May 7, 1998 - SBCAGmeetings.sbcag.org/Meetings/SBCAG/2010/12 Dec/Item 11... · 2020. 1. 3. · 2107...

STAFF REPORT

SUBJECT: SBCAG Organizational Assessment MEETING DATE: December 16, 2010 AGENDA ITEM: 11 STAFF CONTACT: Steve Underwood, County Counsel RECOMMENDATION: Receive final SBCAG Organizational Assessment and draft Implementation Action Plan prepared by Management Partners and provide direction. DISCUSSION: In October, Management Partners presented the draft report on its Organizational Assessment of SBCAG. The final report will be presented to the board by the consulting team at the December meeting. The final report includes revisions addressing comments by the board and other stakeholders. The final report also includes a draft implementation action plan requested by the board which is intended to help with implementation of the 15 recommendations contained in the report by identifying next steps, timeframes and implementation priorities, responsible person, resources required. Since the implementation action plan is a first draft, it will likely require refinement and revisions by SBCAG. Copies of the final report were distributed by email to all board members on December 8. Attachments: SBCAG Organizational Assessment Final Report—December 16, 2010 Letter from David Damiano, SBCTAC Chair to Management Partners

December 16, 2010

Santa Barbara County Association of Governments

Organizational Assessment

2107 North First Street Suite 470 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1520 San Jose, CA 95131 www.managementpartners.com Irvine, CA 92614 408 437 5400 949 222 1082 Fax 453 6191

December 16, 2010

Mr. Steve Underwood Chief Assistant County Counsel Santa Barbara County 105 E. Anapamu Street, Suite 201 Santa Barbara, CA 93101

Dear Mr. Underwood:

Management Partners is pleased to provide this project report containing the results of our organizational assessment of the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG). Since beginning this work in early August we have conducted focus groups, employee workload surveys, and more than two dozen interviews with various stakeholders, including SBCAG Board members, representatives from member jurisdictions, and community representatives. In addition, we researched the policies and practices of nine comparable organizations to determine the industry standards for operation, governance, staffing levels, budget factors and effectiveness for agencies such as SBCAG.

The Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) Organizational Assessment Project Report reflects input from a variety of important stakeholders, including SBCAG advisory committees, local member jurisdictions, regional agencies that collaborate with SBCAG such as the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District and Metropolitan Transit District, and the SBCAG staff. This project report also incorporates the comments and suggestions made by the SBCAG Board of Directors on October 21, 2010, when our draft report was presented. Two of the more significant changes from the draft report are as follows:

• Additional information and clarification about the use of executive committees by peer agencies and SBCAG has been added to the section on Board Development and Governance. Comments about the use of strategic planning processes for board orientation and planning tools such as the SBCAG Advance Calendar also have been included in this section

• A draft implementation action plan for each of the report’s recommendations, including relative priority, responsibilities and suggested timelines has been added as Attachment B.

Mr. Steve Underwood Page 2

The purpose of a report such as this is not to evaluate the work of specific individuals or to be used to assess the performance of elected officials or staff. We noted during the assessment that SBCAG has a number of accomplishments of which to be proud, such as the passage of Measure A, the success of the 101 in Motion planning process, the 80% fare box recovery rate of the Clean Air Express inter‐regional bus service, and the success in attracting state and federal funding for a variety of SBCAG projects. However, the report focuses on opportunities for improvement rather than past accomplishments because that is where value is derived. This report offers a number of recommendations aimed at improving relationships between member jurisdictions and SBCAG so the organization can focus on its mission and on service delivery to members. Implementing steps to improve organizational performance in this area will take a concerted effort by the Board, SBCAG staff and member jurisdiction staff. Although some recommendations will require an allocation of resources as well as a commitment of time to achieve success, the investment should yield substantial dividends in SBCAG’s ability to effectively and efficiently respond to the needs of the community it serves. The SBCAG Board members and staff and elected and appointed officials from SBCAG’s member agencies were helpful and forthcoming with information throughout our analysis. The messages they shared were done in the spirit of improving the organization’s effectiveness. We appreciate their time and dedication to making SBCAG a stronger organization serving the regional planning and transportation needs of Santa Barbara County and its residents. Sincerely,

Andrew S. Belknap Regional Vice President

Santa Barbara County Association of Governments Management Partners, Inc. Organizational Assessment Table of Contents

iv

Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. 1

Overall Observations ....................................................................................................................... 3 Observations by Major Category ................................................................................................... 4

Strategic Planning ...................................................................................................................... 4 Resource Development ................................................................................................................ 6 Financial Planning and Funding Utilization ............................................................................. 6 Strategic Alliances ...................................................................................................................... 7 Organizational Structure, Staffing, Workload, Performance Measurement, Accountability and Business Systems ................................................................................................................. 8 Staff Development ....................................................................................................................... 9 Board Development and Governance .......................................................................................... 9

Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 10 Strategic Planning .................................................................................................................... 10 Strategic Alliances .................................................................................................................... 11 Organizational Structure, Staffing, Workload, Performance Measurement, Accountability and Business Systems ............................................................................................................... 11 Staff Development ..................................................................................................................... 11 Board Development and Governance ........................................................................................ 12

Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 12 Study Objectives and Limitations ....................................................................................................... 13

Objectives ........................................................................................................................................ 13 Limitations ...................................................................................................................................... 14

Local Transportation Authorities and Metropolitan Planning Organizations ........................... 16 Organizational Assessment Methodology ......................................................................................... 20

Document Review .......................................................................................................................... 20 Stakeholder Interviews .................................................................................................................. 20 Benchmarking ................................................................................................................................. 21 Interviews with Peer Organization Executives .......................................................................... 22 Focus Groups .................................................................................................................................. 23


v

Workload Survey ........................................................................................................................... 23 Organizational Assessment Results .................................................................................................... 24

Strategic Planning .......................................................................................................................... 24 Clarity of Mission ..................................................................................................................... 24 Customers and Their Values ..................................................................................................... 25 Organizational Strategic Plan .................................................................................................. 26

Resource Development .................................................................................................................. 27 Benchmarking Data .................................................................................................................. 27 Lobbying and Advocacy Activities ........................................................................................... 32 Financial Planning and Funding Utilization ........................................................................... 35

Strategic Alliances and External Communication ..................................................................... 36 Use of Advisory Committees ..................................................................................................... 37 Establishing and Maintaining Executive Peer Relationships .................................................. 42 Relationship with Caltrans ....................................................................................................... 42 External Communications ........................................................................................................ 43

Organizational Structure, Staffing, Workload, Performance Measurement, Accountability and Business Systems .................................................................................................................... 44

Organizational Structure ......................................................................................................... 44 Staffing 47 Workload ................................................................................................................................... 48 Performance Management ........................................................................................................ 55 Accountability ........................................................................................................................... 56 Business Systems ...................................................................................................................... 56

Staff Development .......................................................................................................................... 57 Focus Group Results ................................................................................................................. 58 Career Development .................................................................................................................. 62

Board Development and Governance ......................................................................................... 63 Board Member Orientation ....................................................................................................... 64 Governance Policies and Procedures ........................................................................................ 65

Implementation Action Plan ................................................................................................................. 70 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 71 Attachment A: List of Recommendations ........................................................................................... 72 Attachment B: Draft Implementation Action Plan ........................................................................... 74 Attachment C: SBCAG Staff Workload Survey ............................................................................... 81


vi

Tables Table 1. Peer Agencies, Type and Population .................................................................................. 22

Table 2. Comparison of Years Using Federal and State Lobbyists with Peer Agencies ............. 33

Table 3. Comparison of SBCAG Major Organizational Divisions with Those of Peer Agencies ............................................................................................................................ 46

Table 4. Comparison of Full‐Time Equivalent (FTE) Staffing ........................................................ 47

Table 5. Comparison of the Composition and Selection of Executive Committee Members .... 66

Figures Figure 1. Counties with Sales Tax Designated for Transportation Purposes ............................... 29

Figure 2. Total Reported Expenditures for Streets and Roads per Capita ................................... 31

Figure 3. Comparison of Total Average Revenue per Capita, FY 1999‐00 to FY 2007‐08 .......... 32

Figure 4. Average Annual Grant Revenue per Capita, FY 1999‐00 to FY 2007‐08 ...................... 35

Figure 5. SBCAG Organizational Structure ...................................................................................... 45

Figure 6. Personnel Costs as a Percentage of Total Revenue ......................................................... 48

Figure 7. Percentage of Time Spent on Job Activities ...................................................................... 50

Figure 8. Percentages of Time per Job Activity without Outliers .................................................. 51

Figure 9. Job Activities Indicated as Most Important ...................................................................... 52

Figure 10. Job Activities Indicated as Being Least Important ...................................................... 53

Santa Barbara County Association of Governments Management Partners, Inc. Organizational Assessment Executive Summary

1

Executive Summary Management Partners was retained in late July 2010 to conduct an organizational assessment of the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG). SBCAG is a unique organization having several regional roles including serving as the County’s Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Council of Governments (COG), and sales tax authority for the Road Repair, Traffic Relief and Transportation Safety Measure (commonly known as Measure A).

The purpose of the assessment was to evaluate SBCAG’s organizational efficiency and effectiveness in a number of areas; to compare SBCAG’s organizational performance with the best practices in local government management and operation based on the “industry standards” of comparable MPOs, COGs, and sales tax authorities; and to provide our observations and recommendations to help SBCAG succeed in the face of new service demands and the changing service delivery environment.

SBCAG serves several functions, each having different demands and requirements. Their primary functions include:

• As a metropolitan planning organization, SBCAG is responsible for conducting a “continuing, cooperative and comprehensive planning process” to determine the allocation of federal transportation funds.

• SBCAG functions as a transportation authority (TA), responsible for administering the half‐cent sales tax under Measure A (previously Measure D).

• SBCAG serves as a council of governments, responsible for regional policy making (not service delivery) as well as compliance with state and federal requirements.

• SBCAG is a congestion management agency (CMA), responsible for establishing performance standards for roadways and transit services and for developing seven‐year plans to meet these standards as a condition of additional funding.

• SBCAG serves as the designated Rideshare Organization for the Santa Barbara County region.


2

To complete the organizational assessment, Management Partners used a variety of analytical and management techniques. We examined documents and conducted 24 interviews with members of the SBCAG Board, various stakeholders and SBCAG executive staff. We also convened two employee focus groups and administered an employee workload survey to gain insights about how the organization is functioning from the employee perspective. We also conducted benchmarking with nine peer agencies and interviewed the executive directors of each. These combined activities enabled Management Partners to identify common themes and opportunities for improvement.

Benchmarking is used to identify where an agency stands compared with similar organizations. It is useful to determine whether an agency is at the polar ends of a scale or somewhere in the middle and it is especially useful to identify the reasons that others may be more efficient in performing the same operation.

Financial and organizational benchmarking was conducted using nine peer agencies, four of which are MPO/COG/TA agencies like SBCAG. Criteria to identify peer agencies include agency type and regional planning responsibilities as well as responsibility for implementing a voter‐approved transportation sales tax measure. Although they do not administer a local transportation sales tax, the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments and Ventura County Transportation Commission were included because of their geographic proximity to Santa Barbara County.

The nine peer agencies studied for comparison with SBCAG are as follows:

• County of Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) • Madera County Transportation Commission (MCTC) • Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) • San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) • San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) • San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) • Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) • Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) • Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC)


3

Overall Observations Given the diversity of needs and interests present in Santa Barbara County, SBCAG is challenged to balance its various regional responsibilities such as MPO, COG, Regional Transportation Planning Authority (RTPA), Regional Rideshare Organization, and CMA with the responsibility to serve its member agencies and the constituents they all share.

Project team members have several observations based on interviews with Board, staff and peer agencies and focus groups and benchmarking results. First, SBCAG compares well against its peers in terms of its ability to attract funding and other benchmarking metrics. Personnel costs are in line, and staffing and workloads seem appropriate for an agency of its size and scope. SBCAG’s organizational structure is comparable with peer agencies. Staff are enthusiastic about the organization and dedicated to their work. Some staff have worked for SBCAG for much of their careers, providing helpful institutional knowledge and expertise.

SBCAG is an organization without a strategic plan. An overall vision and a clear sense of mission embraced and accepted by all of SBCAG’s participants and stakeholders is lacking. Consequently, staff tends to approach business as transactions, focused on getting things done. While implementation is critical, organizational and staff performance is measured primarily by outputs rather than outcomes and the added value to be derived from SBCAG’s programs and projects. The lack of a clear vision and mission contributes to a lack of understanding by SBCAG staff about who their customers are, which affects the way local member agencies are treated in the policy input process.

Fundamentally, the issues SBCAG is experiencing can be attributed to three contributing factors, much like the three legs of a stool, pertaining to 1) member jurisdictions, 2) SBCAG Board, and 3) SBCAG staff role on technical advisory committees.

• Member jurisdictions. SBCAG’s member jurisdictions are focused first on their local communities and then on the region. While all local officials typically give priority to the needs and interests of their own communities, we found through our interviews with local members and the other regional agencies that it appears to be much more pronounced in the case of SBCAG. This local orientation can make it difficult for local jurisdiction


4

representatives serving on the SBCAG Board and advisory committees to shift their focus to a broader regional mission, albeit undefined, which the laws governing SBCAG require it to serve.

• Board. The second leg of the stool is the SBCAG Board. Board members tend to rely on their own jurisdiction’s staff for guidance in decision making, rather than SBCAG staff. During interviews, we heard that sometimes Board members do not see SBCAG staff as an effective resource to them, particularly if they receive different opinions from staff in their own jurisdiction. The practice of Board members turning first to their local government staff rather than SBCAG staff for information and guidance has a demoralizing affect on SBCAG’s staff.

• Staff Role. The third leg of the stool is the role played by SBCAG staff on the technical advisory committees. SBCAG has an unusual governance model, unlike other regional agencies, which gives SBCAG senior staff a vote on two of its technical advisory committees. This voting power can cause staff to inadvertently shift from their role as professional and technical advisors to one of policy making. Policy is typically the purview of board members. The staff’s obligation to represent the region, combined with voting rights, creates tension and competition between SBCAG staff and member jurisdictions. Trust in the independent professional judgment of staff is critical in any local government, and such trust appears to be impeded in part by the voting power of staff.

The recommendations throughout this report are intended to help the SBCAG Board, staff and member jurisdictions resolve some of these issues and develop a collaborative, cooperative relationship where both SBCAG and member jurisdictions can succeed in responding to the priorities and interests of the public they both serve.

Observations by Major Category This section of the Executive Summary provides observations in seven categories. Each of these categories is thoroughly discussed in the body of the report.

Strategic Planning Strategic planning is an organization’s process of defining its direction and making decisions about allocating its human and financial resources to pursue the direction desired. An organization’s strategic effectiveness is contingent upon having a clear vision and well‐understood mission, an


5

understanding about who its customers are and what they value, a disciplined method of measuring results, and planning to maximize the value added by its existence.

