies decrease is due to Records Management project being nearly complete and Santa Cruz Mountain Stewardship Network trails partnership project being complete in FY23. 223Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Land and Facilities Services Department M I S S I O N S T A T E M E N T 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. C O R E F U N C T I O N S ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 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.——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Manage the District’s fleet of vehicles and equipment for staff use. ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Organizational Chart 224 Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Land and Facilities Manager Senior Property Management Specialist Property Management Specialist III Property Management Specialist II Foothills Area Manager Administrative Assistant Maintenance Supervisors Equipment Mechanics/ Operators Open Space Technicians (Lead, Regular, and Seasonal) Farm Maintenance Worker Capital Field Projects Manager Maintenance Supervisors Equipment Mechanics/ Operators Open Space Technicians (Lead, Regular, and Seasonal) Skyline Area Manager Administrative Assistant Maintenance Supervisors Equipment Mechanics/ Operators Open Space Technicians (Lead, Regular, and Seasonal) Field Resource Specialist Facilities Maintenance Supervisor Facilities Maintenance Specialist Management Analyst II Modified Duty Staff Administrative Assistant Property Management Specialist II Field Resource Specialist Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Staffing Levels Position FY20 Adopted FTE FY21 Adopted FTE FY22 Adopted FTE FY23 Adopted FTE FY24 Proposed FTE Change from FY23 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 7 7 8 8 8 0 Facilities Maintenance Specialist 1 1 1 1 1 0 Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 1 1 1 1 1 0 Farm Maintenance Worker 1 1 1 1 1 0 Field Resource Specialist 0 0 1 2 2 0 Land and Facilities Manager 1 1 1 1 1 0 Lead Open Space Technician 7 7 7 8 8 0 Maintenance Supervisor 6 6 6 6 6 0 Management Analyst I/II 1 1 1 1 1 0 Open Space Technician 15 15 15 15 15 0 Property Management Specialist I-III 2 2 2 3 3 0 Senior Property Management Specialist 1 1 1 1 1 0 Subtotal FTE 49 49 51 54 54 0 Seasonal Open Space Technician 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 9.5 1.2 Total FTE 57.3 57.3 59.3 62.3 63.5 1.2 Note: Seasonal Open Space Technicians (SOSTs) are hired for 960 hours; the 9.5 FTEs shown in the table above amount to 21 SOSTs for FY24. 225Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 El Corte de Madera Space Preserve (Karl Gohl) Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s 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 and agricultural 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 Project Name Target Completion Fiscal Year Goal 2 61017 Fuel Reduction Implementation 2031 Goal 4 61020 Thornewood Residence Evaluation 2024 Goal 2 61023 Los Gatos Creek watershed – Wildland Fire Resiliency 2025 Goal 2 61024 Lobitos Creek Fencing 2024 Goal 2 & 3 61025 FFO Trail Bridge Replacements 2025 Goal 3 61027 Rancho San Antonio ADA Path to Deer Hollow Farm 2027 Goal 3 61029 Monte Bello Black Mountain Trail Extension 2028 Goal 2 61030 Toto Ranch Agricultural Plan 2025 Goal 1 & 2 61031 Wildland Fire Capacity 2026 Goal 2 & 3 61033 Miramontes Ridge – Johnston Ranch Ponds 2024 Goal 2 & 3 61034 Miramontes Ridge – Madonna Creek Stables 2026 Goal 2 & 3 61035 Sierra Azul – Limekiln Trail Slide 2024 Goal 2 & 3 61036 Bear Creek Redwoods – Alma Trail Slide 2024 Goal 2 & 3 61037 El Corte de Madera – Spring Board Trail culvert and Bridge 2024 Goal 2 & 3 61038 Purisima Creek Redwoods – Purisima Ponds 2026 Goal 2 & 3 61039 Skyline Ridge – Skyline Ridge Road at Big Dipper Inholding 2024 Goal 2 & 3 61040 District-wide Culvert Repair Permanent Work 2026 Goal 2 & 3 61041 District-wide Trail Repair Permanent Work 2026 Goal 4 61042 Replace Bridge MRBR1 in Miramontes Ridge 2027 Goal 4 61043 Replace Roof on Coal Creek Barn 2027 Goal 1 & 3 MAA03-010 Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail 2030 Goal 3 MAA05-007 La Honda Creek Phase 2 Trail Connections 2026 Goal 2 MAA05-011 Lone Madrone Ranch Fence Installation 2024 Goal 2 MAA05-014 Lone Madrone Corrals 2026 Goal 2 & 3 MAA10-001 Alpine Road Regional Trail, Coal Creek 2027 Goal 2 & 3 MAA13-001 Cloverdale – Operational Road System Review and Repairs 2030 Goal 3 MAA16-001 Long Ridge Trail Connection to Eagle Rock and Devils Canyon 2027 Goal 1 & 3 MAA20-004 Spooky Knoll Trail and Other New Hwy 17 Trail Connections 2025 Goal 3 MAA21-011 Phase 2 Trail Improvements, Bear Creek Redwoods 2027 Goal 4 None Vehicle and Machinery/Equipment Purchases Recurring Goal 2 & 4 Supporting Project Fleet Transition Plan 2024 For the full statement of Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives, see page 8; project details are included in Section 3. 226 Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Performance Metrics Strategic Plan Linkage Indicator FY22 Target FY22 Actuals FY23 Target FY24 Target Goal 3 Miles of single-track trail brushed annually 75 80 75 82 Goal 3 Miles of trails built annually*2 2 1 1.5 Goal 2 Percentage of work completed of enhanced fire management within Tier 1 or Tier 2 priority areas N/A 80%85%85% *Note: this number pertains to trail mileage constructed by the Land and Facilities Department. Trail mileage is also constructed/incorporated to the trail system through projects that are managed and led by the Engineering and Construction Department (not reflected in this number). Budget Midpen Budget by Expenditure Category FY22 Actuals FY23 Adopted Budget FY24 Proposed Budget $ Change from FY23 Adopted Budget % Change from FY23 Adopted Budget Land and Facilities Salaries and Benefits $6,599,768 $7,996,667 $8,637,172 $640,505 8% Less: MAA Reimbursable Staff Costs (128,205)(194,170)(382,457)(188,287)97% Net Salaries and Benefits 6,471,563 7,802,497 8,254,715 452,218 6% Services and Supplies 3,403,510 4,047,466 5,724,192 1,676,726 41% Total Operating Expenditures 9,875,072 11,849,963 13,978,907 2,128,944 18% Services and Supplies 193 37,200 37,200 0 0% Total Hawthorns Expenditures 193 37,200 37,200 0 0% General Fund Capital 381,472 1,403,500 3,798,100 2,394,600 171% Measure AA Capital 463,588 541,720 1,104,207 562,487 104% Total Capital Expenditures 845,060 1,945,220 4,902,307 2,957,087 152% Total Land and Facilities Expenditures $10,720,326 $13,832,383 $18,918,414 $5,086,031 37% Note: The increase in Services and Supplies is due primarily to additional budget for projects focused on fire suppression. The main increase to General Fund Capital is due to the additional storm damage repair projects. Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve (Karl Gohl) 227Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Natural Resources Department M I S S I O N S T A T E M E N T 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. C O R E F U N C T I O N S ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 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 228 Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Natural Resources Manager Senior Resource Management Specialist Earth Sciences Water Resources Specialist Management Analyst I Resource Management Specialist III Resource Management Specialist II Resource Management Specialist II Resource Management Specialist I/II Administrative Assistant (shared with Real Property) Resource Management Specialist II Resource Management Specialist II Natural Resources Intern Natural Resources Intern Senior Resource Management Specialist Vegetation Senior Resource Management Specialist Wildlife Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Staffing Levels Position*FY20 Adopted FTE FY21 Adopted FTE FY22 Adopted FTE FY23 Adopted FTE FY24 Proposed FTE Change from FY23 Modified Management Analyst I/II 1 1 1 1 1 0 Natural Resources Manager 1 1 1 1 1 0 Resource Management Specialist I/II 4 4 4 5 5 0 Resource Management Specialist III (IPM Coordinator)1 1 1 1 1 0 Senior Resource Management Specialist 3 3 3 3 3 0 Water Resources Specialist 1 1 1 1 1 0 Total FTE 11 11 11 12 12 0 *The Administrative Assistant is shared with Real Property and budgeted within the Real Property Department and shown on the Real Property Department page. Position FY20 Adopted FTE FY21 Adopted FTE FY22 Adopted FTE FY23 Adopted FTE FY24 Proposed FTE Change from FY23 Modified Interns 2 2 2 2 2 0 Limited Term Positions 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total FTE 2 2 2 2 2 0 Fremont Older Open Space Preserve (Karl Gohl) 229Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s 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 and agricultural 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 Project Name Target Completion Fiscal Year Goal 1 80034-44 Programmatic State and Federal Environmental Permitting 2025 Goal 2 80054 Badger/Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment 2027 Goal 2 80058 Districtwide Aquatic Habitat Assessment and eDNA Collection 2024 Goal 2 80065 IPM Implementation of Valley Water Grant 2027 Goal 2 80069 Mountain Lion Conservation Research 2026 Goal 2 80070 Carbon Storage Study – Pilot Project, San Gregorio watershed 2025 Goal 2 80072 Irish Ridge Restoration 2028 Goal 2 80073 Oversight of Lehigh Quarry Activities 2026 Goal 1 80074 Science Advisory Panel 2025 Goal 2 80076 CEQA Review for IPM Program 2025 Goal 2 80079 Miramontes Ridge Reforestation 2031 Goal 2 80081 Pescadero watershed Sediment Reduction Implementation 2030 Goal 2 80082 San Gregorio Water Quality Improvement Plan 2030 Goal 2 80083 Santa Cruz Kangaroo Rat Habitat and Population Management Project 2031 Goal 2 80084 Remediation of Planting Sites 2026 Goal 2 80085 Long Ridge Forest Health Treatment 2027 Goal 2 80086 Prescribed Fire Plan Implementation 2029 Goal 2 80087 Restoration Prioritization and Implementation of Mitigation Policy 2028 Goal 2 80088 San Gregorio Creek Fish Habitat Enhancement 2030 Goal 2 MAA01-006 Madonna Creek Habitat Enhancement, Water Supply and Bridge Replacement 2027 Goal 2 MAA02-004 Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Area Restoration 2028 Goal 1 MAA03-002 Purisima Upland Site Cleanup and Soil Remediation 2026 Goal 2 MAA03-007 Purisima-to-the-Sea Habitat Enhancement and Water Supply Improvement Plan 2025 Goal 2 MAA03-011 Lobitos Creek Fisheries Restoration 2031 Goal 2 MAA05-010 Restoration Forestry Demonstration Project 2026 Goal 2 MAA07-008 Lower Turtle Pond Repair 2025 Goal 2 MAA13-002 Cloverdale Reservoir Monitoring Improvements 2026 Goal 1 MAA20-001 Wildlife Corridor: Highway 17 Crossing 2030 Goal 3 MAA21-006 Bear Creek Redwoods – Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation 2026 Goal 1 MAA21-007 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan: Invasive Weed Treatment and Restoration 2026 Goal 2 VP22-002 Alma Bridge Road Wildlife Passage 2026 Goal 2 Supporting Project Conservation Management Unit Designation 2025 For the full statement of Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives, see page 8; project details are included in Section 3. 