HomeMy Public PortalAbout20191209 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 19-30
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Mountain View Community Center – Maple Room
201 S. Rengstorff Ave.
Mountain View, CA 94040
Monday, December 9, 2019
9:00 AM
A G E N D A
9:00 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
The Board President will invite public comment on items not on the agenda. Each speaker will ordinarily
be limited to three minutes; however, the Brown Act (Open Meeting Law) does not allow action by the
Board of Directors on items not on the agenda. If you wish to address the Board, please complete a
speaker card and give it to the District Clerk. Individuals are limited to one appearance during this
section.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
BOARD BUSINESS
The President will invite public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the
Board of Directors. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to three minutes. Alternately, you may
comment to the Board by a written communication, which the Board appreciates.
1.
Implementation Status of the Financial and Operational Sustainability Model (FOSM)
Recommendations (R-19-162)
Staff Contact: Ana Ruiz, General Manager
General Manager’s Recommendations: Review the implementation status of the Financial and
Operational Sustainability Model (FOSM) recommendations. No Board action required.
2. Environmental Scan and Fiscal Year 2020-21 Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives (R-19-
163)
Staff Contact: Ana Ruiz, General Manager
General Manager’s Recommendations: Review, update if needed, and adopt the Fiscal Year
2020-21 Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives to meet emerging opportunities and challenges, and
Meeting 19-30
guide the development of the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget and 3-year Capital Improvement and
Action Plan.
3. Draft Questions for Benchmark Survey (R-19-164)
Staff Contact: Kori Skinner, Public Affairs Manager
General Manager’s Recommendations: Review and provide feedback on the draft benchmark
survey questions.
4. Board Exploratory Topics (R-19-165)
Staff Contact: Ana Ruiz, General Manager
General Manager’s Recommendation: Hold high level exploratory discussions regarding the
following three topics of interest and provide feedback on desired next steps for each:
• Private Fundraising
• Board Training Opportunities
• Region-wide Issues Affecting the District’s Mission
ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting,
please contact the District Clerk at (650) 691-1200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the
District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
Written materials relating to an item on this Agenda that are considered to be a public record and are distributed
to Board members less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, will be available for public inspection at the District’s
Administrative Office located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022.
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA
I, Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that
the foregoing agenda for the special meeting of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for
review on December 4, 2019, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos California,
94022. The agenda and any additional written materials are also available on the District’s web site at
http://www.openspace.org.
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager
Rev. 1/3/18
R-19-162
Meeting 19-30
December 9, 2019
AGENDA ITEM 1
AGENDA ITEM
Implementation Status of the Financial and Operational Sustainability Model (FOSM)
Recommendations
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Review the implementation status of the Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
(FOSM) recommendations. No Board action required.
SUMMARY
Each year, the Board of Directors (Board) holds two retreats to kick-off the annual budget
process. The two upcoming retreats to prepare for the fiscal year budget cycle ending June 30,
2021 (FY21) are scheduled on Monday, December 9, 2019 and Tuesday, March 3, 2020. On
December 9, 2019, the Board will review and discuss the Financial and Operational
Sustainability Model (FOSM) report (Attachment 1) and an update on the implementation status
of the remaining recommendations (Attachment 2).
DISCUSSION
In 2015, the Board accepted the comprehensive FOSM study (R-15-82) that provides a high-
level framework for guiding the organizational structure and growth of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District (District). This study was implemented at a critical time in District
history, following completion of the Vision Plan and the successful passage by the voters of
Measure AA to fund priority Vision Plan capital projects.
Status of FOSM Recommendations
The FOSM lists sixty (60) recommendations (Attachment 1) to support a District-wide
organizational shift from a primary focus on acquisition to a balanced implementation of the
District’s mission and long-term operational sustainability. At the December 2018 Board retreat,
staff identified 47 FOSM recommendations as complete (78%). By the end of FY20, an
additional 6 FOSM recommendations will be completed (10%), bringing the total to 53 (88%)
(see Table 1 on page 2). The remaining 7 recommendations (12%) are identified as underway
and summarized in Table 2.
Attachment 2 includes a summary of the FOSM recommendations. The information is organized
by business line and explains how recommendations were completed and what steps are being
taken to move forward with the remaining recommendations.
R-19-162 Page 2
Table 1 – FOSM Recommendations to be Completed by end of FY20
Recom.
#
Business
Line 1 Recommendation Description
4 PP&D Integrate specialized functions, such as CEQA review, that play a critical role in
project delivery into the District's project delivery approach and identify
procedural changes and methods of centralization that lead to greater consistency
and efficiencies.
20 V&FS Explore opportunities to partner with the private sector to provide existing staff
with the capacity to address maintenance backlogs and deferred maintenance.
21 V&FS Develop a field staff onboarding/training program that outlines the variety of
details and standards used for trail construction and maintenance work.
29 V&FS Create a facilities maintenance and improvement plan to guide work plans and
inform financial decision making.
37 Admin
Svcs. Implement an IT governance structure that promotes effective planning, priority
setting, and accountability of District technology resources (staff, funding,
hardware and software) with business priorities.
48 GMO Complete a comprehensive requirements analysis and establish a formal project
plan to procure and implement a document management system.
Table 2 – FOSM Recommendations Underway
Recom.
#
Business
Line1 Recommendation Description Est.
Comp.
10 PP&D Meet with local jurisdictions to discuss opportunities to improve the
permit processing time associated with certain types of permits.
FY22
11 PP&D Create a Property Acquisitions Plan that clearly communicates District
acquisition policies and goals, and provides a road map for strategic land
acquisition.
FY22
16 V&FS Develop guiding policy similar to the East Bay Regional Park District
Pipeline Program that requires District staff to develop estimates for start-
up costs as well as ongoing maintenance, safety, and staffing costs for
each development project or future land acquisition before the Board
commits to the project or purchase.
FY21
47 V&FS Complete a facility master plan to address the District office and
operational needs for the next decade.
FY23
40 Admin
Svcs. Develop and implement a formal technology disaster recovery plan
sufficient to address protection from an area (not site specific) disaster.
FY21
54 GMO Assess the need for a centralized risk management function under the
direction of a risk manager as the size and scale of District operations
increases over time.
FY22
59 GMO Establish meeting management and delegation practices that ensure
productive and meaningful results and utilize the expertise and skills of
staff.
FY22
1PP&D = Project Planning and Delivery; V&FS = Visitor and Field Services; Admin Svcs = Administrative
Services; GMO = General Manager’s Office
R-19-162 Page 3
Staffing Projections
The FOSM also includes staffing projections to support the District’s organizational shift. The
FOSM includes two distinct time periods, each with specific staffing projections (Table 3). The
FOSM projects a total of 51 new positions between 2015 and 2020 (first five years), and up to an
additional 53 positions between 2020 and 2045 (next 25 years).
Table 3 – FOSM Staffing Projections 2015 – 2045
Business Line Departments
Staffing
Projection
2015-2020
Staffing
Projection
2020-2045
Total
Project Planning and Delivery Engineering and
Construction
Planning
Real Property
10 to 13 TBD 10 to 13+
Visitor and Field Services Land & Facilities
Natural Resources
Visitor Services
20 to 25 37 to 45 57 to 70
Finance and Administrative
Services
Administrative Support
Finance
Human Resources
Information Technology
9 to 11 6 to 8 15 to 19
Office of the General Manager General Manager’s Office
Public Affairs 2 0 2
Total 41 to 51 43 to 53 84 to 104
Consistent with the FOSM, the Board has approved 52 positions 2 since 2015, 51 hired by 2020
(or end of calendar year 2019; see Table 4), and one (1) expected to be hired in early 2020.
Table 4 – Board-Approved Staffing by 2020
Business Line
FOSM
Projected
Increase by
2020
Positions
Approved by
20204
Remaining
Positions by 2020
Planning and Project Delivery 10 to 13 10 3
Visitor and Field Services 20 to 25 28 (3)
Finance and Administrative Services 3 9 to 11 11 0
General Manager’s Office 2 2 0
Total 41 to 51 51 0
Last fiscal year, staff reviewed the 2020 through 2045 FOSM staffing projections to identify the
anticipated staffing allocations by business line for the upcoming five years (2020 through 2025).
This information was discussed at the FY20 Board Retreat #1 and remains status quo (26 new
positions over 5 years; see Tables 5 and 6). Anticipated staffing allocations by business line
remain in-line with the FOSM projections through 2045.
2 Excludes interns and seasonal employees.
3 One position was transferred out of the General Managers Office and into Finance and Administrative Services.
R-19-162 Page 4
Table 5 – FOSM Staffing Projections 2020 – 2045
Business Line Staffing Projection
2020-2045
Approved Positions
for 20204
Remaining
Positions Through
2045 5
Planning and Project Delivery6 TBD / 4 0 4
Visitor and Field Services 37 to 45 1 36 to 44
Finance and Administrative Services 6 to 8 0 6 to 8
General Manager’s Office 0 0 0
Total 43 to 57 1 42 to 56
Looking forward to next year, Table 6 below shows the 5-year projected growth (total of 26
positions) between 2020 and 2025, including remaining positions through 2025.
Table 6 – 5-Year Staffing Projections, 2020 - 2025
Business Line
5-Year Staffing
Projection
2020-2025
Approved
Positions for 20204
Remaining
Positions
through 2025
Planning and Project Delivery 2 0 2
Visitor and Field Services 20 1 19
Finance and Administrative
Services 4 0 4
General Manager’s Office 0 0 0
Total 26 1 25
As noted last year, the next 5-year projections through 2025 remain affordable in the long-term
provided that the tax growth averages at least 4% per year during this same 5-year period (per
the Controller’s 30-Year Cash Flow Model). As is the practice, each new permanent position
would be recommended to the Board for approval as part of the annual Budget and Action Plan
development process with a description of the job duties and rationale for the increase in staff
capacity.
The FOSM notes that “the greatest area of growth over time will be in Visitor and Field
Services” to manage the increase in total acreage, acreage open to the public, trail miles, and
increased visitation due to the delivery of Measure AA projects. Staffing growth
recommendations will depend on the actual timing and pace of projects and new land
acquisitions.
4 Notable for 2020: three positions were approved as part of the Budget and Action Plan status; two are reported in
Table 4 and one position is reported in Tables 5 and 6 (recruitment expected to be finalized in 2020).
5 Cumulative from acceptance of FOSM report in 2015 through 2045.
6 The FOSM identified Planning and Project Delivery growth as To Be Determined (TBD) from 2020-2045. Based
on evaluations in late 2018 (including review of original FOSM assumptions, external trends, and increasing project
complexity), staff expects limited growth of approximately 4 positions in this business line in the next 20 years; this
number will be evaluated periodically.
R-19-162 Page 5
FISCAL IMPACT
Projects to implement the remaining FOSM recommendations will be included in the list of
proposed project priorities that the Board will consider as part of the March 3, 2020 Board
Priority Setting Retreat. Associated budgets of priority projects will be folded into the proposed
FY21 Budget and three-year CIAP for FY21 through FY23, which the Action Plan and Budget
Committee and full Board will consider in the Spring/Summer of 2020.
Staffing projections included in this report are educated estimates. New positions would be
recommended for Board approval as part of the annual Budget and Action Plan development
process after reconfirming the long-term affordability according to the Controller’s 30-year Cash
Flow Model.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
This item was brought directly to the full Board given full Board interest and importance.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This item is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
NEXT STEPS
On March 3, 2020, the Board will confirm the District-wide priorities for the upcoming fiscal
year. The outcomes of the December 9, 2019 and March 3, 2020 Board retreat meetings will
guide the development of the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget and Action Plan, including the 3-Year
CIAP.
Attachments:
1. FOSM Report
2. FOSM Implementation Status
Responsible Department Head:
Ana Ruiz, General Manager
Prepared by:
Carmen Narayanan, Budget & Analysis Manager
Stefan Jaskulak, Chief Financial Officer
Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager
Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager
Ana Ruiz, General Manager
Staff Contact:
Ana Ruiz, General Manager
May 2015
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Attachment 1
Attachment 1
1730 MADISON ROAD ͻ CINCINNATI, OH 45206 ͻ 513 861 5400 ͻ FAX 513 861 3480 MANAGEMENTPARTNERS.COM
2107 NORTH FIRST STREET, SUITE 470 ͻ SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95131 ͻ 408 437 5400 ͻ FAX 408 453 6191
3152 RED HILL AVENUE, SUITE 210 ͻ COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 ͻ 949 222 1082 ͻ FAX 408 453 6191
May 22, 2015
Mr. Steve Abbors
General Manager
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
Dear Mr. Abbors:
Management Partners is pleased to provide this report of Financial and Operational
Sustainability Model (FOSM) study. This report is the culmination of work completed over the
past nine months and reflects extensive learning, research and analysis, application of best
practices, and importantly, collaboration with the District to develop a preferred organization
structure that aligns functional responsibilities in a manner that ȱȱȂȱȱ
and Vision for the future. The analysis and recommendations contained in this report have been
reviewed with staff and were presented to the Board over the course of three public study
sessions (November, 2014 and January and March 2015).
We appreciate your collaboration and the collaboration of other individuals in the District
throughout this engagement. ȱȂ candor, energy and ideas for improvement were
helpful as we carried out this important work.
To assist with implementation, we are providing an Implementation Action Plan under separ ate
cover. The plan will identify key steps needed to complete each recommendation, the
individual who will be responsible, the estimated task time for completion as well as the
suggested priority (short-‐‑, medium-‐‑ or long-‐‑term). Nancy Hetrick and other members of the
Management Partners team remain available and committed to working with you and your
team as the District moves into the implementation phase of FOSM.
Sincerely,
Gerald E. Newfarmer
President and CEO
Attachment 1
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Table of Contents Management Partners
i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. 1
Three Sustainability Challenges ..................................................................................................... 1
Structure of the Report .................................................................................................................... 3
Key Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 5
Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 7
The Changing Environment of the District ....................................................................................... 10
Developing a Strategic Plan .......................................................................................................... 10
Developing a Vision Plan and Presenting Measure AA to Voters .......................................... 11
The Challenge of Measure AA Funding ..................................................................................... 11
Operating with Greater Public Visibility .................................................................................... 13
Introducing the FOSM ................................................................................................................... 14
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities ................................................................................... 15
Defining Sustainability .................................................................................................................. 15
Project Planning and Delivery ...................................................................................................... 15
Increased Pressure to Deliver Projects on Time and On Budget ............................................. 16
Establishing Clear Priorities for Staff ....................................................................................... 17
A New Project Delivery Approach ........................................................................................... 18
Project Management Systems and Tools .................................................................................. 21
Increasing Staff Capacity through Contractors ........................................................................ 23
Building a Dependable Engineering/Construction Management Function ............................ 24
Cultivating Collaboration and Partnerships ............................................................................ 24
Land and Property Acquisition .................................................................................................... 25
Operations ....................................................................................................................................... 27
District Growth Over the Last Ten Years ................................................................................ 27
Determining Operational Staffing Needs ................................................................................. 29
Modernizing How Workload is Managed................................................................................. 35
Operations Staff Deployment ................................................................................................... 36
Ranger Deployment .................................................................................................................. 38
Natural Resources Support to the District ............................................................................... 39
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Table of Contents Management Partners
ii
Field Office Challenges ............................................................................................................. 40
Planning for Facilities to Meet Operations Staff Expansion .................................................... 40
Management Support and Systems ............................................................................................. 41
Peer Comparison ....................................................................................................................... 42
Financial Management ............................................................................................................. 43
Purchasing ................................................................................................................................ 45
Information Technology and Systems....................................................................................... 46
Human Resources ..................................................................................................................... 49
Facility Management ................................................................................................................ 50
Document Management ........................................................................................................... 51
ȱȂ Office ......................................................................................................... 51
Office of the General Counsel ................................................................................................... 53
Building the Sustainable Organization Structure ............................................................................ 55
Guiding Principles ......................................................................................................................... 55
Organizational Design Strategic Objectives ............................................................................... 56
Organization Structure Options ................................................................................................... 56
Option 1 Ȯ Parallel Organization for Measure AA .................................................................. 58
Option 2 Ȯ Matrix Organization .............................................................................................. 59
Option 3 Ȯ Integrated Core Business Model............................................................................. 61
Staffing Projections......................................................................................................................... 65
Projections Methodology .......................................................................................................... 66
Projections ................................................................................................................................ 68
Financial Sustainability ......................................................................................................................... 71
Ȃȱȱ ........................................................................................................ 71
Model Stress Testing ...................................................................................................................... 73
Risk Factors ..................................................................................................................................... 74
Road Map to Implementation ............................................................................................................... 75
Change Management Strategy ..................................................................................................... 75
Planning ................................................................................................................................... 76
Defined Governance .................................................................................................................. 76
Committed Leadership .............................................................................................................. 77
Informed Stakeholders ............................................................................................................... 77
Aligned Workforce .................................................................................................................... 78
Phasing: How do we get started with these changes? ............................................................... 78
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 80
Attachment A Ȯ List of Recommendations ......................................................................................... 82
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Table of Contents Management Partners
iii
Tables
Acres of Owned and Managed Lands ............................................................................. 31
Peer Comparison of Ranger Staffing Levels and Responsibilities ............................ 32
Internal Support Staffing Among Peer Organizations ................................................ 43
Business Lines and Corresponding Departments ......................................................... 65
Workload Data Used for Scaling Ratios.......................................................................... 67
Staffing Model Projected Staffing Increases by Business Line ................................. 69
Summary of Key Assumptions of the Fiscal Model ..................................................... 72
Figures
Figure 1. Current and Projected Workload ...................................................................................... 12
Figure 2. Projected Cumulative Capital Expenditure with and without Measure AA ........... 13
Figure 3. Annual Capital Expenditure Projection for the District .............................................. 17
Figure 4. Cumulative Projected Capital Expenditures with and without Measure AA ......... 17
Figure 5. Ten-‐‑year History of District Acreage by Type ............................................................... 28
Figure 6. Ten-‐‑Year History of Operations Staffing Levels ........................................................... 28
Figure 7. Acres of District Land per Operations FTE .................................................................... 29
Figure 8. Miles of District Trails per Operations FTE ................................................................... 30
Figure 9. Percentage of Publically Accessible Land ...................................................................... 31
Figure 10. East Bay Regional Park District Pipeline Program ....................................................... 34
Figure 11. Maintenance Crew Hours by Responsibility Type for FY 2013-‐‑14 ............................ 37
Figure 12. Parallel Measure AA Structure ......................................................................................... 59
Figure 13. Matrix Measure AA Structure ........................................................................................... 61
Figure 14. Integrated Core Service Structure .................................................................................... 62
Figure 15. Planning and Project Delivery .......................................................................................... 63
Figure 16. Operations and Visitor Services ....................................................................................... 63
Figure 17. Finance and Administrative Support .............................................................................. 64
Figure 18. Office of the General Manager ......................................................................................... 64
Figure 19. Applied Scaling Criteria by Department ........................................................................ 66
Figure 20. Projected Staffing by Business Line ................................................................................ 69
Figure 21. Operational Expenses as Percentage of Tax Revenue .................................................. 73
Figure 22. Operational Expenses as Percentage of Tax Revenue With One Great
Recession ............................................................................................................................... 74
Attachment 1
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Executive Summary Management Partners
1
džĞĐƵƚŝǀĞ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJ
In 2014, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District)
adopted an ambitious 30 year Vision Plan based on extensive constituent
engagement and secured broad public support to implement the plan
with the passing of Measure AA. The initiative brings $300 million in
bond capacity to implement the planȂȱǯȱȱȱȱȂȱ
commitment to connect the public with an additional 47,000 acres of
preserve land and over 180 new miles of trails, and position the agency to
develop additional facilities to open new preserve areas for public
enjoyment, the agency chose to evaluate its structure, capacity, and
financial readiness. This has come to be referred to as the FOSM
(Financial and Operational Sustainability Model).
The growth in size, scale and impact of the District is significant. Every
dimension of District work must scale up in order to keep pace with
Vision Plan goals and the obligations that come with issuance of bonds.
Significant change is anticipated with the implementation of the Vision
Plan and this requires strategic thinking and thoughtful implementation.
The Financial and Operational Sustainability Model is a proactive effort
to address the changing demands on the organization. It is
unprecedented work that requires commitment, careful pacing, and a
deliberate change management process. Through FOSM the District is
committing to a strategic approach to planning for the future that:
x Anticipates change
x Is action-‐‑oriented
x Is necessarily dynamic and interactive
x Provides a framework that is scalable
x Allows for sustainable staffing in the short and long term
Three Sustainability Challenges
The Measure AA success provides additional revenue to the District for
capital projects that will increase public access to preserve land, enhance
habitat restoration, and increase the acreage of protected open space
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Executive Summary Management Partners
2
lands. ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȂȱ
mission, and the District will be challenged to accomplish more work
than it ever has. In the private sector, one might compare the District to a
ȃ-‐‑Ȅȱ¢ȱ ȱȱȱed venture capital funding. The
challenge for the organization is now to execute and grow its capabilities
to perform in an effective and efficient manner. The themes that emerged
ȱ¡ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȃ-‐‑Ȅȱȱ a
rapid increase in service demand. To meet the pace of unprecedented
growth, the District must solve three sustainability challenges:
1. Develop business and management information systems (i.e.,
maintenance, client, and project management systems);
2. Address the expectations and project demands created by the
success of Measure AA (i.e., tripling capital and acquisition
spending); and,
3. Gradually transform the DistrictȂs primary focus from acquisition
to new long-‐‑term operational responsibilities.
High-‐‑performing organizations share certain structure characteristics.
They are designed around outcomes, not individual specialties, and
reflect how the team is expected to work together. Such organizations are
structured with a clear chain of command but have an expectation of
horizontal teamwork to achieve desired outcomes. Finally, they create
boundary-‐‑crossing partnerships that encourage collaboration.
Through the lens of these effective organization concepts, Management
Partners developed a set of guiding principles unique to Midpeninsula
that provide a framework for organization alternatives. The guiding
principles reflect the unique challenges and opportunities facing the
organization and serve to guide and inform the implementation of FOSM
changes.
The recommendations contained in this report inform, reflect, and
accompany the change that has already begun at Midpeninsula. FOSM
requires a new way of doing business, including greater accountability,
investment in systems and tools, and a reporting structure that benefits
from clear lines of responsibility and functional alignment. At the same
time, FOSM maintains the existing culture of passion and teamwork and
is firmly grounded in the organizational values that make the District
special.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Executive Summary Management Partners
3
Structure of the Report
This reports reflects the results of seven months of collaborative work. In
the first section, Management Partners reviews the methodology used.
The process began with extensive outreach and engagement with staff.
This collaborative and iterative approach continued throughout as
observations were made and recommendations developed.
¡ǰȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȂȱȱǯȱ
Reflecting on these drivers provides context to the review of
organizational challenges and opportunities that follow.
In the Changing Environment section of this report we observe that as a
result of Vision Plan implementation, the District can plan to transition
over the course of the next few decades from an organization largely
focused on land acquisition to one focused on project delivery, and then
to one focused on operations and maintenance. Each step along this
continuum will require staffing adjustments and organizational change
and development. Short-‐‑term efforts to prepare for Vision Plan
implementation will largely be focused on staffing to ensure that project
delivery can be carried out with efficiency. And to ensure that policies are
developed so that operations and maintenance functions are being
appropriately built up as preserves are opened to the public and more
land is acquired, while also addressing current workload needs.
In the short term, implementation will require the District to focus more
heavily on capital improvement project delivery as it works to make more
lands publically accessible by constructing staging areas and trails. This
ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱ£Ȃȱǰȱ
construction, and project delivery functions, which will likely require
immediate support. Making District lands publically accessible will also
create long-‐‑term effects on visitor and field services which must be
ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȃȱȱ
Ȅȱȱs and insufficient capacity to manage an increasing
workload.
Following the Changing Environment, Management Partners reports on
the sustainability challenges and opportunities facing Midpeninsula. This
section of the report is organized by service area in the following manner:
x Planning and project delivery
x Land and property acquisition
x Operations
x Management support and systems
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Executive Summary Management Partners
4
Each section contains observations based on qualitative input and data
analysis and includes corresponding recommendations. The observations
have been reviewed with staff at all levels and presented to the Board in
earlier study sessions. The complete set of FOSM recommendations are
presented as Attachment A.
First and foremost, achievement of the Vision Plan and the obligations of
Measure AA put significant pressure to deliver projects as well as
additional expectations for transparency on the District. As a result of
Measure AA, the District will have to more regularly report how much
money has been spent and what tasks have been completed for the
various key projects. This expectation will require a significant
investment in business and management systems used to track projects
and their corresponding costs, as well as an investment in the staff
necessary to develop, implement, and monitor these systems. Setting up
and implementing these systems should be considered the first and
foremost priority to prepare for the full implementation of Measure AA.
ȱȱȱȱȱȂȱȱlong with the Skyline
and Foothills field offices are essentially at capacity. The District has been
waiting for the results of this FOSM study to inform the development of a
facilities plan that will lay out how District facilities will expand or be
reconfigured to allow for a robust staffing augmentation that will be
required as a result of Measure AA planning and implementation.
There is a tension within the organization between the need to focus on
program and project delivery and ongoing operations to sustain existing
and future infrastructure. This needs to be managed proactively.
Gradually adding operations staff and addressing the systems and facility
deficits in the near term, and creating a project delivery process that
systematically considers operational impacts early in the process, will
help alleviate this tension.
Supporting employees with the significant organization changes in
mission and structure will be as important as getting project delivery
right. Thinking about and creating a strategy to supply employees with
the resources they need to do the work, regular communication regarding
ȱ¢Ȃȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ¢ȱ
celebrating milestones, will allow the agency to deliver results and
maintain the momentum over the long term. Due to the 30-‐‑year time
horizon of the Vision Plan, the agency will continue to evolve and shift to
respond to the changing needs. To sustain the work necessary to connect
the public to open space areas and improve access to lands, succession
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Executive Summary Management Partners
5
ȱ ȱ¢ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ¢Ȃȱacity to meet
these ongoing commitments to citizens.
Key Recommendations
The recommendations presented in this report will begin a process of
organizational change that will fundamentally alter the operating
environment within the District. More specifically, the funding attached
to Measure AA and the implementation of the Vision Plan will prompt:
x A balanced organizational focus on public access and education,
restoration, and continuing acquisition of land
x Greater attention to visitor services and customer engagement
x Focus on project delivery and greater pressure to complete
projects on time and under budget
x Stronger commitment to transparency in efforts to report Measure
AA funding usage
x Scaled up operation with significantly more employees and more
contracts to manage
x Structural reorganization of district functions
Management Partners developed guiding principles in conjunction with
Ȃȱ¡ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
organization models. These principles and the model options that were
explored are contained in the report section that follows the sustainability
challenges and opportunities: Building a Sustainable Organization
ǯȱȱȂȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ
resulted in a preferred model referred to as the Integrate Core Services
Model. The model has been reviewed with staff at all levels and received
Board input during its January 28 study session. Key components of this
model include:
x Alignment of finance and administrative services within a single
department under the leadership of a CFO/Administrative
Services Director
x Centralization of information systems and technology under an
IST manager that reports to the CFO
x Formation of an Engineering and Construction department that
together with Planning and Real Property reports to a single
Assistant General Manager
x Splitting of the Operations department into two to address greater
demand for visitor services, growth, and increases in District
assets that require regular, ongoing maintenance
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Executive Summary Management Partners
6
x Alignment of the new Visitor Services and Land and Facilities
departments with the Natural Resources department under a
single Assistant General Manager
x Moving of ȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȂȱȱ
to leverage the capacity and resources it provides District-‐‑wide
Also as part of the Building a Sustainable Organization Structure section,
Management Partners offers staffing projections by major service area.
These are based on criteria established using data obtained from the
District and current workload ratios. The projections demonstrate
anticipated growth in the near term (next five years) and long-‐‑term (30
years). Management Partners recommends the District periodically and
systematically re-‐‑evaluate these projections over time. The Board will
have an opportunity to assess organizational staffing needs through
annual budget requests made by the General Manager.
In light of the staffing projections, Management Partners conducted a
ȱȱȱȱȂȱrobust fiscal model to determine the
reasonableness of its assumptions and the ability for the organization to
increase staff at the rate that is projected. Based on the stress test and the
conservative nature of the assumptions built into the model, Management
Partners concluded the District is well-‐‑positioned to fund its anticipated
growth.