Four of the peer agencies studied (Fresno COG, RCTC, SANDAG, and SJCOG) have a clear and publicly articulated organizational mission statement and vision that provide overall direction and help staff understand the connection between their work and the organization’s desired outcomes. SBCAG does not have a strategic plan or a clearly articulated direction other than what is provided in the annual Overall Work Program (OWP). Additionally, there was a lack of consensus, particularly among Board members and member agencies, about SBCAG’s mission and how much of a regional role it should have.

During interviews, many representatives from member jurisdictions stated that they do not feel that SBCAG views them as customers. Examples cited include poor communication with members by the executive staff, limited provision of technical assistance and support to members, staff recommendations that reflect a lack of sensitivity to the current state of affairs in local governments (including financial constraints and significant staff reductions being implemented due to the poor economy), and at times, an “us versus them” approach to problem solving instead of through consensus building.

In contrast, the executive staff of SBCAG recognized the importance of being of service to local agencies and stated the SBCAG staff spends significant time assisting local government agencies. The executive staff pointed to their efforts to create a voter‐approved Measure A plan that will generate approximately $700 million over 30 years for local government projects. They acknowledged that their work is not always viewed as being customer friendly and attributed this perception to their quasi‐regulatory role and their obligation to prioritize projects with regional benefits above local projects. During interviews with executive directors of the peer agencies, all emphasized that the member agencies are their primary customers.

In a setting as diverse as Santa Barbara County, the lack of a strategic planning component other than the federally required OWP tends to create confusion about roles, responsibilities, mission, vision, values and priorities. Consensus about the mission and vision of the organization and how it should operate to add value to the members and constituents it serves is essential to clarifying direction and expectations and reducing conflicts caused by competing interests Having a clear strategic direction


6

is fundamental to any organization and the lack of such direction is a core problem facing SBCAG.

Resource Development Regional planning agencies like SBCAG must develop and manage a variety of resources to fulfill their various missions. These include financial resources as well as professional and technical resources. Developing resources consists of lobbying and legislative advocacy activities to attract funding and to influence policies affecting the organization as well as effectively planning and utilizing the financial resources received.

As would be expected (because of the local sales tax for transportation and road purposes), total average revenues are strong. SBCAG ranks right beneath SANDAG and RCTC, two larger agencies, when revenues are compared on a per capita basis. The benchmarking also shows that SBCAG has been successful in obtaining grant revenues. Having strong revenues has enabled SBCAG to consistently expend more dollars per capita for street and road purposes than the state average.

Financial Planning and Funding Utilization Funding for transportation projects comes from a variety of sources. Coordinating the timing of projects with the availability of funding is an essential function of organizations such as SBCAG. A comparison of financial planning and funding utilization strategies found that SBCAG and all peer agencies use State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds for regional projects. Like SBCAG, four agencies also use Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds for regional projects.

The mix of revenue sources anticipated to fund Measure A is similar to those reported by peer agencies, including developer fees and bonds. However, SBCAG is unique because of the dependence on sales tax dollars by local agencies to fund streets and roads projects that has evolved as a result of Measure D, the previous transportation sales tax. With one exception (MCTC), the allocation of 70% of sales tax measure revenues to local agencies is well above the industry standard of 30% to 40%. This dependency makes local jurisdictions more sensitive to SBCAG’s proposed use of both Measure A dollars and other funding sources such as STIP and RSTP for regional projects instead of local ones.


7

Strategic Alliances The success of regional planning and transportation agencies such as SBCAG are directly related to the organization’s ability to form strategic alliances with stakeholders and the public. SBCAG’s strategic alliances were reviewed in four areas: the use of technical advisory committees, executive peer relationships, relationships with the California Department of Transportation, commonly known as Caltrans, and external communications efforts.

Advisory Committees Using technical advisory committees to review proposed projects and their funding is common practice, based on our review of peer agencies. Interviews revealed poor working relationships between SBCAG staff and the advisory committees, particularly the Technical Transportation Advisory Committee (TTAC). A recurrent theme was the perception that SBCAG staff and the standing advisory committees are more competitive than collaborative. Advisory committee members expressed concerns about processes such as the way agendas are set, the amount of lead time provided for reviewing technical information, and how disagreements between the advisory committees and staff are handled. SBCAG staff expressed concerns that member jurisdiction advisory committee representatives are focused on local interests to the detriment of regional interests and tend to discount the local benefits that regional projects provide.

Further creating confusion and tension between TTAC, TPAC and SBCAG is that SBCAG staff have voting rights on these committees. This practice is unusual; none of the peer agencies have governance structures that allow staff to vote as part of technical or other advisory committees.

Executive Peer Relationships Several peer agency executive directors reported developing and maintaining positive working relationships with the city managers of their member jurisdictions to ensure good communication, resolve potential issues before they are presented to the board, and enlist city manager assistance in keeping board members focused on their regional responsibilities. The SBCAG executive director has been invited to participate in regular meetings with south coast city managers and county executives, but has been unable to attend recently due to conflicts with TTAC meetings. Making time to engage with executives throughout Santa Barbara County provides an opportunity to further develop peer


8

relationships that translate into strategic alliances in support of SBCAG’s goals.

Relationship with Caltrans A strong strategic alliance exists between SBCAG and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). In addition to providing space for a Caltrans representative within its offices, SBCAG is recognized by member agencies for having a very positive working relationship with Caltrans. Caltrans officials think highly of SBCAG, and consider it to be a “model MPO.”

External Communications SBCAG complies with federal MPO regulations by having an adopted public participation plan. Like its peers, SBCAG utilizes a website, general information brochures, community presentations and traditional news releases to inform the public about programs and activities. Peer agencies also are utilizing less traditional communications and public participation methods such as social media, interactive web‐based surveys, electronic newsletters and professional polling. Many peer agencies produce an annual report to publicize its accomplishments; SBCAG does not. With the exception of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Division’s “Traffic Solutions” program, most public input is gathered through normal public hearing processes at Board and sub‐regional committee meetings.

Organizational Structure, Staffing, Workload, Performance Measurement, Accountability and Business Systems Management Partners was asked to evaluate staffing levels and workloads for SBCAG to determine if the organization is structured and sized properly. SBCAG’s personnel costs are in line with those of peer agencies. Based on our analysis, SBCAG’s organizational structure is comparable with that of peer agencies and is appropriate for its programs and responsibilities.

Measure A will result in some programmatic workload increases for SBCAG staff. In the near term (between now and 2014/15) these impacts, which were estimated in the Measure A Strategic Plan, will be minimal. Programmatic demands on SBCAG staff will become more significant after 2015 and will be primarily associated with work on the Highway 101 project. There are many options for SBCAG to meet both the near term and longer term programmatic staffing needs. These range from


9

using consultants and limited term staff to contracting with member jurisdictions. Of more concern is the need for SBCAG management to have the resources necessary to implement the organizational development recommendations contained in this report and to staff the “aggressive” pursuit of federal discretionary funding contained in the Measure A Strategic Plan.

With regard to business systems and capabilities, this organizational assessment identified that improvements are needed in SBCAG’s financial and project management software.

Staff Development On September 21, 2010, Management Partners held two focus groups with SBCAG employees to better understand the organization from the perspective of line staff and to hear input about organizational improvements.

Staff believe they possess a strong work ethic, produce quality work products, work well together and have good relationships with SBCAG member agencies, particularly when providing technical assistance. They recognize the need to improve relationships between the Board, staff and advisory committees, and expressed a desire to interact more with Board members.

Employees also believe that communication between departments could be improved, requested more frequent “all hands” staff meetings, and requested more opportunity to provide input to the Overall Work Program. In addition, the staff expressed a strong desire for more career development opportunities.

Board Development and Governance During interviews with peer agencies, Management Partners learned that executive directors in peer agencies are proactive in helping board members understand the regional perspective and subordinate their local jurisdiction role while fulfilling their board obligations. Two strategies, board member orientation and effective board governance policies and procedures, are deployed to help board members understand the difference between being a “representative of” their home agency, and being a “representative for” the region as a whole.

Arranging a “one‐on‐one” meeting to begin the board orientation process is a common practice among peer agencies, including SBCAG. Some


10

agencies provide formal orientation presentations or use creative methods for familiarizing elected officials with the agency, such as providing regular presentations at city council and county board of supervisors meetings.

Effective governance policies and procedures assist in developing board members and facilitating decision making that reflects the interests of the region as a whole. SBCAG is similar to the peer agencies in utilizing a vote of the Board to select the chair for one‐year terms, and in rotating the chair between a city representative and a county representative. SBCAG bylaws currently do not specify the composition of the Executive Committee. Instead, each year the Board ratifies appointments to the Executive Committee made by the Chair. This is unique; the membership of peer agency executive committees is specified by position in their bylaws or other governance policies. However, while it is not “codified” in SBCAG bylaws, past practice has been to have the SBCAG Executive Committee consist of the Chair, the Vice Chair and the immediate past Chair, which is similar to the practice followed in comparable agencies.

Management Partners was asked to explore whether peer agencies have special voting procedures to foster a balance between urban and rural, large and small cities, and the county. Of the nine peer agencies, four have provisions for weighted voting: Fresno COG, RCTC, SANDAG and TCAG. Of these, only Fresno COG and SANDAG use weighted voting routinely. Based on interviews with peer agencies, most appear to have found ways to build consensus and achieve regionally oriented decision making without the need for weighted voting procedures. Therefore, this may not be a necessary governance policy for SBCAG to implement, particularly if an effective strategic plan and consensus about SBCAG’s mission is reached.

Recommendations This report offers 15 recommendations in five areas. The entire list of recommendations is provided in Attachment A. An implementation action plan for each of the recommendations is provided in Attachment B.

Strategic Planning • Prepare an organizational strategic plan, containing vision,

mission, values, goals, strategies and implementation action plan.


11

Strategic Alliances • Provide agenda materials to technical advisory committees a week

in advance (or earlier). • Improve communications between SBCAG staff and the technical

advisory committees and improve agenda management to allow adequate time for discussion and input before recommendations are made to the Board.

• Eliminate a voting role for SBCAG staff on technical advisory committees.

• Create new external communication approaches to strengthen public understanding of SBCAG’s accomplishments and how they can be engaged in regional initiatives.

Organizational Structure, Staffing, Workload, Performance Measurement, Accountability and Business Systems

• Request that the executive director report on the need for additional staffing resources for Measure A and the implementation of recommendations in this report as part of the 2011/12 budget process.

• Update the performance evaluation form and review process to better tie organizational goals and outcomes with employee performance.

• Prepare an IT strategic plan and assess whether participating in the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) network is the best option for SBCAG in meeting its IT needs.

Staff Development • Improve the effectiveness of communication between the Board,

advisory committees and SBCAG staff. • Create opportunities for staff development and improved

communication through the use of cross‐departmental working groups for some projects.

• Establish regular communication between departments to expand employee knowledge and understanding of the organization.

• Convene all‐hands staff meetings on a regular basis to share information important to the organization as a whole.

• Expand opportunities for staff to provide input in the preparation of the Overall Work Program.

• Create and implement plans for organizational development and succession planning.


12

Board Development and Governance • Make it explicit in SBCAG’s bylaws that the Board’s Executive

Committee be composed of the Chair, Vice Chair, and immediate past Chair, with other members added at the recommendation of the Chair subject to ratification by the Board.

Conclusion This report offers 15 recommendations aimed at improving the relationship between member jurisdictions and SBCAG to increase its effectiveness as a regional body. Implementing steps to enhance organizational performance will take a concerted effort by the Board, SBCAG staff and member jurisdiction staff.

Santa Barbara County Association of Governments Management Partners, Inc. Organizational Assessment Study Objectives and Limitations

13

Study Objectives and Limitations

Objectives Management Partners was retained in late July 2010 to conduct an organizational assessment of the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG). SBCAG is a unique organization having several regional roles including serving as the County’s Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Council of Governments (COG), and sales tax authority for the Road Repair, Traffic Relief and Transportation Safety Measure (commonly known as Measure A). Measure A was approved by the voters in November 2008; SBCAG began receiving measure revenues in April 2010.

SBCAG has been working on a strategic plan as required by the provisions of Measure A. The strategic plan is designed to prioritize projects to be funded by Measure A and establish a timeline for implementation. One of the components of the draft strategic plan concerned the organizational structure and staffing of SBCAG. The SBCAG Executive Committee decided to initiate a strategic review of the organization and how it compares against industry standards for MPOs, COGs and transportation sales tax authorities in California before committing to a particular organizational structure or staffing plan.

The specific objectives of the project are to provide:

• An assessment of SBCAG’s efficiency and effectiveness in the following areas

o Organization structure o Clarity of mission, goals and values o Staffing and workload o Internal and external communications o Technology and business systems o Budgeting practices, including planning for the future o Job‐related performance management, training and

development o Performance measurement and reporting


14

o Performance management and accountability systems • A comparison of SBCAG’s organizational performance with the

best practices in local government management and operation, based on the “industry standards” of comparable MPO, COG and transportation sales tax authorities.

• Observations and recommendations to help SBCAG succeed in the face of new service demands and the changing service delivery environment.

Limitations As noted above, this organizational assessment of SBCAG has three major objectives; it also has some limitations of which the reader should be aware. The first major limitation was the tight schedule (of about two months) required to complete the assessment to meet SBCAG’s timeframe for completion of the Measure A Strategic Plan.

SBCAG is a relatively complex local agency, subject to a wide variety of technical regulations covering the numerous areas in which it operates. Additionally, the organization has intricate governmental relationships with the general purpose governments in Santa Barbara County and other stakeholders. Due to timing and budget limitations, this assessment is not designed to provide focused, detailed analysis of specific SBCAG functions or the draft Measure A Strategic Plan. Instead, it is aimed at identifying overarching organizational issues and creating a template for organizational development to improve existing performance. Therefore, some recommendations identify areas where additional analysis will provide significant opportunity for improvement on a cost‐effective basis.

The second major limitation is a generic issue associated with all organizational assessments. The purpose of a report such as this is not to recite all of SBCAG’s work or evaluate the work of specific individuals. The information in the report represents the observations and analysis of Management Partners’ project team members. While this review focuses on management issues or practices where improvements can be realized, this report should not be read as a “report card” or assessment of the performance of elected officials or staff. The assessment focuses on areas where improvements can be achieved because that is where value is derived. Any human enterprise can be improved and that truth applies to the operation of government just as it does to every other organization, private or public. The fact that the SBCAG Board decided to undertake


15

this study shows a strong commitment to learning and organizational development and a focus on continuous improvement.

A final limitation of this assessment concerns the benchmarking analysis. Such analysis can illuminate how SBCAG is operating and serve as a point of comparison. Although helpful, benchmarking data should be used carefully. Every organization is unique, and regional planning agencies are extremely varied in their scope and formal responsibilities. There is also very little publicly available, consistent information about such agencies. More information on benchmarking and the varied functions of the regional planning agencies used as comparisons is presented later in this report.

