Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-01-26 City Council Agenda Packet 1 01/26/09 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 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 January 26, 2009 6:00 PM ROLL CALL COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM STUDY SESSION 1. Joint Meeting of Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC) and Council Members Regarding Review of Priorities ATTACHMENT 7:00 PM or as soon as possible thereafter COUNCIL CHAMBERS SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 2. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Donald Lee Dudak Upon His Retirement ATTACHMENT CITY MANAGER COMMENTS 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 period to 30 minutes. 01/26/09 2 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 01, 2008 December 08, 2008 December 15, 2008 January 05, 2009 CONSENT CALENDAR Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members. 3. Finance Committee Recommendation to Adopt an Ordinance Authorizing the Closing of the Budget for the 2008 Fiscal Year and to Approve 2008 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) CMR 108:09 ATTACHMENT 4. Finance Committee Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Approving the Execution of the Agreement for a Long-Term Assignment of the City’s Share of Transfer Capability on the California-Oregon Transmission Project to Other Members of the Transmission Agency of Northern California CMR 100:09 ATTACHMENT 5. Finance Committee Recommendation to Accept Maze & Associates’ Audit of the City of Palo Alto’s Financial Statements as of June 30, 2008 and Management Letter MEMO ATTACHMENT MINUTES 6. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Award and Sign Contracts for Renewable Energy Certificates from Suppliers to 01/26/09 3 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Meet the Needs of the PaloAltoGreen Program for an Annual Amount Not to Exceed $1,500,000 During Calendar Years 2009 Through 2011 CMR 124:09 ATTACHMENT 7. Approval of a Contract with Nova Partners in the Total Amount of $277,540 for Construction Management Services for the College Terrace Library and Child Care Center Improvements, Capital Improvement Program Project PE-05010 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. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. Consider Approval of a Site and Design Review for a Mixed Use Commercial and Residential Project, a Tentative Map to Subdivide Three Lots Into Separate Parcels and a Record of Land Use Action for a Project Located at 3401, 3415, 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) *This item is quasi-judicial and subject to Council's Disclosure Policy CMR 122:09 ATTACHMENT CITIZEN LETTERS REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 9. Acceptance of Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report FY 2007-08 ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT COUNCIL COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND REPORTS FROM CONFERENCES Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT 01/26/09 4 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 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. The Honorable City Council December 16, 2008 Attn: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California Maze & Associates’ Audit of the City of Palo Alto’s Financial Statements as of June 30, 2008 and Management Letter We recommend that the City Council accept the attached financial statements and management letter. Discussion The City Charter requires the City Council (through the City Auditor) to engage an independent certified public accounting firm to conduct the annual external audit and report the results of that audit in writing to the City Council. Maze & Associates, an accountancy corporation based in Pleasant Hill, California, conducted the audit of the City’s financial statements as of June 30, 2008. The Independent Auditor’s Report (the “opinion letter”) and Single Audit Report (the audit of federal funds received by the City which includes the report on internal control over financial reporting and the OMB Circular A-133 compliance requirements supplement) are included in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008. Maze & Associates also completed the following reports for the City of Palo Alto, shown as attachments: • Attachment A: Memorandum on Internal Control and Required Communication for the year ended June 30, 2008 (the “management letter”); • Attachment B: Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance with the Proposition 111 2007- 2008 Appropriation Limit Increment (the “Gann limit letter”); • Attachment C: Public Improvement Corporation Basic Component Unit Financial Statements for the year ended June 30, 2008; • Attachment D: Regional Water Quality Control Plant Financial Statements for the year ended June 30, 2008; • Attachment E: Cable TV Franchise Statements of Revenues and Expenditures for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006; and • Attachment F: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palo Alto Basic Component Unit Financial Statements for the year ended June 30, 2008. Cory Biggs, from Maze & Associates, will be available at the December 16th Finance Committee meeting to answer questions. I would like to express appreciation to Maze & Associates, and Trudy Eikenberry and her staff in the Administrative Services Department for their hard work and cooperation during the audit. Respectfully submitted, Lynda Flores Brouchoud City Auditor Attachments CCCIIITTTYYY OOOFFF PPPAAALLLOOO AAALLLTTTOOO OOOFFFFFFIIICCCEEE OOOFFF TTTHHHEEE CCCIIITTTYYY AAAUUUDDDIIITTTOOORRR ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 122:09 Page 1 of 10 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: JANUARY 26, 2009 CMR: 122:09 REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: Consider Approval of a Site and Design Review for a Mixed Use Commercial and Residential Project, a Tentative Map to Subdivide Three Lots into Separate Parcels and a Record of Land Use Action for a Project Located at 3401, 3415, 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed project is a mixed use and residential project located at a vacant shopping center site on a 4.2 acre site on Alma Street, just north of East Meadow Drive. The City Council’s review is limited to the site’s design (Site and Design Review) and the lot configuration (Tentative Subdivision Map) for a Planned Community Zoning (PC 4956) that was approved for the subject site on May 14, 2007. The Planned Community approval controls the allowable land uses, development intensity, and parking requirements for the site, to include: a) an approximately two-story 50,511-sq. ft. mixed use building that consists of 22,857 sq. ft. of commercial space (including 15,000 for a grocery store), 14 second floor below market rate (BMR) units, and 1,757 sq. ft. for a community room; and b) a smaller two-story 5,580-sq. ft. retail building. The remainder of the project consists of a 9,694-sq. ft. public park, private streets and 37 single-family residences. The site layout has been designed to meet the requirements of the approved Planned Community Zoning for the site, including parking, and has been recommended for approval by the staff, the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC), and the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The P&TC has recommended denial of the Tentative Subdivision Map as it found that the configuration of the commercial area into two separate parcels (the mixed use building and the second retail building) is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan definition of a Neighborhood Center, and individual P&TC members objected to the limited hours of use for the community room, which is proposed as one of the “public benefits” of the project. Staff believes, however, that the Tentative Map configuration is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Planned Community Zoning Ordinance or the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff has also provided two additional conditions to better assure available parking. Alternatives are also provided for minor expansion of the community room availability. ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 122:09 Page 2 of 10 RECOMMENDATIONS This application for a Site and Design and Tentative Map request was the subject of approximately six hearings before the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) and Architectural Review Board (ARB) between August 8, 2007 and November 19, 2008. The following summarizes the different recommendations from staff, the P&TC and ARB. 1. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposed Site and Design request and the Tentative Map, based upon findings and conditions outlined in the draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A), with the addition of conditions to: 1) require that covenants for the single-family residences include requirements to keep garages clear for maximum parking availability, and 2) specify that the below grade parking spaces dedicated for residential use include only one space restricted to each unit, with other spaces to be shared with the commercial use. Alternatives that are more consistent with the P&TC recommendations are outlined for consideration to: 1) require a modified Map to show all commercial areas within one parcel, and 2) expand the allowable hours of use of the community room. 2. The P&TC recommends that the City Council approve the proposed Site and Design request and deny the Tentative Map, and direct the applicant to revise the Map to include all commercial areas within one parcel. 3. The ARB recommends that the City Council approve the proposed Site and Design request, subject to the relevant findings and conditions outlined in the draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). Note: The ARB does not have review authority over the Tentative Map. BACKGROUND Development Review Process On May 14, 2007, the City Council adopted a Planned Community (PC) Ordinance (Ordinance 4956) to allow the construction of a mixed use project, including 27,720 sq. feet of retail/commercial (including an approximately 15,000-square foot grocery store) and community room space, 14 below market rate apartments, 37 single family residences and approximately 8,900 square feet of parkland. PC 4956 (Attachment B) set forth land use types, commercial floor area, housing density, and the number and location of below market rate (BMR) units. The PC Ordinance also specified public benefits of the project, including the parkland area to be developed and maintained by the landowner of the mixed use building, provision of a grocery store, the BMR units, green building compliance, and the community room. Following the adoption of the new zoning designation, the applicant submitted a Site and Design application for the construction of the project. The Site and Design application and development plans were reviewed on August 8, 2007 and recommended for approval on September 19, 2007 by the P&TC. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the Site and Design request on February 21 and April 3, 2008, and recommended that City Council approve the application on June 5, 2008. The required findings for Site and Design Review are specified in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 122:09 Page 3 of 10 The P&TC considered and recommended denial of the associated Tentative Map for the development on November 19, 2008. Findings for approval or denial of a Tentative Map are outlined in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). A more extensive summary of these public hearings is provided in the “Board and P&TC Hearing/Recommendations” section at the end of this report. Project Description The project consists of a Site and Design and Tentative Map request. The Site and Design application is a proposal to demolish approximately 45,600 square feet of a vacant shopping center and to replace it with 28,437 square feet of commercial uses, 14 Below Market Rate (BMR) units, 37 single family residences, a 1,750-sq. ft. community room and a 9,694-sq. ft. public park. The Tentative Map portion of the application proposes to subdivide three existing commercial lots into one larger residential and commercial mixed use lot, which includes a public park, one smaller commercial lot, 37 single family fee lots, and miscellaneous lots for streets and common area. The applicant also proposes to further subdivide the larger mixed use lot into three condominium spaces. Those spaces consist of one for the commercial, one for the BMR units and the third for the community room. Attachment E provides a detailed project description. DISCUSSION Most of the site design issues for the project were addressed and recommended for approval by the P&TC and the ARB. The P&TC and the public raised three unresolved development issues at the most recent November 19, 2008 public hearing regarding the Tentative Map, however. The three items include 1) the tentative map commercial parcels, 2) the community room hours and 3) parking. Tentative Map Commercial Parcels The scope of the Council’s and P&TC’s review for the purposes of the Tentative Map application is generally limited to the “design” and “improvement” of the proposed subdivision. “Design” and “Improvement” are generally defined in the Subdivision Map Act as the two- dimensional features (streets, utilities, lot lines, etc.) of the development and the Map Act requires approval of the subdivision unless at least one of seven specific findings are made (see findings in Attachment A and discussion in the P&TC’s November 19, 2008 staff report). The design and improvement of the structures to be located within the subdivision, such as buildings and parking, are relevant to the Site and Design review of the project. The purpose of the Tentative Map is to convert the three existing commercial lots to accommodate the new commercial and residential buildings. The map includes: • A 59,031-sq. ft. lot for the mixed use building, some parking, and the public park (Parcel A), • A 12,842-sq. ft. lot for the smaller 5,800-sq. ft. commercial building (Parcel B), • 37 fee simple single family lots, located behind the commercial lots, and • Three lots for public streets and common areas, located within the interior of the site (Parcels C, D, and E). ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 122:09 Page 4 of 10 The applicant is also proposing to create three condominium units within the larger mixed use lot. The first condominium unit is for the retail space. The second condominium is for the second floor BMR units. The third condominium is to accommodate the second floor community room. Per Section 66427 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City cannot preclude the creation of airspace condominium parcels. The P&TC has recommended that only one commercial lot be created for the project, stating that the map is in conflict with the first finding in the Map Act requiring consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The basis for the determination was that issues such as maintenance, differing land uses, and control over parking could not be addressed if two owners were involved and that a cohesive Neighborhood Center would not exist. The applicant has indicated that the intent is for both parcels, associated parking, and access to be owned by one party for the long term, and that the purpose of the separate lots is to provide the ability to finance the parcels separately. The applicant also proposes to record a Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement (REA) over both parcels (Attachment F-1). Through this agreement, the owner of the larger mixed use parcel is able to exercise maintenance and repair, land use, and parking control over the owner of the smaller commercial parcel, if there is one in the future. Staff believes that the Tentative Map is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act, as well as the PC Ordinance and the Site and Design plans recommended for approval. The City Attorney has indicated that the P&TC’s determination is not sufficient to deny the map, as there is nothing in the Comprehensive Plan that limits or prohibits separate commercial parcels in a Neighborhood Center and there is nothing in the Neighborhood Center definition that requires common ownership. The City Attorney has also indicated that the City does not have jurisdiction to determine whether or how the mixed use building is divided into a condominium configuration. Staff also believes that the proposed REA will be sufficient to ensure adequate maintenance of and cohesive management of the site. The Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) includes findings for approval of the Map. If the Council determines that alternative findings, based on Comprehensive Plan inconsistency or other Subdivision Map Act criteria, support requiring the commercial uses to be mapped as a single parcel, a condition requiring that change should be added to the Record of Land Use Action. Council should direct staff to return with revised findings and a final Record of Land Use Action on a future Consent Calendar agenda. Community Room The PC Ordinance for this project required the provision of a community room as one of the public benefits. The development plans include a 1,757-sq. ft. community room on the second floor of the mixed use building. The design and location of the community room was reviewed and recommended for approval by the ARB. The applicant is proposing limited hours to maximize the available parking spaces for the future grocery store, and has provided background information from the PC Zone deliberations (Attachment F-2) indicating that the limited hours for the community room were presented and understood at that time. Specifically, the applicant is proposing that the room be leased to the City (Attachment H) and operated by the Community Services Department (CSD), with group activities prohibited between the hours of 11:00 am and 7:00 pm. The City will otherwise control all access to the community room and will be ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 122:09 Page 5 of 10 responsible for its regular maintenance. CSD staff have indicated general support for the lease terms and notes that space needs for programming are greatest in the mornings and evenings. Some members of the public and of the P&TC, however, have objected to the proposed lease terms and feel that the proposed hours are too limited to provide adequate public benefit. Specific P&TC comments on the community room hours are available in the attached minutes of November 19, 2008 (Attachment K-1). Concerns were also raised that no parking is being provided for the community room and was not required by the PC Ordinance. As part of the Site and Design Review, the Council has the authority to determine if the proposal fulfills the public benefit criteria established in the PC Ordinance for the project. Based on use patterns of similar facilities and the location, it is anticipated that this sized facility will be used for small classes (approximately 20-30 attendees) and perhaps for meetings or other activities by the site’s residents or the residents of the immediate neighborhood who would walk to the room. A limited number of classes may be offered, such as: • Yoga class, stretch/fitness warm-up that may be offered before and after work • Genealogy classes • Travel classes • Financial planning • Self-defense and other adult special interest classes • Children’s art exploration and possible studio adult art classes • Nature and environmental It is anticipated that, based on the size of the community room, other typical activities might include: • Private rentals for birthday parties • Neighborhood association meetings • Scout group den meetings, and other small groups. The proposed parameters, including hours, have been reviewed by both Community Services Department (CSD) and Planning staff. Staff has found the proposed hours acceptable. However, staff has evaluated other options to increase the availability of the community room while maintaining the viability of the retail uses. Because the PC Ordinance does not require parking for the community room, increasing access will not trigger a requirement for more parking. Measures to improve the parking condition without the creation of additional spaces are discussed in the following section. The following options may be considered to increase the availability of the community room beyond the applicant’s proposal: • Include a provision for the Director of Community Services to allow the use of the room for smaller functions (less than 20 persons) should there be no other space available between 11:00 am and 7:00 pm, limited to not more than twice per month. • Allow the room to be used by smaller groups (less than 20 persons) between 11:00 am and 3:00 pm but prohibit use during peak store hours between 3:00 pm and 7:00 pm. • Allow residents within walking distance to use the community room between 11:00 am and 3:00 pm, limited to not more than once per week. ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 122:09 Page 6 of 10 • Allow use of the community room between the hours of 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm daily (typically non-peak hours). The use of the community room at all times would still be subject to review by CSD and compliance with user fees, insurance, and other restrictions. These options are enumerated as potential conditions in the Alternatives section of the discussion. Parking Another issue identified at the November 19, 2008 P&TC hearing was the number of parking spaces proposed for the project. Members of the public and the P&TC expressed concerns that the site design did not provide adequate parking spaces, and noted that the applicant was limiting community room hours due to potential impacts on parking for the grocery store. The proposal, however, strictly complies with the parking requirements set forth in the PC Ordinance adopted by the City Council. The project would include 37 garage spaces under the larger mixed use building, 95 onsite surface spaces and 74 private garages for the single family residences. The applicant has also provided a new exhibit as part of the Site and Design Review plan set that clarifies the number and location of the parking spaces. The applicant is proposing 206 parking spaces, which is approximately six spaces more than required. The PC Ordinance establishes a specific requirement for the commercial spaces and references the Municipal Code for the residential spaces. The PC Ordinance also specifically outlined that no parking spaces would be required for the community room, based on the applicant’s representation that the use would occur during off-peak hours. A table (Table 1) is provided below to show how the project conforms to the respective parking requirements. Table 1 – Parking Analysis Use Ratio Units/Sq. Ft. Requirement Proposed Ground Floor Retail1 4/1,000 (1/250) per PC Ordinance 23,100 (17,300 Mixed Use Building and 5,800 2nd retail Building) 93 11 garage 82 surface Basement Retail and Storage 1/1,000 per PC Ordinance 3,800 4 4 garage BMR 1 bedroom 1.5 per unit 12 18 18 garage BMR 2 Bedroom 2 per unit 2 4 4 garage Single Family 2 per unit 37 74 74 garages Guest Spaces 1 +10% of units 51 7 13 surface Community Rm None per PC 0 0 0 Total: 200 206 1PC Ordinance established the parking requirements for retail uses and community room. The remainder of the parking requirements is required to be consistent with the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The PC Ordinance did not require any parking for the community room. As indicated in the table above, the project is consistent with the parking requirements as set forth in the PC Ordinance, and exceeds the required parking by six spaces. In addition to onsite ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 122:09 Page 7 of 10 spaces, the applicant would also be required to reconfigure the frontage road along Alma Street. The reconfiguration will include replacing 10 parallel parking spaces with a combination of 15 diagonal and parallel parking spaces on a new one lane road, which will add an additional five spaces. These on-street parking spaces will be limited to two-hour parking to encourage turnover for the commercial and medical offices in the area. In addition, staff also notes that the mixed use nature and layout of the parking lot will allow some sharing and turnover of parking between the residential, commercial and community room use, unlike other purely residential developments. In response to P&TC and community concerns regarding parking, staff recommends two modifications that will not require the addition of parking spaces. The first modification would be to require the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the 37 single-family residences to include a provision that requires all future owners to maintain the private garages so that two cars can be parked inside at any times (though the City would not enforce such a restriction). This will better ensure that residents will have the ability to park inside their own garages and guest spaces can be available to guests and visitors. Guest parking spaces shall also not be assigned to maximize flexibility. The second modification is for the mixed use building. The applicant has agreed to reserve one of the BMR parking spaces for each residential unit and allow the second space to be shared by customers of the commercial businesses during business hours. This will increase the number (an additional eight spaces) of retail parking spaces available in the garage. The applicants have indicated agreement with both of these measures and they are incorporated into the conditions of approval in Attachment A. Alternatives In response to public and P&TC comments and recommendations, staff has identified potential alternatives for the Tentative Map and for the Community Room that could be considered by Council and, if approved, incorporated as conditions of approval in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). A. Tentative Map: For the map, if the Council determines that the commercial uses should be maintained as a single parcel, findings should be outlined as to how the two parcels are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan or other Subdivision Map Act criteria. Council should direct staff to return with written findings and to add the following condition to the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A): “The two commercial lots shall be combined into one parcel on the Final Map.” B. Community Room: The following options would allow greater flexibility of the community room, but would still limit the frequency and extent of its use. Additional conditions of Site and Design approval could include: 1. “The community room shall be available for City-approved use before 11:00 am and after 7:00 pm. In addition, the Director of the Community Services Department may authorize the use of the room between the hours of 11:00 am and 7:00 pm for functions of less than 20 persons not more than twice monthly, should no other appropriate City facility be available at that time.” ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 122:09 Page 8 of 10 2. “The community room shall also be available for use between the hours of 11:00 am to 3:00 pm for functions of not more than 20 persons, not more than once weekly, subject to all requirements of the Community Services Department.” 3. “The community room shall also be available between the hours of 11:00 am to 3:00 pm to residents of the mixed-use building, the residential subdivision, or other residents living within one-quarter mile of the site boundaries, for meetings or events of not more than 20 persons, not more than twice per month, subject to all requirements of the Community Services Department.” 4. “The community room shall also be available for use between the hours of 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm daily.” BOARD/P&TC REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Site and Design Review application was reviewed on August 8, 2007 and recommended for approval by the P&TC on September 19, 2007. The P&TC directed staff and the ARB to focus on several key issues, including the design of the parkland, enhancing pedestrian and bicycle facility design, high quality design for residences and commercial buildings, and circulation. Following the P&TC hearing, the ARB recommended on June 5, 2008 that the City Council approve the Site and Design Review application. The ARB also recommended that, should the project be approved by City Council, it return to an ARB subcommittee to address a few architectural details. Those items include: • Reducing the property line fence at Emerson to seven (7) feet in height. • Redesigning the garage doors to a more simplified design consistent with the building for the single family residences • Decreasing the paseo fence by six (6) inches • Replacing the granite sphere with a more interesting art feature • Improving the façade of the residence on Lot 27 on Ramona Street • Considering a stucco wrap to enhance the recessed windows • Eliminating contrasting color at corner boards/trim for the single family residences • Increasing the gap on the good neighbor fence On November 19, 2008, the P&TC conducted its public hearing for the associated Tentative Map. The P&TC recommended that the City Council deny the Tentative Map because the proposal to create two separate commercial lots would degrade the center to the point where it is no longer viable, which would make it inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s policies to encourage high quality neighborhood centers. Several members of the P&TC expressed significant concerns that allowing the subdivision to create two commercial lots will lead to future sale of the commercial lots to different owners, which may lead to poor maintenance due to ownership conflicts. Details of each P&TC members’ comments are provided in the attached Minutes from the November 19, 2008 hearing (Attachment K-1). Approximately 16 members of the public spoke on the project. The primary concerns were regarding the community room hours and parking. The other primary concern raised by the P&TC, as well as members of the public was the hours of use for the Community Room (which was not part of the Tentative Map). All of the P&TC members stated that the availability of the community room should be expanded in some form. In particular, Commissioner Keller stated that the hours are too limited to provide a public benefit. Vice-Chair Tuma stated that limiting the hours makes the project inconsistent with the ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 122:09 Page 9 of 10 Comprehensive Plan Policy L-61 because it will not be available during daytime hours. Policy L-61 directs that the City “promote the use of community and cultural centers, libraries, local schools, parks, and other community facilities as gathering places. Ensure that they are inviting and safe places that can deliver a variety of community services during both daytime and evening hours.” Other P&TC members agreed with those statements. RESOURCE IMPACTS The vacant Alma Plaza site no longer generates revenue for the City. The proposed project would renovate and revitalize the site, generating one-time and ongoing revenues to the General Fund. Specifically, the one-time revenues would include documentary transfer taxes and development impact fees, totaling between $225,000 – 325,000. Additional revenues would include property taxes, sales taxes, and utility user taxes, ranging from $95,000 - $115,000 annually. Actual figures would depend on the sales prices of both the portion of the land to be developed into residential units, and the actual sales prices of the completed units, as well as other factors. On the expenditure side, the project would create 51 new residential units to the City’s housing stock. This will create new demands for City services, such as Community Services, Planning, Police and Fire. The development impact fees are designed to cover the incremental facility needs of the new residents, and service fees in Community Services and Planning are designed to recoup operating expenses associated with the delivery of classes, sports programs, plan reviews, project permits, and other services. Police and Fire services to these additional housing units would be paid by the General Fund and do not trigger the need for additional personnel or equipment. However, the project does contribute incrementally to those public service impacts. The project includes provision of parkland to serve as a local park for both the residents and users of the commercial businesses. Lastly, the processing of the development application is on a cost/recovery basis, and no additional funds are necessary for staffing. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Draft Record of Land Use Action provides the policies and programs listed in the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element that are pertinent to the project and most specifically to Neighborhood Commercial development. The project is a mixed use, compact development intended to support the immediate and surrounding neighborhood with a diverse range of housing, public park, community room and retail services. The project includes the redevelopment and revitalization of an existing neighborhood center. It also increases compatibility, interdependence and support between the center and surrounding new and existing neighborhoods. Attachment G outlines the specific Comprehensive Plan policies and programs supported by the project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved by the City Council for the PC Ordinance and subsequent applications on May 14, 2007, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The slight modifications to the site layout do not entail any additional impacts beyond those anticipated and addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The density and intensity of the development has not increased. The access and circulation of the project are substantially the same as the plans reviewed at the time. ______________________________________________________________________________ CMR: 122:09 Page 10 of 10 PREPARED BY: __________________________________ ELENA LEE Senior Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD: __________________________________ CURTIS WILLIAMS Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: __________________________________ JAMES KEENE City Manager ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Record of Land Use Action B. PC Ordinance 4956 C. Site Plan D. Tentative Map Site Plan E. Project Description F. Applicant Letters: (1) Letter from John McNellis, dated January 9, 2009 and (2) Letter from James Baer, dated January 12, 2009 G. Comprehensive Plan Policies H. Draft Community Room agreement I. Tentative Map and Site and Design plan set (Council members only) J. Public Correspondence K. Background Materials (Council members only and available online) K-1 November 19, 2008 P&TC Staff Report and Minutes (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/planning.asp) K-2 August 8, 2007 and September 19, 2007 P&TC Staff Reports and Minutes (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/planning.asp) K-3 February 21, April 3, and June 5, 2008 ARB Staff Reports and Minutes (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/architectural.asp) M. Letter from Dan O’Brien, dated January 16, 2009 COURTESY COPIES McNellis Properties Greenbriar Homes James E. Baer, Premier Properties Friends of Alma Plaza Dr. Van Der Wilt City of Palo Alto Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2007-08 Annual Report on City Government Performance January 2009 Re p o r t f r o m t h e C i t y A u d i t o r - 1 - City of Palo Alto Office of the City Auditor January 26, 2009 Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California City of Palo Alto Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report FY 2007-08 This is the City Auditor’s seventh annual Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report for the City of Palo Alto. The report is intended to be informational. It provides data about the costs, quality, quantity, and timeliness of City services. It includes a variety of comparisons to other cities, and the results of a citizen survey. Our goal is to provide the City Council, staff, and the public with an independent, impartial assessment of past performance to strengthen public accountability, improve government efficiency and effectiveness, and support future decision making. OVERALL SATISFACTION (pages 10-12 and pages 25-26) The sixth annual Citizen Survey, administered in conjunction with this report, reveals high ratings for City services. 