The changes proposed through FOSM will not happen easily and must
take time. The FOSM report contains 60 recommendations. Just as the
process to identify these recommendations was thoughtful, engaging, and
evolutionary, so must the implementation process be deliberate, adaptive,
and paced to reflect and adjust to the changing environment. The Road
Map for Implementation provides a framework for moving forward. In
addition, the District -‐‑ with Management PartnersȂ support -‐‑ will develop
implementation plans that detail the steps that must be taken, the
resources that will be required, and the individuals responsible for
ensuring successful completion.
Management Partners looks forward to continuing to support
Midpeninsula on its inspired journey. This is a time of great opportunity.
The organization is filled with smart, capable, and committed people who
believe in the work they do and with the right tools and support will
carry Midpeninsula successfully into the future.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Methodology Management Partners
7
DĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐLJ
Management Partners began work on the Financial and Operational
Sustainability Model (FOSM) with a thoughtful and engaging learning
phase. The firm reviewed extensive background information related to
services and functions of the District along with information specific to
the Vision Plan and Measure AA priority projects. We administered a
benchmarking survey of peer agencies to obtain insight on the
organization structure, staffing, and practices of similar organizations
and conducted extensive employee engagement, including a day-‐‑long
field tour hosted by department staff.
The peer survey included agencies with similarities to the District. Peers
were selected based on their mission, assets (such as preserves, trail
services and total acres), total expenditures, and organization size. Of the
seven agencies contacted, five responded including the East Bay Regional
Park District, Marin County Parks and Open Space, Santa Clara County
Parks and Recreation Department, and Boulder County Parks and Open
Space and Jefferson County Open Space, Colorado. This review included
an assessment of best practices used by the other agencies that may be
applicable to the District.
More than 25 District employees participated in individual interviews,
including members of the leadership team and staff responsible for
various District programs. All District employees were offered an
opportunity to provide input and 60 frontline staff participated in five
focus groups. An additional large group interview was offered to those
who were unable to participate in earlier discussions. Our team also
joined District field staff in a dawn to dusk tour of the Ȃȱȱ
and facilities. To aid in information collection and understanding,
Management Partners met with teams of agency experts on specific topics
including: Measure AA Project Group, Operational Impact Group,
Capital Projects Group, Acquisitions Group, Coastal and Grazing Group,
and the Financial Modeling Group. Finally, we conducted several
ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȂȱȱ
information technology systems and capabilities.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Methodology Management Partners
8
In interviews, discussions focused on Ȃȱ ǰȱ Ȃȱ working,
and what needs improvement to build a sustainable organization and implement
the MAA projects. It is clear that employees working for the District
ȱȱȱ¢Ȃȱȱȱȱȱǯȱȱȱ
individual and group we met with clearly communicated their
ȱȱȱ¢Ȃȱȱȱǯȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱȱȱ ȱȱ¢Ȃȱȱȱȱȱ
building a high performing organization. The District has successfully
accomplished this component of organizational sustainability. As we
probed deeper, other themes emerged that are typical of agencies in the
midst of rapid growth. These themes are explored throughout the report.
The data collection phase provided the substance to construct a
framework to evaluate the organization models. To do this, we created
guiding principles, strategic objectives, ȱȱȱ¢Ȃȱ¢ȱ
services areas. With these tools, the Management PartnersȂ team spent
November 2014 through January 2015 reviewing comparable agency
organization models and designing a variety of organization structure
alternatives. Each model reflects a sustainable strategy to build agency
capacity in the following areas:
x Administrative Systems;
x Program and Project Delivery;
x Delivery of the Vision Plan Ȯ Measure AA Projects; and
x Change and Adaptation.
This process was highly iterative and involved collaboration with the
Executive Team, Controller, and department managers as the three
organization options evolved. The Board of Directors received a briefing
regarding this information at a Study Session on January 28, 2015.
Next, Management Partners tested Ȃȱfiscal model. We
found that the assumptions built into the current fiscal model support the
staffing projections anticipated of the recommended structure. Even with
the inclusion of a major future recession, similar to the Great Recession of
2008, MidpeninsulaȂ expenditures do not exceed revenues until 2043.
The test showed there is ample time to make financial adjustments and
respond should such a downturn occur again. Moreover, MidpeninsulaȂȱ
history of conservative revenue and expenditures assumptions along
with the pattern of spending less than budgeted each year, provides
further assurance of sustainability. Finally, the financial model includes a
ȃ-‐‑Ȅȱȱȱȱȱȱ¡ȱ ȱ
correspondingly decrease.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Methodology Management Partners
9
Lastly, the FOSM included the development of ratios or multipliers to
provide a system to calculate additional staff needs based on workload
growth over time within the preferred organization structure. The
criteria reflect a cȱȱȱȱȱȂȱpast
performance. As such, the criteria are different across the array of
department and divisions. For Visitor Services and Land and Facilities
Services, the number of miles of trail was used. For Planning,
Engineering and Construction, and Natural Resources, the number of
projects provides a meaningful calculation. We relied on staff ratios to
calculate internal service department needs. Despite the lack of available
models, staff projections for Real Property, Public Affairs, and the
ȱȂȱȱȱȱȱȱǯȱ
Management Partners worked closely with Midpeninsula throughout this
engagement utilizing the Executive Team and an internal project team
structure to inform understanding, test assumptions, and affirm
ǯȱȱȂȱȱproject team consisted of
managers in addition to a couple of key staff. In addition, Management
Partners briefed all staff and the Board in open public session as major
milestones in the engagement were achieved. Study session check-‐‑ins
with the Board occurred in November 2014, and January and March 2015.
The positive working relationship developed between Midpeninsula and
Management Partners over the past seven months continues as work
shifts into implementation.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
The Changing Environment of the District Management Partners
10
dŚĞŚĂŶŐŝŶŐ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ
As a result of a 1972 voter initiative, the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District was established to preserve the regional greenbelt in
northwestern Santa Clara County. Since then, through a number of
ȱȱǰȱȱȂȱȱ¡ȱȱȱ
significant portions of San Mateo County and a small portion of Santa
Cruz County.
With a determined focus on preservation, the District spent the
subsequent decades building a network of open space preserves with
diverse ecosystems. Its preserves include redwood, oak, and fir forests,
chaparral-‐‑covered hillsides, riparian corridors, grasslands, and wetlands.
Up until the last few years, the District remained steadfastly oriented
around its foundational goal of preservation, with a special emphasis on
land acquisition and environmental restoration.
Developing a Strategic Plan
In September 2011, the Board adopted the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District Strategic Plan. The plan signaled a policy shift from an
overriding focus on acquisition to a balanced focus on all three legs of the
mission Ȯ acquisition, restoration, and public access/education, marking a
considerable shift in organizational priorities for employees. With the
Strategic Plan, the organization began to place greater focus on
developing its preserves and introducing the necessary infrastructure to
facilitate public access, such as parking lots, restrooms, and other staging
area amenities.
ȱȃȱ¢ȱȱȄȱ ȱȱȱ£Ȃȱ
mission, the Strategic Plan also presented the District as a much more
outwardly focused organization. The plan acknowledged a need to better
ȱȱȱ ȱȱȂȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ
establishing three core goals:
1. Promote and establish a common conservation vision with partner
agencies
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
The Changing Environment of the District Management Partners
11
2. Connect people to open space and a regional vision
3. Strengthen financial and staffing resources to fulfill the mission
ȱǰȱȱȂȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
trajectory of the organization and provided the foundation for the Vision
Plan and Measure AA.
Developing a Vision Plan and Presenting Measure AA to Voters
ȱȱ£Ȃȱȱȱȱȱȱǰȱthe
District embarked on a subsequent effort in 2012 to develop a long-‐‑term
organizational vision that reflects the interests and needs of its
communities and partners. The Vision Plan became a major priority for
the District as it realized a need to build alignment and understandin g
with its major stakeholders and create an informed public.
Over an 18-‐‑month period, 2,200 participants provided input in the design
of a roadmap for future District work. Although the organization had
historically focused its attention on conservation and restoration of
preserves, the 2014 Vision Plan built off the strategic plan and articulated
a number of specific ȱȱȱȱȱȱȂȱȱ
acres to the public by developing staging areas, trails, appropriate
signage, and other amenities.
To fund these projects, the District presented Measure AA, a $300 million
general obligation bond measure, to voters in June 2014. The bond
measure was approved by over two-‐‑thirds of voters, authorizing the
District to use Measure AA funding to support four major goal areas:
x Protecting natural open space lands
x Opening preserves or areas of preserves that are currently closed
x Constructing public access improvements such as new trails and
staging areas
x Restoring and enhancing open space land, including forest,
streams, watersheds, and coastal ranch areas
The Challenge of Measure AA Funding
The success of Measure AA will give the District the financial resources to
fully implement its long-‐‑term Vision Plan. While it represents a major
infusion of ȱȱȱȱȂȱ, it will entail a
dramatic increase in workload, especially in the area of project delivery
and construction.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
The Changing Environment of the District Management Partners
12
Figure 1 shows the dramatic growth in anticipated land and trails that
will require conservation, restoration, and access based on the 2014
Vision Plan. Publicly accessible miles of trail is anticipated to nearly
double from 230 to over 400 miles, while land acreage will grow from
62,300 to more than 100,000 acres.
Figure 1. Current and Projected Workload
Figure 2 ȱȱȂȱȱ¡ȱȱȱ¡ȱřŖȱ¢ȱ
based on its current work plan, with and without Vision Plan projects
funded through Measure AA. The work plan that includes Measure AA
proposes $603 million in capital expenditures by 2044, which essentially
ȱȱȂȱǰȱ-‐‑Measure AA work plan projections.
These statistics are particularly important because the District has
historically expended only about 50 to 70% of its planned annual capital
expenditure budget, meaning that even without Measure AA funding,
the District has been challenged to meet capital expenditure
commitments each year.
62,300
230
283
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
Mi
l
e
s
T
r
a
i
l
s
Ac
r
e
s
o
f
L
a
n
d
Acres of Land Miles of Trail
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
The Changing Environment of the District Management Partners
13
Figure 2. Projected Cumulative Capital Expenditure with and without Measure AA
ȱȱȱȱȂȱȱ can be drawn from the private
sector. Oȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȃ-‐‑Ȅȱ¢ȱ ȱ
has just secured substantial venture capital funding. The District has
traditionally described itself as a small organization whose success has
been built from the expertise and success of its high-‐‑performing
employees. The challenge for the organization is now to execute and
grow its capabilities to perform in an effective and efficient manner.
Operating with Greater Public Visibility
Prior to the Strategic Plan, District staff felt they operated in a space that
was less visible to the public. Despite compliance with all Brown Act
requirements, without a mission focused around public access and
education, much of the preservation work has been pursued with little
public input and minimal public attendance at Board meetings.
The Strategic Plan, Vision Plan, and Measure AA each solicited public
outreach above and beyond what is required and memorialized the
Ȃȱȱfor greater access to preserves, causing the
£Ȃȱ¢ȱȱ ȱamatically over the past several years.
As for the future, District staff understands that public expectations will
only continue to grow, especially as more preserves are developed for
public access.
603.23
275.44
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
(
$
)
Total Cumulative Capital Expenditure
Total Cumulative Capital Expenditure -‐ Without MAA
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
The Changing Environment of the District Management Partners
14
Introducing the FOSM
The District engaged Management Partners to help develop a strategy to
give current employees the tools and resources they need to effectively
absorb this added workload and successfully implement the Vision Plan
projects in a way that supports long-‐‑term organizational sustainability.
Every recommendation incorporated into this FOSM report has emerged
from this fundamental question: what changes need to occur in the short
and long term to prepare the District for the significant and urgent
pressure exerted by Measure AA funding and the Vision Plan project
schedule?
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
15
^ƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚLJŚĂůůĞŶŐĞƐĂŶĚKƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚŝĞƐ
The Financial and Operational and Sustainability Model (FOSM) is a
strategic and deliberate approach to manage how the District plans to
grow over the next several decades. This section of the report presents the
major challenges and opportunities around organizational sustainability
with a focus on core District functions, including project planning and
delivery, land and property acquisition, operations, and management
support and systems.
Defining Sustainability
Because the term sustainability can carry different meanings for different
individuals, it is worth clarifying what is meant by the term in this report.
For the FOSM, sustainability implies an organizational commitment to
ȱȃȱȱǰȄȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ ȱ
towards two key forms of sustainability, including:
x Economic sustainability: the District must be financially viable in
the long-‐‑term
x Organizational sustainability: the District must build an optimal
organizational structure that supports high quality performance
and results in the long-‐‑term
Committing to a double bottom line strategy involves assessing risks and
ȱȱȱ£Ȃȱȱȱǰȱ¢ȱ ¢ȱȱ
build staff capacity across the organization, and engaging in systems
thinking at a macro-‐‑level. The FOSM approach outlined in this report
identifies both short and long term recommendations involving strategic
investments in organizational resources and staffing, as well as structural
changes to better align complementary functions and achieve greater
efficiencies.
Project Planning and Delivery
The implementation of tȱȂȱȱȱand the additional
funding from Measure AA will have a significant impact on how District
projects are managed and delivered. The implementation of the Vision
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
16
Plan and Measure AA will require a significant shift in priorities for staff.
For decades the District has been focused around preservation and
acquisition, which are long-‐‑term endeavors that require persistent follow-‐‑
up, but take time to materialize. Over 60% of the projects listed in the
five-‐‑year work plan for Measure AA (dated March 25, 2015) result in
greater public access to District lands, meaning the District will be more
focused on project delivery of public access projects (building staging
areas and trails) than it has been in the past. A greater focus on public
access project delivery requires staff to operate under more short-‐‑term
time horizons and with greater transparency to the public. This transition
will require District staff in every department and function to cultivate
new skill sets, but more importantly, the transition will require an
organizational culture shift that embraces realistic work planning and
holds staff accountable for completing projects on time and on budget.
More specifically, the organization will have to be more diligent in
monitoring project milestones and holding staff accountable for results,
while managing a more robust workload.
Increased Pressure to Deliver Projects on Time and On Budget
Measure AA projects will be funded through a combination of tax exempt
and taxable bonds. For projects funded through tax exempt bonds issued
under Measure AA, the District must show a reasonable expectation of
spending 85% of bond proceeds within the three-‐‑year period following
each bond issuance. This means that the District must reasonably
schedule sufficient Measure AA project work and allocate an average of
$10 million of corresponding project spending per year over 30 years in
Measure AA capital spending. Moreover, in addition to Measure AA
capital projects, the District will also be carrying out capital projects that
are not supported by Measure AA. Figure 3 shows projected annual
expenditures for capital projects that will be implemented as part of
Measure AA and those that are expected to come from alternative
funding sources. Figure 4 shows the cumulative projected capital
expenditures with and without Measure AA, which effectively conveys
the magnitude of additional project delivery work that will be required
over the next 30 years. ȱȂȱ¢ȱȱeet the challenge of
Measure AA in the area of project delivery will depend on a number of
changes to its organizational systems and culture.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
17
Figure 3. Annual Capital Expenditure Projection for the District
Source: Financial forecast provided by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Controller.
Figure 4. Cumulative Projected Capital Expenditures with and without Measure AA
Source: Financial forecast provided by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Controller.
Establishing Clear Priorities for Staff
Based on the forecasted increase in project delivery work and
expectations, establishing clear priorities and maintaining a focus on
these priorities will be essential as employees aim to successfully carry
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
In
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
Total CAPEX Non MAA CAPEX
MAA CAPEX Linear (Non MAA CAPEX)
Linear (MAA CAPEX)
0
50
100
150
200
250
In
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
CUMM TOTAL CAPEX CUMM NON MAA CAPEX
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
18
out this work. Historically, the District has been able to execute only 55%
to 74% of its capital improvement projects annually.
Across the District, staff reported that projects are often placed on hold
due to changing priorities, often times resulting in reworking the plans
when the project is picked up again. This practice appears to be woven
ȱȱȂȱ to respond as Board priorities shift and
opportunities emerge. In order to create a more mature organization with
systems capable of managing a more expansive project delivery
workload, the District will have to first learn to commit to its short and
long terms plans and create priorities that are more consistent over time.
Recommendation 1. Develop mechanisms that
periodically clarify and reinforce organizational
priorities for staff, so that work can be planned and
managed in alignment with those priorities. Such
mechanisms include annual or semi-‐‑annual Board
workshops that present progress toward existing District
priorities, solicit feedback from Board members on how
future priorities should change or evolve, and importantly,
communicate tradeoffs that must occur if priorities shift or
new priorities are added.
Recommendation 2. Develop a communication strategy
to regularly provide information updates to the Board
and public regarding project progress and results, and
promote transparency to build public trust. This will also
supply the Board of Directors with key messages and
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȃȱȄȱ¢ȱ
issues and Board-‐‑approved priorities to empower the
General Manager to focus on the implementation of the
Ȃȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Board priorities midstream.
A New Project Delivery Approach
Balancing the broadened mission generates a sense of urgency and
creates pressure to deliver more projects. The Vision Plan and Measure
AA increase visibility of District projects. There will be greater public
interest around spending and greater need to monitor the number of
projects being delivered. As such, to respond to the urgency and
pressure, the District will need to add capacity (people, expertise,
services) in the area of project planning and delivery to meet the
increased demands.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
19
The District lacks an established, uniform, and shared project delivery
approach that is shared among all project managers. Without a path for
project delivery from inception to completion, it is unlikely the District
will keep pace with the added workload.
Currently, project delivery teams are organized on an ad-‐‑hoc basis.
ȱȱȱȱȱȃcradle to graveȄ approach where the
project planner develops the preliminary project, design and follows
through with construction management. This model for project delivery
is appropriate for a small-‐‑scale organization with a limited number of
projects. Scaling up project delivery efforts to match Vision Plan
commitments requires a strategic approach that increases staff efficiency
and leverages their abilities by assembling project teams and dividing the
workload in accordance to staff skill and expertise.
Heightening efficiency of project delivery will require comprehensive
project planning to assess the departments, divisions and contractors
working to move the project forward. A comprehensive project delivery
approach requires staff to delineate project scope, cost, schedule, staffing,
staff capacity, risk factors, goals and objectives, third party agreements,
regulatory issues, public input, and project owners through the life of the
project, along with the appropriate ownership hand-‐‑off points. Critical to
this approach is the fact that the project leader will change over the life of
the project.
Building a comprehensive approach to project delivery requires that a
project team is formed at the start with designated leads to carry specific
phases of the project through to completion. Each project lead transfers
responsibility for project management at the completion of their phase of
implementation (i.e., from a lead in project planning to a lead in
engineering and construction). Each project team member remains
involved through to the end. This approach ensures each department or
ȱȃ Ȅȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
delivers a fixed set of services while ensuring that institutional and
technical project knowledge is retained and accessible throughout the life
of the project. In this way, the project ownership belongs to the team,
rather than an individual.
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȂȱȱ
process, as it:
1. Retains a high degree of organizational collaboration. The
comprehensive review of the projects from start to finish requires
that representatives from all departments involved in the project
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
20
from start to finish are at the table in the initial planning phase.
Project owners are clearly identified along with their respective
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȂȱȱ¢ǯȱȱ
2. Promotes clear and continuous communications throughout the
Ȃȱȱ¢ǯ The comprehensive approach allows for
ȱȃ-‐‑Ȅȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱanother lead, with
clear communication of roles and responsibilities to facilitate
effective and efficient decision-‐‑making. Communications
horizontally as well as vertically within the organization are
needed to ensure successful delivery of the project.
3. Improves quality and quantity of information exchanged. The
comprehensive approach to project delivery improves the quality
and quantity of information exchanged throughout the
organization on a given project. This allows team members to
anticipate and incorporate the project responsibilities in their
individual work plans. More importantly, establishing a shared
understanding of the project, owners, timing, and roles and
responsibilities reduces reprioritization of work, improves the
focus on project management, and ensures alignment amongst all
project team members.
4. Mobilizes problem-‐‑solving and trouble-‐‑shooting resources. The
comprehensive approach to project delivery assembles a cadre of
problem-‐‑solving and trouble-‐‑shooting resources led by a technical
expert that has the greatest experience and knowledge during that
particular phase of work to facilitate problem-‐‑solving. Delivering
projects comes with anticipated and unanticipated issues. This
approach provides adaptive and responsive resources to problem
solving related to scope, budget and scheduling and puts projects
back on course. Designing project solutions also has the benefit of
potentially leveraging lessons learned from concurrent and past
work.
5. Empowers employees. Higȱȱ£ȱȃȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱ¢ǯȄȱȱȱ-‐‑making authority
vested in the project delivery team, problem solving happens
within its members. If an organization depends on one person or
even a limited number of individuals to make organizational
decisions, projects stop and the backlog of work grows and
undermines the overall work plan of an organization.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
21
Recommendation 3. Convene internal stakeholders to
develop a refined, comprehensive project delivery
approach that ensures proper oversight, clarity of roles,
prioritization, predictability, and follow-‐‑through. Such
an approach should move away from a generalist model
with a single project manager carrying the project through
to completion to a team-‐‑based, specialist model that
enables multiple technical experts to move the project
forward.
To illustrate the benefits of a specialist model, it is worth exploring how
the District currently manages the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) review process and how the process would be affected by a more
comprehensive project delivery approach. Currently, the District lacks a
uniform environmental review process to inform project management
and project delivery and ensure consistency. This can create project
¢ȱȱǰȱȱȱȱȃȱȱ Ȅȱ
whenever a new review is required. Without a uniform process, project
managers may not anticipate all steps involved in CEQA review and
underestimate the time it takes to complete the process and/or
incorporate mitigation measures that differ for very similar projects.
Recommendation 4. Integrate specialized functions,
such as CEQA review, that play a critical role in project
¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȂȱȱ
delivery approach and identify procedural changes and
methods of centralization that lead to greater consistency
and efficiencies Another area ripe for this type of
centralization and specialization is contract administration
for certain functions such as trail and staging area
construction, habitat restoration, etc.
Project Management Systems and Tools
ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǰȱ ȱ
general agreement that staff incorporate more projects into their annual
work plans than can be successfully managed with current resources.
Changing the current District project management dynamic will require a
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ£Ȃȱȱȱȱ
institutionalizing new practices for developing project budgets and work
plans and holding staff accountable to project milestones.
Staff reported that each employee relies on their own approach to
managing a project. This leads to inconsistent project management and
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
22
delivery in the organization. It also makes internal accountability
unrealistic and reduces the likelihood of timely project delivery.
Elements of successful project management structures include: defined
project scope, timeline and milestones, project participants, clearly
defined roles and responsibilities, identification of anticipated barriers or
challenges along with corresponding strategies to overcome them, and a
mechanism to alert team members when the project veers off course to
allow for timely problem solving and course correction.
Lack of project management tools and systems severely impact Measure
AA planning, accountability and decision making at both the
ȱȱ¢ȱǯȱȱ¢ǰȱȱȂȱȱȱ
and action plans are recorded, stored, and monitored differently across
the organization. Many managers are leading projects without clear and
measureable milestones to which they are held accountable and without a
clear understanding of the resources necessary to carry out the work.
Comprehensive and integrated project management tools understood
and accessible across the organization will provide the platform from
which information, decision-‐‑making, and accountability will flow.
Without such tools, projects will continue to lack a formal project
structure that would otherwise ensure on-‐‑time/under-‐‑budget project
completion.
Currently, project budgets that are assembled to inform work planning
do not accurately or consistently account for the total cost of project
delivery, including staff time and indirect costs associated with
administrative support functions and organizational overhead. Without
documented direct and indirect costs, it is impossible to create a
prioritized work plan that realistically considers the capacity of existing
staff and the availability of organizational resources.
The lack of an organization-‐‑wide uniform project management system
also diminishes the ability for individuals and different groups across the
organization to review, monitor, and document project budgets and
action plans. This has a negative effect on the organization in a number
of ways. Without a project management system, many managers are
leading projects without a detailed project schedule that includes
measureable milestones to which they are accountable, and without a
clear understanding of the resources necessary to get the work done. The
District is currently looking at Projector as a project management tool to
integrate with the finance and accounting system, New World System. As
the organization expands its workload and it becomes necessary to more
frequently report on the status of projects, more uniformity in project
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
23
management will create efficiencies within the organization and work
groups or individual staff members will no longer have to look for their
own solution.
Recommendation 5. Complete a comprehensive
requirements analysis and establish a plan to procure
and implement a uniform Project Management System.
The District is currently evaluating the implementation of
a project management system to improve management
and reporting of project schedules, budgets, milestone, etc.
The District should ensure that clear requirements exist
and vendor solutions are accurately mapped against those
requirements. The system should incorporate agreed-‐‑
upon formal project planning elements such as the creation
of a documented project purpose and scope, resource
requirements, timeline, success criteria, etc.
Recommendation 6. Develop a consistent format for
project budgets using a procured project management
system that informs work planning and accounts for the
total cost of project delivery, including staff time and
indirect costs associated with administrative support
functions and organizational overhead.
Increasing Staff Capacity through Contractors
The increase in the number of District projects over the next several
decades will require more people and additional expertise, both of which
can be made available to the District if it solicits qualified contractors who
can assist in the short and long term. Adding to short-‐‑term staff capacity
by developing an ongoing list of qualified contracts, including planning,
engineering, construction, and project delivery firms, is considered a best
practice and should be pursued immediately. This is particularly essential
as the number and variety of capital improvement projects expands as
Measure AA funding is made available.
Recommendation 7. Expand the list of pre-‐‑approved,
on-‐‑call consultants and contractors that can be available
to support the District in its planning, engineering,
construction, and project delivery functions. An
expanded list that includes services beyond the current
available on-‐‑call list of biological and hazardous materials
experts will give the District greater flexibility and
through-‐‑put by having a ready team of outside experts
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
24
available to support all aspects of project delivery and
remain in compliance with District policy and state law
regarding contractor selection processes. Board approval
of an on-‐‑call list of experts for not-‐‑to-‐‑exceed contract
amounts will streamline the hiring process and allow staff
to quickly retain the necessary services as needs arise.
Recommendation 8. Review current contracting/bidding
policies/practices to identify opportunities to streamline
these policies/practices.
Building a Dependable Engineering/Construction
Management Function
The 2014 Vision Plan calls for an increase in the number of projects that
will involve engineering and construction services. Creating a
professional, on-‐‑staff engineering capability and increasing the existing
construction project management capability would allow the District to
efficiently and effectively oversee and manage such projects.
As the District focuses more on project delivery, the need for in-‐‑house
engineering and construction management staff capacity will grow. More
specifically, the planning function should not be burdened with the
responsibility of overseeing the execution of projects. An engineering and
construction unit, with expertise in project delivery, should be
responsible for design and construction. Such a transition will require not
only additional staff but a restructuring of the organization as well.
Recommendation 9. Create an Engineering and
Construction Department and hire an Engineering and
Construction Manager to oversee the following project
delivery functions: design, permitting and engineering;
construction management; and Measure AA project
delivery oversight. This department will report to the
Assistant General Manager for Project Planning and
Delivery. Initially, staffing would be minimal as the
Engineering and Construction Manager would manage a
small team of project managers and be responsible for
managing consultant project managers/inspectors.
Cultivating Collaboration and Partnerships
The District has been challenged to meet project timelines due to lengthy
reviews by outside permitting agencies. A number of projects that will be
implemented as part of Measure AA will require a strong partnership
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
25
with agencies that provide additional regulatory review such as San
Mateo County. A more careful consideration of the time it takes to
complete the permitting process should be taken into account when
formulating project budgets.
Recommendation 10. Meet with local jurisdictions to
discuss opportunities to improve the permit processing
time associated with certain types of permits.
Land and Property Acquisition
The project planning and delivery process often begins with the
acquisition of land. The success of the Vision Plan as funded by Measure
AA depends partly ȱȱȂȱ¢ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ ȱ
land and property. This work is important and time consuming, and
requires a deliberate approach with criteria and strategies that guide and
inform the process.
Land acquisition is becoming more complicated and difficult to manage
as time passes. Newly acquired assets are less pristine, with structures
that need rehabilitation or demolition, remediation to resolve
contamination issues, tenants that need services and monitoring, along
with natural resource management needs. Such purchases require more
staff time in the pre-‐‑purchasing period as well as additional site
evaluations prior to purchase. Measure AA will require a strategic focus
on land acquisition, despite these challenges.