The information gathered during this assessment should be viewed in its entirety, as individual data sources rarely address the full range of issues associated with any topic.

Santa Barbara County Association of Governments Management Partners, Inc. Organizational Assessment Local Transportation Authorities and Metropolitan Planning Organizations

16

Local Transportation Authorities and Metropolitan Planning Organizations

An appreciation for the context within which SBCAG exists is an important starting point to understanding the organization. SBCAG actually serves several functions, each having different demands and requirements. These functions include, but are not limited to, the following.

SBCAG is a metropolitan planning organization. MPOs are created under federal statute. They are charged with conducting a “continuing, cooperative and comprehensive planning process” to determine the allocation of federal transportation funds. All MPOs must adopt an annual Overall Work Program (OWP) and a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) which forms the basis for allocating federal highway funding. As is detailed later in this report, in many areas of California a larger MPO serves as an umbrella over regional RTP agencies. For example, the MPO for Riverside and Ventura Counties is the Southern California Association of Governments, but RTP work is accomplished at the County level. This is not the case in Santa Barbara; from a local control perspective, this is a regional advantage. Aside from local sales tax revenues, most of the money that flows through SBCAG is a result of its MPO status. A substantial portion of SBCAG’s workload is associated with its MPO role.

While there are 58 counties in California, there are only 15 MPOs. This is because 21 counties are considered rural areas where MPOs are not used as an allocation agent, and because in the Los Angeles/Southern California region as well as the Bay Area, Sacramento area and Monterey Bay area, multiple county MPOs have evolved to deal with inter‐connected metropolitan areas. For example, the Southern California Association of Governments is the official MPO for six counties in Southern California, including Santa Barbara’s neighbor to the south, Ventura County. There are 13 counties in California where the MPO region is also the county boundary, including Santa Barbara and its other neighboring counties, Kern and San Luis Obispo.


17

SBCAG is a Transportation Authority (TA). This is the role in which SBCAG administers the half‐cent sales tax under Measure A (previously Measure D). There are currently 19 counties in California that levy a local transportation sales tax (LTSA) and have a local TA to administer the program. These counties are sometimes called “self‐help” counties because the voters have authorized additional sales tax to help fund regional transportation needs. Most of the larger urbanized counties in California now have an LTSA. The majority of California’s population (over 70%) lives in a self‐help county and local sales tax revenues now make up about one‐third of California’s total transportation funding revenues (totaling over $2.8 billion in Fiscal Year 2007‐08). Typically a local sales tax is levied pursuant to a detailed plan such as Santa Barbara’s Measure A.

These local sales taxes earmarked for transportation are a relatively recent development. When the traditional source of highway funding (fuel taxes) was unable to adequately fund transportation improvement and maintenance functions, the State Legislature began granting local transportation authorities the right to levy a sales tax for specific projects. The first such levy was for the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system in 1969. In 1984, voters in Santa Clara Valley approved a special sales tax for transportation improvements under special state legislation.

The legislature soon gave all counties the right to adopt sales tax levies for transportation maintenance and improvements and 17 (including Santa Barbara) did so by 1990. These original measures generally had to pass by a 50% plus one margin, but during the early 1990s the approval threshold changed as a result of the passage of Proposition 62 and subsequent litigation. Currently local sales tax measures must be approved by a two‐thirds or super‐majority vote.

SBCAG’s role as a TA is a significant driver of workloads, and Measure A increases the agency’s role by expanding the utilization of sales tax revenues to programs that SBCAG administers.

SBCAG is a Council of Governments (COG). COGs are regional agencies normally created by joint powers agreements and are usually organized around county boundaries. They do not have service delivery responsibility. Instead, their role is oriented towards regional policy making and increasingly, compliance with state and federal requirements.


18

Originally COGs were set up to coordinate the delivery of federal housing, environmental and social service programs. Currently, where COGs exist they have statutory responsibility for the State’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) function.

There are currently 37 COGs in California, administering a wide range of regional activities. It is uncommon for COGs to also function as the MPO/Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) and Congestion Management Agency (CMA). Other functional responsibilities that SBCAG performs as part of its COG portfolio include serving as the Regional Clearinghouse for Plan and Project Review (PPR), Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), Census Data Center (CDC), Rideshare Agency and Freeway Call Box Authority (CBA).

SBCAG is a Congestion Management Agency. Congestion management agencies are county level agencies established in 1990 by Proposition 111, which raised gas and weight taxes for road maintenance and improvements. As a condition of receiving the additional revenues authorized, the CMA is required to establish performance standards for roadways and transit services and to develop seven‐year plans to meet these standards through demand management, capital improvements and coordination with land use agencies. CMA responsibilities have largely become routine and this standing is not a major driver of SBCAG’s workload. However, SBCAG’s Regional Rideshare Organization designation and responsibilities represent 15 percent of the staffing for SBCAG, creating unique opportunities for SBCAG to interact with area employers and the general public.

The four major responsibilities carried out by SBCAG, detailed above, result in SBCAG’s portfolio of responsibilities being broader than most other similar agencies in the state. SBCAG appears to be one of only three regional agencies in California that also functions as a Transportation Authority, Metropolitan Planning Agency/Regional Transportation Planning Authority and Congestion Management Agency. The others with this structure include the Fresno Council of Governments, San Diego Association of Governments and the San Joaquin Council of Governments.

While SBCAG is undoubtedly unique with respect to its exact functional responsibilities, there are several common themes running through its programs and responsibilities. SBCAG’s roles require intensive communication between it and general purpose local governments. All tend to be highly technical areas.


19

Some of the more specific areas of commonality include:

1. Significant technical expertise with respect to statutory requirements, funding matches and application standards.

2. The ability to articulate highly complex subject matter to a diverse group of general purpose governments.

3. A balancing of regional and local interests and the ability to forge consensus on regional issues within parameters that are not always accepted as valid from the perspective of local government representatives.

4. The ability to understand and advocate for regional needs at the state and federal level.

Santa Barbara County Association of Governments Management Partners, Inc. Organizational Assessment Organizational Assessment Methodology

20

Organizational Assessment Methodology Management Partners used a variety of analytical and management techniques in completing this organizational assessment. We examined documents and conducted 24 interviews with members of the SBCAG Board, various stakeholders and SBCAG executive staff. We also convened two employee focus groups and administered an employee workload survey to gain insight into how the organization is functioning from the employee perspective. Benchmarking with nine peer agencies was undertaken and the executive directors of each were interviewed. These combined activities enabled Management Partners to identify common themes and opportunities for improvement.

The following sections summarize the documents reviewed, stakeholder interviews, benchmarking conducted with peer agencies and the results of focus groups.

Document Review Management Partners reviewed a variety of documents to become familiar with the SBCAG organization, fiscal status, reporting relationships, roles and responsibilities. These included the following:

• FY 2010‐2011 Budget • Draft Measure A Strategic Plan • Overall Work Program for FY 2010‐2011 • Measure A Ordinance • Measure D Ordinance and Expenditure Plan • SBCAG bylaws • Bylaws for SBCAG’s various advisory committees • Resolution authorizing the establishment of sub‐regional planning

committees • SBCAG Board meeting agendas and staff reports

Stakeholder Interviews SBCAG has a variety of stakeholders who are critical to the success of the organization. At the commencement of the project, interviews were


21

conducted with individuals from several distinct stakeholder groups. The purpose of the interviews was to hear perspectives about organization effectiveness, challenges and areas that need to be improved, as well as opinions about changes that are needed to meet current and future needs of SBCAG and the community it serves. The stakeholder groups represented in the interviews include:

• SBCAG Board members • SBCAG Executive staff • Member jurisdiction mayors, city managers, public works

directors and planning directors • Members of the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee

(TTAC) and Technical Planning Advisory Committee (TPAC) • Measure A Citizens Oversight Committee • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)

representatives

Several recurring themes emerged from stakeholder interviews. These themes helped form the context for comparison during the benchmarking and peer organization executive interviews phases of the assessment. They are discussed later in this report.

Benchmarking Benchmarking is used to identify where an agency stands in comparison with similar organizations. It is useful to determine whether an agency is at the polar ends of a scale or somewhere in the middle and it is especially useful in identifying the reasons that others may be more efficient in performing the same operation.

Financial and organizational benchmarking was conducted using nine peer agencies, four of which are MPO/ TA agencies like SBCAG. Criteria used to identify peer agencies include agency type and regional planning responsibilities, including responsibility for implementing a voter‐approved transportation sales tax measure. Although they do not administer a local transportation sales tax, the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments and Ventura County Transportation Commission were included because of their geographic proximity to Santa Barbara County. The peer agencies studied, agency type and populations served are shown in Table 1 below.


22

Table 1. Peer Agencies, Type and Population

Agency Type1 Population2

Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) MPO, RTPA, COG, CMA, STA

915,267

Madera County Transportation Commission (MCTC) MPO, RTPA, STA 148,632

Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) RTPA, CMA, STA 2,125,440

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) MPO, RTPA, COG, CMA, STA

3,053,793

San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) MPO, RTPA, COG, CMA, STA

674,860

San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) MPO, RTPA, COG 270,046

Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) RTPA, STA 484,547

Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) MPO, RTPA, COG, STA 438,276

Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) RTPA, CMA3 830,343 1MPO ‐ Metropolitan Planning Organization; RTPA – Regional Transportation Planning Agency; COG ‐ Council of Governments; CMA – Congestion Management Agency; STA ‐ Sales Tax Authority 2U.S. Census 2009 Estimate 3VCTC staff also functions as the staff for the Ventura County Council of Governments under a separate contract.

Financial data for SBCAG and the peer agencies were obtained from the California State Controller’s Office Transportation Planning Agencies Annual Reports and Streets and Roads Reports from FY 1998‐99 to 2007‐08. Organizational data were gathered from agency websites and through interviews with the executive directors as discussed below.

Interviews with Peer Organization Executives Organizations have complexities that cannot be completely understood by reviewing financial and organizational data alone. To gather comparative information about organizational “industry standards” for agencies like SBCAG, we conducted telephone interviews with the executive directors of each peer agency. Interview questions were grouped into the following categories.

• Organizational structure and staffing • Governance policies and practices • Use of advisory committees • Sales tax measure program staffing and administration • Civic engagement and public outreach


23

• Financial planning and funding utilization • Lobbying and advocacy activities

Focus Groups Two focus groups were conducted with SBCAG’s line employees on September 21, 2009 at SBCAG’s offices. The purpose of the focus groups was to obtain factual information about how SBCAG operates and how operations can be improved, while providing confidentiality. Eight to ten employees were included in each focus group, which lasted approximately 90 minutes.

Workload Survey Following the focus groups each SBCAG employee, other than the Executive Director, received an electronic survey. The purpose of the survey was to help assess workload and staff perceptions about work as it relates to supporting SBCAG’s highest priorities and future success.

Santa Barbara County Association of Governments Management Partners, Inc. Organizational Assessment Organizational Assessment Results

24

Organizational Assessment Results The document review, stakeholder interviews, focus groups, workload surveys, benchmarking, and interviews with peer executives helped identify areas of strength for SBCAG and where there are opportunities for improvement. Organizational assessment results have been grouped into the following key areas:

• Strategic Planning • Resource Development • Strategic Alliances and External Communications • Organizational Structure, Staffing, Workload, Performance

Measurement, Accountability and Business Systems • Staff Development • Board Development and Governance

Strategic Planning Strategic planning is an organization’s process of defining its direction and making decisions about allocating its human and financial resources to pursue the direction desired. A strategic plan serves as a navigational compass against which decisions can be made and upon which success can be measured.

An organization’s strategic effectiveness can be determined by answering five questions, based on those originally developed by Peter F. Drucker:

• Does the organization know its mission? • Does the organization know who the customer is? • Does the organization know what the customer values? • Does the organization measure results? • Does the organization have a plan to maximize the value added?

Clarity of Mission Interviews with Board members and stakeholders yielded a wide diversity of responses to the question, “What is SBCAG’s mission?” Some recited the legal responsibilities vested in SBCAG’s designation as a


25

metropolitan planning agency, focused primarily on transportation and funding allocations. Some acknowledged other regional planning responsibilities such as coordinating the Regional Housing Needs Assessment and serving as the County’s Airport Land Use Commission. Consensus was lacking, particularly among Board members and member agencies, about SBCAG’s mission and it’s the regional role. Some jurisdictions want SBCAG to take a stronger leadership role in advancing regional priorities, while others do not.

SBCAG does not have a strategic plan or clearly articulated direction. The absence of a clear mission increases the likelihood for mixed signals to be sent to the SBCAG staff and the public.

Four of the peer agencies studied (Fresno COG, RCTC, SANDAG, SJCOG) have a clear and publicly articulated organizational mission statement and vision that provide overall direction and help staff understand the connection between their work and the organization’s desired outcomes. Two of the agencies (SCTA and TCAG) reported that they do not have an organizational mission statement, but believe one should be developed.

Customers and Their Values In a collaborative business model such as a JPA for regional transporta‐tion and planning, the ability to develop consensus and make decisions based on the good of the whole is paramount. This requires leaders of the collaboration to be aware of and sensitive to the needs, interests and values of the member agencies as important customers.

However, most of SBCAG’s member jurisdictions stated they do not feel that SBCAG views them as customers. Examples cited include poor communication with members by the executive staff, limited provision of technical assistance and support to members, staff recommendations that reflect a lack of sensitivity to the current state of affairs in local governments (such as financial constrains and significant staff reductions being implemented due to the poor economy), and at times, an “us versus them” approach to problem solving instead of through consensus building.

In contrast, SBCAG executive staff recognized the importance of being of service to local agencies and stated that the staff spends significant time providing assistance. The executive staff are proud of their efforts to create a Measure A plan approved by the voters that will generate


26

approximately $700 million for local government projects. They acknowledged that their work is not always viewed as being “customer friendly,” and attributed this perception to SBCAG’s quasi‐regulatory role and their obligation to prioritize projects with regional benefits above local projects.

In interviews with executive directors of the peer agencies, all emphasized that the member agencies are their primary customers. As noted, several of these agencies have an organizational strategic planning process. They follow communication protocols and consensus‐building processes designed to capture and respond to the needs, interests and values of their local jurisdictions. The executive directors discussed the fact that there are times when local members have competing interests with the regional agency, and they accept responsibility for ensuring that differences of opinion are resolved to the extent possible before recommendations are brought forward to their Board.

Organizational Strategic Plan While Measure A requires a “strategic plan” for the implementation of identified projects, SBCAG does not have an organizational strategic plan with a clear mission, vision, values and goals that are embraced and supported by the Board, the staff, and the various stakeholders. As reported in more detail later in this report, SBCAG staff expressed support for the development of an organizational strategic plan during their focus groups.