230 Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Performance Metrics Strategic Plan Linkage Indicator FY22 Target FY22 Actuals FY23 Target FY24 Target Goal 2 Protect: Review and identify natural areas needing additional protection for special status species or habitats (e.g., Conservation Management Unit [CMU] designated). N/A N/A 3 5 Goal 2 Restore: Percent of acres in natural resources management plans implemented to enhance terrestrial habitat and ecosystem resiliency. 70% of Acreage 39% of Acreage 70% of Acreage 70% of Acreage Goal 2 Restore: Number of aquatic habitat sites enhanced to support the recovery of special status species. NA NA 1-2 each year 1-2 each year Goal 2 Monitor: The proportion of rare, threatened, or endangered animal species surveyed for and/or monitored on Midpen lands. N/A N/A 25%25% Goal 2 Monitor: The proportion of known occurrences of rare, threatened, or endangered plant populations on Midpen lands. N/A N/A 5%5% Goal 3 Education: Engage the public in service-learning events. N/A N/A 12 12 Budget Midpen Budget by Expenditure Category FY22 Actuals FY23 Adopted Budget FY24 Proposed Budget $ Change from FY23 Adopted Budget % Change from FY23 Adopted Budget Natural Resources Salaries and Benefits $1,578,001 $2,026,373 $2,180,733 $154,360 8% Less: MAA Reimbursable Staff Costs (14,591)(77,573)(81,296)(3,723)5% Net Salaries and Benefits 1,563,410 1,948,800 2,099,437 150,637 8% Services and Supplies 1,834,320 3,217,194 2,810,307 (406,887)-13% Total Operating Expenditures 3,397,730 5,165,994 4,909,744 (256,250)-5% General Fund Capital 92,774 155,000 805,500 650,500 420% Measure AA Capital 532,329 1,924,073 1,963,196 39,123 2% Total Capital Expenditures 625,103 2,079,073 2,768,696 689,623 33% Total Natural Resources Expenditures $4,022,833 $7,245,067 $7,678,440 $433,373 6% Note: Services and Supplies decrease is due to reassessing the operating budget to be more in line with historical spending trends. General Fund Capital, Alma Bridge Road Wildlife Passage project beginning CEQA, design, and permitting, and begin new for FY24 San Gregorio Creek Fish Habitat Enhancement project. 231Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Planning Department M I S S I O N S T A T E M E N T 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. C O R E F U N C T I O N S ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 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.).——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— Support Grants Program in seeking 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.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————— 232 Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Organizational Chart Staffing Levels Position FY20 Adopted FTE FY21 Adopted FTE FY22 Adopted FTE FY23 Adopted FTE FY24 Proposed FTE Change from FY23 Modified Administrative Assistant*1 1 1 1 1 0 Planner I/II 4 4 4 4 4 0 Planner III 3 3 2 2 2 0 Planning Manager 1 1 1 1 1 0 Senior Planner 2 2 3 3 3 0 Total FTE 11 11 11 11 11 0 *Administrative Assistant is shared with Engineering and Construction and budgeted within the Planning Department. Position FY20 Adopted FTE FY21 Adopted FTE FY22 Adopted FTE FY23 Adopted FTE FY24 Proposed FTE Change from FY23 Modified Interns 0 0 2 2 2 0 Limited Term Positions 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total FTE 0 0 2 2 2 0 233Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Planning Manager Administrative Assistant (shared with E&C) Senior Planner Planner III Planning Intern Planning Intern Planner IPlanner II Planner II Senior Planner Planner II Planner III Senior Planner Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s 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 and agricultural 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 Project Name Target Completion Fiscal Year Goal 3 31907 Johnston Ranch Loop Trail and Parking Area 2028 Goal 3 31908 Long Ridge Parking – Feasibility Study 2028 Goal 3 31909 Visitor Use Management and Carrying Capacity 2029 Goal 4 31910 Skyline Field Office Renovation 2028 Goal 3 35006 Kennedy Trailhead Parking Area Improvement 2027 Goal 3 MAA03-012 Purisima Preserve Comprehensive Use and Management Plan 2025 Goal 3 MAA06-002 Hawthorns Area Plan 2026 Goal 3 MAA17-005 Upper Stevens Creek Trail Connection 2029 Goal 3 MAA20-002 Bay Area Ridge Trail: Highway 17 Crossing 2026 Goal 3 VP05-002 La Honda Creek Parking and Trailhead Access – Phase 1 Feasibility Study and CEQA Review 2025 Goal 4 VP06-003 Hawthorns Historic Complex Partnership 2026 Goal 3 VP07-003 La Honda Parking Area – South Area 2027 Goal 3 VP21-005 Bear Creek Redwoods North Parking Area 2026 Goal 4 Supporting Project Historic Resources Procedural Guide/Library 2024 Goal 3 Supporting Project Purisima Preserve Multimodal Access – Implementation 2026 Goal 3 Supporting Project Regional Trails and Active Transportation/Access to Open Space Planning and Coordination 2025 Goal 3 Supporting Project Trail Junction Numbering System 2026 Goal 3 Supporting Project Trail Information System 2025 Goal 4 Supporting Project Update to the District CEQA Guidelines 2026 For the full statement of Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives, see page 8; project details are included in Section 3. Performance Metrics Strategic Plan Linkage Indicator FY22 Target FY22 Actuals FY23 Target FY24 Target Goal 1 Number of projects leveraged with partnerships 90% of annual target (Target 3 projects) 100% (7 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% (7 milestones met) 90% of annual target (Target 6 project milestones) 90% of annual target (Target 6 project milestones) 234 Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s 235Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Budget Midpen Budget by Expenditure Category FY22 Actuals FY23 Adopted Budget FY24 Proposed Budget $ Change from FY23 Adopted Budget % Change from FY23 Adopted Budget Planning Salaries and Benefits $1,572,063 $1,844,472 $1,996,978 $152,506 8% Less: MAA Reimbursable Staff Costs (96,514)(92,599)(33,560)59,039 -64% Net Salaries and Benefits 1,475,549 1,751,873 1,963,418 211,545 12% Services and Supplies 350,972 374,714 304,099 (70,615)-19% Total Operating Expenditures 1,826,521 2,126,587 2,267,517 140,930 7% Hawthorns Capital 0 0 0 0 0% Total Hawthorns Expenditures 0 0 0 0 0% General Fund Capital 2,364 0 120,000 120,000 0% Measure AA Capital 696,684 916,099 799,360 (116,739)-13% Total Capital Expenditures 699,048 916,099 919,360 3,261 0% Total Planning Expenditures $2,525,569 $3,042,686 $3,186,877 $144,191 5% Note: Salaries and benefits decrease includes lower MAA Reimbursable labor expected next year. Services and Supplies decrease is due to completion of technical and feasibility analysis of the La Honda Creek Parking and Trailhead Access–Phase 1 Feasibility Study and CEQA Review project. General Fund Capital includes new for FY24 project Skyline Field Office renovation project. Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Area (Kwon Chiu) Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Public Affairs Department M I S S I O N S T A T E M E N T Build trust by making clearly visible to the public the purposes and actions of Midpen, and actively encouraging public input and involvement in Midpen’s decision-making process and other activities. C O R E F U N C T I O N S ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 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 FY20 Adopted FTE FY21 Adopted FTE FY22 Adopted FTE FY23 Adopted FTE FY24 Proposed FTE Change from FY23 Modified Administrative Assistant 1 1 1 1 1 0 Governmental Affairs Specialist 1 1 1 1 1 0 Public Affairs Manager 1 1 1 1 1 0 Public Affairs Specialist I-III 5 4 4 4 4 0 Total FTE 8 7 7 7 7 0 Position FY20 Adopted FTE FY21 Adopted FTE FY22 Adopted FTE FY23 Adopted FTE FY24 Proposed FTE Change from FY23 Modified Interns 0 0 1 2 2 0 Limited Term Positions 0 0 1 1 0 -1 Total FTE 0 0 2 3 2 -1 236 Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Public Affairs Manager Public Affairs Specialist III Government Affairs Specialist Public Affairs Specialist II Public Affairs Specialist II Public Affairs Specialist II Public Affairs Interns Administrative Assistant Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s 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 and agricultural 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 Project Name Target Completion Fiscal Year Goal 2 & 3 Supporting Project Good Neighbor Policy Update 2024 Goal 4 Supporting Project GM Signature Authority Legislation 2025 Goal 1 Supporting Project Midpen Science Summit 2025 For the full statement of Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives, see page 8; project details are included in Section 3. Performance Metrics