Over the past six years, Real Property staff have assisted with District-‐‑
wide projects including the Strategic Plan, Vision Plan and Measure AA.
These efforts have left the small acquisitions team with less capacity to
pursue strategic land purchases. With the results of these planning efforts
now in place, the time is right to establish additional guidance beyond the
Vision Plan priorities to further inform the land acquisition strategy and
to better assess the long term management and maintenance
requirements, costs, and potential liabilities that may accompany new
purchases (i.e., existing tenants/uses, condition of property
improvements, known contaminants) to further inform the decision
making process. The design of a property acquisition plan provides a
strategic framework with defined policies and goals.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
26
Recommendation 11. Create a Property Acquisitions Plan
that clearly communicates District acquisition policies
and goals that provides a road map for strategic land
acquisition. The Plan should reflect the Board-‐‑approved
Vision Plan priorities and communicate internal processes
and a system for assessing short-‐‑term and long-‐‑term
maintenance and management requirements, costs, and
potential liabilities for new properties.
The Real Property department currently has responsibility for managing
leases and tenants as a result of acquisition efforts. The District maintains
lease agreements for residential homes, horse stable operations, wineries,
communication towers, agricultural property, and grazing. This
responsibility is time-‐‑intensive and pulls Real Property staff from
proactive acquisition efforts.
Operations staff is often involved in supporting this work. Operations
staff is responsible for responding to work order requests that involve
maintenance of leased land and buildings, securing properties,
monitoring tenant compliance with lease terms in the field, and alerting
both the tenant and the Real Property group when violations are
observed. Based on how the District delivers property management
services, relocating this function will promote better alignment. Bringing
all District staff involved in management and day to day operations of the
lease agreements will improve information flow, problem solving, and
service delivery. Moving responsibility for ongoing property
management activities to a new Land and Field Services Department
where the responsibility for facilities resides will free up staff time for this
purpose.
Recommendation 12. Restructure the Real Property
function to focus on land and property acquisition, and
move the property management function to a Facilities
division in the new Land and Field Services Department.
This shift will allow Real Property staff to focus more
specifically on pre-‐‑acquisition assessments, strategic
acquisition, and the development of appropriate lease
agreements, and Land and Field Services will monitor
lease agreements and work with the rest of the operations
team to ensure District assets are well maintained and
cared for.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
27
Operations
As the District transitions from an organization focused on land
preservation to one with a balanced mission directed toward
preservation, restoration, and public access, it will need to reconsider
how it manages and deploys its operational resources. A preserve that is
open to the public, for example, will absorb more staff capacity in terms
of maintenance and patrol functions than one that is closed to the public.
The District must plan for this as it begins opening more of its closed
preserves for public access. Moreover, the expanded Measure AA capital
improvement program will exert tremendous pressure on both District
rangers and maintenance staff as the number of assets to patrol and
maintain grow over the next 30 years. Such an expansion in existing
workload will require a restructuring of current operations, a
modernization of how workload is managed and monitored, a
reassessment of how resources are deployed, and a careful consideration
of how facilities ought to expand.
District Growth Over the Last Ten Years
ȱȂȱ¡ȱȱȱȱȱ¢ has been impressive. As
indicated in Figure 5, acres closed to the public have expanded from
16,787 in 2004 to 29,479 in 2014, while the number of acres open to the
public have remained relatively constant during the same period. In fact,
nearly all expansion over the last ten years has been driven by the
acquisition of lands that remain closed to the public. This rapid growth in
ȱȱȱȱȂȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
preservation.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
28
Figure 5. Ten-‐‑year History of District Acreage by Type
Source: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Operations Department.
Figure 6 presents a ten-‐‑year history of staffing levels within the
Operations department by type of staff. The numbers of both patrol staff
and maintenance staff have been steadily rising over the last ten years. As
Measure AA is implemented and more preserves are opened for public
access, the District must strategically invest in operational staffing
resources in the long term (see section on Staffing Projections). How the
district should approach this investment, what factors it should consider
when developing new positions, and how it should structure the work of
these employees, is explored throughout this section of the report.
Figure 6. Ten-‐‑Year History of Operations Staffing Levels
Source: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Operations Department.
27,148 27,154 27,182 27,185 27,186 27,291 27,574 27,591 27,591
27,59127,591
16,787
17,939
22,333 23,177
24,559 25,478
26,445 27,196 27,739
29,47929,479
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
22,000
24,000
26,000
28,000
30,000
32,000
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Ac
r
e
s
Open Acres Closed Acres
26.3 27.8 28.8
30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 31.3
33.3
19.0
21.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 23.0 23.0 23.0
25.0 25.0 25.0
10
15
20
25
30
35
FY 2004-‐
05
FY 2005-‐
06
FY 2006-‐
07
FY 2007-‐
08
FY 2008-‐
09
FY 2009-‐
10
FY 2010-‐
11
FY 2011-‐
12
FY 2012-‐
13
FY 2013-‐
14
FY 2014-‐
15
Fu
l
l
T
i
m
e
E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
(
F
T
E
)
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
Maintenance Staff (FTEs)Patrol Staff (FTEs)
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
29
Determining Operational Staffing Needs
Existing Operational Staffing.
Existing operational staff, including rangers and maintenance employees,
has gradually increased over the last decade at pace with the expansion of
ȱȂȱȱȱǯȱFigure 7 shows operational staffing
levels compared to total acres and Figure 8 shows operational staffing
levels compared to total trail miles. Based on these figures, the District
operations staffing history indicates that ranger and maintenance staffing
is generally keeping pace with workload demands; however, increases in
special projects and/or other assignments like public outreach and events
can stretch staffing thin.
Figure 7. Acres of District Land per Operations FTE
Source: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Operations Department.
1,808 1,748 1,839 1,747 1,795 1,825 1,862 1,884 1,948 1,927 1,815
2,503 2,314 2,408 2,446 2,512 2,443 2,493 2,523 2,399 2,412 2,418
965 920 949 931 956 956 975 987 971 953 926
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
FY 2004-‐
05
FY 2005-‐
06
FY 2006-‐
07
FY 2007-‐
08
FY 2008-‐
09
FY 2009-‐
10
FY 2010-‐
11
FY 2011-‐
12
FY 2012-‐
13
FY 2013-‐
14
FY 2014-‐
15
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
A
c
r
e
s
p
e
r
F
T
E
Maintenance Staff per Acre Patrol Staff per Acre
Total Operational Staff per Acre
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
30
Figure 8. Miles of District Trails per Operations FTE
Source: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Operations Department.
The appropriate staffing levels for the maintenance and ranger functions
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȂȱ ȱ¢ȱȱ
Operations has not consistently measured its workload to gauge how
well staff are keeping up with demands and how quickly they are
completing assigned tasks. Measuring workload beyond simple
indicators such as land acreage and trail miles requires a capable work
order management system and systematic documentation of the patrol
function, both of which are lacking in the District (See Recommendation
17).
Peer Staffing Analysis
The District hoped that a peer agency analysis would help develop
indicators to guide appropriate operational staffing as the District
expands, but each peer has very different operational realities that make
such indicators difficult to establish. For example, Table 1 and Figure 9
show that the District is relatively unique in its ratio of publically
accessible acreage compared to non-‐‑publically accessible acreage. The
degree to which an acre of land will require regular patrolling or
maintenance is dependent on its usage and the types of facilities and
equipment it houses.
12.3 11.8 11.6 10.8
12.1 12.2 12.4 12.6 12.3 12.3 11.6
17.1
15.6 15.2 15.2
16.9 16.3 16.6 16.9
15.2 15.4 15.4
6.6 6.2 6.0 5.8 6.4 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.1 6.1 5.9
0
5
10
15
20
FY 2004-‐
05
FY 2005-‐
06
FY 2006-‐
07
FY 2007-‐
08
FY 2008-‐
09
FY 2009-‐
10
FY 2010-‐
11
FY 2011-‐
12
FY 2012-‐
13
FY 2013-‐
14
FY 2014-‐
15
Tr
a
i
l
M
i
l
e
s
p
e
r
F
T
E
Maintenance Staff per Trail Mile Patrol Staff per Trail Mile
Total Operational Staff per Trail Mile
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
31
Acres of Owned and Managed Lands
Midpeninsula
Regional Open
Space District
East Bay
Regional
Park
District
Santa Clara
County Parks
and Recreation
Department
Marin County
Parks
Boulder
County
Parks and
Open Space
Jefferson
County
Open Space
and Parks
Publically Accessible 28,925 114,000 42,372 15,572 35,138 53,051
Not Publically Accessible 31,682 32,349 6,889 3,940 64,165 700
Source: As reported by each agency.
Figure 9. Percentage of Publically Accessible Land
Source: As reported by each agency.
A peer comparison of ranger staff is also complicated by the fact that
organizations have rangers perform different sets of responsibilities,
making straightforward benchmarks challenging to identify. As noted in
Table 2ǰȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȂȱȱ£ȱȱȱ
rangers perform duties associated with patrol, emergency response, and
enforcement. The degree to which rangers also perform maintenance
responsibilities (trail, park and facilities maintenance), or interpretive
responsibilities (educational programming, visitor services), however,
ȱȱȱȱǯȱȱ¢ǰȱȱȂȱȱȱ
fewer responsibilities compared to their peers with regard to
maintenance and interpretative duties.
47.7%
77.9%
86.0%79.8%
35.4%
98.7%
75.6%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
Midpeninsula
Regional Open
Space District
East Bay Regional
Park District
Santa Clara
County Parks and
Recreations
Department
Marin County
Parks
Boulder County
Parks and Open
Space
Jefferson County
Open Space and
Parks
% of Publically Accessible Land Peer Average
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
32
Peer Comparison of Ranger Staffing Levels and Responsibilities
Midpeninsula
Regional Open
Space District
East Bay
Regional
Park District
Santa Clara
County Parks
and
Recreation
Department
Marin
County
Parks
Boulder
County
Parks
and
Open
Space
Jefferson
County Open
Space and
Parks
# FTEs 24 2561 49 292 14 113
Patrol4 Yes Unavailable Yes Yes Yes Yes
Emergency Yes Unavailable Yes Yes Yes Yes
Enforcement Yes Unavailable Yes Yes Yes Yes
Maintenance Low Unavailable Low High5 Low Medium6
Interpretive Low Unavailable High High High High
Source: As reported by each agency.
EŽƚĞ͗͞>Žǁ͟ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞƐƚĂƐŬƐĂƌĞƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĞĚĂƐŶĞĞĚĞĚ͘͞DĞĚŝƵŵ͟ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞƐƚŚĞƌĞŝƐĂŶĞdžƉĞĐƚĂƚŝŽŶƚŽƉĞƌĨŽƌŵƚŚĞƚĂƐŬŽŶ
ĂƌĞŐƵůĂƌďĂƐŝƐ͘͞,ŝŐŚ͟ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞƐĂŶŝŶƚĞŐƌĂůƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞŝƌfunction.
1 This number includes 90 FTEs in the police department.
2There are 13 rangers for Open Space division and 16 rangers for the Parks division.
3 This number does not include 2 seasonal rangers.
4 Patrol of non-‐publically accessible spaces varies depending on the agency. Boulder County has scheduled check-‐ins for its
ĐůŽƐĞĚůĂŶĚƐ͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ŝƚƐϯϳ͕ϮϵϲĂĐƌĞƐŽĨĞĂƐĞŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞŵŽŶŝƚŽƌĞĚďLJǀŽůƵŶƚĞĞƌƐ͘DĂƌŝŶŽƵŶƚLJ͛ƐĞĂƐĞŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞĂůƐŽ
ŵŽŶŝƚŽƌĞĚďLJǀŽůƵŶƚĞĞƌƐ͘:ĞĨĨĞƌƐŽŶĂŶĚ^ĂŶƚĂůĂƌĂŽƵŶƚLJ͛ƐĐůŽƐĞĚůĂnds are patrolled at the discretion of the rangers.
5 Two rangers in the Open Space division are assigned to construction. Parks rangers are expected to perform regular
ground maintenance.
6 The rangers collectively perform maintenance duties as needed, but 5 of the rangers are expected to perform regular
maintenance.
The District has had a relatively small portion of its land open to the
public and has outsourced interpretive functions to docents. As Measure
AA and other capital projects are implemented, more District acreage will
be open to the public which will present additional expectations for
interpretive programs. As outreach programs attract users and
programming grows, visitor service resources including naturalists and
interpretive staff will increase. Looking at peer organizations like
Jefferson County Open Space and Parks, the most natural place for
docent and volunteer program responsibilities to fall is aligned with the
ranger function, who will be more involved in front line service delivery
activities that include public safety, education, and interpretive services.
Joining the public facing functions of volunteer and docent programs
with rangers (patrol) brings like services together in alignment and leads
to improved performance of growing educational services planned by the
District. This new unit will be positioned to meet the challenge of
increased access and public use of the preserves and equipped to respond
to their demands.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
33
Recommendation 13. Establish a ȃȱȄȱ
function of the organization to provide public facing
services and activities. Restructure the organization to
align docents, volunteers, and rangers to meet the array of
visitor services.
The other major division of the Operations department is maintenance.
Maintenance staff are charged with the maintenance and upkeep of the
Ȃȱǯȱȱȱǰȱ, and other assets. This
purpose is distinctly different from the mission of visitor services.
Further, the current structure of operations does not provide the
opportunity for maintenance staff to advance to leadership positions in
the department. Current practices dictate that to be a superintendent of
operations you must also be a peace officer with specific classification and
licensing. Although an Operations Manager currently oversees
maintenance and patrol, as it grows, the District will require additional
supervision of this group.
As new preserves and public assets become available through the
ȱȱȱȂȱȱ, both maintenance and patrol
will experience significant increases in staffing. The formation of discrete
organizational units reporting to a single Assistant General Manager
provides the District capacity to grow in both size and skills (i.e., field
maintenance, facilities maintenance, trails and construction) and to
strengthen the management practices for each.
Recommendation 14. Separate the patrol and
maintenance functions into two distinct organizational
units, Visitor Services (for patrol staff) and Land and
Facilities Services (for maintenance staff).
Recommendation 15. Create Manager-‐‑level positions to
lead the Visitor Services and Land and Facilities Services
groups. Having the maintenance function supervised by a
different manager will give it a greater voice, level of
authority, leadership, and strategic role within the agency
as well as provide maintenance staff greater opportunity to
advance into leadership positions.
Policy to Guide Operational Staffing
The District lacks a policy framework to estimate long term operating
costs that address staffing needs or expanding the number and variety of
service contracts to align staffing and workload responsibilities. This
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
34
policy framework is different from the internal project delivery work flow
system also referred to as the project delivery conveyor belt. The former
aids in long term policy-‐‑level decision making and the later provides
operating-‐‑level details about the steps and hand-‐‑offs necessary to deliver
a project.
Measure AA will have a long-‐‑term effect on the District that will
significantly increase patrol and maintenance responsibilities associated
with its growing assets over the next three decades. In order to prepare
for this in advance, the District would be wise to establish a long term
operating cost framework that contemplates staffing adjustments into a
project vetting process and is regularly reviewed by the Board. An
example of this is the Pipeline program developed and instituted in the
East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), as described in Figure 10.
Figure 10. East Bay Regional Park District Pipeline Program
Description of EBRPD Pipeline Program
In order to ensure ongoing financial sustainability, EBRPD has
ȱȱȃȄȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
costs to ensure that the district can support its modest but active efforts
to acquire and develop new park assets in the long term. In addition to
listing the potential funding source for each active project in the active
capital improvement plan (CIP) project schedule, the pipeline program
requires that staff develop estimates for:
1. Start-‐‑up costs Ȯ estimated costs for vehicles, office, or
maintenance equipment necessary to purchase at completion of
project
2. Personnel requirements Ȯ estimated number of full-‐‑time
equivalent (FTE) employees required to support assets upon
completion of project, including a combination of Operations,
Public Safety, and Maintenance employees.
3. Total wages Ȯ estimated annual salary cost to be incorporated
into base-‐‑budget appropriations
4. Total base supplies and services Ȯ estimated cost associated with
maintenance of new facility on an ongoing basis to be
incorporated into the base-‐‑budget appropriations
5. Revenue Ȯ estimated new revenue to be collected from assets, if
significant
Adding pipeline estimates to the CIP project schedule allows the Board
to consider future land acquisitions and development projects in relation
to their anticipated long-‐‑term effect on the organization. Pipeline
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
35
projects are only identified as priorities for funding when financial
capacity is available and the project is considered in the context of all
budget requests. As part of its annual budget, EBRPD performs a five-‐‑
year forecast that integrates pipeline estimates for each active capital
improvement project, making the forecast much more realistic.
As the District scales up its operation, it would be wise to build policy
around how to ensure that future land acquisitions and development
projects are undertaken with long-‐‑term organizational sustainability in
mind.
Recommendation 16. Develop guiding policy similar to
the East Bay Regional Park District Pipeline Program
that requires District staff to develop estimates for start-‐‑
up costs as well as ongoing maintenance, safety, and
staffing costs for each development project or future land
acquisition before the Board commits to the project or
purchase.
Modernizing How Workload is Managed
In absence of a capable work order management system and reliable
workload and performance indicators, operational decision-‐‑making has
not been informed by reliable data. In preparation for Measure AA
implementation, the Operations Department collected over 15 years of
data on its staffing levels (full-‐‑time equivalent positions or FTEs) and
evolving workload (land acres and trail miles by type). Additional
information was consolidated around preserve visitation, patrol patterns,
maintenance responsibilities, and enforcement incidents. This
information was only recently made available to the District and could be
very valuable from a management perspective if collected and monitored
regularly.
A computerized work order management system would not only
produce reliable data, but it could help guide staff deployment and
effectively prioritize competing projects. Staff indicated that priorities are
unclear and the District lacks a system for forecast work over 30-‐‑, 60-‐‑, or
90-‐‑day periods. Currently, the Skyline team uses a white board to map
ȱ ȱ Ȃȱ th of work on a regular basis, a practice that staff
appreciates yet does not produce a record of the work that has been
accomplished.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
36
Recommendation 17. Purchase and implement a
computerized maintenance management system (CMMS)
and provide training on its use.
The remote nature of preserves makes it challenging to secure technology
that provides for field staff communication and project tracking. The
District was testing mobile laptops for use in the field when interviews
were conducted, but sporadic connectivity issues were generating
skepticism among staff of the utility of such an investment.
Recommendation 18. Explore new reliable
communication technology (i.e., email, voice and visual
systems, tough books) to ensure field staff have the
information and tools to effectively perform their job
responsibilities.
Operations Staff Deployment
The District has relied on contractors to perform a range of operational
roles and responsibilities involving both routine maintenance and capital
improvement projects. More specifically, the District frequently relies on
contractors to perform road maintenance (potholes, sweeping, paving,
and repairs), fleet maintenance, sign construction, parking lot and
restroom construction, environmental reviews, and some trail
construction.
Conversely, the District has frequently relied on its operational staff to
implement certain types of special projects which most typically involve
the construction or refurbishment of District trails. These special projects
invariably divert the attention of maintenance staff away from scheduled
maintenance responsibilities and habitat restoration. Figure 11 shows that
maintenance staff estimate that 40% of total crew hours for FY 2013-‐‑14
has been dedicated to capital projects, including the construction of trails
and roads.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
37
Figure 11. Maintenance Crew Hours by Responsibility Type for FY 2013-‐‑14
Source: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Operations Department.
Assigning maintenance staff to these special projects reduces the number
of full-‐‑time equivalent (FTE) employees who are actively managing the
existing trail networks and attending to maintenance work orders. As a
result, deferred maintenance is growing, trail maintenance schedules are
falling behind, and the maintenance backlog has continued to grow
despite recent increases in maintenance staffing levels. Moreover, having
operational staff frequently brought into special projects also makes
traditional efficiency measures (the number of trail miles managed per
FTE and the number of acres maintained per FTE) less meaningful and
difficult to benchmark across other agencies.
Recommendation 19. Establish a special
projects/construction team that is dedicated to the
delivery of special projects like trails construction. This
team can be staffed on a rotational basis to allow a greater
number of maintenance staff the opportunity to work on
special projects and will increase maintenance capacity for
routine maintenance work.
Recommendation 20. Explore opportunities to partner
with the private sector to provide existing staff with the
capacity to address maintenance backlogs and deferred
maintenance. Specifically, the District should explore the
potential to outsource the following tasks: road and
parking lot resurfacing (i.e., least complex in nature);
brushing work around existing buildings; maintenance of
Capital projects
(construction of trails
and roads),
11,840, 40%
Facilities maintenance,
3,236, 11%
Habitat restoration,
3,281, 11%Trail and preserve maintenance
(brushing trails and
vegetation clearing),
10,989, 38%
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
38
existing buildings (i.e., painting district offices); tall tree
trimming and maintenance (e.g., requiring a bucket truck);
vehicle maintenance; and water system maintenance.
It is worth noting that having habitat restoration as an important goal of
the District complicates trail construction as it requires that workers
building trails have the knowledge to identify non-‐‑native species and
carry out the appropriate eradication techniques. In order to ensure
habitat restoration is kept in mind as a goal during trail construction, the
District has relied on its own staff to construct and refurbish trails on a
fairly regular basis. Throughout interviews, employees commented on
the high-‐‑quality work that District maintenance crews have carried out
with regard to habitat restoration and trail construction. A number of
employees also noted that contractors who have been hired to build trails
for the District have not delivered services of the same quality as District
staff members.
Recommendation 21. Develop a field staff onboarding/
training program that outlines the variety of details and
standards used for trails construction and maintenance
work throughout the District.
Ranger Deployment
District rangers do not follow a routinized patrol schedule, but travel
freely from preserve to preserve, visiting high visitation preserves more
frequently than preserves with fewer visitors. Rangers are expected to
maintain a log of their patrols which are reported to supervisors
regularly. In terms of planning patrol routes ahead of time, intuition and
experience are the primarily tools relied upon to direct rangers, both of
which are difficult to institutionalize and are vulnerable in the face of
staff turnover.
District rangers have a good relationship with local police departments.
Because District rangers do not carry firearms, having service agreements
in place is an additional measure that could be explored to better ensure
the safety of preserve visitors as more sites are opened to the public.
Recommendation 22. Maintain effective working
relationships with local police and fire departments and
as the District expands periodically evaluate automatic
aid protocols and response.
The Operations Department expects a number of retirements, which
could create an issue with regard to operational staff capacity if the
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
39
District is not proactive in its recruitment efforts. Because ranger staff
does not rely on temporary or seasonal workers to back-‐‑fill staff
ǰȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȂȱ
enforcement capacity in the short term. Given that it takes approximately
six months to recruit a ranger and six additional months to have the new
staff member fully trained, the District should consider planning for this
as soon as possible.
Recommendation 23. Develop a seasonal employment
program for patrol work. The program should support
increased project and visitor demands during the busiest
months and provide for succession planning to build
knowledge and capacity as position vacancies occur over
time.
Natural Resources Support to the District
The Natural Resources function is involved in all facets of District
services and projects. Based on our analysis, this function falls within the
Operations business line or service area given the field orientation of
ȱȱȱȂȱ ǯȱȱ ȱȱǰȱ ȱȱȱǰȱ
to adapt to near and long term growth projections. However, to ensure
that it contains the full array of expertise to support the project work plan
and inform District conservation and restoration policies, it will be
necessary to evaluate position descriptions to ensure the District has the
appropriate staffing classifications.
Recommendation 24. Complete a Natural Resources
Position Classification Study to ensure appropriate
staffing types and levels are in place and recruited for in
the future. (Underway)
Lands leased to grazing tenants now total over 11,000 acres, or nearly a
¡ȱȱȱȂȱȱȱǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
added over the last 10 years and represent a significant shift in District
ȱǯȱȱȂȱȱȱȱȱȱ
properties has outpaced the capacity of the Rangeland Ecologist and Real
Property Specialist positions to manage and restore these properties
ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȂȱ£ȱȱȱȱȱ
grazing operations.
The creation of the Land and Facilities Department, comprised of the
maintenance functions currently housed in the Operations department
along with the lease and rental management function of the Real Property
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
40
department, will allow the District to incorporate these working
landscapes into the maintenance operations of the District, using the
technical expertise of the Rangeland Ecologist position from the Natural
Resources Department to support land management and maintenance
decisions.
Recommendation 25. Expand grazing property
management as a function of the new Land and Facilities
Management department
Field Office Challenges
The District has two field offices that structurally mirror one another in
terms of their staffing levels and operational resources but do not take
advantage of economies of scale and could improve their resource
sharing. Each field office has its own maintenance and patrol staff and
operate independently from one another. In fact, in many cases the field
offices have each developed their own home-‐‑grown solutions to
operational problems such as the lack of a District-‐‑wide work order
management system. The result has been creating systems or processes
that are not compatible and can sometimes be duplicative. There also
exists, to some degree, a reluctance to share equipment between the two
field offices. This ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȂȱȱȱ
equipment. These inefficiencies are structurally embedded within the
organization due to the organizational separation of the two field offices.
Greater efficiencies can be achieved by organizing staff by work function,
rather than location.
Recommendation 26. Create crews that focus on specific
work functions and incorporate a rotational program that
allows for continued professional growth and
development of staff. Areas of expertise include
resource/pesticide management, trails and patrol, visitor
programs, etc. Assigning staff to specific work functions
will also allow them to deepen their knowledge in a given
area and work more productively as they gain more
experience.
Planning for Facilities to Meet Operations Staff Expansion
Within the next several years, the District will need to reevaluate its
utilization of its existing facilities and develop a plan for expansion that
will likely include the opening of additional office space for project
delivery and administrative staff as well as additional field offices or
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
41
outposts. While planning for this expansion, it will be important to re-‐‑
consider where staff is located to try and reduce the amount of time that
is spent going to and from destinations as acreage continues to increase.
Recommendation 27. Complete a facilities needs study to
determine mid and long term field facility needs and
investigate alternate maintenance facilities to
accommodate future growth.
Maintenance and upkeep of District facilities that house agency staff and
equipment are a functional responsibility of Operations. With the
anticipated growth in facilities, the function needs to be developed to
meet the growing number of facilities and corresponding maintenance
that will be required. Developing a Facilities division or unit within
Operations provides this focus. And, as discussed in the Land and
Property Acquisition portion of this report, as the property management
function for District acquired land is relocated to Operations, the
£Ȃȱȱ ȱȱ¡£ȱ¢ȱȱȱ
maintenance and the property management function within the same
unit.
Further, to deliver efficient and effective services, high performing
facilities management systems depend on the development and
maintenance of resources like facilities inventories, facilities maintenance
schedules, and multi-‐‑year facilities improvement plans. These tools
inform staff work plans, budgets, and long term financial plans. The
District would benefit from creating and maintaining these tools.
Recommendation 28. Consolidate facility
maintenance/property management into the Land and
Facilities group.
Recommendation 29. Create a facilities maintenance and
improvement plan to guide work plans and inform
financial decision making.
Management Support and Systems
Over the next three decades, the District anticipates its preserved land
will expand to 100,000 acres with over 400 miles of trails. To manage this
expansion and also begin opening a greater portion of its acres and trails
to the public, the District will need to scale up its operations, and expand
its facilities to make room for new personnel. Supporting this
significantly larger workforce will require a considerable investment in
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
42
ȱȂȱȱȱȱ¢ǯȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱȱ£ȱȱȱȂȱȱȱmation
technology (IT), financial management, human resource management,
facility management, and document management. The vision tied to
Measure AA cannot be implemented unless these support functions, and
the management and information systems that support them, are in place.
Moreover, the efficiency and productivity of these support functions have
ȱȱȱȱȱȂȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȂȱ
implementation schedule. After all, in order to construct a staging area or
open new trails, the District must have a well-‐‑trained and qualified
workforce, audited financial statements, appropriate systems in place to
support cost accounting and grant reporting, policies and procedures to
govern contract relationships and purchasing decisions, appropriate IT
systems for monitoring project expenditures, and much more.
In addition to strong internal support functions, a sustainable and
scalable organization also depends on clear leadership and direction from
ȱ ȱȂȱǯȱnizational functions such as real
property, planning, natural resources, project delivery, patrol,
maintenance, and property management all require a corporate support
system that sheds light on organizational priorities (through executive
leadership and management) as well as the foundational tools and
support of internal support functions (such as accounting, human
resources, and information technology).