In a setting as diverse as Santa Barbara County, the lack of a strategic planning component other than the federally required OWP process can lead to confusion about roles, responsibilities, mission, vision, values and priorities. A consensus about the mission and vision of the organization and how it should operate to add value to the members and constituents it serves is essential to clarifying direction and expectations and reducing conflicts caused by competing interests.

Having clear, strategic direction is fundamental to any organization. The lack of such direction is a core problem facing SBCAG because it inhibits the region from achieving all it can.

Recommendation 1. Execute an organizational strategic planning process to reach consensus about mission, vision, values, customer needs, goals, strategies and an implementation action plan.


27

This should be accomplished as part of the Overall Work Program development process and initiated in the fourth quarter of each calendar year so as to chart a course for the incoming SBCAG Chair.

Resource Development Regional planning agencies like SBCAG must develop and manage a variety of resources to fulfill their diverse missions. These include financial resources as well as professional and technical resources. Resource development consists of lobbying and legislative advocacy activities to attract funding and influence policies affecting the organization, as well as effectively planning and utilizing the financial resources received.

Benchmarking Data As was noted in the introductory section on MPOs, SBCAG shares some similarities with other organizations in the state but also is not quite exactly like any other regional COG or MPO in California. Benchmarking in an organizational assessment is used to get a sense of how the organization being assessed compares with other similar organizations in such areas as resourcing and with respect to a variety of other metrics. This information can then be used to develop areas for improvement.

Methodology Benchmarking is useful to determine how SBCAG operates relative to similar agencies and to serve as a point of comparison. Although helpful, this type of data should be used carefully. When data from individual MPO/COGs is used for evaluation purposes some format and presentation differences may hamper valid comparisons. The following factors are important to consider when evaluating the value of data from peers:

• Every MPO/COG is unique and attempts to compare are always imprecise.

• Reporting standards, particularly with respect to determining overhead and central services costs and allocation methodologies, can vary greatly.

• The data are most useful for illuminating averages, the polar opposites from the average, and where the SBCAG places on the scale.


28

• Benchmarking data provide information to assist in decision making processes; they are not meant to “grade” an agency.

• The quantitative benchmarking completed in this analysis does not always identify process differences that can substantially impact resource needs.

Nevertheless, the data contain insights and explanations that will help in identifying peer and nominal levels for revenues, personnel expenditures, and other factors.

Definition of Peers At the beginning of the review, Management Partners recommended criteria to SBCAG for use in selecting peers. Criteria included population served, the functions provided by the COG/MPO and geographic location. A total of nine peer agencies were identified mainly based on population served and functional responsibilities. Because of the importance of the local sales tax for transportation, seven of the nine comparison jurisdictions also have a local transportation sales tax. These are: the Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG), Madera County Transportation Commission (MCTC), Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), San Joaquin Council of Governments (San Joaquin COG), Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA), and the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG). (A listing of these peers along with their major responsibilities was previously provided as Table 1 in this report.)

Figure 1 shows the California counties with a sales tax for transportation purposes, which includes the peer jurisdictions listed above. It can be used to locate each of these peers within the state.


29

Figure 1. Counties with Sales Tax Designated for Transportation Purposes

Source: California Self‐Help Counties Coalition website

It is interesting that Santa Barbara is the only MPO/COG that does not share a border with at least one other “self‐help county.” SBCAG and SANDAG are the only two county‐based MPOs on the coast. Because of SBCAG’s location we also chose to include San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) and the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) in the peer jurisdictions. These counties share geographic and demographic similarities with Santa Barbara as well as the State Highway 101.

SBCAG is among the most functionally consolidated regional agencies in the comparison group or in the state. In other areas of the state there tends to be either another larger MPO overlaying a transportation sales tax authority such as SCAG or MTC, or some responsibilities have been retained by the county or another JPA.

The functional consolidation of most regional responsibilities in Santa Barbara County into SBCAG provides a significant regional advantage. Planning efforts across a broad spectrum of regional issues such as


30

transportation planning, housing, ride sharing and even airport land use planning can be conducted in coordination by a staff and policy board who are aware and informed about related regional issues.

Benchmarking In order to make comparisons based on similar reported data, Management Partners used information provided in two State Controller’s Office reports: the Transportation Planning Agencies Annual Report and the Streets and Roads Annual Report. These reports are sources of uniformly reported information for transportation agencies such as SBCAG and the other comparison agencies, as well as for information about total streets and roads expenditures. While the information is aggregated and currently only covers through Fiscal Year 2007–08 it is the only publically available source of data that can be used for comparisons.

Management Partners used these sources to obtain reported information on total revenue; state, federal and local grants; personnel costs and local sales tax revenues; total expenditures on streets and roads; and local expenditures on streets and roads.

Our benchmarking analysis is discussed below and is used throughout the report for context. Generally, SBCAG compares either favorably or is about average with the comparison jurisdictions.

Figure 2 below shows total reported expenditures for streets and roads for Santa Barbara County (including all the cities and the County) for the fiscal years 1999‐00 through 2007‐08 in dollars per capita. As would be expected (because of the local sales tax for transportation and road purposes) Santa Barbara has consistently expended more dollars per capita for street and road purposes than the state average. This is certainly the expected result and shows that Measure D was working as specified to increase expenditures for transportation infrastructure. The differential is not greater because a large majority of the population resides in counties with a local transportation tax in spite of the fact that only one‐third of the counties in the state have such a tax.


31

Figure 2. Total Reported Expenditures for Streets and Roads per Capita

Source: California State Controller’s Office Streets and Roads Annual Report

With respect to SBCAG revenues, Figure 3 below shows the average amount of revenue in millions for SBCAG and the comparison agencies from fiscal years 1999‐00 through 2007‐08. This does not reflect all monies spent on projects in Santa Barbara, since many of these dollars are administered directly by Caltrans or local jurisdictions, and/or is not reflected in the Transportation Planning Agencies Annual Report and Streets and Roads Annual Report, but it does give some idea of general revenue performance over a time period.


32

Figure 3. Comparison of Total Average Revenue per Capita, FY 1999‐00 to FY 2007‐08

Source: California State Controller’s Office Transportation Planning Agencies Annual Report

It is important to note that this reflects total revenues to SBCAG, with the main categories being state subventions, local taxes and grants. Since not all of the agencies have a local tax (e.g., VCTC and SLOCOG) it is not surprising that they are relatively low in total revenues reported. SBCAG ranks right behind RCTC and SANDAG and slightly ahead of SJCOG. It is interesting to note that SANDAG and SJCOG are functionally similar to SBCAG.

These benchmarking results provide some overall context for the SBCAG organizational assessment. Additional benchmarking will be introduced in the following sections as appropriate. From the data presented here we can see that expenditures for transportation have been above the state average, that total average revenues are strong, that total personnel costs for SBCAG are about average for its size and that the region has been successful in obtaining grant revenues as reported in the Transportation Planning Agencies Annual Report.

Lobbying and Advocacy Activities The ability of MPOs, COGs and regional transportation authorities like SBCAG to implement needed projects is heavily dependent on the ability to secure state and federal discretionary funds. Federal and state policies and regulations also can influence an agency’s ability to deliver projects efficiently and effectively. Both of these areas as well as procuring funds and influencing public transportation policy at national and state levels have become important functions of MPOs and COGs. This means such


33

agencies must forge positive working relationships with elected leaders in Sacramento and Washington, DC to ensure that regional needs and interests are well represented. Having a clearly defined legislative platform and utilizing state and federal lobbyists has become the norm for most agencies like SBCAG.

The Measure A Investment Plan indicates that two‐thirds of the funding needed to complete the named projects will need to come from sources other than Measure A. This means that SBCAG’s ability to capture federal and state funding is critical for successful implementation of Measure A. To assist in these efforts, SBCAG retained the services of a federal lobbyist about 18 months ago; SBCAG has had a lobbyist in Sacramento for less than one year. By comparison as Table 2 shows, seven of the nine peer agencies have used federal and state lobbyists in the past, ranging from three to over 20 years.

Table 2. Comparison of Years Using Federal and State Lobbyists with Peer Agencies

Agency

Federal Lobbyist

State Lobbyist

SBCAG 1.5 1

Fresno COG 5 3

MCTC 0 0

RCTC1 20 20

SANDAG 20 20

SJCOG 10 20

SLOCOG 0 0

SCTA 6 0

TCAG 3 3

VCTC 0 15 1RCTC now has three federal lobbyists. One works on funding procurement; one works to influence policies to streamline reporting requirements and reduce costs to implement federally funded projects, and one advocates for broader transportation policies, such as establishing a national freight policy for moving goods.

The larger agencies (RCTC and SANDAG) also have designated staff positions for government affairs and legislative advocacy in addition to paid lobbyists. Like many peer agencies, SBCAG has one full‐time position devoted to public information and government affairs, including coordinating federal and state lobbying efforts.


34

Executive directors from six of the agencies (Fresno COG, MCTC, San Joaquin COG, SLOCOG, Tulare COG and VCTC) reported that they travel to Washington to support their agency’s federal advocacy efforts at least once a year. The executive director of RCTC travels to Washington an average of four times a year; SANDAG’s executive director estimates he spends 25% of his time there. These latter two agencies visit Washington not only to obtain funds, but also to influence federal transportation policy and regulations affecting the ability of their agencies to achieve their mission efficiently and effectively.

Executive directors and their staffs also visit Sacramento regularly, ranging from a low of once or twice per year (Fresno COG, MCTC, SJCOG, and VCTC) to up to 20 times per year (RCTC). The SANDAG executive director spends 25% of his time in Sacramento, as he does in Washington. The SBCAG executive director reported making annual visits to Washington and between 10 and 12 trips to Sacramento each year.

Although SBCAG has been engaging in formal legislative advocacy for only a relatively short time, our benchmarking shows that the agency has been relatively successful in attracting state and federal grants to support regional and local transportation needs when measured on a per capita basis. In fact, SBCAG performs better than some of its larger peers.

Figure 4 below shows the average grant revenue obtained by SBCAG during the last eight years on a per capita basis as reported in the Transportation Planning Agencies Annual Report.


35

Figure 4. Average Annual Grant Revenue per Capita, FY 1999‐00 to FY 2007‐08

Source: California State Controller’s Office Transportation Planning Agencies Annual Report

The benchmarking indicates that SBCAG has the third highest level of average annual grant revenues reported. It should be noted that California State Controller’s data is unaudited and may contain errors. Also, reported grant revenues may not include all revenues received and/or include some quasi‐formula based revenues, so this benchmarking information should be considered carefully.

Financial Planning and Funding Utilization Funding for transportation projects comes from a variety of sources. Coordinating the timing of projects with the availability of resources and ensuring adequate funds to complete identified projects is an essential function of organizations such as SBCAG. Because of fluctuations in the economy, careful financial planning is necessary to ensure that projects have the necessary resources when they are needed.

Self‐help transportation tax counties like Santa Barbara have the opportunity to leverage transportation sales tax revenues to implement identified projects more quickly by issuing bonds or similar financial instruments. Strategies reported by peer agencies to ensure leveraging of financial resources include the following:

• Bonding against anticipated sales tax receipts • Using commercial lines of credit • Assessing transportation mitigation fees and other developer fees • Utilizing federal and state grant funds


36

• Using State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds and Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds for state or federal matching requirements

• Phasing projects

Most of the self‐help peer agencies (Fresno COG, MCTC, RCTC, SANDAG, SJCOG, and SCTA) have issued bonds to provide an infusion of cash to expedite project implementation. SANDAG and SCTA also reported using local resources for project development and design so they have “shelf ready” projects to compete for state and federal grants as soon as announcements are issued. All of the agencies use STIP funds to support regional projects.

Four agencies (MCTC, RCTC, SANDAG, and SLOCOG) also use RSTP funds for regional projects. The executive director of RCTC reported that their MPO, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), tends to fund larger regional projects over smaller, eligible local projects. Consequently, RCTC is more likely to be granted RSTP funds than its member agencies. SANDAG retains 100% of the RSTP funds for projects of regional importance as determined by their board. SLOCOG also uses RSTP funds for regional projects with the concurrence of its member jurisdictions.

The mix of revenue sources anticipated to fund Measure A projects is similar to those reported by peer agencies, including using developer fees and issuing bonds. SBCAG also recognizes the need to obtain funding from other sources, such as federal and state grants. Like several of the peer agencies, SBCAG proposes to use a combination of STIP and RSTP funds to complete identified regional projects. What is unique about SBCAG is not the methods proposed for leveraging Measure A dollars, but the dependence on sales tax dollars by local agencies to fund streets and roads projects that evolved as a result of Measure D, the previous transportation sales tax. With one exception (MCTC), the allocation of 70% of sales tax measure revenues to local agencies under SBCAG’s Measure D is well above the industry standard of 30% to 40%. This dependency makes local jurisdictions more sensitive to SBCAG’s proposed use Measure A dollars as well as other funding sources such as STIP and RSTP for regional projects instead of local ones.

Strategic Alliances and External Communication The success of regional planning and transportation agencies such as SBCAG are directly related to the organization’s ability to form strategic


37

alliances with stakeholders and the public. Stakeholders must feel that their interests are being represented while contributing to the larger regional good. Public understanding of the agency and its achievements is essential for the continued support of transportation sales tax measures and their utilization.

This section explores SBCAG’s strategic alliances in four areas: the use of advisory committees, the development of executive peer relationships, SBCAG’s relationship with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and SBCAG’s external communications efforts.

Use of Advisory Committees Advisory committees can serve several purposes for agencies such as SBCAG. They can provide important input to proposed policies, plans and programs before recommendations are transmitted to the agency board. They can be a forum for review and discussion of future issues and consensus building on how to address them. And, they can serve as an important means of communication between the agency and its member jurisdictions.

Types of Advisory Committees and Their Functions SBCAG has four standing advisory committees that, according to the FY 2010‐2011 Overall Work Program, “play a very active and important role in its comprehensive planning and implementation processes.” These advisory committees are:

• Technical Planning Advisory Committee (TPAC), • Technical Transportation Advisory Committee (TTAC), • Santa Barbara County Transit Advisory Council (SBCTAC),

and • Measure A Citizens Advisory Committee.

The Measure A Citizens Advisory Committee is responsible for the implementation of the Measure A program, while the remaining three committees are focused on reviewing and making policy recommendations about fiscal matters, fund allocations, special studies and planning documents before they are transmitted to the SBCAG Board.

All of the peer agencies have at least one or more technical advisory committee comprised of member agency city managers, public works directors and planning directors; other transportation agency


38

representatives; or a combination thereof. Each of the peer agencies reported that they use their technical advisory committees to provide input about transportation issues and funding, establish project priorities, and carefully review issues from technical and administrative perspectives.

Working Relationship between Advisory Committees and Staff The processes by which organizations like SBCAG engage advisory committees are important to foster positive working relationships. Peer agencies reported that they take great care to ensure that their advisory committees are given adequate time to review issues and technical data, that consensus is reached on direction before moving forward and that the recommendations of the advisory committees are incorporated and represented in staff reports to the Board. “Our priority is to listen to them,” said one interviewee. Advisory committee members are generally given the opportunity to propose items for their agendas.