85% rated the overall quality of City services good or excellent. Each year of the survey, 85% to 90% of respondents have rated the overall quality of City services good or excellent. When asked to rate the value of services for taxes paid to the City of Palo Alto, 64% rated the value of services as good or excellent. This placed Palo Alto in the 65th percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. This year, 63% of respondents reported they were pleased with the overall direction of the City (compared to 57% last year). 54% of respondents reported having contact with a City employee in the last 12 months, and 73% rated that contact good or excellent (compared to 79% last year). In comparison to responses from other jurisdictions, Palo Alto ranks in the 97th percentile for educational opportunities, 96th percentile for employment opportunities, 95th percentile as a place to live, 94th percentile as a place to raise children and 92nd percentile in overall quality of life. On the other hand, Palo Alto ranked in the 7th percentile for availability of affordable quality housing, 16th percentile for the variety of housing options, and 21st percentile for availability of quality child care. This year, Palo Alto ranked #3 for opportunities to volunteer, availability of preventive health services, and for the number of residents reporting they visited the City of Palo Alto website. This year’s survey included a new “Key Driver Analysis” to identify service areas that appear to influence overall ratings of satisfaction. Based on this analysis, “Street repair” and “Land use, planning and zoning” were the two areas most strongly correlated with ratings of overall service quality. 47% of Palo Alto residents rated street repair as good or excellent, a similar satisfaction level compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. While only 46% of surveyed residents rated Palo Alto’s land use, planning and zoning as good or excellent, this satisfaction level is more favorable compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2007-08 - 2 - OVERALL SPENDING, STAFFING, AND ACCOMPLISHMENT OF COUNCIL PRIORITIES (pages 17-27) General Fund spending increased from $114.4 million to $141.7 million (or 23%) over the last five years; Palo Alto’s estimated population increased 5.0% and inflation was about 13% over the same period. In FY 2007-08, total Citywide authorized staffing, including temporary and hourly positions, was 1,168 full-time equivalent employees (FTE), with 0% change from five years ago. On a per capita basis, FY 2007-08 net General Fund costs of $1,616 included: • $385 for police services • $218 for community services • $225 for fire and emergency medical services • $162 for public works • $143 for administrative, legislative, and support services • $103 for library services • $61 for planning, building, code enforcement • $203 in operating transfers out (including $140 in transfers for capital projects) • $117 for non-departmental expenses (including $102 paid to the school district) The General Fund invested $96 million in capital projects over the last five years. As a result, the Infrastructure Reserve decreased from $35.9 million in FY 2003-04 to $17.9 million in FY 2007-08. Capital spending last year totaled $57.7 million, including $21.6 million in the general governmental funds and $36.1 million in the enterprise funds. This year’s report includes information about resident perceptions and City progress in areas related to the City Council’s 2008 top priority areas (pages 22-27): o Library Building/Public Safety Building: Ratings for the quality of neighborhood branch libraries have declined over the last four years. Subsequent to FY 2007-08, in November 2008, Palo Alto voters approved Measure N to fund the construction of a new Mitchell Park Library/Community Center and to renovate the Downtown and Main libraries. o Environmental Protection: Residents rated Palo Alto’s overall environment more favorably, in comparison to other surveyed jurisdictions, and Palo Alto ranked #1 for the number of survey respondents reporting that they recycled used paper, cans or bottles from their home. o Civic Engagement: Residents rated opportunities to volunteer more favorably than other surveyed jurisdictions. Resident responses also showed an increase in visits to the City’s website (from 62% in 2007, to 78% in 2008). While ratings for Palo Alto’s overall image and reputation have remained consistently high (92% of respondents rated it as good or excellent), ratings for the job Palo Alto does at welcoming citizen involvement have declined (from 68% rating it as good or excellent in 2007, to 57% in 2008). o Economic Health: In 2008, resident responses revealed strong indications of the economy’s impact on household income – only 4% of respondents expected the coming 6 months would have a “somewhat” or “very” positive impact on their household income, compared with 20% to 27% in prior years. Affordable housing was a concern - 31% of survey participants were paying household costs of 30% or more of their monthly household income. SUMMARY - 3 - COMMUNITY SERVICES (pages 28-37) Over the last five years, spending on community services increased 11% to $21.2 million, while staffing decreased from 152 to 147 full-time equivalents. The department restructured last year and now operates under four divisions, rather than five. In FY 2007-08, volunteers donated more than 13,500 hours for open space restorative/resource management projects. Class enrollment increased last year from 18,433 to 19,018, however enrollment has decreased 16% compared to five years ago. Online class registrations remained steady at 43% during the last year. Compared to five years ago, attendance at Community Theatre performances has decreased more than 15% and attendance at Children’s Theatre performances has decreased 13%. In FY 2007-08, parks maintenance spending totaled about $4.2 million, or approximately $15,900 per acre maintained. About 22% of maintenance spending was contracted out. The Golf Course continues to break-even. 77% of surveyed residents rated the quality of recreation centers/facilities as good or excellent; 87% rated the quality of recreation programs/classes as good or excellent; 87% rated the range/variety of classes good or excellent; 74% rated the availability of paths or walking trails good or excellent; and 89% rated the quality of city parks good or excellent. In comparison to other jurisdictions, Palo Alto’s survey responses ranked in the 93rd percentile for recreation programs and classes, 91st in quality of parks, 93rd percentile in opportunities to attend cultural events, and 84th percentile in recreational opportunities. FIRE (pages 38-43) The Fire Department provides Palo Alto and Stanford residents and businesses with emergency response, environmental and safety services. Fire Department expenditures of $24 million were 28% more than five years ago. In FY 2007-08, 41% of costs were covered by revenue. In FY 2007-08, the Department responded to an average of 21 calls per day. The average response time for fire calls was 6:48 minutes, and the average response time for medical/rescue calls was 5:24 minutes. In FY 2007-08, there were more than 4,500 medical/rescue incidents, and only 192 fire incidents (including 43 residential structure fires). In FY 2007-08, the Department performed 1,277 fire inspections and 406 hazardous materials inspections, an increase of 9% and 57% respectively from five years ago. Palo Alto is the only city in Santa Clara County that provides primary ambulance transport services. 36.5% of line personnel are certified paramedics (an increase from 30% the prior year); the other 63.5% of line personnel are certified emergency medical technicians (EMTs). In FY 2007-08, the department provided 3,236 ambulance transports, an increase of 51% from five years ago. Residents give high marks to the quality of Fire Department service: 96% of surveyed residents rated fire services good or excellent, and 95% rated ambulance/emergency medical services good or excellent. In FY 2007-08, the Department provided 242 fire safety, bike safety, and disaster preparedness presentations to more than 22,000 residents. In response to a survey question about emergency preparedness, 60% of residents said that they were prepared to sustain themselves for 72 hours with sufficient food and water in the event of a major disaster such as an earthquake or flood. LIBRARY (pages 44-48) Operating expenditures for Palo Alto’s five library facilities rose 28% over the last five years to $6.8 million. Total circulation topped 1.5 million in FY 2007-08. More than 1 million first time checkouts were completed on the Library’s self-check machines, Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2007-08 - 4 - compared to about 171,500 five years ago. Over the last 5 years, the number of reference questions declined 44%, while the number of internet sessions increased 42% and the number of online database searches increased 115%. Volunteers donated nearly 6,000 hours of service to the libraries in FY 2007-08. 31% of survey respondents reported they used the library or its services more than 12 times last year. 76% of Palo Alto residents rated the quality of library services good or excellent (30th percentile in comparison to other jurisdictions asking this survey question), 71% rated the quality of neighborhood branch libraries good or excellent, and 67% rated the variety of library materials as good or excellent. PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT (pages 50-55) Planning and Community Environment expenditures totaled $9.6 million in FY 2007-08. This was offset by revenue of $5.8 million, a decrease from $6.6 million the prior year. A total of 257 planning applications were completed in FY 2007-08 – 37% fewer than five years ago. The average time to complete planning applications was 12.7 weeks. 63% of residents rated economic development as good or excellent; 57% rated the overall quality of new development in Palo Alto as good or excellent; and 59% of residents rated code enforcement services as good or excellent. 24% of residents consider run down buildings, weed lots, or junk vehicles a major or moderate problem. The department issued a total of 3,046 building permits in FY 2007-08 – about 6% fewer than 5 years ago. 53% of building permits were issued over the counter, a decrease of 22% from 5 years ago. For those permits that were not issued over the counter, the average for first response to plan checks was 23 days (compared to 27 days last year), and the average time to issue a building permit was 80 days (compared to 102 days last year). According to the department, 98% of building permit inspection requests were responded to within one working day. City Shuttle boardings are up 5% over the last five years, from about 171,000 in FY 2003-04 to about 178,500 in FY 2007-08. Caltrain weekly boardings are also up 62% over the last five years, from 2,825 to 4,589. In response to the 2008 National Citizen SurveyTM, 38% of residents rated the traffic flow on major streets as good or excellent. 40% of residents reported using alternative commute modes. POLICE (pages 56-63) Police Department spending increased 30% over the last five years, to $28.5 million. The department handled over 58,700 calls for service in FY 2007-08, or about 161 calls per day. Since last year, the average response times for emergency calls improved from 5:08 minutes to 4:32 minutes. Over the last five years, the total number of traffic collisions decreased by 25% and the number of bicycle/pedestrian collisions decreased by 8%. However, over the last 5 years, alcohol related collisions increased 24% and the number of DUI arrests increased from 172 to 343 (a 99% increase). Police Department statistics show 127 reported crimes per 1,000 residents, with 87 reported crimes per officer last year. FBI statistics show that Palo Alto has fewer violent crimes per thousand residents than many local jurisdictions. SUMMARY - 5 - Although the number of Part 1 crimes (crimes including assault, burglary, theft, rape and homicide) decreased 22% over the last five years and remained relatively stable from the prior year, resident perceptions of safety declined this year. This decline may reflect the increase in highly publicized street robberies and a homicide in the downtown area during 2008. While 96% of residents felt “very” or “somewhat” safe in Palo Alto’s downtown during the day, only 65% felt the same after dark (compared to 74% last year). 34% of survey respondents reported having contact with the Police Department and 73% of these rated the quality of their contact good or excellent. The Police Department reports it received 141 commendations and 20 complaints last year (one complaint was sustained). The Police Department also provides animal control services to Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills and Mountain View. 78% of survey respondents rated animal control services good or excellent, placing Palo Alto in the 97th percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. PUBLIC WORKS (pages 64-72) Over the last five years, Public Works street operating expenditures increased from $1.9 million to $2.5 million, and capital expenditures increased 73%, from $3.0 million to $5.2 million. The Public Works provides services through the General Fund for streets, sidewalks, trees, city facilities/engineering, and private development reviews. In FY 2007-08, the department repaired nearly 2,000 potholes, resurfaced 27 lane miles of streets, completed 27 ADA ramps, planted 188 trees, and maintained over 1.6 million square feet of facilities. In FY 2007-08, 53% of surveyed residents rated sidewalk maintenance good or excellent, and 68% rated tree maintenance as good or excellent. The department is also responsible for refuse collection and disposal ($28.6 million in FY 2007-08), storm drainage ($2.5 million in FY 2007-08), wastewater treatment ($18.1 million in FY 2007-08), and city fleet and equipment replacement and maintenance ($3.7 million in FY 2007-08). These services are provided through the Enterprise and Internal Service Funds. Over the last five years, tons of materials recycled increased 6%; tons of waste landfilled increased 1%; and tons of household hazardous materials collected increased 12%. In FY 2007-08, 92% of residents rated the quality of garbage collection as good or excellent (placing Palo Alto in the 90th percentile), and 90% rated recycling services good or excellent (97th percentile compared to other jurisdictions). 71% of residents rated storm drainage good or excellent (89th percentile compared to other jurisdictions). UTILITIES (pages 74-82) In FY 2007-08, operating expense for the electric utility totaled $99 million, including $71.1 million in electricity purchase costs (72% more than five years ago). The average monthly residential bill has increased 27% over the five year period. Average residential electric usage per capita decreased 2% from five years ago. As of June 30, 2008, more than 19% of Palo Alto customers had enrolled in the voluntary PaloAltoGreen energy program – supporting 100% renewable energy. 85% of surveyed residents rated electric utility services good or excellent. Operating expense for the gas utility totaled $36.6 million, including $27.2 million in gas purchases (compared to $15.9 million in gas purchases five years ago). The average monthly residential bill has increased 125% over the five year period. Average residential natural gas usage per capita declined 2% from five years ago. The number of service disruptions decreased 51% over the five year period. 84% of residents rated gas utility services good or excellent. Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2007-08 - 6 - Operating expense for the water utility totaled $18.3 million, including $8.4 million in water purchases (12% more than five years ago). The average residential water bill has increased 31% over the five year period. Average residential water usage per capita is down 12% from five years ago. 87% of residents rated water utility services good or excellent, up from 79% the prior year, and placing Palo Alto in the 99th percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. Operating expense for wastewater collection totaled $11.7 million in FY 2007-08, an increase of 28% over the last five years. The average residential sewer bill has increased 22% over the last five years. 81% of residents rated sewer services good or excellent. There were 174 sewage overflows in 2007. Operating expense for the fiber optic utility totaled $.4 million in FY 2007-08, while operating revenue totaled $3.1 million. Over the past five years, the number of service connections grew by 75% and operating revenue increased by 173%, while operating expense declined 51%. In FY 2007-08, the system served 45 business customers and several City departments. The fiber optic system is comprised of 40.6 miles of backbone fiber and 59 miles of service connection fiber. LEGISLATIVE AND SUPPORT SERVICES (pages 81-85) This category includes the Administrative Services and Human Resources departments, and the offices of the City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Auditor, and the City Council, and includes performance information related to these departments. By reviewing the entire report, readers will gain a better understanding of the mission and work of each of the City’s departments. The background section includes a community profile, discussion of service efforts and accomplishments reporting, and information about the preparation of this report. Chapter 1 provides a summary of overall City spending and staffing, and an overview of the City Council’s priorities. Chapters 2 through 9 present the mission statements, description of services, background information, workload, performance measures, and survey results for the various City services. The full results of the National Citizen SurveyTM are also attached. Additional copies of this report are available from the Auditor’s Office and are posted on the web at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/aud/service_efforts_and_accomplishments.asp. We thank the many departments and staff that contributed to this report. This report would not be possible without their support. Respectfully submitted, Lynda Flores Brouchoud City Auditor Audit staff and assistance: Edwin Young, Lisa Wehara, and Patricia Hilaire - 7 - TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND 9 Introduction 9 Community Profile 9 Scope and Methodology 12 Acknowledgements 15 CHAPTER 1 – OVERALL SPENDING, STAFFING & ACCOMPLISHMENT OF COUNCIL PRIORITIES 17 Per Capita Spending 18 Authorized Staffing 19 Capital Spending 21 Accomplishment of Council Priorities <NEW> 22 Library Building/Public Safety Building 22 Environmental Protection 23 Civic Engagement 25 Economic Health 27 CHAPTER 2 – COMMUNITY SERVICES 28 Spending and Revenue 29 Department-Wide Classes 30 Arts & Sciences Division 31 Open Space & Parks Division 33 Recreation & Golf Services Division 35 Cubberley Community Center & Human Services Division 37 CHAPTER 3 – FIRE 38 Fire Department Spending 39 Fire Department Staffing and Calls for Service 40 Fire Suppression 41 Emergency Medical Services 42 Hazardous Materials and Fire Safety 43 CHAPTER 4 – LIBRARY 44 Library Spending 45 Library Staffing 46 Library Collection and Circulation 47 Library Services 48 Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2007-08 - 8 - CHAPTER 5 – PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT 50 Spending and Staffing 51 Advance Planning and Development Review 52 Advance Planning and Code Enforcement 53 Building Permits and Inspections 54 Transportation Planning 55 CHAPTER 6 – POLICE 56 Police Spending and Revenue 57 Calls for Service 58 Crime 59 Perceptions of Safety 60 Police Staffing, Equipment, and Training 61 Traffic and Parking Control 62 Animal Services 63 CHAPTER 7 – PUBLIC WORKS 64 Streets 65 Sidewalks 66 Trees 67 City Facilities, Engineering & Private Development 68 Storm Drains 69 Wastewater Treatment & Wastewater Environmental Compliance 70 Refuse 71 City Fleet & Equipment 72 CHAPTER 8 – UTILITIES 74 Electricity 75 Gas 77 Water 79 Wastewater Collection 81 Fiber Optic Utility 82 CHAPTER 9 – LEGISLATIVE AND SUPPORT SERVICES 84 Spending and Staffing 85 Administrative Services 86 Human Resources 87 City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Auditor 88 NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEYTM City of Palo Alto Summary Report 2008 Attachment 1 City of Palo Alto Benchmark Report 2008 Attachment 2 BACKGROUND - 9 - BACKGROUND INTRODUCTION This is the seventh annual report on the City of Palo Alto’s Service Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA). The purpose of the report is to • Provide consistent, reliable information on the performance of City services, • Broadly assess trends in government efficiency and effectiveness, and • Improve City accountability to the public. The report contains summary information on spending and staffing, workload, and performance results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (FY 2007-08). It also includes the results of a resident survey rating the quality of City services. The report provides two types of comparisons: • Five-year historical trends for fiscal years 2003-04 through 2007-08 • Selected comparisons to other cities. There are many ways to look at services and performance. This report looks at services on a department-by-department basis. All City departments are included in our review. Chapter 1 provides a summary of overall spending and staffing over the last five years, as well as an overall description of the City’s accomplishments in meeting the City Council’s annual priorities. Chapters 2 through 9 present the mission statements, description of services, background information, workload, performance measures, and survey results for: • Community Services • Fire • Library • Planning and Community Environment • Police • Public Works • Utilities • Legislative and Support Services COMMUNITY PROFILE Incorporated in 1894, Palo Alto is a largely built-out community of over 63,000 residents. The city covers about 26 square miles, stretching from the edges of San Francisco Bay to the ridges of the San Francisco peninsula. Located mid-way between San Francisco and San Jose, Palo Alto is in the heart of the Silicon Valley. Stanford University, adjacent to Palo Alto and one of the top-rated institutions of higher education in the nation, has produced much of the talent that founded successful high-tech companies in Palo Alto and Silicon Valley. DEMOGRAPHICS Palo Alto is a highly educated community. According to the U.S. Census Bureau 2005-2007 American Community Survey, of residents aged 25 years and over: • 78% had a bachelor’s degree or higher • 48% had a graduate or professional degree. This data prompted Forbes to recently name Palo Alto third in the top ten list of “America’s Most Educated Small Towns,” and first in California. An estimated 64% of Palo Alto’s population is in the labor force and the average travel time to work is estimated at 21 minutes. In 2007, the median household income was around $119,000, while the average was around $158,850. The breakdown of estimated household income consisted of: Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2007-08 - 10 - 2007 Household Income Percent $49,999 or less 21% $50,000 to $149,999 40% $150,000 or more 39% Total 100% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2005-2007 American Community Survey According to census statistics, 69% of Palo Alto residents were white, and 23% were of Asian descent: Race-ethnicity Population Percent One race 62,202 98% White 44,214 70% Asian 14,893 23% Black or African American 1,075 2% Other 2,020 3% Two or more races 1,550 2% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 3,746 6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2005-2007 American Community Survey Over the last three years, from 2005-2007, the median age of Palo Alto residents was 42 years. The following table shows population by age: Age Population Percent Under 5 years 3,893 6% 18 years and over 48,980 77% 65 years and over 9,654 15% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2005-2007 American Community Survey The majority of residents own their homes, but a large number of dwellings are renter occupied: Housing occupancy Number Percent Owner occupied 15,326 57% Renter occupied 10,160 38% Vacant 1,249 5% Total 26,735 100% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2005-2007 American Community Survey OVERALL COMMUNITY QUALITY Based on the survey results, residents give high ratings to Palo Alto’s quality of life. When asked to rate the overall quality of life in Palo Alto, 44% of residents said “excellent”, 47% said “good”, 8% said “fair”, and 1% said “poor.” In comparison to other jurisdictions1, Palo Alto ranked in the 92nd percentile for overall quality of life, 98th percentile as a place to work, and in the 95th percentile as a place to live. These high ratings are consistent with prior surveys. Community quality ratings Percent rating Palo Alto good or excellent National ranking Overall quality of life 91% 92%ile Palo Alto as a place to work 90% 98%tile Palo Alto as a place to live 91% 95%ile Palo Alto as a place to raise children 94% 94%ile Neighborhood as a place to live 91% 91%ile Palo Alto as a place to retire 67% 72%ile Services to seniors 81% 94%ile Services to youth 73% 90%ile Services to low-income 46% 79%ile Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 2008 (Palo Alto) Palo Alto ranked in the 97th percentile for educational opportunities, 94th percentile as a place to raise children, 94th percentile for services to seniors, and 90th percentile for services to youth. Although only 46% of residents rated Palo Alto’s services to low-income people as excellent or good, these ratings were enough to place Palo Alto above the benchmark comparison. Palo Alto “as a place to retire”, ranked somewhat lower, in the 72nd percentile, but this rating is an improvement over last year’s 65th percentile ranking. 85% of residents plan to remain in Palo Alto for the next five years and 91% of residents would likely recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks. These questions were not asked in previous surveys. According to the National Research Center, intentions to stay and 1 Based on survey results from approximately 500 jurisdictions collected by the National Research Center, Inc. (see Attachment 3). See also page 14 of this report for further information about benchmark comparisons in the survey. BACKGROUND - 11 - willingness to make recommendations, provide evidence that the City of Palo Alto provides services and amenities that work. SENSE OF COMMUNITY <REVISED> Residents give favorable ratings to Palo Alto’s community and reputation. 92% of residents rated Palo Alto’s overall image/reputation as good or excellent, placing Palo Alto in the 97th percentile compared to other jurisdictions asking a similar question. Most residents (70%) rated Palo Alto’s “sense of community” as good or excellent. Most residents (77%) also felt that the Palo Alto community was open and accepting towards people of diverse backgrounds. These results placed Palo Alto in the 75th and 91st percentiles, respectively, compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. Community characteristics Percent rating Palo Alto good or excellent National ranking Overall image/reputation of Palo Alto 92% 97%ile Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 77% 91%ile Sense of community 70% 75%ile Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 2008 (Palo Alto) This year’s survey also included additional questions to assess resident involvement with neighbors. 93% of residents reported helping a friend or neighbor within the last 12 months, similar to the benchmark. 80% of residents talked or visited with their neighbors at least once a month, below the benchmark comparison. Community characteristics Percent participation Benchmark Comparison Provided help to a friend or neighbor within last 12 months <NEW> 93% Similar Talk or visit with your immediate neighbors at least once a month <NEW> 80% Below Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 2008 (Palo Alto) COMMUNITY AMENITIES <REVISED> In comparisons to other jurisdictions, Palo Alto residents give high ratings to educational and employment opportunities, ranking in the 97th and 96th percentiles compared to other jurisdictions. Although 61% of residents rated Palo Alto’s employment opportunities as good or excellent, this places Palo Alto in the 96th percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. On the other hand, Palo Alto ranks in the 7th percentile when rating availability of affordable quality housing and the 21st percentile in availability of affordable quality child care. Community amenities Percent rating Palo Alto good or excellent National ranking Educational opportunities 94% 97%ile Employment opportunities 61% 96%ile Overall quality of business and service establishments <NEW> 76% 86%ile Traffic flow on major streets <NEW> 38% 80%ile Availability of preventive health services <NEW> 70% 88 %ile Availability of affordable quality health care 57% 81%ile Availability of affordable quality child care 28% 21%ile Variety of housing options <NEW> 34% 16%ile Availability of affordable quality housing 13% 7%ile Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 2008 (Palo Alto) In 2008, the rate of population growth in Palo Alto was viewed as “too fast” by 51% of survey respondents (compared to 55% last year). 47% said population growth was the “right amount”. KEY DRIVER ANALYSIS <NEW> This year’s survey report from the National Research Center (see Attachment 1 of this report, pages 44-46) analyzed the responses from Palo Alto’s annual National Citizen Survey to provide an analysis of “Key Drivers” and an overall evaluation of services by category. According to the report, local government core services – like fire protection- land at the top of the list when residents are asked about the most important local government services. However, Key Driver Analysis reveals service areas that influence residents’ overall ratings for quality of government services. Examining services that have the Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2007-08 - 12 - greatest likelihood of influencing residents’ opinions about overall service quality, may help government better focus its efforts. Based on Palo Alto’s survey results, “Street repair” and “Land use, planning and zoning” were the two areas most strongly correlated with ratings of overall service quality. 47% of Palo Alto residents rated street repair as good or excellent, 30% as fair, and 23% as poor. These ratings are consistent with prior year survey results and the satisfaction level is similar in comparison to other surveyed jurisdictions. Street repair has been a frequent topic in Palo Alto discussions. In 2006, the City Auditor issued an “Audit of Street Maintenance” with recommendations to improve Palo Alto’s street maintenance program. The street maintenance program is also included in the City’s infrastructure funding backlog. Efforts have been made to improve this service area and the survey results appear to indicate these efforts should continue. While only 46% of surveyed residents rated Palo Alto’s land use, planning and zoning as good or excellent, these ratings are more favorable compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. In the coming year, key decisions about land use, planning and zoning will likely be discussed as the City updates its Comprehensive Plan. Based on the survey results and Key Driver Analysis, these decisions are also likely to influence resident perceptions. GOVERNMENT Palo Alto is a charter city, operating under a council/manager form of government. There is a 9-member City Council, and a number of Council-appointed boards and commissions.2 Each January, the City Council appoints a new mayor and vice-mayor and then adopts priorities for the calendar year. The City Council’s top 4 priorities for 2008 included: • Library/Public Safety building • Environmental Protection • Civic Engagement • Economic Health 2 Additional information about the City’s boards and commissions can be found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/default.asp. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY The City Auditor’s Office prepared this report in accordance with the City Auditor’s FY 2008-09 Work Plan. The scope of our review covered information and results for the City’s departments for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2007 and ending June 20, 2008 (FY 2007-08). We conducted this work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. These standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. The City Auditor’s Office compiled, examined, and reviewed sources of departmental data in order to provide reasonable assurance that the data we compiled is accurate, however we did not conduct detailed testing of that data. Our staff reviewed the data for reasonableness, accuracy, and consistency, based on our knowledge and information from comparable sources and prior years’ reports. Our reviews are not intended to provide absolute assurance that all data elements provided by management are free from error. Rather, we intend to provide reasonable assurance that the data present a picture of the efforts and accomplishments of the City departments and programs. When possible, we have included in the report a brief explanation of internal or external factors that may have affected the performance results. However, while the report may offer insights on service results, this insight is for informational purposes and does not thoroughly analyze the causes of negative or positive performance. Some results or performance changes can be explained simply. For others, more detailed analysis by City departments or performance audits may be necessary to provide reliable explanation for results. This report can help focus research on the most significant areas of interest or concern. BACKGROUND - 13 - SERVICE EFFORTS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORTING In 1994, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued Concepts Statement No. 2, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting.3 The statement broadly describes “why external reporting of SEA measures is essential to assist users both in assessing accountability and in making informed decisions to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of governmental operations.” According to the statement, the objective of SEA reporting is to provide more complete information about a governmental entity’s performance than can be provided by the traditional financial statements and schedules, and to assist users in assessing the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of services provided. Other organizations including the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) and International City/County Management Association (ICMA) have long been advocates of performance measurement in the public sector. For example, the ICMA Performance Measurement Program provides local government benchmarking information for a variety of public services. In 2003, GASB issued a special report on Reporting Performance Information: Suggested Criteria for Effective Communication that describes sixteen criteria that state and local governments can use when preparing external reports on performance information.4 Using the GASB criteria, the Association of Government Accountants (AGA) initiated a Certificate of Excellence in Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting project in 2003, in which Palo Alto was a charter participant. Our last four reports received the Association’s Certificate of Achievement for producing a high quality Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report. The City of Palo Alto has reported various performance indicators for a number of years. In particular, the City’s budget document includes “benchmark” measures.5 Benchmarks include input, output, efficiency, 3 On December 15, 2008 GASB issued Concepts Statement No.5, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting, which amended Concepts Statement No.2. No effective date had been determined as of the writing of this report. Further information is on-line at http://www.gasb.org/st/index.html. 4 A summary of the GASB special report on reporting performance information is online at http://www.seagov.org/sea_gasb_project/criteria_summary.pdf 5 In FY 2004-05, new “benchmarking” measures replaced the “impact” measures that were formerly in the budget document. The benchmarks were and effectiveness measures. This report builds on existing systems and measurement efforts. The City’s operating budget document incorporates benchmarking measures included in this Service Efforts and Accomplishments report. Similarly, where we included budget benchmarking measures in this document, they are noted with the symbol ““. This year, we also added a symbol to indicate areas in the report that are related to the City Council’s Top 4 Priorities for 2008. They are noted with the symbol “ ”. SELECTION OF INDICATORS We limited the number and scope of workload and performance measures in this report to items where information was available, meaningful in the context of the City’s performance, and items we thought would be of general interest to the public. This report is not intended to be a complete set of performance measures for all users. From the outset of this project, we decided to use existing data sources to the extent possible. We reviewed existing benchmarking measures from the City’s adopted budget documents6, community indicators in the Comprehensive Plan7, performance measures from other jurisdictions, and benchmarking information from the ICMA8 and other professional organizations. We used audited information from the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs).9 We cited departmental mission statements and performance targets10 that are taken from the City’s annual operating budget where they are subject to public scrutiny and City Council approval as part of the annual budget process. We held numerous discussions with City staff to determine developed by staff and reviewed by the City Council as part of the annual budget process. 6 The budget is on-line at www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/asd/budget.asp. The operating budget includes additional performance information. 7 The Comprehensive Plan is on-line at: http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/knowzone/. 8 International City/County Management Association (ICMA), Comparative Performance Measurement FY 2005 Data Report. This report summarizes data from 87 jurisdictions, including several from California. 9 The CAFR is on-line at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/asd/financial_reporting.asp. 10 The operating budget may include additional performance targets for the budget benchmarking measures that are noted in this document with the symbol “”. Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2007-08 - 14 - what information was available and reliable, and best summarized the services they provide. Wherever possible we have included five years of data. Generally speaking, it takes at least three data points to show a trend. Although Palo Alto’s size precludes us from significantly disaggregating data (such as into districts), where program data was available, we disaggregated the information. For example, we have disaggregated performance information about some services based on age of participant, location of service, or other relevant factors. Indicators that are in alignment with the City’s Climate Protection Plan11, Zero Waste Plan12 and/or sustainability goals are noted in the tables with an “S”. Consistency of information is important to us. However, we occasionally add or delete some information that was included in a previous report. This seventh annual SEA report incorporates new information about accomplishments of the City Council’s 2008 top priorities (page 22). Performance measures and survey information that have changed since the last report are noted in the tables as <NEW> or <REVISED>. We will continue to use City Council, public, and staff feedback to ensure that the information items that we include in this report are meaningful and useful. We welcome your input. Please contact us with suggestions at city.auditor@cityofpaloalto.org. THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEYTM The National Citizen SurveyTM is a collaborative effort between the National Research Center, Inc. (NRC), and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA).13 Respondents in each jurisdiction 11 More information about the City’s plan to protect the environment and other sustainability efforts is online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/environment. 12 More information about the City’s Zero Waste Plan is online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pwd/recycle/default.asp. 13 The full report of Palo Alto’s survey results can be found in Attachments 1-3. The full text of previous survey results can be found in the appendices of our previous reports online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/aud/service_efforts_and_accomplishments.asp. are selected at random. Participation is encouraged with multiple mailings and self-addressed, postage-paid envelopes. Results are statistically re-weighted, if necessary, to reflect the proper demographic composition of the entire community. Surveys were mailed to a total of 1,200 Palo Alto households in September 2008. Completed surveys were received from 415 residents, for a response rate of 36%. Typical response rates obtained on citizen surveys range from 25% to 40%. It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a “level of confidence” (or margin of error). The 95% confidence level for this survey of 1,200 residents is generally no greater than plus or minus 5 percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample. The scale on which respondents are asked to record their opinions about service and community quality is “excellent”, “good”, “fair”, and “poor”. Unless stated otherwise, the survey data included in this report displays the responses only from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item – “don’t know” answers have been removed. This report contains comparisons of survey data from prior years. Differences from the prior year can be considered “statistically significant” if they are greater than seven percentage points. In 2008, NRC changed some of the standard survey questions based on user feedback. It also changed its report format. As a result, the survey information and presentation in this report have changed from prior years. The NRC has collected citizen survey data from more than 500 jurisdictions in the United States. Inter-jurisdictional comparisons are available when similar questions are asked in at least five other jurisdictions. When comparisons are available, results are noted as being “above” the benchmark, “below” the benchmark, or “similar to” the benchmark. NRC provided our office with additional data to calculate the percentile ranking for comparable questions. In 2006, the ICMA and NRC announced “Voice of the People” awards for surveys conducted in the prior year. To win, a jurisdiction’s National Citizen Survey rating for service quality must be one of the top three BACKGROUND - 15 - among all eligible jurisdictions and in the top 10% of over 500 jurisdictions in the NRC database of citizen surveys. Since the beginning of the award program, Palo Alto has won: 2005 – 5 categories: Emergency medical, Fire, Garbage collection, Park, and Police services 2006 – 4 categories: Emergency medical, Fire, Garbage collection, and Recreation services 2007 – 5 categories: Emergency medical, Fire, Garbage collection, Park, and Recreation services POPULATION Where applicable, we have used the most recent estimates of Palo Alto resident population from the California Department of Finance, as shown in the following table.14 Year Population FY 2003-04 60,589 FY 2004-05 61,650 FY 2005-06 62,424 FY 2006-07 62,615 FY 2007-08 63,367 Percent change over last 5 years:+5.0% We used population figures from sources other than the Department of Finance for some comparisons to other jurisdictions, but only in cases where comparative data was available only on that basis. Some departments15 serve expanded service areas. For example, the Fire Department serves Palo Alto, Stanford, and Los Altos Hills (seasonally). The Regional Water Quality Control Plan serves Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford, and East Palo Alto. 14 The Department of Finance periodically revises prior year estimates. Where applicable we used their revised population estimates to recalculate certain indicators in this report. 15 Additional information about the City’s departments can be found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/default.asp. INFLATION Financial data has not been adjusted for inflation. In order to account for inflation, readers should keep in mind that the San Francisco Area Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers has increased by 13% over the 5 years of financial data that is included in this report. The index increased as follows: Date Index June 2004 199.0 June 2005 201.2 June 2006 209.1 June 2007 216.1 June 2008 225.2 Percent change over last 5 years:+13% ROUNDING For readability, most numbers in this report are rounded. In some cases, tables or graphs may not add to 100% or to the exact total because of rounding. In most cases the calculated “percent change over the last 5 years” is based on the percentage change in the underlying numbers, not the rounded numbers. However, where the data is expressed in percentages, the change over 5 years is the difference between the first and last year. COMPARISONS TO OTHER CITIES Where possible we included comparisons to nearby California cities. The choice of the cities that we use for our comparisons may vary depending on whether data is easily available. Regardless of which cities are included, comparisons to other cities should be used carefully. We tried to include “apples to apples” comparisons, but differences in costing methodologies and program design may account for unexplained variances between cities. For example, the California State Controller’s Office gathers and publishes comparative financial information from all California cities.16 We used this information where possible, but noted that cities provide different levels of service and categorize expenditures in different ways. 16 California State Controller, Cities Annual Report Fiscal Year 2005-06 (http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard/local/locrep/cities/reports/0405cities.pdf). Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2007-08 - 16 - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report could not have been prepared without the cooperation and assistance of City management and staff from every City department. Our thanks to all of them for their help. We also want to thank the City Council and community members who reviewed last year’s report and provided thoughtful comments. We would also like to acknowledge our debt to the City of Portland Auditor’s Office that pioneered local government accountability for performance through its “City of Portland Service Efforts and Accomplishments” report – now in its 18th year of publication. General Fund operating expenditures and other uses of funds (in millions) Admin. Depts1 Community Services Fire Library Planning and Community Environment Police Public Works Non- departmental2 Operating transfers out3 TOTAL Enterprise Fund operating expenses FY 2003-04 $14.9 $19.1 $18.8 $5.3 $8.5 $22.0 $10.6 $5.9 $9.2 $114.4 $158.2 FY 2004-05 $15.2 $19.1 $19.1 $5.1 $9.1 $22.5 $11.0 $8.6 $8.24 $118.04 $162.6 FY 2005-06 $15.3 $19.5 $20.2 $5.7 $9.2 $24.4 $11.3 $13.6 $8.0 $127.1 $183.7 FY 2006-07 $15.9 $20.1 $21.6 $5.9 $9.4 $25.9 $12.4 $8.5 $12.7 $132.4 $190.3 FY 2007-08 $17.4 $21.2 $24.0 $6.8 $9.7 $29.4 $12.9 $7.4 $12.9 $141.7 $215.8 Change over last 5 years +16% +11% +28% +28% +13% +34% +22% +24% +40% +23% +36% 1 Includes the City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Council, City Auditor, Administrative Services Department, and Human Resources Department. These departments allocate a portion of their expenses to the Enterprise and Internal Service Funds. 2 Includes payments to the Palo Alto Unified School District as part of the Cubberley lease and covenant not to develop ($6.4 million in FY 2007-08). 3 Includes transfers from the General Fund to the Capital Projects Fund and debt service funds. 4 Does not include FY 2004-05 transfer of the Infrastructure Reserve ($35.9 million) from the General Fund to the Capital Fund. CHAPTER 1 – OVERALL SPENDING, STAFFING & ACCOMPLISHMENT OF COUNCIL PRIORITIES OVERALL SPENDING Palo Alto, like other cities, uses various funds to track specific activities. The General Fund is used for all general revenues and governmental functions including parks, fire, libraries, planning, police, public works, legislative, and support services. These services are supported by general City revenues and program fees. Enterprise Funds are used to account for the City’s utilities (including water, electricity, gas, wastewater collection and treatment, refuse, and storm drains) and are generally supported by charges paid by users based on the amount of service they use. The pie chart to the right shows where a General Fund dollar goes. The table below shows more detail. In FY 2007-08, the City’s total General Fund expenditures and other uses of funds totaled $141.7 million. This included $12.9 million in transfers to other funds (including $11.8 million for capital projects and $1.1 million for debt service). Total General Fund uses of funds increased 24% over the last five years (some expenses were transferred to other funds), or less than inflation (13% over the same five-year period). Where does a General Fund dollar go? Non-Departmental 5% Public Works 9% Police 21%Planning and Community Environment 7% Library 5% Fire 17% Community Services 15% Administrative depts 12% Operating Transfers Out 9% Source: FY 2007-08 expenditure data -17- Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2007-08 PER CAPITA SPENDING There are at least two ways to look at per capita spending: annual spending (shown below) and net cost (shown on the right). As shown below, in FY 2007-08, General Fund operating expenditures and other uses of funds totaled $2,237 per Palo Alto resident, including operating transfers to fund the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). However, as shown on the right, General Fund departments generate revenues or are reimbursed for some of their activities by other jurisdictions and/or the enterprise funds. As a result, we estimate the net General Fund cost per resident in FY 2007-08 was about $1,616. Enterprise Fund operating expenses totaled $3,405 per capita. Palo Alto’s enterprise funds include Electric, Gas, Water, Wastewater Collection, Wastewater Treatment, Refuse, Storm Drainage, and External Services. Enterprise funds generally work like a business and charge fees to cover the cost of services. Net General Fund Cost Per Resident2 On a per capita basis, FY 2007-08 Net General Fund costs of $1,616 included: • $385 for police services • $218 for community services • $225 for fire and emergency medical services1 • $162 for public works y $143 for administrative, legislative, and support services • $103 for library services • $61 for planning, building, code enforcement • $203 in operating transfers out (including $186 in transfers for capital projects) • $117 for non-departmental expenses (including $102 paid to the school district) Estimated per capita General Fund spending and other uses of funds3 Per capita3 Administrative departments Community Services Fire1 Library Planning and Community Environment Police Public Works Non- depart- mental Operating transfers out TOTAL Capital outlay (governmental funds) Enterprise Fund operating expenses (includes capital) Net General Fund cost per resident FY 2003-04 $247 $316 $311 $88 $141 $363 $175 $98 $152 $1,890 $368 $2,611 $1,381 FY 2004-05 $247 $311 $310 $83 $148 $366 $179 $140 $134 $1,917 $346 $2,637 $1,390 FY 2005-06 $245 $313 $324 $91 $147 $392 $182 $219 $128 $2,040 $212 $2,943 $1,371 FY 2006-07 $255 $322 $345 $94 $150 $414 $199 $136 $203 $2,118 $279 $3,039 $1,518 FY 2007-08 $274 $335 $378 $108 $153 $464 $204 $117 $204 $2,237 $341 $3,405 $1,616 Change over last 5 years:+11% +6% +22% +22% +8% +28% +17% +19% +34% +18% -7% +30% +17% 1 Not adjusted for Fire department’s expanded service area. 2 Net cost is defined as total program cost less the revenues/reimbursements generated by the specific activities. 3 Where applicable, prior year per capita costs have been recalculated based on revised population estimates from the California Department of Finance. -18- Chapter 1 – OVERALL Total General Fund authorized staffing (FTE1) Total other authorized staffing (FTE1) Admin. Depts. Community Services Fire Library Planning and Community Environment Police Public Works Subtotal Refuse Fund Storm Drainage Fund Wastewater Treatment Fund Electric, Gas, Water, and Wastewater Other2 Subtotal TOTAL (FTE1) FY 2003-04 108 3 152 128 54 61 177 77 757 34 10 69 241 733 416 1,172 FY 2004-05 108 158 129 56 61 173 75 759 35 10 69 241 75 430 1,189 FY 2005-06 98 146 126 57 53 169 69 718 35 10 69 241 78 432 1,150 FY 2006-07 100 148 128 57 55 168 68 725 35 10 69 243 78 435 1,160 FY 2007-08 108 147 128 56 54 169 71 733 35 10 69 244 78 436 1,168 Change over last 5 years +1% -4% 0% +4% -11% -5% -8% -3% +4% -3% 0% +6% +7% +5% 0% 1 Includes authorized temporary and hourly positions and allocated departmental administration. 2 Includes the Technology Fund, Capital Fund, Special Revenue, and Internal Service Funds. 3 Net General Fund regular position changes since June 30, 2003, included 30 FTE eliminated in FY 2003-04, 1 FTE eliminated in FY 2004-05, 16 FTE eliminated in FY 2005-06, 3 FTE added in FY 2006-07, and 2 FTE eliminated in FY 2007-08. 4 Regular positions moved from the General Fund to other funds and included 52 FTE moved to other funds in FY 2003-04 (including 33 FTE in IT Division moved to Technology Fund), 3 FTE moved to other funds in FY 2004-05, 6 FTE moved to other funds in FY 2005-06, and none in FY 2006-07. In FY 2007-08, 2 positions were added to the General Fund. AUTHORIZED STAFFING City staffing is measured in full-time equivalent staff, or FTE. In FY 2007-08, there were a total of 1,168 authorized FTE citywide – including about 733 authorized FTE in General Fund departments, and about 436 authorized FTE in other funds.1 112 authorized positions were vacant as of June 30, 2008. Over the last five years, total FTE (including authorized temporary and hourly positions) remained flat. • General Fund FTE decreased by 3%, including 47 regular FTE eliminated3 and 59 regular FTE moved to other funds.4 • Authorized staffing in other funds increased by 5%, including the 59 regular FTE moved from the General Fund4 and 2 regular FTE added. Total Full-Time Equivalent Staff (includes authorized temporary staffing) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 FY 1 9 9 8 - 99 FY 19 99 - 00 FY 20 00- 0 1 FY 20 01 - 02 FY 20 02- 0 3 FY 20 03 -0 4 FY 20 04- 0 5 FY 2 0 0 5 - 06 FY 20 06- 0 7 FY 2 0 0 7 - 08 Enterprise Fund FTE General Fund FTE Source: Operating budgets -19 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2007-08 AUTHORIZED STAFFING (cont.) As shown in the graph to the right, Palo Alto had more employees per 1,000 residents than several other local jurisdictions. However staffing comparisons between cities are problematic – no other city in California offers a full complement of utility services like Palo Alto, and Palo Alto employees provide some services to other jurisdictions that are reimbursed by those jurisdictions (e.g. fire, dispatch, information technology, water treatment, and animal control). Citywide regular authorized staffing decreased 2% over the past five years from 1,093 to 1,077 FTE. Authorized temporary and hourly staffing increased from 79 FTE to 91 FTE citywide. Of total staffing, about 8% is temporary or hourly. General Fund salaries and wages (not including overtime) increased 15% over the last five years. Over the same period, employee benefit expense increased 56% – from $19.1 million (38% of salaries and wages) to $29.8 million (52% of salaries and wages).3 Employees Per 1,000 Residents (FY 2006-07) 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 San Mateo Redwood City Sunnyvale Mt View San Jose Santa Clara Berkeley PALO ALTO Source: Cities’ Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and Operating Budgets Regular authorized staffing citywide (FTE) Authorized temporary and hourly staffing citywide (FTE) Total authorized staffing citywide (FTE) Total authorized staffing per 1,000 residents General Fund salaries and wages1 (in millions) General Fund overtime (in millions) General Fund employee benefits (in millions) Employee benefits rate2 Employee costs as a percentage of total General Fund expenditures FY 2003-04 1,093 79 1,172 19.4 $49.8 $3.3 $19.1 38% 63% FY 2004-05 1,094 96 1,189 19.3 $52.3 $3.6 $23.7 45% 68% FY 2005-06 1,074 76 1,150 18.4 $53.2 $3.4 $26.4 50% 64% FY 2006-07 1,080 80 1,160 18.5 $53.9 $4.0 $26.1 48% 65% FY 2007-08 1,077 91 1,168 18.4 $57.3 $4.2 $29.8 52% 64% Change over last 5 years -2% +16% 0% -5% +15% +27% +56% +14% +1% 1 Does not include overtime 2 “Employee benefits rate” is General Fund benefit costs as a percentage of General Fund salaries and wages, not including overtime. 3 For more information on projected salary and benefits costs see the City of Palo Alto Long Range Financial Forecast at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/asd/financial_reporting.asp -20 - Chapter 1 – OVERALL CAPITAL SPENDING Several years ago the City inventoried, assessed, and prioritized work on its buildings, facilities, streets, sidewalks, medians, bikeways, parks, and open space. This effort resulted in a long-term plan to rehabilitate Palo Alto’s General Fund infrastructure. Infrastructure remains a City Council priority. With the implementation of GASB Statement 34 in FY 2001-02, the City has recorded all its capital assets in its citywide financial statements.2 Capital assets are valued at historical cost, net of accumulated depreciation. This includes buildings and structures, vehicles and equipment, roadways, and utility distribution systems. As shown in the graph on the right, capital outlay by governmental funds1 has increased over ten years ago. As of June 30, 2008, net general capital assets totaled $351.9 million (14% more than 5 years ago). The General Fund invested $96 million in capital projects over the last 5 years, spending down reserves set aside to fund infrastructure rehabilitation. The Infrastructure Reserve fell to $17.9 million (compared to $35.9 million 5 years ago). The enterprise funds invested $36.1 million in capital projects in FY 2007-08, for a total of $130.8 million over the last 5 years. As of June 30, 2008, net Enterprise Fund capital assets totaled $416.6 million. Capital Outlay - Government Funds (in millions)1 $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 1992 - 93 1993 - 94 19 94 - 95 1995 - 96 1996 - 97 19 9 7 - 9 8 1998 - 99 1999 - 00 20 0 0 - 0 1 20 0 1 - 0 2 2002 - 03 20 0 3 - 0 4 20 0 4 - 0 5 20 0 5 - 0 6 20 0 6 - 0 7 20 0 7 - 0 8 Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports General governmental funds (in millions) Enterprise funds (in millions) Infrastructure Reserve (in millions) Net general capital assets Capital outlay1 Depreciation Net Enterprise Fund capital assets Capital expense Depreciation FY 2003-04 $35.9 $310.0 $22.3 $8.8 $329.1 $22.8 $11.4 FY 2004-05 $25.2 $318.5 $21.3 $9.5 $346.9 $22.8 $11.7 FY 2005-06 $20.7 $324.8 $13.2 $12.3 $360.9 $20.3 $11.8 FY 2006-07 $15.8 $335.7 $17.5 $11.0 $383.8 $28.9 $12.7 FY 2007-08 $17.9 $351.9 $21.6 $11.2 $416.6 $36.1 $12.7 Change over last 5 years -50% +14% -3% +27% +27% +58% +11% 1 Includes capital expenditures in the General Fund, Capital Projects and Special Revenue funds. Does not include capital expense associated with Utility or other enterprise funds. 2 The City’s financial statements are on-line at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/asd/financial_reporting.asp. -21 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2007-08 Source: 2008 National Citizen SurveyTM (Palo Alto) ACCOMPLISHMENT OF COUNCIL PRIORITIES <NEW> RESIDENT PERCEPTIONS AND CITY PROGRESS IN AREAS OF 2008 COUNCIL PRIORITIES In 2008, the City Council had 4 top priority areas:1 1) Library Building/Public Safety Building 2) Environmental Protection 3) Civic Engagement 4) Economic Health The 2008 National Citizen SurveyTM results and progress in these areas indicate the following:2 LIBRARY BUILDING/PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING In November 2008, 69.4% of Palo Alto voters approved Measure N to fund the construction of a new Mitchell Park Library/ Community Center, and to renovate the Downtown and Main libraries. Voter approval of Measure N marked a milestone towards accomplishing one of the City Council’s priorities, and also indicated a commitment from Palo Alto residents in improving library facilities, despite indications of a weakening national economy. The Library bond campaign, called “Better Libraries for Palo Alto” also provided a unique opportunity to strengthen civic engagement. In 2008, 74% of Palo Alto residents responding to the survey reported using the library at least once during the last 12 months. Ratings for the quality of neighborhood branch libraries have declined over the last four years. In 2008, 71% of the respondents rated the quality of the neighborhood branch libraries as good or excellent, compared to 78% in 2005. According to the department, and it appears reasonable, resident perception may have been affected by the widely visible bond campaign, which called attention to shortcomings in library services and facilities as the premise for asking voters to approve the bond measure. None of the survey questions pertained to the public safety building. However, the public safety building was part of the City’s capital improvement program and during the year, staff moved forward with design and funding approvals. According to the FY 2007-08 Year-End Capital Improvement Program Projects Status Report, $3.2 million had been budgeted for the building design and 35% of the design project was complete. Future advancement of the project will depend on funding levels and conditions. 1 In January 2009, the City Council adopted its 2009 Top Priorities as follows: Environmental Protection, Civic Engagement for the Common Good, and Economic Health. 2 This section provides an overview of the City’s accomplishments of the City Council’s Top 2008 Priorities, however, it is not all-encompassing of the numerous staff projects. For further details, see the staff report entitled “Council Top 4 Priorities Milestones Status Report 2008” in the January 10, 2009 City Council Retreat Agenda: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/council.asp 2008 Survey Ratings: Quality of Neighborhood Branch Libraries Fair, 22%Poor, 7% Good, 44% Excellent, 27% Excellent Good Fair Poor -22 - Chapter 1 – OVERALL Source: 2008 National Citizen SurveyTM (Palo Alto) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION RATINGS OF OVERALL ENVIRONMENT Residents rated Palo Alto’s overall environment more favorably, in comparison to other surveyed jurisdictions. This year’s survey included new questions to assess resident perceptions in this area and the results are as follows: 88% rated Palo Alto’s cleanliness as good or excellent, 85% of residents surveyed rated the overall quality of Palo Alto’s natural environment as good or excellent, and 78% rated the preservation of natural areas such as open space as good or excellent. These ratings were above the benchmark comparisons of other jurisdictions with similar survey questions. For the last three years, the survey has asked residents to rate Palo Alto’s air quality. These ratings declined from 80% rating the air quality as good or excellent in 2006, to 75% in 2008. However, they still remain above the benchmark comparison of other jurisdictions. RECYCLING AND EASE OF TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS In 2008, 99% of survey respondents reported that they recycled used paper, cans or bottles from their home, an increase from 87% in 2007. Resident responses for the ease of public transportation modes have decreased over the last five years, placing Palo Alto at the benchmark comparison for ease of rail travel, and below the benchmark comparison for ease of bus travel. However, resident ratings for Palo Alto’s ease of walking and bicycle travel are consistently rated more favorably in comparison to other surveyed jurisdictions. Citizen Survey Recycling Ease of Transportation Options in Palo Alto Percent recycled paper, cans or bottles at least once in past 12 months Percent rating ease of bus travel as good or excellent Percent rating ease of rail/subway travel as good or excellent Percent rating ease of car travel as good or excellent Percent rating ease of walking as good or excellent Percent rating ease of bicycling as good or excellent FY 2003-04 97% 43% 64% 52% 85% 80% FY 2004-05 82% 44% 69% 61% 86% 79% FY 2005-06 84% 44% 60% 60% 87% 78% FY 2006-07 87% 37% 55% 65% 88% 84% FY 2007-08 99% 34% 52% 60% 86% 78% Change over last 5 years: 2% -9% -12% 8% 1% -2% Resident Responses on Palo Alto's Environment: Percent Rating Areas as Good or Excellent 75% 78% 85% 88% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 % Air Quality Preservation of natural areas such as open space Overall quality of the natural environment Cleanliness of Palo Alto -23 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2007-08 Source: City of Palo Alto Climate Protection Team FY 2007-08 Energy, Gas, and Water Efficiency Savings Source: Utilities Department ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (cont.) The City of Palo Alto has a variety of programs and plans designed to protect the environment. These include, but are not limited to: o Climate Protection Plan (CPP) o Zero Waste Operational Plan (ZWOP)1 o Ten-Year Energy Efficiency Plan Climate Protection Plan In December 2007, the City Council approved the Climate Protection Plan, which inventoried the City’s municipal and community emissions and set emission reduction goals (from 2005 baseline levels) of: • 5% of municipal emissions, by December 2009 • 5% of municipal and community emissions, by 2012 • 15% of municipal and community emissions by 2020. City staff refined the 2005 baseline municipal emissions estimate to 32,481 metric tons2 (shown on right) and also conducted a cost-benefit analysis of emissions-reducing tasks. To achieve the 5% reduction in municipal emissions by December 2009, the City formed a Climate Protection Team with representatives from each department. The team is developing departmental and Citywide actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The team will also be measuring and reporting progress towards reducing emissions. Ten-Year Energy Efficiency Plan and Water Conservation In FY 2007-08, the City exceeded its targeted lifetime savings goals for energy efficiency and water conservation. Natural gas savings goals were not met. The Utilities Department plans to achieve these goals through implementation of the Solar Water Heating rebate and development of new natural gas efficiency rebates. The Utilities Department has also offered its customers PaloAltoGreen, a renewable energy program. Since launching PaloAltoGreen 5 years ago, the department reports that annual sales of renewable energy have consistently increased, with a customer participation rate of over 20%, the highest rate in the nation. 