Aligning internal support functions, such as human resources, finance,
purchasing, information technology, and GIS requires shifting internal
reporting relationships to support and keep pace with organizational
needs. Having these operations centralized into a single administrative
unit will build capacity within the organization and create economies of
scale. In this section, Management Partners reviews the systems and
alignment of these critical functions as they relate to the anticipated
growth and corporate support needs of the organization.
Peer Comparison
Table 3 compares ȱȂȱȱsupport staffing profile with peer
agencies. The table suggests that the DistrictȂȱȱȱis
understaffed, particularly considering that County-‐‑supported park
systems can often rely on centralized finance personnel in addition to the
finance staff they have internal to their own Department. Even those park
systems with centralized, County-‐‑wide finance support have a more
robust finance operation internal to their departments as compared to the
District.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
43
Internal Support Staffing Among Peer Organizations
Midpeninsula
Regional Open
Space District
East Bay
Regional
Park
District
Santa Clara
County
Parks and
Recreation
Department
Marin
County
Parks
Boulder County
Parks and Open
Space
Jefferson
County Open
Space and
Parks
Information
Services
21 7
1,
with county
support
7, with
county
support
1,
with County
Support
1,
with County
Support
Human
Resources
5.0 15.3
3,
with county
support
1,
with County
Support 1,
with County
Support
Finance
3.32 18.3
6,
with county
support
6,
with County
Support
Public Affairs
11.0 20.2 1 23
12,
with County
Support 3.5
Source: As reported by each agency.
1 This number includes IT Administrator and IT Technician of the administrative services division.
2This number includes Controller, Accountant, Accounting Technician, and Sr. Accounting Technician.
3 This number is projected to change to 4.
Financial Management
On July 1, 2012 the District implemented an enterprise resource planning
software (ERP) to provide the District with an integrated platform for
financial and human resources management. As with any ERP system,
there was a major change in business processes, as well as the fact that a
large number of staff were required to become proficient in its use. The
District has made large strides in its adaptation to use the system and
continues its efforts to improve and streamline business processes. In
that regard, the 2014 Management Letter prepared by the external auditor
proffered several suggestions for further improvement in areas of fund
accounting, grant management and project accounting. During the 2014-‐‑
2015 fiscal year, the District has made the recommended changes to its
fund accounting and has also set up a project numbering structure to
facilitate reporting of Measure AA expenditures. Also, the District has
undertaken a review of its chart of accounts to provide improved cost
accounting of its projects.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
44
Recommendation 30. Document the business and
technology requirements for an integrated budget and
cost accounting system that enables the District to
perform 1) general ledger and fund accounting; 2) project
accounting; 3) grant billing and reconciliation; and 4)
grant documentation and organization. Each of these
functionalities were identified as recommended changes in
the findings from the 2014 Audit Letter and are critical to
the success of Measure AA implementation and reporting.
Implementing the above recommendation and supporting the District in
setting up the systems necessary to report Measure AA expenditures will
require the full-‐‑time leadership of a finance professional well-‐‑versed in
public accounting best practices. The part-‐‑time Controller position does
not provide the necessary support for a rapidly growing organization.
Recommendation 31. Create a Chief Financial Officer
(CFO)/Director of Administrative Services executive
level position responsible for the realigned
administrative services functions to provide financial
and other administrative services expertise and
leadership in these areas within the organization.
Recommendation 32. Develop a transition plan to shift
financial responsibility and management for the District,
including managing the Ȃȱfiscal model, from
the part-‐‑time Controller to the new CFO/Director of
Administrative Services. Typically, a Board-‐‑appointed
District Controller performs a financial oversight function
but does not provide direct supervision over finance and
accounting staff.
The District has invested significant time and cost in implementing the
New World Systems financial software. This software platform provides
ȱȱȱȱȱȂȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
viewed as a long-‐‑term solution. To this end, the District should remain at
or near the most current release of the software, invest in ongoing staff
training, and attend annual user conferences. In addition, the District
should continue to explore opportunities to further leverage the New
World Systems software. As an example, the District is currently
migrating fixed assets into this software system. There are likely other
opportunities to streamline or replace offline systems by improving the
use of the New World Systems financial software.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
45
Recommendation 33. Maintain the New World Systems
financial software at or near the current release and
continue to leverage the system to its full potential. The
ability to leverage the system will likely require an
investment in finance and IT staff training and will be
addressed in the District Information Systems and
Technology plan to be developed in the summer/fall 2015.
The District recently updated its financial policies that guide its overall
strategy in planning for a sustainable future. In November 2014, the
District adopted a Fund Balance Policy in Accordance with GASB
Statement No. 54 to identify the required components of fund balance,
the level of management authorized to approve or change target balances
in each fund, the amounts that the District will strive to maintain in each
fund, and the conditions under which fund balances may be spent,
reimbursed, and reviewed. In December 2014, the District adopted
revisions to its Capital Expenditures and Depreciable Fixed Assets policy.
Continuing to track, and update as necessary, financial management
policies and procedures is a significant best practice.
Recommendation 34. Review, update, or develop
financial management policies and procedures to enable
appropriate, accountable, and fiscally sound decisions at
the lowest possible level within the organization.
Purchasing
ȱ£Ȃȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱor absorb
it. A helpful and supportive purchasing function requires focus,
structure, and processes. Currently, the District is supported by a
decentralized purchasing function with a very limited set of policies to
guide staff in their purchasing decisions. Centralizing the function within
the Finance Division will provide accountability and the system support
structure necessary to position the organization for success.
Recommendation 35. Centralize the purchasing function
within the Finance and Administrative Services
Department. The Finance division should build a
requisition system, identify opportunities to aggregate
purchases to gain economies of scales, and develop the
ability to analyze trends to ensure effective use of
resources.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
46
Information Technology and Systems
While existing IT systems appear to be meeting basic business and
operational needs, ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱȱ managed
strategically. Consequently, the District has assembled a number of
standalone access systems over the years, including a contract database, a
training database, and a permits database. However, no single division
or manager is responsible for ensuring these resources are adequately
maintained, accessible, and non-‐‑duplicative. The use of multiple systems,
including both commercial-‐‑off-‐‑the-‐‑shelf and in-‐‑house developed
applications, inhibits information access and sharing. Moreover, these
relatively isolated technology solutions and non-‐‑integrated databases
significantly impact staff and organizational efficiency. To obtain the
benefits from technology that many peer agencies are enjoying, the
District needs to make technology planning, implementation, and
support a priority.
The current informal approach to technology planning and management
treats information technology aȱȱȃȱȄȱȱȱȱȱ
strategic one. Day to day technology management activities are left to the
IT Administrator, with limited guidance and input from departments or
management. Existing staff are at capacity responding to daily
information technology needs and are unable to dedicate time to
developing strategic goals or improvement projects. As a result, existing
and planned technology projects are not being executed within a formal
and accountable structure necessary to actually achieve results. A
Technology Strategic Plan would provide the District with a guide for
how technology will be planned, procured, implemented, and managed.
Recommendation 36. Develop and implement a
Technology Strategic Plan to provide a roadmap for the
Ȃȱȱȱong term implementation and
management of technology. The Plan should focus
heavily on core systems (cost accounting, payroll, human
resource, project management, and document
management) including those on the critical path to
support Measure AA. It should also establish the
foundation for a highly integrated environment where
systems have automated interfaces to share information
without staff intervention. In order to develop a successful
Technology Plan, the District must allow for an objective
evaluation of the existing technical infrastructure,
applications, and technology service delivery capabilities.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
47
In addition, it must allow department stakeholders to have
a voice in the plan and in the prioritization of the projects
within the Plan. (Note: the District has already drafted a
request for proposals (RFP) to solicit a consulting firm to
develop a Technology Strategic Plan).
Management and information technology systems improvements have
ȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ£Ȃs
leadership which inhibits initiative and real progress in meeting critical
system needs. A united, consistent, and visible voice regarding the
strategically critical need for good management and information
technology systems across the organization will be required for the
aggressive action needed to address these needs.
Recommendation 37. Implement an IT governance
structure that promotes effective planning, priority
setting, and accountability of District technology
resources (staff, funding, hardware and software) with
business priorities. For example, for each technology
project, the District should identify the operational or
business leader ultimately responsible for the use of the
technology and success of the technology projects. This
approach ensures the involvement of user department staff
in project planning, implementation, and ongoing
management.
The existing Information Technology (IT) Services Group consists of an IT
Administrator, IT Technician, and a part-‐‑time IT Intern. Over the past few
years, it has become more challenging for IT to provide quality support
and deliverables to the District as staffing increases and technology needs
mature. With day-‐‑to-‐‑day operations that demand immediate attention, IT
staff are often unable to proactively plan and work on extended projects
that would ensure application of best practices that are common to other
businesses and government agencies. When considering the upcoming
technology procurements and implementation needed to support a much
larger District workforce, it becomes clear that additional IT leadership
and support staff are needed. Moreover, the District should recognize
that as more technology is implemented, and the overall reliance on
technology increases, the IT budget will likely need to increase in order to
support ongoing operations and maintenance. If technology is
implemented correctly, the increase in District-‐‑wide staff efficiency and
effectiveness should offset the cost of the technology.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
48
Recommendation 38. Augment the existing IT staff with
an IT Division Manager and an additional IT Specialist.
The geographic information system (GIS) program is a core and critical
function for the District. The GIS program serves the District by
enhancing the understanding of ecosystem processes, providing data
analyses to improve land protection efficiencies and effectiveness,
facilitating integration of baseline data, serving as a feature location
database, and providing valuable information and visuals for
presentations. The GIS program serves the entire District and assists in a
significant percentage of all action plan projects. Currently, however, the
program is housed in Planning and the current GIS group is unable to
meet the growing demands of the District. These demands are now felt
from all District departments who now rely on GIS to access a large
variety of geo-‐‑based data and visual products. As the GIS group
continues to increase the number of functions it supports and takes on a
larger role in large District-‐‑wide projects, it becomes more important that
this group be adequately staffed and appropriately positioned and
integrated within the Information Technology organizational structure to
best serve all divisions.
Recommendation 39. Integrate the GIS Services group
into a new Information Systems and Technology
department to better reflect its District-‐‑wide service role
and augment existing GIS staff with one GIS specialist
position.
While the District is performing periodic backup of the current servers to
a neighboring facility, it is not a sufficient disaster recovery strategy,
particularly as the District increases reliance on technology for day-‐‑to-‐‑day
business and operational activities. While the current approach provides
redundancy for a site specific failure, it does not provide adequate
protection from an area disaster. The District should establish business
continuity requirements, then implement a long-‐‑term disaster recovery
plan that meets those requirements.
Recommendation 40. Develop and implement a formal
technology disaster recovery plan sufficient to address
protection from an area (not site specific) disaster.
Implementation of an effective disaster recovery plan
includes installing the hardware, software, equipment,
and/or services necessary to support a recovery according
to business continuity requirements. A key component to
establishing a disaster recovery plan is to fully document
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
49
recovery processes such that a recovery can be successfully
performed by an experienced IT professional with little or
minimal knowledge of the District. Once a plan is
implemented, the District should test the plan on a bi-‐‑
annual basis to ensure that a recovery can be successful.
The District is currently not using a help desk management solution to
manage requests for technology services. It is important the District
establish the use of a formal help desk software solution to track,
prioritize, monitor, and report on help desk activities to establish a
knowledge base and develop appropriate documentation.
Recommendation 41. Implement a desktop management
(help desk) solution to manage requests for technology
to track, monitor, and report on help desk activities. This
would establish a database of frequently asked questions,
reduce the reliance on IT staff, automate updates, develop
appropriate documentation, and improve inventory
tracking. (The District currently has a tool, SpiceWorks,
capable of providing this functionality.)
ȱȂȱ ȱ¢ȱȱ also understaffed to
meet the current key information technology needs of the organization,
strategically plan for the future, and provide the leadership to move the
IT platform to 2015 ¡ǯȱȱȱȂȱȱ¢ȱ
needs have moved well beyond help desk service levels. While staff may
be interested in meeting such needs, there is no capacity as a result of the
need to respond to urgent, but not strategically important issues, on a
daily basis.
Recommendation 42. Create a Special Projects Manager
position to provide project management support for
internal support systems (i.e., IST implementation plan,
records management system, purchasing process and
procedures). This position will report to the Chief
Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services and
provide special projects capacity and support beyond
Information Technology project.
Human Resources
A variety of personnel and critical staffing needs will require Human
Resources to be more innovative as well as efficient to meet the demands
of the organization. The organization needs to increase staffing on an
expedited basis, review impacted classifications, and address employee
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
50
and labor relations issues. This will require a re-‐‑positioning and
rethinking of how Human Resources work gets done. Expanding capacity
in Human Resources will help ensure employees are supported through
the initial FOSM implementation and in creating a long standing culture
and organization climate that is adaptive. Human Resources will require
greater visibility in the organization.
Recommendation 43. Establish a Human Resource
management level position responsible for planning and
meeting critical recruitment issues and sustaining a
committed workforce.
District staff levels have grown at an annual rate of 4.8% since Fiscal Year
(FY) 2004-‐‑05 which challenge Human ResourceȂȱ¢ȱȱȱ
workload requirements and hire qualified staff. Current Human
Resources capacity and systems will be unable to meet the demand
without updated classification and employee relations policies and
procedures along with innovative hiring strategies.
Recommendation 44. Hire interim, temporary, or contract
Human Resources staff to meet the need for recruitment
ȱȱȱȱ£Ȃȱ FOSM
implementation path.
A number of key human resource policies have not been developed
within the District or are not fully understood across the management
team. Examples include the process for filing and addressing an
employee grievance, the process of handling acting assignments and
people working out of class, procedures for requesting and authorizing a
reclassification, and the process for establishing new positions and new
classifications.
Recommendation 45. Develop reclassification policies
and procedures to streamline classifications and
effectively respond to organization staffing needs.
Facility Management
Facilities management planning and maintenance responsibilities are
spread across the organization. Having a decentralized facilities
management function is an inefficient use of staff. IT and maintenance
staff are regularly called upon to address facility maintenance issues
which can impact up to 25% of their capacity to perform regular line
duties. Moreover, existing office space is severely constrained and
planning for an expanded work force must become a priority.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
51
Recommendation 46. Reassign facility management
responsibilities to Operations and develop a resource
allocation plan which includes existing staff and contract
services to maintain District facilities.
Recommendation 47. Complete a facility master plan to
address the District office and operational needs for the
next decade.
Document Management
A core technology for virtually all public agencies is an electronic
document management system (EDMS). This technology has many
benefits (e.g. reduction of hardcopies, improved information sharing,
increased transparency, facilitating easier searching of documents,
supporting retention standards, etc.) for an organization. The full value
of an EDMS is realized when it is tightly integrated with other core
systems such as finance, HR, payroll, GIS, etc. Document management
system implementations are inherently risky and expensive. To mitigate
the project risk, the District should establish clear business requirements
to ensure the best fit vendor solution is purchased and implemented. In
addition, it is important that District staff have clear expectations as to
what is being implemented and how they will be expected to use the
system.
Recommendation 48. Complete a comprehensive
requirements analysis and establish a formal project
plan to procure and implement a document management
system.
'ĞŶĞƌĂůDĂŶĂŐĞƌ͛ƐKĨĨŝĐĞ
ȱ ȱȂȱȱ ȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
organization through the transformation that will occur with
implementation of the FOSM recommendations as the organization
pursues its vision. It will take leadership and a careful focus on clear,
internal communication. District staff must understand the rationale
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ ȱȂȱȱ ȱȱ
unilaterally responsible for communicating a compelling case for change.
To accomplish this, the General Ȃȱȱȱȱȱ
to build additional leadership capacity and further enhance internal and
external communication.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
52
Building Leadership Capacity
ȱȂȱ¡ȱȱȱs included the General
Manager and two Assistant General Managers together with the Board-‐‑
appointed General Counsel and Controller. In the recent past, the
Assistant General Managers have played a tactical role in the
implementation of special projects. These tactical assignments are
appropriate for a small, stable organization with strong systems to
support existing staff. However, the District will soon be undergoing a
period of tremendous transition and growth which creates a pressing
need for organizational leadership. To build this leadership capacity
within the executive team, the Assistant General Managers must delegate
the tactical implementation of key special projects to skilled managers
elsewhere in the organization.
Recommendation 49. Assign the tactical implementation
of special projects to skilled managers elsewhere in the
organization. This delegation will require a clear
communication of expectations regarding special project
implementation, routine check-‐‑ins, and project updates to
the executive management team, genuine employee
empowerment to perform the analytical tasks associated
with project work, and constant support and
communication from the executive management team.
These efforts will create capacity within the executive
management team to focus more on strategy and
organizational leadership.
Even with the tactical implementation of special projects reassigned to
ȱǰȱȱ ȱȂȱȱ ȱȱȱ
analytical capacity to track and monitor all annual projects, especially
those related to capital improvements tied to Measure AA funding. This
monitoring should happen centrally to ensure the executive management
team is fully aware when projects are off track and require problem
solving.
Recommendation 50. Establish a senior management
analyst position that reports directly to the General
Manager to monitor District project delivery, provide
annual CIP project oversight
The Ȃȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȂȱȱ
authority by not allowing staff to make decisions at the lowest possible
level and be accountable for results. As a result of the $25,000 purchasing
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
53
authority limitation, for example, staff spends an unnecessarily
significant amount of time processing Board staff reports for bid awards
or professional services contracts instead of program or project delivery.
Having to present staff reports to the Board for such contracts
unnecessarily pulls staff capacity from the executive management team.
Recommendation 51. Increase ȱ ȱȂȱ
spending authority.
Enhancing Communication
Implementing the recommendations tied to this report will require a
focused, united, and consistent voice across the organization. The
Ȃȱ¡ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ¢ȱ
communicate the organizaȂȱȱȱȱǰȱȱȱ
rationale behind changes as well as how change will be carried out over
time. Implementing the Vision Plan will also demand closer attention on
District branding, constant project progress reporting, creating public
relations opportunities to market District assets, and continued
connecting with the public. All these goals can be most effectively
ȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȂȱ
Office.
Recommendation 52. Locate the Public Affairs team
within the GenȱȂȱȱȱȱ
expectations for the team to focus on both external and
internal communication. This restructuring will expand
the focus of the Public Affairs team to District-‐‑wide issues
and communication challenges.
Office of the General Counsel
The Office of the General Counsel is staffed by a full-‐‑time, board-‐‑
appointed General Counsel and two support positions, including an
assistant general counsel (approximately 0.8 FTE) and a risk management
coordinator (0.5 FTE). This team of three employees provides sufficient
legal and risk management services to the District at this time, given the
existing workload across the organization. Nevertheless, land
acquisitions are becoming more complicated as time passes, with many
newly acquired properties coming to the District with legal issues related
to contamination, encroachment, maintenance, or tenant eviction.
ȱȱȂȱ ȱ¡ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
more robust effort to acquire new properties, this will generate additional
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities Management Partners
54
demands for legal services. The District may consider looking into
opportunities to supplement existing legal services staff with contracted
legal support. Similarly, there will be a concurrent increase in the
number of contracts for goods and services, more employees brought on
board, and more interactions with the public and neighbors, all with
attendant increases in need for every day legal services and increasing
potential for legal disputes to avoid or manage. ȱȱȂȱȱ
increases, and its property inventory expands, there will be an increasing
demand for risk management services and general and special legal
services. This support will need to be scaled accordingly, though it is
difficult to estimate at this juncture.
Recommendation 53. Maintain existing staffing levels
within the Office of the General Counsel; as workload
expands with Measure AA implementation and the
growth of complex land acquisitions, evaluate
opportunities for supplemental contracted and/or in-‐‑
house legal and risk management support over time.
Recommendation 54. Assess the need for a centralized
risk management function under the direction of a risk
manager as the size and scale of District operations
increases over time.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Building the Sustainable Organization Structure Management Partners
55
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐƚŚĞ^ƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďůĞKƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƚŝŽŶ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ
High performing organizations share certain structural characteristics.
They are designed around outcomes, not individual specialties, and
reflect how the team is expected to work together. Such organizations are
structured with a clear chain of command but have an expectation of
horizontal teamwork to achieve desired outcomes. Finally, they create
boundary-‐‑crossing partnerships that encourage collaboration.
Through the lens of these effective organization concepts, Management
Partners developed a set of guiding principles unique to Midpeninsula
that provide a framework for organization alternatives. These guiding
principles were reviewed with the Board during its January 28, 2015
study session.
Effective organization structures should:
1. Be designed around desired outcomes, not specialties.
2. Be based on clear outcomes of the organization and how the team
is expected to work together to achieve them.
3. Be clear about the chain of command, but expect horizontal
teamwork to achieve desired outcomes.
4. Create boundary-‐‑crossing partnerships that encourage
collaboration.
Guiding Principles
The following set of principles was developed as a guide for decision-‐‑
making regarding alternative organization structures.
1. The goals outlined in the Vision Plan will drive the work of the
organization and it will be structured to be transparent and
accountable to the taxpayer.
2. Functions will be structurally aligned in a manner that ensures
successful program and project management that clearly
delineates roles and responsibilities to build accountability and
promotes efficiency and effective operations.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Building the Sustainable Organization Structure Management Partners
56
3. The organization will utilize integrated and effective business,
administrative, and information systems to enable a sustainable
and fiscally viable organization.
4. ȱȂȱȱ¢ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱ
a disciplined project management approach with clearly defined
roles and responsibilities reflecting areas of expertise.
5. Leadership, decision making authority, and information flow will
encourage organizational effectiveness, performance, and
accountability.
6. The organization will facilitate employee development and
growth including through career-‐‑paths that provide opportunities
for advancement.
7. The organization will be scalable to ensure sustainable alignment
of core functions and meet changing demands for service over
time.
Organizational Design Strategic Objectives
In addition, the following set of strategic objectives form the basis of
FOSM implementation priorities and highlight the Ȃȱȱȱ
organizational change and increased capacity to meet a demanding work
program.
1. Administrative Systems: Develop administrative and information
systems required for efficient and effective management,
accountability, and strong customer service.
2. Program and Project Delivery: Position the organization to deliver
programs and projects efficiently through effective and
accountable systems, defined responsibilities, and a capable and
collaborative workforce.
3. MAA Program: Integrate Measure AA program and project
delivery within a defined Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
with oversight that ensures accountability and facilitates the
delivery of projects within a team-‐‑based framework.
4. ȱȱȱ£Ȃȱ¢ȱȱȱ Adapt:
Expand capacity ȱȱȱȂȱability to adapt and
scale up over time.
Organization Structure Options
The DistrictȂ mission to preserve natural resources and provide greater
access to them serves to attract and retain high quality employees.
However, the existing ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȂȱ
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Building the Sustainable Organization Structure Management Partners
57
capacity to meet the demands of Measure AA projects or fulfill the
Ȃȱǯȱȱȱȱȱnot easily scalable and relies on
broad skills that are tapped as needed to get the job done.
To enable reliable growth the District must structure itself in a manner
that aligns similar services to improve business performance so that work
is completed more quickly, with less effort, and provides for improved
results. An aligned organization structure visually depicts and defines
the reporting relationships and clear workflow paths within an
organization. It also provides a roadmap for promotions and creates
employee advancement tracks. More significantly, effective alignment
makes the organization flexible and scalable. The result is a more
sustainable structure.
Management Partners observes that Midpeninsula has three key service
areas: planning and project delivery (front end work), operations and
visitor services (back end work), and administration and internal support,
which provides the foundation and support necessary for the other
service areas to be successful. These three business lines and the structure
and accountability to service them are not easily identifiable on the
current organization chart.
The existing structure is designed around functional specialties and
employee relations objectives which results in less efficient operations
and a lack of accountability for results. Core organization functions need
to be in alignment to enable effective program management, project
delivery, and efficient operations. The following recommendations to
structure the Ȃȱȱ¢ȱȱȱwith clear lines of
accountability and leadership apply to each of the organization models
that follow.
Recommendation 55. Align ȱȂȱadministrative
services functions of finance, human resources, and
information technology under a new Chief Financial
Officer (CFO)/Director of Administrative Services.
Recommendation 56. Ensure collaboration, effective
communication, and project completion by having the
managers of Real Property, Planning, and Capital
Projects/Engineering report to the same Assistant
General Manager.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Building the Sustainable Organization Structure Management Partners
58
Recommendation 57. Align the field-‐‑focused functions
under the same Assistant General Manager to maintain
open communication, shared resources, and a customer-‐‑
driven approach.
Management Partners worked closely with the Executive Team to
develop and analyze alternative structures that could best meet the
objectives laid out in the guiding principles and strategic objectives and
address critical needs of the organization. The resulting alternatives fall
into three categories: parallel organization, matrix organization, and
integrated core business organization. An evaluation of each is listed
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȃ¢ȱȄȱ measurement of
effectiveness. The models were reviewed in detail with the Board of
Directors at their January 28, 2015 Board study session.
Option 1 ʹ Parallel Organization for Measure AA
The first option that Management Partners considered placed a bright
spotlight on the delivery of projects funded by Measure AA. It created a
parallel structure that would operate with a single mission of delivering
Measure AA projects. All functions associated with the delivery of this
work program from planning through construction would report to a
single manager charged with delivery of projects. Measure AA demands
throughput; a reliable and transparent structure; and full accountability.
This model achieves that result, but at a cost to efficiency and with the
risk of establishing a competing, rather than collaborative, team
environment.
In addition to setting up the parallel Measure AA department, this model
addresses the business need for integrated business and information
systems by aligning all administrative functions under a single leader. It
also creates a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) engineering and
construction team and divides the existing Operations department into
two departments to address growing demand for visitor services and
increases in workload for maintenance staff. The pros and cons of this
model were reviewed with the Board during a study session and are
summarized below.
Parallel Option Ȯ creates a parallel organization around Measure AA
project delivery intentionally doubling functions to support increased
project delivery and clear accountability (Figure 12).
Pros a) Clear Measure AA responsibilities
b) Transparency and accountability for Measure AA
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Building the Sustainable Organization Structure Management Partners
59
c) Integrated business and information systems
Cons a) Duplicative
b) Highly inefficient
c) May undermine teamwork culture of District
d) Non-‐‑Measure AA project delivery roles and responsibilities
unclear
Figure 12. Parallel Measure AA Structure
General Manager
Operations
Finance and
Administrative
Services
Public Affairs
Finance
Human Resources
Information Technology
Board of Directors
Planning, Stewardship
and Development
Planning
Natural Resources
Real Property
Controller/CFO
General Counsel
MAA Program
Management and
Project Delivery
Planning
Real Property
Natural Resources
Engineering /
Construction
Support
Interpretive Programs
(Volunteers/Docents)
Maintenance
Ranger Program
Facilities/Property
Management
Land and Facilities
Visitor Services
Capital Improvement
Program (design and
construction)
Option 2 ʹ Matrix Organization
The second option applies a matrix structure that draws upon resources
from within the organization to deliver projects through a Measure AA
Program Manager that reports to the General Manager. Matrix models
have proven to be highly effective for organizations charged with
delivering a major project or initiative. The model maintains
accountability through defined leadership but allows for other regular
operations to continue uninterrupted. The challenge in this case is that
Midpeninisula is not implementing one or two large projects after which
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Building the Sustainable Organization Structure Management Partners
60
regular activities resume. Midpeninsula has an ambitious, long-‐‑term
commitment to deliver a multitude of projects. The matrix model may aid
in short term delivery demands as the organization shifts and changes,
but this is not preferred long-‐‑term solution.
Matrix Option Ȯ establishes a leadership position related to Measure AA
projects that draws all resources from within current organization
structure. (Figure 13)
Pros a) Clear Measure AA responsibilities
b) Integrated business and information systems
c) Staff development and succession opportunities
Cons a) Lacks functional alignment
b) Lacks transparency and accountability for all other project
delivery
c) Staff may become overwhelmed and challenged to focus on
priorities
b) Unscalable
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Building the Sustainable Organization Structure Management Partners
61
Figure 13. Matrix Measure AA Structure
Option 3 ʹ Integrated Core Business Model
The final model incorporates the culture of collaboration at the heart of
Midpeninsula while establishing a framework for scalable growth, clear
lines of responsibility and accountability, and identifiable paths for
succession. This model recognizes that despite the incredible impact
ȱȱȱȱȱ£Ȃȱ¢ȱȱ ȱȱ¡ǰȱȱȱ
simply one funding source for delivery on the promise outlined in the
Vision Plan. As such, Midpeninsula must organize itself in a manner that
supports an integrated approach to delivering both projects and services
in the long term. Separating Measure AA does not support that need.