During interviews, several comments were made about the need to improve working relationships between SBCAG staff and the advisory committees, particularly TTAC. A recurrent theme was the perception that SBCAG staff and the standing advisory committees are more competitive than collaborative. Agendas are set by the SBCAG staff and are reviewed by the committee chair before distribution. However, some committee members feel they have to push to get items of interest to them on the agenda.

Another process issue raised by committee members is that they are sometimes not given enough lead time to thoughtfully and carefully review technical information being presented. Several SBCAG advisory committee representatives reported that they are sometimes provided with important technical information at the last minute or at the meeting itself, and that the development of recommendations can become rushed in an effort to meet the Board’s agenda deadline. The agenda schedule for the Board appears to be an overriding factor that drives the advisory committee process, which can limit a committee’s ability to provide adequate input and reach consensus on recommendations.

While SBCAG and its peer agencies comply with the 72‐hour notice requirements of the Brown Act, almost all of the peer agencies strive to give technical advisory committees at least one week to review agenda materials. Most have agenda schedules that allow at least two weeks between the development of an advisory committee recommendation and


39

its transmittal to the board, and produce board agendas at least one week prior to their meetings. It was noted that a SBCAG performance measure for 2010 was to distribute committee meeting agendas at least seven days ahead of the meeting. However this metric was not met for some TTAC meetings due to workload issues. This tends to validate some of the expressed concerns as it was one of the few performance measures which SBCAG did not satisfy. The SBCAG executive director reported that the number of committees and committee meetings has increased over the past few years, while the number of staff has not.

Recommendation 2. Provide agenda materials to Technical Advisory Committee members at least one week in advance of meetings.

Track results and make process improvements to meet this distribution deadline.

Some advisory committee members indicated that that SBCAG staff have pre‐formed conclusions about the appropriate recommendation before an issue is presented. Conversely, SBCAG executive staff expressed concerns that the member jurisdiction representatives serving on committees are concerned with local needs to the detriment of regional interests. They stated that although many regional projects provide local benefits, these benefits tend to be discounted unless the funds are received and managed by the local agencies directly. Concerns also were expressed about inconsistencies in local agency representative attendance and whether some of the designated representatives have a level of expertise and authority to allow them to fully engage in significant policy issue discussions.

The working relationship between SBCAG staff and advisory committees would benefit from a facilitated discussion about how to improve processes and communication, including how to ensure that committee representatives consistently reflect appropriate levels of expertise and authority for high‐level policy discussions.

Advisory committee members perceive that when SBCAG staff disagree with their recommendations, their perspective will not be fairly and transparently represented in the transmittal report going to the Board. When disagreements occur, the SBCAG staff’s recommendation is presented first, followed by the rationale for making it. Then the advisory committee’s recommendation and rationale is presented. Advisory committee representatives object when the number of pages


40

devoted to staff’s recommendation exceeds the number of pages devoted to theirs.

While differences of opinion are not uncommon between regional planning bodies and their member jurisdictions, the animosity between the parties observed at SBCAG is neither typical nor helpful for achieving the mission of the organization. This situation is creating an environment which prompts the SBCAG Board to become embroiled in disputes between the member jurisdictions and SBCAG. Areas of dispute are often related to funding and project priorities and should not require Board involvement to resolve.

In contrast, consensus building to reach agreement about recommendations before they get to the board is the norm for SBCAG’s peer agencies. When asked disagreements between staff and advisory committees are handled, most of the peer agency executive directors could not recall such an incident. They reported working hard to develop positive working relationships between staff and agency representatives in an effort to support each other’s needs and interests. When there are disagreements, they take more time, share more information, present outside views and continue to discuss the issue until consensus is reached. “When a screw is cross‐threaded, it may fit in the hole, but it doesn’t work very well” reported one executive director. “We don’t move forward with anything that is cross‐threaded.”

The Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District (APCD) is another regional agency that must balance the diverse needs of Santa Barbara County. Like SBCAG, the APCD Board of Directors is comprised of the five County Supervisors and an elected representative from each of the eight cities. The Board members individually appoint constituents to a Community Advisory Committee (CAC), which functions in an advisory capacity much like the TTAC and TPAC do for SBCAG. During an interview with the APCD Executive Director, Management Partners learned that the APCD staff use a public meeting process called a “clean slate workshop” to gather input and ideas from stakeholders who will be affected by the District’s air quality rules. The “clean slate workshop” format allows affected stakeholders to fully discuss issues and concerns before specific alternatives are developed by APCD staff, and forms the basis for the CAC’s review of the options, their advantages and disadvantages. As we found with the peer agencies studied, APCD staff work carefully with the CAC to build consensus around


41

recommendations so they can be transmitted to the Board in a unified manner.

Recommendation 3. Create an ad hoc committee of SBCAG staff, TTAC and TPAC, including staff from Caltrans and the Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District (MTD), to work with an outside facilitator to improve communications and the flow of agenda items.

Consider utilizing the “clean‐slate workshop” approach employed by the Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to discuss the process and communication issues affecting the relationship between SBCAG Advisory Committees and staff and how to resolve them.

Further creating confusion and tension between TTAC, TPAC and SBCAG staff is the fact that SBCAG staff have voting rights on these committees. (SBCAG staff do not have such voting authority as part of the SBCTAC.) This practice is unusual; none of the peer agencies have governance structures that allow staff to vote as part of technical or other advisory committees. The origin of this situation is unclear, but may have had to do with making a quorum. Voting rights can cause staff to inadvertently shift from their role of policy advisor and implementer to one of policy maker, and can contribute to a competitive rather than collaborative working relationship.

In a related matter, the Santa Barbara MTD participates as a member of TTAC and TPAC, but does not have a vote on the SBCAG Board of Directors, a situation which it claims is contrary to federal guidelines. MTD staff reference U.S. Title 23, Section 134 which stipulates that the structure of a MPO should include “officials of public agencies that administer or operate major modes of transportation in the metropolitan area.” Legal research would be needed to determine if the adoption of Section 134 applies retroactively or prospectively to SBCAG. Such research is beyond the scope of this analysis.

Recommendation 4. Change the bylaws for both the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee and the Technical Planning Advisory Committee to remove the ability for SBCAG staff to vote and clearly define their role as policy advisors and implementers, not policy makers.


42

Establishing and Maintaining Executive Peer Relationships In addition to establishing strategic alliances through the use of advisory committees, several peer agency executive directors reported the importance of developing and maintaining positive working relation‐ships with the city managers of their member jurisdictions. This ensures good communication and additional opportunities to discuss and resolve potential issues before they are presented to the board, and to help keep board members focused on their regional responsibilities.

One director includes the city managers in board member orientations and regularly communicates information to them about issues that will be coming to the board. “I use them to help me brief their board member about an issue and why it is important to the region,” he said. Another executive director reported attending his county’s City Manager’s Association “religiously” as an effective and efficient way to communicate, problem solve and garner support for the organization’s programs and priorities.

The SBCAG executive director has been invited to participate in regular meetings of south coast city and county executives. In recent months, the executive director has been attending TTAC meetings, which conflict with the scheduled south coast executives meetings. Because the executive director’s presence is important at both meetings, the schedule of TTAC meetings should be changed so that the executive director is not forced to choose between the two. In addition, the executive director should make time to engage with executives throughout Santa Barbara County. Regular meetings with peers provide an opportunity to further develop these strategic alliances to SBCAG’s benefit and can serve as a professional support network for the executive director.

Relationship with Caltrans A strong strategic alliance exists between SBCAG and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). In addition to providing space for a department representative within its offices, SBCAG is recognized by member agencies for having a very positive working relationship with Caltrans. Management Partners interviewed Caltrans’ deputy director for District 5 during the assessment, who spoke highly of the competency and professionalism of the SBCAG staff. She stated that SBCAG is a “model MPO,” and performs better than some other MPOs in the state. Specific examples of practices that she believes set SBCAG apart include:


43

• Efficient handling of the STIP process in an accurate, timely and reliable manner,

• Inclusion of Caltrans input into staff reports, • Careful representation of issues of concern to Caltrans, and • Demonstration of respect for the agency‐Caltrans partnership

through frequent communication, “avoiding surprises,” and collaborative problem solving.

The Caltrans deputy director recognized the strained relationships between SBCAG and member jurisdictions and attributed them to SBCAG’s determination to focus on the highest priority projects for Santa Barbara County. She said, “SBCAG takes a position of strength and leadership to get regional projects done.” The director is impressed with SBCAG’s efforts to try to balance the issues between north and south sub‐regions of the county. According to the deputy director, there are other MPOs that are less assertive, focusing more attention on making sure each member agency is treated fairly and equitably, often at the expense of achieving regional projects and priorities. “The members of these MPOs may be happier,” she said, “but big work is not getting done.”

External Communications The ability to externally communicate goals, priorities and accomplish‐ments engenders public trust and support for an organization’s initiatives. SBCAG complies with federal MPO regulations by having an adopted public participation plan. It utilizes its website, general information brochures, community presentations and traditional news releases to inform the public about its programs and activities. With the exception of the TDM “Traffic Solutions” program, most public input appears to be gathered through normal public hearing processes at SBCAG Board and sub‐regional committee meetings.

Peer agencies conduct these activities as well, but also are utilizing less traditional communications and public participation methods, including:

• Social media • Focus groups • Professional polling • Electronic polling, through on‐line surveys • Regular presentations at city council meetings • Outreach at county fairs • “Seat drops” on buses and transit vehicles • Radio public service announcements


44

• Electronic newsletters

SANDAG also offers “mini‐grants” to community‐based organizations that serve hard‐to‐reach populations, training them to gather input about community needs as a condition of the grant dollars they receive.

During interviews with stakeholders it was noted that SBCAG does not produce an annual report to promote its accomplishments and does not “toot its own horn” enough. Five of the peer agencies (Fresno COG, RCTC, SLOCOG, SCTA, and TCAG) publish annual reports as an external communications strategy, while MCTC produces one only for its sales tax measure. SANDAG has published annual reports periodically, but is now using its website more to share success stories and accomplishments. VCTC does not produce an annual report, but emphasizes achievements of the prior year as part the budget adoption process. Investing resources in producing a print or electronic annual report is a strategy SBCAG should consider pursuing.

Recommendation 5. Create new external communications approaches to promote SBCAG’s successes and enhance civic engagement.

This will strengthen the public’s understanding of SBCAG’s accomplishments and how they can be involved. Consider producing an annual report and developing a mini‐grants program similar to the one offered by SANDAG to engage ethnically diverse and hard‐to‐serve populations.

Organizational Structure, Staffing, Workload, Performance Measurement, Accountability and Business Systems

Organizational Structure SBCAG is comprised of 20 full‐time equivalent (FTE) employees who work in one of four primary divisions: Administration, Planning, Programs, and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Programs. Most peer agencies have similar organizational divisions, although some agencies, such as the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), and the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA), combine transportation planning and delivery into one organizational division. Some agencies have additional divisions for unique functions, such as


45

Tulare County Association of Governments’ role as the Local Agency Formation Commission, or SCTA’s role as the County’s Regional Climate Protection Agency.

Based on our analysis, SBCAG’s organizational structure is comparable with that of peer agencies and is appropriate for its programs and responsibilities.

Figure 5 below shows SBCAG’s current organizational chart.

Figure 5. SBCAG Organizational Structure

Administrative Services Clerk

Transportation Planner I I Transportation Planner I I Sr. Finance Officer TDM Project Coordinator

Transportation Planner I I Sr. Transportation Planner Administrative Assistant TDM Marketing Coordinator

Sr. Transportation Planner Transportation Engineer

Regional Analyst Transportation Planner I I

Executive Director

Executive Secretary / Board Clerk

Deputy DirectorPlanning

Deputy DirectorPrograms Business Manager

TDM ProgramAdministrator

Public Information / GovernmentAffairs Coordinator

Source: SBCAG 2010‐2011 Overall Work Program

Table 3 below compares the major divisions of SBCAG with those of peer agencies. Of note is that SANDAG, SJCOG and VCTC are responsible for regional Rideshare programs, even though Rideshare is not reflected as a major division on their organizational charts.


46

Table 3. Comparison of SBCAG Major Organizational Divisions with Those of Peer Agencies

Agency Major Divisions

SBCAG Public Information/Government Affairs Planning Programs Business TDM Programs (“Traffic Solutions”)

Fresno COG Planning and Policy Finance

MCTC None due to small size of staff

RCTC Multimodal Programs Administration Legislative Affairs & Communication Capital Project Development & Delivery Finance

SANDAG Executive Office Administration Finance Land Use & Transportation Planning Mobility Management & Project Implementation Technical Services

SCTA Projects & Programming Planning & Public Outreach Regional Climate Protection Authority

SJCOG Planning, Programming, & Project Delivery Administrative Services Deputy Exec Director/CFO

SLOCOG Public Transportation & Administration Regional Planning & Intergovernmental Affairs Project Development & Programming

TCAG Transportation Planning Modeling (SB 375) LAFCO (effective July 1, 2010)


47

Agency Major Divisions

VCTC Bus Transit Rail & TDA Programs Planning & Technology Capital Projects Finance Programming

Like most organizations, SBCAG’s ability to succeed is highly dependent on the people providing services to its member agencies and the public at large. Management Partners was asked to evaluate staffing levels and workloads for SBCAG, to determine if the organization is structured and sized appropriately.

Staffing For an organization of its size and scope, SBCAG appears to be neither overstaffed nor understaffed. Table 4 below presents a comparison of SBCAG’s FTE staffing with those of peer agencies

Table 4. Comparison of Full‐Time Equivalent (FTE) Staffing

Agency Staffing (FTE)

SBCAG 20.0

Fresno COG 23.0

MCTC 6.0

RCTC 41.0

SANDAG 200.0

SJCOG 33.0

SLOCOG 20.5

SCTA 9.0

TCAG 12.0

VCTC 21.0

In addition, SBCAG’s personnel costs are in line with those of peer agencies. Transportation planning agencies also report personnel expenditures as part of the State Controller’s Transportation Planning Agencies Annual Report. Figure 6 below shows the personnel costs as a percentage of total revenues for fiscal year 2007‐08.


48

Figure 6. Personnel Costs as a Percentage of Total Revenue

Source: California State Controller’s Office Note: Tulare County Association of Governments did not report personnel costs to the State Controller’s Office for 2007‐2008.

In evaluating this comparison information it is important to note that smaller agencies are going to have higher personnel costs as a percentage of revenues simply because there are fixed costs associated with being in the transportation planning business. The reverse is true for larger agencies. SBCAG appears average for this metric, suggesting that the agency is in alignment with industry peers when it comes to personnel expenditures.