Strategic Plan Linkage Indicator FY22 Target FY22 Actuals FY23 Target FY24 Target Goal 3 Total reach of Midpen communications channel outreach 2 million 5.7 million 2.5 million 3.5 million Goal 3 Percentage of ideas pitched to media that become stories 51%79%51%70% Goal 3 Percent of information requests/complaints answered within two business days 90%95%90%90% Goal 1 & 4 Percentage of governmental agency partners engaged 80%65%67%*67%* *Note: The percentage change reflects the fact that there are both more opportunities in FY23 for engagement and outreach, as well as the frequency of engagement for cities is adjusted compared to prior years. In FY23, along with our previous annual contacts, the list of governmental agency partners and individuals also includes prospective elected official candidates in key districts, and new state and federal delegation members as a result of redistricting. Cities engagement will occur every other year to reflect the amount of Midpen activity that occurs proximate to their location. Budget Midpen Budget by Expenditure Category FY22 Actuals FY23 Adopted Budget FY24 Proposed Budget $ Change from FY23 Adopted Budget % Change from FY23 Adopted Budget Public Affairs Salaries and Benefits $1,090,189 $1,272,581 $1,139,528 ($133,053)-10% Services and Supplies 940,521 912,730 585,854 (326,876)-36% Total Operating Expenditures 2,030,710 2,185,311 1,725,382 (459,929)-21% Total Public Affairs Expenditures $2,030,710 $2,185,311 $1,725,382 ($459,929)-21% Note: Salaries and Benefits decrease reflects end of limited term Public Affairs Specialist. Services and Supplies decrease is due to the completion of Midpen’s 50th Anniversary Public Events and Activities and Benchmark Survey in FY23. 237Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Real Property Department M I S S I O N S T A T E M E N T 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. C O R E F U N C T I O N S ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 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 Monte Bello Open Space Preserve (Karl Gohl) 238 Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Real Property Manager Senior Real Property Agent Planner III Real Property Specialist I/II Administrative Assistant (shared with Natural Resources) Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Staffing Levels Position FY20 Adopted FTE FY21 Adopted FTE FY22 Adopted FTE FY23 Adopted FTE FY24 Proposed FTE Change from FY23 Modified Administrative Assistant*1 1 1 1 1 0 Planner III 1 1 1 1 1 0 Real Property Manager 1 1 1 1 1 0 Real Property Specialist I/II 1 1 1 1 1 0 Senior Real Property Agent 1 1 1 1 1 0 Total FTE 5 5 5 5 5 0 *The Administrative Assistant is shared with Natural Resources and 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 and agricultural 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 Project Name Target Completion Fiscal Year Goal 1 20125 Cal-Water Land Exchange, Teague Hill Preserve 2026 Goal 4 20131 Coastal Field Office 2025 Goal 1 MAA01-005 Johnston Ranch Land Acquisition 2026 Goal 1 MAA03-006 South Cowell Upland Land Conservation 2026 Goal 1 MAA05-015* Upper La Honda Creek Land Conservation (Eberhard)2024 Goal 1 MAA13-003 Cloverdale Ranch Land Opportunity 2025 Goal 1 MAA15-005*Upper La Honda Creek Land Conservation (Eberhard)2024 Goal 1 VP06-002 El Mirador Land Conservation 2025 Goal 1 VP08-002 Upper Alpine Creek Land Conservation 2026 Goal 1 VP10-003 Transfer of Upper Alpine Road from San Mateo County 2025 Goal 1 VP15-001 Redwood Forest Land Opportunity 2026 Goal 1 VP15-005 Upper Oil Creek Redwood Land Conservation 2026 Goal 1 VP20-003 Quint Trail Easement 2024 Goal 1 VP23-004 Mt. Umunhum Land Conservation 2026 Goal 1 VP24-002 Valley Water Exchange Agreement at Rancho de Guadalupe Area of Sierra Azul Preserve 2026 Goal 1 VP25-001 Sierra Azul Loma Prieta Land Conservation 2026 Goal 1 VP39-001 Lower San Gregorio Creek watershed Land Conservation 2027 Goal 3 VP14-001 California Riding & Hiking Trails 2024 Goal 1 None Districtwide Purchase Options and Low-Value Land Fund 2030 Goal 3 Supporting Project Middle Stevens Creek Trail Connection 2024 *MAA05-015 and MAA15-005 are the same project. MAA Portfolio #05 does not have sufficient funds to cover the proposed Eberhard purchase. Portfolio #15 will be used to offset the cost of the purchase which aligns with the priority actions of this portfolio. For the full statement of Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives, see page 8; project details are included in Section 3. 239Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Performance Metrics Strategic Plan Linkage Indicator FY22 Target FY22 Actuals FY23 Target FY24 Target Goal 1 Land Conservation N/A 41.76 5,105 400 Goal 1 Total number of acres protected (preserved)N/A 65,832 70,937 71,337 Goal 2 Land Conservation Connectivity N/A Negotiated and recorded trail easement with City of Half Moon Bay for future trail connections from the downtown, City Ped/bike paths and Coastal Trail to Johnston House and Johnston Ranch properties N/A N/A Goal 1 Coastal Service Plan–15 Year Land Acquisitions 100%Entered into lease and management agreement with POST for the management of the 644-acre Johnston Ranch uplands property as part of Miramontes Ridge OSP 100%100% Purisima Creek Open Space Preserve (Frances Freyberg) 240 Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Budget Midpen Budget by Expenditure Category FY22 Actuals FY23 Adopted Budget FY24 Proposed Budget $ Change from FY23 Adopted Budget % Change from FY23 Adopted Budget Real Property Salaries and Benefits $781,650 $817,642 $885,661 $68,019 8% Services and Supplies 70,011 51,633 49,956 (1,677)-3% Total Operating Expenditures 851,661 869,275 935,617 66,342 8% General Fund Capital 92,715 561,000 350,000 (211,000)-38% Measure AA Capital 338,093 90,000 3,452,180 3,362,180 3736% Total Capital Expenditures 430,808 651,000 3,802,180 3,151,180 484% Total Real Property Expenditures $1,282,469 $1,520,275 $4,737,797 $3,217,522 212% Note: General Fund Capital decrease to reflect historical spending patterns. Measure AA Capital includes purchase price of the Board approved Eberhard property acquisition. Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve (Liv Ames) 241Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Visitor Services Department M I S S I O N S T A T E M E N T 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. C O R E F U N C T I O N S ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 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 242 Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Visitor Services Manager and Chief Ranger Management Analyst II Administrative Assistant Program Coordinator Foothill Area Superintendent Supervising Rangers Lead Rangers Rangers Ranger Aides Seasonal Rangers and Ranger Aides Skyline Area Superintendent Supervising Rangers Lead Rangers Rangers Ranger Aides Seasonal Rangers and Ranger Aides Volunteer Program Manager Volunteer Program Leads Interpretation and Education Program Manager Environmental Education Specialist Interpretation Specialist Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Staffing Levels Position FY20 Adopted FTE FY21 Adopted FTE FY22 Adopted FTE FY23 Adopted FTE FY24 Proposed FTE Change from FY23 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 1 1 1 1 1 0 Interpretive Specialist 1 1 1 1 1 0 Lead Ranger 5 5 5 5 5 0 Ranger 19 19 20 22 23 1 Supervising Ranger 5 5 5 5 5 0 Management Analyst I/II 1 1 1 1 1 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 Subtotal FTE 41 41 42 44 45 1 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 Total FTE 42.9 42.9 43.9 45.9 46.9 1 Note: Seasonal Ranger and Ranger Aides are hired for 960 hours; the 0.95 FTEs shown in the table above amount to 2 Seasonal Rangers and 2 Seasonal Ranger Aides for FY24. Position FY20 Adopted FTE FY21 Adopted FTE FY22 Adopted FTE FY23 Adopted FTE FY24 Proposed FTE Change from FY23 Modified Interns 1 1 1 0 0 0 Limited Term Positions 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total FTE 1 1 1 0 0 0 Visitor Services aligns project deliverables to Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives primarily through: ——————————————————————————–––––––––––—————————————————–—————————————————————————————— 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 Project Name Target Completion Fiscal Year Goal 4 65407 Radio System Assessment and Upgrade 2024 Goal 3 Supporting Project Cloverdale Interim Public Access 2025 For the full statement of Midpen’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives, see page 8; project details are included in Section 3. 243Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s Performance Metrics Strategic Plan Linkage Indicator FY22 Target FY22 Actuals FY23 Target FY24 Target Goal 3 Annual number of Daniels Nature Center visitors 3,000 1,300 3,500 2,000 Goal 3 Annual number of permits issued 3,500 3,495 3,500 3,500 Goal 3 Annual number of stewardship volunteer hours 12,000 9,600 10,000 10,000 Goal 3 Annual number of interpretation and education docent hours 4,000 3,540 4,500 4,000 Goal 3 Annual number of participants on docent naturalist-led activities N/A 1,200 2,100 2,000 Goal 3 Annual number of students attending school field trips N/A 75 600 350 Budget Midpen Budget by Expenditure Category FY22 Actuals FY23 Adopted Budget FY24 Proposed Budget $ Change from FY23 Adopted Budget % Change from FY23 Adopted Budget Visitor Services Salaries and Benefits $5,169,807 $6,511,644 $7,020,988 $509,344 8% Services and Supplies 581,096 719,093 942,888 223,795 31% Total Operating Expenditures 5,750,903 7,230,737 7,963,876 733,139 10% General Fund Capital 68,077 1,445,000 95,000 (1,350,000)-93% Total Capital Expenditures 68,077 1,445,000 95,000 (1,350,000)-93% Total Visitor Services Expenditures $5,818,980 $8,675,737 $8,058,876 ($616,861)-7% Note: Salaries and benefits includes the addition of 1 FTE–Ranger (Overfill). Services and supplies is increasing mainly due to the repeater site lease being moved from Land and Facilities to Visitor Services budget. There is also more budgeted in training for the ranger academy with new staff coming on who will need to go through the program. General Fund Capital implementation budget for Radio System Assessment and Upgrade project moved to capital maintenance reserve for future expenditures. Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve (Hella Bluhm) 244 Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Se c t i o n 4 • D e p a r t m e n t S u m m a r i e s St. Joseph’s Hill Open Space Preserve (Jarek Azevedo)245Section 4 • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Vision Plan Actions Overview # V I S I O N P L A N A C T I O N——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————— 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——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————— 246 Vision Plan Actions Overview • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Vis i o n P l a n A c t i o n s O v e r v i e w # V I S I O N P L A N A C T I O N——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————— 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——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————— 247Vision Plan Actions Overview • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Vis i o n P l a n A c t i o n s O v e r v i e w Gl o s s a r y Glossary T E R M D E S C R I P T I O N——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————— 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.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————— Annual Report Comprehensive Annual Financial Report——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————— 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 modified accrual basis of accounting. Budgets are developed using the cash-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.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————— California Environmental California law (California Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) that requires Quality Act development projects to submit documentation of their potential environmental impact.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————— 248 Glossary • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Gl o s s a r y T E R M D E S C R I P T I O N——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————— 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 Midpen’s Capital Improvement Program and Action Plan for project and program delivery and Action Plan ——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————— Capital Improvement Program A multiyear 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.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————— Enterprise Resource Planning An ERP management information system integrates areas such as purchasing, finance, and human resources.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————— 249Glossary • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Gl o s s a r y T E R M D E S C R I P T I O N——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————— 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 FY22 to indicate fiscal year ending June 30, 2022.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————— 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.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————— 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——————————————————————————––––––––––––———————————————————————————————— 250 Glossary • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Gl o s s a r y T E R M D E S C R I P T I O N——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————— 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.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————— Hawthorn 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.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————— 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.——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————— 251Glossary • Budget and Action Plan FY24 Gl o s s a r y T E R M D E S C R I P T I O N——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————— 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 the SCVWD——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————— VS Visitor Services (Department)——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————— YTD Year-To-Date——————————————————————————––––––––––––—————————————————————————————————————————— 252 Glossary • Budget and Action Plan FY24 El Corte de Madera Open Space Preserve (Frances Freyberg) 253Budget and Action Plan FY24 Monte Bello Open Space Preserve (Karl Gohl) PRINTED ON 100% POST CONSUMER WASTE PAPER Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 5050 El Camino Real Los Altos, California 94022-1404 650-691-1200 info@openspace.org openspace.org MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ACTION PLAN AND BUDGET COMMITTEE Administrative Office 5050 El Camino Real Los Altos, CA 94022 Tuesday, May 16, 2023 DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Riffle called the meeting of the Action Plan and Budget Committee to order at 1:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Craig Gleason, Karen Holman, Curt Riffle Members absent: None Staff present: General Manager Ana M. Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager Brian Malone, Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak, District Clerk Maria Soria, Acting Deputy District Clerk Loana Lumina-Hsu, Budget & Analysis Manager Rafaela Oceguera, Visitor Services Manager Matt Anderson, Planning Manager Jane Mark, Engineering & Construction Manager Jay Lin, Information Systems & Technology Manager Casey Hiatt, Human Resources Manager Candice Basnight, Real Property Manager Mike Williams, Management Analyst II Lupe Hernandez, Management Analyst II Elissa Martinez, Management Analyst I Jordan McDaniel, Acting Natural Resource Manager/Senior Resource Management Specialist Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Information Technology Program Administrator Owen Sterzl, Senior Planner Gretchen Laustsen, Senior Planner Tina Hugg, Management Analyst II Marion Shaw, Ranger Ryan Augustine, Administrative Assistant Marie Lanka ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Director Gleason moved, and Director Holman seconded the motion to adopt the agenda. ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-0-0 ATTACHMENT 2 Action Plan and Budget Committee Page 2 May 16, 2023 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS District Clerk Maria Soria reported there were no public speakers for this item. COMMITTEE BUSINESS 1. Approve the May 3, 2023 Action Plan and Budget Committee Meeting Minutes Public comment opened at 1:04 p.m. Ms. Soria reported there were no public speakers for this item. Public comment closed at 1:04 p.m. Motion: Director Gleason moved, and Director Holman seconded the motion to approve the May 3, 2023 Action Plan and Budget Committee meeting minutes. ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-0-0 2. Continued Overview of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget and Three-Year Capital Improvement and Action Plan (R-23-45) Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan continued the staff presentation with an overview of the projects within the Public Access, Education and Outreach program. Of the program's forty- one projects, thirty-four are ongoing initiatives and seven are new projects related to storm damage repairs. Ms. Chan stated staff has reorganized the presentation information such that the projects are listed alphabetically within each preserve and asked the Committee, at the end of the presentation, to comment on whether or not the new informational arrangement is beneficial. Ms. Chan continued to highlight the projects within the program. Chair Riffle requested and received additional information on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding process. Chair Riffle suggested adding a PowerPoint slide to the presentation when it is presented to the full Board of Directors (Board) so the Board and public have the background information on the FEMA projects along with any implications. Director Gleason requested and received additional information on the culvert repairs at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. Director Holman inquired why some of the projects do not have a project number listed. Ms. Chan explained the projects are new for the upcoming fiscal year and a project number is not yet assigned, but the project numbers will be added when the proposed FY23-24 Budget and Three-Year Capital Improvement and Action Plan (CIAP) is presented to the full Board. ATTACHMENT 2 Action Plan and Budget Committee Page 3 May 16, 2023 Director Holman commented that the White Barn Structural Rehabilitation project has been on the work plan for a couple of years and inquired about the timing of the project. Engineering and Construction Manager Jay Lin stated the project has been delayed due to a staff vacancy. Mr. Lin reported that bids were just recently opened on May 16, 2023, with three bids were received under the engineers estimate, and the project is moving forward. Director Holman requested and received additional information on how projects are prioritized and stated that she appreciated how the presentation was organized by preserves. Chair Riffle expressed his concerns about delaying work on the Fremont Older Parking Area Improvement project as it is one of the top four most heavily visited preserves and inquired how long the work would be delayed. Ms. Chan stated that the project was delayed in order to free up resources to address the storm damage projects and that the project will only be deferred for one year to FY25. Director Holman expressed support of the Fremont Older Parking Area Improvement project and inquired if the project could be accelerated. Mr. Malone clarified that the