Integrated Core Business Option (i.e., project planning and delivery/visitor
and field service/administrative support) Ȯ clusters like functions to
capture synergies, maximize information flow, and enhances capacity to
deliver three times the output as well as integrates Measure AA projects
implementation into core business model. (Figure 14)
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Building the Sustainable Organization Structure Management Partners
62
Pros a) Clear Measure AA responsibilities
b) Transparency and accountability for Measure AA
c) Aligns functions by three core business lines of the District
d) Scalable and provides for long term sustainability
e) Staff development and succession opportunities
f) Integrate business and information systems
Cons a) Absent effective leadership, commitment to new roles and
improved systems, organization can fall into old patterns of
inadequate accountability and slow decision making
Figure 14. Integrated Core Service Structure
The organization charts shown on the next two pages (figures 15, 16, 17,
and 18) present the alignment of functions by major business area and the
ȱȂȱǯȱȱȱȱ£ȱ
structure within these departments has begun and will be developed
during the implementation stages of the FOSM.
General Manager
Visitor and Field
Services
Assistant General
Manager Finance and
Administrative Services
CFO / Director of
Administrative Services
Finance
Manager
Human Resources
Manager
Information
Technology
Manager
Board of Directors
Project Planning and
Delivery
Assistant General
Manager
Planning
Manager
Real Property
Manager
General Counsel
Controller
Executive Assistant
Engineering and
Construction
Manager
Natural Resources
Manager
Visitor Services
Manager
Land and Facilities
Services
Manager
Special Projects and
Program Management
Senior Management Analyst
Public Affairs
Manager
District Clerk
Special Projects
Manager
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Building the Sustainable Organization Structure Management Partners
63
Figure 15. Planning and Project Delivery
Figure 16. Operations and Visitor Services
General Manager
Board of Directors
Project Planning and
Delivery
Assistant General
Manager
Planning
Manager
Real Property
Manager
General Counsel
Controller
Engineering and
Construction
Manager
Land acquisition
Property acquisition
CEQA
Current planning
Long-range planning
Regional trails
coordination
Signage
Design and
engineering
Construction
MAA project delivery
Permits
Visitor and Field
Services
Assistant General
Manager
Finance and
Administrative Services
CFO / Director of
Administrative Services
General Manager
Visitor and Field
Services
Assistant General
Manager
Board of Directors
Project Planning and
Delivery
Assistant General
Manager
General Counsel
Controller
Ranger program
Docent/volunteer
program
Public safety
District stewardship
Grazing
Pest management
Vegetation management
Wildlife management
Field maintenance
Facilities maintenance
Property and land
management
Trails and construction
Natural Resources
Manager
Visitor Services
Manager
Land and Facilities
Services
Manager
Finance and
Administrative Services
CFO / Director of
Administrative Services
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Building the Sustainable Organization Structure Management Partners
64
Figure 17. Finance and Administrative Support
Figure 18. Office of the General Manager
General Manager
Finance and
Administrative Services
CFO / Director of
Administrative Services
Finance
Manager
Human Resources
Manager
Information
Technology
Manager
Board of Directors
General Counsel
Controller
Accounting
Procurement
Budget
Recruitment
Benefits
Classification and
compensation
Employee recognition
Organizational
development
Performance management
Training
:RUNHUV¶FRPSHQVDWLRQ
Safety
ADA compliance
Systems
GIS
Web maintenance
Support
Records management
Special Projects
Manager
Visitor and Field
Services
Assistant General
Manager
Project Planning and
Delivery
Assistant General
Manager
General Manager
Visitor and Field
Services
Assistant General
Manager
Project Planning and
Delivery
Assistant General
Manager
Executive Assistant
Intergovernmental
Internal communication
Media
Outreach
Special Projects and
Program Management
Senior Management Analyst
Public Affairs
Manager
District Clerk
Board of Directors
General Counsel
Controller
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Building the Sustainable Organization Structure Management Partners
65
Staffing Projections
In addition to developing a recommended organization structure that
allows for significant growth in staffing and a shift in mission, the FOSM
calls for a high-‐‑level projection of staffing needs over the next 30 years.
Such a projection is a reasonable best estimate given the many factors that
may alter the trajectory of the District over 30 years. However, using
existing assumptions from the Vision Plan, which identifies specific
projects and goals, and based on current staffing ratios, Management
Partners developed a series of operating assumptions for staffing
projections that are based on objective criteria. These criteria are based on
analysis of workload projections and current operating practices,
including gaps and limitations.
Based on Management PȂȱ¢ǰȱȱ operating
assumptions were applied:
x Planning and project delivery workload will ramp up in the near
term and then plateau
x The greatest area of growth over time will be in Visitor and Field
Services ǻȃȄȱȱȱrganization model)
x Finance and Administrative Services must keep pace with the
growing organization
x Demand for in-‐‑house natural resources expertise will be ongoing
with support for both project planning and visitor and field
services
The staffing projections are organized by business lines (service area) and
department, as summarized in Table 4.
Business Lines and Corresponding Departments
Business Line Departments
Project Planning and Delivery Engineering and Construction
Planning
Real Property
Visitor and Field Services Natural Resources
Visitor Services
Land and Facilities Services
Administrative Support
Finance and Administrative
Services
Finance
Human Resources
I.T.
Office of the General Manager
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Building the Sustainable Organization Structure Management Partners
66
Projections Methodology
In order to provide projections for anticipated staffing, Management
Partners established scaling criteria as shown in Figure 19. The new
Visitor Services and Land and Facilities Services departments are scaled
based on projected increases in miles of trail. Planning and Natural
Resources are scaled based on the number of projects. The number of
projected Engineering and Construction staff that will be needed is linked
to the increases projected in the Planning department. The administrative
support for the organization is scaled based on the size of the
organization. A scaling criterion is not applied for other departments. The
model accounts for an increase of two staff members in the Office of the
General Manager based on anticipated support required to implement
internal special projects and monitoring and report of Measure AA
project delivery.
Figure 19. Applied Scaling Criteria by Department
The miles of trail is used as a workload measure to scale staffing levels for
Visitor Services and Land and Facilities Services departments. The trail-‐‑
miles data is used as a proxy to indicate future workload of visitations,
patrol, maintenance, and other-‐‑related factors. Two separate ratios are
calculated based on the number of existing trail miles and the current
number of staff for Visitor Services and Land and Facilities services. The
ratios are then applied to the projected number of trail miles in 2020 and
in 2045 to derive projections for staffing levels of Visitor Services and
ͻVisitor Services
ͻLand and Facilities ServicesMiles of Trail
ͻPlanning
ͻNatural Resources
ͻEngineering and Construction
(based on Planning throughput)
# of Projects
ͻAdministrative support (Visitor and Field Services)
ͻFinance and Administrative Services (Finance, HR, IT) # of Staff
ͻReal Property
ͻPublic Affairs
ͻGeneral Manager and other Board appointees
No Criteria
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Building the Sustainable Organization Structure Management Partners
67
Land Facilities Services departments. The trail mile data and its sources
are summarized in Table 5.
Number of projects is used as a workload measure to scale staffing levels
for Planning and Natural Resources departments. The model anticipates
an initial increase in the number of projects and then remains constant
until the completion of Measure AA due to the staggered and phased
nature of the projects. Separate ratios are calculated based on the sum of
projects of specific categories in FY 2013-‐‑14 (Real Property, Planning,
Natural Resources, and Operations) and the current number of staff for
Planning and Natural Resources departments. The ratios are then applied
to the sum of projects from the designated categories in FY 2015-‐‑16 to
derive projections for staffing levels of the Planning and Natural
Resources departments. The staffing in these departments is projected to
remain at FY 2015-‐‑16 levels until the completion of the Measure AA
assuming no additional infusion of funds or policy direction to deliver
projects at a faster rate. The project data used and its sources are
summarized in Table 5.
As the functions of the Engineering and Construction department closely
support the functions of the Planning department, the staffing projections
are directly correlated. The projections model assumes one additional
Engineering and Construction staff for every three to four additional
Planning staff.
Workload Data Used for Scaling Ratios
Workload Data Base year 2020 2045
Trail Miles 2301 2832 4113
# of Projects 464 1025 1025
1 2015 trail miles provided by the District.
2 53 miles to be added within the first 5 years of Measure AA project implementation according to
WůĂŶŶŝŶŐDĂŶĂŐĞƌ͛ƐDĞŵŽ;ϮͬϭϵͬϮϬϭϱͿ͘
3 ϭϴϭŵŝůĞƐŽĨƚƌĂŝůƐĂĚĚĞĚƚŽϮϬϭϱƚƌĂŝůŵŝůĞƐďLJƚĂďƵůĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ͞dŽƉϮϱWƌŽũĞĐƚƐ͟ŚĂƌĚĂŶĚƐŽĨƚĐŽƐƚ
spreadsheets.
4 FY 2013-‐14 project count from Year-‐End Action Plan (Real Property, Planning, Natural Resources,
and Operations).
5 Increased number of projects from Measure AA implementation as indicated by FY 2015-‐16
Action Plan Key Projects (Real Property, Planning, Natural Resources, and Operations).
The number of operations staff is used as a workload measure to scale
administrative support staffing levels. The model assumes that the
support needs will uniformly increase. A ratio is calculated based on the
current number of support staff and the current number of operation staff
in the business line (Visitor Services, Land and Facilities Services, and
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Building the Sustainable Organization Structure Management Partners
68
Natural Resources departments). The ratio is then applied to the
projected staffing levels of the operational staff to derive the projections
for the administrative support staff of Visitor and Field services.
The number of total staff is used as a workload measure to scale staffing
levels for Finance and Administrative Services business line. The model
assumes that the support needs will uniformly increase. Separate ratios
are calculated based on the current number of staff for each support
function (finance, human resources, and information systems and
technology) and the current size of the organization. These ratios are
independently applied to the projected size of the organization to derive
projections for the staffing levels of Finance and Administrative Services.
Using the scaling criteria, the projection methodology establishes ranges
of staff increases to compensate for the imprecise nature of long-‐‑range
staffing forecasts. These projections will need to be reviewed and refined
over time, with specific staffing requests occurring primarily during the
annual budget process.
Projections
The results of the staffing model reported in Table 6 project that the
District will need to increase staffing by 41 to 51 positions over the next
five years (a 10% margin is used to create the range) to fully realize the
five-‐‑year vision plan objectives and ensure adequate staff support. The
staffing increases in business areas of Project Planning and Delivery and
Finance and Administrative Services are expected to plateau after the five
year mark, while in Visitor and Field Services staffing needs will continue
to increase as Vision Plan projects come online and require long term
ȱȱǯȱȱȂȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ
business line is shown in Figure 20. Changes in the number or type of
projects to be completed within this time period could alter the position
counts (i.e., fewer projects that result in new trail miles to be maintained
or a reduction in the number of overall projects delivered by planning
and project delivery teams).
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Building the Sustainable Organization Structure Management Partners
69
Staffing Model Projected Staffing Increases by Business Line
Business Line Departments
Projected
Increase
by 2020
Projected
Increases
2020 to
2045
Total
Projected
Increase
Project Planning
and Delivery
Engineering and Construction
Planning
Real Property 10 to 13 TBD 10 to 13+
Visitor and Field
Services
Natural Resources
Visitor Services
Land and Facilities Services
Administrative Support 20 to 25 37 to 45 57 to 70
Finance and
Administrative
Services
Finance
Human Resources
I.T. 9 to 11 6 to 8 15 to 19
Office of the
General Manager
2 0 2
Projected Staffing
Increase (Range)
41 to 51 43 to 53 84 to 104
Figure 20. Projected Staffing by Business Line
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Project Planning and
Delivery
Visitor and Field
Services
Finance and
Administrative
Services
Office of the General
Manager and Misc.
Fu
l
l
-‐Ti
m
e
E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
Current Projected Increases by 2020 Projected Increases 2020 -‐ 2045
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Building the Sustainable Organization Structure Management Partners
70
Specific positions and the timing of the additions will be assessed and
recommended to the Board by department managers based on justified
need. To justify new staffing needs, managers will be equipped to use the
criteria applied by Management Partners as well as enhanced workload
metrics as real-‐‑time workload data become available with the
development of new information management systems.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Financial Sustainability Management Partners
71
&ŝŶĂŶĐŝĂů^ƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚLJ
The District must grow significantly to fully achieve the goals outlined in
the Vision Plan. A key driver for pursing the FOSM study was to assess
ȱ£Ȃȱ¢ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱǯȱȱȱȂȱȱ
maintains a 30-‐‑year financial model that is continuously updated to
address the changing environment of the District and reflect the most
currently information available. The fiscal model applies a series of
assumptions that drive the forecast. There are several risk-‐‑factors that
require monitoring over time; however, the organization will have ample
time to respond and take corrective action if one or more of the risk-‐‑
factors materialize.
DŝĚƉĞŶŝŶƐƵůĂ͛ƐFiscal Model
ȱȱȂȱřŖ-‐‑year financial model is driven by assumptions
in four main categories: tax revenues, operating expenditures, non-‐‑
Measure AA capital expenditures, and Measure AA-‐‑related expenditures.
The Controller assumes an annual tax revenue growth rate of 5.0% in the
first ten years and a lower rate of 4.5% in the years that follow. These tax
rates are lower than the 20-‐‑year historic average annual growth rate of
6.4%. The expenditure side of the model includes aggressive assumptions
for operating and capital costs. The Controller assumes an ambitious
addition of 40 employees by FY 2017-‐‑18 and non-‐‑Measure AA capital
expenditure assumptions include a $20 million investment by FY 2018-‐‑19
for anticipated facility costs. Finally, the Measure AA-‐‑related expenditure
assumptions include labor costs and a generous assumption for
contingency costs. The details of these assumptions are outlined in Table
7.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Financial Sustainability Management Partners
72
Summary of Key Assumptions of the Fiscal Model
Category Key Assumptions Notes
Tax Revenues
FY 2015-‐16 base: $36.3 million
FY 2015-‐29 annual growth rate: 5.0%
FY 2030-‐45 annual growth rate: 4.25%
The average annual growth rate of
assessed valuation in the District for the
last 20 years is 6.4%.
Operating
Expenditure
FY 2015-‐18 accounts for 40 additional
employees
FY 2017-‐18 base: $24.8 million
FY 2015-‐29 annual growth rate: 7.0%
FY 2030-‐45 annual growth rate: 5.25%
The average annual growth rate of
operating expenditure over the past 5
years is 6.0%.
Non-‐Measure AA
Capital Expenditure
FY 2016-‐19 accounts for $20 million in
new facilities.
FY 2015-‐16 base: $3.9 million
FY 2015-‐29 annual growth rate: 5.0%
FY 2030-‐45 annual growth rate: 4.25%
The average annual growth rate of
capital expenditure has a fluctuating
historic trend.
Measure AA
Expenditure
Bond proceeds every 3 years.
Measure AA labor expenditures are
12.5% of total Measure AA
expenditures.
Grant income will fund 8.0% of the
Measure AA project expenditures.
Bond debt service is calculated based on
economic assumptions by the
Controller.
Measure AA capital expenditure is
informed by work plans, which includes
generous contingencies.
Measure AA grant income projections
amount to $24 million over 30 years.
The fiscal model forecasts a stable future under the CȂȱ
conservative assumptions. Even with an increase of 40 positions in the
next three years and ongoing expenditure increases, the operational
expenditures remain below 90% of projected tax revenue over the full 30
year period as shown in Figure 21. In other words, the tax revenues will
ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ£Ȃȱȱ
expenses in the defined time frame.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Financial Sustainability Management Partners
73
Figure 21. Operational Expenses as Percentage of Tax Revenue
Model Stress Testing
The Ȃȱȱȱ ȱȱ ȱȱȃ ȱȄȱ
ȱȱȱȱȂȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
scenarios. The test applied a worst-‐‑case scenario by inserting the tax rate
realized by the District during the worst years of the Great Recession for a
four years period and making no reductions to expenditures. While this
scenario is unlikely since the District would likely constrain or reduce
expenditure as revenue decline, the test reveals the strength of the
Ȃȱȱǯ As shown in Figure 22, the District reaches
100% of tax revenue approximately ten years following the major
recession. This affords the District ample time to adjust for the economic
correction.
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
1
4
-
‐
1
5
1
5
-
‐
1
6
1
6
-
‐
1
7
1
7
-
‐
1
8
1
8
-
‐
1
9
1
9
-
‐
2
0
2
0
-
‐
2
1
2
1
-
‐
2
2
2
2
-
‐
2
3
2
3
-
‐
2
4
2
4
-
‐
2
5
2
5
-
‐
2
6
2
6
-
‐
2
7
2
7
-
‐
2
8
2
8
-
‐
2
9
2
9
-
‐
3
0
3
0
-
‐
3
1
3
1
-
‐
3
2
3
2
-
‐
3
3
3
3
-
‐
3
4
3
4
-
‐
3
5
3
5
-
‐
3
6
3
6
-
‐
3
7
3
7
-
‐
3
8
3
8
-
‐
3
9
3
9
-
‐
4
0
4
0
-
‐
4
1
4
1
-
‐
4
2
4
2
-
‐
4
3
4
3
-
‐
4
4
4
4
-
‐
4
5
Operating Exp/Taxes
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Financial Sustainability Management Partners
74
Figure 22. Operational Expenses as Percentage of Tax Revenue With One Great Recession
Note: Great Recession-‐‑level 2.27% AV growth occurs from FY 2025-‐‑29
Risk Factors
There are several risk factors to monitor regardless of the strong financial
position forecast ¢ȱȱȂȱȱǯȱǰȱȱȱȱ
value does not grow as predicted, the organization may experience
resource constraints, as 75% of current revenue is from property taxes.
Second, if the organization takes on more non-‐‑General Obligation (GO)
debt than it is able to service, the resulting debt service expenditure could
threaten the fiscal health of the organization. Third, if operational
expenditures grow faster than projected, the ongoing tax revenue will not
be sufficient to support the operations of the organization. The last risk
ȱȱȱ£Ȃȱ¢ȱȱȱ ȱȱǯȱWhile
important to monitor the potential for these risks, the dynamic nature of
ȱȂȱȱȱ ȱȱDistrict to predict, plan, and
adapt to the economic conditions and respond before a risk becomes
detrimental to the financial health of the organization.
FY 2043-‐44
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
1
4
-
‐
1
5
1
5
-
‐
1
6
1
6
-
‐
1
7
1
7
-
‐
1
8
1
8
-
‐
1
9
1
9
-
‐
2
0
2
0
-
‐
2
1
2
1
-
‐
2
2
2
2
-
‐
2
3
2
3
-
‐
2
4
2
4
-
‐
2
5
2
5
-
‐
2
6
2
6
-
‐
2
7
2
7
-
‐
2
8
2
8
-
‐
2
9
2
9
-
‐
3
0
3
0
-
‐
3
1
3
1
-
‐
3
2
3
2
-
‐
3
3
3
3
-
‐
3
4
3
4
-
‐
3
5
3
5
-
‐
3
6
3
6
-
‐
3
7
3
7
-
‐
3
8
3
8
-
‐
3
9
3
9
-
‐
4
0
4
0
-
‐
4
1
4
1
-
‐
4
2
4
2
-
‐
4
3
4
3
-
‐
4
4
4
4
-
‐
4
5
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Road Map to Implementation Management Partners
75
ZŽĂĚDĂƉƚŽ/ŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ
The District has a number of goals and objectives across several critical
plans for action (annual Action Plans, Measure AA top 25 projects,
administrative and business improvements). Strategies for implementing
them require close coordination and clear priorities to enable staff to be
accountable and for projects to be successfully implemented. Two tools
will facilitate successful implementation: 1) a change management
approach and 2) phasing actions.
District staff is committed, engaged, and enthusiastic about the work and
mission of the organization. This provides a good platform from which to
launch organization change and institute business and system
improvements that position the organization to achieve its ambitious
vision. Staff are committed to the vision and mission. However, many
feel challenged by the current and proposed work program and
implementation of Measure AA.
Change Management Strategy
Managing change is not enough. Organizational change needed to
develop an effective Measure AA implementation plan and new
administrative systems will require dedicated executive level leadership,
a continuing sense of urgency, and adequate resource allocations.
There are five components to successful change management:
x Planning
x Defined governance
x Committed leadership
x Informed stakeholders, and
x Aligned workforce1
1 Change Management Best Practices: Five Key Factors Common in Managing
Organizational Change, Queensland Government, 2009 available at
www.psc.qld.gov.au/publications/subject-‐‑specific-‐‑publications/assets/change-‐‑
management-‐‑best-‐‑practice-‐‑guide.pdf
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Road Map to Implementation Management Partners
76
Planning
Proper project planning requires high quality systems, full team
engagement, clearly defined outcomes, thorough risk assessments,
autonomy and delegation of decision making, timely problem solving,
and proper monitoring. As the District proceeds with the
recommendations to institute management and information systems and
develop a systematic project delivery approach, the organization will be
successfully positioned to deliver results.
Defined Governance
The Board and senior and executive management seek extensive analysis
and detailed information before decisions are made, which can be both
ineffective and inefficient. Delegating work that belongs to division
heads and managers frees up time for senior and executive management
ȱȱȱȃȱȄȱon implementation and support the needs of
elected officials and policy decision-‐‑making. Performance plans that
cascade from the Board to the General Manager to Assistant General
Managers to department heads play a critical role in aligning high-‐‑level
goals down into the organization.
Clarification regarding roles and responsibilities of the District
governance system further positions the agency for successful results.
The Board, leadership team, and staff each own different parts of the
governance continuum. The Board provides policy level review and
decision-‐‑making. This should include revising existing policies and
procedures regarding Board relationships with staff. Staff is charged
with focusing on implementing the vision and administering the District
work plan through Board-‐‑established clear work plan priorities and
direction.
Recommendation 58. Support effective Board and staff
working relationships by defining clear roles and
responsibilities and reviewing and updating policies and
procedures that effect these interactions. When adequate
role definition, policies, and systems are in place, trust and
accountability within and outside the organization will
increase. This will enable policy makers to focus on policy
and strategic direction instead of operations and
administration.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Road Map to Implementation Management Partners
77
Committed Leadership
By forming a coalition of change leaders throughout the organization,
District leadership should ensure staff has the tools, training, and
resources to complete the work and achieve the defined outcomes.
To achieve alignment through all levels of the organization, it is crucial to
provide staff policies and procedures (personnel, purchasing, project
management, property acquisition) that frame and clarify the
performance expectations, employment boundaries, and the work
climate. Establishing clear meeting management practices will help
ensure purpose driven, productive and meaningful results. As work
becomes more complex, effective and efficient meeting management will
be critical to administrative success. Likewise, delegating problem
solving and decision making to employees that are aligned at all levels of
the organization improves work flow processing and keeps projects
moving by avoiding the need to vet each decision through the executive
team.
Recommendation 59. Establish meeting management and
delegation practices that ensure productive and
meaningful results and utilize the expertise and skills of
staff.
Informed Stakeholders
Measure AA implementation and change management will require a
coalition of committed, accountable leaders, with a common vision of
what success looks like and clear outcomes that are thoroughly
communicated.
Creating and communicating a vision for organization change
accompanied by a sense of urgency enables staff members to connect
incremental tasks to the broader purpose of their work. Frequent and
regular communication (i.e., employee newsletter, shared calendars, joint
administration and field staff events) will help staff understand what is
being asked of them and set a context for future directives, planning and
associated action plans.
Recommendation 60. Establish an internal and external
communication strategy for FOSM Implementation.
Clear and frequent communication from management
about how organizational changes will affect the
workforce is seen as underdeveloped by many employees.
Having many District operations based in different
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Road Map to Implementation Management Partners
78
buildings and different areas can make communication
challenging without an intentional, organized effort.
Aligned Workforce
As reviewed in detail within the organization structure section of this
ǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢Ȃȱǯȱȱȱ
previously recommended a structure that will include the reorganization
of some activities and the addition of functional capacities consistent with
the three business lines: Planning and Project Delivery, Operations and
Visitor Services and Administration and internal Support.
Phasing: How do we get started with these changes?
Phase I
As has been discussed, the foundational management and information
systems must be developed first. Since it is necessary to supporting
operations, project delivery, and the DistrictȂs institutional infrastructure,
conducting an information systems and technology (IST) study and
designing an implementation plan regarding the study findings will help
to immediately address three vital systems: maintenance management,
project management, and client management.
Also, developing position descriptions and beginning the recruitment
process for the Chief Financial Officer/Administrative Services Director
and the Information Technology Manager positions, will allow the
District to align the administrative functions and move quickly to
implement the IST plan. This action builds the administrative leadership
team quickly.
To support the District project planning and delivery structure,
recruitment of an Engineering and Construction Manager will provide an
owner of this critical new function in the District. This position will be
responsible for moving projects from the planning phase to building and
construction. This will offer staff the structure and direction for work and
will provide critical resources to support problem solving.
An additional phasing plan is necessary to define the transition steps to
align the operations team structure that will lead to the new Visitor
Services and Land and Field Services departments. The phasing plan will
address both the timing and relocation of positions from Public Affairs
and Real Property groups.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Road Map to Implementation Management Partners
79
Refinements to positions and titles in Natural Resources and Human
Resources will ensure the District has the expertise and confirm each
function is properly resourced to perform the new volume of work.
Phase II and III
Following completion of Phase I, the organization will be positioned to
£ȱȱ ȱ£ȱǰȱȱ ȱȱȂȱ
business lines, and establish the new Engineering and Construction
Department, communicate the phasing plan and detailed changes plus
timeline regarding the Operations function along with the timing of IST
implementation work.
The change envisioned through the FOSM will take time and ongoing
commitment. An implementation plan that prioritizes the
recommendations contained in this report will be developed in
conjunction with management and will be used to guide, inform and
track progress.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Conclusion Management Partners
80
ŽŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶ
The Financial and Operational Sustainability Model report is the final
component of a deliberate and thoughtful four piece strategy to transform
the District to meet new constituent interests and build a long term
strategy for sustainable operations. Positioning the organization to use its
current and Measure AA resources responsibly in the long run is
unprecedented work for typical organizations and reflects a best
practice. The study identified a number of opportunities to position the
District to accomplish the 2014 Vision Plan. The District workload is
proposed to more than double over the next 30 years through Measure
AA funding. Focusing resources, attention, and recommended changes
on three key areas will position the District to achieve its work plan:
1) Developing core management and information systems will
increase staff efficiency and provide data necessary to monitor,
adapt, and inform stakeholders regarding Vision Plan progress.
2) Aligning organization functions within the Districts by its three
business lines (Project Planning and Delivery; Operations and
Visitor Services; and Administration and Internal Support) will
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of operations.
3) Delineating and documenting a structure for the workflow of
District projects will allow the organization to deliver results and
meet public expectations.
Capitalizing on these opportunities requires a renewed commitment to
roles and responsibilities. Foremost, a commitment to clear priorities and
direction as well as patience and persistence is required by leaders in the
organization. Change is hard. However, the ambiguity that is inherent in
the midst of change can be diminished through disciplined practices that
include planning (timing, training, tools, problem solving), defined
governance, committed leadership, aligning the workforce, and regular
communication with stakeholders.
District employees reported that the mission of the agency keeps them
inspired and engaged in preservation, restoration, and expanding public
access opportunities. Most agencies spend decades investing in resources
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Conclusion Management Partners
81
to establish and build employee commitment to its mission. Valuable,
unique, and refreshing, the District can check this leadership challenge off
its list. Although significant, FOSM recommendations can harness the
commitment to the mission to fuel the tasks ahead. This is an exciting
ȱȱȱȂȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢Ȃȱtion.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Attachment A Ȯ List of Recommendations Management Partners
82
ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚʹ>ŝƐƚŽĨZĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐ
Recommendation 1. Develop mechanisms that periodically clarify and reinforce
organizational priorities for staff, so that work can be planned and managed in alignment
with those priorities.
Recommendation 2. Develop a communication strategy to regularly provide information
updates to the Board and public regarding project progress and results, and promote
transparency to build public trust.
Recommendation 3. Convene internal stakeholders to develop a refined, comprehensive
project delivery approach that ensures proper oversight, clarity of roles, prioritization,
predictability, and follow-‐‑through.