Workload This section provides information about an employee workload survey conducted by Management Partners and our review of the staffing and workload analysis contained in the Measure A Strategic Plan.

Employee Workload Survey Management Partners created and implemented an electronic survey of all employees other than the executive director to assess perceptions of workload across eight job activity categories. Sixteen staff responded for a response rate of 84.2%; however not all questions were completed by each respondent.

The survey asked employees to estimate the amount of time normally spent in each of eight job activity categories. These categories were developed using SBCAG’s organization chart and work areas reported


49

during the interviews with executive staff, with additional input from the executive director. The job activity categories are listed below:

• Administration • Board/Committee Support • Transportation Planning • Other Regional Planning • Transportation Programming/Funding • Measure D and A Planning/Funding/Administration • Measure D and A Project Delivery • Regional Services/Programs

Employees were asked to consider the job activities for which they are normally responsible over the full duration of their jobs rather than over the past few months or year. The question was framed to ensure that job activities periodically performed, such as working on the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, would be included. The survey also indicated that in some instances an employee may have 0% of their time dedicated to a particular activity. A copy of the survey is included as Attachment C.

Based on survey results, the greatest percentage of time spent on a job activity by employees is Administration, at 27.7%. When the raw data are examined five employees account for 50% or more of their time on Administration with three employees listing it as 90% or more of their time. This could have affected not only the data for workload by job activity, but also perceptions of the relative importance of job activities.

Board/Committee Support and Transportation Planning had similar results, comprising 13 to 14% of workload. The four categories of Transportation Programming/Funding, Other Regional Planning, Regional Services/Programs, and Measure D and A Project Delivery each contribute between 8 to 11%. The category which staff reported spending the least amount of time is Measure D and A Planning/Funding/ Administration at 4.72%.

The survey results are shown graphically in Figure 7 below.


50

Figure 7. Percentage of Time Spent on Job Activities

Administration28%

Board/Committee Support 14%

Transportation Planning 14%

Other Regional Planning 10%

Transportation Programming/

Funding 11%

Measure D & A Planning/Funding/A

dministration 5%

Measure D & A Project Delivery

9%

Regional Services/Programs

9%

If the data from the three employees who report 90% or more of their time dedicated to Administration are removed as outliers, the percentage of time spent by employees in the other categories significantly shifts.

Without the outlier data, the difference between job activities is no longer considerable. It is interesting to note that lowest percentage activity of Measure D and A Planning Funding/Administration continues to be just about half of the next category, Measure D and A Project Delivery. This may be due to the timing of the survey; with the passage of Measure A, there is greater current emphasis on project delivery rather than planning and administration.

Figure 8 presents the results with the outliers removed graphically.


51

Figure 8. Percentages of Time per Job Activity without Outliers

Administration13%

Board/ Committee Support 17%

Transportation Planning

17%Other Regional

Planning 13%

Transportation Programming/

Funding 13%

Measure D & A Planning/Funding/A

dministration 5%


11%


11%

The second survey question asked employees to consider the same list of eight job activities and select the three activities they believe are most important to the future success of the SBCAG organization. Ten respondents completed the question; six did not.

Measure D and A Project Delivery is considered to be important to the future success of SBCAG by 85.7% of respondents. The next most important job activity is Transportation Programming/Funding which was chosen by 42.9% of respondents. Administration is viewed as being the least important job activity for SBCAG’s future success.

Although Measure D and A Project Delivery is considered to be important to the future success of the organization, the average amount of time spent on this job activity by respondents was only 8.86% This apparent discrepancy may be due to the fact that Measure A is in the early implementation stages so fewer staff hours are currently being devoted to it.


52

The percentage of responses received by each job activity is shown graphically in Figure 9.

Figure 9. Job Activities Indicated as Most Important

The final survey question asked SBCAG employees to examine the eight job activity categories and select the three which, in their opinion, are the least important to the future success of SBCAG. Fourteen respondents completed the question; two did not.

The top two job activities reported as being the least important to SBCAG’s future success were Other Regional Planning (70%) and Administration (60%). The perception of “Other Regional Planning” as being less important may be the result of SBCAG’s heavy emphasis on regional transportation planning and the lack of consensus about SBCAG’s mission to influence other regional planning issues in Santa Barbara County.

The percentage of responses received by each job activity is represented graphically in Figure 10 below.


53

Figure 10. Job Activities Indicated as Being Least Important

The workload survey provides a high level examination of the areas where SBCAG staff spends most of their time and how they see those activities in relation to the future success of the organization. The perspective can help leadership evaluate whether line staff priorities match those of the organizationʹs goals and objectives for current and future planning. It should be kept in mind that this workload survey was an electronic instrument taken independently by SBCAG staff, so it was designed to be as simple and self‐explanatory as possible. Nevertheless, in any survey misunderstandings are possible, especially when asking about most and least important functions within an organization. Consequently, care should be taken in drawing conclusions solely based on the employee workload survey. As was discussed in the Study Objectives and Limitations section earlier, the information gathered during the assessment should be viewed in its entirety; the workload survey represents only one component of the data.

Given Measure A’s emphasis on transit programming, particularly in the southern part of the county, duplication of effort could become an issue between MTD and SBCAG, especially with respect to transit planning. Management Partners would suggest that the agencies acknowledge the potential for duplication and proactively work to avoid it. For example, SBCAG could contract with MTD for transit planning services rather than developing more of this capacity in‐house. It is Management Partners’ understanding that SBCAG and MTD staff have been discussing mutual roles and responsibilities in this area.


54

Review of Measure A Strategic Plan Staffing and Workload Analysis The Measure A Strategic Plan contains a detailed analysis of staffing and projected workloads conducted by SBCAG’s consultant, Parsons Brinckerhoff. Management Partners was asked to review this analysis to determine whether it supports the immediate addition of staff to support Measure A.

The Measure A Strategic Plan indicates there will be a lack of staff capacity to implement both the Measure A and non‐Measure A functions of SBCAG. The Strategic Plan suggests that one additional project manager position will be able to supply the capacity needed to successfully implement Measure A, with additional support from consultants to “provide financing advice and public information services” (Measure A Strategic Plan, p. 58).

We agree that Measure A will result in some programmatic workload increases for SBCAG staff, as outlined in the Strategic Plan. However in the near term, between now and 2014/15, those impacts are not projected to be substantial. In fact, only 38% of the projected additional staffing necessary for the life of the Measure A Strategic Plan will be needed within the next five years, and these needs could be reduced if member jurisdictions, rather than SBCAG, chose to manage project work. Programmatic demands on SBCAG staff will become more significant after 2015, primarily associated with work on the Highway 101 project.

The workload associated with Measure A should be considered in conjunction with other SBCAG needs and as part of the budget process. In addition, there are many options for SBCAG to meet both the near‐term and long‐term staffing needs. These include hiring consultants, supplementing staff with temporary or limited‐term staff, and contracting with other agencies. With financial constraints causing local member jurisdictions to lay off experienced staff, SBCAG should examine opportunities for contracting with one or more member jurisdictions for the delivery of certain SBCAG services.

It also should be noted that the Strategic Plan staffing analysis indicates that only 1 person month (0.09 FTE) additional will be required to support lobbying efforts in furtherance of the objective of obtaining additional discretionary federal funding. In interviews with member jurisdictions virtually no other issue associated with the Strategic Plan was as important as meeting this objective, since it would free up funding for local projects. Given this issue, and the fact that the Executive Director


55

already has trouble meeting all the needs for external stakeholder communications, we would suggest that the issue of staffing and other resourcing necessary to make the “aggressive” pursuit of discretionary federal funding successful should be considered in budget deliberations.

As described later in this report, SBCAG is in need of an organizational plan for career development and succession planning. The implications of a succession plan also should be factored into staffing recommendations. Of particular concern is the need for SBCAG management to have the resources necessary to implement the organizational development recommendations contained in this report and to staff the aggressive pursuit of federal discretionary funding identified in the Measure A Strategic Plan.

In light of all of these factors, the ongoing evaluation of staffing levels and workloads is better suited to SBCAG’s annual budget and OWP process than the Measure A Strategic Plan.

Recommendation 6. Request that the executive director report on the need for additional staffing resources for Measure A and the implementation of recommendations in this report as part of the 2011/12 budget process.

Reviewing staffing needs as part of the annual budget and OWP process facilitates Board decision making about whether to add staff, shift workloads, or explore other alternatives for getting important work done.

Performance Management Strategically managed agencies measure not only inputs and outputs, but also outcomes. An example of an input is the number of hours or dollars invested in a program or activity. An example of an output is the number of presentations made or the number of reports issued. While inputs and outputs are key metrics when assessing efficiency, they are less useful in measuring an organization’s effectiveness.

Outcomes are measurements of impact, the qualitative benefits or positive changes experienced as a result of the program or activity. For example, the improvement in air quality as a result of increased transit ridership is a good example of an outcome. Strategic organizations try to identify key outcomes for each articulated goal and objective and strive to ensure that performance gets measured and that they are measuring the


56

right things. This improves fact‐based decision making and opportunities for continuous improvement.

SBCAG develops and publishes information on objectives and performance measures as part of its annual comprehensive budget. This information is presented by division, along with the accomplishments of the prior fiscal year. A review of SBCAG’s performance measures for FY 2010‐11 revealed a mix of mostly output performance measures, with some outcome‐based measures, particularly for the Traffic Solutions and Service Authority for Freeways and Expressways (SAFE) functions. In the future, SBCAG may wish to consider incorporating additional outcome‐based measures to help capture and communicate the impact it is having in the region.

Accountability During interviews with SBCAG executive staff, questions were asked about staff accountability and performance evaluation. The primary mechanism for measuring staff performance is a County of Santa Barbara evaluation form which was implemented by SBCAG over 20 years ago. Although we did not review the form, staff reported that it utilizes a five‐point rating scale for general performance areas.

According to staff, the form does not lend itself it to more customized ratings based on specific job functions of different classifications or the articulation of individual development goals and measurements.

Recommendation 7. Update the performance evaluation form and review process to ensure staff are consistently receiving constructive feedback specific to their job function and guidance on individual professional development goals.

An updated evaluation form will better tie SBCAG’s goals and outcomes to employee performance, and can serve as a helpful career development tool.

Business Systems Management Partners’ scope did not include a careful review of business systems and capabilities, but comments received during staff interviews and focus groups provided some relevant insights that are important to share.


57

During the assessment it was brought to the attention of Management Partners that the organization does not operate its own information technology (IT) infrastructure. SBCAG is a ʺguestʺ on the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District network. This means that changes in the infrastructure, hardware or software require collaboration with APCD and cannot be made independently by SBCAG.

SBCAG utilizes the County’s Financial Information Network (FIN), which was described by executive staff as being “antiquated” and difficult to use. Some staff track their division budgets independently on Excel spreadsheets because they find it too difficult to obtain information through the County financial system.

We also learned that SBCAG does not have basic project management software; instead, staff use Excel spreadsheets for that purpose. Because project management is a significant SBCAG responsibility, having project management software could provide multiple benefits. It could assist SBCAG staff in managing projects effectively and provide the kind of detailed information about projects that some member agencies indicated they would like to have.

Finally, SBCAG staff expressed concerns about the functionality of the existing network, particularly as they work to implement the provisions of Measure A. Again, our scope did not provide for an evaluation of SBCAG’s information technology and business systems. As new legal and regulatory requirements demand more technology, SBCAG should proactively ensure its current shared infrastructure will serve the organizationʹs technology needs.

Recommendation 8. Prepare an information technology strategic plan that assesses whether the current sharing relationship with APCD will continue to meet the needs of the organization.

In the strategic plan, articulate current and future IT needs, priorities, and funding options.

Staff Development This section contains the results of focus groups held with SBCAG employees. The objective of the focus groups was to better understand the organization from the perspective of line staff and to gain their input about how the organization can improve. The desire to have increased


58

career development opportunities was a significant theme that emerged during the focus group discussions.

Focus Group Results On September 21, 2010, Management Partners held two focus groups with SBCAG staff. Participants consisted of staff who had not previously been interviewed during the course of the project. The sessions lasted 90 minutes and were held at SBCAG offices. Seven employees attended the first session and six employees attended the second session. One employee was not available to attend either group. To assure confidentiality, no comments from the focus groups are attributed to any individual.

The following questions were posed to each group:

1. What are the strengths of the SBCAG organization? 2. Are there ways the organization can change to improve its

operations and effectiveness? 3. Are there tools and resources available to you to create those

solutions? 4. Are roles and responsibilities clear? Do you have the

appropriate ability/authority to made decisions? 5. Are there opportunities for career development?

Management Partners recorded comments as the focus group participants responded to the questions and engaged in discussion. Prominent themes that were apparent in the responses to each of the questions are provided below.

Strengths of the Organization When asked to name the strengths of the SBCAG organization, staff in both focus groups began with comments about the quality of their work product. It was clear that staff is proud of the work they produce. They referred to a strong work ethic and how their work is positively recognized by state agencies. Along with the quality of work, staff identified the strong skill sets of individual employees as an organizational strength. Staff have specific expertise, are able to work independently and see each other as more than competent in their jobs.

Both groups also mentioned that SBCAG staff work well together. This trait is especially important for smaller organizations like SBCAG where tensions among staff could hinder their ability to produce good work.


59

Focus group participants mentioned a positive team dynamic, a willingness to help each other and good problem solving abilities.

Staff considers their relationships with SBCAG member agencies to be another strength. They see themselves as responsive to member agency needs and mentioned the ability to provide extra support or assistance for those agencies with fewer expert resources. They view their subject expertise as an asset for member agencies that may not have staff with similar skill sets.

External Areas for Improvement When asked to identify the areas where the SBCAG organization could be improved, a consistent theme was the relationship between SBCAG staff and the Board and advisory committees. In particular, the relationship with the Board was characterized by staff as being demoralizing. They find the Board to be divisive and focused on their individual jurisdiction interests rather than acting as a regional body. They believe the issues being discussed require the Board to be better prepared and focused than they typically are. On the other hand, staff believe the amount of time devoted to preparing for Board and advisory committee meetings is too great. They reported that process bottlenecks in the preparation of staff reports can create emergencies and compromise work quality.

Another theme heard in each focus group was a concern that the SBCAG Board does not see SBCAG staff as “their own.” Instead, they feel Board members rely more on local jurisdiction staff to support their SBCAG activities. The result, staff reported, is that the Board and advisory committees seem uninterested in working collaboratively with SBCAG staff, which affects their ability to act and operate as a regional organization.

Staff would like an opportunity to become better acquainted with Board members and for the Board to view SBCAG staff as their own staff. Several ideas were raised including a ʺstaff appreciation dayʺ in which Board and SBCAG staff interact in a more social environment. The City of Goleta Staff Appreciation Day was specifically mentioned as an example. Staff relationships with the SBCAG Board and advisory committees are strained. Relationships could be improved by creating opportunities for positive interactions between the groups to allow them to become better acquainted.