1 The ZWOP established a goal of 73% waste diversion and to strive for zero waste by 2021. In FY 2006-07, the City’s State-approved diversion rate was 63%. FY 2007-08 data was not yet available. 2 The prior 2005 baseline of municipal emissions was estimated at 65,329 metric ton CO2 equivalents. The revised estimate utilized new EPA procedures for natural gas leakage estimates, additional protocols from the California Climate Action Registry, and eliminated biogenic sources and sources outside the City’s control. Revised Baseline of Municipal Emissions by Source (32,481 metric ton CO2 equivalents) Employee Commute, 3,635 , 11% Paper Use, 92 , 0% Liquid Fuel Usage, 2,963 , 9% Natural Gas Usage, 5,334 , 17% Solid Waste, 3,062 , 9% Municipal Natural Gas, 4,700 , 14% Electricity Usage, 12,695 , 40% -24 - Electricity (kilowatt hours) 24,434,356 48,220,815 0 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000 60,000,000 Goal Actual Lifetime Savings Gas (therms) 398,100 1,126,514 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 Goal Actual Lifetime Savings Water (hundred cubic feet) 39,810 26,450 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 Goal Actual Lifetime Savings Chapter 1 – OVERALL Source: 2008 National Citizen SurveyTM (Palo Alto) Percent rating overall image or reputation of Palo Alto good or excellent Percent rating City services good or excellent Percent rating value of services for the City taxes they pay as good or excellent Percent rating Federal Government services good or excellent Percent rating State Government services good or excellent Percent rating County Government services good or excellent FY 2003-04 -90%75% 38% 36% - FY 2004-05 -88% 70% 32% 32% - FY 2005-06 91%87% 74% 32% 38% - FY 2006-07 93%86% 67% 33% 44% - FY 2007-08 92%85% 64% 33% 34% 54% Change over last 5 years: - -5% -11% -5% -2% - Overall quality and value of services Citizen Survey CIVIC ENGAGEMENT Civic engagement can be difficult to measure because it often means different things to different people. According to the National Research Center: “The extent to which local government provides opportunities to become informed and engaged and the extent to which residents take these opportunities is an indicator of the connection between government and the populace.” This year’s resident survey asked a variety of questions pertaining to civic engagement activities, opportunities, public trust, and value of City services. Residents rated opportunities to volunteer and participate more favorably, in comparison to other surveyed jurisdictions -- 86% of residents reported opportunities to volunteer as good or excellent, 80% reported opportunities to participate in social events and activities as good or excellent, and 74% reported opportunities to participate in community matters as good or excellent. Palo Alto residents also reported a significant increase in visits to the City website, increasing from 62% in 2007, to 78% in 2008. Although only 26% of survey respondents had attended some type of public meeting and 34% had participated in a club or civic group, these responses are similar to other surveyed jurisdictions. Palo Alto residents continued to provide highest ratings for overall services to the local government, and the lowest ratings to the Federal and State government. Ratings on the value of services received, for the taxes paid to Palo Alto, have declined over the last four years, placing Palo Alto in the 65th percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. Ratings of Palo Alto’s overall image and reputation have remained consistently high, with 92% of survey respondents rating it as good or excellent, placing Palo Alto in the 97th percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. -25 - Participation Ratings / Percent Rating Area as Good or Excellent 34% 51% 74% 80% 26% 26% 76% 78% 83% 86% 87% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Attended a local meeting of elected officials or other public meeting Watched a local meeting of elected officials or other public meeting on cable TV Participated in a club or civic group in Palo Alto Volunteered time to some group or activity in Palo Alto Opportunities to participate in community matters Rating of public information services Visited the City Website Opportunities to participate in social events & activities Read Palo Alto Newsletter Opportunities to volunteer Voted in the last election Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2007-08 Source: 2008 National Citizen SurveyTM (Palo Alto) CIVIC ENGAGEMENT (cont.) Although Palo Alto residents rated several civic engagement activities and opportunities favorably, responses to other questions pertaining to public trust, value, and impression of employee contact show opportunities for improvement. When asked to rate the job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement, 57% of residents rated this as good or excellent, a significant decline from 68% in 2007. This rating was also below the benchmark of other surveyed jurisdictions. Resident ratings in the areas of City employees’ knowledge, responsiveness, courtesy, and overall impression also declined since last year. Resident ratings for the overall direction that Palo Alto is taking increased from 57% last year, to 63% this year, a rating similar to other jurisdictions. Some of the lower public trust ratings noted may be partly attributable to three occurrences during FY 2007-08: negative public attention over a police investigation into the City’s Children’s Theater, public feedback from the City’s redesigned website, and a homicide and string of burglaries that plagued the City shortly before the survey was administered in September 2008. Future survey results will help determine whether these recent declines in public trust perceptions persist, or were mostly isolated to the noted occurrences. Citizen Survey Public trust Impression of contact with Palo Alto employees Percent rating overall direction of the City as good or excellent Percent rating the City's job at welcoming citizen involvement as good or excellent Percent rating the City's job at listening to citizens as good or excellent Percent having contact with a city employee in the last 12 months Good or excellent impression of knowledge Good or excellent impression of responsiveness Good or excellent impression of courtesy Overall impression good or excellent FY 2003-04 63% 70% 60% 64% 86% 84% 84% 84% FY 2004-05 54% 59% 50% 56% 84% 77% 83% 80% FY 2005-06 62% 73% 59% 54% 83% 78% 83% 80% FY 2006-07 57% 68% 52% 57% 85% 80% 84% 79% FY 2007-08 63% 57% 52% 54% 75% 73% 78% 73% Change over last 5 years: - -13% -8% -10% -11% -11% -6% -11% -26 - 2008 Survey Ratings: Job Palo Alto Does at Welcoming Citizen Involvement Fair, 31% Poor, 12% Good, 44% Excellent, 13% Excellent Good Fair Poor Chapter 1 – OVERALL Source: 2008 National Citizen SurveyTM (Palo Alto) ECONOMIC HEALTH RATINGS OF ECONOMIC HEALTH In 2008, resident responses revealed strong indications of the economy’s impact on household income. For the first time since the City Auditor’s Office initiated the survey in Palo Alto, resident responses ranked at the bottom of the benchmark comparison for a question pertaining to the economy’s impact on income. At the time of the survey in September 2008, only 4% of Palo Alto residents expected the coming 6 months would have a “somewhat” or “very” positive impact on their household income. Ratings for the prior years ranged from 20 to 27%. This response indicates that residents understood early-on the impact of the country’s economy, well before the recession was officially announced in December 2008. This year, the survey included a new question to assess resident perception of housing cost stress (defined as monthly housing costs amounting to 30% or more of income). About 31% of survey participants were paying housing costs of 30% or more of their monthly household income. In comparison to the benchmark data, this response indicates that affordable housing is more of a concern in Palo Alto than in other surveyed jurisdictions. Resident responses were more favorable for employment opportunities and job and retail growth. 58% of surveyed residents ranked Palo Alto’s employment opportunities as good or excellent, placing Palo Alto in the 96th percentile of other surveyed jurisdictions. Half of surveyed residents viewed job growth as the “right amount” (48% viewed job growth as “too slow”). 62% of respondents rated retail growth as the “right amount” (28% viewed retail growth as “too slow”). -27- Economic Health Percent rating Comparison to Benchmark Ratings of economic impact on household income as “somewhat” or “very” positive 4% Below Housing costs are 30% or more of monthly household income 31% Below Job growth seen as “right amount” 50% Not Available Retail growth (stores, restaurants, etc.) seen as “right amount” 62% Not Available Employment opportunities are “good” or “excellent” 58% Above Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2007-08 This Page Intentionally Left Blank - 28 - CHAPTER 2 – COMMUNITY SERVICES The mission of the Community Services Department is to engage individuals and families in creating a strong and healthy community through parks, recreation, social services, arts and sciences. The department restructured in FY 2007-08 and now operates under four divisions, rather than five. The former Parks & Golf division has been moved into two existing divisions, by merging Parks with Open Space, and Golf with Recreation. In addition, Youth Sciences has merged with the Arts division. The department’s four divisions are as follows: • Arts and Sciences provides visual and performing arts, music and dance, and science programs to adults and youth, while responding to increased demand for family programs such as the Junior Museum and Zoo, the Children’s Theatre, and interpretive programs. • Open Space and Parks is responsible for the conservation and maintenance of more than 4,000 acres of urban and open space parkland and provides ecology and natural history interpretive programs for youth and adults through campfires, special interest nature programs, and guided walks. • Recreation and Golf Services provides a diverse range of programs and activities for the community, and focuses on creating a culture of fitness and healthy living by encouraging individuals and families to participate in creative and fun activities. • Cubberley Community Center and Human Services hosts community artists, dance groups, children centers, Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Adult Education, Foothill College, and many non-profit groups. On its 35-acre campus, the center provides a full array of facilities including fields, tennis courts, a track, gymnasiums, an auditorium, a theatre, and classrooms which are available for public rental. The Human Services function provides assistance to people in need, including grants to non-profit organizations and entry-level work experience for the homeless. What is the source of Community Services funding? General Fund 54% Rentals 3% Cubberley Leases & Rentals 11% Other 1% Grants and Donations 2% Golf 15% Classes and Camps 10% Fees 4% Source: FY 2007-08 revenue and expenditure data Where does a Community Services dollar go? Open Space and Parks, 32% Arts and Sciences, 21% Recreation and Golf Services, 30% Cubberley and Human Services, 17% Service Efforts and Accomplishments 2007-08 - 29 - SPENDING AND REVENUE Total Community Services spending increased by approximately 11% in the last five years. The FY 2007-08 reorganization resulted in a 48% increase in Arts and Sciences expenditures. Community Services staffing decreased 4% over the last five years from 152 to 147 full-time equivalents (FTEs). In FY 2007-08, temporary and hourly staffing accounted for about 34% of the department’s total staffing. Over the last five years, total authorized staffing decreased 8%, from 2.5 to 2.3 FTE per thousand residents. Palo Alto’s expenditures per capita for parks, recreation, and community centers are the second highest compared with seven other nearby cities. It should be noted that each jurisdiction offers different levels of service and budgets for those services differently. Palo Alto data includes expenditures related to nearly 4,000 acres of open space, municipal golf course, human services programs, Cubberley Community Center, and unique services such as the Art Center, the Children’s Theatre, and the Junior Museum and Zoo. 1 Operating costs were combined to match the department’s reorganization in FY 2007- 08. Youth Sciences expense data could not be segregated from Recreation expenses and are excluded from Arts and Sciences costs for FY 2003-04 through FY 2006-07. Operating expenditures (in millions) Arts and Sciences1 Open Space and Parks Recreation and Golf Services Cubberley Community Center & Human Services Total Operating Expense Operating Expenditures Per Capita Total Revenues (in millions) Total Authorized Staffing (FTE) Temporary (FTE) Percent of Total Who Are Temporary Authorized staffing per 1,000 population FY 2003-04 $3.0 $6.7 $6.0 $3.5 $19.1 $316 $8.8 152 48 32% 2.5 FY 2004-05 $3.2 $6.8 $6.1 $3.0 $19.1 $312 $8.6 158 49 31% 2.6 FY 2005-06 $3.2 $6.1 $6.7 $3.5 $19.5 $312 $9.0 146 48 33% 2.3 FY 2006-07 $3.1 $6.3 $7.0 $3.4 $19.8 $317 $9.3 148 49 33% 2.4 FY 2007-08 $4.4 $6.8 $6.4 $3.7 $21.2 $335 $9.8 147 49 34% 2.3 Change over last 5 years 48% 2% 6% 5% 11% 5% 12% -4% 2% 2% -8% Per Capita Operating Expenditures for Parks, Recreation, and Community Center (FY 2005-06) $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 Sunnyvale Milpitas Santa Clara Mountain View Redwood City San Mateo PALO ALTO Menlo Park Source: California State Controller, Cities Annual Report Fiscal Year 2005-06 Chapter 2 – COMMUNITY SERVICES - 30 - DEPARTMENT-WIDE CLASSES Through its divisions, the Community Services Department offers classes to the public on a variety of topics including recreation and sports, arts and culture, nature and the outdoors. Classes for children include aquatics, sports, digital art, animation, music, and dance. Other classes are targeted specifically for adults, senior citizens and preschoolers. In FY 2007-08, 151 camp sessions were offered for kids. Over the last five years, the number of camps offered decreased by 11% and total enrollment in camps decreased by 19%. The number of classes offered for kids (excluding camps) decreased by 28%, but enrollment in classes for kids only decreased by 7%. Enrollment in adult classes decreased by 18%; the number of classes offered for adults decreased by 11%. In FY 2007-08, 43% of class registrations were online, compared to 33% five years earlier. In FY 2007-08, 87% of residents rated the range and variety of classes good or excellent. Palo Alto ranked in the 93rd percentile compared to other jurisdictions. Enrollment in Community Services Classes (Residents vs Non-Residents) FY 2007-08 Residents, 85% Non-Residents, 15% Residents Non-Residents Source: Community Services Department Total number of classes/camps offered1 Total enrollment1 Citizen Survey Camp sessions Kids (excluding camps) Adults Pre- school Total Camps Kids (excluding camps) Adults Pre- school Total~ Percent of class registrations online Percent of class registrants who are non- residents Percent rating the range/variety of classes good or excellent FY 2003-04 170 352 366 177 1,065 7,270 5,165 6,070 4,160 22,665 33% 14% - FY 2004-05 156 276 362 171 965 6,601 4,862 5,676 3,764 20,903 40% 16% 84% FY 2005-06 153 235 294 160 842 5,906 4,604 5,485 3,628 19,623 41% 15% 86% FY 2006-07 145 206 318 137 806 5,843 4,376 4,936 3,278 18,433 42% 13% 82% FY 2007-08 151 253 327 143 874 5,883 4,824 4,974 3,337 19,018 43% 15% 87% Change over last 5 years -11% -28% -11% -19% -18% -19% -7% -18% -20% -16% 10% 1% - 1 Data shown is in format available from Community Services registration system. Types of classes offered include arts, sports, nature and outdoors, and recreation. ~ Budget benchmarking measure Service Efforts and Accomplishments 2007-08 - 31 - ARTS & SCIENCES DIVISION ARTS The Arts section provides a broad range of arts-related enrichment programs including the Palo Alto Art Center, Children’s Theatre, Lucie Stern Community Theatre, Art in Public Places, music and dance programs, and concerts. Community Theatre attendance at performances increased slightly from last year, but was 15.5% lower than five years ago. The number of participants in Children’s Theatre decreased from about 23,117 last year to 19,811 in FY 2007-08. The decline is primarily attributed to a controversial investigation that reduced the Children’s Theater operations for several months. There were 166 performances at the Community Theatre in FY 2007-08, off 5% from 175 in FY 2003-04. The Art Center had about 17,200 exhibition visitors and presented 42 concerts in FY 2007-08. Total attendance decreased 13.4% from about 80,000 in FY 2003-04, to about 69,000 in FY 2007-08. Outside funding for visual arts programs was 48% higher than it was in FY 2003-04. ARTS & SCIENCES DIVISION - YOUTH SCIENCES The Arts and Sciences Division provides science programs to adults and youth while responding to increased demand for family programs. Through public and non-profit partnerships, the division will continue to work with the community to develop support and advocacy for its programs and facilities. Arts and Sciences will continue to administer and manage the Junior Museum and Zoo. Founded in 1934, the Junior Museum was the first children’s museum west of the Mississippi, and continues to be a local Children's Theatre Participants in performances 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 Children's Theatre Participants in performances Source: Community Services Department Community Theatre Children's Theatre4 Art Center Number of performances Attendance at performances Music & Dance Class Enrollees <NEW> Attendance at performances Participants in performances and programs Theatre class, camp and workshop registrants Exhibition visitors Concerts1 Total attendance (users) Enrollment in art classes, camps, and workshops (adults and children)2 Outside funding for visual arts programs Attendance at Project LOOK! tours and family days3 FY 2003-04 175 54,052 1701 22,663 1,692 605 19,034 40 79,984 4,406 $268,473 - FY 2004-05 172 50,111 1424 22,734 1,592 581 19,307 53 76,264 3,559 $275,909 6,722 FY 2005-06 183 55,204 1416 22,788 1,670 597 19,448 59 73,305 4,137 $284,838 6,191 FY 2006-07 171 45,571 1195 23,117 1,845 472 16,191 43 70,387 3,956 $345,822 6,855 FY 2007-08 166 45,676 982 19,811 1,107 407 17,198 42 69,255 3,913 $398,052 6,855 Change over last 5 years -5% -15.5% -42% -13% -35% -33% -10% 5% -13.4% -11% 48% - 1 All of the concerts are part of the Community Theatre program though some are performed at the Art Center. 2 Enrollment shown here is also reflected in totals on "Department-Wide Classes" page. 3 Project LOOK! Offers docent-led tours of exhibitions at the Palo Alto Art Center to K-12th grade school groups. Tours are followed by a hands-on activity at the Project LOOK! Studio. 4 Volunteer hours in FY 2007-08 totaled 6,681 hours. Chapter 2 – COMMUNITY SERVICES - 32 - ARTS & SCIENCES DIVISION (cont.) YOUTH SCIENCES The Arts and Sciences Division provides science programs to adults and youth while responding to increased demand for family programs. Through public and non-profit partnerships, the division will continue to work with the community to develop support and advocacy for its programs and facilities. Arts and Sciences will continue to administer and manage the Junior Museum and Zoo. Founded in 1934, the Junior Museum was the first children’s museum west of the Mississippi, and continues to be a local leader in children’s science education since its inception. The Zoo opened in 1969. The Junior Museum and Zoo provides summer camps, outreach programs, and exhibits for area children. 73% of the residents rated youth services good or excellent. Palo Alto was in the 90th percentile for services to youth and ranked 17th compared to other jurisdictions. 1 Enrollment shown here is also reflected in totals on “Department-Wide Classes” page. 2 Classes and camps are paid for by parents who selectively enroll their children. 3 Outreach includes interpretive programs. These are programs paid for by the schools, whether they are taught at the schools or at the Junior Museum and Zoo. The number of outreach participants decreased in FY 2005-06 because the City lost its grant funding for outreach to East Palo Alto schools. 4 FY 2007-08 increase includes 651 visitors at special request programs. 5 FY 2007-08 increase includes Foothills Ohlone programs. ~ Budget benchmarking measure Junior Museum and Zoo Interpretive Science Classes Citizen Survey Enrollment in Junior Museum classes and camps1, 2 Estimated number of outreach participants3 Number of Arastradero, Baylands, & Foothill outreach programs for school-age children <REVISED> Enrollment in open space interpretive classes4 Percent rating services to youth good or excellent~ FY 2003-04 2,321 3,491 54 1,166 68% FY 2004-05 1,934 3,388 48 1,188 68% FY 2005-06 1,832 2,414 48 1,280 70% FY 2006-07 1,805 2,532 63 1,226 73% FY 2007-08 2,0894 2,7224 855 2,6894 73% Change over last 5 years -10% -22% 57% 131% 5% Junior Museum Enrollment and Outreach Participants 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 En r o l l m e n t Enrollment in Junior Museum classes and camps 1,2 Estimated number of outreach participants 3 Source: Community Service Department data Service Efforts and Accomplishments 2007-08 - 33 - Citizen Survey Citizen Survey Citizen Survey Visitors at Foothills Park Volunteer hours for restorative/ resource management projects3 Number of native plants in restoration projects <NEW> Number of Rangers <NEW> Percent rating quality of overall natural environment good or excellent <NEW> Percent rating preservation of natural areas such as open space good or excellent <NEW> Percent rating availability of paths or walking trails good or excellent <NEW> FY 2003-04 139,787 15,055 8,484 - - - FY 2004-05 121,574 15,847 12,418 - - - FY 2005-06 127,457 10,738 15,516 7 - - - FY 2006-07 140,437 11,380 14,023 7 - - - FY 2007-08 135,001 13,572 13,893 7 85% 78% 74% Change over last 5 years -3% -10% 64% - - - - 1 Does not include the 268 acres of developed parks and land maintained by the Parks section or the Recreation and Golf Division. Neither does this include 2,200 acres of Montebello Open Space Preserve and 200 acres of Los Trancos Open Space Preserve that are operated by the Mid-Peninsula Open Space District. 2 Based on total open space and urban parks acreage. 3 Includes collaborative partnerships with non-profit groups. Staff attributes the increase in FY 2003-04 to more volunteer hours primarily at the Baylands by the non- profit partner, Save the Bay. OPEN SPACE & PARKS DIVISION OPEN SPACE The City maintains 3,744 acres1 of open space, consisting of Foothills Park, Baylands Nature Preserve (including Byxbee Park), Pearson- Arastradero Preserve, and Esther Clark Nature Preserve. In FY 2007- 08 this amounted to about 60 acres per 1,000 residents. Palo Alto ranked in the 90th percentile for open space preservation compared to other jurisdictions. Open space acreage per 1,000 residents decreased during the last five years from 62.0 to 60.0 acres per 1,000 residents because of an increase in population. Similarly, total urban parks and open space acreage declined from 64.1 to 62.3 acres per 1,000 residents2. This was true even though the City added 13 acres to the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve with the acquisition of the Bressler property. Average open space is 535 acres per park ranger. Collaborative partnerships with non-profit groups has increased the number of native plants in restored areas by 64% from five years ago. More specifically, Acterra coordinates native plants for the Arastradero Preserve, and Save the Bay coordinates native plants for the Baylands. Palo Alto ranked in the 78th percentile for the quality of the overall natural environment and in the 90th percentile for preservation of natural areas compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. Foothills Park Attendance 110,000 115,000 120,000 125,000 130,000 135,000 140,000 145,000 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 Vi s i t o r s Source: Community Services Department Chapter 2 – COMMUNITY SERVICES - 34 - Maintenance Expenditures (in millions)2 Citizen Survey Parks and landscape maintenance Athletic fields in City parks Athletic fields on school district sites3 Total maintenance cost per acre Total hours of athletic field usage Number of permits issued for special events4 <NEW> Volunteer hours for neighbor- hood parks <NEW> Number of participants in community gardening program5 <NEW> Percent rating city parks as good or excellent~ Percent rating their neighborhood park good or excellent~ FY 2003-04 $2.4 $0.6 $0.4 $13,017 - 7 50 243 91% 90% FY 2004-05 $2.7 $0.6 $0.5 $14,572 65,748 14 60 244 91% 89% FY 2005-06 $2.5 $0.6 $0.6 $14,302 65,791 16 150 223 88% 87% FY 2006-07 $2.7 $0.6 $0.7 $15,042 70,769 22 150 231 91% 89% FY 2007-08 $2.9 $0.6 $0.7 $15,931 63,212 22 180 233 89% 86% Change over last 5 years 21% 4% 69% 22% - 214% 260% -4% -2% -4% 1 Does not include 3,744 acres of open space discussed on previous page. 2 Includes budgeted operating expenditures. Does not include cost plan charges or capital costs. 3 PAUSD reimburses the City for 50% of maintenance costs on these school district sites. 4 Special use permits are issued for special events in parks, fun runs, tournaments, festivals, etc. 5 Community Services coordinates 3 community gardens. Decrease in number of participants resulted from closure of a 4th community garden. ~ Budget benchmarking measure. OPEN SPACE & PARKS DIVISION (cont.) PARKS AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE The Parks section maintains approximately 268 acres of land including: • Urban/neighborhood parks (157 acres or 59% of total)1 The park average is 2.5 acres per 1,000 residents. • City facilities (26 acres or 10%) • School athletic fields (43 acres or 16%) • Utility sites (11 acres or 4%) • Median strips (26 acres or 10%) • Business Districts and parking lots (5 acres or 2%). In FY 2007-08, maintenance spending on the above acres totaled about $2.9 million, or approximately $15,931 per acre maintained. About 22% of this maintenance is contracted out. Athletic field usage declined in FY 2007-08 due to numerous field maintenance and upgrade closures and fewer permits issued for athletic fields that abut homes. Volunteer hours increased over the last 5 years through the Adopt-a-Park programs. 89% of residents responding to the survey rate city parks good or excellent, and 86% rate their neighborhood park good or excellent. 93% report they visited a neighborhood or city park in the last 12 months. Palo Alto parks rank in the 91st percentile compared to other jurisdictions. Athletic Field Usage 58,000 60,000 62,000 64,000 66,000 68,000 70,000 72,000 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Fiscal Year Ho u r s Source: Community Services Department -34- Service Efforts and Accomplishments 2007-08 - 35 - Enrollment in Recreation Classes1 Citizen Survey Dance Recreation Aquatics Middle school sports Therapeutic Private tennis lessons Summer Camps Percent rating recreation centers/ facilities good or excellent~ Percent rating recreation programs/classes good or excellent~ FY 2003-04 1,570 5,784 269 1,091 223 228 7,270 84% 86% FY 2004-05 1,531 5,055 223 1,242 216 259 6,601 78% 87% FY 2005-06 1,326 5,681 199 1,247 175 234 5,906 80% 85% FY 2006-07 1,195 5,304 225 1,391 228 274 5,843 82% 90% FY 2007-08 1,129 4,712 182 1,396 203 346 5,883 77% 87% Change over last 5 years -28% -19% -32% 28% -9% 52% -19% -7% 1% 1 Enrollment shown here is also reflected in totals on "Classes" page. Classes and camps are paid for by parents who selectively enroll their children. ~ Budget benchmarking measure -35- RECREATION & GOLF SERVICES DIVISION RECREATION Recreation services produce a large number of the classes offered by the Department. Besides summer camps, Recreation services include aquatics programs, facility rentals (through which members of the community may rent meeting room and event space, the swimming pool or gym space for parties and events, field and picnic sites) and a variety of youth and teen programs. In addition to class offerings for adults, Recreation services coordinates seasonal adult sports leagues and sponsors special events each year such as the May Fete Parade and the Chili Cook-Off. Recreation services works collaboratively with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) to provide middle school athletics in conjunction with the PAUSD’s summer school program. Enrollment in dance, recreation, aquatics, and therapeutic classes decreased from five years ago. Summer camps also decreased 19% from FY 2003-04. However, middle school sports classes increased 28% and private tennis lessons increased 52% over the same period. Compared to other jurisdictions, Palo Alto ranked in the 93rd percentile nationally for its recreational programs and classes, but only in the 75th percentile for recreation centers and facilities compared to other jurisdictions. The lower ranking may have resulted from public review of plans for a potential new Mitchell Park Community Center building. The bond measure campaign (Measure N) heightened awareness of the constraints and inadequacies of the current facility. Lack of classroom space and dance studios were cited as particular customer needs in the campaign surveys. Enrollment by Recreational Class 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 Dance Recreation Aquatics Private tennis lessons Summer Camps En r o l l m e n t FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 Source: Community Services Department Chapter 2 – COMMUNITY SERVICES - 36 - RECREATION & GOLF SERVICES DIVISION (cont.) GOLF COURSE The City owns and maintains the municipal golf course, and coordinates the golf shop, driving range, and restaurant operations with separate tenants. According to the Department, the number of rounds of golf has decreased 11% to 74,630 from 83,728 five years ago. The golf course reported profits in three of the last five years and losses in two of the previous years. The profit in FY 2003-04 was $49,006; loss in FY 2004-05 was $72,031; profit in FY 2005-06 was $148,154; profit in FY 2006-07 was $43,015; loss in FY 2007-08 was $23,487. Overall, the golf course continues to break-even. Number of rounds of golf Golf course revenue (in millions) Golf course operating expenditures1 (in millions) Golf course debt service (in millions) Net revenue/ (cost) (in millions) FY 2003-04 83,728 $2.9 $2.3 $0.6 $0.0 FY 2004-05 78,410 $2.9 $2.4 $0.6 ($0.1) FY 2005-06 76,000 $3.0 $2.3 $0.6 $0.1 FY 2006-07 76,241 $3.1 $2.5 $0.6 $0.0 FY 2007-08 74,630 $3.2 $2.2 $0.7 $0.0 Change over last 5 years1 -11% +10% -4% +18% 0% 1 Includes allocated charges and overhead. Rounds of Golf 70,000 72,000 74,000 76,000 78,000 80,000 82,000 84,000 86,000 2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07 2007- 08 Fiscal Year Source: Community Services Department Service Efforts and Accomplishments 2007-08 - 37 - CUBBERLEY COMMUNITY CENTER & HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION Cubberley Community Center rents space for community meetings, seminars, social events, dances, theater performances, and athletic events. In FY 2007-08, rental revenue increased 21% to about $894,000 although total hours rented declined 3% to about 32,300 hours. The Cubberley Community Center also leases former classroom space to artists, Foothill College, and others on a long-term basis. In FY 2007-08, there was a total of 39 leaseholders, and lease revenue increased 16% to about $1.5 million. The Human Services section provides connections to resources for families and grants to local non-profits. Human Services grants to local non-profits totaled almost $1.2 million in FY 2007-08, about 9% less than in FY 2003-04. Compared to other jurisdictions, Palo Alto ranked in the 94th percentile for services to seniors. Residents give high ratings to senior services (81% rate services good or excellent). Residents give lower marks when rating access to affordable quality child care (only 28% good or excellent). Cubberley Community Center Citizen Survey Hours rented ~ Hourly rental revenue (in millions)~ Number of lease-holders Lease revenue (in millions) Human Services’ grants to local non- profits (in millions) Percent rating access to affordable quality child care good or excellent Percent rating senior services good or excellent~ FY 2003-04 33,392 $0.7 37 $1.3 $1.3 26% 82% FY 2004-05 38,624 $0.8 35 $1.3 $1.3 25% 78% FY 2005-06 38,407 $0.9 38 $1.3 $1.3 34% 84% FY 2006-07 36,489 $0.8 39 $1.4 $1.2 26% 80% FY 2007-08 32,288 $0.9 39 $1.5 $1.2 28% 81% Change over last 5 years -3% 21%1 5% 16% -9% 2% -1% ~ Budget benchmarking measure Cubberley Community Center Use Foothill College, 23% Cubberley, 37% Tenant Lease - Artist Studios, 8% Schools - Private, 4% Child Care, 7% Jewish Community Center, 8% Tenant Lease - Private, 8%Tenant Lease Community Based Organization/ Nonprofit, 6% Source: Community Services Department - 38 - Source: FY 2007-08 revenue and expenditure data Where does a Fire Department dollar go? Emergency Response 75% Environmental and Safety 11% Training and Personnel Management 10% Records and Information 4% CHAPTER 3 – FIRE The mission of the Fire Department is to protect life, property and the environment from the perils of fire, hazardous materials, and other disasters through rapid emergency response, proactive code enforcement, modern fire prevention methods, and progressive public safety education for the community. The department has four major functional areas: • Emergency response – emergency readiness and medical, fire suppression, and hazardous materials response • Environmental and safety management – fire and hazardous materials code research, development and enforcement; fire cause investigations; public education; and disaster preparedness • Training and personnel management • Records and information management The department serves the resident population of Palo Alto and Stanford with a combined population of 76,682. Fire Department revenue in FY 2007-08 totaled $9.7 million (or 41% of costs), including about $6.2 million for services to Stanford and the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC), $2.0 million for paramedic services, $0.6 million in plan check fees, $0.4 million in hazardous materials permits, and $0.6 million in other revenues and reimbursements. What is the source of Fire Department funding? General Fund 59% Other (hazardous materials permits, plan check fees, etc.) 7% Stanford and SLAC 26% Paramedic fees 8% Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2007-08 - 39 - FIRE DEPARTMENT SPENDING Over the last five years: • Total Fire Department spending increased from $18.8 million to $24.0 million, or 28% in the last five years. • Total expenditures per resident served increased from $255 to $313. • Revenue and reimbursements increased 23% (from $7.9 million to $9.7 million). In FY 2007-08, 41% of costs were covered by revenues. The chart on the right shows that Palo Alto’s net Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) expenditures per capita are lower than several other local jurisdictions. In the most recent citizen survey, 96% of residents rated fire services good or excellent, and 87% rated fire prevention and education as good or excellent. The department won the national Voice of the People Award for the high ratings residents gave to fire and emergency medical services in 2005, 2006, and 2007. Comparison net Fire and EMS expenditures per capita (FY 2005-06)2 $- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 San Jose PALO ALTO Fremont Sunnyvale San Mateo Redwood City Milpitas Mountain View Berkeley Santa Clara Source: California State Controller, Cities Annual Report FY 2005-06 Operating expenditures (in millions) Citizen Survey Emergency response Environmental and fire safety Training and personnel management Records and information TOTAL Resident population of area served1 Expenditures per resident served1 Revenue (in millions) Percent rating fire services good or excellent  Percent rating fire prevention and education good or excellent FY 2003-04 $13.7 $1.8 $2.1 $1.2 $18.8 73,852 $255 $7.9 97% 85% FY 2004-05 $14.5 $1.9 $1.8 $0.9 $19.1 74,869 $254 $8.9 94% 82% FY 2005-06 $15.0 $2.1 $2.1 $0.9 $20.2 75,604 $267 $9.4 95% 84% FY 2006-07 $16.2 $2.2 $2.2 $1.0 $21.6 75,835 $284 $9.9 98% 86% FY 2007-08 $17.8 $2.6 $2.5 $1.1 $24.0 76,682 $313 $9.7 96% 87% Change over last 5 years +30% +43% +19% -10% +28% +4% +23% +23% -1% +2% 1 Based on number of residents in the Fire Department’s expanded service area (Palo Alto and Stanford). Prior year population revised per California Department of Finance estimates. 