Recommendation 4. Integrate specialized functions, such as CEQA review, that play a
ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȂȱȱ¢ȱ
approach and identify procedural changes and methods of centralization that lead to greater
consistency and efficiencies
Recommendation 5. Complete a comprehensive requirements analysis and establish a plan
to procure and implement a uniform Project Management System.
Recommendation 6. Develop a consistent format for project budgets using a procured
project management system that informs work planning and accounts for the total cost of
project delivery, including staff time and indirect costs associated with administrative
support functions and organizational overhead.
Recommendation 7. Expand the list of pre-‐‑approved, on-‐‑call consultants and contractors
that can be available to support the District in its planning, engineering, construction, and
project delivery functions.
Recommendation 8. Review current contracting/bidding policies/practices to identify
opportunities to streamline these policies/practices.
Recommendation 9. Create an Engineering and Construction Department and hire an
Engineering and Construction Manager to oversee the following project delivery functions:
design, permitting and engineering; construction management; and Measure AA project
delivery oversight.
Recommendation 10. Meet with local jurisdictions to discuss opportunities to improve the
permit processing time associated with certain types of permits.
Recommendation 11. Create a Property Acquisitions Plan that clearly communicates
District acquisition policies and goals that provides a road map for strategic land acquisition.
Recommendation 12. Restructure the Real Property function to focus on land and property
acquisition, and move the property management function to a Facilities division in the new
Land and Field Services Department.
Recommendation 13. ȱȱȃȱȄȱfunction of the organization to provide
public facing services and activities. Restructure the organization to align docents,
volunteers, and rangers to meet the array of visitor services.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Attachment A Ȯ List of Recommendations Management Partners
83
Recommendation 14. Separate the patrol and maintenance functions into two distinct
organizational units, Visitor Services (for patrol staff) and Land and Facilities Services (for
maintenance staff).
Recommendation 15. Create Manager-‐‑level positions to lead the Visitor Services and Land
and Facilities Services groups.
Recommendation 16. Develop guiding policy similar to the East Bay Regional Park District
Pipeline Program that requires District staff to develop estimates for start-‐‑up costs as well as
ongoing maintenance, safety, and staffing costs for each development project or future land
acquisition before the Board commits to the project or purchase.
Recommendation 17. Purchase and implement a computerized maintenance management
system (CMMS) and provide training on its use.
Recommendation 18. Explore new reliable communication technology (i.e., email, voice and
visual systems, tough books) to ensure field staff have the information and tools to
effectively perform their job responsibilities.
Recommendation 19. Establish a special projects/construction team that is dedicated to the
delivery of special projects like trails construction.
Recommendation 20. Explore opportunities to partner with the private sector to provide
existing staff with the capacity to address maintenance backlogs and deferred maintenance.
Recommendation 21. Develop a field staff onboarding/ training program that outlines the
variety of details and standards used for trails construction and maintenance work
throughout the District.
Recommendation 22. Maintain effective working relationships with local police and fire
departments and as the District expands periodically evaluate automatic aid protocols and
response.
Recommendation 23. Develop a seasonal employment program for patrol work.
Recommendation 24. Complete a Natural Resources Position Classification Study to ensure
appropriate staffing types and levels are in place and recruited for in the future. (Underway)
Recommendation 25. Expand grazing property management as a function of the new Land
and Facilities Management department
Recommendation 26. Create crews that focus on specific work functions and incorporate a
rotational program that allows for continued professional growth and development of staff.
Recommendation 27. Complete a facilities needs study to determine mid and long term
field facility needs and investigate alternate maintenance facilities to accommodate future
growth.
Recommendation 28. Consolidate facility maintenance/property management into the Land
and Facilities group.
Recommendation 29. Create a facilities maintenance and improvement plan to guide work
plans and inform financial decision making.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Attachment A Ȯ List of Recommendations Management Partners
84
Recommendation 30. Document the business and technology requirements for an
integrated budget and cost accounting system that enables the District to perform 1) general
ledger and fund accounting; 2) project accounting; 3) grant billing and reconciliation; and 4)
grant documentation and organization.
Recommendation 31. Create a Chief Financial Officer (CFO)/Director of Administrative
Services executive level position responsible for the realigned administrative services
functions to provide financial and other administrative services expertise and leadership in
these areas within the organization.
Recommendation 32. Develop a transition plan to shift financial responsibility and
ȱȱȱǰȱȱȱȱȂȱȱǰȱȱȱ
part-‐‑time Controller to the new CFO/Director of Administrative Services.
Recommendation 33. Maintain the New World Systems financial software at or near the
current release and continue to leverage the system to its full potential.
Recommendation 34. Review, update, or develop financial management policies and
procedures to enable appropriate, accountable, and fiscally sound decisions at the lowest
possible level within the organization.
Recommendation 35. Centralize the purchasing function within the Finance and
Administrative Services Department.
Recommendation 36. Develop and implement a Technology Strategic Plan to provide a
ȱȱȱȂȱȱȱ term implementation and management of
technology.
Recommendation 37. Implement an IT governance structure that promotes effective
planning, priority setting, and accountability of District technology resources (staff, funding,
hardware and software) with business priorities.
Recommendation 38. Augment the existing IT staff with an IT Division Manager and an
additional IT Specialist.
Recommendation 39. Integrate the GIS Services group into a new Information Systems and
Technology department to better reflect its District-‐‑wide service role and augment existing
GIS staff with one GIS specialist position.
Recommendation 40. Develop and implement a formal technology disaster recovery plan
sufficient to address protection from an area (not site specific) disaster.
Recommendation 41. Implement a desktop management (help desk) solution to manage
requests for technology to track, monitor, and report on help desk activities.
Recommendation 42. Create a Special Projects Manager position to provide project
management support for internal support systems (i.e., IST implementation plan, records
management system, purchasing process and procedures).
Recommendation 43. Establish a Human Resource management level position responsible
for planning and meeting critical recruitment issues and sustaining a committed workforce.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Attachment A Ȯ List of Recommendations Management Partners
85
Recommendation 44. Hire interim, temporary, or contract Human Resources staff to meet
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ£Ȃȱȱȱȱ
path.
Recommendation 45. Develop reclassification policies and procedures to streamline
classifications and effectively respond to organization staffing needs.
Recommendation 46. Reassign facility management responsibilities to Operations and
develop a resource allocation plan which includes existing staff and contract services to
maintain District facilities.
Recommendation 47. Complete a facility master plan to address the District office and
operational needs for the next decade.
Recommendation 48. Complete a comprehensive requirements analysis and establish a
formal project plan to procure and implement a document management system.
Recommendation 49. Assign the tactical implementation of special projects to skilled
managers elsewhere in the organization.
Recommendation 50. Establish a senior management analyst position that reports directly
to the General Manager to monitor District project delivery, provide annual CIP project
oversight
Recommendation 51. ȱȱ ȱȂȱȱ¢ǯ
Recommendation 52. ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ ȱȂȱȱ
and establish expectations for the team to focus on both external and internal
communication.
Recommendation 53. Maintain existing staffȱȱ ȱȱ ȱȂȱDzȱ
as workload expands with Measure AA implementation and the growth of complex land
acquisitions, evaluate opportunities for supplemental contracted and/or in-‐‑house legal and
risk management support over time.
Recommendation 54. Assess the need for a centralized risk management function under the
direction of a risk manager as the size and scale of District operations increases over time.
Recommendation 55. ȱȱȂȱȱȱȱȱǰȱ
human resources, and information technology under a new Chief Financial Officer
(CFO)/Director of Administrative Services.
Recommendation 56. Ensure collaboration, effective communication, and project
completion by having the managers of Real Property, Planning, and Capital
Projects/Engineering report to the same Assistant General Manager.
Recommendation 57. Align the field-‐‑focused functions under the same Assistant General
Manager to maintain open communication, shared resources, and a customer-‐‑driven
approach.
Recommendation 58. Support effective Board and staff working relationships by defining
clear roles and responsibilities and reviewing and updating policies and procedures that
effect these interactions.
Attachment 1
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
Attachment A Ȯ List of Recommendations Management Partners
86
Recommendation 59. Establish meeting management and delegation practices that ensure
productive and meaningful results and utilize the expertise and skills of staff.
Recommendation 60. Establish an internal and external communication strategy for FOSM
Implementation.
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
FOSM – Implementation Status
Page 1 of 4
In 2015, the Board accepted the comprehensive FOSM study to provide a high-level framework for guiding the future
organizational structure and growth of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District). This study was
implemented at a critical time in District history, following completion of the Vision Plan and the successful passage by
voters of Measure AA to fund priority Vision Plan capital projects.
The FOSM lists sixty (60) recommendations to support a District-wide organizational shift from a primary focus on
acquisition to a balanced implementation of the District mission and long-term operational sustainability. At the
December 2018 retreat (FY20 budget development) staff identified 47 FOSM recommendations as complete (78%). By
the end of FY20, an additional 6 FOSM recommendations will be completed (10%), bringing the total completed
recommentations to 53 (88%). There are 7 remaining recommendations (12%). A status for each of the recently
completed and remaining recommendations is summarized by business line below.
Completed Recommendations
Project Planning & Delivery
Recommendation 4: Integrate specialized functions, such as CEQA review, that play a critical role in project delivery and
integrate them into the District's project delivery approach and identify procedural changes and methods of
centralization that lead to greater consistency and efficiencies.
Estimated Completion Date: Complete
Additional Comments: The results of the Planning Department Organization Study identified tools that
can be implemented to support project delivery. For example, Planning has
identified an internal CEQA Coordinator to support cross-department CEQA
needs and is leveraging the use of CEQA consultants to supplement in-house
staff.
Visitor & Field Services
Recommendation 20: Explore opportunities to partner with the private sector to provide existing staff with the capacity
to address maintenance backlogs and deferred maintenance.
Estimated Completion Date: Complete (by end of FY2020)
Additional Comments: Staff have utilized contractors to perform many of the resource management
tasks that lack the staffing to accomplish, such as invasive plant management
and restoration site monitoring and maintenance. Staff have made extensive use
of on-call contracts for maintenance and repair services, such as tree services,
general contracting, painting, roofing and plumbing to perform tasks that were
too small to contract individually. Staff have also utilized contracts with youth
groups, such as the San Jose Conservation Corps and Grassroots Ecology to
contract required work and provide youth engagement and job training at the
same time. Staff is currently researching the costs and benefits of contracting
out residential property management functions.
Recommendation 21: Develop a field staff onboarding/training program that outlines the variety of details and
standards used for trails construction and maintenance work throughout the District.
Estimated Completion Date: Complete
Additional Comments: The District maintains a set of standards and details for trail construction and
maintenance work as well as best management practices that new staff are
trained on as they work with experienced staff. The District also utilizes State
Attachment 2
FOSM – Implementation Status
Page 2 of 4
Parks trail worker training for Land & Facilities staff as it is available. Individual
trail designs are also reviewed and followed during trail construction.
Recommendation 29: Create a facilities maintenance and improvement plan to guide work plans and inform financial
decision making.
Estimated Completion Date: Complete
Additional Comments: Recommendation is related to small scale buildings and facilities. The Work
Order Asset Management system (CityWorks) has been set up to accommodate
the entry and tracking of preventative maintenance plans for District facilities.
Facilities have been geolocated in the system and once reoccurring tasks are
entered, automated work orders for inspections and maintenance will be
generated.
Finance & Administrative Services
Recommendation 37: Implement an IT governance structure that promotes effective planning, priority setting, and
accountability of District technology resources (staff, funding, hardware and software) with business priorities.
Estimated Completion Date: Complete
Additional Comments: The IST Master Plan (accepted by the Board in September 2015) for the IT
governance structure is being followed, including the implementation of a Help
Desk, review of metrics, identification of training needs, and collaboration on
projects and initiatives. A formal governance committee was not implemented,
instead, IT has adopted a user centric implementation approach and utilizes the
resource loading process to gauge the organization’s bandwidth for new
software and implementations.
General Manager’s Office
Recommendation 48: Complete a comprehensive requirements analysis and establish a formal project plan to procure
and implement a document management system.
Estimated Completion Date: Complete
Additional Comments: As part of the implementation of Office 365, SharePoint and OneDrive were
implemented as new document management systems for department and
project files (SharePoint) and individual files (OneDrive). A secondary phase is
currently underway as part of the Records Retention policy update. For the
Records Retention project a needs assessment is currently underway. Adhering
to the District’s procurement process, vendor selection for an electronic
document repository will follow.
Remaining Recommendations
Project Planning & Delivery
Recommendation 10: Meet with local jurisdictions to discuss opportunities to improve the permit processing time
associated with certain types of permits.
Estimated Completion Date: FY2022
Additional Comments: The Districts Governmental Affairs Specialist and Project Managers presented
case studies to the Board regarding challenges the District faces through
Attachment 2
FOSM – Implementation Status
Page 3 of 4
permitting processes. Staff is working with San Mateo County to pursue zoning
amendments to streamline lot line adjustment process for land acquisitions and
to develop a master permit for routine maintenance and small-scale capital
projects.
Recommendation 11: Create a Property Acquisitions Plan that clearly communicates District acquisition policies and
goals that provides a road map for strategic land acquisition.
Estimated Completion Date: FY2022
Additional Comments: The collection, research and review of existing documents is on-going. The Real
Property Department recently filled the Real Property Specialist position which
had been vacant for over a year. This creates staff capacity to focus on the
development of the plan. The project will be included in the recommended
FY2020-21 Capital Improvement and Action Plan.
Visitor & Field Services
Recommendation 16: Develop guiding policy similar to the East Bay Regional Park District Pipeline Program that requires
District staff to develop estimates for start-up costs as well as ongoing maintenance, safety, and staffing costs for
each development project or future land acquisition before the Board commits to the project or purchase.
Estimated Completion Date: FY2021
Additional Comments: This is the operational impact portion of new or recently completed Capital
Improvement and Action Plan (CIAP) projects. The policy will need a framework
and will be included in the recommended FY2020-21 CIAP list. The Work Order
Asset Management system (CityWorks) will be a source of data.
Recommendation 47: Complete a facility master plan to address the District office and operational needs for the next
decade.
Estimated Completion Date: FY2023
Additional Comments: Recommendation is related to large scale buildings and facilities. Plan will
encompass the Administrative Office (AO), Coastal Area Office (CAO), Foothill
Field Office (FFO), Skyline Field Office (SFO) and South Area Office (SAO).
Topics the plan will address may include energy plans, conversion to LEDs,
backup energy, etc.
Note: this recommendation was relocated from Finance & Administrative
Services to better align with current operational activities at the District.
Finance & Administrative Services
Recommendation 40: Develop and implement a formal technology disaster recovery plan sufficient to address protection
from an area (not site specific) disaster.
Estimated Completion Date: FY2021
Additional Comments: This recommendation is in progress. Cloud backup of system has been
completed. A business continuity plan which is currently being developed will
inform end results and ultimate timing for this recommendation.
Attachment 2
FOSM – Implementation Status
Page 4 of 4
General Managers Office
Recommendation 54: Assess the need for a centralized risk management function under the direction of a risk manager
as the size and scale of District operations increases over time.
Estimated Completion Date: FY2022
Additional Comments: Collaboration between General Manager’s office, General Counsel’s office and
Administrative Services will be facilitated to discuss aspects of the risk
management program carried out by these business lines and determine
whether a more centralized approach would benefit the organization.
Recommendation 59: Establish meeting management and delegation practices that ensure productive and meaningful
results and utilize the expertise and skills of staff.
Estimated Completion Date: FY2022
Additional Comments: Review to include inventory of types of meetings and use of meeting
management tools and techniques. Evaluate minimum personnel required for
meetings and assignment delegation and provide delegation of authority. This
will also include standard (non-meeting) delegation of authority to cover
absences of key personnel or management. Provide training as needed.
R-19-163
Meeting 19-30
December 9, 2019
AGENDA ITEM 2
AGENDA ITEM
Environmental Scan and Fiscal Year 2020-21 Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
Review, update if needed, and adopt the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Strategic Plan Goals and
Objectives to meet emerging opportunities and challenges, and guide the development of the
Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget and 3-year Capital Improvement and Action Plan.
SUMMARY
Each year, the Board of Directors (Board) holds two retreats to kick-off the annual budget
process. For the budget development cycle ending June 20, 2021 (FY21), these retreats are
scheduled on Monday, December 9, 2019 and Tuesday, March 3, 2020. On December 9, 2019,
the Board will review and discuss the following items:
• The Environmental Scan Report, which is prepared annually to inform any updates to the
Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives (Attachment 1);
• Progress to date on fulfilling the FY20 Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives, and any
language revisions to adopt the new FY21 Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives
(Attachments 2 and 3).
This annual Board Retreat Meeting 1 (Strategic Planning) provides the Board with an early
opportunity to set the overall course for the coming year at a broad policy level. It also provides
the framework for Board Retreat Meeting 2 (Priority Setting) scheduled on March 3, 2020. At
this future meeting, the Board will discuss and confirm the priorities for the next fiscal year to
guide the Budget and Action Plan development ahead of the presentations to the Action Plan and
Budget Committee, which begin in late April 2020.
DISCUSSION
The Board adopted a comprehensive Strategic Plan in 2011 (R-11-96) to provide a high-level
framework for guiding the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (District)
implementation of its mission. Each year, the Board reviews, makes edits as necessary, and
adopts the Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives for the following fiscal year to provide high-level
direction for developing the upcoming Budget and Action Plan.
R-19-163 Page 2
Environmental Scan
Staff will present the results of an Environmental Scan Report (Attachment 1) and discuss the
strengths, challenges, barriers, and opportunities facing the District as it looks forward to FY21.
The environmental scan includes significant internal and external conditions, data, and factors
that may influence the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization’s operations, services, and
project delivery. The annual environmental scan informs the Board’s subsequent review and any
revisions to or affirmation of the Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives for FY21 (Attachments 2
and 3). Below is a summary of the high-level themes and findings from the environmental scan:
• The District remains focused on delivering Vision Plan and Measure AA projects.
• Work is underway on 20 of 25 Measure AA Portfolios.
• The District remains in a strong financial position yet aware of a looming recession and
slower growth in assessed property values.
• Project complexity, and therefore costs and schedules, are increasing.
• The continued high demand for labor and materials regionwide continue to drive construction
costs up. However, there has been a widening gap in bid prices as well.
• Extreme weather patterns are the new normal. Enhanced and expanded resiliency practices,
systems, and policies will allow the District to better adapt and rebound to a changing climate
and minimize disruptions to ongoing operations, services, and project delivery.
• Continued monitoring of state and national policies, especially after the 2020 elections, is
important to maintain the long-term financial sustainability of projects and programs.
• Reaching out to and educating newly elected officials and the public of the critical role the
District plays in protecting water quality and water supplies, reducing catastrophic wildfires
and impacts from climate change, and furthering regional conservation goals to sustain our
region’s life support system continue to be important.
• High visitation at newly opened public access locations and the anticipation of opening new
public areas is increasing the pressure and demand on field personnel.
• New public access areas and related infrastructure often require mitigation and permit
conditions, expanding restoration and revegetation workloads and requiring multi-year
efforts to reach performance goals.
• Recruitment and retention of employees continues to be a key focus for the organization; the
record high job market is affecting staffing turnover and adding pressure to start new
employees at mid or top salary ranges. These factors, coupled with the high cost of living
and difficult commutes, warrant ongoing creative staff retention strategies.
• New staff present an opportunity to energize the organization and bring in new perspectives,
ideas and solutions; there is also an opportunity and a need for new and remaining staff to
glean institutional knowledge from those parting ways with the District.
The Board is encouraged to review the detailed information in Attachment 1 prior to the retreat
to prepare for the discussion.
R-19-163 Page 3
Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives
Organizational revisions to the FY21 Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives are being proposed to
realign the goals and objectives with the District’s core mission. During prior Strategic Planning
meetings, the lack of an obvious and clear link from the core components of the District’s
mission to the annual Budget and Action Plan development process have been noted.
The recommended revisions, if
approved, would have a positive
impact throughout the entire
organization by establishing a
stronger and clearer link that tie the
mission to the annual goals and
objectives for improved alignment, as
shown in the figure to the right.
Realigning – but not substantially
changing the strategic goals and
objectives – will enable management
and staff to identify projects that
support the core mission and to better communicate this alignment both internally across all
levels of the organization and externally with the public and our partners. Furthermore, the
recommended revisions to the Strategic Goals and Objectives provide a concrete structure for the
annual Budget and Action Plan development process.
In support of this proposed realignment, the Strategic Goals were reassembled to reflect the
major components of the District’s core and coastside mission statements. Strategic Objectives
were then reassigned to the relevant Strategic Goals and the language updated slightly; however,
most objectives were not materially changed. The prior adopted FY20 Strategic Plan Goals and
Objectives are presented in Attachment 2. A red-lined version of the draft FY21 Strategic Plan
Goals and Objectives is presented in Attachment 3. Attachment 4 includes flowcharts that
visually depict the realignment of the adopted FY20 Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives into the
draft FY21 Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives.
If the Board accepts the realignment proposal, the General Manager recommends using the draft
FY21 Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives document to incorporate Board edits to the language,
as is District practice for the first annual Board retreat (Attachment 3).
FISCAL IMPACT
Acceptance of the Environmental Scan Report and adoption of the FY21 Strategic Plan Goals
and Objectives have no immediate fiscal impact. These actions will inform, together with Board
confirmation of District priorities on March 3, 2020, the development of the FY21 Budget and
three-year CIAP for FY21 through FY23 as part of the annual Budget and Action Plan
development process.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
This item was brought directly to the full Board given full Board interest and importance.
CIAP Programs & Projects
Strategic Objectives
Strategic Goals
Midpen Core & Coastside Missions
R-19-163 Page 4
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This item is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
NEXT STEPS
On March 3, 2020, the Board will confirm the District-wide priorities for the upcoming fiscal
year. The outcomes of the December 9, 2019 and March 3, 2020 Board retreat meetings will
guide the development of the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget and Action Plan, including the 3-Year
CIAP.
Attachments:
1. Environmental Scan Report for Fiscal Year 2020-21
2. Adopted FY20 Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives
3. Draft FY21 Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives
4. FY20 and FY21 Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives Flowcharts
Responsible Department Head:
Ana Ruiz, General Manager
Prepared by:
Carmen Narayanan, Budget & Analysis Manager
Stefan Jaskulak, Chief Financial Officer
Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager
Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager
Ana Ruiz, General Manager
Staff Contact:
Ana Ruiz, General Manager
Attachment 1
MROSD Board Retreat #1 December 9, 2019
FY2020-21 Environmental Scan Report Page 1 of 6
FY2020-21 Environmental Scan Report
Introduction
This report summarizes the annual Environmental Scan results, as the District looks forward,
planning for FY2020-21.
Each year, District managers take time to reflect on external and internal environments by
answering a set of ten questions. The goal of this exercise is to identify any new trends that the
District should be aware of, respond in a timely fashion, and ideally get ahead of to avoid
potential challenges.
The Environmental Scan considers current and anticipated changes to the economy, political
environment, local leadership, regulatory requirements, demographics, organization and
workflow, and technology trends.
Key findings are presented below to inform Board discussion as they consider whether revisions
to the annual Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives are warranted.
Economy
There is an increased probability of a recession in the next twelve months; however,
construction activity in the Bay Area remains strong. Staff continue to notice lower vendor
availability combined with a widening gap in contractor pricing. Recent high and low bids for
multiple projects were different by over 150%, suggesting that although the construction
market is still very strong, there appears to be indications that a recession could be looming. A
recession could reduce constructions costs and therefore allow the District to complete
projects at lower cost, but may conversely impact District tax revenue if assessed values drop
for an extended period of time.
As noted above, fewer consultants and contractors are submitting proposals or bidding on
projects and there have been, again, several instances over the last year where there were no
responders or only one respondent. This has been especially noticeable for smaller projects,
including IST-related construction projects and planning projects with smaller scopes. If this
continues and is exacerbated, the District can expect longer project timelines to account for
added time to reach out to more contractors/consultants and/or to re-release Requests for Bids
and Requests for Proposals.
Although the region's robust job market remains strong, the residential real estate market has
flattened. Median home prices have dropped by nearly 4.5% in the past year indicating
assessed values will have slower growth or remain flat. Based on the District Controller’s
conservative 30-Year Cash Flow Model, property tax revenues are projected to slow down to a
growth rate of 3.5% in FY2021-22 and beyond. While the total General Fund ad valorem
Attachment 1
MROSD Board Retreat #1 December 9, 2019
FY2020-21 Environmental Scan Report Page 2 of 6
property tax revenue estimate for FY2019-20 is 6% above FY2018-19, this is lower than the past
several years.
The current economy, including unemployment figures of under 3% for San Mateo and Santa
Clara County, continues to support a competitive job market. The ongoing strong job market
will again affect retention and recruitment in the coming year. This is discussed in further detail
in the Internal Organization and Workflow section.
Political Environment and Local Leadership
Federal
Tariffs have impacted material costs for construction, specifically steel and aluminum.
Moreover, reduced federal funding has the potential to impact the ability of federal agencies to
respond to permitting requests and work on cooperative projects. Permitting is one of the
primary factors outside District control that affects project timelines. Impacts to schedules may
be experienced for projects that require federal permits from the US Fish and Wildlife Service
and Army Corp of Engineers. In addition, federal environmental protection laws have been
curtailed and federal grant funding opportunities are limited.
Looking to November 2020, the outcome of the presidential election could impact the District
by affecting the status of environmental laws, federal funding, and the capacity of federal
permitting agencies to process permits.
State
The Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, has stated that a recession is likely and has taken
steps to shore up the state’s “rainy day fund.” Taking on new debt or financial obligations at the
State level without a funding mechanism will become increasingly difficult as the Governor
continues to pursue fiscal discipline in the face of predicted financial headwinds. This may
affect grant availability and the size of budget requests pursued by the District as well.
The passage of statewide rent control may temper the rise in rental costs; this could have a
positive impact for District staff and employee recruitment and retention.
The November 2020 general election includes all three state senators that represent the
District. The District has had particularly productive relationships with the current state
senators, all of whom are terming out. It will be important to build and develop relationships
with newly elected senators.
While Latino and Asian communities across the state are growing more significant, most voters
still tend to be Caucasian and older (55+) according to recent Public Policy Institute of California
(PPIC) polling. This is likely to change over time. Outreach and environmental education to
these growing communities is important as their political voice continues to grow.
Attachment 1
MROSD Board Retreat #1 December 9, 2019
FY2020-21 Environmental Scan Report Page 3 of 6
Local
The District continues to develop relationships with new local representatives and nurture
existing relationships with incumbents. Santa Clara County and San Mateo County have new
County Park Directors, providing a good opportunity to partner on projects and programs of
mutual interest. Moreover, Santa Clara County’s new Supervisor in District 4 has an interest in
promoting outdoor education experiences with local schools, presenting an opportunity to
form new partnerships and extend outreach to younger, more diverse audiences.
Ward boundary redistricting will occur next year after the 2020 census. This is a time-intensive
process that involves IST, GMO, Public Affairs, Legal, and the Board of Directors.
Staff has experienced an increase in requests for District staff time and funding support to assist
regional partner projects. This trend is expected to continue into FY2020-21 and beyond.
Examples of regional trail projects include: POST Bay-to-Sea Trail, San Mateo County Parks'
Ohlone-Portola Heritage Trail, and SF Public Utilities Commission's Bay Area Ridge Trail South
Skyline Extension. The District will need to consider how much capacity can be set aside to
support regional projects, partner projects, and co-agency projects while ensuring that District-
led priority projects move forward as a desired pace.
The California Building Code, which governs much of our work, is updated approximately every
3 years, and the 2019 code goes into effect January 01, 2020. The trend is for the code to be
stricter with each release. Changes to the code include more energy efficiency requirements.
Typically, design consultants and District staff need time and some training to become familiar
with the new code.
The State has recently focused on wildland fire protection projects for fire prevention,
community resilience, forest management, and utility oversight with the passage of 22 new
bills. This state focus has also been reflected locally with increased demands and opportunities
to work with neighbors and fire agencies to address fire risk. These demands will bring new
funding opportunities, and also require staff time that may divert resources away from more
traditional open space projects. Additionally, the recent PG&E Public Safety - Power Shutoffs
(PSPS) is an emerging trend in wildland fire management that directly impacts District
operations. Loss of power combined with extreme fire weather has prompted preserve closures
and limited operations, impacting staff’s ability to effectively and efficiently carry out their
duties, and limiting the recreational options for preserve visitors.