60

Recommendation 9. Establish and facilitate regular ongoing communication between the Board, its advisory committees and SBCAG staff.

Identify the types of communication needed and create specific actions that will result in effective communications. Evaluate the impact of the new actions after three months and take further corrective steps that will continue to improve communications.

Internal Areas for Improvement The staff also discussed potential areas of improvement within the organization. A theme echoed by several participants was the insular nature of the departments at SBCAG. The working relationships among SBCAG staff are good but they feel communication and planning between departments is lacking. Some staff reported being discouraged from learning about activities of other departments. They tend to learn about projects only after staff reports are issued and the work is complete. Communication between departments was referred to as “ad hoc” and “incomplete.” Staff clearly articulated a desire for the organization to change these practices.

Overall, there is a perception among staff that the SBCAG organization is not interested in innovation or new ideas. Most felt that the SBCAG leadership does not seek or welcome new and different ideas from staff.

Opportunities for Change After discussing potential areas of improvement, focus group participants were asked to identify opportunities for change. These included collaborating within the SBCAG organization and between SBCAG and member agencies as well as improving internal communications.

Staff was eager to talk about opportunities for collaboration within the SBCAG organization. Participants identified a series of ideas that included work exchanges, internal task groups for projects and other strategies for more freely exchanging ideas among departments.

Such collaboration can bring new perspectives and ideas to projects while facilitating better working relationships for both individuals and the organization. Based on their comments, staff is willing and interested in learning more about the various projects and programs within the organization. Some participants suggested implementing temporary


61

work exchange programs both within the organization and with member agencies to increase collaboration, communication and share knowledge. They felt that an exchange with member organizations would enable them to form a stronger bond with SBCAG as a partner agency

Recommendation 10. Identify future projects that could benefit from cross‐departmental working groups to enhance communication within the organization and provide career development opportunities.

Good internal communications within an organization helps foster a stronger sense of team, inspires cooperation among staff in different departments and expands the capacity of staff members to respond to questions and customer requests outside of their normal job expertise. There are many ways that regular communication can be established, including electronic newsletters, email updates and circulating pertinent written materials. Announcements of achievements, new initiatives and updates on current projects are also worthy of sharing. The goal of such communications should be for staff to feel included in all activities within the SBCAG organization.

Recommendation 11. Establish a system of regular communication between divisions that includes identifying issues for which regular communication is needed for effective agency results.

Create specific methods and follow up to ensure they are being implemented. Improve communication methods based on assessment of how well they are working to achieve the intended results.

According to the focus groups, current staff meetings are not held regularly and when held, are not considered to be relevant to staff needs. Establishing a regular schedule for meetings and including staff in the development of topics to be discussed would respond to staff’s desire for more information and cross‐communication across all departments.

Recommendation 12. Conduct quarterly all‐hands staff meetings to share information and obtain input from staff on important issues affecting SBCAG.

Ensuring that all staff understand the mission, direction, projects and issues of the agency is fundamental to each person understanding their role in the agency’s success.


62

All‐hands meetings are a way to communicate important information. They should be scheduled and consistently accomplished.

Focus group participants also expressed an interest in participating in a more robust strategic planning process than is provided by the federally required OWP process. Some stated that the OWP is developed by management level staff and that input from line staff is not sought or included in the process.

Even if short‐term goals and objectives are being defined in the process, participants felt they are not adequately being communicated. Staff should be given a role in the development of the OWP where appropriate to enhance accountability for achieving identified goals. SBCAG leaders should clearly communicate to each staff member both the approved goals and objectives and their individual role in helping SBCAG achieve them.

Recommendation 13. Expand opportunities for staff input in the preparation of the annual Overall Work Program and effectively communicate the plan to all staff once it is adopted.

Resources, Tools, and Clarity of Roles Focus group participants were asked if there are tools or resources that, if available, would make them more productive. Generally, SBCAG staff felt they have the tools and resources needed to efficiently do their work.

Participants indicated that roles and responsibilities are clear as is the chain of command. Two areas of concern were the inability to fully utilize support staff, and the impact of new initiatives and how they may impact staff roles in the future.

Career Development Career development was the last topic covered in the focus groups. Participants expressed a strong desire to have more career development opportunities and discussions about their careers with managers. At present, the annual performance review for a staff member may or may not address career development depending on the individual manager providing the evaluation.


63

Focus group participants indicated they would like assistance in identifying and achieving a ʺroad mapʺ to their further success. There was a general feeling that although the size of the limits individual advancement and promotion, there are other means to career growth. Several ideas were proposed by focus group participants, including a work exchange program with other divisions and member agencies as a way to develop new skills and perspectives.

It became apparent during the focus groups that staff have had mixed results when making requests to attend conferences, further training or certifications. In some instances, requests have been accepted; other participants expressed frustration that requests were denied or responses to requests were never received.

Staff also acknowledged that they have not been taking advantage of available tuition reimbursement. Based on focus group participants’ comments, the ad hoc nature of career development at present is not meeting their needs. This presents SBCAG with an opportunity to develop an organization‐wide career development plan and incorporate succession planning.

Recommendation 14. Create an organizational plan for career development and succession planning.

Based on the focus group comments, SBCAG staff appears to be proud of their work product and that of the organization. Individual staff members function well together. They are engaged in their work and are keenly interested in ways to improve both the organization and their own career paths. The staff is interested in participating in SBCAG’s changes and improvements to help with the organizationʹs success.

Board Development and Governance During interviews with peer agencies, Management Partners learned that executive directors try to help board members understand the regional perspective and subordinate their local jurisdiction role while fulfilling their board obligations. Two strategies often mentioned to help Board members understand the difference between being a “representative of” their home agency and being a “representative for” the region as a whole are providing orientations for board members and utilizing governance policies and procedures.


64

Board Member Orientation When a new board member is appointed to SBCAG, current practice is for the executive director to schedule an orientation meeting to help the new member understand SBCAG’s roles, responsibilities, programs and projects. A binder of information is provided that can be used as a resource for the board member.

Arranging a “one‐on‐one” meeting to begin the orientation process is also a common practice among peer agencies. Executive directors reported that some new board members are eager for orientation, while others feel adequately prepared when they are appointed. One‐on‐one orientations allow the executive director and staff to tailor the information to the needs of the individual. Some peer executive directors indicated that they have not provided orientations recently because there has been little or no turnover on their board. As mentioned earlier, some agencies make a point of including the city manager in the board member’s orientation and rely on the city manager to provide additional information about specific issues.

A few peer agencies have developed formal orientations to ensure they provide consistent information to all board members. For example, RCTC has created an “RCTC 101” presentation that is shared with incoming board members in a way that is tailored to their individual background and experience. When there are several new board members, RCTC may convene a group orientation. Other creative methods for orienting incoming board members include:

• Periodically incorporating orientation as part of Board retreats or “training workshops” to help board members reconnect with their regional responsibilities and the organization’s mission, goals and most important projects

• Scheduling from one to four presentations per year on a regional issue with each city council and board of supervisors to ensure that every elected official becomes familiar with the organization and its programs, regardless of whether they are a member of the board.

Another tool that can be effective in orienting board members is the annual review of an adopted strategic plan. Such reviews allow new board members to connect (and returning board members to reconnect) with the agency’s mission, vision and values while evaluating the effectiveness of established goals and strategies. The annual strategic


65

plan review should include a review of the past year’s accomplishments, information about trends or changes that the agency will need to respond to, and dialogue about the established goals and objectives and the extent to which they should be modified. Strategic plan reviews orient board members to the agency’s critical functions and priorities, while providing staff with important direction on how those priorities are to be reflected in the agency’s upcoming work program and budget.

Governance Policies and Procedures In addition to orientations, assuring that board members understand governance policies and procedures can assist in facilitating decision making. These include processes for the selection of the chair and rotation between city and county representatives, the use of executive or other board standing committees as board development opportunities, and weighted voting.

Selection of the Chair and Term The chair of SBCAG is selected by a majority of Board members present and voting at their December meeting. Six of the nine peer agencies (MCTC, RCTC, SLOCOG, SCTA, TCAG, VCTC) use a similar process for selecting the board chair, although SLOCOG and VCTC reported that the vice chair usually assumes the role of chair.

Fresno COG and SANDAG use a weighted vote to select the chair, with the latter also having a formal application and nomination process. SJCOG follows an established rotation schedule, ensuring that each member jurisdiction has an opportunity to serve. In addition, a member must have served on the board for at least two years before they are eligible to assume the SJCOG chair’s position.

Like SBCAG, six of the peer agencies reported that their chairs have a one‐year term. SANDAG and SCTA chairs serve for two terms as a matter of practice, although not policy. The chair for TCAG serves a two‐year term.

For agencies having all members of the County Board of Supervisors serving on the board, it is fairly common to rotate the chair between a city representative and a county representative, if not by policy then by practice. TCAG’s chair is always a county supervisor while the vice chair is always a city representative. This practice recognizes that the supervisors are essentially full time, while the city representatives serve on a part‐time basis. Fresno, SANDAG, and SLOCOG have one, two, and


66

five supervisors serving, respectively. SBCAG has all five supervisors sitting on the board. The practice is to rotate the chair between city and county representatives and north and south regions of the County.

Use of Executive Committees SBCAG and six of its peer agencies (RCTC, SANDAG, SJCOG, SLOCOG, SCTA, and VCTC) have standing executive committees. SBCAG’s executive committee is charged with the oversight and evaluation of the executive director, proposals to amend bylaws as necessary and review of SBCAG’s budget.

Like SBCAG, the role of executive committees for the peer agencies tends to be primarily administrative, including oversight of staff, personnel policies and procedures and budget development processes. Some other executive committees also have a narrowly defined policy role, such as oversight of the agency’s legislative platform. On occasion they may be used as a sounding board for sensitive policy issues, but most executive directors reported that they prefer to use advisory committees for that purpose.

SBCAG’s bylaws are silent on the composition of the Executive Committee. Instead, each year the Board ratifies appointments to the Executive Committee made by the Chair. This is unique; the membership of peer agency executive committees is specified by position in their bylaws or other governance policies. However, while it is not “codified” in SBCAG bylaws, past practice has been to have the SBCAG Executive Committee consist of the Chair, the Vice Chair and the immediate past Chair, which is similar to the practice followed in comparable agencies. Table 5 below summarizes the composition the executive committees for each of the peer agencies as well as how they are selected.

Table 5. Comparison of the Composition and Selection of Executive Committee Members

Agency Composition of Executive Committee

Selection of Executive Committee

SBCAG Chair, vice chair, immediate past chair, others as recommended by the Chair

Selected by chair, ratified by Board based on practice

Fresno COG Not applicable Not applicable

MCTC Not applicable Not applicable


67

Agency Composition of Executive Committee

Selection of Executive Committee

RCTC Each county supervisor, one representative from each of the larger cities

Specified by agency bylaws

SANDAG County is divided into six sub‐regional areas; each self‐ selects a primary and secondary representative

Specified by agency bylaws

SJCOG Chair, immediate past chair, vice chair, upcoming vice chair, and past‐past chair until alternate rotates in

Specified by position in agency bylaws

SLOCOG President, vice president, immediate past president


SCTA Chair, vice chair, immediate past chair


TCAG Not applicable Not applicable

VCTC Immediate past chair, chair, vice chair, and two additional members appointed by the Board


For at least the past two years, additional appointments to the Executive Committee have been made by the Chair and ratified by the Board to reflect north and south Santa Barbara County in a concerted effort to balance geographic representation on the Committee.

Our assessment indicates that the industry standard for selecting executive committee members is either by designated position on the board as specified in the agency’s bylaws, or selection by the board as a whole.

Recommendation 15. Amend SBCAG’s Bylaws to codify that the Executive Committee be composed of the Chair, Vice Chair, immediate past Chair, with other members added at the recommendation of the Chair subject to ratification by the Board.


68

Voting Procedures The diversity found within Santa Barbara County makes it challenging to reach consensus on regional issues, notwithstanding the tensions that exist between SBCAG and its member agencies. Management Partners was asked to explore whether peer agencies have voting procedures that provide a balance between urban and rural, large and small cities, and the county.

Of the nine peer agencies, four have provisions for weighted voting: Fresno COG, RCTC, SANDAG, and TCAG. Of these, only Fresno COG and SANDAG use weighted voting routinely. Fresno COG reported that for any item to be approved, a majority of the Board members representing 40% of the population is required. SANDAG utilizes a simultaneous “tally and weighted vote.” Each jurisdiction gets one tally vote, except for the City of San Diego and San Diego County, which each have two. The number of weighted votes allocated to each jurisdiction varies by population. For example, San Diego County and City each have 40 weighted votes, while the City of Del Mar has only one. Although it appears complicated, the executive director reported that they have systems that automatically tabulate both the tally and weighted votes; a majority of each is required for passage.

RCTC has provisions for a weighted vote when a “Division of the House” is requested, as does SLOCOG. RCTC’s model allocates one vote for each county supervisor and weighted votes assigned to each city based on population. In order for passage, three‐fifths of the supervisors must approve as well as weighted votes reflecting a majority of population within the county. The executive director reported that weighted voting has not been requested at least in the last 10 years. TCAG has provisions for a weighted vote under very limited conditions, but the procedure is rarely if ever used. Instead the agency works hard to build consensus so that weighted voting becomes unnecessary.

SLOCOG has a procedure allowing any member of the board to call for a super‐majority vote, which increases the threshold needed for passage by one member. The executive director reported it had been used only once in the last 20 years.

Based on interviews with peer agency directors, most appear to have found ways to build consensus and achieve regionally oriented decision making without the need for weighted voting procedures. Although the Fresno COG uses weighted voting routinely, its executive director


69

questioned whether they would implement it again if the agency were starting up today. His advice was, “Get the weighting proper if you’re going to have it. The smaller guys need to believe there’s a level playing field in order for it to work.”

If an effective strategic plan is adopted and consensus about SBCAG’s mission is reached, it may be easier for the Board to reach consensus and make decisions reflecting the needs of the region as a whole without the need for weighted voting.

Board Meeting Advance Calendar Each month the SBCAG Board receives an Advance Calendar of agenda items that are anticipated to come before the Board during the following three months. The Advance Calendar is also made available on the SBCAG website. Management Partners was asked to review the Advance Calendar document and provide comments on its usefulness for providing Board members with sufficient time to review large and/or highly technical materials.

The intent of the Advance Calendar is to alert the Board to upcoming agenda items and requested actions to assist with Board member preparation. The Advance Calendar notes that items are subject to change. Significant or highly technical items may be listed for more than one meeting. For example, the Advance Calendar distributed to the Board on October 21, 2010 shows that the SBCAG Federal legislative agenda will come to the Board for initial review in December 2010, with actual approval scheduled for January 2011.