2 Figures are net of functional revenues, and may not reconcile to total spending due to differences in the way the information was compiled. Note that cities categorize their expenditures in different ways. Chapter 3 -FIRE - 40 - Residents Served Per Fire Station (FY 2007-08) - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 Santa Clara PALO ALTO Mountain View Berkeley Redwood City San Mateo Milpitas Fremont Sunnyvale San Jose FIRE DEPARTMENT STAFFING AND CALLS FOR SERVICE During FY 2007-08, the Fire Department handled 7,723 calls for service (an average of 21 calls per day) including: • 192 fire calls • 4,552 medical/rescue calls • 1,119 false alarms • 401 service calls • 169 hazardous condition calls Palo Alto has a total of 8 fire stations. Average on-duty staffing is 31 during the day, and 29 at night. 36.5% of line personnel are certified paramedics; the other 63.5% of line personnel are certified emergency medical technicians (EMTs). Palo Alto has more fire stations per capita than most other local jurisdictions. As shown in the chart on the right, the number of residents served per fire station is lower than many other local jurisdictions. Source: Cities, California Department of Finance, U.S. Census Bureau Palo Alto calculation excludes Station 7 (dedicated to SLAC) and Station 8 (seasonal). Calls for service Staffing Fire Medical/ rescue False alarms Service calls Hazardous condition Other TOTAL  Average number of calls per day Total authorized staffing (FTE) Staffing per 1,000 residents served1 Average on-duty staffing Annual training hours per firefighter Overtime as a percent of regular salaries Residents served per fire station1,2 FY 2003-04 248 3,796 1,378 373 218 662 6,675 18 129 1.75 31 day/29 night 264 17% 12,309 FY 2004-05 224 3,633 1,300 358 211 688 6,414 18 129 1.72 31 day/29 night 312 23% 12,478 FY 2005-06 211 3,780 1,184 399 203 1,120 6,897 19 127 1.67 31 day/29 night 288 18% 12,601 FY 2006-07 221 3,951 1,276 362 199 1,227 7,236 20 128 1.68 31 day/29 night 235 21% 12,639 FY 2007-08 192 4,552 1,119 401 169 1,290 7,723 21 128 1.67 31 day/29 night 246 18% 12,780 Change over last 5 years -23% +20% -19% +8% -22% +95% +16% +16% -1% -5% - -7% +1% +4%  Budget benchmarking measure 1 Based on number of residents in the Fire Department’s expanded service area (Palo Alto and Stanford). 2 Calculation is based on 6 fire stations, and does not include Station 7 (dedicated to the SLAC complex) or Station 8 (Foothills Park, open seasonally). Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2007-08 - 41 - FIRE SUPPRESSION There were 192 fire incidents and no fire deaths in FY 2007-08. This included 43 residential structure fires, a decrease of 16% from five years earlier and a decrease of 37% from FY 2006-07. Over the last five years, the number of fire incidents has declined by 23%. Average response times vary from year to year. In FY 2007-08, the Fire Department responded to 79% of fire emergencies within 8 minutes (the goal is 90%). The average response time for fire calls was 6:48 minutes. According to the department, response times increased due to increased call volume, more training mandates, traffic calming devices, and ambulance delays. According to the Fire Department, 79% of fires were confined to the room or area of origin. This is less than the department’s goal of 90%. The standard Fire Department response to a working structure fire is 18 personnel. Number of calls for service by fire station FY 2007-08 2,617 858 1,010 1,034 918 1,119 218 35 - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 St a t i o n 1 - 30 1 A l m a S t St a t i o n 2 - 26 7 5 H a n o v e r St St a t i o n 3 - 79 0 Em b a r c a d e r o Rd St a t i o n 4 - 36 0 0 Mi d d l e f i e l d R d Sta t i o n 5 - 60 0 Ar a s t r a d e r o Rd St a t i o n 6 - 71 1 S e r r a S t , St a n f o r d St a t i o n 7 - SL A C St a t i o n 8 - Fo o t h i l l s P a r k Source: Palo Alto Fire Department data Number of fire incidents Average response time for fire calls~ Percent responses to fire emergencies within 8 minutes1 Percent of fires confined to the room or area of origin Number of residential structure fires Number of fire deaths Fire vehicles FY 2003-04 248 5:15 minutes 90% 62% 51 0 23 FY 2004-05 224 5:09 minutes 91% 73% 58 0 25 FY 2005-06 211 5:28 minutes 91% 63% 62 1 25 FY 2006-07 221 5:48 minutes 87% 70% 68 2 25 FY 2007-08 192 6:48 minutes 79% 79% 43 0 25 Change over last 5 years -23% +30% -11% +17% -16% - +9% 1 Response time is from receipt of 911-call to arrival on scene; does not include cancelled in route, not completed incidents, or mutual aid calls. Chapter 3 -FIRE - 42 - EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES The department responded to 4,552 medical/rescue incidents in FY 2007-08. As shown in the chart on the right, medical/rescue calls represented 60% of the Fire Department calls for service in FY 2007-08. The average response time for medical/rescue calls was 5:24 minutes in FY 2007-08. The Department responded to: • 93% of emergency medical requests for service within 8 minutes (the department’s goal is 90%) • 99% of paramedic calls for service within 12 minutes (the department’s goal is 90%) Palo Alto is the only city in Santa Clara County that provides primary ambulance transport services. The Fire Department operates two ambulances and seven engine companies that provide Advance Life Support (ALS) capability. In FY 2007-08, average on-duty paramedic staffing increased to 10 during the day and 8 at night. In FY 2005-06, the Department implemented a Basic Life Support (BLS) transport program. Of the 3,236 EMS transports in FY 2007-08, 2,831 were ALS and 405 were BLS transports. 95% of survey respondents rated ambulance/emergency medical service as good or excellent. Fire Department Calls for Service FY 2007-08 Service calls 5% Fire 2% Other 17%Hazardous condition 2% False alarms 14% Medical/ rescue 60% Source: Fire Department Citizen Survey Medical/ rescue incidents Average response time for medical/rescue calls1 First response to emergency medical requests for service within 8 minutes1 Ambulance response to paramedic calls for service within 12 minutes1, 2 Average on-duty paramedic staffing Number of EMS transports Paramedic revenue (in millions) Percent rating ambulance/ emergency medical services good or excellent FY 2003-04 3,796 5:47 minutes 94% 99% 4 day/2 night 2,141 $1.3 95%3 FY 2004-05 3,633 5:28 minutes 95% 98% 8 day/6 night 2,744 $1.5 95%3 FY 2005-06 3,780 5:13 minutes 94% 99% 8 day/6 night 2,296 $1.7 94% FY 2006-07 3,951 5:17 minutes 92% 97% 8 day/6 night 2,527 $1.9 94% FY 2007-08 4,552 5:24 minutes 93% 99% 10 day/8 night 3,236 $2.0 95% Change over last 5 years +20% -7% -1% - - +51% +53% 0% 1 Response time is from receipt of 911-call to arrival on scene; does not include cancelled in route, not completed incidents, or mutual aid calls. 2 Includes non-City ambulance responses. 3 Revised based on updated National Citizen Survey data. Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2007-08 - 43 - Hazardous Materials Citizen Survey Number of hazardous materials incidents2 Number of facilities permitted for hazardous materials Number of hazardous materials inspections~ Percent of annual hazardous materials and underground storage inspections performed Number of fire inspections Number of plan reviews1 Fire safety, bike safety, and disaster preparedness presentations Percent rating fire prevention and education good or excellent Percent prepared to sustain themselves for 72 hours in the event of disaster FY 2003-04 12 493 259 53% 793 833 199 85% - FY 2004-05 19 503 241 48% 1,488 982 219 82% - FY 2005-06 20 497 243 49% 899 983 281 84% 57% FY 2006-07 9 501 268 53% 1,021 928 240 86% 57% FY 2007-08 18 503 406 81% 1,277 906 242 87% 60% Change over last 5 years +50% +2% +57% +28% +61% +9% +22% +2% - 1 Does not include over-the-counter building permit reviews. 2 Hazardous materials incidents include flammable gas or liquid, chemical release, chemical release reaction or toxic condition, or chemical spill or release.  Budget benchmarking measure HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND FIRE SAFETY In FY 2007-08, the Hazardous Materials Response Team (Rescue 2) responded to 18 hazardous materials incidents. Over the past five years, the number of facilities permitted for hazardous materials increased from 493 to 503 facilities. In FY 2007-08, the department performed 57% more hazardous materials inspections (including 81% of annual inspections of the 503 facilities permitted for hazardous materials) and 61% more fire inspections than 5 years ago. According to the Fire Department, the hiring of additional contract fire inspectors in FY 07-08 has freed hazardous materials inspectors to conduct hazardous materials inspections. According to the department, 242 fire safety, bike safety, and disaster preparedness presentations reached a total of 22,437 residents during FY 2007-08. The 2008 National Citizen Survey included new questions related to environmental hazards and emergency preparedness. 80% of the residents responding to the survey reported they felt very or somewhat safe from environmental hazards. 60% reported their households were prepared to sustain themselves for 72 hours with sufficient food and water in the event of a major disaster. 71% rated emergency preparedness services as good or excellent. Palo Alto Resident Survey: Are you and your household prepared to sustain yourselves for 72 hours with sufficient food and water in the event of a major disaster such as an earthquake or flood? Yes 60% No 40% Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 2008 (Palo Alto) - 44 - CHAPTER 4 – LIBRARY The mission of the Library is to enable people to explore library resources to enrich their lives with knowledge, information and enjoyment. The Library has two major activities: • Collection and Technical Services – to acquire and develop quality collections, manage databases, and provide technology that enhances the community’s access to library resources • Public Services – to provide access to library materials, information and learning opportunities through services and programs. In FY 2007-08, the Children’s Library reopened following a major renovation. In November 2008, voters approved a bond measure of $76 million (Measure N) to fund improvements for the Mitchell Park, Downtown, and Main libraries and the Mitchell Park Community Center. In FY 2007-08, the Office of the City Auditor issued an audit report on the Library’s operations in advance of the November 2008 bond measure for facilities improvements. The audit included 32 recommendations for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of Library operations. As indicated in the City Auditor’s Report on the Status of Audit Recommendations, as of November 2008, the Library had implemented 20 recommendations with 10 in process and 2 not started. Where does a library dollar go? Collection and Technical Services 28% Public Services 72% What is the source of Library funding? State Revenue Less than 1% Other Revenue 1% Over the Counter Donations Less than 1% Fines and Fees 3% General Fund 96% Where does a Library dollar go? Public Services 72% Collection and Technical Services 28% Source: FY 2007-08 revenue and expenditure data Service Efforts and Accomplishments 2007-08 - 45 - LIBRARY SPENDING In FY 2007-08, Palo Alto had five libraries: • Main (open 62 hours per week) • Mitchell Park (open 58 hours per week) • Children’s (closed for renovation until September 2007; open 48 hours per week from September 2007 to June 2008) • Downtown (open 35 hours per week) • College Terrace (open 35 hours per week) Palo Alto has more libraries than surrounding communities and more than other communities of its size. In comparison, Redwood City has 3 libraries3, Mountain View has 1, Menlo Park has 2, and Sunnyvale has 1. Palo Alto library expenditures per capita were less than those of Berkeley and Burlingame in FY 2006-07, but more than those of other area cities. In FY 2007-08, Library spending totaled $6.8 million, an increase of 18% since last year, and 28% over the last five years. 2 76% of residents rate library services good or excellent, placing Palo Alto in the 30th percentile compared to other jurisdictions. 71% rate the quality of neighborhood branch libraries good or excellent. Although these ratings show a decline, the changes may be related to the widely visible library bond campaign and resulting public awareness of library shortcomings. Library Expenditures Per Capita1 $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 Sunnyvale Mountain View Santa Clara Menlo Park Redwood City PALO ALTO Burlingame Berkeley Source: California Library Statistics 2008 (Fiscal Year 2006-07 data) Operating Expenditures (in millions) Citizen Survey Public Services Collections and Technical Services TOTAL Library expenditures per capita Percent rating quality of public library services good or excellent~ Percent rating quality of neighborhood branch libraries good or excellent FY 2003-04 $3.0 $2.3 $5.3 $89 81% 76% FY 2004-05 $2.9 $2.2 $5.1 $83 80% 78% FY 2005-06 $4.0 $1.6 $5.7 $91 78% 73% FY 2006-07 $4.2 $1.6 $5.8 $92 81% 75% FY 2007-08 $4.9 $1.9 $6.82 $108 76% 71% Change over last 5 years +63% -17% +28% +22% -5% -5% 1 Data in graph and table may differ because City of Palo Alto and California Library Statistics compile data differently on a different basis. In addition, different jurisdictions offer differing levels of service and budget for those services differently. 2 The Department advises that a large portion of the budget increase from FY 2006-07 to FY 2007-08 was due in part to unused leave retirement payouts, a public- private partnership to increase the collection, and the completion of prior year deferred purchases. 3 Redwood City had 3 libraries in FY 2007-08 but in September 2008 opened a fourth branch. ~ Budget benchmarking measure Chapter 4- LIBRARY - 46 - LIBRARY STAFFING Total authorized Library staffing in FY 2007-08 was 57 FTE, an increase of 4% from FY 2003-04 levels. Temporary and hourly staff accounts for approximately 23% of the Library’s total staff. In FY 2007-08, 13 of 57 FTE staff were temporary or hourly. Volunteers donated approximately 5,988 hours to the libraries in FY 2007-08. This was a 10% decrease over the last five years and was a slight increase from FY 2006-07. Palo Alto libraries were open a total of 11,281 hours in FY 2007-08. This was a 20% increase from FY 2006-07 and a 2% decrease from five years earlier. The increase compared to FY 2006-07 was due to the closure of Children’s Library for renovation during FY 2006-07 and its reopening in late September 2007. All Palo Alto libraries combined were open at least 190 hours per week during FY 2007-08. With the reopening of Children’s Library, the standard schedule is a combined 238 hours of service per week across all libraries. As shown in the graph on the right, Palo Alto libraries were open more hours than most other local jurisdictions in FY 2006-07. This is because the City has multiple branches. Authorized Staffing (FTE) Regular Temporary/ hourly TOTAL Number of residents per library staff FTE Volunteer hours Total hours open annually~1 FTE per 1,000 hours open2 FY 2003-04 43 11 54 1,120 6,630 11,540 4.70 FY 2004-05 44 12 56 1,097 7,537 11,268 4.94 FY 2005-06 44 13 57 1,095 5,838 10,488 5.41 FY 2006-07 44 13 57 1,099 5,865 9,386 6.06 FY 2007-08 44 13 57 1,112 5,988 11,281 5.00 Change over last 5 years +2% +12% +4% -1% -10% -2% +6% 1 Decrease in hours in FY 2006-07 due to closure of Children’s Library from December 2005 to late September 2007 for renovations. 2 The increase in FTE per 1,000 hours in FY 2005-06 and FY 2006-07 was due significantly to the closure of Children’s Library for renovation from December 2005 to late September 2007. ~ Budget benchmarking measure Total Hours Open Annually 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 Sunnyvale Mountain View Menlo Park Burlingame Santa Clara Redwood City PALO ALTO Berkeley Source: California Library Statistics 2008 (Fiscal Year 2006-07 data) Service Efforts and Accomplishments 2007-08 - 47 - LIBRARY COLLECTION AND CIRCULATION The total number of items in the Library’s collection has increased by 6,717 or approximately 3% over the last five years. The number of titles in the collection has increased by about 2%; the number of book volumes has increased by about 1%. Circulation increased 17% over the last five years. In FY 2007-08, non- resident circulation accounted for approximately 20% of the library’s total circulation. This is 3% lower than it was five years ago. 67% of residents responding to the survey rate the variety of library materials as good or excellent. Of all the libraries, Mitchell Park had the highest circulation in FY 2007-08, with 623,853 items circulating. Main had the second highest circulation at 519,034. Children’s Library, which reopened in late September 2007 after an extensive renovation, had a circulation of 214,802 for the remainder of FY 2007-08. Circulation for College Terrace was 107,462 and Downtown was 70,048. An additional 6,917 checkouts were made from the Library’s digital book service. Citizen Survey Total number of items in collection Total number of titles in collection Number of book volumes Number of media items Volumes held per capita Total circulation~ 1 Percent non- resident circulation Circulation per capita~ Number of items placed on hold2 Number of first time checkouts completed on self-check machines Average number of checkouts per item Percent rating variety of library materials good or excellent~ FY 2003-04 267,693 165,573 239,089 28,604 3.95 1,314,790 23% 21.72 97,414 171,501 4.91 74% FY 2004-05 264,511 164,280 236,575 27,928 3.84 1,282,888 20% 20.84 125,883 306,519 4.85 75% FY 2005-06 260,468 163,045 232,602 27,866 3.73 1,280,547 20% 20.56 181,765 456,364 4.92 71% FY 2006-07 270,755 167,008 240,098 30,657 3.84 1,414,509 21% 22.62 208,719 902,303 5.22 75% FY 2007-08 274,410 169,690 241,323 33,087 3.81 1,542,116 20% 24.34 200,470 1,003,516 5.62 67% Change over last 5 years +3% +2% +1% +16% -4% +17% -3% +12% +106% +485% +14% -7% 1 In FY 2005-06 the loan period on all items except DVDs was increased from three to four weeks. 2 Starting on July 1, 2007, the Library began charging a fee for expired holds, items placed on hold which are not picked up. According to Library staff, this caused the reduction in the number of items placed on hold. ~ Budget benchmarking measure Circulation Per Capita 0 5 10 15 20 25 Redwood City Berkeley Burlingame Sunnyvale Mountain View Menlo Park Santa Clara PALO ALTO Source: California Library Statistics 2008 (Fiscal Year 2006-07 data) Chapter 4- LIBRARY - 48 - LIBRARY SERVICES The total number of library cardholders increased 7% from 50,171 to 53,740 over the last five years, and the percent of Palo Alto residents who are cardholders increased from 57% to 62%. Total library visits remained flat over the same timeframe. 31% of residents responding to the survey reported they used libraries or their services more than 12 times during the last year. The total number of items delivered to homebound borrowers increased by 314 items, or 13%, and the total number of reference questions received by librarians decreased by 38,479, or 44% over the five-year period. However, online database sessions and internet sessions have increased by 115% and 42%, respectively, over the last five years. This reflects an ongoing shift in how the public retrieves information from libraries. The Library can now track the number of web page views on its site. Beginning from August 2007 and through June 2008, library web pages were viewed 516,160 times. The number of family programs offered increased from 451 to 669, or approximately 48%; the total attendance at such programs increased by about 12%. Population Served Per FTE 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 Berkeley PALO ALTO Redwood City Menlo Park Mountain View Santa Clara Sunnyvale Source: California Library Statistics 2008 (Fiscal Year 2006-07 data) Citizen Survey Total number of cardholders Percent of Palo Alto residents who are cardholders~ Library visits Total items delivered to homebound borrowers Total number of reference questions Total number of online database sessions1 Number of Internet sessions Number of laptop loans Number of family programs~ Total family program attendance~ Percent who used libraries or their services more than 12 times during the last year~ FY 2003-04 50,171 57% 882,918 2,391 86,818 22,845 96,654 - 451 33,994 30% FY 2004-05 52,001 59% 873,594 2,217 80,842 39,357 113,980 1,748 519 31,141 25% FY 2005-06 55,909 61% 885,565 1,627 69,880 42,094 155,558 9,693 564 30,739 32% FY 2006-07 53,099 57% 862,081 1,582 57,255 52,020 149,280 11,725 580 30,221 33% FY 2007-08 53,740 62% 881,520 2,705 48,339 49,148 137,261 12,017 669 37,955 31% Change over last 5 years +7% +5% 0% +13% -44% +115% +42% - +48% +12% +1% 1 In FY 2007-08, the Library changed its method for reporting online database sessions. For this reason, FY 2007-08 data may not be comparable to prior years. ~ Budget benchmarking measure Service Efforts and Accomplishments 2007-08 - 49 - - 50 - CHAPTER 5 – PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT The mission of the Planning and Community Environment Department is to provide the City Council and community with creative guidance on, and effective implementation of, land use development, planning, transportation, housing and environmental policies, plans and programs that maintain and enhance the City as a safe, vital and attractive community. The Planning and Community Environment Department has three major divisions: • Planning and Transportation - To provide professional leadership in planning for Palo Alto’s future by recommending and effectively implementing land use, transportation, environmental, housing and community design policies and programs that preserve and improve Palo Alto as a vital and highly desirable place to live, work, and visit. • Building - To review construction projects and improvements for compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances in a professional and efficient manner; and to ensure that all developments subject to the development review process achieve the specified quality and design. • Economic Development - To provide information and data on the local economy and business community that will assist the City Council in decision-making; identify initiatives that will increase City revenues and economic health; and facilitate communication and working relationships within the business community. Where does a Planning dollar go? Economic Development 3% Building 40% Planning and Transportation 57% Source: FY 2007-08 revenue and expenditure data What is the source of Planning Department funding? General Fund 40% Revenue and Reimbursements 60% Service Efforts and Accomplishments 2007-08 - 51 - SPENDING AND STAFFING Spending increased from about $8.5 million to $9.6 million over the last 5 years, or approximately 13%. The department’s revenue increased from $3.5 to $5.8 million, or 68%, over the same period. However, revenue decreased from $6.6 million in FY 2006-07 to $5.8 million in FY 2007-08. The department attributes this change to several large, one-time projects in FY 2006-07. Authorized staffing for the department decreased from 61 to 54 FTE, or 11% over the last five years. According to the department, this was the result of a decrease in hourly staffing as well as one plan check engineer. The graph on the right uses California State Controller’s data to show Palo Alto’s per capita spending for Planning, Building Inspection, and Code Enforcement as compared to other jurisdictions. Data in the graph and table below differ because the City of Palo Alto and the Controller's Office compile data differently. Palo Alto's Planning Department expenditures per capita appear higher than those of surrounding jurisdictions, but it should be noted that different cities budget expenditures in different ways. For example, Palo Alto includes a transportation division, shuttle services and rent for the Development Center in its costs. Planning, Building Inspection and Code Enforcement Expenditures Per Capita (FY 2005-06) $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 Santa Clara San Mateo Sunnyvale Redwood City Mountain View Milpitas Menlo Park Livermore PALO ALTO Source: California State Controller, Cities Annual Report Fiscal Year 2005-06 Operating Expenditures (in millions) Planning and Transportation1 Building Economic Development2 TOTAL Expenditures per capita Revenue (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) FY 2003-04 $5.5 $3.0 - $8.5 $141 $3.5 61 FY 2004-05 $6.0 $3.1 - $9.1 $148 $4.2 61 FY 2005-06 $5.9 $3.3 - $9.2 $151 $5.6 53 3 FY 2006-07 $5.6 $3.7 $0.1 $9.4 $150 $6.6 554 FY 2007-08 $5.5 $3.9 $0.2 $9.6 $152 $5.8 54 Change over last 5 years - +29% - +13% +8% +68% -11% 1 The Planning and Transportation Divisions merged in Spring 2006. 2 Economic Development moved from the City Manager’s Office to the Planning and Community Environment Department in FY 2006-07. 3 The Department reduced temporary staffing; the City also adopted a new method for calculating temporary staffing. 4 The Department also has one position in the Refuse Fund and one position in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund. Chapter 5 – PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT - 52 - ADVANCE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A total of 257 planning applications were completed in FY 2007-08, 37% fewer than in FY 2003-04. The average time in weeks to complete applications decreased from 13.5 weeks in FY 2003-04 to 12.7 weeks in FY 2007-08 (a 6% decrease). The target is 10.6 weeks. The Department completed 107 Architectural Review applications, a decrease of 28% from five years earlier. The number of business outreach contacts has dropped by 30% in the last five years.1 47% of residents responding to the survey rated the quality of land use, planning and zoning as good or excellent. 57% rated the overall quality of new development in Palo Alto as good or excellent. 63% rated economic development services good or excellent. Citizen Survey Economic Development Planning applications completed~ Architectural Review Board applications completed Average weeks to complete staff-level applications ~ Percent rating quality of land use, planning, and zoning in Palo Alto as good or excellent Percent rating overall quality of new development in Palo Alto as good or excellent Number of business outreach contacts Citizen Survey Percent rating economic development good or excellent FY 2003-04 409 149 13.5 weeks 48% - 60 58% FY 2004-05 327 108 11.1 weeks 46% 56% 48 55% FY 2005-06 390 115 13.6 weeks 50% 51% 361 60% FY 2006-07 299 100 13.4 weeks 49% 57% 24 61% FY 2007-08 257 107 12.7 weeks 47% 57% 42 63% Change over last 5 years -37% -28% -6% -1% - -30% +5% 1 In FY 2005-06, staffing for business outreach was reduced from 2 to 1 FTE. In previous years, the number of outreach contacts was higher because Executive Staff and City Council members were also involved in business outreach. ~ Budget benchmarking measure Completed Planning Applications (FY 2007-08) Protected Tree Removals 6%Variances 2% Temporary Use Permit 4% Other 14% Architectural Review Board 38% Conditional Use Permits 7% Home Improvement Exception 4% Individual Reviews 25% Source: Planning and Community Environment Department Service Efforts and Accomplishments 2007-08 - 53 - ADVANCE PLANNING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT Based on data from the Association of Bay Area Governments, Palo Alto's jobs to housing ratio is projected to be 3.1 in 2010, higher than five nearby jurisdictions. However, this is lower than previous figures in 2000 (3.8 ratio) and 2005 (3.2 ratio). The number of residential units increased from 27,019 to 27,938, or 3% over the last five years. The average home price in 2007 was more than $1.8 million – up 71% over 2003. Only 13% of residents responding to the survey rated the availability of affordable quality housing as good or excellent, placing Palo Alto in the 7th percentile compared to other jurisdictions. The department notes that the method for counting code enforcement cases changed in FY 2007-08 and therefore, the number of new cases and reinspections increased. 59% of residents surveyed rated code enforcement services good or excellent. This places Palo Alto in the 83rd percentile compared to other jurisdictions. 24% consider run-down buildings, weed lots, or junk vehicles to be a major or moderate problem, an increase from the 17% who thought so five years ago. However, only 3% consider them a major problem. Jobs/Housing Ratio Projected for Calendar Year 2010 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Los Altos San Jose Sunnyvale Mountain View Santa Clara PALO ALTO Source: Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Projections 2007 Advance Planning (cont.) Code Enforcement Number of residential units Average price – single family home in Palo Alto1 Estimated new jobs resulting from projects approved during year Number of new housing units approved Cumulative number of below market rate (BMR) units Number of new cases Number of reinspections <REVISED> Percent of cases resolved within 120 days of date received ~ Citizen Survey Percent rating quality of code enforcement good or excellent Citizen Survey Percent who consider run down buildings, weed lots, or junk vehicles a major or moderate problem FY 2003-04 27,019 $1,096,579 +127 141 280 630 1,094 94% 59% 17% FY 2004-05 27,522 $1,339,274 -197 81 322 473 796 91% 55% 21% FY 2005-06 27,767 $1,538,318 -345 371 322 421 667 94% 61% 16% FY 2006-07 27,763 $1,516,037 0 517 381 369 639 76% 58% 17% FY 2007-08 27,938 $1,872,850 +193 103 395 6842 9812 93% 59% 24% Change over last 5 years +3% +71% +52% -27% +41% +9% -10% -1% - +7% 1 Average home price is on a calendar year basis (e.g. FY 2007-08 data is for calendar year 2007). Source is http://rereport.com/scc/annual/palo_alto.html 2 The department advises that the method for counting new code enforcement cases and reinspections changed in FY 2007-08. Inspections or cases with multiple components that in the past were counted as a single inspection or case are now counted as multiples. This is the reason for the increase in the numbers compared to FY 2006-07. For this reason, FY 2007-08 data is not comparable to prior years’ data. ~ Budget benchmarking measure Chapter 5 – PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT - 54 - Building permit applications City’s average Cost per permit application Building permits issued ~ Percent of building permits issued over the counter Valuation of construction for issued permits (in millions) Building permit revenue (in millions) Average number of days for first response to plan checks1 Average number of days to issue building permits1 Number of inspections completed~ <REVISED> City’s average cost per inspection <REVISED> Percent of inspection requests for permitted work responded to within one working day2~ FY 2003-04 3,340 - 3,236 75% $129.2 $2.5 21 days 86 days 13,310 - 93% FY 2004-05 3,219 - 3,081 69% $214.9 $3.2 24 days 94 days 12,186 - 91% FY 2005-06 3,296 $662 3,081 78% $276.9 $4.4 3 28 days 98 days 11,585 $139 94% FY 2006-07 3,236 $736 3,136 76% $298.7 $4.6 27 days 102 days 14,822 $127 99% FY 2007-08 3,253 $784 3,046 53% $358.9 $4.2 23 days 80 days 22,8203 $944 98% Change over last 5 years -3% - -6% -22% +178% +68% +10% -7% +71% - +5% 1 Average number of days does not include over the counter plan checks or building permits. 2 In some cases, a customer requests a specific day or time as opposed to within one working day; this percentage indicates how often the Department met the one working day deadline or, when applicable, the customer's specific request. The Department’s target was 90%. 3 According to the department, the increase in the number of inspections in FY 2007-08 is due to a change in the method for counting inspections. Under the new method, each type of inspection included in a residential inspection is now counted as an individual inspection whereas in the past the residential inspection would have counted as one. 4 The department advises that the decrease in the City’s average cost per inspection in FY 2007-08 is due to the new method for counting inspections, which resulted in a higher number of inspections and therefore, a lower cost per inspection. 