HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-02-04 City Council Agenda Packet
1 02/04/08
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. A binder containing supporting materials is available in the Council
Chambers on the Friday preceding the meeting.
Special Meeting
Council Chambers
February 04, 2008 5:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
SPECIAL MEETING
1. Interview and Selection of Consultant for City Manager Recruitment
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
2. Appointment of One Human Relations Commission Member for
Unexpired Term Ending March 31, 2009
REPORT
3. Appointment of One Planning & Transportation Commission Member
for Unexpired Term Ending July 31, 2008
REPORT
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the right to limit the duration or Oral Communications.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
December 10, 2007
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members.
4. 2nd Reading Adoption of an Ordinance Approving and Adopting a
Park Improvement Plan for Foothills Park
(1st reading passed 9-0 on January 14, 2008)
02/04/08 2
5. 2nd Reading Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.11 of
Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish a Fee to
Support Public, Education, and Government Access that Will
Apply to Comcast as it Provides Service Under its State Video
Franchise
(1st reading passed 6-0 on January 22, 2008 Morton not participating, Barton, Burt absent)
6. 2nd Reading Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section 9.04.010
(“Streets, Sidewalks, Highways, Alleys – Consumption of
Alcoholic Beverages Prohibited”) of Chapter 9.04 (“Alcoholic
Beverages”) to Title 9 (“Public Peace, Morals and Safety”) of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code
(1st reading passed 7-0 on January 22, 2008 Barton, Burt absent)
7. Adoption of a Resolution Relating to the Agreement for Maintenance of
State Highways in the City of Palo Alto and Approval of a
Reimbursement Agreement in an Amount Not to Exceed $37,500
Annually with the California Department of Transportation
CMR:113:08 ATTACHMENT
8. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Lease between City of Palo Alto
and Community Skating, Inc. for the Winter Lodge, 3009 Middlefield
Road, Extending the Term for an Additional Ten Years
CMR:123:08 ATTACHMENT
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the
public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members
of the public have spoken.
OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be
limited to a maximum of five minutes per speaker unless additional time is granted by the presiding officer. The
presiding officer may reduce the allowed time to less than five minutes if necessary to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
9. Review of Project Cost Estimates for the Mitchell Park Library and
Community Center, Main Library, and Downtown Library Projects
(Capital Improvement Program Project PE-04012) and Direction on
Scope, Financing and Schedule for the Library/Community Center and
Public Safety Building Projects
CMR:135:08 ATTACHMENT
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
02/04/08 3
10. Finance Committee Recommendation That Council Review and
Comment on the Update to the Long Range Financial Forecast and
“Sustainable Budget” Reports
CMR:128:08 ATTACHMENT
11. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to City Council for
Discussion of Whether the Existing Policy for Naming City-Owned Land
and Facilities Should be Modified to Accommodate Naming
Opportunities for Major Donors to Capital Campaigns that Raise Funds
for the Construction or Renovation of City Facilities
CMR:133:08 ATTACHMENT
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
COUNCIL MATTERS
COUNCIL COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND REPORTS FROM CONFERENCES
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting.
Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker.
ADJOURNMENT
Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services, or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact
650-329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
CMR:113:08 Page 1 of 2
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 2008 CMR:113:08
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE AGREEMENT
FOR MAINTENANCE OF STATE HIGHWAYS IN THE CITY AND
APPROVAL OF A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT IN AN AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $37,500 ANNUALLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) approving the maintenance agreement with
the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation (the
State), in an amount not to exceed $37,500 annually, for street cleaning and authorized
traffic signal and street light maintenance of State highways in the City of Palo Alto; and
2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to sign the Agreement for Maintenance of
State Highways in the City of Palo Alto (Attachment B).
DISCUSSION
The current agreement with the State was executed in 1974 and amended in 1988 (CMR:189:88).
The agreement provided for City staff to provide maintenance for a portion of State Highway 82
(El Camino Real) that lies within the City limits. The State, in return would reimburse the City
up to $24,000 annually. No amendments have been issued since that time and maintenance costs
have increased since 1988.