The Advance Calendar does not provide either the details of agenda items, anticipated recommendations, or technical background information. As would be expected, this information is normally included in the staff reports that comprise the agenda packet. Instead, the Advance Calendar is an informational document that may prompt Board members to set aside additional time to review items of particular interest when the agenda packet arrives, or to consult with SBCAG or local agency staff. Although it is subject to change, the Advance Calendar can help set expectations for the potential complexity of future Board meetings, and can assist the Board Chair and Executive Committee with agenda management.

Santa Barbara County Association of Governments Management Partners, Inc. Organizational Assessment Implementation Action Plan

70

Implementation Action Plan Management Partners has developed a Draft Implementation Action Plan to assist SBCAG implement the 15 recommendations contained in this report. The Draft Implementation Action Plan identifies specific implementation steps for each recommendation and assigns a level of priority as follows:

• Priority 1 indicates the recommendation is important to accomplish without delay and/or is relatively easy to accomplish

• Priority 2 indicates the recommendation has a second tier level of importance and/or may involve some complexity or time to complete

• Priority 3 recommendations represent the least urgent to complete and/or may take longer to set up or execute.

The draft Action Plan also provides guidance about the length of time that might be required to complete an individual recommendation, absent any competing work priorities (i.e., estimated total task time). The work involved in implementing the recommendations must be integrated into the other work of SBCAG, with appropriate assignments of responsibility for implementation. To convert this draft into a final action plan, the SBCAG executive director and staff will need to identify specific target completion dates for each recommendation. In doing so, they may need to modify the described activities for implementing an individual recommendation based on their knowledge of what will be required for completion, or to adjust the assignment of responsibility based on workload or other considerations.

Management Partners suggests that the SBCAG Board and staff review this document and make modifications as necessary. Once this document is finalized, the Action Plan should be updated on a regular basis to indicate the completion of tasks.

The Draft Implementation Action Plan is presented in Attachment B.

Santa Barbara County Association of Governments Management Partners, Inc. Organizational Assessment Conclusion

71

Conclusion Management Partners’ analysis indicates that SBCAG is a technically proficient service provider that has an excellent relationship with Caltrans, with an organizational structure, staffing levels and overall budget performance consistent with other similar agencies. Improving relationships with member jurisdictions is the primary area needing attention. This report offers a number of recommendations aimed at improving the relationships SBCAG has with member jurisdictions. Implementing the recommendations, particularly the development of an organizational strategic plan and establishing an ad hoc committee of advisory committee representatives and SBCAG staff to work with a facilitator to improve communications, will increase SBCAG’s effectiveness. To be sure there will always be differences of opinion between a regional planning body and the member jurisdictions, but the current level of intensity is unusual. Implementing steps to improve organizational performance will take a concerted effort by the Board, SBCAG staff and member jurisdiction staff. The recommendations in this report provide a pathway to begin the journey.

Santa Barbara County Association of Governments Management Partners, Inc. Organizational Assessment Attachment A: List of Recommendations

72

Attachment A: List of Recommendations Recommendation 1. Initiate an organizational strategic planning process to reach consensus about mission, vision, values, customer needs, goals, strategies and an implementation action plan.

Recommendation 2. Provide agenda materials to Technical Advisory Committee members at least one week in advance of meetings.

Recommendation 3. Create an ad hoc committee of SBCAG staff, TTAC and TPAC, including staff from Caltrans and the Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District (MTD), to work with an outside facilitator to improve communications and the flow of agenda items.

Recommendation 4. Change the bylaws for both the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee and the Technical Planning Advisory Committee to remove the ability for SBCAG staff to vote and clearly define their role as policy advisors and implementers, not policy makers.

Recommendation 5. Create new external communications approaches to promote SBCAG’s successes and enhance civic engagement.

Recommendation 6. Request that the executive director report on the need for additional staffing resources for Measure A and the implementation of recommendations in this report as part of the 2011/12 budget process.

Recommendation 7. Update the performance evaluation form and review process to ensure staff are consistently receiving constructive feedback specific to their job function and guidance on individual professional development goals.

Recommendation 8. Prepare an information technology strategic plan that assesses whether the current sharing relationship with APCD will continue to meet the needs of the organization.

Recommendation 9. Establish and facilitate regular ongoing communication between the Board, its advisory committees and SBCAG staff.

Recommendation 10. Identify future projects that could benefit from cross‐departmental working groups to enhance communication within the organization and provide career development opportunities.

Recommendation 11. Establish a system of regular communication between divisions that includes identifying issues for which regular communication is needed for effective agency results.

Recommendation 12. Conduct quarterly all‐hands staff meetings to share information and obtain input from staff on important issues affecting SBCAG.

Recommendation 13. Expand opportunities for staff input in the preparation of the annual Overall Work Program and effectively communicate the plan to all staff once it is adopted.

Santa Barbara County Association of Governments Management Partners, Inc. Organizational Assessment Attachment A: List of Recommendations

73

Recommendation 14. Create an organizational plan for career development and succession planning.

Recommendation 15. Amend SBCAG’s Bylaws to codify that the Executive Committee be composed of the Chair, Vice Chair, immediate past Chair, with other members added at the recommendation of the Chair subject to ratification by the Board.

Santa Barbara County Association of Governments Management Partners, Inc. Organizational Assessment Attachment B: Draft Implementation Action Plan

74

Attachment B: Draft Implementation Action Plan

Rec. #

Recommendation

Implementation Steps

Priority1 Time to Accomplish2

Person Responsible3

Comments

1. Execute an organizational strategic planning process to reach consensus about mission, vision, values, customer needs, goals, strategies and an implementation action plan.

• Solicit proposals for consultant to facilitate strategic planning process

• Select consult • Schedule date(s) and location for

Board strategic planning retreat • Convene retreat with facilitator

to focus on mission, vision, values and priority goals.

• Once strategic plan is developed, implement annual strategic plan review by Board in 4th quarter of calendar year

• Incorporate strategic plan review results into OWP and budget for the next fiscal year

Priority 1 4 months

Executive Director

Requires funding

1 Priority 1: Important to accomplish without delay and/or easy to accomplish. Priority 2: Second tier of importance to accomplish and/or may involve some complexity or time to complete Priority 3: Least urgent to complete and/or may take longer to set‐up or to execute 2 Time to accomplish represents total task time, i.e., time estimated to complete the recommendation absent any competing work priorities. 3 To establish clear accountability there should be a single responsible manager assigned responsibility for completing implementation of each recommendation. Where more than one manager is identified in this column, clarifying responsibility should occur when preparing the Final Action Plan.


75

Rec. #

Recommendation



Person Responsible3

Comments

2. Provide agenda materials to Technical Advisory Committee members at least one week in advance of meetings.

• Define the process for ensuring agenda materials are distributed at least one week in advance of meetings

• Document the process in policies and procedures

• Implement the process • Measure progress

Priority 1 1 month

Executive Director

This is an established performance measure from the 2010 OWP

3. Create an ad hoc committee of SBCAG staff, TTAC and TPAC, including staff from Caltrans and the Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District (MTD), and work with an outside facilitator to improve communications and the flow of agenda items.

• Solicit proposals for facilitator • Confirm participants • Schedule meeting date and

location • Hold facilitated meeting • Implement agreements reached

at meeting

Priority 1 4 months

Executive Director

Requires funding Facilitator may or may not be the same retained for strategic plan development

4. Change the bylaws for both the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee and the Technical Planning Advisory Committee to remove the ability for SBCAG staff to vote and clearly define their role as policy advisors and implementers, not policy makers.

• Prepare amendments to TTAC and TPAC bylaws

• Review proposed amendments with TTAC and TPAC

• Present proposed amendments to Board

• Adopt amendments

Priority 1 3 months

Executive Director

With assistance from Legal Counsel


76

Rec. #

Recommendation



Person Responsible3

Comments

5. Create new external communications approaches to promote SBCAG’s successes and enhance civic engagement.

• Identify desired communications approaches, such as social media, enhanced website

• Develop implementation plan for each approach, resources required (if any) and timelines

Priority 3 3 months

Public Information/ Government Affairs Coordinator

May require funding, depending on approaches proposed (i.e., website enhancement)

6. Request that the executive director report on the need for additional staffing resources for Measure A and the implementation of recommendations in this report as part of the 2011/12 budget process.

• Provide requested information as part of 2011/12 budget and OWP process

Priority 1 1 month

Executive Director

The Board gave such direction in conjunction with the adoption of the Measure A strategic plan

7. Update the performance evaluation form and review process to ensure staff are consistently receiving constructive feedback specific to their job function and guidance on individual professional development goals.

• Review best practices for performance evaluations used by comparable agencies

• Develop evaluation form customized to fit SBCAG’s needs

• Provide training to supervisors on using new evaluation form

• Establish date by which new evaluation form must be used

• Evaluate effectiveness after one year

Priority 3 6 months

Business Manager


77

Rec. #

Recommendation



Person Responsible3

Comments

8. Prepare an information technology strategic plan that assesses whether the current sharing relationship with APCD will continue to meet the needs of the organization.

• Solicit proposals for IT Strategic Plan consultant

• Retain consultant • Coordinate consultant work with

APCD IT staff • Review consultant’s report • Develop implementation plan for

accepted recommendations

Priority 3 9 months

Business Manager

Requires funding

9. Establish and facilitate regular ongoing communication between the Board, its advisory committees and SBCAG staff.

• Identify opportunities for staff and Board to interact, such as tours of SBCAG offices, staff appreciation event, expanded staff attendance at Board meetings, etc.

• Identify opportunities for staff and Advisory Committees to interact, such as expanded staff attendance at meetings

• Develop list of opportunities to be implemented, frequency for implementation and the person responsible for doing so

• Evaluate effectiveness after 1 year; make improvements as necessary

Priority 2 1 month

Executive Director

With assistance from Management Team


78

Rec. #

Recommendation



Person Responsible3

Comments

10. Identify future projects that could benefit from cross‐departmental working groups to enhance communication within the organization and provide career development opportunities.

• Create list of potential projects appropriate for cross‐departmental collaboration

• Solicit interest from staff to participate in working groups

• Assign staff to working groups • Evaluate effectiveness after 6

months; make improvements as necessary

Priority 2 2 months

Executive Director


11. Establish a system of regular communication between divisions that includes identifying issues for which regular communication is needed for effective agency results.

• Meet with Management Team to identify issues requiring regular communication

• Develop protocols for sharing information

• Evaluate effectiveness; make improvements as necessary

Priority 2 1 month

Executive Director


12. Conduct quarterly all‐hands staff meetings consistently to share information and obtain input from staff on important issues affecting SBCAG.

• Establish schedule for quarterly staff meetings and tentative topics for discussion

• Solicit staff input for topics they would like included at all hands staff meetings

Priority 1 1 month

Executive Director


79

Rec. #

Recommendation



Person Responsible3

Comments

13. Expand opportunities for staff input in the preparation of the annual Overall Work Program and effectively communicate the plan to staff once it is adopted.

• Develop calendar for preparation of OWP, including steps to solicit input from non‐planning staff

• Review draft OWP at all‐hands meeting prior to review by Advisory Committees

• Review adopted OWP at all‐hands meeting

Priority 2 3 months

Executive Director

14. Create an organizational plan for career development and succession planning.

• Meet with Executive Director and Management Team to identify core competencies for each managerial and supervisory position

• Assess competencies of existing staff; determine training needs to build skills and competencies; identify emerging leaders

• Create Individual Development Plan for each employee; include with performance evaluation process

Priority 3 6 months

Business Manager


80

Rec. #

Recommendation



Person Responsible3

Comments

15. Amend SBCAG’s Bylaws to codify that the Executive Committee is composed of the Chair, Vice Chair, immediate past Chair, with other members added at the of the Chair subject to ratification by the Board.

• Draft amendment to bylaws • Review with Executive

Committee • Present to Board • Adopt amendment

Priority 1 2 months

Legal Counsel

Santa Barbara County Association of Governments Management Partners, Inc. Organizational Assessment Attachment C: SBCAG Staff Workload Survey

81

Attachment C: SBCAG Staff Workload Survey

Management Partners has been retained by the Board of SBCAG to perform an organizational assessment. As part of the project, you have either participated in a focus group or have been interviewed by Management Partners staff. As a follow-up to those discussions, Management Partners is seeking more information about staff job responsibilities. The information you provide is confidential to Management Partners. Survey results will be reported in aggregate and will not be attributed to any employee. The survey will take approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. Please answer all questions to the best of your ability and complete the survey by 5pm on Friday September 24th. If you have any questions, contact Jennifer Tonnis with Management Partners via email at [email protected] or by phone at (408) 437-5400. Thank you in advance for completing the survey.

Please provide the approximate percentage of overall time you spend on each of the eight job activities listed below. Consider the entire responsibilities of your job--even if you have not pariticapted in a job activity in recent memory. If your job requires you to conduct such activites, please include them. For example, some forecasts or stratgic plans are not competed each year but should be accounted for if they are included in your job responsibilites. In some instances, a job activity will not be applicable to your position. If that is the case, please enter 0%. Note: The sum of all activity percentages must equal 100.

Administration (For example: administrative support, finance, human resources, Overall

Work Program, grants management)

Board/Committee Support (For example: meeting agendas, staff reports, Board

communications)

Transportation Planning (For example: FTP, modal planning, transportation

modeling/forecasts, corridor studies)

Other Regional Planning (For example: growth forecasts, SB 375, air quality planning,

RHNA)

Transportation Programming/Funding (For example: FTIP/STIP, project monitoring,

legislative advocacy,local agency project assistance)

Measure D & A Planning/Funding/Administration (For example: strategic planning;

financing/cash flow, matching funds, local allocations)

Instructions

Job Activities

Measure D & A Project Delivery (For example: project management, project

development work—environmental, design, construction, public outreach, consultant

contract management)

Regional Services/Programs (For example: Rideshare/TDM, freeway service patrol,

highway callboxes)

Using the same eight job activity categories, please indicate which three activities you

think are most important to the future success of SBCAG.

Using the same eight job activity categories again, please indicate which three activities

you think are least important to the future success of SBCAG.

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Your responses have been submitted to Management Partners. Click "next" to exit the survey.

Job Acitvity Importance

Thank You!

Administration

gfedc

Board/Committee Support

gfedc


gfedc

Other Regional Planning

gfedc

Transportation Programming/Funding

gfedc

Measure D & A Planning/Funding/Administration

gfedc


gfedc


gfedc

Administration

gfedc

Board/Committee Support

gfedc


gfedc

Other Regional Planning

gfedc

Transportation Programming/Funding

gfedc

Measure D & A Planning/Funding/Administration

gfedc


gfedc


gfedc

May 7, 1998 - SBCAGmeetings.sbcag.org/Meetings/SBCAG/2010/12 Dec/Item 11... · 2020. 1. 3. · 2107...

Documents

Transcript of May 7, 1998 - SBCAGmeetings.sbcag.org/Meetings/SBCAG/2010/12 Dec/Item 11... · 2020. 1. 3. · 2107...