parking improvements to the Fremont Older Parking area are not intended to add parking capacity and will most likely result in less parking capacity. The project aims to manage the existing use, so that parking is orderly to improve flow. Director Holman commented that the project will help reduce frustrations and result in an orderly utilization of the parking spaces. Mr. Malone provided an overview of the projects within the Assets and Organizational Support program. Director Holman inquired and received information on the potential partners for the Hawthorns Historic Complex Partnership project. Director Riffle suggested only efficiency improvements should be made to the Preserve Use Permit System and that the new system continue to be easy and straight forward for the public to attain a permit. Director Riffle stated that on page 138 for the Thornwood Residence Evaluation, the scope of work states that “the content will be populated by the Budget Department” and inquired about the details of the project. Mr. Malone stated that the language is a placeholder and will be updated for the May 24 Board meeting, and that the purpose of the project is to make repairs to the residence, so it is habitable and ready for leasing. Director Holman inquired about how the Board can track items such as trails completed, building maintenance, and parking improvements to better understand how the District is progressing in these particular areas. ATTACHMENT 2 Action Plan and Budget Committee Page 4 May 16, 2023 Mr. Malone stated that the Measure AA Annual Accountability report and the Annual Achievements report are both great resources to attain this type of information. Public comment opened at 2:33 p.m. Ms. Soria reported there were no public speakers for this item. Public comment closed at 2:33p.m. Director Gleason thanked staff for their work on the presentation and also acknowledged this winter was especially hard for staff and thanked staff for the remarkable job of pivoting and reprioritizing projects due to the storm damage. Director Gleason commented on the Trails Memo that was presented to the Board at the May 10, 2023 meeting. He expressed his gratitude to staff for taking the time to compile the information and clarifying the 200 miles as a vision for the 25 Vision Plan projects. Director Gleason stated it provides a framework to discuss trail projects and a possibility to consider looking at the current trajectories with maybe 31 miles of trail in 9 years, and maybe 10 more coming over the next 3 years. Furthermore, he noted that there are numerous trail projects in upcoming fiscal year and recognizes that staff is working very hard on these projects. Director Gleason stated that he was not looking to change any plans at this time but is interested in considering whether value could be added to existing trail projects by focusing more on purpose-built trails, and whether there any locations where the District can creatively employ road retirements and road-to-trail conversions that may be better for the environment and for the public. He also suggested looking at the trajectory of purpose-built trails, which have the greatest public value. Lastly, Director Gleason made a distinction on how trail projects are discussed and provided an example from a recent Planning and Natural Resources Committee meeting where the item did not include a discussion on what more can/should be done to add value as part of the proposed new trails. He suggested that staff add more content to future trail discussions and provide additional options for the Board to consider as part of the decision-making process. Director Gleason commented that organizing the presentation by preserve was very helpful. Director Holman expressed her appreciation for Director Gleason's remarks on trails, noting that the quality of the trails, their contribution to the visitor experience, and their cost-effectiveness are just as important as the number of miles of trails that have been constructed. Director Holman expressed her appreciation on how the presentation was organized by preserve and suggested including an explanation of how project priorities were set when the item is presented to the Board. Director Holman voiced her appreciation for staff’s ability to shift focus on addressing the storm damage. She then suggested that it may be beneficial to have the project numbers related to the preserve for the next year’s budget review. Mr. Malone stated that it would be a major overhaul on how the information is organized and suggested that staff review the programs and organize the information by preserve in the presentation. It would take significant effort for staff to revamp the project numbering system. ATTACHMENT 2 Action Plan and Budget Committee Page 5 May 16, 2023 Director Holman stated that most of the projects do not have an icon associated with the project and inquired if those would be added before the budget book is presented to the Board of Directors. Director Holman commented that two icons that could be considered in the future is the addition of a wildlife and habitat icon and a facilities and structures icon. Mr. Malone stated that if the majority of the Board is interested in adding these icons, then staff would further look into these new icons. Chair Riffle expressed appreciation for staff’s organization, great overview, and level of details on the attachments. After 17 years reviewing the budget and providing feedback over the years, the current Budget book is exactly what he was looking for in a budget document. Chair Riffle expressed his gratitude to staff and his amazement at how fast staff integrated the storm repair projects into the CIAP, filed for FEMA funding, and deferred some projects in order to add the additional projects. Chair Riffle requested that a PowerPoint slide regarding the FEMA funding and project lists be added to the Board presentation. Chair Riffle commented he was impressed with staff on how almost all the Measure AA projects have been worked on in some capacity, and staff’s ability to develop such a comprehensive, inclusive, and thorough CIAP. Director Gleason stated it would be ideal if projects were listed by preserve but would leave it at the discretion of staff to think of how best to provide the information for the next year’s budget. Director Holman supported the idea of having an index that shows all the projects by preserve for tracking ongoing work. General Manager Ana Ruiz suggested allowing staff to consider a method that provides the desired by-preserve information using current systems to create a reference sheet for understanding what projects are occurring at each preserve. Using indexes, numbers, or a numbering system may be problematic with the District’s ERP system. Director Holman suggested presenting options on how to provide the desired information at the year end Board Retreat so the full Board can have a discussion. Chair Riffle clarified with the Committee if it was acceptable for staff to report back at the December Board Retreat. The Committee confirmed. Motion: Director Gleason moved, and Director Holman seconded the motion that the Proposed Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget and three-year (Fiscal Year 2023-24 to 2025-26) Capital Improvement and Action Plan be presented for consideration by the full Board of Directors. ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-0-0 3. Annual Review of Fiscal Management Policies for Fiscal Year 2023 (R-23-51) ATTACHMENT 2 Action Plan and Budget Committee Page 6 May 16, 2023 Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak provided the staff presentation and reviewed the two proposed amendments to Board Policy 3.07 – Fund Balance Policy, and Board Policy 3.08 – Investment Policy. Mr. Jaskulak stated there were no changes to Board Policy 3.09 – Debt Management Policy, which does need to be affirmed annually. There were no questions from the Committee. Public comment opened at 3:19 p.m. Ms. Soria reported there were no public speakers for this item. Public comment closed at 3:19 p.m. Motion: Director Holman moved, and Director Gleason seconded the motion to forward the policies and the proposed amendments to the full Board of Directors for consideration of their approval and affirmation. ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-0-0 4. Closure of Completed Measure AA Portfolios #18 South Bay Foothills: Saratoga-to- the-Sea Trail and Wildlife Corridor and #23 Sierra Azul: Mt. Umunhum Public Access and Interpretation Projects and Reallocation of Remaining Portfolio Funds to Portfolio #03 Purisima Creek Redwoods: Purisima-to-Sea Trail, Watershed Protection and Conservation Grazing (R-23-52) Mr. Jaskulak provided the staff presentation on closing two Measure AA Portfolios: #18 South Bay Foothills: Saratoga-to-the-Sea Trail and Wildlife Corridor and #23 Sierra Azul: Mt. Umunhum Public Access and Interpretation Projects and shifting the funds to Portfolio #03 Purisima Creek Redwoods: Purisima-to-Sea Trail, Watershed Protection and Conservation Grazing. Mr. Jaskulak stated there are no outstanding or future planned actions or projects needed for MAA Portfolios #18 and #23. All priority actions for both portfolios are complete and a total of $6,357,920 remains that can be reallocated to Portfolio #03. Portfolio #03 currently has about $7.6M allocated for projects under the portfolio. The additional funding needs for Portfolio #03 became apparent with the recent purchase of the South Cowell property. The projects being proposed in the FY24 Budget and CIAP have an estimated remaining cost of $7.7M. The proposed reallocation of $6.4M would reduce the funding gap to about $1.3M. Staff would continue to seek outside grant funds to fill the remaining funding gap. Chair Riffle inquired about the timing for Board consideration of portfolios that may be overspent and whether to pursue additional funding to fill the gap or reconsider costs. Mr. Jaskulak stated that the first priority is to achieve the goal set within each portfolio, which are tracked in the Measure AA Annual Accountability report. The Board also has an opportunity to provide input when the 5-year Measure AA list is established. In addition, a discussion can be included at the December Board Retreat to provide a portfolio update of what has been completed, what is upcoming, and if funding is needed. ATTACHMENT 2 Action Plan and Budget Committee Page 7 May 16, 2023 Chair Riffle suggested that he would like to have the visibility and weigh-in if funds need to be shifted at the annual December Retreat. Public comment opened at 3:34 p.m. Ms. Soria reported there were no public speakers for this item. Public comment closed at 3:34 p.m. Motion: Director Holman moved, and Director Gleason seconded the motion to confirm, with any changes requested by the Action Plan and Budget Committee, that Measure AA Portfolios #18 South Bay Foothills: Saratoga-to-the-Sea Trail and Wildlife Corridor and #23 Sierra Azul: Mt. Umunhum Public Access and Interpretation Projects are deemed complete and reallocate remaining funds of $6,357,920 to Portfolio #03 Purisima Creek Redwoods: Purisima-to-Sea Trail, Watershed Protection and Conservation Grazing. ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-0-0 5. Amend the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s Classification and Compensation Plan for Compensation Study Adjustments for Unrepresented Office, Supervisor, and Management Employees (R-23-53) Mr. Jaskulak provided the staff presentation, explaining the recent classification study and findings with the recommendation to reassign the Human Resources Manager and Information Systems & Technology Manager from a current salary range of 48 to a new salary range of 51, bringing the salary range for the two department manager positions to be equivalent to that of other department manager positions. Findings also suggest reassigning the Information Technology Technician I from a current salary range of 22 to a new salary range of 24 and reassign the Information Technology Technician II from a current salary range of 27 to a new salary range of 29. Mr. Jaskulak went into detail on how the process was conducted. Chair Riffle inquired and received information on how to ensure that the District staff is being paid adequately. Chair Riffle expressed his concerns that when the classification and compensation study was last conducted ten-years ago, the Board expected that similar studies would be conducted periodically every two to three years. Chair Riffle requested that the Board be updated on the progress of the study through an FYI or presentation. General Manager Ruiz stated that there are a few more cycles to be done on the study and afterwards, staff may go to the Board with findings on whether the District needs to look at other considerations to remain competitive, and to retain and fill positions. Director Gleason inquired and received information about the comparators being chosen in 2013 and if the comparators are up to date. Public comment opened at 3:53 p.m. ATTACHMENT 2 Action Plan and Budget Committee Page 8 May 16, 2023 Ms. Soria reported there were no public speakers for this item. Public comment closed at 3:53 p.m. Motion: Director Gleason moved, and Director Holman seconded the motion to forward a recommendation to the full Board of Directors to adopt a resolution amending the Classification and Compensation Plan based on the findings of a recent Compensation Study to: 1. Reassign the Human Resources Manager and Information Systems & Technology Manager from a current salary range of 48 to a new salary range of 51, which also results in bringing the salary range for the two department manager positions to be equivalent to that of other department manager positions. 2. Reassign the Information Technology Technician I from a current salary range of 22 to a new salary range of 24. 3. Reassign the Information Technology Technician II from a current salary range of 27 to a new salary range of 29. ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-0-0 ADJOURNMENT Chair Riffle adjourned the meeting of the Action Plan and Budget Committee of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 3:54 p.m. Maria Soria, MMC District Clerk ATTACHMENT 2 R-23-60 Meeting 23-15 June 14, 2023 AGENDA ITEM Controller’s Report on the Proposed Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Accept the Controller’s Report on the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget. SUMMARY Beginning cash balances, estimated at a total of $96.0 million, and the projected fiscal 2023-24 revenues are adequate to cover budgeted debt service, operating expenses, capital expenditures, and reserve requirements. The long-term financial projections indicate that the proposed fiscal 2023-24 budget is sustainable and consistent with long-term plans and objectives. DISCUSSION Attachment 1, FY2022-2023 Review, compares the current forecast of fiscal 2022-23 revenues and expenditures to the projections presented in the May 25, 2022 Controller’s Report. Also shown, in the last column, is the amended 2022-23 budget presented at the May 10, 2023 Board of Directors (Board) meeting. The original 2022-2023 budget assumed that the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) would receive the proceeds from the sale of the 330 Distel property in June 2022. However, these $10.4 million proceeds were not received until the end of August, generating a large positive budget variance in 2022-2023. Excluding this one- time item, general fund (GF) revenue is expected to come in about 3% higher than forecast, due to higher interest income and larger than expected supplemental and redevelopment-related taxes. Total 2022-23 estimated GF tax revenue is 8.8% above that of the prior year. GF spending again ran below budget, with operating expenses (Opex) and non-facilities GF capital spending (Capex) estimated at 90% and 34% of the original budgets, respectively. The projection assumes that the District will utilize $1.0 million of this under-spending to make another pension pre-payment to the PARS account. GF spending on new facilities is exceeding the modest budget as final 5050 El Camino Real project completion costs shifted into this year and some remodeling was required to optimize future rental income downstairs. Non-land Measure AA (MAA) Capex is running below 50% of budget due to permitting delays, staff vacancies, and the fact that storm damage repair has taken priority in the second half of the year. The Cloverdale and South Cowell acquisitions will drive 2022-2023 MAA land purchases to over $17 million, $9.9 million of which is covered by grant income. MAA grant reimbursements not tied to Cloverdale were under budget due to lower spending. ATTACHMENT 3 R-23-60 Page 2 Hawthorn endowment fund spending was near zero and the fund balance increased due to interest income. Debt service was abnormally high as we used $6.4 million of the proceeds from the sale of 330 Distel Circle to retire the outstanding 2017 Parity Bonds. Contrary to the Controller’s assumption a year ago, the District did not need to issue the next tranche of general obligation (GO) bonds in 2022-23, due to lower MAA spending and a higher percentage of grant reimbursement. If these projections are accurate, the District will begin the new fiscal year with cash balances totaling about $96.0 million--$77.9 million in the general fund, $16.4 million in our Measure AA accounts, and $1.68 million in the Hawthorn endowment fund. Attachment 2, FY2023-2024 Cash Projection, summarizes the proposed budget and the Controller’s estimate of projected 2023-24 most likely results, breaking the income and spending into three sections: [1] the general fund, [2] the MAA capital section, and [3] the Hawthorn endowment fund. The first column lists a summary of the proposed 2023-24 budget, as presented to the Action and Budget Committee on May 3, 2023. The second column shows the Controller’s expectations, based on experience, of likely budget variances, including anticipated unbudgeted land purchases, potential additional grant income (from FEMA, for storm damage projects), and the issuance of the next tranche of GO MAA bonds. The third column is the current projection for next year’s cash flows. Attachment 3, MROSD 30 Year Cash Flow Projection (FY23-52), includes the above projected 2022-23 and 2023-24 numbers in the second and third columns, and then projects forward year by year through 2051-52 utilizing the Controller’s latest assumptions. The proposed 2023-24 budget fits comfortably within the long-term model. The model assumes assessed valuation (AV) growth of about 5.7% in 2023-24 and 4.0% per year thereafter. The 4.0% assumption is intended to be conservative as the District has enjoyed average AV growth of over 6% per year over its 51-year history, including the impact of four recessions and a pandemic since 1980. Fiscal 2023-24 General Fund Tax Revenue GF tax revenue, to be received between July 1, 2023 and June 30, 2024 is budgeted at $66.5 million. New tax data received in April and May has caused the Controller to increase this projection to $67.0 million, representing 4.7% growth over this year. This reflects a 5.7% projected growth in current secured taxes, a 2.0% increase in unsecured taxes, a 9% decrease in redevelopment-related taxes, and a 6.0% decrease in supplemental taxes and tax subventions. Both redevelopment and supplemental taxes were surprisingly strong this year and this forecast reflects the possibility of a reversal next year. Other 2023-24 Budgeted General Fund Revenue totals $6.2 million, consisting of anticipated income from rental properties, interest, Rancho San Antonio park management, grants and other sources. The Controller added $2.0 million of grant revenue from FEMA, as the first tranche of potential reimbursements of up to $7 million for storm damage repairs, over the next three years. Interest income is expected to rise by 45% due to higher average interest rates. Fiscal 2023-24 General Fund Expenditures 1. Opex is budgeted at $45.5 million, or 68% of GF tax revenue. This represents an 18% increase over estimated actual spending in 2022-23, which may be a stretch given recent difficulties in filling staff vacancies. However, the Opex budget is well-supported by ATTACHMENT 3 R-23-60 Page 3 hiring plans and expense analysis, and the District usually applies a significant portion of any shortfall to pension pre-payment. Therefore, only a 2% discount in reflected in the forecast. 