Under the updated proposed agreement, the City will provide street sweeping services on the
portion of State Highway 82 (4.02 miles of El Camino Real) which lies within the City. The
State will reimburse the City for street sweeping maintenance costs up to $34,000 annually.
Also included in this agreement is a limited traffic signal and street light maintenance cost
sharing arrangement between the City and the State, by which the State will share costs with the
City on a pro rata basis and reimburse the City up to $3,500 annually. The Refuse and Electric
Funds will cover the cost for the work to be performed, but the State will reimburse the City.
The agreement would remain in effect until amended by the mutual consent of the parties or
terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days notice to the other party.
CMR:113:08 Page 2 of 2
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funds are available in the Refuse Fund and Electric Fund Operating budgets to cover
maintenance costs for sweeping, and authorized traffic signal and street light maintenance. The
reimbursement from the State will cover the cost for the work to be performed.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The recommendation does not represent changes to existing City policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
under section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Resolution
Attachment B: Maintenance Agreement
PREPARED BY: _______________________________
SEAN KENNEDY
Superintendent, PW Operations
DEPARTMENT HEAD: _______________________________
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: _______________________________
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
123:08 Page 1 of 3
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 2008 CMR: 123:08
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT #1 TO THE LEASE BETWEEN
CITY OF PALO ALTO AND COMMUNITY SKATING, INC. FOR
THE WINTER LODGE, 3009 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD, EXTENDING
THE TERM FOR AN ADDITIONAL TEN YEARS
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to execute the attached
Amendment #1 to the lease between the City of Palo Alto and Community Skating, Inc.
for Winter Lodge, 3009 Middlefield Road, extending the term for an additional ten years.
BACKGROUND
In accordance with a voter-approved measure, on April 28, 1987, the City acquired the
3.73 acre parcel on Middlefield Road commonly known as the “Winter Lodge” site, for
the purpose of continuing its use as a community ice skating facility. On January 26,
1990, the City entered into a 20-year lease with Community Skating, Inc. (CSI) to
operate a public ice skating facility on a 1.056-acre portion of the site. On April 20,
2001, the City entered into a second lease with CSI to operate a public tennis facility on
the remaining 1.634-acre portion of the site formerly used as a swim and tennis facility.
Both leases also share 1.04 acres of common parking. Both leases are set to terminate on
January 25, 2010 and provide for the option to extend the term for an additional ten years
upon notice from CSI of its intent to do so and upon the City Manager’s assessment of
CSI’s satisfactory performance of the terms of the lease.
DISCUSSION
On October 25, 2007, CSI sent the City written notice (Attachment B) of its intent to
exercise its option to extend its lease for the ice skating facility for the additional ten
years from 2010 to 2020. As noted in its letter, the Winter Lodge facility has been an
asset to the City. The Winter Lodge acts as a recreational partner for the City by offering
classes through the City’s Recreation Division and booking family skate nights for
elementary schools in Palo Alto and neighboring communities. Last year, the Winter
123:08 Page 2 of 3
Lodge was recognized by the Ice Skating Institute for having the largest skating school in
the USA. The skating school operates consistently with 98 to 99% customer satisfaction
and enrolls over 3,000 students per season every year. The facility has been ranked
recently by Outside Magazine as one of the top 10 outdoor ice skating experiences in the
country. In addition, CSI’s improvements to the site and building total over one million
dollars.
The terms of the lease require CSI to satisfy all conditions of the lease throughout the
primary lease term, abide by all City laws, code and ordinance requirements and to
provide written notice of its desire to exercise the option to extend. All of these
conditions have been met. Therefore, the attached Amendment #1 provides for the lease
extension to January 1, 2020, with all other terms and conditions of the lease to remain
the same.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Extension of the lease will have no fiscal impact to the City. There is no monetary rent
required by the lease. The non-monetary consideration required by the lease is that CSI
operate the facility for the required use at no cost to the City.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Extending the term in accordance with the lease option-to-extend provisions does not
represent any change to existing policy.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Extension of a lease is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act under Article 19, Section 15301, existing facilities.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Notice from CSI of Intent to Exercise Option
Attachment B: Amendment #1 to Lease with CSI for the Winter Lodge
PREPARED BY:
MARTHA MILLER
Sr. Financial Analyst
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL:
LALO PEREZ
Director, Administrative Services
123:08 Page 3 of 3
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
cc: Jan van der Laan, President, Community Skating, Inc.