5 The department attributes this increase to several one-time development projects such as Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life, Altaire, Arbor Real, Sterling Park, Echelon, Vantage, and the VM Ware corporate campus. ~ Budget benchmarking measure BUILDING PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS Compared to five years ago, the number of building permits issued in FY 2007-08 was five percent lower at 3,046. During that same period, the valuation of construction for issued permits increased from about $129 million to about $359 million, or 178%.5 Building permit revenue, increased from $2.5 to $4.2 million, or 68%. Staff completed 22,820 inspections in FY 2007-08. According to the department, 98% of inspection requests were responded to within one working day or within the timeframe of the customer's request. The average number of days for first response to plan checks was 23 days. Compared to 5 years ago, the average number of days to issue a building permit has decreased from 86 to 80 days excluding permits issued over the counter. Building Permit Revenues FY 1998-99 through FY 2007-08 $0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 1998- 99 1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07 2007- 08 Fiscal Year Source: Planning and Community Environment Department Service Efforts and Accomplishments 2007-08 - 55 - Citizen Survey Number of monitored intersections with an unacceptable level of service during evening peak Number of intersections with 10 or more accidents 1 City Shuttle boardings~ City’s cost per shuttle boarding Caltrain average weekday boardings Average number of employees participating in the City commute program~ Percent who rate traffic flow on major streets good or excellent3 <NEW> Percent of days per week commuters used alternative commute modes4 <REVISED> Percent who consider the amount of public parking good or excellent FY 2003-04 2 of 21 8 170,719 $1.89 2,825 127 - - 56% FY 2004-05 2 of 21 11 169,048 $1.92 3,264 117 - - 57% FY 2005-06 2 of 21 7 175,471 $1.91 3,882 104 - - 58% FY 2006-07 2 of 21 13 168,710 $2.00 4,132 105 - - 65% FY 2007-08 3 of 21 2 178,505 $1.97 4,589 114 38% 40% 52% Change over last 5 years - -38% +5% +4% +62% -10% - - -4% 1 Accidents within 200 feet of intersection. 2 In cooperation with the Palo Alto Fire Department. 3 This question replaced “Percent who consider traffic congestion to be a major or moderate problem in Palo Alto.” Responses to that question were 60% (FY 2003- 04), 58% (FY 2004-05), 60% (FY 2005-06), and 55% (FY 2006-07). 4 Alternative commute modes include carpooling, public transportation, walking, bicycling, and working at home. ~ Budget benchmarking measure TRANSPORTATION PLANNING In the 2008 Citizen Survey, 86% of residents responding to the survey rated the ease of walking good or excellent, and 79% rated the ease of bicycle travel good or excellent. 38% of respondents rated traffic flow on major streets good or excellent. The City has 97 intersections with signals; 35 of the intersections have signals coordinated during commute time. The City operates a free shuttle. In FY 2007-08, the department reports there were 178,505 shuttle boardings. The City and the school district encourage alternatives to driving to school by teaching age-appropriate road safety skills to students in kindergarden through 6th grade. In FY 2007-08, staff provided scheduling, administrative support, training and follow-up parent education materials for: • 68 pedestrian safety presentations to 2,439 students in kindergarten through 2nd grade • A three lesson bicycle/traffic safety curriculum for all 775 3rd graders2 • A refresher bicycle/traffic safety lesson for all 814 5th graders2 • 9 assemblies for 816 6th graders in three middle schools Palo Alto Resident Survey: Percent rating the ease of the following forms of transportation in Palo Alto as "good" or "excellent" 52% 79% 86% 34% 59% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Bus travel Rail or subway travel Car travel Bicycle travel Walking Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 2008 (Palo Alto) CHAPTER 6 – POLICE The mission of the Police Department is to proudly serve and protect the public with respect and integrity. The Department has seven major service areas: • Field services – police response, critical incident resolution, regional assistance response, and police services for special events • Technical services – 911 dispatch services for police, fire, utilities, public works and Stanford, and police information management • Investigations and crime prevention services – police investigations, property and evidence, youth services, and community policing • Traffic services – traffic enforcement, complaint resolution, and school safety • Parking services – parking enforcement, parking citations and adjudication, and abandoned vehicle abatement • Police personnel services – police hiring, retention, personnel records, training, and volunteer programs • Animal services – animal control, pet recovery/adoption services, animal care, animal health and welfare, and regional animal services -56- What is the source of Police Department funding? Revenue & Reimbursement s 20% General Fund 80% What is the source of Police Department funding?Where does a Police Department dollar go? Field Services 49% Traffic Services 6%Parking Services 3% Police Personnel Selection 4% Animal Services 6% Investigations and Crime Prevention Services 12% Techincal Services 20% Source: FY 2007-08 revenue and expenditure data Service Efforts and Accomplishments 2007-08 -57- POLICE SPENDING AND REVENUE Total Police Department spending increased from $22.0 to $28.5 million, or 30%, in the last 5 years. This includes animal services and 911-dispatch services provided to other jurisdictions. Over the same five year period, total revenue and reimbursements increased from $5.1 to $5.7 million, or 12%. A comparison of police expenditures during FY 2005-06 (the most recent data available from the State Controller) shows Palo Alto spends more per capita than most other local jurisdictions. It should be noted that every jurisdiction has different levels of service and categorizes expenditures in different ways. For example, Cupertino contracts with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office for police services, and Sunnyvale’s Department of Public Safety provides both police and fire services. 84% of residents rated police services good or excellent – placing Palo Alto in the 77th percentile compared with other surveyed jurisdictions, but a decline from the prior year. Satisfaction also declined in those respondents who had contact with the Police Department. The department reports the survey results may reflect the impact of staffing shortages, disabilities, vacancies, and academy and field training programs. A recent increase in street robberies, residential burglaries, and a recent homicide may also have affected the public perception in the survey results. Comparison Police Net Expenditures Per Capita (FY 2005-06) $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 Cupertino Sunnyvale Fremont Mountain View San Mateo Menlo Park Santa Clara PALO ALTO Milpitas Redwood City Source: California State Controller, Cities Annual Report Fiscal Year 2005-06 Operating Expenditures (in millions) Citizen Survey Field services Technical services Investigations and crime prevention Traffic services Parking services Police personnel services Animal services TOTAL Total spending per resident Total revenue Percent rating OVERALL police services good or excellent FY 2003-04 $9.0 $5.3 $2.7 $1.4 $0.8 $1.3 $1.4 $22.0 $363 $5.12 90% FY 2004-05 $9.8 $4.8 $3.2 $1.5 $1.1 $0.8 $1.4 $22.5 $367 $4.5 87% FY 2005-06 $10.9 $5.4 $3.1 $1.5 $1.1 $0.9 $1.5 $24.4 $393 $4.8 87% FY 2006-07 $11.4 $6.2 $3.2 $1.7 $1.0 $1.0 $1.5 $25.9 $414 $5.0 91% FY 2007-08 $13.9 $5.8 $3.4 $1.7 $0.9 $1.1 $1.7 $28.5 $449 $5.7 84% Change over last 5 years +55% +8% +27% +18% +3% -18% +25% +30% +24% +12% -6% 1 Comparison of operating expenditures does not include animal control. Palo Alto figures include dispatch and some animal services expenditures. 2 FY 2003-04 revenues included an unusually high bail forfeiture amount. ~ Budget benchmarking measure. 1 Chapter 6- POLICE -58- CALLS FOR SERVICE The Police Department handled over 58,700 calls for service during FY 2007-08, or about 161 calls per day. 34% of the Citizen Survey respondents reported contact with the Police department. 73% rated the quality of their contact as good or excellent. Over the last five years: ƒ The percent of emergency calls dispatched within 60 seconds of receipt decreased to 96%. Emergency calls are generally “life threatening” or high danger crimes in progress. ƒ The average response times for emergency calls improved by 27 seconds – from 4:59 minutes to 4:32 minutes (the target is 6:00 minutes). The percent of responses within 6 minutes improved from 72% to 81%. Response times are measured from receipt of the 911 call to arrival on-scene. ƒ The average response times for urgent calls improved by 53 seconds – from 7:55 minutes to 7:02 minutes – with 88% of responses within 10 minutes. Urgent calls are generally non-life threatening, or less dangerous property crimes that are in progress or just occurred. The FY 2007-08 target for on-scene arrival for urgent calls was changed from 7:30 minutes to 10:00 minutes for FY 2008-09. ƒ The average response time for non-emergency calls was 24:06 minutes – with 99% of responses within 60 minutes. Non-emergency calls are generally routine or report-type calls that can be handled as time permits. The FY 2007-08 target for on-scene arrival for non-emergency calls was changed from 20 minutes to 45:00 minutes for FY 2008-09. Citizen Survey Total Police Department calls for service~ False alarms Percent emergency calls dispatched within 60 seconds of receipt of call Average emergency response (minutes)~ Average urgent response (minutes)~ Average non- emergency response (minutes)~ Percent emergency calls responded within 6 minutes Percent urgent calls responded within 10 minutes Percent non- emergency calls responded within 60 minutes Percent reported having contact with the Police Dept 1 Percent rating quality of their contact good or excellent FY 2003-04 52,489 2,681 98% 4:59 7:55 - 72% 96% 96% - - FY 2004-05 52,233 2,385 94% 5:01 7:50 18:15 71% 78% 96% 36% 78% FY 2005-06 57,017 2,419 88% 4:41 7:39 20:36 78% 78% 95% - - FY 2006-07 60,079 2,610 96% 5:08 7:24 19:26 73% 79% 95% 33% 81% FY 2007-08 58,742 2,539 96% 4:32 7:02 24:06 81% 88% 99% 34% 73% Change over last 5 years +12% -5% -2% -9% -11% - +9% -8% +3% - - ~ Budget benchmarking measure. 1 Survey questions not conducted in FY 2003-04 and FY 2005-06. Calls for Services (FY 2007-08) Fire assist, 9% Service, 6% Directed patrol, 4% Crime calls, 16% False calls, 4% Accidents, 3% Noise, 3% Alarms, 4% Vehicle stops, 26% Miscellaneous, 20% Phone messages - officer follow- up, 4% Source: Police Department Service Efforts and Accomplishments 2007-08 -59- CRIME The Police Department categorizes crime as Part 11 and Part 2.2 Compared to FY 2003-04, the number of reported Part 1 crimes dropped by 22%, and the number of Part 2 crimes increased by 32% in FY 2007- 08. Although Palo Alto is a relatively quiet, affluent community of about 63,000, it has a daytime population estimated at nearly 140,000, a regional shopping center, and a downtown with an active nightlife. Police Department statistics show 127 reported crimes per 1,000 residents, with 87 reported crimes per officer last year. FBI statistics show that Palo Alto has more property crimes per 1,000 residents, but fewer violent crimes per thousand, than most other local jurisdictions. In the most recent citizen survey, 10% of households reported being the victim of a crime in the last 12 months (35th percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions). Of those households, 73% said they reported the crime. Palo Alto ranked in the 31st percentile, below the benchmark, compared to other surveyed jurisdictions for reporting crimes. Reported crimes Citizen Survey Arrests Clearance rates for part 1 crimes1 Part 11 crimes reported Part 22 crimes reported Reported crimes per 1,000 residents Reported crimes per officer5 Percent households reported being victim of crime in last 12 months Percent households that were victim of a crime who reported the crime Juvenile arrests Total arrests4 Homicide cases cleared/ closed Rape cases cleared/ closed Robbery cases cleared/ closed Theft cases cleared/ closed FY 2003-04 2,370 4,719 117 76 11% 59% 344 2,577 100% 63% 44% 21% FY 2004-05 2,466 4,994 121 80 10% 64% 256 2,134 100% 78% 46% 14% FY 2005-06 2,520 5,140 123 82 12% 59% 241 2,530 None reported 67% 68% 14% FY 2006-07 1,855 5,662 120 81 9% 61% 244 3,059 None reported 100% 42% 18% FY 2007-08 1,843 6,227 127 87 10% 73% 257 3,253 100% 100% 104%6 21% Change over last 5 years -22% +32% +9% +14% -1% +14% -25% +26% 0% +37% +60% 0% 1 Part 1 crimes include assault, burglary, homicide, rape, robbery, larceny/theft, vehicle theft, and arson. 2 Part 2 crimes include assaults or attempted assaults where a weapon is not used or where serious injuries did not occur; forgery and counterfeiting; fraud; embezzlement; buying, receiving, and possessing stolen property; vandalism; weapons offenses; prostitution and other vice crimes; sex offenses other than rape; drug offenses; gambling; offenses against family and children; drunk driving; liquor laws; drunk in public; disorderly conduct; and vagrancy. 3 Does not include arson or larceny/theft under $400. 4 Total arrests does not include drunk in public where suspects are taken to the sobering station, or traffic warrant arrests. 5 Based on authorized sworn staffing. 6 Some robberies from the previous year were cleared in this fiscal year. Violent and Property Crimes Per 1,000 Residents (Calendar Year 2007) 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 Menlo Park Mountain View PALO ALTO East Palo Alto Santa Clara Violent crimes Property crimes Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program (www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm) 3 Chapter 6- POLICE -60- PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY When evaluating safety in the community: • 85% of residents felt “very” or “somewhat safe” from violent crimes in Palo Alto, and 74% felt safe from property crime. This placed Palo Alto in the 72nd percentile for violent crimes and in the 79th percentile for property crimes compared to other jurisdictions. • In their neighborhood during the day, 95% of residents felt “very” or “somewhat safe”. After dark, 78% of residents felt “very” or “somewhat safe” in their neighborhoods. In comparison to other jurisdictions, Palo Alto ranked in the 88th percentile for ratings of safety in your neighborhood during the day, and in the 62nd percentile for neighborhood safety after dark. • 96% of residents felt “very” or “somewhat safe” in Palo Alto’s downtown during the day. 65% felt safe after dark. The Palo Alto ratings for perceptions of downtown safety were in the 81st and 61st percentiles, respectively, compared to other jurisdictions. • The decrease in survey results may reflect the increase in crimes that occurred in FY 2007-08, including a homicide and street robberies in the downtown area. Citizen Survey: Percent of residents feeling very or somewhat safe Citizen Survey From violent crime From property crime In your neighborhood during the day In your neighborhood after dark In Palo Alto’s downtown area during the day In Palo Alto’s downtown area after dark Percent rating crime prevention good or excellent FY 2003-04 84% 71% 98% 82% 94% 76% 87% FY 2004-05 87% 76% 98% 84% 96% 69% 85% FY 2005-06 75% 62% 94% 79% 91% 69% 77% FY 2006-07 86% 75% 98% 85% 94% 74% 83% FY 2007-08 85% 74% 95% 78% 96% 65% 74% Change over last 5 years 1% +3% -3% -4% +2% -11% -13%  Budget benchmarking measure 2008 Survey Ratings on Perceptions of Safety: Percent of Respondents Feeling "Very" or "Somewhat" Safe 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 % In Palo Alto's downtown area (after dark) In Palo Alto's downtown area (during the day) In your neighborhood (after dark) In your neighborhood (during the day) Environmental hazards Property crime Violent crime Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 2008 (Palo Alto) Service Efforts and Accomplishments 2007-08 -61- POLICE STAFFING, EQUIPMENT, AND TRAINING Authorized departmental staffing decreased from 177 to 169 full time equivalents over the last five years, or 5%. The number of police officers has remained unchanged at 93. As of calendar year 2007, however, the department was down 10 police officers due to vacancies, injuries, training, and other leave situations. An average of 8 officers is on patrol at all times. With 2.66 sworn and civilian FTE per 1,000 residents, Palo Alto’s total staffing is higher than other local jurisdictions, but it includes full dispatch services and animal services provided to other jurisdictions. The ratio of police officers declined 4% over the last 5 years to 1.47 officers per 1,000 residents. According to the department, training hours per officer also decreased 8% over the last 5 years due in part to disabilities and vacancies in the sworn staffing. The department reports it received 141 commendations and 20 complaints during FY 2007-08; one of the complaints was sustained. Sworn and Civilian Full-Time Equivalent Positions Per 1,000 Population (Calendar Year 2007) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 East Palo Alto Fremont San Mateo Redwood City Milpitas Santa Clara Mountain View Menlo Park Sunnyvale PALO ALTO Officers per 1,000 Civilians per 1,000 Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program (www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm) Authorized staffing (FTE) Authorized staffing per 1,000 residents Number of police officers Police officers per 1,000 residents Average number of officers on patrol1 Number of patrol vehicles Number of motor- cycles Training hours per officer2 Overtime as a percent of regular salaries Number of citizen commendati ons received Number of citizen complaints filed FY 2003-04 177 2.92 93 1.53 8 30 10 146 13% - - FY 2004-05 173 2.82 93 1.51 8 30 10 137 12% - - FY 2005-06 169 2.72 93 149 8 30 9 153 13% 144 7 (0 sustained) FY 2006-07 168 2.68 93 1.49 8 30 9 142 16% 121 11 (1 sustained) FY 2007-08 169 2.66 93 1.47 8 30 9 135 17% 141 20 (1 sustained) Change over last 5 years -5% -9% 0% -4% 0% 0% -10% -8% 4% - - 1 Does not include traffic motor officers. 2 Does not include academy. Chapter 6- POLICE -62- TRAFFIC AND PARKING CONTROL Over the past five years, the total number of: • traffic collisions decreased by 21%, the total number of bicycle/pedestrian collisions decreased by 8% • alcohol related collisions increased by 24%, and the number of DUI arrests increased by 99%. In FY 2007-08, police personnel made more than 19,100 traffic stops, and issued more than 6,300 traffic citations and more than 50,700 parking citations. The percent of residents rating traffic enforcement good or excellent remained at 64% from five years ago. The rating places Palo Alto in the 50th percentile compared to other jurisdictions. The number of traffic collisions per 1,000 residents decreased 25% over the past 5 years (from 24 to 18 per 1,000 residents), and the percent of traffic collisions with injuries increased 1% (from 28% to 29%) over the 5 year period. Comparison data for calendar year 2006 shows that Palo Alto had more collisions per 1,000 residents than other local jurisdictions. Palo Alto has a large non-resident daytime population. In addition, Palo Alto documents minor damage collisions to a much larger extent than other jurisdictions. Collisions Per 1,000 Residents (Calendar Year 2006) 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Fremont Sunnyvale Santa Clara San Mateo East Palo Alto Milpitas Mountain View Redwood City PALO ALTO Menlo Park Injury collisions per 1,000 Property damage collisions per 1,000 Source: California Highway Patrol 2006 Annual Report of Fatal and Injury Motor Vehicle Traffic Collisions, and California Department of Finance Citizen Survey Traffic collisions Bicycle/ pedestrian collisions Alcohol related collisions Total injury collisions Traffic collisions per 1000 residents Percent of traffic collisions with injury Number of DUI arrests Number of traffic stops Traffic citations issued1 Parking citations Percent rating traffic enforcement good or excellent FY 2003-04 1,429 91 34 400 24 28% 172 9,731 7,301 47,860 64% FY 2004-05 1,419 97 32 407 23 29% 111 8,822 5,671 52,235 63% FY 2005-06 1,287 113 43 396 21 31% 247 11,827 7,687 56,502 63% FY 2006-07 1,257 103 31 390 20 23% 257 15,563 6,232 57,222 71% FY 2007-08 1,122 84 42 324 18 29% 343 19,177 6,326 50,706 64% Change over last 5 years -21% -8% +24% -19% -25% +1% +99% +97% -13% +6% 0%  Budget benchmarking measure 1 Does not include warnings. Service Efforts and Accomplishments 2007-08 -63- ANIMAL SERVICES Palo Alto provides regional animal control services to the cities of Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Mountain View. The Palo Alto Police Department reports it is the only agency in Santa Clara County with an animal shelter and spay and neuter clinic. Animal Services provides pet recovery and adoption services, animal care, animal health and welfare (including spay and neuter clinics and vaccinations), and other services at the Animal Shelter on East Bayshore Road. In FY 2007-08, Animal Services responded to 91% of Palo Alto live animal calls within 45 minutes. The department successfully returned to their owners 75% of dogs and 17% of cats received by the shelter during FY 2007-08. 78% of survey respondents rated animal control services good or excellent. Palo Alto placed in the 97th percentile compared to other jurisdictions surveyed. Animal Services 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 FY 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 FY 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 FY 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 FY 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 FY 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 FY 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 FY 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 FY 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 FY 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 FY 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 FY 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 Number of Palo Alto animal services calls Number of sheltered animals Source: Police Department Citizen Survey Animal Services expenditures Animal Services revenue Number of Palo Alto animal services calls Number of regional animal services calls Percent Palo Alto live animal calls for service responded to within 45 minutes Number of sheltered animals Percent dogs received by shelter returned to owner Percent cats received by shelter returned to owner Percent rating animal control services good or excellent~ FY 2003-04 $1.4 $0.9 3,575 1,766 98% 3,780 80% 11% 79% FY 2004-05 $1.4 $0.9 4,994 1,604 91% 3,514 77% 12% 79% FY 2005-06 $1.5 $0.9 2,861 1,944 89% 3,839 78% 9% 78% FY 2006-07 $1.5 $1.0 2,990 1,773 88% 3,578 82% 18% 78% FY 2007-08 $1.7 $1.2 3,059 1,666 91% 3,532 75% 17% 78% Change over last 5 years 25% 29% -14% -6% -7% -7% -5% 6% -1%  Budget benchmarking measure - 64 - CHAPTER 7 – PUBLIC WORKS The mission of the Department of Public Works is to provide efficient, cost effective and environmentally sensitive construction, maintenance, and management of Palo Alto streets, sidewalks, parking lots, buildings and other public facilities; to provide appropriate maintenance, replacement and utility line clearing of City trees; and to ensure timely support to other City departments in the area of engineering services. The department is responsible for the following services that are provided through the General Fund: • Streets – to develop and maintain the structural integrity and ride quality of streets to maximize the effective life of the pavement and traffic control clarity of streets and to facilitate the safe and orderly flow of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians • Trees – to manage a sustainable urban forest by selecting appropriate species and providing timely maintenance and replacement of City trees as well as providing utility line clearing for front and rear easements • Structures and Grounds – to build, maintain, renovate, and operate City-owned and leased structures, parking lots, grounds, parks and open space to achieve maximum life expectancy of the facilities • Engineering – to construct, renovate, and maintain City- owned infrastructure through the City’s Capital Improvement Program; to ensure safety, comfort, and maximum life expectancy and value of City structures, facilities, and streets; to provide engineering support to City Departments and private development through the expeditious review and inspection of projects to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and conformance with approved plans and specifications The department is responsible for the following services that are provided through Enterprise and Internal Service Funds (non-General Fund): • Refuse collection and disposal/Zero Waste • Storm drainage • Wastewater treatment including the Regional Water Quality Control Plant • Vehicle replacement and maintenance (includes equipment) What is the source of Public Works funding?1 Revenue and Reimbursements 17% General Fund 83% Where does a Public Works General Fund operating dollar go? Facility Management 42% Engineering 19%Streets 19% Trees 20% Source: FY 2007-08 revenue and expenditure data 1 Excludes Public Works Enterprise funds Service Efforts and Accomplishments 2007-08 - 65 - Authorized Staffing (FTE) Citizen Survey Operating expenditures (in millions) Capital projects spending (in millions) General fund Capital projects fund Total lane miles maintained Lane miles resurfaced Percent of lane miles resurfaced Number of potholes repaired~ Percent of potholes repaired within 15 days of notification ~ Number of signs repaired or replaced ~ Percent rating street repair good or excellent FY 2003-04 $1.9 $3.8 15 3 463 17 4% 2,907 80% 1,602 46% FY 2004-05 $2.2 $3.3 15 2 463 20 4% 3,221 76% 1,6202 48% FY 2005-06 $2.1 $2.4 13 2 463 20 4% 2,311 95% 1,754 47% FY 2006-07 $2.0 $5.2 13 2 463 32 7% 1,188 82% 1,475 47% FY 2007-08 $2.5 $3.8 13 2 463 27 6% 1,977 78% 1,289 47% Change over last 5 years +27% +1% -13% -33% 0% +59% +2% -32% -2% -20% 1% 1 Includes street reconstruction; signals, safety devices and street lights; pedestrian ways and bikepaths 2 Estimated. ~ Budget benchmarking measure data shown here may differ from budget document due to timing differences. STREETS The City is responsible for maintaining 463 lane miles of streets. In addition, Santa Clara County is responsible for 26 lane miles, and the State of California is responsible for maintaining 24 lane miles within Palo Alto's borders. 47% of survey respondents rate street repair good or excellent. This places Palo Alto in the 48th percentile and gives it a ranking similar to other surveyed jurisdictions. In FY 2007-08, 1,977 potholes were repaired, with 78% of those repairs within 15 days of notification. Costs for the annual maintenance project fluctuate based upon the type of process used. Public Works uses three techniques (crack seal, slurry seal, and cape seal) to maintain streets. Crack, slurry, and cape seal use asphalt or other materials to fill cracks and seal street surfaces to prevent further deterioration. Public Works uses three techniques for re-surfacing streets (asphalt overlay, repair and replace concrete, and reconstruction of concrete streets). Crack sealing is the least costly and total reconstruction of a concrete street is the most costly. These resurfacing techniques use multiple stages to remove, repair, and replace sections of the street pavement, especially concrete streets. Total Street Construction1 FY 2006-07 $0.0 $1.0 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 $5.0 $6.0 Mountain View Menlo Park Sunnyvale Redwood City PALO ALTO Santa Clara (in millions) Source: California State Controller's Office, State of California Streets and Roads Annual Report Fiscal Year 2006-07 Chapter 7 – PUBLIC WORKS - 66 - SIDEWALKS In FY 2007-08, about 84,000 square feet of sidewalks were replaced or permanently repaired, and 27 new ADA ramps were completed. In the past five years, this totaled more than 550,000 square feet of sidewalk replaced or permanently repaired and 276 ADA ramps completed. The department reports that 88% of temporary repairs were completed within 15 days of initial inspection. 53% of survey respondents rate sidewalk maintenance good or excellent. This places Palo Alto in the 58th percentile when compared with other jurisdictions. Historically, the City covered all costs related to sidewalk replacement, regardless of the cause. The City’s 2007-09 Adopted Capital Budget revised the policy. Property owners will now be responsible for the cost of sidewalk replacement if the damage to the sidewalk was not caused by tree roots. Authorized Staffing (FTE) Citizen Survey Operating expenditures (in millions)1 Capital projects spending (in millions) General fund2 Capital projects fund Number of square feet of sidewalks Square feet of sidewalk replaced or permanently repaired3 Number ADA ramps completed Percent of temporary repairs completed within 15 days of initial inspection Percent rating sidewalk maintenance good or excellent FY 2003-04 $0.8 $1.7 6 0 6,679,200 115,352 67 70% 50% FY 2004-05 $0.6 $1.9 4 2 6,679,200 132,430 46 76% 51% FY 2005-06 - $2.5 0 8 6,679,200 126,574 66 87% 52% FY 2006-07 - $2.5 0 7 6,679,200 94,620 70 98% 56% FY 2007-08 - $2.2 0 7 6,679,200 83,827 27 88% 53% Change over last 5 years - +30% - +100% 0% -27% -60% +18% +3% 1 Excludes costs in Engineering Division. 2 In FY 2005-06, operating expenditures for sidewalks and associated staff were transferred to the Capital Projects Fun 3 Includes both in-house and contracted work. Sidewalk Expenditures FY 1998-99 to FY 2007-08 $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 1998- 99 1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07 2007- 08 Fiscal Year Capital Expenditures Operating Expenditures Source: Public Works Department Service Efforts and Accomplishments 2007-08 - 67 - TREES Public Works maintains all City-owned trees, including street trees, all trees in the parks, and trees in City facilities. This includes planting new trees, trimming/ pruning existing trees, removing dead/diseased trees, fertilizing and pest control, line clearing around electrical wires, 24/7 emergency response, and providing Certified Arborist advice to residents regarding care of City trees. Managers in the tree group also oversee several tree-related contracts including stump removal, electrical line clearing, and annual tree maintenance contracts. In FY 2007-08, the City maintained 35,322 trees. In FY 2007-08, a total of 188 trees were planted by the City and Canopy (a non-profit organization). The number of trees trimmed (excluding trees trimmed for utility line clearing) or removed in FY 2007-08 was 6,579, or 26% higher than it was in FY 2003-04. 68% of survey respondents rated street tree maintenance good or excellent, down 2% from 70% in FY 2003-04. Palo Alto Resident Survey: Quality Ratings of Street Tree Maintenance Poor 6% Fair 26% Excellent 22% Good 46% Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 2008 Citizen Survey Operating expenditures (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) (general fund) Total number of City- maintained trees1 Number of trees planted1 Number of trees trimmed or removed2 ~ Percent of urban forest pruned ~ Percent of total tree lines cleared ~ Number of tree- related electrical service disruptions ~ Average cost per tree maintained Percent rating street tree maintenance good or excellent FY 2003-04 $1.9 14 35,440 242 5,222 - - - $53.52 70% FY 2004-05 $1.9 14 35,096 164 4,775 14% 26% 5 $54.42 82% FY 2005-06 $2.2 14 34,841 263 3,422 3 10% 21% 13 $63.28 72% FY 2006-07 $2.3 14 34,556 164 3,409 10% 30% 15 $67.90 67% FY 2007-08 $2.5 14 35,322 188 6,579 18% 27% 9 $71.52 68% Change over last 5 years +33% 0% 0% -22% +26% - - - +34% -2% 1 Includes trees planted by Canopy; data source is Department of Public Works' workload statistics. 2 Excludes trees trimmed to clear power lines. 3 Estimated ~ Budget benchmarking measure; data shown here may differ from budget document due to timing differences. Chapter 7 – PUBLIC WORKS - 68 - CITY FACILITIES, ENGINEERING & PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT Public Works builds, renovates and maintains City-owned and leased structures, parking lots, grounds, parks and open space. The department also provides citywide capital improvement program (CIP) support including design, engineering, contract management, and project management. The Facilities Management Division staff handled an estimated 3,044 service calls in FY 2007-08 related to building mechanics, carpentry, electrical, locks and painting. This figure does not include preventive maintenance. Maintaining and improving infrastructure continues to be a challenge. In response to the City Auditor’s infrastructure report issued in March 2008, the City is developing a comprehensive plan for addressing the infrastructure backlog estimated at $307 million in the FY2008-09 Adopted Capital Budget. City Facilities Engineering Private Development City facilities operating expenditures (in millions) City facilities authorized staffing (FTE) City facilities capital expenditures (in millions) Capital projects authorized staffing (FTE) Total square feet of facilities maintained1~ Maintenance cost per square foot ~ Custodial cost per square foot Engineering operating expenditures (in millions) Engineering authorized staffing (FTE) Number of private development permits issued2 ~ Number of permits per FTE~ FY 2003-04 $4.2 25 $13.8 3 7 1,461,468 $1.32 $1.12 $1.8 - 285 95 FY 2004-05 $4.5 24 $7.0 8 1,402,225 $1.38 $1.12 $1.9 14 276 92 FY 2005-06 $4.9 23 $6.1 8 1,402,225 $1.52 $1.18 $2.1 15 284 95 FY 2006-07 $5.3 23 $7.2 8 1,613,392 $1.38 $1.04 $2.3 14 215 72 FY 2007-08 $5.5 23 $7.4 8 1,616,171 $1.52 $1.12 $2.5 15 338 1124 Change over last 5 years +31% -7% -46% +19% +11% +15% 0% +39% - +19% 18% 1 The increase in square footage was due to the addition of the following sites during FY 2006-07: Arastradero Gateway Facility, Standford Playing Fields, Hoover Park Restroom, Homer Tunnel, and Lot J (Cowper/Webster Garage). The increase in FY 2007-08 was primarily due to an addition at the Children’s Library. 2 Includes permits for: street work, encroachment, and certificate of compliance. 3 Includes some costs of the downtown parking structures. 