2. GF Capex: The budget is $10.3 million, including $4.7 million of storm damage-related projects and $465,000 to complete the 5050 El Camino project. The budget includes several projects delayed from this year. The level of planned work is quite lofty, therefore, a 5% discount has been applied to the budgeted numbers. 3. Debt Service: The debt service requirement for outstanding GF debt in fiscal 2023-24 is $8.9 million. GF Reserves: If all GF revenues, expenditures and reimbursements occur as projected, the June 30, 2024 GF cash balance would be $89.9 million, $12.0 million more than the starting balance. After prudent changes to committed reserves, the ending unassigned GF cash balance will be well-above requirements. Fiscal 2023-24 MAA Revenue This year’s MAA tax levy must cover debt service requirements of the 2015 and 2018 Series General Obligation (GO) bonds in September 2023, March 2024 and September 2024, net of existing cash balances. Goodwin Consulting Group, the District’s tax administration consultant, will be providing its tax rate recommendation in June. District staff will bring this recommendation to the Board in late June or July, for Board review and approval. Pending Goodwin’s calculations, MAA tax revenue is budgeted at $5.45 million. Grant revenue tied to 2023-24 MAA projects is very strong, budgeted at $4.8 million, and the interest income estimate is $752,000. Grant income tends to take longer to collect than budgeted, therefore, the budgeted MAA grant income is discounted by $700,000. However, this amount is exactly offset by the scheduled $700,000 grant reimbursement tied to the unbudgeted Johnston Ranch land purchase. Fiscal 2023-24 MAA Capex: MAA Capex is budgeted at $12.8 million, including $3.3 million for the Eberhard land purchase. The Controller also added $4.8 million for purchase of the Johnston Ranch property. As some of the budgeted Capex projects are almost always delayed by unforeseen developments, the non-land MAA Capex budget is discounted by 5%. Fiscal 2023-24 MAA Debt Service: Scheduled debt service on outstanding GO bonds totals $5.3 million in 2023-24. MAA Cash Balance: At the end of this fiscal year, we expect to hold $5.1 million of taxable bond proceeds from the 2015 GO Bonds, $4.5 million of debt service funds (from the GO tax levy) in the county fund account, and around $6.8 million of 2018 GO Bond proceeds. If the District retains the 2015 bond proceeds, the District will need to issue the next tranche of MAA bonds in the first half of 2023-24, in order to cover the Eberhard and Johnston Ranch land purchases plus the other $9.5 million of budgeted MAA spending. Issuance of GO MAA Bonds: When the District issued the 2015 GO bonds, $5.0 million of taxable bonds was included, on the advice of the underwriters, for use on projects that would not qualify for tax-exempt usage. No such projects have emerged nor are any projected. The benefit of taxable bond proceeds is that they are not subject to the three-year spending rule or arbitrage yield restrictions. The District made the last debt service payment on the taxable 2015 bonds in ATTACHMENT 3 R-23-60 Page 4 September 2021, so they represent no fiscal burden going forward. The taxable proceeds can be used on tax-exempt projects, but there is no requirement to do so. The District is free to earn and spend the interest income from these proceeds indefinitely. Without utilizing the 2015 bond proceeds, the current projection of MAA spending, net of strong grant revenue, over the next three years, looks like it could justify the issuance of about $25 million of new GO bonds in 2023-24. Since this would be a relatively small GO bond, the Controller prefers keeping the 2015 bond proceeds in place. Thus, the Controller’s projection assumes the issuance of $25 million of GO bonds during the second half of calendar 2023, generating a modest $500,000 of bond premium and 30 years of debt service requirements starting in 2024-25. Future large-dollar projects that could utilize the 2015 bond proceeds include the construction phase of the Highway 17 crossing project and purchase of the remaining redwood forest properties on the land acquisition list. Hawthorn Endowment: The budget includes $37,200 of spending from the Hawthorn endowment, more than offset by $60,000 of interest income. So, the endowment fund should increase to $1.70 million. Updated Long-Term Financial Model The attached 30-year financial projection includes the latest thinking about storm damage recovery, grant reimbursements, MAA spending, land acquisitions, new staff facility costs, and the level of GF Opex and Capex needed to meet District objectives. As stated above, growth in tax revenue and AV, starting in 2024-25, is projected at 4.0% per year, a modest figure considering the District’s history of 6 to 7% growth rates and the high probability of the AV inflation factor being at its 2% cap for the foreseeable future. The projection includes the following major changes from a few months ago: [a] GF Capex now includes the planned $10.6 million of three-year storm damage projects, partially offset by $5.0 million of assumed FEMA reimbursements, [b] the projected cost of new staff facilities (Coastal field office, Skyline field office) is increased from $13 million to $20 million (over three years, beginning in 2024-25), [c] the expected step-up in annual Opex over 2024-25 and 2025-26 is increased from $2.4 million to $3.5 million (to be tested in the FOSM update), [d] projected annual GF grant income, starting in 2026-27, is increased from $1.0 million to $1.5 million, [e] the projected ratio of grant reimbursement to MAA spending, starting in 2026-27, is increased from 10% to 12.5%, and [f] the growth rate in GF Capex in the second 15 years is increased from 3.0% to 3.5%. The model continues to support the growth of Opex at a faster rate than tax revenue. In addition to an assumed $3.5 million step-up, Opex spending is allowed to grow at 2.0 percentage points more than tax revenue growth through 2035-36. The ratio of Opex to GF tax revenue reaches 90% in 2035-36, with no significant cash flow issues. GF Capex is also allowed to grow faster than tax revenue, at 5% per year, over the next 15 years. Sales of additional GO bonds, at $30- 40 million per issuance, are projected every three years beginning in 2026-27. The original 2014-15 plans for the $300 million MAA program bond funding, over thirty years at a maximum tax rate of $3.18, assumed long-term AV growth of 4.5% per year. Because of the strong AV growth since 2015 and the District’s enhanced ability to access grant funding, the model indicates that, even with the 4.0% AV growth assumption going forward, the District will have MAA funding to complete the program several years early. Final total cumulative MAA spending at that point is projected at $378 million. The last maturity of the outstanding GF debt ATTACHMENT 3 R-23-60 Page 5 is in fiscal 2038-39, so the District has considerable unused GF financing capacity should additional non-GO funding become necessary. Overall, the proposed fiscal 2023-24 budget is consistent with long-term financial plans, and the model indicates that the District remains on a prudent, sustainable financial path. FISCAL IMPACT There are no unbudgeted fiscal impacts associated with this Agenda Item. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required. CEQA COMPLIANCE Board review of the Controller’s Report is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and no environmental review is required. NEXT STEPS Following this Agenda Item, the Board will be asked to evaluate the FY2023-24 Budget in view of the information contained in the Controller’s report. Attachments: 1. FY 2022-23 Review 2. FY 2023-24 Cash Projection 3. MROSD 30 Year Cash Flow Projection (FY23-52) Prepared by: Michael L. Foster, Controller ATTACHMENT 3 May 22 May 23 Fcst % of AMENDED Projected Fcst Change Forecast BUDGET EST. BEGIN GENERAL CASH 69.97 60.97 (9.00)60.97 GENERAL FUND TAX REVENUE 62.57 64.00 1.43 102%63.36 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 2.01 1.91 (0.10)95%1.91 INTEREST INCOME 0.68 1.56 0.88 229%1.27 GRANT INCOME 0.92 0.70 (0.22)76%0.93 SALE OF 330 DISTEL 10.40 10.40 10.40 OTHER INCOME 0.10 0.12 0.02 120%0.12 GENERAL FUND REVENUE 66.28 78.69 12.41 119%78.00 OPERATING EXPENSES 42.67 38.51 (4.17)90%42.12 PENSION PREPAYMENT 1.00 1.00 NEW FACILITIES CAPEX 0.15 1.35 1.20 925%1.47 NON-MAA CAPITAL SPENDING 6.43 2.29 (4.14)36%2.34 NON-MAA DEBT SERVICE 18.64 18.64 0.00 100%18.64 GENERAL FUND SPENDING 67.89 61.78 (6.10)91%64.57 OPERATING CASH FLOW (1.61)16.91 18.52 13.43 ENDING GENERAL FUND CASH 68.36 77.88 9.52 74.40 EST. BEGINNING MMA CASH 26.33 26.33 0.00 26.33 NET BOND PROCEEDS 31.60 (31.60)0% MAA DEBT SERVICE 5.30 5.30 0.00 100%5.30 MAA TAX REVENUE 5.50 5.25 (0.25)95%5.50 INTEREST INCOME 0.34 0.33 (0.01)96%0.31 GRANT INCOME 13.39 10.80 (2.59)81%11.81 MAA CAPITAL SPENDING 10.41 4.50 (5.91)43%5.10 MAA LAND PURCHASES 20.05 17.17 (2.88)86%17.17 REIMBURSE GENERAL FUND 17.06 10.20 (6.86)60%10.80 ENDING MAA FUND CASH BALANCE 41.40 16.41 (24.99)16.04 BEGINNING HAWTHORN CASH 1.63 1.62 (0.01)1.62 HAWTHORNE INTEREST 0.02 0.06 0.04 353%0.06 HAWTHORNE SPENDING 0.04 0.00 (0.04)5%0.00 ENDING HAWTHORN FUND CASH 1.61 1.68 0.06 1.68 ENDING BOND PREMIUM CASH 2.50 (2.50)0% ENDING TOTAL CASH BALANCES 113.88 95.96 (17.92)92.12 ($Millions) FY2022-2023 Review FY2223FINREV 4:23 PM5/17/2023 ATTACHMENT 1ATTACHMENT 3 BUDGET adjust Projected EST. BEGINNING GENERAL CASH 77.56 77.88 GENERAL FUND TAX REVENUE 66.50 0.52 67.02 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 2.25 2.25 INTEREST INCOME 2.26 2.26 GRANT INCOME 1.59 2.00 3.59 FEMA OTHER INCOME 0.10 0.10 TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE 72.70 75.22 OPERATING EXPENSES 45.49 -2%44.58 STORM DAMAGE CAPEX 4.68 -5%4.44 OTHER GF CAPITAL SPENDING 5.62 -5%5.34 GENERAL FUND DEBT SERVICE 8.87 8.87 TOTAL GENERAL FUND SPENDING 64.66 63.23 OPERATING CASH FLOW 8.05 11.99 ENDING GENERAL FUND CASH 85.61 89.87 EST. BEGINNING MMA FUND CASH 16.41 16.41 NET BOND PROCEEDS 24.70 24.70 MAA DEBT SERVICE 5.30 5.30 MAA TAX REVENUE 5.45 5.45 INTEREST INCOME 0.75 0.75 GRANT INCOME 4.78 4.78 MAA CAPITAL SPENDING 9.50 -5%9.03 MAA LAND PURCHASES 3.30 4.80 8.10 JR REIMBURSE THE GENERAL FUND 8.02 4.10 12.12 ENDING MAA FUND CASH BALANCE 9.29 29.89 BEGINNING HAWTHORN CASH 1.68 1.68 HAWTHORNE INTEREST 0.06 0.06 HAWTHORNE SPENDING 0.04 0.04 ENDING HAWTHORN FUND CASH 1.70 1.70 ENDING BOND PREMIUM CASH 0.50 0.50 ENDING TOTAL CASH BALANCES 96.60 121.96 FY2023-2024 Cash Projection FY2324BUDGET 4:24 PM5/17/2023 ATTACHMENT 2ATTACHMENT 3 MROSD 30 YEAR CASH FLOW PROJECTION (FY23-52)($Millions) 5/9/23 TAX GROWTH STARTING 24-25: 4.0 %GenFund CAPEX BASE:$6.5 M GRANTS/MAA CAPEX from FY26:12.5 % OPEX GROWTH 24-25 THRU 35-36: 6.0 %GF CAPEX GR:5.0 %OTHER REVENUE GR:1.5 % OPEX GR > TAX GR:2.0 %GF Grants from FY27 $1.5 M/year Opex Step-Up FY25+26:$1.75 M/year FISCAL YEAR: 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 29-30 30-31 31-32 32-33 33-34 34-35 35-36 36-37 FY23-37 BEGINNING GEN CASH 66.28 60.97 77.88 89.87 96.08 94.96 96.43 104.97 113.15 120.36 125.95 130.57 133.90 136.01 137.76 137.77 TAX REVENUE 58.81 64.00 67.02 69.70 72.49 75.39 78.40 81.54 84.80 88.19 91.72 95.39 99.21 103.17 107.30 111.59 1289.9 GRANT REVENUE 0.28 0.70 3.59 3.57 2.39 1.50 1.52 1.55 1.57 1.59 1.62 1.64 1.66 1.69 1.72 1.74 28.1 OTHER REVENUE 2.94 13.99 4.61 4.88 5.15 5.03 5.11 5.18 5.06 5.14 5.21 5.09 5.17 5.24 5.32 5.20 85.4 OPERATING REVENUES 62.03 78.69 75.22 78.15 80.03 81.92 85.03 88.27 91.43 94.92 98.55 102.12 106.04 110.11 114.34 118.54 1403.4 OPERATING EXPENSES 34.87 39.51 44.58 49.00 53.70 56.92 60.33 63.95 67.79 71.86 76.17 80.74 85.58 90.72 96.16 100.97 1038.0 Operating Expense/Taxes 59%62%67%70%74%75%77%78%80%81%83%85%86%88%90%90% GeneralFund CAPEX 2.71 2.29 4.88 6.93 6.89 7.23 7.60 7.98 8.37 8.79 9.23 9.69 10.18 10.69 11.22 11.78 123.8 Storm Damage CAPEX 4.44 3.10 3.04 10.6 Accrual Adjustment 2.21 0.0 New Facility CAPEX 16.82 1.35 0.47 4.00 8.50 7.50 21.8 GenFund DEBT SERVICE 10.74 18.64 8.87 8.91 9.02 8.80 8.57 8.16 8.06 8.67 8.54 8.36 8.16 6.95 6.95 7.93 134.6 GenFund SPENDING 67.35 61.78 63.23 71.94 81.15 80.45 76.49 80.09 84.22 89.32 93.94 98.79 103.92 108.36 114.33 120.68 1328.7 OPERATING CASH FLOW -5.32 16.91 11.99 6.21 -1.12 1.47 8.54 8.18 7.20 5.60 4.61 3.33 2.12 1.75 0.01 -2.15 74.7 ENDING GENERAL CASH 60.97 77.88 89.87 96.08 94.96 96.43 104.97 113.15 120.36 125.95 130.57 133.90 136.01 137.76 137.77 135.63 BOND PROCEEDS (NET)24.7 0.0 0.0 39.5 0.0 0.0 34.6 0.0 0.0 34.6 0.0 0.0 34.6 0.0 167.9 GO BOND DEBT SERVICE 5.31 5.30 5.30 6.54 6.54 6.79 8.94 8.94 9.19 11.29 11.28 11.30 13.39 13.39 13.39 15.58 147.2 GO BOND TAX REVENUE 5.58 5.25 5.45 6.64 6.64 6.89 9.07 9.07 9.33 11.46 11.45 11.47 13.59 13.59 13.59 15.81 149.3 INTEREST INCOME 0.27 0.33 0.75 0.75 0.55 0.65 0.50 0.40 0.60 0.40 0.30 0.60 0.40 0.30 0.60 0.40 7.5 MAA LAND PURCHASES 0.18 17.17 8.10 2.40 1.66 1.00 1.00 12.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 60.3 MAA CAPEX 5.79 4.50 9.03 10.00 10.00 15.00 18.00 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50 161.0 LESS: GRANT INCOME 3.56 10.80 4.78 4.06 1.46 2.00 2.38 2.81 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.94 1.44 1.44 1.44 2.06 40.9 NET MAA CAPEX 2.41 10.87 12.34 8.34 10.20 14.00 16.63 19.69 10.06 10.06 10.06 13.56 10.06 10.06 10.06 14.44 180.4 BOND REIMBURSEMENT 2.16 10.20 12.12 8.84 10.20 14.00 16.63 19.69 10.06 10.06 10.06 13.56 10.06 10.06 10.06 14.44 180.0 MAA CASH BALANCES 26.33 16.41 29.89 21.89 12.34 38.59 22.60 3.45 28.68 19.19 9.60 31.37 21.91 12.34 37.65 23.84 BOND PREMIUM CASH 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ENDOWMENT CASH 1.62 1.68 1.70 1.60 1.52 1.45 1.38 1.31 1.26 1.21 1.16 1.11 1.06 1.01 0.96 0.91 0.71 ENDING TOTAL CASH 88.91 95.97 121.96 119.82 108.82 136.97 129.20 117.91 150.30 146.36 141.32 166.37 158.98 151.12 176.38 160.38 CUMM MAA CAPEX 91.6 113.2 130.4 142.8 154.4 170.4 189.4 211.9 223.4 234.9 246.4 261.9 273.4 284.9 296.4 312.9 30YRCF050923 4:26 PM5/17/2023 ATTACHMENT 3ATTACHMENT 3 MROSD 30 YEAR CASH FLOW PROJECTION (FY23-52) ($Millions) TAX GROWTH: 4.0 %GenFund CAPEX GR:3.5 %POST-MAA GF LAND ACQ :$0.5 M/yr 5/9/23 OPEX GROWTH: 5.0 %OTHER REVENUE GR:1.5 %GRANTS/MAA CAPEX:12.5 % OPEX GR > TAX GR:1.0 % thru 41-42, then zero FISCAL YEAR: 36-37 37-38 38-39 39-40 40-41 41-42 42-43 43-44 44-45 45-46 46-47 47-48 48-49 49-50 50-51 51-52 FY38-52 BEGINNING GEN CASH 137.76 135.62 133.08 132.33 134.14 135.81 136.20 136.99 137.68 138.27 138.76 140.87 140.93 142.56 142.36 142.03 TAX REVENUE 111.59 116.06 120.70 125.53 130.55 135.77 141.20 146.85 152.72 158.83 165.19 171.79 178.66 185.81 193.24 200.97 2323.9 GRANT INCOME 1.74 1.77 1.79 1.82 1.85 1.88 1.90 1.93 1.96 1.99 2.02 2.05 2.08 2.11 2.14 2.18 29.5 OTHER REVENUE 5.20 5.28 5.36 5.44 5.52 5.60 6.19 6.28 6.38 6.47 6.57 6.67 6.77 6.87 6.97 7.08 93.4 OPERATING REVENUES 118.54 123.10 127.85 132.79 137.92 143.25 149.29 155.06 161.06 167.29 173.77 180.51 187.51 194.79 202.36 210.23 2446.8 OPERATING EXPENSES 100.97 106.02 111.32 116.88 122.73 128.86 134.02 139.38 144.95 150.75 156.78 163.05 169.58 176.36 183.41 190.75 2194.8 Operating Expense/Taxes 90%91%92%93%94%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95% GeneralFund CAPEX 11.78 12.20 12.62 13.07 13.52 14.00 14.49 14.99 15.52 16.06 16.62 17.20 17.81 18.43 19.08 19.74 235.3 GenFund LAND ACQ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 4.5 NET REIMBURSEMENTS -0.50 -0.50 -0.50 -2.25 -0.30 -2.00 -0.30 -0.30 -0.30 -7.0 GenFund DEBT SERVICE 7.93 7.43 4.66 1.03 13.1 GenFund SPENDING 120.68 125.64 128.60 130.98 136.25 142.86 148.50 154.37 160.47 166.81 171.65 180.46 185.88 194.99 202.69 210.69 2440.9 OPERATING CASH FLOW -2.15 -2.54 -0.75 1.81 1.67 0.39 0.79 0.69 0.59 0.48 2.12 0.05 1.63 -0.20 -0.33 -0.47 5.9 ENDING GENERAL CASH 135.62 133.08 132.33 134.14 135.81 136.20 136.99 137.68 138.27 138.76 140.87 140.93 142.56 142.36 142.03 141.57 BOND PROCEEDS (NET)39.5 39.5 GO BOND DEBT SERVICE 15.58 15.57 15.56 18.16 18.16 18.16 18.15 18.15 18.15 18.15 18.14 15.59 15.59 12.89 12.89 12.89 246.2 GO BOND TAX REVENUE 15.81 15.72 15.71 18.34 18.34 18.34 18.33 18.33 18.33 18.33 18.32 15.74 15.74 13.02 13.02 13.02 248.6 INTEREST INCOME 0.40 0.40 0.60 0.70 0.45 0.35 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 4.2 MAA CAPEX 16.50 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 10.80 10.00 64.8 LESS: GRANT INCOME 2.06 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.35 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.1 NET MAA CAPEX 14.44 9.63 9.63 9.63 9.63 9.45 8.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 56.7 BOND REIMBURSEMENT 14.44 9.63 9.63 9.63 9.63 9.45 8.75 0.50 0.50 0.50 2.25 0.30 2.00 0.30 0.30 0.30 63.7 MAA CASH BALANCES 23.84 14.77 45.40 36.66 27.67 18.75 10.48 10.36 10.24 10.12 8.25 8.26 6.52 6.45 6.37 6.30 BOND PREMIUM CASH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ENDOWMENT 0.91 0.87 0.82 0.78 0.74 0.70 0.65 0.61 0.57 0.53 0.48 0.44 0.40 0.36 0.32 0.27 0.64 ENDING TOTAL CASH 160.37 148.72 178.56 171.58 164.22 155.65 148.13 148.66 149.09 149.41 149.61 149.63 149.47 149.17 148.72 148.14 CUMM MAA CAPEX 312.9 323.9 334.9 345.9 356.9 367.7 377.7 377.7 377.7 377.7 377.7 377.7 377.7 377.7 377.7 377.7 30YRCF050923 4:26 PM5/17/2023 ATTACHMENT 3ATTACHMENT 3 5/9/23 FISCAL YEAR: 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 29-30 30-31 31-32 32-33 33-34 34-35 35-36 36-37 AV GROWTH starting 24-25:4.0 % ASSESSED VALUE ($B)333.9 360.6 381.2 396.4 412.3 428.8 445.9 463.8 482.3 501.6 521.7 542.5 564.2 586.8 610.3 634.7 MAA DEBT SVC-OLD ($M)5.31 5.30 5.30 5.30 5.29 5.29 5.29 5.29 5.29 5.29 5.28 5.30 5.29 5.29 5.29 5.29 NEW MAA BONDS ($M)0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 35.00 0.00 0.00 35.00 0.00 0.00 35.00 0.00 MAA DEBT SVC-NEW ($M)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 3.90 3.90 3.90 6.00 6.00 6.00 8.10 8.10 8.10 10.29 less Bond Premium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 NET MAA DEBT SVC 5.31 5.30 5.30 6.54 6.54 6.79 8.94 8.94 9.19 11.29 11.28 11.30 13.39 13.39 13.39 15.58 MAA TAX REVENUE 5.58 5.25 5.45 6.64 6.64 6.89 9.07 9.07 9.33 11.46 11.45 11.47 13.59 13.59 13.59 15.81 TAX RATE $1.67 $1.46 $1.43 $1.68 $1.61 $1.61 $2.03 $1.96 $1.93 $2.28 $2.20 $2.11 $2.41 $2.32 $2.23 $2.49 FISCAL YEAR: 36-37 37-38 38-39 39-40 40-41 41-42 42-43 43-44 44-45 45-46 46-47 47-48 48-49 49-50 50-51 50-51 AV GROWTH: 4.0 % ASSESSED VALUE ($B)634.7 660.1 686.5 713.9 742.5 772.2 803.1 835.2 868.6 903.4 939.5 977.1 1,016.2 1,056.8 1,099.1 1,143.0 MAA DEBT SVC-OLD ($M)5.29 5.28 5.27 5.27 5.27 5.27 5.26 5.26 5.26 5.26 5.25 2.70 2.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 NEW MAA BONDS ($M)0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MAA DEBT SVC-NEW ($M)10.29 10.29 10.29 12.89 12.89 12.89 12.89 12.89 12.89 12.89 12.89 12.89 12.89 12.89 12.89 12.89 NET MAA DEBT SVC 15.58 15.57 15.56 18.16 18.16 18.16 18.15 18.15 18.15 18.15 18.14 15.59 15.59 12.89 12.89 12.89 MAA TAX REVENUE 15.81 15.72 15.71 18.34 18.34 18.34 18.33 18.33 18.33 18.33 18.32 15.74 15.74 13.02 13.02 13.02 TAX RATE $2.49 $2.38 $2.29 $2.57 $2.47 $2.37 $2.28 $2.19 $2.11 $2.03 $1.95 $1.61 $1.55 $1.23 $1.18 $1.14 MROSD PROJECTED MEASURE AA TAX RATE (FY23-52) 30YRCF050923 4:26 PM5/17/2023 ATTACHMENT 3ATTACHMENT 3