Linda Stebbins Jensen, Executive Director, Winter Lodge
CMR: 158:08 Page 1 of 8
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 2008 CMR: 135:08
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATES FOR THE MITCHELL
PARK LIBRARY AND COMMUNITY CENTER, MAIN LIBRARY,
AND DOWNTOWN LIBRARY PROJECTS (CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT PE-04012) AND
DIRECTION ON SCOPE, FINANCING AND SCHEDULE FOR THE
LIBRARY/COMMUNITY CENTER AND PUBLIC SAFETY
BUILDING PROJECTS
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
1) Confirm the October 1, 2007 Council action which directed the design of a new
combined 51,000 square foot Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, expansion
and renovation of the Main Library by 4,000 square feet and renovation of the Downtown
Library;
2) Eliminate consideration of a June 2008 bond election for financing of the
library/community center and public safety building projects to ensure sufficient time to
conduct public outreach on community facility needs and priorities; and
3) Provide preliminary direction on whether to bring a design contract amendment and
Budget Amendment Ordinance for continued design of the public safety building back to
the Council as soon as possible for consideration.
BACKGROUND
Much of Palo Alto’s municipal infrastructure was built more than 50 years ago. While carefully
maintained, many community facilities are worn out and some critical buildings, like the police
building and emergency operations center, are no longer functional. Staff and the community
have been working for many years to identify mechanisms for modernizing City library and
public safety facilities to provide the services residents expect and to serve future generations.
The Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, located on Middlefield Road in south Palo
Alto, were built in 1958 and 1970, respectively. The library and community center are
CMR: 158:08 Page 2 of 8
currently housed in separate buildings. A 2002 bond measure to construct a new Mitchell Park
library and community center and to improve and expand the Children’s Library failed to
achieve the required 66 2/3 % approval rate for passage. In March 2004, the City Council
approved a cost sharing agreement between the City, the Palo Alto Library Foundation, and the
Friends of the Palo Alto Library for the renovation and expansion of the Children’s Library,
which resulted in the successful reopening of this renovated and expanded branch in September
2007. In 2004, the City Council also reaffirmed its policy direction to maintain all five branches
within the Palo Alto library system (Main, Mitchell Park, Downtown, College Terrace, and
Children’s).
In September 2006, the City Council approved a contract with Group 4 Architecture Research +
Planning (Group 4 Architecture) for design and cost estimating services for the Mitchell Park
Library/Community Center and for an evaluation of space needs for Main and the other branch
libraries, including Downtown (CMR 343:06). A project management team (PMT) comprised of
representatives from the Library Advisory Commission (LAC), Parks and Recreation
Commission (PRC), Group 4 Architecture, and staff met regularly to evaluate four scenarios for
the Mitchell Park Library as well as design options for the Main and Downtown libraries.
On December 4, 2006, Group 4 Architecture presented various site scenarios and related costs to
Council (CMR:434:06). The item was continued to December 11, 2006, at which time Council
approved in-concept the proposed facility improvements contained in the Group 4 Architecture
report and in the Library Advisory Commission’s (LAC’s) Library Service Model Analysis and
Recommendations (LSMAR) for the Main, Downtown, and College Terrace Libraries. The
College Terrace renovation project has been progressing on a separate path through the City’s
regular Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget, with construction scheduled for FY 2008-
09.