Regulatory Requirements
Regulatory permitting continues to take longer than the one-year that is typically planned in
project schedules. The District regularly faces a multitude of overlapping jurisdictional
permitting processes at the local, county, state, and federal level that increase project costs and
extend project delivery times. Exploring San Mateo County permit streamlining solutions is
currently underway to expedite County reviews. Staff is also pursuing new Programmatic
Attachment 1
MROSD Board Retreat #1 December 9, 2019
FY2020-21 Environmental Scan Report Page 4 of 6
Resource Agency Permits for routine maintenance and small-scale projects. Furthermore, staff
is monitoring legislative bills to identify additional opportunities for permit streamlining.
The California state legislature is moving very quickly on many pieces of legislation to increase
the pace and scale of fire management and forest management projects across the state,
making it difficult to stay abreast of and carefully track the high quantity of legislative activity.
At the same time, much of the new legislation is highly complex with coexisting positive
benefits and negative impacts that are of high interest to the District. For example, some of the
forest management legislation that focused on permit streamlining for fire management and
forest health purposes also included components that relax standards for commercial timber
harvests where impacts to sensitive resources can occur.
Demographics
The Bay Area has a very diverse population. Demographic trends include: an increased retiree
population, higher per capita income, more renters, highly educated people, and more foreign-
born residents. The demographics may increase the need to develop programming and facilities
that meet the needs of a more diverse community. Visiting open spaces on the weekend is
becoming more popular, affecting the need to facilitate alternative modes of transportation to
District preserves.
Internal Organization and Workflow
As the District expands public access, the construction of new trails, parking areas, and other
visitor-serving amenities is increasing the demands for environmental mitigation (e.g. tree
replacement, revegetation, biological protections) and ongoing maintenance and management
of District preserves and facilities. An increased focus on wildland fire resiliency is also adding to
staff demands.
Mitigation costs for public access projects have increased substantially. The maintenance of
mitigation/restoration projects often takes multiple years (e.g. watering, weeding, plant
establishment, and, if needed, plant replacement to reach 3-5 year re-vegetation performance
goals). Additional mitigation/restoration projects are anticipated as public access
improvements are implemented. Due to limited staff capacity, most of these tasks have been
contracted out.
Although field staffing has grown significantly, maintenance and patrol demands continue to
rise due to high visitation, increasing acreage, increasing trail mileage, and new public access
facilities. As additional preserves and trails are opened, the need for additional field staff is
expected to continue.
There has been some loss of institutional knowledge and momentum due to staff turnover.
Over the last year, the District has experienced 3 retirements, with 5 additional retirements
planned to occur by February, plus another 14 separations due largely to relocations (family
commitments, commutes, cost of living) and outside promotional opportunities. As of
Attachment 1
MROSD Board Retreat #1 December 9, 2019
FY2020-21 Environmental Scan Report Page 5 of 6
September 2018 (approximately one year ago), there are 42 new employees working for the
District. This rate of new hiring has required the District to spend considerable time onboarding
and training new hires, and requires lead time before new hires are fully immersed and able to
manage a full workload of District projects.
Human Resources has noticed that recruitments pull many applicants, but typically, only a small
number have relevant experience.
Changing District Leadership
The District saw significant changes in leadership in the prior year. While these changes will
have a lasting impact on the District, the new leadership team will provide stable leadership for
the next five years and beyond. Under direction of the General Manager, the management
team is participating in group training sessions to enhance team communications and
cohesiveness.
Technology Trends
Local agencies, like the District, are expected to deliver more services, including increased
transparency and data access through technology and online tools. Another key area of recent
and ongoing focus is cybersecurity. Cyberattacks on public agencies continue to increase. As
cybersecurity resiliency systems evolve to help combat cyberattacks, the District will need to
invest in these systems to ensure protection.
Staff has placed significant effort, time, and attention on the implementation and training of
new technology, software and processes. These processes include using OneDrive and
SharePoint, leveraging Project Central as a tool, and implementing CityWorks maintenance
management software.
Work that has been completed over the last few years has laid a strong foundation for future
technological success, but the work is not yet done. Investments in technology for the District
are continual and not one-time investments. A document retention policy is underway to assist
departments with the retention, purging, and digitizing of documents before the administrative
office is relocated.
Other Topical Trends
As the District prepares for the next fiscal year, other topics to consider include:
− Public Access:
o Recent public access development has increased the District’s profile and
visibility to the general public. This creates higher expectations from the public
and pressure for more amenities (larger parking lots, benches, picnic tables).
o As the Bay Area-wide population continues to grow, impacts related to traffic,
congestion, and changes to community character are affecting local sentiments
regarding new public access amenities. New and expanded outreach efforts to
Attachment 1
MROSD Board Retreat #1 December 9, 2019
FY2020-21 Environmental Scan Report Page 6 of 6
engage the public in project planning efforts is becoming more and more
important to effectively address potential concerns and gain wide support.
− Operations and Staffing:
o The number of agricultural/grazing, residential, and office space leases continues
to grow. To maintain an effective property management program, additional
capacity is needed for responsive lessor-lessee communications and careful
monitoring, tracking, and recording of lessee activities.
o Newly opened areas require much more active management and maintenance
than closed areas, particularly in areas with high visitation.
o Developing a robust business continuity plan remains important to prepare for
catastrophic disasters, such as wildfire and earthquakes.
− Regional Impacts:
o Potential increases in government spending for public transportation may be of
benefit to the District.
− Finances and Funding:
o Changes to government pensions and pension reform have had a positive impact
on the District as the long-term costs for PEPRA members are significantly less
than classic members. The District should continue to monitor pension reforms.
o Potential increases in government spending and grant funding in public
transportation may be of benefit to the District.
o The grants program continues to bring in funding for numerous projects and will
continue to pay dividends into the future.
− Communications and Outreach:
o The benchmark survey on public sentiment and awareness will yield important
information to improve the effectiveness, reach, and outcomes of our
communications and outreach.
o As the District continues to pursue new policies, projects, and initiatives in
support of its mission, non-traditional modes of outreach and engagement may
be beneficial to keep the public well informed and contributing input early to
help validate and support District processes and outcomes. Reviewing early
concepts and ideas with key community leaders may also be helpful to gauge
public support and interest, and to determine whether adjustments are needed
to address potential issues.
o The District’s 50 year anniversary is fast approaching in 2022. Lead time will be
needed to appropriately plan for, organize, and hold celebratory events and
activities to showcase the District’s work and positive impact. This major
“golden” anniversary presents a tremendous opportunity to further educate and
engage the public, and build widespread support and appreciation.
Se
c
t
i
o
n
I
In
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
6 Section I • Budget and Action Plan FY2019-20
FY2019-20 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 FY2019-20 Strategic Plan provides high-level direction for the annual
Budget and Action Plan.
GOAL 1 Promote, establish, and implement a regional environmental protection vision with partners——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————
Objective 1 – Continue implementation of the District’s Vision Plan and communicate progress on projects
through reporting results and building partner relationships ——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————
Objective 2 – Build and strengthen diverse partnerships to implement a collaborative and science-based
approach to environmental protection on the Peninsula, South Bay and San Mateo Coast ——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————
Objective 3 – Build and strengthen relationships with legislators to advocate environmental protection goals ——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————
Objective 4 – Take a regional leadership role in promoting the benefits of open space and sustainable agriculture ——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————
Objective 5 – Expand regional climate change resiliency and adaptation to preserve healthy natural systems ——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————
Objective 6 – Work with fire agencies and surrounding communities to strengthen the prevention of, preparation
for and response to wildland fires ——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————
GOAL 2 Connect people to open space and a regional environmental protection vision ——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————
Objective 1 – Communicate the purpose of the regional environmental protection vision ——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————
Objective 2 – Refine and implement a comprehensive public outreach strategy, including the engagement of
diverse communities and enhanced public education programs ——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————
Objective 3 – Expand opportunities to connect people to their public open space preserves consistent with an
environmental protection vision ——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————
GOAL 3 Strengthen organizational capacity to fulfill the mission ——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————
Objective 1 – Provide the necessary resources, tools, and infrastructure, including technology upgrades and
capacity building ——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————
Objective 2 – Continuously improve recent process and business model changes to effectively and efficiently
deliver Vision Plan projects and the District’s ongoing functions ——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————
Objective 3 – Reflect the changing community we serve in the District’s visitors, staff, volunteers, and partners ——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————
Objective 4 – Build state of readiness for potential disruptions by completing a risk assessment and creating a
business continuity plan ——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————
GOAL 4 Position the District for long-term financial sustainability to fulfill the District’s mission on behalf of the public——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————
Objective 1 – Continue to engage constituents for bond sales and via the work of the Bond Oversight Committee
–“Promises made, promises kept.” ——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————
Objective 2 – Pursue discretionary funding opportunities and partnerships to augment operating, capital, and
bond funding sources ——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————
Objective 3 – Ensure discretionary funding opportunities are available and successful through advocacy and education ——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————
Objective 4 – Ensure large capital expenses are evaluated within the long-term financial model and remain
financially sustainable ——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————
Objective 5 – Ensure land acquisitions, including associated public access and land management costs, are
evaluated within the long-term financial model and remain financially sustainable——————————————————————————––––––––––––——————————————————————————————
Attachment 3
Proposed FY2020-21 Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives
Key: Gray shading indicates language was moved and not materially changed
Red underline indicates proposed language addition
Red strikethrough indicates proposed language deletion
Goal 1 – Promote, establish, and implement a regional environmental protection vision with partners
Objective 1 – Continue implementation of the District’s Vision Plan and communicate progress on projects through
reporting results and building partner relationships
Objective 2 – Build and strengthen diverse partnerships to implement a collaborative and science-based approach
to environmental protection on the Peninsula, South Bay and San Mateo Coast
Objective 3 – Build and strengthen relationships with legislators to advocate environmental protection goals
Objective 4 – Preserve open space lands of local and regional significance
Goal 2 – Protect the open space values of natural and agricultural lands
Objective 1 – Take a regional leadership role in promoting the benefits of open space and sustainable agriculture
Objective 2 – Protect and restore the natural environment in a manner that expands regional resiliency and climate
change adaptation to preserve healthy natural systems
Objective 3 – Work with fire agencies and surrounding communities to strengthen the prevention of, preparation
for and response to wildland fires for enhanced ecosystem resiliency and public safety
Goal 3 – Connect people to open space and a regional environmental protection vision
Objective 1 – Communicate the purpose of the regional environmental protection vision
Objective 2 – Refine and implement a comprehensive public outreach strategy, including the engagement of
diverse communities and enhanced public education programs
Objective 3 – Expand opportunities to connect people to their public open space preserves consistent with an
environmental protection vision
Objective 4 – Reflect the changing community we serve in the District’s visitors, staff, volunteers, and partners through broad
community engagement, communications, and outreach
Goal 4 – Strengthen organizational capacity and long-term financial sustainability to fulfill the mission
Goal 4 – Position the District for long-term financial sustainability to fulfill the District’s mission on behalf of the public
Objective 1 – Provide the necessary resources, tools, training, and infrastructure, including technology upgrades and capacity
building
Objective 2 – Continuously improve recent process and business model changes to effectively and efficiently deliver Vision Plan
projects and the District’s ongoing functions
Objective 3 - Build state of readiness for potential disruptions by completing a risk assessment and creating a business
continuity plan
Objective 4 – Continue to engage constituents for bond sales and via the work of the Bond Oversight Committee – “Promises
made, promises kept.”
Objective 5 – Remain financially sustainable by pursuing and ensuring discretionary funding opportunities and partnerships to
augment operating, capital, and bond funding sources, and ensure large capital expenses and land acquisitions,
including associated public access and land management costs, are evaluated within the long-term financial
model and remain financially sustainable
Strategic Goals (Adopted FY20)Coastside Protection Mission CIAP Programs Midpen’s Core Mission
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
La
n
d
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
c
c
e
s
s
Provide
opportunities for
ecologically
sensitive public
enjoyment and
education
Acquire & preserve
a regional greenbelt
of open space land
in perpetuity
Protect & restore the natural
environment
2. Connect people to
open space and a
regional
environmental
protection vision
3.Strengthen
organizational capacity
to fulfill the mission Infrastructure
(Vehicles,
Equipment,
Facilities) and
Other
Public Access,
Education
and Outreach
Natural
Resources
Protection
and
Restoration
Land
Acquisition &
Preservation
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
Provide opportunities
for ecologically
sensitive public
enjoyment and
education
1. Promote, establish
& implement a
regional
environmental
protection vision
with partners
4. Position the District
for long‐term financial
sustainability to fulfill
the District's mission on
behalf of the public
Midpen’s Mission Synergy (Retreat #1 December 9, 2019) – Adopted FY20
Attachment 4
Strategic Goals (Proposed)Coastside Protection Mission CIAP Programs Midpen’s Core Mission
As
s
e
t
s
&
O
r
g
.
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
La
n
d
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
c
c
e
s
s
Protect & restore the natural
environment
4. Strengthen
organizational
capacity and long‐
term financial
sustainability to
fulfill the mission
3. Connect people to
open space and a
regional
environmental
protection vision
Assets and
Organizational
Support
(formerly
Infrastructure)
Public Access,
Education and
Outreach
Natural
Resources
Protection and
Restoration
Land
Acquisition &
Preservation
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
Provide opportunities
for ecologically
sensitive public
enjoyment and
education
1. Promote, establish
and implement a
regional
environmental
protection vision
Midpen’s Mission Synergy (Retreat #1 December 9, 2019) – Recommendations
2. Protect the open
space values of
natural and
agricultural lands
Provide opportunities for
ecologically sensitive public
enjoyment and education
Acquire & preserve a
regional greenbelt of open
space land in perpetuity
Underlined text indicates
new language is proposed.
Attachment 4
Rev. 1/3/18
R-19-164
Meeting 19-30
December 9, 2019
AGENDA ITEM 3
AGENDA ITEM
Draft questions for benchmark survey
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Review and provide feedback on the draft benchmark survey questions.
SUMMARY
In early 2019, the Public Affairs Department developed a districtwide Strategic Communications
Plan (Plan) to further the Board of Directors’ (Board) Fiscal Year 2019-20 strategic goals and
objectives and improve external communications. The Plan will be updated each year, as
necessary, to ensure ongoing alignment with annual Board changes to the strategic plan goals
and objectives. To collect the data that will guide and measure effective communications with
the public, staff is developing a benchmark survey with the help of a research consultant. On
December 9, the Board will have an opportunity to review and provide feedback on the draft
survey questions.
DISCUSSION
The Public Affairs Department is preparing to conduct a benchmark survey to measure existing
public sentiment and levels of awareness of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
(District) prior to initiating new activities designed to raise understanding of and positive regard
for District work. This survey is one of the recommended action items in the District’s FY20
Strategic Communications Plan. Survey results will be shared with the Board in the spring of
2020.
The proposed survey questions are designed to measure awareness, regard, familiarity, preferred
information sources and basic demographics of the general public residing within District
boundaries, and to test the resonance of key message themes. Attachment 1 contains the draft
survey questions. Note that adding new questions will increase the time needed to complete the
survey, which could lower the response rate and increase costs. Changes to existing questions are
therefore preferred rather than new additions. The final questions will be tested for clarity and
revised as necessary before the survey is conducted.
Staff are working with consultants to determine the most appropriate sample size, languages and
survey methodology with the goal of achieving a 95% degree of confidence in the results that
accurately reflect the demographics of District residents.
R-19-164 Page 2
The survey is expected to be conducted in January and will focus on registered voters residing
within District boundaries. Per our conversations with the survey consultant and with former
East Bay Regional Parks District Public Affairs Manager, Rosemary Cameron, registered voters
are known to share and reflect the opinions of the larger population (voters and nonvoters)
regarding open space and conservation and should therefore provide a good reflection of the
broader population.
In preparing to collect information on public awareness and sentiment, District staff have
evaluated the proper timing for this type of benchmark survey. Based on guidance and input
from the survey consultant, Rosemary Cameron, and Chief Marketing Officer for Peninsula
Open Space Trust, Marti Tedesco, current events are not expected to significantly impact survey
results. Therefore, it is reasonable to proceed with the survey in early 2020 and receive useful
and fair information that is representative of general sentiments regardless of the timing to
effectively guide future District communications and outreach work.
FISCAL IMPACT
The District has entered into a contract with the research firm Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz &
Associates, Inc., (also known as FM3 Research) to create, conduct, analyze and deliver results of
the survey under the General Manager’s purchasing authority. The contract is for a not-to-exceed
amount of $48,500.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
The recommended action does not constitute a project under CEQA.
NEXT STEPS
Board feedback will be incorporated into the final survey questions. The survey will be tested
and at least 400 responses from a representative sample will be collected to ensure statistical
validity. Full survey results will be presented to LFPAC and the Board in spring, 2020.
Attachments:
1. Draft benchmark survey questions
Staff Contact/ Responsible Department Head:
Kori Skinner, Public Affairs Manager
DECEMBER 2, 2019
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
320-876
DRAFT
A/B SPLIT
Hello, I'm ________ from______, a public opinion research company. I am not trying to sell you anything.
We're conducting a survey about issues that concern residents in your area. May I speak with the person at home
over 18 who most recently celebrated a birthday?
A. Before we begin, I need to know if I have reached you on a cell phone, and if so, are you in a place
where you can talk safely without endangering yourself or others?
Yes, cell and can talk safely ------------------------------------ 1
Yes, cell but cannot talk safely ---------------- TERMINATE
No, not on cell ---------------------------------------------------- 2
(DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ------- TERMINATE
B. My next questions are to ensure that we are interviewing a representative group of residents in your area.
What is your age?
Under 18 ------------------------ TERMINATE
18-24 --------------------------------------------- 1
25-29 --------------------------------------------- 2
30-34 --------------------------------------------- 3
35-39 --------------------------------------------- 4
40-44 --------------------------------------------- 5
45-49 --------------------------------------------- 6
50-54 --------------------------------------------- 7
55-59 --------------------------------------------- 8
60-64 --------------------------------------------- 9
65-69 -------------------------------------------- 10
70-74 -------------------------------------------- 11
75+ ---------------------------------------------- 12
C. With which racial or ethnic group do you identify yourself: Hispanic or Latino; African-American or
Black; Caucasian or White; Asian or Pacific Islander; or some other ethnic or racial background?
Latino/Hispanic -------------------------------- 1
African-American/Black ---------------------- 2
Caucasian/White ------------------------------- 3
Asian/Pacific Islander ------------------------- 4
(MIXED RACE) ------------------------------ 5
(OTHER) --------------------------------------- 6
(DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ------ 7
ATTACHMENT 1
FM3 RESEARCH 320-876-D3 PAGE 2
1. OK, let’s begin. First, how would you rate your community as a place to live? Is it … (READ LIST)?
Excellent----------------------------------------- 1
Good --------------------------------------------- 2
Fair, or ------------------------------------------- 3
Poor ---------------------------------------------- 4
(DON'T KNOW/NA) ------------------------ 5
2. First, I’m going to read you a list of local organizations and public institutions. For each one, I’d like
you to tell me if you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly
unfavorable opinion. If you have never heard of one, please just say so. (RANDOMIZE)
NEVER
STR. S.W. S.W. STR. (CAN’T HEARD
FAV FAV UNFAV UNFAV RATE/DK) OF
[ ]a. Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District -------------------------------- 1 ---------- 2 ---------- 3 --------- 4 ------------ 5 -------------- 6
[ ]b. Santa Clara County Parks ------------------ 1 ---------- 2 ---------- 3 --------- 4 ------------ 5 -------------- 6
[ ]c. San Mateo County Parks ------------------- 1 ---------- 2 ---------- 3 --------- 4 ------------ 5 -------------- 6
[ ]d. Santa Clara Valley Open Space
Authority -------------------------------------- 1 ---------- 2 ---------- 3 --------- 4 ------------ 5 -------------- 6
[ ]e. Peninsula Open Space Trust --------------- 1 ---------- 2 ---------- 3 --------- 4 ------------ 5 -------------- 6
[ ]f. California State Parks ----------------------- 1 ---------- 2 ---------- 3 --------- 4 ------------ 5 -------------- 6
3. I’m going to read you some issues that some people say may be problems in your area. After I read each
one, please tell me whether you think each is a problem or not. (IF YES, PROBLEM, ASK: “Do you
think it is an extremely, very, or somewhat serious problem?”) (RANDOMIZE)
EXT. VERY S.W. (DON'T
SERIOUS SERIOUS SERIOUS NOT A READ)
PROBLEM PROBLEM PROBLEM PROBLEM DK/NA
[ ]a. The quality of parks and open
spaces --------------------------------------- 1 -------------- 2 --------------- 3 --------------- 4 ------------ 5
[ ]b. Traffic congestion ------------------------- 1 -------------- 2 --------------- 3 --------------- 4 ------------ 5
[ ]c. Loss of natural areas to
development -------------------------------- 1 -------------- 2 --------------- 3 --------------- 4 ------------ 5
[ ]d. Fire risk ------------------------------------- 1 -------------- 2 --------------- 3 --------------- 4 ------------ 5
[ ]e. Water pollution ---------------------------- 1 -------------- 2 --------------- 3 --------------- 4 ------------ 5
[ ]f. Air pollution -------------------------------- 1 -------------- 2 --------------- 3 --------------- 4 ------------ 5
[ ]g. Loss of wildlife habitat ------------------- 1 -------------- 2 --------------- 3 --------------- 4 ------------ 5
[ ]h. A lack of affordable housing ------------- 1 -------------- 2 --------------- 3 --------------- 4 ------------ 5
[ ]i. Climate change ----------------------------- 1 -------------- 2 --------------- 3 --------------- 4 ------------ 5
[ ]j. The amount you pay in local
taxes ----------------------------------------- 1 -------------- 2 --------------- 3 --------------- 4 ------------ 5
ATTACHMENT 1
FM3 RESEARCH 320-876-D3 PAGE 3
NOW I’D LIKE TO ASK YOU A FEW MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT.
(ASK QX ONLY IF CODES 1-4 IN Q2a)
4. You mentioned a few moments ago that you have a FAVORABLE / UNFAVORABLE opinion of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. In a few words of your own, could you tell me why?
(OPEN-ENDED; RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE BELOW. PROBE FOR VERY SPECIFIC
RESPONSES)
a. Favorable
b. Unfavorable
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
AS YOU MAY KNOW, THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, OFTEN
KNOWN AS “MIDPEN,” IS AN INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT PRIMARILY IN SANTA
CLARA AND SAN MATEO COUNTIES THAT HAS PRESERVED A REGIONAL GREENBELT OF
NEARLY 65,000 ACRES OF PUBLIC LAND AND MANAGES 26 OPEN SPACE PRESERVES. ITS
MISSION IS TO ACQUIRE AND PERMANENTLY PRESERVE OPEN SPACE LAND, PROTECT
AND RESTORE THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, AND PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR
ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE PUBLIC ENJOYMENT AND EDUCATION. ON THE COAST, ITS
MISSION INCLUDES PRESERVING RURAL CHARACTER AND ENCOURAGING VIABLE
AGRICULTURAL USE OF LAND.
4. Having heard this, let me ask you again: would you say you have a strong favorable, somewhat favorable,
somewhat unfavorable, or strong unfavorable opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District?
Strongly favorable ----------------------------- 1
Somewhat favorable --------------------------- 2
Somewhat unfavorable ------------------------ 3
Strongly unfavorable -------------------------- 4
(DON'T READ) DK/NA -------------------- 5
ATTACHMENT 1
FM3 RESEARCH 320-876-D3 PAGE 4
5. Next, I am going to read you a list of goals the District has set for itself.
For each goal, please tell me if you think it is extremely important, very important, somewhat important,
or not too important. (RANDOMIZE)
NOT
EXT VERY S.W. TOO (DK/
IMP. IMP. IMP. IMP. NA)
(SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY)
[ ]a. Preserving a regional greenbelt of open space land
forever ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]b. Protecting natural areas ----------------------------------------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]c. Providing opportunities for ecologically sensitive
public enjoyment and education ------------------------------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]d. Restoring native plant and wildlife habitat ------------------------ 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]e. Providing multiuse trails for hiking, biking and
equestrian use ---------------------------------------------------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]f. Stewarding public lands to be resilient in the face of
climate change --------------------------------------------------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]g. Supporting local agriculture------------------------------------------ 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]h. Preserving our area’s rich rural character -------------------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]i. Partnering with local organizations to promote a
regional environmental vision --------------------------------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]j. Connecting regional trails ------------------------------------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]k. Caring for the ecosystem to help native plants and
wildlife survive -------------------------------------------------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]l. Reducing dead and downed vegetation for wildland
fire prevention ---------------------------------------------------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]m. Preserving undeveloped coastal open space and
agricultural lands ------------------------------------------------------ 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]n. Assessing historical significance of structures on
open space lands ------------------------------------------------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]o. Promoting safe wildlife corridors and trail crossings
across Highway 17 ---------------------------------------------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
(SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY)
[ ]p. Protecting the ridgetops, hillsides and creekways
that create our region’s striking natural beauty ------------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]q. Protecting and restoring the natural environment ----------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]r. Protecting San Mateo and Santa Clara counties’
agricultural, natural resource, and open space lands
for future generations ------------------------------------------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]s. Creating opportunities for outdoor recreation --------------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]t. Preserving diverse habitat for wildlife ------------------------------ 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]u. Providing regional hiking trails -------------------------------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]v. Restoring public lands to be resilient in the face of
climate change --------------------------------------------------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]w. Connecting kids to nature -------------------------------------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]x. Protecting the waterways and natural lands that
maintain water quality and supply ---------------------------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
NOT
EXT VERY S.W. TOO (DK/
IMP. IMP. IMP. IMP. NA)
ATTACHMENT 1
FM3 RESEARCH 320-876-D3 PAGE 5
(SPLIT SAMPLE B CONTINUED)
[ ]y. Managing redwood forests ------------------------------------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]z. Protecting San Mateo and Santa Clara counties’
agricultural, natural resource and open space lands -------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]aa. Protecting coastal grasslands----------------------------------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]bb. Improving access for individuals with disabilities at
local preserves --------------------------------------------------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]cc. Partnering with Native American tribes to relearn
and reapply indigenous plant restoration techniques ------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]dd. Removing invasive species to restore native plant
and wildlife habitat ---------------------------------------------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
6. Stepping back for a moment, I’d like to read you two statements about Midpen preserves. I’d like you
to tell me which comes closer to your opinion, even if neither is exactly right. (ROTATE)
[ ] I prefer preserves that have that provide multiple visitor amenities,
such as water bottle refilling stations, restrooms, and picnic areas --------------------------- 1
OR
[ ] I prefer preserves that put a high priority on wildlife habitat restoration and
protection, with only low-impact trails that encourage users to leave no trace -------------- 2
(DON’T READ)
(BOTH) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3
(NEITHER)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
(DON'T KNOW/NA) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
7. Next, I am going to read you a series of statements about the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District.
For each one, please tell me if it makes you view the District much more favorably, somewhat more
favorably, or if it makes no difference. (RANDOMIZE)
MUCH S.W.
MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/
FAV. FAV. DIFF. FAV.) NA)
[ ]a. (SPECIAL CHARACTER) People choose to live in
the Bay Area because of its scenic beauty and
recreational opportunities. The stunning ridge and
coastal views and riding, biking, and hiking trails we
have in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties are truly
unique. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
works to preserve what we love most about living here. -------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
MUCH S.W.
MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/
FAV. FAV. DIFF. FAV.) NA)
(SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY)
[ ]b. (WATER QUALITY) Nothing is more important than
clean drinking water. By protecting and restoring areas
around sources of water, the District increases access to
water and naturally prevents the pollution of our water. --------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
ATTACHMENT 1
FM3 RESEARCH 320-876-D3 PAGE 6
[ ]c. (PARTNERSHIPS) Midpen regularly partners with
local non-profits, the counties, and state and regional
park organizations to leverage their resources and
connect residents with open space, recreational
opportunities, and educational programs. Connecting
these public lands support biodiversity, providing places
for plants and animals found nowhere else to thrive.------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]d. (PUBLIC HEALTH) Open space preserves and
natural areas provide spaces where families and
children can safely walk, run, and bicycle –
improving the physical health of residents, reducing
obesity, and reducing health care costs. These areas
are open 365 days a year, sunrise to sunset, to
anyone, and for free. -------------------------------------------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]e. (WILDLIFE) By restoring and protecting natural
areas, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District is protecting wildlife habitats and
California’s unique biodiversity. ------------------------------------ 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]f. (AG SUSTAINABILITY) Though we are now the
center of Silicon Valley, San Mateo and Santa Clara
counties have rich agricultural and ranching history.