4 The department advises that prior year numbers were estimates. FY2007-08 numbers are actuals. ~ Budget benchmarking measure; data shown here may differ from budget document due to timing differences. -68- Number of Private Development Permit Applications 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 1998- 99 1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07 2007- 08 Fiscal Year Source: Public Works Department Service Efforts and Accomplishments 2007-08 - 69 - Revenues, expenses, transfers and reserves (in millions) Citizen Survey Total operating revenue Total operating expense Capital expense1 Transfer from General Fund to Storm Drain Fund Reserve balance Average monthly residential bill Authorized staffing (FTE) Feet of storm drain pipelines cleaned ~ C Calls for assistance with storm drains2 ~ Percent of industrial sites in compliance with storm water regulationsS ~ Percent rating the quality of storm drainage good or excellent FY 2003-04 $2.2 $2.3 $0.1 $0.3 $0.6 $4.25 10 219,106 126 87% 57% FY 2004-05 $2.5 $2.5 $0.1 $0.5 $0.6 $4.25 10 316,024 50 89% 60% FY 2005-06 $5.2 $2.1 $0.3 $0.5 $3.1 $10.00 10 128,643 24 83%3 60% FY 2006-07 $5.2 $2.0 $1.5 $0.0 $4.5 $10.20 10 287,957 4 71% 60% FY 2007-08 $5.5 $2.5 $3.6 $0.0 $3.3 $10.55 10 157,337 80 65% 71% Change over last 5 years +151% +12% +4815% -100% +435% +148% -3% -28% -37% -22% +14% 1 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. Does not include overhead. 2 Estimated 3 Environmental Compliance staff advises that the decrease since FY 2005-06 was due to a revised State definition of “compliance.” Staff also advises that food service facilities account for a larger share of the total inspections than in the past and they tend to have lower compliance rates. ~ Budget benchmarking measure; data shown here may differ from budget document due to timing differences. C Comprehensive Plan item S Sustainability indicator STORM DRAINS The purpose of the City’s storm drain system is to provide adequate drainage, reduce the risk of flooding, and enhance water quality. Storm drain expenses are paid from the Storm Drain Enterprise Fund. The average monthly residential bill is $10.55 to operate and maintain the storm drainage system. The Storm Drain Fund did not receive a transfer from the General Fund in FY 2006-07 or FY 2007-08. However, the budget states that the Storm Drain Oversight Committee “has noted that the Fund will likely experience capital project funding shortfalls in the coming years.” The department reported capital expenditures increased in FY07-08 as the $7 million San Francisquito Creek storm water pump station project started. The project is expected to improve drainage in the northeast section of Palo Alto. Industrial site compliance with storm water regulations has decreased. According to the department, this decrease is attributable to an increase in restaurant inspections. The department states inspectors are finding, addressing, and correcting situations which, if left uncorrected, could lead to storm water contamination. In FY 2007-08, the department reported it cleaned and inspected 100% of catch basins and cleaned 157,337 feet of storm drain pipelines. In FY 2007-08, 71% of residents surveyed rated storm drainage good or excellent. Palo Alto is in the 89th percentile compared with other jurisdictions. Palo Alto Resident Survey: Quality Ratings of Storm Drainage Excellent 25%Poor 10% Fair 20% Good 45% Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 2008 Chapter 7 – PUBLIC WORKS - 70 - WASTEWATER TREATMENT & WASTEWATER ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE The Wastewater Treatment Fund is an enterprise fund operated by the Public Works Department. Its purpose is two-fold: to maintain and monitor the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) and to ensure compliance with regulations protecting the San Francisco Bay and environment. In addition to treating Palo Alto’s wastewater, the RWQCP treats wastewater from five other areas: Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford and East Palo Alto. In FY 2007-08, capital expenses increased as Public Works began construction of the $16 million recycled water pipeline project. The pipeline delivers recycled water to the nearby jurisdiction of Mountain View. Wastewater Treatment Fund Regional Water Quality Control Plant Wastewater Environmental Compliance Total operating revenue (in millions) Total operating expense (in millions) Percent of operating expenses reimbursed by other jurisdictions Capital expense (in millions)2 Reserve balance (in millions) Authorized Staffing (FTE) Millions of gallons processed3 ~ Operating cost per million gallons processed~ Fish toxicity test (percent survival) S~ Authorized staffing FTE1 Number of inspections performed Percent of industrial discharge tests in compliance S~ FY 2003-04 $14.7 $14.3 64% $1.2 $11.6 56 8,238 $1,647 100.00% 14 182 98.95% FY 2004-05 $15.9 $16.1 63% $1.5 $12.6 54 8,497 $1,755 100.00% 14 191 99.38% FY 2005-06 $18.8 $16.9 63% $2.2 $13.6 55 8,972 $1,839 100.00% 14 192 99.40% FY 2006-07 $17.0 $16.3 64% $1.8 $13.8 55 8,853 $1,784 100.00% 14 114 99.40% FY 2007-08 $22.9 $18.1 64% $10.9 $11.1 55 8,510 $2,123 100.00% 14 111 99.25% Change over last 5 years1 +55% +27% 0% +788% -4% -1% +3% +29% 0% -3% -39% +0.30% 1 Figures are based on actual data, however percentage or total may not tally due to rounding. 2 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. Does not include overhead. 3 Includes gallons processed for all cities served by Palo Alto’s Wastewater Treatment Plant. ~ Budget benchmarking measure; data shown here may differ from budget document due to timing differences. S Sustainability indicator Operating Cost per Million Gallons Processed FY 1998-99 through FY 2007-08 $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 1998- 99 1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07 2007- 08 Fiscal Year Source: Public Works Department Service Efforts and Accomplishments 2007-08 - 71 - Refuse Fund (in millions) Citizen Survey Operating revenue Operating expense Capital expense1,6 Reserve balance Authorized staffing (FTE) Total tons of waste landfilled4 Tons of materials recycled4, S State- approved diversion percentage 2, S ~ Tons of household hazardous materials collected S Average monthly residential bill Number of curb miles swept3 Percent rating garbage collection good or excellent ~ Percent rating recycling services good or excellent Percent of residents who recycled more than 12 times during the year FY 2003-04 $21.9 $24.1 $0.0 $8.5 34 61,266 49,268 57% 281 $18.00 21,227 92% 90% 87% FY 2004-05 $23.4 $24.5 $0.3 $7.2 35 60,777 50,311 62% 324 $19.80 21,697 92% 92% 92% FY 2005-06 $24.8 $26.4 $0.1 $4.7 35 59,276 56,013 63% 309 $21.38 22,340 92% 91% 90% FY 2006-07 $25.6 $25.1 $0.0 $5.9 35 59,938 56,837 63% 320 $21.38 22,718 91% 93% 92% FY 2007-08 $28.8 $28.6 $0.0 $6.3 35 61,866 52,196 n/a5 315 $24.16 22,006 92% 90% 94% Change over last 5 years +31% +19% +123% -25% +4% +1% +6% - +12% +34% +4% 0% 0% 7% 1 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. Does not include overhead. 2 Diversion data is calculated on a calendar year basis and reported as the subsequent year (e.g. calendar year 2005 is shown as FY 2005-06). 3 Most streets are swept weekly; business districts are swept three times a week 4 Does not include materials disposed of by self-haul customers, going to other landfills. 5 Data not yet available from the State. 6 In FY 2003-04, capital expense was $4,091; in FY 2007-08, it was $9,103. ~ Budget benchmarking measure; data shown here may differ from budget document due to timing differences. S Sustainability indicator REFUSE The City coordinates refuse services for Palo Alto residents and businesses. This includes the collection, hauling, processing, recycling and disposal of waste materials. The City funds these activities through the Refuse Enterprise Fund. Operating expenses for refuse services have increased from $21.9 to $28.8 million, or approximately 31% over the last five years. According to the department, expenses have increased because of garbage hauler contract adjustments, wage increases, equipment upgrades, medical liability, and other costs. As a result, reserve balances have declined over the last 5 years. According to the department, the Refuse Fund balance is still above the City Council approved reserve guideline of $2.5 to $5.0 million. Compared to FY 2003-04, the total tons of waste landfilled in FY 2007-08 was slightly higher, although it did decrease in the intervening years. Tons of materials recycled increased by 2,928 tons, or 6%. Tons of household hazardous waste collected increased by 12%. Palo Alto ranked 1st (99th percentile) among surveyed jurisdictions for recycling used paper, cans, or bottles from the home. The City ranked in the 97th percentile for overall recycling and 90th percentile for garbage collection. Total Tons of Waster Landfilled or Recycled FY 1998-99 through FY 2007-08 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 1998- 99 1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07 2007- 08 Fiscal YearLandfilledRecycled Source: Public Works Department Chapter 7 – PUBLIC WORKS - 72 - CITY FLEET & EQUIPMENT The City accounts for its fleet and equipment in the Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund. The Fund provides for the maintenance and replacement of vehicles and equipment. The department reports that the City's fleet includes 315 light duty vehicles (including police partrol cars and fire response vehicles), 125 heavy equipment items (self-propelled construction equipment such as loaders, backhoes, and motor graders), and 251 other pieces of other equipment (turf equipment, trailers, asphalt rollers, etc.). This includes 62 emergency response vehicles and light duty fire response vehicles. Vehicle operations and maintenance costs totaled about $3.7 million in FY 2007-08. The median age of light duty vehicles has increased to 7.4 years. The maintenance cost per light-duty vehicle decreased to $1,620. The City Auditor’s Office plans to issue a report on the results of its audit of the City fleet in FY2008-09. Total Miles Traveled (Passenger Vehicles) FY 2000-01 through FY 2007-08 1,500,000 1,600,000 1,700,000 1,800,000 1,900,000 2,000,000 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07 2007- 08 Fiscal Year Source: Public Works Department Operating and maintenance expenditures for vehicles and equipment (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Current value of fleet and equipment (in millions) Number of alternative fuel vehiclesS Percent of fleet fuel consumption that is alternative fuelsS Total miles traveled (light duty vehicles)1 Median mileage of light duty vehicles1 Median age of light duty vehicles1 Maintenance cost per light duty vehicle2 Percent of scheduled preventive maintenance performed within five business days of original schedule FY 2003-04 $2.7 16 $11.5 73 - 1,845,362 37,700 5.9 $1,869 95% FY 2004-05 $3.0 16 $10.9 73 16% 1,731,910 38,897 6.5 $1,790 96% FY 2005-06 $3.2 16 $11.9 74 19% 1,674,427 41,153 6.8 $1,781 95% FY 2006-07 $3.3 16 $11.9 79 20% 1,849,600 41,920 6.8 $1,886 86% FY 2007-08 $3.7 16 $10.8 80 25% 1,650,743 42,573 7.4 $1,620 74% Change over last 5 years +36% +2% -6% +10% - -11% +13% +25% -13% -21% 1 The Public Works Department defines "light duty vehicles" as automobiles and light trucks (less than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight). 2 Includes all maintenance costs except for fuel and accident repairs. Includes 30 police patrol cars. S Sustainability indicator Service Efforts and Accomplishments 2007-08 - 73 - -74- CHAPTER 8 – UTILITIES The mission of the Utilities department is to provide valued utility services to customers and dependable returns to the City. The department is responsible for the following utility services:1 • Electric – Founded in 1900, the electric utility purchases and delivers over 975,000 megawatt hours per year to more than 29,000 customers. • Gas – Founded in 1917, the gas utility purchases and delivers over 32 million therms to over 23,000 customers. • Water – Founded in 1896, the water system purchases and distributes more than 5 million cubic feet per year to over 19,900 customers. • Wastewater collection – Founded in 1898, the wastewater collection utility maintains more than 200 miles of sanitary sewer lines, annually transporting over 8 billion gallons of sewage and wastewater to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. • Fiber optic services – Launched in 1996, the fiber utility offers “dark” fiber optic network service to Palo Alto businesses and institutions through 40.6 miles of “dark” fiber. 1 The Public Works Department (see Chapter 7) is responsible for refuse, storm drainage, and wastewater treatment. Utilities Department Expenditures (by Fund) Water Fund 11% Wastewater Collection Fund 7% Gas Fund 22% Electric Fund 60% Fiber Optic Fund 0% Source: 2007-08 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Service Efforts and Accomplishments 2007-08 - 75 - Revenues, expenses, and unrestricted reserves (in millions) Citizen Survey Operating revenue Operating expense Capital expense1 Equity transfers Electric Fund reserves Electricity purchases (in millions) Average purchase cost per MWH  Energy conservation/ efficiency program expense (in millions) Average monthly residential bill (650 KWH/month) Authorized staffing (FTE) Percent rating electric utility good or excellent  Percent rating street lighting good or excellent FY 2003-04 $92.6 $68.7 $10.2 $8.0 $158.0 $41.3 $38.81 $1.4 $47.94 124 88%2 65% FY 2004-05 $88.7 $68.1 $7.3 $8.2 $148.0 $41.0 $41.25 $1.5 $51.98 117 68%2,3 63% FY 2005-06 $119.4 $83.1 $7.2 $8.5 $161.3 $55.6 $48.62 $1.2 $57.93 119 88% 66% FY 2006-07 $102.5 $89.6 $10.5 $8.7 $156.4 $62.5 $64.97 $1.3 $57.93 114 86% 61% FY 2007-08 $103.8 $99.0 $10.2 $9.0 $145.3 $71.1 $76.84 $1.3 $60.83 111 85% 64% Change over last 5 years 12% 44% 0% 13% -8% 72% 98% -6% 27% -10% -3% -1% 1 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services; does not include overhead. 2 Prior to FY 2005-06, ratings were based on electric and gas services together. 3 In FY 2004-05, satisfaction with electric and gas services dropped dramatically. In our opinion, three major events may have contributed to the 20-point decline in ratings: (1) gas rates increased 15 percent and electric rates increased 11.5 percent, (2) it was revealed that several employees in the Utilities Department were disciplined due to irregularities, and (3) the City agreed to a settlement with Enron Corporation. Satisfaction rates recovered in FY 2005-06. MWH megawatt hours KWH kilowatt hours  Budget benchmarking measure ELECTRICITY Electric utility operating expense totaled $99.0 million in FY 2007-08, or 44% more than 5 years ago, including electricity purchases of $71.1 million, or 72% more than 5 years ago. Although Palo Alto’s average residential electric bill has increased by 27% over five years (from $47.94 to $60.83 per month), it is far lower than comparable Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) rates as shown in the graph on the right. In 2008, 85% of residents responding to the annual Citizen Survey rated electric utility services good or excellent. History of Average Monthly Residential Electric Bills (650 kwh/ month) $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 97-98 98-99 9 9-0 0 00-01 0 1-0 2 02-03 0 3-0 4 0 4-0 5 05-06 0 6-0 7 07-0 8 Fiscal Year PG&E Alameda Santa Clara PALO ALTO Source: Utilities Department Chapter 8 – UTILITIES - 76 - ELECTRICITY (cont.) Residential electricity consumption increased by 3% over the last 5 years (adjusted for population growth, per capita residential electricity usage decreased by 2%), while commercial consumption increased by 2% over the same period. In FY 2007-08, Palo Alto obtained power from several renewable resources, including 53% in the large hydro category, 14% in the qualifying renewable category, and 5% through voluntary subscriptions to the Palo Alto Green program. By the end of FY 2007-08, 19.7% of customers were enrolled in the PaloAltoGreen program. PaloAltoGreen is a voluntary program available to resident and business customers that offers the option of supporting 100% renewable energy from the wind at some of the lowest rates in the nation. The number of electric service interruptions and the average minutes per customer affected are highly variable from year to year. Including storm related outages, electric service interruptions over 1 minute in duration were up 36.6% over 5 years ago, and the average minutes per customer affected was up 23% over 5 years ago. Percent power content1 Number of accounts Residential MWH consumed S Commercial MWH consumed S Average residential electric usage per capita (MWH/person) S Renewable large hydro facilities S Qualifying renewables S,2 Voluntary Palo Alto Green program S Percent customers enrolled in Palo Alto Green S Electric service interruptions over 1 minute in duration Average minutes per customer affected Circuit miles under- grounded during the year FY 2003-04 28,482 158,099 799,927 2.61 60% 7% 0.5% 5.1% 30 43 minutes 0.0 FY 2004-05 28,556 161,440 797,132 2.62 58% 5% 2.1% 12.6% 28 65 minutes 2.0 FY 2005-06 28,653 161,202 804,908 2.58 61% 8% 3.2% 14.6% 39 63 minutes 1.0 FY 2006-07 28,684 162,405 815,721 2.59 84% 10% 4.0% 18.5% 48 48 minutes 1.0 FY 2007-08 29,024 162,680 814,695 2.57 53% 14% 5.0% 19.7% 41 53 minutes 1.2 Change over last 5 years 2% 3% 2% -2% -7% 7% 4.5% 14.6% 37% 22% - 1 Combined CPAU and Palo Alto Green mix for the calendar year. Calendar year data is reported in the subsequent fiscal year (e.g. calendar year 2005 data is shown in FY 2005-06). 2 Qualifying renewable electricity include bio mass, biogas, geothermal, small hydro facilities (not large hydro), solar, and wind. In the 2008-09 Adopted Budget, the City Council established targets of 10% by 2010 and 20% renewable power by 2015.  Budget benchmarking measure S Sustainability indicator Minutes of Sustained Outages per Customer per Year (All Interruptions Included) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 19 9 4 19 9 5 199 6 19 9 7 19 9 8 19 9 9 20 0 0 20 0 1 20 0 2 20 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 Calendar Year Mi n u t e s Palo Alto PG&E distribution system San Diego Gas & Electric Southern California Edison Source: California Public Utilities Commission and Utilities department data Service Efforts and Accomplishments 2007-08 - 77 - GAS Gas enterprise operating expense totaled $36.6 million in FY 2007-08, including $27.2 million in gas purchases (compared to $15.9 million in gas purchases 5 years ago). Capital spending of $4.4 million in FY 2007-08 was 20% less than five years ago. The average monthly residential gas bill increased to $102.03 last year. This was 125% more than five years ago, and is more than a comparable PG&E bill as shown on the graph on the right. In 2008, 84% of residents responding to the survey rated gas utility services good or excellent. History of Average Residential Gas Bills (30 therms summer, 100 therms winter) - 20 40 60 80 100 120 97-9 8 9 8-99 9 9-00 0 0-0 1 0 1-02 0 2-03 0 3-04 0 4-05 0 5-06 0 6-07 0 7-08 Fiscal Year $/ M o n t h PG&E PALO ALTO Long Beach Source: Utilities Department data (weighted average of rate changes during year) Revenues, expenses, and unrestricted reserves (in millions) Citizen Survey Operating revenue Operating expense Capital expense1 Equity transfers Gas Fund reserves Gas purchases (in millions) Average purchase cost (per therm) Average monthly residential bill (30/100 therms per month) Authorized staffing (FTE) Percent rating gas utility good or excellent FY 2003-04 $24.8 $23.0 $5.5 $2.7 $20.5 $15.9 $0.49 $45.44 48 88%2 FY 2004-05 $31.2 $26.7 $5.3 $2.8 $12.8 $18.8 $0.58 $59.24 47 68%2,3 FY 2005-06 $37.0 $28.3 $3.3 $2.9 $13.2 $21.4 $0.65 $69.76 47 88% FY 2006-07 $42.2 $30.1 $3.6 $3.0 $16.9 $22.3 $0.69 $90.97 48 85% FY 2007-08 $49.0 $36.6 $4.4 $3.0 $21.8 $27.2 $0.82 $102.03 46 84% Change over last 5 years 97% 59% -20% 13% 7% 71% 68% 125% -4% -4% 1 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services; does not include overhead. 2 Prior to FY 2005-06, ratings were based on electric and gas services together. 3 In FY 2004-05, satisfaction with gas and electric services dropped dramatically. In our opinion, three major events may have contributed to the 20-point decline in ratings: (1) gas rates increased 15 percent and electric rates increased 11.5 percent, (2) it was revealed that several employees in the Utilities Department were disciplined due to irregularities, and (3) the City agreed to a settlement with Enron Corporation.  Budget benchmarking measure Chapter 8 – UTILITIES - 78 - GAS (cont.) Residents consumed 2% more natural gas in FY 2007-08 than 5 years ago, and businesses consumed 2% more. According to staff, gas usage is weather dependent. During FY 2007-08, 207 miles of pipeline were surveyed for leaks, and 5.7 miles of gas mains were replaced. The number of service disruptions and customers affected has decreased since FY 2003-04. In FY 2007-08, there were 18 service disruptions affecting 105 customers. In FY 2007-08, the department responded to 95% of gas leaks within 30 minutes, and completed 95% of mainline repairs within 4 hours. Residential and Commercial Gas Consumption 0 5,000,00010,000,000 15,000,00020,000,000 25,000,00030,000,000 35,000,00040,000,000 45,000,000 19 9 6 - 9 7 19 9 7 - 9 8 19 9 8 - 9 9 19 9 9 - 0 0 20 0 0 - 0 1 20 0 1 - 0 2 200 2 - 0 3 20 0 3 - 0 4 2004- 0 5 20 0 5 - 0 6 2006- 0 7 20 0 7 - 0 8 Fiscal Year Th e r m s Commercial Therms Consumed Residential Therms Consumed Source: Utilities Department data Customer accounts Residential therms consumed S Commercial/ industrial therms consumed S Average residential natural gas usage per capita (therms/person) S Number of service disruptions Total customers affected Percent gas mainline repairs within 4 hours1 Percent response to gas leaks within 30 minutes Miles of gas main Miles of pipeline surveyed for leaks Miles of gas main replaced during year~ FY 2003-04 23,216 11,700,335 19,806,752 193 37 850 100% 100% 207 207 5.7 FY 2004-05 23,301 12,299,158 19,765,077 200 31 639 97% 98% 207 207 2.8 FY 2005-06 23,353 11,745,883 19,766,876 188 19 211 100% 90% 207 207 2.8 FY 2006-07 23,357 11,759,842 19,581,761 188 18 307 90% 95% 207 207 2.3 FY 2007-08 23,502 11,969,151 20,216,975 189 18 105 95% 95% 207 207 5.7 Change over last 5 years 1% 2% 2% -2% -51% -88% -5% -5% 0% 0% 0% 1 Utilities Strategic Plan performance objective S Sustainability indicator ~ Budget benchmarking measure Service Efforts and Accomplishments 2007-08 - 79 - WATER The City of Palo Alto Utilities Department constructs, maintains, and operates the water delivery system. About 85% of the water Palo Alto purchases from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) originates from high Sierra snowmelt. This water, stored in Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite National Park, is of such high quality that it is exempt from federal and state filtration requirements. The other 15% of SFPUC water comes from rainfall and runoff stored in the Calaveras and San Antonio Reservoirs located in Alameda and Santa Clara counties, and supplemented by groundwater in Sunol. The SFPUC treats and filters these local water sources prior to delivery to its consumers. Over the last 5 years, • Operating expense increased 14%, including a 12% increase in the cost of water purchases. • Capital spending increased from $3.0 million to $3.4 million. • The average residential water bill increased 31% to $64.21 per month. • As shown in the graph on the right, Palo Alto’s average residential water bill has moved higher than the other jurisdictions surveyed. History of Average Residential Water Bills (14 ccf/ month) $- $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00 $50.00 $60.00 $70.00 97- 98 98- 99 99- 00 00- 01 01- 02 02- 03 03- 04 04- 05 05- 06 06- 07 07- 08 Fiscal Year $/ M o n t h PALO ALTO Mountain View Los AltosRedwood City Menlo Park Source: Utilities Department data Note: Cities may allocate costs differently and may have different levels of capital investment. Revenues, expenses, and unrestricted reserves (in millions) Operating revenue Operating expense Capital expense1 Equity transfers Water Fund reserves Water purchases (millions) Average purchase cost (per CCF)~ Average residential water bill Authorized staffing (FTE) Total Water in CCF sold (millions) FY 2003-04 $22.0 $16.0 $3.0 $2.3 $23.9 $7.5 $1.16 $49.07 41 6.0 FY 2004-05 $21.0 $15.0 $4.6 $2.4 $22.2 $6.7 $1.17 $54.12 41 5.3 FY 2005-06 $20.8 $15.3 $4.7 $2.4 $19.2 $6.5 $1.13 $54.12 41 5.2 FY 2006-07 $23.5 $16.3 $3.9 $2.5 $21.3 $7.8 $1.32 $58.17 45 5.5 FY 2007-08 $26.5 $18.3 $3.4 $2.6 $26.4 $8.4 $1.41 $64.21 46 5.5 Change over last 5 years +21% +14% +12% +13% +11% +12% +21% +31% +13% -7% 1 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. Does not include overhead. CCF hundred cubic feet  Budget benchmarking measure Chapter 8 – UTILITIES - 80 - WATER (cont.) Residential water consumption is down 8% from five years ago. On a per capita basis, residents are using 12% less water than five years ago. Commercial water consumption is down 6% from five years ago. Water consumption, like that of natural gas, is highly weather dependent. Palo Alto’s Water Utility revenues are based entirely on consumption (some water agencies bill on a combination of consumption and fixed monthly charges). The number of service disruptions varies from year to year. Due to a problem with the outage notification system, the total number of customers affected by service disruptions was not tracked. Since July 2008, a different tracking system has been implemented. In 2008, 87% of residents responding to the survey rated water utility services good or excellent. Palo Alto was in the 99th percentile compared to other jurisdictions. The water quality improved due to more frequent water main flushing. Residential and Commercial Water Consumption 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 19 9 6-9 7 19 9 7 - 9 8 19 9 8 - 9 9 19 9 9-00 20 0 0-01 20 0 1-02 2002 - 0 3 2003 - 0 4 2004 - 0 5 20 0 5-0 6 20 0 6-0 7 20 0 7-0 8 Fiscal Year CC F Residential Water Consumption (CCF)Commercial Water Consumption (CCF) Source: Utilities Department data Water consumption Citizen Survey Customer accounts Residential water consumption (CCF) S Commercial water consumption (CCF) 1,S Average residential water usage per capita (CCF) S Number of service disruptions Total customers affected Percent water main repairs responded to within 4 hours2 Miles of water mains Estimated miles of water mains replaced Water quality compliance with all required Calif. Department of Health and EPA testingS Percent rating water utility good or excellent FY 2003-04 19,557 3,000,645 2,962,121 50 16 303 95% 226 3 100% 75% FY 2004-05 19,605 2,686,507 2,644,817 44 10 193 100% 226 3 100% 81% FY 2005-06 19,645 2,647,758 2,561,145 42 11 160 100% 219 0 100% 85% FY 2006-07 19,726 2,807,477 2,673,126 45 27 783 97% 219 3 100% 79% FY 2007-08 19,942 2,746,980 2,779,664 43 17 - 97% 219 3 100% 87% Change over last 5 years +2% -8% -6% -12% +6% - +2% -3% 0% 0% +12% 1 Includes commercial, public, and City facilities. 2 Prior to FY 2007-08, the benchmarking measure was percent water main repairs within 4 hours. In FY 2007-08, the department had a goal of responding to 95% or more water breaks within 1 hour. The department continues to track responses within 4 hours. ~ Budget benchmarking measure S Sustainability indicator Service Efforts and Accomplishments 2007-08 - 81 - WASTEWATER COLLECTION The department cleaned or treated 80 miles of the City’s 202 miles of sewer lines in FY 2007-08. There were 174 sewage overflows in calendar year 2007. The department responded to 99% of sewage spills and line blockages within 2 hours. In the 2008 Citizen Survey, 81% of respondents rated sewer services good or excellent. This placed Palo Alto in the 92nd percentile compared to other jurisdictions. Over the past 5 years, • Operating expense increased 28%. • Capital spending increased to $3.6 million in FY 2007-08. • The average residential bill increased from $19.25 to $23.48, or 22%. As shown on the right, Palo Alto’s residential bill is mid-range of other cities. History of Average Residential Wastewater Bills $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 9 7-9 8 9 8-9 9 9 9-0 0 0 0-0 1 0 1-0 2 0 2-0 3 0 3-0 4 0 4-0 5 0 5-0 6 0 6-0 7 0 7-0 8 Fiscal Year $/ m o n t h PALO ALTO Mountain View Los Altos Redwood City Menlo Park Source: Utilities Department data Note: Cities may allocate costs differently and may have different levels of capital investment. Revenues, expenses, and unrestricted reserves (in millions) Citizen Survey Operating revenue Operating expense Capital expense1 Wastewater Collection Fund reserves Average residential sewage bill Authorized staffing (FTE) Customer accounts Miles of sewer lines Miles of mains cleaned/ treated Estimated miles of sewer lines replaced Number of sewage overflows (calendar year)2 Percent sewage spills and line blockage responses within 2 hours  Percent rating quality of sewer services good or excellent FY 2003-04 $12.6 $9.1 $2.8 $13.6 $19.25 23 21,830 202 79 3 - 99% 80% FY 2004-05 $12.0 $8.9 $3.8 $13.5 $19.25 24 21,763 202 115 5 - 99% 82% FY 2005-06 $13.8 $10.8 $2.4 $14.5 $21.85 23 21,784 202 89 0 310 99% 83% FY 2006-07 $14.8 $10.0 $7.7 $12.4 $23.48 25 21,789 202 140 7 152 99% 82% FY 2007-08 $15.1 $11.7 $3.6 $13.8 $23.48 28 21,970 202 80 2 174 99% 81% Change over last 5 years +19% +28% +29% +1% +22% +23% +1% 0% +1% -33% - 0% +1% 1 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. Does not include overhead. 2 In 2007, the State Water Resources Control Board changed the tracking and reporting requirements for sewer overflows. Under the new requirements, the department must report all sewage overflows.  Budget benchmarking measure Chapter 8 – UTILITIES - 82 - FIBER OPTIC UTILITY Launched in 1996, the commercial fiber optics utility offers “dark”1 fiber optic network service to the Palo Alto business community. The system is comprised of a 40.6-mile fiber optic “backbone ring”, with customers connected via fiber optic “service connections”. New customers pay the construction fees required to connect to the fiber optics backbone. Over the past 5 years, • Operating revenue increased by 173%, while operating expense declined by 51%. • The number of service connections grew 132%. Palo Alto currently provides service to 45 business customers (including resellers and home-based businesses) and several City departments (including Utilities, Libraries, the Wastewater Treatment Plant, Foothills Park Interpretive Center, and traffic signals). Fiber Optic staff has been marketing the fiber optic infrastructure system in order to attract new customers and retain existing customers. Per City Council direction, City staff is also exploring opportunities with a consortium of firms to build an ultra high-speed broadband network (also known as "fiber to the premises"). Fiber Optics Revenues vs Expenses $- $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 9 7-9 8 9 8-9 9 9 9-0 0 0 0-0 1 0 1-0 2 0 2-0 3 0 3-0 4 0 4-0 5 0 5-0 6 0 6-0 7 0 7-0 8 Fiscal Year Operating revenue Operating expense Capital expense Fiber Utility reserves Source: Utilities Department Revenues, expenses, and unrestricted reserves (in millions)________________ Operating revenue Operating expense2 Capital expense2 Fund balance3 Number of customer accounts Number of service connections Service connection fiber miles Backbone fiber miles Authorized staffing (FTE) FY 2003-04 $1.1 $0.8 $0.6 - 34 99 25.4 - 7.0 FY 2004-05 $1.4 $1.0 $0.3 - 39 116 30.6 - 5.4 FY 2005-06 $1.6 $0.8 $0.2 $1.0 42 139 34.8 - 4.9 FY 2006-07 $2.2 $0.7 $0.1 $2.7 49 161 39.5 40.6 3.1 FY 2007-08 $3.1 $0.4 $0.1 $5.0 41 173 59.0 40.6 0.7 Change over last 5 years +173% -51% -86% - +21% +75% +132% - -90% 1 Dark fiber is optical fiber that is laid in the ground, but not used. Customers connect to dark fiber to transmit data, creating “lit” fiber. 2 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, contract services, and allocated charges; does not include overhead. 3 The Fiber Utility was a sub-fund within the Electric Fund. The original fiber backbone was funded with a $2 million loan from the Electric Fund; the current loan balance is $1.9 million. Service Efforts and Accomplishments 2007-08 - 83 - - 84 - CHAPTER 9 – LEGISLATIVE AND SUPPORT SERVICES Legislative and support services include: • Administrative Services Department – provides financial support services, property management, money management, financial analysis and reporting, purchasing, and information technology services. • Human Resources – provides employee compensation and benefits, recruitment, employee and labor relations, employee development, and risk management services. • City Manager – provides leadership to the organization in the implementation of City Council policies and the provision of quality services to the community. The Office also coordinates City Council relations, community and intergovernmental relations, and economic resources planning. • City Attorney – provides legal representation, consultation and advice, and litigation and dispute resolution services. • City Clerk – provides public information, Council support, administers elections, preserves the legislative history of the City, and provides oversight of administrative citation hearings. • City Auditor – coordinates performance audits and reviews of City departments, programs, and services; revenue audits; and the annual external financial audit. • City Council What is the source of support services funding? Revenue and reimburse- ments 48% General Fund 52% Where does a support services dollar go? Human Resources 16% City Council 1% City Attorney 15% City Manager 13% City Clerk 8% City Auditor 5% Administrative Services 42% Source: FY 2007-08 revenue and expenditure data Service Efforts and Accomplishments 2007-08 - 85 - Operating expenditures (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Administrative Services Human Resources City Manager City Attorney City Clerk3 City Auditor City Council Administrative Services2 Human Resources City Manager City Attorney City Clerk City Auditor FY 2003-04 $6.7 1 $2.3 $1.7 $2.4 $0.9 $0.7 $0.3 102 15 11 15 6 4 FY 2004-05 $6.7 $2.5 $1.7 $2.6 $0.8 $0.8 $0.1 103 15 11 14 6 4 FY 2005-06 $6.6 $2.5 $1.6 $2.6 $1.0 $0.9 $0.1 98 15 9 12 6 4 FY 2006-07 $7.0 $2.6 $1.9 $2.5 $0.9 $0.9 $0.2 99 16 9 12 73 4 FY 2007-08 $7.3 $2.7 $2.3 $2.7 $1.3 $0.9 $0.2 101 16 12 12 7 4 Change over last 5 years 10% 18% 30% 12% 50% 24% -13% -1% 1% 6% -23% 16% 10% 1 In FY 2003-04, information technology expenditures moved to the Technology Fund (an internal service fund). Allocated IT costs are now shown in each department based on their use of IT services. 2 Includes Administrative Services Department staff charged to other funds. 3 In FY 2006-07, the City Clerk’s Office absorbed the Administrative Citation Hearings function from the Police Department. According to the department, FY 2007-08 operating expenditures increased due to increases in public hearing advertising, board and commission recruitment, election costs, and ethics training. SPENDING AND STAFFING Palo Alto’s legislative, management and support expenditures (about 11%) were 3rd highest of 9 local jurisdictions. It should be noted that jurisdictions offer different levels of service and classify expenditures in different ways. • Administrative Services Department expenditures were about $7.3 million in FY 2007-08. The department had a total of 101 authorized staff.2 • Human Resources expenditures were approximately $2. 