The City has been exploring the feasibility of constructing a new public safety building since the
mid-1980s. The most recent evaluation of the needs for a new facility began in January 2006
with the formation of a Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) to evaluate the need, size, cost and site
for a public safety building. The BRTF met 13 times and considered 28 different locations in the
City for a new facility. In June 2006, the City Council approved the final BRTF
recommendations for a 49,600 square foot building on a Park Boulevard site and, in September
2006, executed a contract amendment with RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture to begin
conceptual design and to prepare an environmental assessment of the Park Boulevard site. On
November 19, 2007, the City Council adopted the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for
the public safety building and approved a purchase option agreement for the Park Blvd. site. The
Council also directed staff to study the implications of financing the facility through Certificates
of Participation (COPs) as opposed to a voter-approved bond measure. The Finance Committee
considered this matter on January 15, 2008 and asked staff to return with additional information
at the February 5 Committee meeting. Among other options, the Finance Committee discussion
included potentially using a mixture of General Obligation bonds and COPs to fund the Public
Safety Building. Should GO bonds be recommended for the Public Safety Building, the earliest
feasible election date would be November 2008.
CMR: 158:08 Page 3 of 8
While proceeding with the design and environmental work for these projects, staff has also
proceeded with the Council’s December 2006 direction to do preliminary polling to assess voter
sentiment towards the projects. On March 5, 2007, the City Council received the results of a
telephone survey conducted during the month of February regarding potential public safety
building and library/community center facility bond measures and a possible parcel tax. Solid
majorities of voters supported potential bond measures for both the libraries and the public safety
building but both measures fell short of the required two-thirds supermajority threshold for
passage. The poll demonstrated somewhat stronger support for the library measure than for the
public safety building measure.
DISCUSSION
On October 1, 2007, Council directed staff and Group 4 Architecture to move forward with the
design and revised cost estimates for a joint Mitchell Park library-community center design.
(CMR 372:07), which would include the Library’s technical services operation currently housed
at Downtown Library. The work was also to include design and cost estimates for expansion and
renovation of the Main Library and renovation of the Downtown Library. The various site
designs are now approximately 35 percent complete and have been reviewed by the PRC, as well
as the Library Advisory Commission, Architectural Review Board and the Historic Resources
Board. The architects have also developed revised cost estimates based on the more complete
designs. The various site layouts are shown in Attachment A and summarized as follows:
Mitchell Park Library and Community Center: The new Mitchell Park Library would need to
grow from its current square footage (9,500 square feet) to approximately 36,000 square feet to
accommodate the current and projected future library use. Of all the branches, Mitchell Park
experiences the highest volume of visitors and circulation on an annual basis. The new facility
would accommodate an enlarged collection, a dedicated children’s area, an acoustically
separated teen area, a technology training room, group study rooms, and a program room.
Technical services staff, currently located at the Downtown Library, would be relocated to the
Mitchell Park Library in order to facilitate the increased intake of new materials for the entire
library system. The existing Mitchell Park Community Center is approximately 10,000 square
feet and would be expanded to 15,000 square feet under the current proposal. The joint facility
proposal creates efficiencies through shared activity space and allows for a smaller overall
facility than if new separate facilities were to be constructed.
Main Library expansion: The December 2006 Group 4 Architecture report recommended that
improvements at the Main Library include group study areas that are acoustically separated from
the rest of the building; and a program space, with restrooms, that seats 100 people. To
accommodate these recommendations, the Main Library would need to expand to approximately
30,000 square feet from the current 26,313 square feet (CMR 434:06). The group study space
would fit under the existing large eaves of the patios on both ends of the reading room. The
addition containing the program room and additional restrooms would be separate, joined by a
glassed-in lobby, to the current building to avoid impacting the original historical building. The
interior of the existing library would also be renovated, upgrading mechanical, electrical, and
lighting systems and reconfiguring the spaces to achieve program goals such as creating a
distinct teen room and group study areas.
CMR: 158:08 Page 4 of 8
Downtown Library renovation: The evaluation by Group 4 Architecture showed that the existing
services at this library adequately serve its service population and significant capital
improvements were not recommended. Additional public space and a small community room at
Downtown could by obtained by relocating technical services from the Downtown Library to a
new Mitchell Park Library. This would allow the current technical services area to be converted
for use by the public and would further provide a small community meeting room at the
Downtown Library. Staff received Council direction in October 2007 to pursue the option that
relocated technical services staff areas to Mitchell Park and created more public space at the
Downtown Library.