That’s why Midpen protects sustainable, working
agricultural ranchlands connecting past and future. -------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]g. (CARING) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District is caring for the land to create healthy
habitats for plants, animals and people. ---------------------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
(SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY)
[ ]h. (AG HISTORY) Though we are now the center of
Silicon Valley, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
have rich agricultural and ranching history. That’s
why the Midpeninsula Open Space District preserves
historic, agricultural lands close to home. ------------------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
ATTACHMENT 1
FM3 RESEARCH 320-876-D3 PAGE 7
MUCH S.W.
MORE MORE NO (LESS (DK/
FAV. FAV. DIFF. FAV.) NA)
(SPLIT SAMPLE B CONTINUED)
[ ]i. (RECREATION) Parks and open spaces
provide safe places for the community to
gather and explore the outdoors. It’s
especially important to keep these accessible
options for everyone as the cost of living
increases. The District ensures that San Mateo
and Santa Clara County residents have access
to well-maintained and beautiful recreation
areas. -------------------------------------------------------------- 1 ----------- 2 ----------- 3 ---------- 4---------- 5
[ ]j. (CLIMATE) Smart investments made before a
disaster strikes can help protect a community’s
quality of life, save lives, and reduce the cost to
taxpayers. Midpen is taking a proactive, practical
approach to stewardship of public lands, helping
ensure San Mateo and Santa Clara counties are
resilient as the climate changes. ------------------------------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]k. (FIRES) Midpen is working with fire agencies and
surrounding communities to strengthen prevention
and preparation in case of wildland fires. This
includes maintaining hundreds of miles of fire roads.
Midpen is also using conservation grazing to reduce
flammable fuels within grassland habitats. ------------------------ 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]l. (UNDERSERVED) Midpen programming connects
people to nature through enriched experiences,
including environmental interpretation, docent-led
activities and volunteer opportunities. Midpen also
offers a variety of trails that people of all ages and
abilities can use. ------------------------------------------------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
[ ]m. (PLACE) Few other conservation organizations
protect and restore such a wide variety of unique
natural areas: from redwood forests to the Bay and
the ocean, from serpentine-soil grasslands to Tafoni
sandstone. Our peninsula is unique and Midpen
works to protect and restore these places for the
wildlife that call it home, and the people who visit
and recreate there. ----------------------------------------------------- 1 -------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 -------- 5
ATTACHMENT 1
FM3 RESEARCH 320-876-D3 PAGE 8
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
8. Next, having heard this, let me ask you one last time - do you have a strongly favorable, somewhat
favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion of the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District?
Strongly favorable -------------------------------------- 1
Somewhat favorable ------------------------------------ 2
Somewhat unfavorable --------------------------------- 3
Strongly unfavorable ----------------------------------- 4
(DON'T READ) CAN’T RATE/DK/NA ---------- 5
9. Next, I’m going to read you a list of sources from which people get information about (SPLIT SAMPLE
A: local issues in your area) (SPLIT SAMPLE B: parks, open space and the outdoors). For each, I’d
like you to tell me how often you use it to get information about (SPLIT SAMPLE A: local issues in
your area) (SPLIT SAMPLE B: parks, open space and the outdoors): frequently, occasionally, rarely,
or never. (RANDOMIZE)
(DK/
FREQ. OCCAS. RARELY NEVER NA)
[ ]a. Local television stations -------------------------------1 --------------- 2 ------------ 3 ------------- 4 ------------ 5
[ ]b. KQED Radio --------------------------------------------1 --------------- 2 ------------ 3 ------------- 4 ------------ 5
[ ]c. Radio stations other than KQED ---------------------1 --------------- 2 ------------ 3 ------------- 4 ------------ 5
[ ]d. Information you receive in the mail------------------1 --------------- 2 ------------ 3 ------------- 4 ------------ 5
[ ]e. Facebook -------------------------------------------------1 --------------- 2 ------------ 3 ------------- 4 ------------ 5
[ ]f. Twitter ----------------------------------------------------1 --------------- 2 ------------ 3 ------------- 4 ------------ 5
[ ]g. Instagram ------------------------------------------------1 --------------- 2 ------------ 3 ------------- 4 ------------ 5
[ ]h. Blogs on the Internet -----------------------------------1 --------------- 2 ------------ 3 ------------- 4 ------------ 5
[ ]i. The San Jose Mercury News
newspaper ------------------------------------------------1 --------------- 2 ------------ 3 ------------- 4 ------------ 5
[ ]j. The San Francisco Chronicle
newspaper ------------------------------------------------1 --------------- 2 ------------ 3 ------------- 4 ------------ 5
[ ]k. Half Moon Bay Review --------------------------------1 --------------- 2 ------------ 3 ------------- 4 ------------ 5
[ ]l. The Open Space Views newsletter -------------------1 --------------- 2 ------------ 3 ------------- 4 ------------ 5
[ ]m. Plug Into Nature ----------------------------------------1 --------------- 2 ------------ 3 ------------- 4 ------------ 5
[ ]n. NextDoor ------------------------------------------------1 --------------- 2 ------------ 3 ------------- 4 ------------ 5
[ ]o. Midpen’s public meetings -----------------------------1 --------------- 2 ------------ 3 ------------- 4 ------------ 5
[ ]p. Midpen’s website, openspace.org --------------------1 --------------- 2 ------------ 3 ------------- 4 ------------ 5
10. Were there any sources of information you use that I didn’t mention? (OPEN END, RECORD
VERBATIM)
________________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENT 1
FM3 RESEARCH 320-876-D3 PAGE 9
WE'RE JUST ABOUT DONE. I'M ONLY GOING TO ASK YOU A FEW MORE
QUESTIONS FOR CLASSIFICATION PURPOSES.
11. First, I’d like you to consider your visits to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District preserves. Please
tell me how often you typically visit and use Midpen preserves in this way: about once a week, a few
times a month, a few times a year, once a year, or never. (RANDOMIZE)
ONCE/ FEW/ FEW/ ONCE/
WEEK MO. YEAR YEAR NEVER (DK/NA)
[ ]a. Walking or hiking --------------------------------------- 1 --------- 2 --------- 3 -------- 4 --------- 5 --------- 6
[ ]b. Running or jogging -------------------------------------- 1 --------- 2 --------- 3 -------- 4 --------- 5 --------- 6
[ ]c. Dog walking ---------------------------------------------- 1 --------- 2 --------- 3 -------- 4 --------- 5 --------- 6
[ ]d. Horseback riding ----------------------------------------- 1 --------- 2 --------- 3 -------- 4 --------- 5 --------- 6
[ ]e. Mountain biking ----------------------------------------- 1 --------- 2 --------- 3 -------- 4 --------- 5 --------- 6
[ ]f. Birdwatching or wildlife viewing --------------------- 1 --------- 2 --------- 3 -------- 4 --------- 5 --------- 6
[ ]g. Spending time in nature -------------------------------- 1 --------- 2 --------- 3 -------- 4 --------- 5 --------- 6
[ ]h. Ranger- or docent-led programs ----------------------- 1 --------- 2 --------- 3 -------- 4 --------- 5 --------- 6
[ ]i. Backpack camping -------------------------------------- 1 --------- 2 --------- 3 -------- 4 --------- 5 --------- 6
(ASK IF EVER VISIT FOR ANY REASON – CODE 1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4 IN ANY ITEM IN Q11)
12. Do you feel safe or unsafe outdoors in local nature preserves? (IF SAFE/UNSAFE, ASK: Is that very
or somewhat SAFE/UNSAFE?)
Very safe ---------------------------------------- 1
Somewhat safe ---------------------------------- 2
Somewhat unsafe------------------------------- 3
Very unsafe ------------------------------------- 4
(DON’T READ) Don’t visit them/NA ----- 5
(DON'T READ) Don’t know ---------------- 6
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
13. Do you have any children under the age of 19 living at home?
Yes ----------------------------------------------- 1
No ------------------------------------------------ 2
(DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ----- 3
14. What was the last level of school you completed?
High school graduate or less ----------------- 1
Some College ----------------------------------- 2
Associate’s Degree ---------------------------- 3
College graduate ------------------------------- 4
Post-graduate ----------------------------------- 5
(DON'T KNOW) ------------------------------ 6
15. Do you work in the technology industry? (IF NO: Does anyone in your household work in the
technology industry?)
ATTACHMENT 1
FM3 RESEARCH 320-876-D3 PAGE 10
Yes, self ----------------------------------------- 1
Yes, household --------------------------------- 2
Yes, both ---------------------------------------- 3
No ------------------------------------------------ 4
(DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ----- 5
16. Were you born and raised in Santa Clara or San Mateo counties? (IF NO, ASK: How long have you
lived in San Mateo or Santa Clara Counties?)
Born and raised --------------------------------- 1
Two years or less ------------------------------- 2
Three to five years ----------------------------- 3
Five to 10 years--------------------------------- 4
10 to 20 years ----------------------------------- 5
21 to 40 years ---------------------------------- 6
More than 40 years ---------------------------- 7
(DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ----- 8
17. I don’t need to know the exact amount, but please stop me when I read the category that includes the
total income for your household before taxes in 2018. Was it: (READ CHOICES BELOW)
$30,000 and under ----------------------------- 1
$30,001 - $60,000 ------------------------------ 2
$60,001 - $90,000 ------------------------------ 3
$90,001 - $120,000 ---------------------------- 4
$120,001 - $150,000 --------------------------- 5
More than $150,000 --------------------------- 6
(DON'T READ) Refused -------------------- 7
ATTACHMENT 1
FM3 RESEARCH 320-876-D3 PAGE 11
THANK AND TERMINATE
Sex: By Observation Male ---------------------------------------------- 1
Female ------------------------------------------- 2
MODE
Phone ----------------------------------- 1
Online ---------------------------------- 2
COUNTY
San Mateo ------------------------------ 1
Santa Clara ----------------------------- 2
Santa Cruz ----------------------------- 3
CITY/TOWN
Cupertino ------------------------------- 1
Los Altos ------------------------------- 2
Los Gatos ------------------------------ 3
Menlo Park ----------------------------- 4
Mountain View ------------------------ 5
Palo Alto ------------------------------- 6
Redwood City ------------------------- 7
San Carlos ------------------------------ 8
Saratoga -------------------------------- 9
Sunnyvale ----------------------------- 10
Unincorporated ----------------------- 11
ATTACHMENT 1
Rev. 1/3/18
R-19-165
Meeting 19-30
December 9, 2019
AGENDA ITEM 4
AGENDA ITEM
Board Exploratory Topics
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Hold high level exploratory discussions regarding the following three topics of interest and
provide feedback on desired next steps for each:
• Private Fundraising
• Board Training Opportunities
• Region-wide Issues Affecting the District’s Mission
SUMMARY
Throughout the fiscal year, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) Board of
Directors (Board) have voiced an interest in discussing various topics that fall outside the
projects and programs contained within the Board-approved Fiscal Year 2019-20 Capital
Improvement and Action Plan (CIAP). The December 9 Strategic Planning Retreat is an
opportunity for the Board to discuss these topics at a high, exploratory level and provide initial
direction on next steps, including whether to add a related project or specific task to the
upcoming FY2020-21 CIAP.
DISCUSSION
As is common in other forms of local government, District Board members occasionally bring up
topics of interest during Board meetings as they discuss various items on the agenda. In
compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act or open meetings law, these topics are set aside and
properly included as agenda items for a later meeting. Since the start of this fiscal year, several
topics have been raised by the Board that warrant such discussion. The Board retreat is one
opportunity for the Board to discuss exploratory topics of interest and provide direction on
whether and how to proceed with any future study. The following three exploratory topics will
be discussed at the December 9 Retreat:
Private Fundraising for District Projects:
Private fundraising can be an opportunity to augment District funding, for both General Fund as
well as Measure AA projects, environmental and educational programing, and ongoing
maintenance. Most recently, private fundraising has been discussed for the Mount Umunhum
radar tower and the Bear Creek Stables projects.
R-19-165 Page 2
Depending on the types of projects, private fundraising may or may not be appropriate, or have a
reasonable success factor. The District currently does not have the know-how nor the capacity to
develop a sustainable private fundraising effort. A training provided by a fundraising consultant
(Neela Gentile from Partners for Progress) on October 1, 2019 to Board members and District
management outlined that one-off fundraising versus sustainable fundraising is not advisable.
Private fundraising has been a topic of conversation, both formally and informally, this past year.
Questions to consider regarding this topic include:
- What is the Board’s level of interest in pursuing private fundraising?
- Is this the right timing to consider private fundraising?
- Is private fundraising a high priority compared to other major efforts (Vision Plan
priorities, Measure AA commitments, Areas of Special Focus)
- What are the limitations and challenges associated with fundraising and is the District
prepared to overcome these limitations/challenges?
- What are the potential unintended consequences? (I.e. partner agency relationships)
As part of this discussion, the Board has an opportunity to discuss whether to direct the General
Manager to further evaluate the opportunities and challenges of private fundraising during the
upcoming fiscal year.
Board Training Opportunities:
Board members have participated in a variety of training and educational opportunities in the last
several years, including:
• Media training led by Full Court Press
• Community engagement led by the Institute for Local Government
• Good governance led by former city manager Kevin Duggan
• Numerous regional progress seminars led by the Redwood City Chamber of Commerce
• Santa Cruz Mountain Stewardship Network’s Spotlight Stewardship Program
Other past topics of interest have included: efficient communications between Board and staff,
networking tools and strategies, and the evolving role of the Board.
Over the last several months, the Board has expressed a desire for new training opportunities.
Options that the Board may want to consider for the upcoming year include:
• Trainings on good governance, transparency, and engagement led by the Institute for
Local Government
• Seminars held by the League of California Cities or California Special District’s
Association related to topics of general interest for elected officials
• Understanding Board member communications styles to promote effective Board
communications and interactions
• Inviting other local government leaders to share their experiences, expertise, and best
practices
As part of this discussion, Board members have an opportunity to identify topics of interest for
future trainings that can scheduled during the upcoming fiscal year.
R-19-165 Page 3
Region-wide Issues Affecting the District’s Mission:
Throughout the nine-county Bay Area Region, population growth and a booming economy have
led to a variety of regional benefits and negative impacts on those who live and work here,
including increased job growth and wages, longer commute times and traffic congestion,
increased home values/equity, and affordable housing shortages. With regards to the District,
these region-wide forces are affecting visitation numbers, with a growing number of people
seeking a respite and an outdoor nature experience by visiting their local open space preserves.
As visitation increases, and the demand for more trails, parking, and access to new areas grows,
the District is experiencing what appears to be a growing tension between meeting regional open
space needs and addressing local concerns regarding parking, traffic, and use levels. These issues
are not exclusive to the District. Other agencies are experiencing similar challenges as they
consider implementing new public infrastructure improvements that provide region-wide
benefits. The San Jose Mercury News recently published articles describing the increasing traffic
congestion on Bay Area roadways, indicating that there is no longer a real difference between
weekday and weekend traffic congestion (Attachment 1) and the increasing unhappiness among
Bay Area residents, largely due to concerns regarding traffic, the cost of living, housing costs,
and homelessness (Attachment 2).
To successfully further the District’s mission, implement the Vision Plan priorities, and meet
Measure AA commitments, and the District will need to continue exploring new opportunities to
help address these challenges. In some instances, the District may be able to lead certain changes
and improvements that benefit local communities. In other instances, the District may be able to
facilitate discussions between local communities and other regional leaders and jurisdictions to
help effect positive change.
For this topic, the Board has an opportunity to discuss the regionwide issues that are affecting the
District’s ability to carry out its mission and successfully deliver its services and projects for the
benefit of the larger public. The Board can also consider possible next steps on how best to
engage in broader regional conversations and explore potential solutions that benefit the region,
including the District and its constituents.
FISCAL IMPACT
Discussion of topics for possible study has no immediate fiscal impact. If the Board gives
direction to further explore any of the topics, future reports will analyze the associated fiscal
impacts. In addition, budgets for any resulting new projects that are identified for the upcoming
fiscal year will be considered by the Board as part of the FY2020-21 CIAP/Budget review and
approval process.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
This item was brought directly to the full Board given full Board interest and importance.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
R-19-165 Page 4
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This item is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
NEXT STEPS
Topics receiving at least a majority of the Board’s support will be forwarded to staff for further
study and inclusion in the FY2020-21 CIAP. If any new topics are raised for discussion, the
Board may direct the General Manager to add these topics to a future Board meeting agenda for
discussion.
Attachment:
1. San Jose Mercury News article, “Where traffic doesn’t take a day off: These Bay
Area freeways see terrible congestion on weekends too,” dated December 1, 2019
2. San Jose Mercury News article, “Residents increasingly unhappy with Bay Area life,
new poll finds,” dated December 4, 2019
Responsible Department Head:
Ana Ruiz, General Manager
Prepared by:
Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager
Stefan Jaskulak, Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services
Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager
Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager
Contact person:
Ana Ruiz, General Manager
Attachment 1
Where traffic doesn’t take a day off: These Bay Area
freeways see terrible congestion on weekends too
‘You don’t get a break’ from jams on some busy freeways
SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA – NOVEMBER 10: Traffic heads north, left, on Highway 101 in San
Mateo, Calif., on Sunday, Nov. 10, 2019. (Nhat V. Meyer/Bay Area News Group)
By NICO SAVIDGE | nsavidge@bayareanewsgroup.com | Bay Area News Group
PUBLISHED: December 1, 2019 at 5:00 am | UPDATED: December 2, 2019 at 6:12 am
EL CERRITO — When his work schedule changed a couple of years ago to include shifts on Saturdays
and Sundays, tattoo artist Owen Partridge figured the silver lining would be a traffic-free commute.
“I thought, ‘Oh this will be easier,'” said Partridge, whose trip to work takes him down the often traffic-
choked Eastshore Freeway from his home in Vallejo to shops in Berkeley and San Francisco.
But Partridge has come to learn the same lesson as countless Bay Area drivers who spend Monday
through Friday slogging through some of the worst congestion in the country, and look to their
weekends for relief from the grind: Traffic here doesn’t take a day off.
“Saturday is really like any other commute day,” Partridge said.
On some of the Bay Area’s busiest freeways, the bumper-to-bumper traffic of weekend warriors can
rival the worst of the work-week commute, according to data this news organization analyzed from the
traffic analytics firm INRIX.
Generally speaking, of course, weekends tend to see less severe traffic than weekdays. Still, drivers
expecting smooth sailing on their days off can be in for a rude awakening.
Attachment 1
Take one especially painful stretch of the Eastshore Freeway that Partridge drives on the days he
doesn’t opt for BART.
San Francisco-bound commuters pack the road bumper-to-bumper before dawn, consistently earning
the freeway a spot near the top of annual rankings of the worst drives in the Bay Area. At the slowest
point of the weekday morning rush, drivers average 19 mph between Albany, where Interstates 80 and
580 meet, and the Bay Bridge toll plaza. They average 18 mph coming the opposite way during the
peak afternoon hours.
Weekend traffic is far better during the early mornings, but can be nearly as bad through the
afternoons, when average speeds reach as low as 26 mph in both directions.
Looked at another way, drivers headed toward San Francisco are more likely to hit traffic on that
stretch of Interstate 80 during weekends. The freeway is considered congested — meaning drivers’
average speeds are less than 35 mph — for nine straight hours on Saturdays and Sundays, between 11
a.m. and 7 p.m. On weekdays, that’s the case seven hours per day, mostly during the morning rush.
“You don’t get a break,” said Sonja Kaufman, a teacher from El Cerrito who avoids the freeway as
much as she can. “It is usually brutal.”
Simple cause: Too many cars
Sporting events cause some weekend traffic jams. Construction projects cause others. And weekend
drivers may not move as efficiently as their weekday counterparts: Whereas commuters know the
mergers and bottlenecks of their route like the back of their hands, there are more visitors among
weekend drivers, who may not be as familiar with the roads. Weekend drivers also are more likely to
pay with cash at bridge tolls rather than using FasTrak.
Attachment 1
Attachment 1
On Sunday just as Wednesday, the reason for traffic is the same: There are more cars on the road than
space to move them — more beachgoers, hikers, Little League players, restaurant diners and, of course,
weekend workers.
“There is just so much demand there, all days of the week,” Trevor Reed, an INRIX transportation
analyst, said of the Bay Area.
Even though there are fewer cars on weekends overall, Reed said, “You’re still hitting that tipping
point where you’re causing everything to fall apart.”
The Bay Area News Group analyzed data from INRIX that shows the average speed of cars along
several busy Bay Area freeway corridors for every hour on a typical weekend and weekday, pulled
from anonymized data the company collects from car navigation systems.
Some routes delivered the relief weekend drivers might hope for. Highway 101 between Interstate 880
in San Jose and Highway 92 in Foster City can be miserable at rush hour, with average speeds falling
to just 22 mph along the 34-mile stretch during the southbound afternoon commute. Traffic flows
almost freely on the weekends, however, with average speeds never falling below 60 mph.
For other routes, even if the weekend wasn’t as bad as the work-week rush, it is still no picnic.
Eastbound drivers traveling through San Francisco toward the Bay Bridge creep along at just 19 mph
on average during the worst hours of Saturday and Sunday afternoons, between the Highway
101/Interstate 280 interchange and the point the bridge leaves the city. Compare that to an average of
12 mph on weekday afternoons, or 61 mph when traffic is lightest in the middle of the night.
On Interstate 680, eastbound drivers slow down to an average speed of 31 mph on weekend afternoons
between Highway 262 in Fremont and Highway 84 in Sunol. That’s more than twice as fast as they
manage during the worst of the afternoon commute, but less than half as slow as free-flowing traffic
speeds.
One question that is hard to answer is whether weekend traffic is worse now than it used to be.
INRIX’s data only goes back a couple of years, which don’t show major changes.
But there are signs that it might be: Weekday traffic congestion rose 80 percent from 2010 to 2017.
And data from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission shows a typical weekend day this year
now sees more than 40,000 additional people crossing Bay Area bridges compared to 2010.
“Before, you could depend on weekends being easy,” said Laura Sandlin, who lives in Antioch and has
cut hair at an El Cerrito barber shop for more than 30 years. Traffic is a problem “all the time” now,
she said.
Transit suffers on weekends
While the obvious solution to traffic is to get people onto public transportation, luring Bay Area drivers
out of their cars can be even tougher on the weekends.
“Our transportation system is really built for the commute,” said Arielle Fleisher, transportation policy
director at the urban planning think-tank SPUR.
Attachment 1
Public transit agencies typically run less frequent service, or eliminate certain routes entirely, over
weekends and holidays, which tend to have fewer riders.
That leads people to view mass transit primarily as a tool to get to and from work, Fleisher said, and
less as something they can use to get to friends’ houses or the beach on their days off.
“It’s really easy to fall into your default of your car on the weekends,” she said.
Then there is the problem of destinations.
Chris Lepe, regional policy director for at the transportation advocacy nonprofit TransForm, said the
region’s public transit systems “are not targeted toward the kind of destinations people want to go to on
the weekend.”
The Bay Area’s buses and trains funnel a lot of people into job centers such as downtown San
Francisco from Monday to Friday, but destinations tend to be much more scattered on the weekends,
and might include parks or beaches with few options for transit.
Then there are the longer weekend trips people take that would be difficult to do any day of the week
without a car, given the complex, often poorly connected, a web of more than two-dozen public transit
agencies that struggle to knit the Bay Area together.
Lepe, as you might imagine, is a pretty avid transit user: From his home in San Jose, he regularly takes
Caltrain to San Francisco and Amtrak to the East Bay. But if he wants to visit friends or go camping in
Sonoma County over the weekend, he said, “There isn’t a good option.”
So Lepe winds up driving instead — and often getting stuck in traffic.
There’s no sign that the factors creating weekend traffic jams will be easing any time soon. As long as
money is tight and transportation agencies need to prioritize spending, devoting money to improving
commutes rather than weekend trips may not be a bad thing — after all, it would affect more people on
more days each week, Lepe said.
“What makes the most sense in terms of bang for the buck?” he said.
So drivers will continue to jam the Bay Area’s clogged freeways on Saturdays and Sundays, and try to
find ways around weekend congestion just as they do Monday through Friday.
Sandlin, the El Cerrito barber, makes sure to take her weekend trips early: Get through the Eastshore
Freeway by 11 a.m., she says, or you’re in for trouble.
Once the traffic gets bad on weekends, Sandlin has an even more extreme workaround: To avoid the
slog to and across the Bay Bridge when she drives to visit her children in San Francisco, she drives
over the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge and the Golden Gate Bridge. Tolls means the trip winds up
costing Sandlin more than twice as much, but she says the route is worth it.
“You’ve got to do what you’ve got to do, so you don’t have to sit” in traffic, she said. “It’s just too
frustrating.”
Attachment 2
Residents increasingly unhappy with Bay Area
life, new poll finds
Housing and traffic are among the top complaints
By MARISA KENDALL | mkendall@bayareanewsgroup.com | Bay Area News Group
PUBLISHED: December 4, 2019 at 9:00 am | UPDATED: December 4, 2019 at 11:25 am
A growing percentage of Bay Area residents are worried about the future of the region,
citing housing and traffic woes among their main concerns.
In a five-county poll released Wednesday, 67% of respondents said they are “unhappy or
worried about changes happening in the Bay Area,” up 10% from 2016. And 53% said
they felt things in the region “have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track,” up
from 45% three years ago.
The poll, funded by the San Francisco Foundation, highlights the downsides of living in
one of the country’s most beautiful and sought-after locales and the threat the festering
issues of housing affordability, homelessness and traffic congestion pose to the region’s
future.
“There’s concern — and we’ve been seeing this in a lot of other polling as well — that
residents are feeling kind of pessimistic, just generally. I think the cost of housing and
traffic and all these other issues are causing people to feel unhappy,” said Ruth Bernstein,
president and CEO of EMC Research, the national consulting firm that conducted the po
Wednesday’s survey data comes from 800 residents in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin,
San Francisco and San Mateo counties — the five counties that make up the San
Francisco Foundation’s primary coverage area. Santa Clara County was not included.
The foundation, which provides funding for local causes from housing and homelessness
to racial equity, first conducted a similar survey in 2016 as a way to gauge the main crises
affecting its community.
This year’s poll was conducted online during an eight-day period in October.
Respondents ranked traffic, the cost of living, housing costs and homelessness as the four
worst things about living in the Bay Area. Making housing more affordable was at the top
of their list of concerns, with 79% ranking it as a priority.
“They are speaking to the need for action,” said Judith Bell, chief impact officer of the
San Francisco Foundation. “For me, that data really suggests we need to deal with this
crisis because it is a threat to our future.”
Attachment 2
Wednesday’s results confirm an ongoing trend. In a poll released earlier this year by
this news organization and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, nearly two-thirds of Bay
Area residents said the quality of life here has gotten worse over the last five years. And
44% of respondents said they are likely to move out of the Bay Area in the next few
years.
“The Bay Area’s housing and traffic crises are the existential threats to a strong economy
and a vibrant quality of life,” said Carl Guardino, president and CEO of the Silicon
Valley Leadership Group.
Residents who responded to the San Francisco Foundation survey placed the most faith in
government and elected officials to fix the housing crisis, over nonprofits, investors and
the business and tech community.
The majority of residents also expressed concern about diversity in the Bay Area — 65%
of respondents said protecting the racial and cultural diversity of the region’s
neighborhoods is a priority. And 77% of respondents agreed with this statement: “There
should be affordable places to live for all people whether white, black or brown in my
neighborhood.”
Fewer than half of respondents said they are excited about the Bay Area’s future — 46%,
down from 54% three years ago. And more than half of people polled said they are
worried about finding an affordable place to live.
“No region can sustain itself with this level of discord among its residents,” Matt Regan,
senior vice president of public policy for the Bay Area Council, wrote in an email. “We
have to make housing more affordable for everyone, and that can only be done by a
massive increase in building.”