Cost Estimates
The costs to develop and construct the joint use Mitchell Park Library and Community Center,
Main Library expansion and Downtown Library renovation are detailed in Attachment B and
summarized in Table 1, below. The costs were prepared by a professional cost-estimating firm
and are based on plans that are approximately 35 percent complete.
The estimated total cost includes: design fees; construction cost; material testing and inspection;
permit fees; contingency; inflation; construction management; new furnishings, fixtures and
equipment (FF&E); and the lease of temporary facilities to house the library or community
center during construction. The costs for the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center are
inflated to the anticipated 2010 construction year start and assume phased construction so that no
more than one library is under construction at any time to reduce the impact on the public.
Table 1: Revised Library Project Cost Estimates and Design Options
Library/Community Center Design Options Cost Earliest Possible
Election
Date
1) New Mitchell Park Library/ Community
Center, Main Library expansion and Downtown
Library renovation (October 2007 Council
Direction)
Est. Total Cost: $ 80M November 2008
2) Alternatives to Current Council Direction:
a) New Mitchell Park Library/Community
Center only
b) Mitchell Park Library/Community Center
with Main Library only
c) Mitchell Park Library/Community Center
with Downtown Library only
a) Est. Total Cost: $ 56M
b) Est. Total Cost: $ 76M
c) Est. Total Cost: $ 61M
November 2008 for
all 3 alternatives
3) New Mitchell Park Library only – defer
Community Center, Main library and Downtown
library improvements
Est. Total Cost: $46M-
$58M
June 2009
June 2009
CMR: 158:08 Page 5 of 8
4) Other Options:
a) Design some or all of the sites to a fixed
cost or size
To be determined based
on further Council
direction
Design Options
The alternatives presented under Option 2 provide the Council with flexibility to reduce the
overall cost of the project while still being able to meet the deadlines for placing a measure on
the November 2008 ballot and without additional design cost expenditures. Options 3 or 4, or
other options yet to be identified could be pursued. However, additional design fee and time
would be needed to develop concepts and cost estimates and a June 2009 ballot would be the
earliest feasible election date. Details of these scenarios follows:
Options 2a-c: Construct a new combined 51,000 square foot Mitchell Park Library and
Community Center. Phase any subsequent improvements of either the Main or Downtown
Libraries. The proposed Main Library expansion and renovation project includes group study
areas that are acoustically separated from the rest of the building and a program space which
seats 100 people. By eliminating the Main Library expansion from a potential bond measure,
these uses could not be accommodated within the existing structure. Other needed
improvements to the existing building, including upgrades to the electrical and mechanical
systems, new carpet and paint are currently scheduled for replacement in FY 2008-2009 as part
of Capital Improvement Project (CIP) PF-07010, Main Library Improvements, although the
scope of this project is not as extensive as the work projected in Group 4’s design. This work
would be more cost-effective if combined with an expansion of the Main Library. Work on this
CIP has been deferred pending Council confirmation of the overall library ballot measure.
Council may also wish to consider leaving the technical services staff and materials at their
current location at the Downtown Library instead of moving them to a new Mitchell Park
Library. Cost savings would be realized by not having to remodel the Downtown Library and by
constructing an approximately 4,000 square foot smaller Mitchell Park Library. However, this
would not allow for the reconfiguration of the Downtown Library to create more public space
and would create staffing inefficiencies as the bulk of the library system’s materials would be
processed through Mitchell Park.
Option 3: Construct a new 36,000 square foot Mitchell Park Library but defer the construction
of a new Community Center to a future year. Do not expand the Main Library or remodel the
Downtown Library.
The Mitchell Park Library could be built as a stand-alone facility with space set aside for a future
Community Center. Additionally, the Council could choose to delay the expansion of the Main
Library and the renovation of the Downtown Library. This option would require new schematic
design work as the library-only option will require a different location and a different design than
now proposed. The current design incorporates a community center into the interior of the new
structure and the new building footprint is partially located on the existing community center
site. Thus, significant re-design would be required to implement this option, making a
November 2008 election infeasible. The existing Community Center would remain at its current
location and would require significant accessibility, heating, air conditioning and structural
upgrades. These improvements had been planned, but were deferred pending a resolution of
CMR: 158:08 Page 6 of 8
whether a joint library/community center should be built. On the down side, postponing future
renovations to either the community center, Main Library or Downtown Library would cause the
costs of these projects to increase significantly due to the dramatic escalation of construction
costs.
Option 4: Scale down any of the above design options to meet a fixed budgetary cap.
The projects could be designed to meet a fixed budgetary cap. This option would require an
unknown amount of time and design effort as the new layout would need to be developed
through the Project Management Team and the resulting plan would need to again be reviewed
by the various boards and commissions. It would also be the most costly in terms of design fee
as Group 4 Architecture would need to significantly change the design plans. The additional
time required to review any new designs pursued under this option would preclude the City from
meeting the deadlines for placing a measure on the November 2008 ballot.
Consideration of a June 2008 Bond Election: Based on the results of the preliminary telephone
poll and focus groups, it is clear that many members of the community do not understand the
need or priority for the improvements to the public safety building, libraries and Mitchell Park
Community Center. The Council would need to vote in early March to place a measure on the
June ballot. After this occurs, there are limits on the public outreach that the City may conduct.
This timeframe would not ensure sufficient time for effective outreach. Additionally, design of
the projects would need to be completed to the 35% level with accompanying cost estimates in
order to develop an accurate bond measure description. If the Council wishes to change either
project scope in any way, the June 2008 date would be infeasible. Staff recommends remaining
flexible with an election date beyond June 2008 until additional public outreach can be
accomplished. The earliest feasible election dates for the various library project design options
are outlined in Table 1 above.
Public Safety Building Design Schedule and Financing Update:
At the January 15 meeting, staff presented the Finance Committee with an evaluation of the
feasibility of pursuing Certificates of Participation (COPs) as an alternate financing mechanism
for the Public Safety Building. The Committee asked for additional information from staff and
also discussed the possibility of going to the ballot in November 2008 with a joint library/public
safety measure. Following Council direction in November 2007 to pursue alternate financing
mechanisms for this project, staff temporarily suspended design work on the public safety
building. If the Council wishes to keep November 2008 open for a possible public safety bond
measure, staff would need to immediately resume design work and return to Council as soon as
possible with a design contract amendment and Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO)
requesting $4 million in order to meet the required timelines for completing 35% design and
placing the measure on a ballot. Staff is requesting direction from Council on whether to bring
the contract amendment and BAO back for consideration in order to keep open the option of
placing the Public Safety Building on a November 2008 ballot.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The revised costs for the public safety building, libraries and Mitchell Park Community Center
projects identified in this staff report and in Attachment A represent capital facility needs for
which there is not currently an identified funding source. As the Long Range Financial Forecast
CMR: 158:08 Page 7 of 8
has demonstrated, there is very limited General Fund capacity to absorb any new expenses. Debt
financing any of the capital costs envisioned in this report through Certificates of Participation
will require a fresh, ongoing revenue stream or reallocation of existing resources from the
General Fund to pay debt service. General Obligation bonds generate a new revenue stream
through an ad valorem property tax so there is no additional burden on the General Fund for the
capital costs of a project.
There will be additional operating expenses for the public safety building, libraries and Mitchell
Park community center. It is currently estimated that utility, custodial, and maintenance
expenses for any new building will cost approximately $8.00 per square foot. Since the
facilities are still in the design process, additional operating costs have yet to be determined. For
example, landscaping costs have not been calculated to date. Although furniture, fixtures and
equipment could be included in a COPs issue, there may be additional unidentified needs that
would not be eligible for bond financing. For example, an expanded Mitchell Park library will
require additional staffing, technology investments, and an enhancement to the collection. The
LSMAR identified preliminary estimates for these costs, which will ultimately be determined by
factors that could include the size of the library, private fundraising for collection enhancement,
and others. As the projects are further defined, staff will be able to refine the operating and
maintenance cost estimates and identify potential funding sources.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation is consistent with Council’s establishment of securing funding for the
Library/Community Center and Public Safety projects as a Top 4 priority for 2008.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The actions recommended in this report do not constitute a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code.
Each project will continue to undergo the appropriate environmental review as required for
design and construction of the facilities.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Library/Community Center Projects Site Layout at 35% Design Completion
Attachment B: Library/Community Center Project Cost Estimates
PREPARED BY: DEBRA JACOBS, Project Engineer
KAREN BENGARD, Senior Engineer
MIKE SARTOR, Assistant Public Works Director
KELLY MORARIU, Assistant to the City Manager
DEPARTMENT HEAD: _________________________________
GLENN ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
CMR: 158:08 Page 8 of 8
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ________________________________
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR: 128:08 Page 1 of 2
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 2008 CMR: 128:08
SUBJECT: FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION THAT COUNCIL
REVIEW AND COMMENT ON THE UPDATE TO THE LONG RANGE
FINANCIAL FORECAST AND “SUSTAINABLE BUDGET” REPORTS
RECOMMENDATION:
After review of the City’s 2007 update to the Long Range Financial Plan on December 11, 2007,
and review of the “Sustainable Budget” report on October 16, 2007, the Finance Committee
recommended that the City Council review and comment on the forecast of revenues, expenses
and reserve levels. The Finance Committee also recommended, on October 16, 2007, that the
Council review and comment on the “Sustainable Budget” report.
COMMITTEE REVIEW:
On December 11, 2007, the Finance Committee reviewed the Long Range Financial Plan. The
Finance Committee’s review included questions about the Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR)
level and one-time expenditures that impact the BSR in 2007-08.
On October 16, 2007, the Finance Committee reviewed the staff report on the “Sustainable
Budget”, which described the issues and tradeoffs that would lead to a sustainable budget for the
City of Palo Alto. The Committee recommended that the full Council review the report and
provide comment. In discussion, the Committee agreed that it was important to include the
community in the priority setting process necessary to achieve a sustainable budget.
During the January 12, 2008 priority setting retreat, the Council selected a new priority,
“Economic Health of the City.” In the future, deliberations involving what has been described as
a “Sustainable Budget” will be subsumed under the new priority.
CMR: 128:08 Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: CMR 425:07 – “Update to Long Range Financial Forecast”
Attachment B: CMR 387:07 – “Discussion of Council’s Top 4 Priority Sustainable Budget”
PREPARED BY:
JOSEPH SACCIO
Deputy Director of Administrative Services
SHARON BOZMAN
Senior Financial Analyst
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL:
LALO PEREZ
Director, Administrative Services
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR 133:08 Page 1 of 3
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPT: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 2008 CMR: 133:08
SUBJECT: POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO
CITY COUNCIL FOR DISCUSSION OF WHETHER THE EXISTING
POLICY FOR NAMING CITY-OWNED LAND AND FACILITIES
SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO ACCOMMODATE NAMING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR MAJOR DONORS TO CAPITAL
CAMPAIGNS THAT RAISE FUNDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OR
RENOVATION OF CITY FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION
The Policy and Services Committee recommends that the City Council consider the question
of whether the City should modify the existing policy on naming City-owned land and
facilities to accommodate naming opportunities for major donors to capital campaigns that
raise funds for the construction or renovation of City facilities and then refer the item back to
Policy and Services for completion of revisions to the naming policy, if so warranted.
BACKGROUND
The success of the private fundraising efforts for the recent renovation of the Children’s
Library has ignited enthusiasm in several local groups to initiate capital campaigns to
supplement the City’s funding for the upcoming library/community center and public safety
building projects. There has also been an ongoing effort to raise funds for additions and/or
improvements to the Art Center. Although it is unlikely that sufficient private funds could be
raised to completely fund any of these projects, the contributions raised can significantly
increase the City’s ability to help make these desired facilities and amenities possible. In
order to be successful, these fundraising groups need to have the tools and authority to make
commitments to potential donors regarding the benefits of making such a significant financial
donation. One of those potential benefits is a naming opportunity, which can be a coveted
form of recognition and a major attraction for corporate giving.
The current policy on naming City-owned land and facilities (Attachment A) was most
recently updated in 2004 to address the following:
• Development of a process for the re-naming of parks and facilities;
• The inclusion of the Parks and Recreation Commission, or other appropriate
commissions in the review process for any facility naming or re-naming;
CMR 133:08 Page 2 of 3
• Addition of criteria for selecting names; and
• New accommodation for recognizing individuals who have made significant
contributions to the community.
At the time of the update, staff did consider the possibility of naming a park or facility after a
benefactor business, group or organization, but decided against it because it would be such a
significant change in tradition for Palo Alto. Although only three years have passed, project
funding has become significantly more challenging. Additionally, non-profit support groups
have indicated an interest in re-addressing this issue in relation to their upcoming capital
fund-raising campaigns. If a fund-raising body were to secure a donation in an amount
significant enough to fund a major portion of a building/project, there is the question of
whether a naming opportunity could be made available for that donor.
COMMITTEE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
On October 1, as a part of the Council action approving a Budget Adjustment Ordinance for
the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center project, the City Council also voted to refer
the facility naming issue to the Policy and Services Committee for review and comment. A
report was prepared for the Policy and Services Committee (Attachment B) outlining the
various questions in which direction was desired before preparing revisions to the policy for
review. Staff also performed research on other agencies’ facility naming policies and created
a spreadsheet (Attachment C) outlining features of the different policies examined. After
reviewing the wide range of questions and issues proposed for comment at its November 14,
2007 meeting, the Policy and Services Committee recommended that the full Council first
answer the fundamental question of whether the City is willing to consider the possibility of
putting a private or corporate name on a City facility in exchange for a significant financial
contribution. This question needs to be answered before any further policy development
work is initiated. Once direction is provided on that issue, the Policy and Services
Committee would review and provide direction on the remaining questions and options
available. Staff would then prepare revisions to the existing policy for the Council’s review.
If the Council is willing to consider private or corporate naming, clear parameters would be
incorporated into the policy to address such topics as:
• Avoiding names that conflict with the vision and mission of the City;
• Defining the amount/level of donation required to be recognized with a naming
opportunity;
• Defining a procedure for approval of naming schedules in advance; and
• Other topics as outlined in the November 14 report to Policy and Services.
If the Council decides against private or corporate naming of facilities, there are still some
modifications to the policy related to capital campaign fund-raising that staff would like to
propose. Those items would then be re-addressed with the Policy and Services Committee
and would return to the full Council for final review and consideration.
RESOURCE IMPACT
CMR 133:08 Page 3 of 3
If the City Council is willing to consider private or corporate naming opportunities, the
proposed modifications to the City policy on naming City-owned land and facilities could
result in substantial contributions to the City for projects that involve capital campaigns
where significant donations are recognized with naming opportunities.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
These policy modifications, if developed and approved by the City Council, will be
incorporated into the policy on naming City-owned land and facilities as procedures for
offering naming opportunities in exchange for and/or in recognition of significant
contributions to capital campaigns organized and operated by authorized support groups.
Any implications to the City’s Gift Policy will be clearly stated in the final report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This is not a project, under Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code, requiring review
under the California Environmental Quality Act.
ATTACHMENT A: Existing Policy (1-15) for Naming City-Owned Land and Facilities
ATTACHMENT B: November 14, 2007 Report to Policy and Services Committee
ATTACHMENT C: Comparison of Facility Naming Policies
PREPARED BY: _______________________________
Kelly Morariu
Assistant to the City Manager
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ______________________________
Emily Harrison
Assistant City Manager