7 million in FY 2007-08. The department had a total of 16 authorized FTE. • Spending in the Office of the City Manager was about $2.25 million in FY 2007-08. The Office had a total of 12 authorized FTE. • Spending for the Office of the City Attorney, including outside legal fees, was about $2.7 million in FY 2007-08. The Attorney’s Office had 12 authorized FTE. • Spending in the City Clerk’s Office was about $1.3 million in FY 2007-08. The Clerk’s Office had 7 authorized FTE. • The City Auditor’s Office expenditures were about $0.9 million in FY 2007-08. The Office had 4 authorized FTE. Legislative, Management and Support Expenditures as a Percent of Total Operating Expenditures 4% 7% 7% 7% 8% 11% 11% 15% 17% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% Redwood City San Mateo Sunnyvale Santa Clara Fremont Menlo Park PALO ALTO Milpitas Mountain View Source: State of California Cities Annual Report FY 2005-06 Chapter 9 – LEGISLATIVE AND SUPPORT SERVICES - 86 - ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES The mission of the Administrative Services Department (ASD) is to provide proactive administrative and technical support to City departments and decision makers, and to safeguard and facilitate the optimal use of City resources. ASD encompasses a variety of services that might well be separate departments in a larger city. The department monitors the City’s cash and investments. In FY 2007- 08, the rate of return was 4.45%. The City’s overall AAA rating from Standard & Poor’s is the highest general city credit rating possible. As shown in the chart on the right, the number of purchasing documents processed (through purchase orders and contracts) over the last 5 years is dropping with the increased use of purchasing cards for smaller transaction amounts. According to City staff, in FY 2007-08 the average dollar value for each purchasing document processed was $46,000 (for a total amount of $117.2 million) compared to the average dollar value for each purchasing card transaction of $298 (for a total amount of $3.4 million). According to staff, the increase in purchasing card transactions for lower-priced goods helps staff to focus more time on purchase orders and contracts involving higher dollar values and services. IT operating and maintenance expenditures as a percent of total operating expenditures increased 4.9% in FY 2007-08. According to the department, this increase is largely due to a portion of the SAP upgrade project cost. Decrease in Purchasing Documents Processed with Increased Use of Purchasing Cards 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 Nu m b e r o f T r a n s a c t i o n s Number of Purchasing Card Transactions Number of Purchasing Documents Processed Source: Administrative Services Department Purchasing Information Citizen Survey Cash and investments (in millions) Rate of return on investments  General Fund reserves (in millions)1 Number of accounts payable checks issued Percent invoices paid within 30 days Number of purchasing documents processed  Dollar value goods and services purchased (in millions) Number computer work- stations Requests for computer help desk services resolved within 5 days IT operating and maintenance expenditures as a percent of total operating expenditures2 Percent who visited the City's website <NEW> Percent who watched a public meeting on cable TV FY 2003-04 $402.7 4.48% $60.1 17,763 80% est. 5,265 $70.6 978 90% 2.4% 27% FY 2004-05 $367.3 4.24% $24.53 16,813 80% est. 3,268 $70.2 1,000 89% 4.0% 29% FY 2005-06 $376.2 4.21% $26.3 15,069 80% est. 2,847 $61.3 1,000 87% 3.9% 31% FY 2006-07 $402.6 4.35% $31.0 14,802 80% est. 2,692 $107.5 1,000 87% 3.3% 26% FY 2007-08 $375.7 4.45% $31.3 14,480 83% est. 2,549 $117.2 1,000 88% 4.9% 78% 26% Change over last 5 years -7% -0.03% -48% -18% 3% -52% 66% 2% -2% 3% - -1 1 Total unreserved/designated fund balances 2 Amounts are estimated and adjusted to exclude IT services provided to the Utilities Department. 3 In FY 2004-05, the Infrastructure Reserve balance of $35.9 million was transferred from the General Fund to the Capital Projects Fund.  Budget benchmarking measure - 86 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments 2007-08 - 87 - HUMAN RESOURCES The mission of the Human Resources (HR) department is to recruit, develop and retain a diverse, well-qualified, and professional workforce that reflects the high standards of the community we serve and to provide a high level of support to City departments.3 The ratio of HR staff to total City staff is 1 to 73. The department coordinated more than 9,000 hours of employee training in FY 2007-08.4 The estimated incurred cost for workers’ compensation claims has declined in each of the last 3 years, however it should be noted that early estimates of current claim costs often continue to grow as claims develop. In FY 2007-08, 1,458 calendar days were lost to work-related illness or injury. Worker’s Compensation Estimated Incurred Cost (in $000's) $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 FY 1998- 99 FY 1999- 00 FY 2000- 01 FY 2001- 02 FY 2002- 03 FY 2003- 04 FY 2004- 05 FY 2005- 06 FY 2006- 07 FY 2007- 08 Source: Human Resources Department Ratio HR staff to total authorized staffing (FTE) Number of new hires processed4  Percent of first year turnover  Percent of grievances settled before arbitration Citywide training hours provided Worker’s Compensation estimated incurred cost (in millions)1 Calendar days lost to work-related illness or injury5 FY 2003-04 1 to 76 51 7% 100% 19,0802 $2.8 - FY 2004-05 1 to 79 128 0% 67% 9,537 $1.9 2,836 FY 2005-06 1 to 75 125 3% 100% 8,052 $1.7 2,592 FY 2006-07 1 to 74 138 7% 100% 7,121 $1.41 1,676 FY 2007-08 1 to 73 157 9% 100% 9,054 $1.1 1,458 Change over last 5 years -4% 208% 2% 0% -56% -62% - 1 Early estimates of current claim costs grow as claims develop. Prior year estimates are revised to reflect current estimated costs for claims incurred during that fiscal year. 2 Training hours were significantly higher than normal in FY 2003-04 due to citywide implementation of SAP computer system. 3 Information about citywide staffing levels is shown on page 20 of this report. 4 Includes transfers and internal promotions. 5 Due to a change in federal reporting requirements, the number of days lost to work-related illness or injury is now based on calendar days, not work days.  Budget benchmarking measure Chapter 9 – LEGISLATIVE AND SUPPORT SERVICES - 88 - CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY CLERK, CITY AUDITOR The mission of the City Manager’s Office is to provide leadership to the organization in the implementation of City Council policies and the provision of quality services to the community. The City Manager’s Office coordinated preparation of 372 City Manager Reports (CMRs) during FY 2007- 08. The City Manager’s Office also coordinates public information services. The mission of the City Attorney’s Office is to serve Palo Alto and its policy makers by providing legal representation of the highest quality. The current ratio of staff attorneys to regular full-time equivalent employees is 1 to 195. The mission of the City Clerk’s Office is to foster community awareness and civic involvement by providing timely and accurate records of the activities of City Policy makers. In FY 2007-08, the average time to finalize City Council minutes increased from 4 to 6 weeks. According to the department, staffing changes contributed to the increase. The mission of the City Auditor’s Office is to promote honest, efficient, effective, and fully accountable City Government. The Office conducts performance audits, revenue audits, and coordinates the annual external audit of the financial statements. In FY 2007-08, revenue audit recoveries totaled $149,810, and the office made 56 audit recommendations. City Manager City Attorney City Clerk City Auditor Number of City Manager Reports (CMRs) issued Citizen Survey Percent rating public information services good or excellent Citizen Survey Percent respondents read Palo Alto newsletter in last 12 months Number of claims handled Number of work requests processed  Ratio staff attorneys to total employees (FTE) Average time to finalize City Council minutes Number of audit recommendations Revenue audit recoveries FY 2003-04 381 76% 62% 130 1,284 1 to 176 4 weeks 85 $140,461 FY 2004-05 369 74% 63% 144 1,635 1 to 170 4 weeks 49 $232,895 FY 2005-06 336 72% 84% 107 2,123 1 to 172 4 weeks 53 $917,597 FY 2006-07 341 73% 83% 149 2,511 1 to 193 4 weeks 27 $78,770 FY 2007-08 372 76% 83% 160 2,957 1 to 195 6 weeks 56 $149,810 Change over last 5 years -2% 0% 21% 23% 130% 12% 50% -34% 7%  Budget benchmarking measure Service Efforts and Accomplishments 2007-08 - 89 - 3005 30th Street 777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 500 Boulder, CO 80301 Washington, DC 20002 ww.n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 www.icma.org • 202-289-ICMA The National Citizen Survey™ CC II TT YY OO FF PP AA LL OO AA LL TT OO ,, CC AA 22000088 City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . CC oo nn tt ee nn tt ss Survey Background..............................................................................................................................1 About The National Citizen Survey™.............................................................................................1 Understanding the Results.............................................................................................................3 Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................5 Community Ratings.............................................................................................................................7 Overall Community Quality...........................................................................................................7 Community Design........................................................................................................................9 Transportation.........................................................................................................................9 Housing.................................................................................................................................12 Land Use and Zoning.............................................................................................................14 Economic Sustainability...............................................................................................................17 Public Safety................................................................................................................................20 Environmental Sustainability.......................................................................................................23 Recreation and Wellness..............................................................................................................26 Parks and Recreation.............................................................................................................26 Culture, Arts and Education ..................................................................................................28 Health and Wellness..............................................................................................................30 Community Inclusiveness ............................................................................................................31 Civic Engagement........................................................................................................................33 Civic Activity .........................................................................................................................33 Information and Awareness...................................................................................................36 Social Engagement................................................................................................................37 Public Trust.................................................................................................................................39 City of Palo Alto Employees...................................................................................................41 From Data to Action ......................................................................................................43 Resident Priorities .......................................................................................................................43 City of Palo Alto Action Chart......................................................................................................44 Using Your Action Chart™.....................................................................................................46 Policy Questions ............................................................................................................47 Appendix A: Complete Survey Frequencies....................................................................48 Frequencies Excluding “Don’t Know” Responses..........................................................................48 Frequencies Including “Don’t Know” Responses...........................................................................60 Appendix B: Survey Methodology..................................................................................78 Appendix C: Survey Materials........................................................................................87 City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 1 SS uu rr vv ee yy BB aa cc kk gg rr oo uu nn dd AABBOO UUTT TT HHEE NNAA TT II OONN AALL CCIITTIIZZEENN SSUURRVVEEYY™™ The National Citizen Survey™ (The NCS) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The NCS was developed by NRC to provide a statistically valid survey of resident opinions about community and services provided by local government. The survey results may be used by staff, elected officials and other stakeholders for community planning and resource allocation, program improvement and policy making. FIGURE 1: THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEY™ METHODS AND GOALS The NCS focuses on a series of community characteristics and local government services, as well as issues of public trust. Resident behaviors related to civic engagement in the community also were measured in the survey. Assessment Goals Assessment Methods Survey Objectives • Multi-contact mailed survey • Representative sample of 1,200 households • 415 surveys returned; 36% response rate • 5% margin of error • Data statistically weighted to reflect population Immediate • Provide useful information for: • Planning • Resource allocation • Performance measurement • Program and policy • Identify community strengths and weaknesses • Identify service strengths and weaknesses Long-term • Improved services • More civic engagement • Better community quality of life •Stronger public trust City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 2 FIGURE 2: THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEY™ FOCUS AREAS The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across The National Citizen Survey™ jurisdictions. Participating households are selected at random and the household member who responds is selected without bias. Multiple mailings give each household more than one chance to participate with self- addressed and postage-paid envelopes. Results are statistically weighted to reflect the proper demographic composition of the entire community. A total of 415 completed surveys were obtained, providing an overall response rate of 36%. Typically, response rates obtained on citizen surveys range from 25% to 40%. The National Citizen Survey™ customized for the City of Palo Alto was developed in close cooperation with local jurisdiction staff. Palo Alto staff selected items from a menu of questions about services and community problems and provided the appropriate letterhead and signatures CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTYY QQUUAALLIITTYY Quality of life Quality of neighborhood CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTYY DDEESSIIGGNN Transportation Ease of travel, transit services, street maintenance Housing Housing options, cost, affordability Land Use and Zoning New development, growth, code enforcement PPUUBBLLIICC SSAAFFEETTYY Safety in neighborhood and downtown Crime victimization Police fire Emergency EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL SSUUSSTTAAIINNAABBIILLIITTYY Cleanliness Air quality Preservation of natural areas bdli RREECCRREEAATTIIOONN AANNDD WWEELLLLNNEESSSS Parks and Recreation Recreation opportunities, use of parks and facilities, programs and classes Culture, Arts and Education Cultural and educational opportunities, libraries, schools CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTYY IINNCCLLUUSSIIVVEENNEESSSS Sense of community Racial and cultural acceptance CCIIVVIICC EENNGGAAGGEEMMEENNTT Civic Activity Volunteerism Civic attentiveness Voting behavior Social Engagement Neighborliness, social and religious events PPUUBBLLIICC TTRRUUSSTT Cooperation in community Value of services Direction of community Citizen involvement City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 3 for mailings. City of Palo Alto staff also augmented The National Citizen Survey™ basic service by including several policy questions. UU NNDDEE RR SSTTAA NNDDIINN GG TTHHEE RREE SSUU LL TT SS As shown in Figure 2, this report is based around respondents’ reports about eight larger categories: community quality, community design, public safety, environmental sustainability, recreation and wellness, community inclusiveness, civic engagement and public trust. Each section begins with residents’ ratings of community characteristics and is followed by residents’ ratings of service quality. For all evaluative questions, the percent of residents rating the service or community feature as “excellent” or “good” is presented. To see the full set of responses for each question on the survey, please see Appendix A: Complete Survey Frequencies. MMaarr ggiinn oo ff EE rrrr oorr It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a “level of confidence” and accompanying “confidence interval” (or margin of error). A traditional confidence level, and the one used here, is 95%. The 95% confidence interval can be any size and quantifies the sampling error or imprecision of the estimates made from the survey results. The confidence interval for the City of Palo Alto survey is no greater than plus or minus 5 percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample (415 completed surveys). A 95% confidence interval indicates that for every 100 random samples of this many residents, the population response to that question would be within the stated interval 95 times. For example, if 75% of residents rate a service as “excellent” or “good,” then the 5% margin of error (for the 95% confidence interval) indicates that the range of likely responses for the entire jurisdiction is between 70% and 80%. CC oomm pp aa rriinngg SSuurr vv ee yy RR eessuullttss Certain kinds of services tend to be thought better of by residents in many communities across the country. For example, public safety services tend to be received better than transportation services by residents of most American communities. Where possible, the better comparison is not from one service to another in the City of Palo Alto, but from City of Palo Alto services to services like them provided by other jurisdictions. II nn tt eerr pp rreett ii nn gg CCoo mmpp aa rrii ssoo nn ss ttoo PP rreevviioo uu ss YY ee aa rrss This report contains comparisons with prior years’ results. In this report, we are comparing this year’s data with existing data in the graphs. Differences between years can be considered “statistically significant” if they are greater than seven percentage points. Trend data for your jurisdiction represent important comparison data and should be examined for improvements or declines. Deviations from stable trends over time, especially represent opportunities for City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 4 understanding how local policies, programs or public information may have affected residents’ opinions. BB ee nn cchh mmaa rr kk CCoo mmpp aa rrii ssoo nn ss NRC’s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in citizen surveys from approximately 500 jurisdictions whose residents evaluated local government services and gave their opinion about the quality of community life. The City of Palo Alto chose to have comparisons made to the entire database. A benchmark comparison (the average rating from all the comparison jurisdictions where a similar question was asked) has been provided when a similar question on the City of Palo Alto Survey was included in NRC’s database and there were at least five jurisdictions in which the question was asked. For most questions compared to the entire dataset, there were more than 100 jurisdictions included in the benchmark comparison. Where comparisons were available, the City of Palo Alto results were noted as being “above” the benchmark, “below” the benchmark or “similar to” the benchmark. This evaluation of “above,” “below” or “similar to” comes from a statistical comparison of the City of Palo Alto's rating to the benchmark. ““DDoo nn’’tt KK nn ooww ”” RR ee ssppoo nnsseess aa nn dd RR oouunndd iinngg On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer “don’t know.” The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the body of the report. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. For some questions, respondents were permitted to select more than one answer. When the total exceeds 100% in a table for a multiple response question, it is because some respondents did select more than one response. When a table for a question that only permitted a single response does not total to exactly 100%, it is due to the customary practice of percentages being rounded to the nearest whole number. For more information on understanding The NCS report, please see Appendix B: Survey Methodology. City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 5 EE xx ee cc uu tt ii vv ee SS uu mm mm aa rr yy This report of the City of Palo Alto survey provides the opinions of a representative sample of residents about community quality of life, service delivery, civic participation and unique issues of local interest. A periodic sounding of resident opinion offers staff, elected officials and other stakeholders an opportunity to identify challenges and to plan for and evaluate improvements and to sustain services and amenities for long-term success. Most residents experience a good quality of life in the City of Palo Alto and believe the City is a good place to live. The overall quality of life in the City of Palo Alto was rated as “excellent” or “good” by 91% of respondents. Almost all report they plan on staying in the City of Palo Alto for the next five years. A variety of characteristics of the community was evaluated by those participating in the study. The three characteristics receiving the most favorable ratings were educational opportunities, overall image or reputation of Palo Alto, and opportunities to volunteer. The three characteristics receiving the least positive ratings were the availability of affordable quality housing, availability of affordable quality child care, and ease of bus travel in Palo Alto. Ratings of community characteristics were compared to the benchmark database. Of the 32 characteristics for which comparisons were available, 26 were above the benchmark comparison, two were similar to the benchmark comparison and four were below. Residents in the City of Palo Alto were civically engaged. While only 26% had attended a meeting of local elected public officials or other local public meeting in the previous 12 months, 93% had provided help to a friend or neighbor. About half had volunteered their time to some group or activity in the City of Palo Alto, which was higher than the benchmark. In general, survey respondents demonstrated trust in local government. A majority rated the overall direction being taken by the City of Palo Alto as “good” or “excellent.” This was similar to the benchmark. Those residents who had interacted with an employee of the City of Palo Alto in the previous 12 months gave high marks to those employees. Most rated their overall impression of employees as “excellent” or “good.” On average, residents gave favorable ratings to most local government services. City services rated were able to be compared to the benchmark database. Of the 32 services for which comparisons were available, 28 were above the benchmark comparison, three were similar to the benchmark comparison and one was below. City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 6 A Key Driver Analysis was conducted for the City of Palo Alto which examined the relationships between ratings of each service and ratings of the City of Palo Alto’s services overall. Those key driver services that correlated most strongly with residents’ perceptions about overall City service quality have been identified. By targeting improvements in key services, the City of Palo Alto can focus on the services that have the greatest likelihood of influencing residents’ opinions about overall service quality. Services found to be influential in ratings of overall service quality from the Key Driver Analysis were: ƒ Street repair ƒ Land use, planning and zoning Of these services, those deserving the most attention may be those that were below or similar to the benchmark comparisons: street repair. For land use, planning and zoning services, the City of Palo Alto is above the benchmark and should continue to ensure high quality performance. City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 7 CC oo mm mm uu nn ii tt yy RR aa tt ii nn gg ss OO VVEE RR AALLLL CCOO MM MMUUNN II TT YY QQ UUAA LL II TT YY Overall quality of community life may be the single best indicator of success in providing the natural ambience, services and amenities that make for an attractive community. The National Citizen Survey™ contained many questions related to quality of community life in the City of Palo Alto – not only direct questions about quality of life overall and in neighborhoods, but questions to measure residents’ commitment to the City of Palo Alto. Residents were asked whether they planned to move soon or if they would recommend the City of Palo Alto to others. Intentions to stay and willingness to make recommendations provide evidence that the City of Palo Alto offers services and amenities that work. Most of the City of Palo Alto’s residents gave high ratings to their neighborhoods and the community as a place to live. Further, most reported they would recommend the community to others and plan to stay for the next five years. FIGURE 3: RATINGS OF OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE BY YEAR 92% 93%90%92% 94% 91% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Percent rating overall quality of life as "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 4: RATINGS OF OVERALL COMMUNITY QUALITY BY YEAR 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 91% 94% 92% 90% 93% 92% Your neighborhood as a place to live 91% 91% 91% 90% 91% 88% Palo Alto as a place to live 95% 96% 94% 94% 96% 95% Percent "excellent" or "good" City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 8 FIGURE 5: LIKELIHOOD OF REMAINING IN COMMUNITY AND RECOMMENDING COMMUNITY 85% 91% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks Percent "somewhat" or "very" likelyNote: These questions were not asked in previous surveys. FIGURE 6: OVERALL COMMUNITY QUALITY BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Overall quality of life in Palo Alto Above Your neighborhood as place to live Above Palo Alto as a place to live Above Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years Above Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks Above Overall community quality was compared to survey data from previous years. Average ratings were computed for the previous years’ data to make comparison easier. Trends from 2007 to 2008 were generally stable. City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 9 CCOO MM MM UU NNIITTYY DDEE SS II GG NN TT rraannss ppoo rrttaattiioo nn The ability to move easily throughout a community can greatly affect the quality of life of residents by diminishing time wasted in traffic congestion and by providing opportunities to travel quickly and safely by modes other than the automobile. High quality options for resident mobility not only require local government to remove barriers to flow but they require government programs and policies that create quality opportunities for all modes of travel. Residents responding to the survey were given a list of seven aspects of mobility to rate on a scale of “excellent,” “good,” “fair” and “poor.” Ease of walking in Palo Alto was given the most positive rating, followed by ease of bicycle travel. These ratings tended to be higher than the national benchmark and similar to years past. FIGURE 7: RATINGS OF TRANSPORTATION IN COMMUNITY BY YEAR 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Ease of car travel in Palo Alto 60% 65% 60% 61% 52% 55% Ease of bus travel in Palo Alto 34% 37% 44% 44% 43% 41% Ease of rail or subway travel in Palo Alto 52% 55% 60% 69% 64% . Ease of bicycle travel in Palo Alto 78% 84% 78% 79% 80% 84% Ease of walking in Palo Alto 86% 88% 87% 86% 85% 86% Availability of paths and walking trails 74% . . . . . Traffic flow on major streets 38% . . . . . Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 8: COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Ease of bus travel in Palo Alto Below Ease of rail or subway travel by in Palo Alto Similar Ease of car travel in Palo Alto Above Ease of walking in Palo Alto Above Ease of bicycle travel in Palo Alto Above Availability of paths and walking trails Above Traffic flow on major streets Above City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 10 Seven transportation services were rated in Palo Alto. As compared to most communities across America, ratings tended to be somewhat favorable. Five services were above the benchmark, two were similar to the benchmark. FIGURE 9: RATINGS OF TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING SERVICES BY YEAR 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Street repair 47% 47% 47% 48% 47% 50% Street cleaning 75% 77% 77% 74% 77% 75% Street lighting 64% 61% 66% 63% 65% 67% Sidewalk maintenance 53% 57% 53% 51% 50% 50% Traffic signal timing 56% 60% 55% 49% 57% . Bus or transit services 49% 57% 58% . . . Amount of public parking 52% 65% 58% 56% 56% . Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 10: TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Street repair /maintenance Similar Street cleaning Above Street lighting Above Sidewalk maintenance Above Light timing Above Bus or transit services Similar Amount of public parking Above By measuring choice of travel mode over time, communities can monitor their success in providing attractive alternatives to the traditional mode of travel, the single-occupied automobile. When asked how they typically traveled to work, single-occupancy (SOV) travel was the overwhelming mode of use. However, five percent of work commute trips were made by transit, 16% by bicycle and about four percent by foot. City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 11 FIGURE 11: FREQUENCY OF BUS USE IN LAST 12 MONTHS 28%30%34%32%28%33% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Percent using at least once in past 12 months FIGURE 12: FREQUENCY OF BUS USE BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Ridden a local bus within Palo Alto Above FIGURE 13: MODE OF TRAVEL USED FOR WORK COMMUTE 0% 9% 16% 4% 5% 6% 59% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Other Work at home Bicycle Walk Bus, rail, subway or other public transportation Motorized vehicle with others Motorized vehicle by myself Percent of days mode used for work commute Note: These questions were not asked in previous surveys. City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 12 HHoo uu ss ii nn gg Housing variety and affordability are not luxuries for any community. When there are too few options for housing style and affordability, the characteristics of a community tilt heavily to a homogeneous palette, often of well-off residents. While this may seem attractive to a community, the absence of affordable townhomes, condominiums, mobile homes, single family detached homes and apartments means that in addition to losing the vibrancy of diverse thoughts and lifestyles, the community loses the service workers that sustain all communities – police officers, school teachers, house painters and electricians. These workers must live elsewhere and commute in at great personal cost and to the detriment of traffic flow and air quality. Furthermore, lower income residents who can sustain in a community with mostly high cost housing pay so much of their income to rent or mortgage that little remains to bolster their own quality of life or local business. The survey of the City of Palo Alto residents asked respondents to reflect on the availability of affordable housing as well as the variety of housing options. The availability of affordable housing was rated as “excellent” or “good” by 12% of respondents, while the variety of housing options was rated as “excellent” or “good” by 34% of respondents. The rating of perceived affordable housing availability was worse in the City of Palo Alto than the ratings, on average, in comparison jurisdictions. FIGURE 14: RATINGS OF HOUSING IN COMMUNITY BY YEAR 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Availability of affordable quality housing 12% 10% 11% 8% 7% 6% Variety of housing options 34% . . . . . Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 15: HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Availability of affordable quality housing Below Variety of housing options Below City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 13 To augment the perceptions of affordable housing in Palo Alto, the cost of housing as reported in the survey was compared to residents’ reported monthly income to create a rough estimate of the proportion of residents of the City of Palo Alto experiencing housing cost stress. About 31% of survey participants were found to pay housing costs of more than 30% of their monthly household income. FIGURE 16: PROPORTION OF RESPONDENTS WHOSE HOUSING COSTS ARE "AFFORDABLE" Housing costs LESS than 30% of income 69%Housing costs 30% or MORE of income 31% Note: This question was not asked in previous surveys. FIGURE 17: HOUSING COSTS BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Experiencing housing costs stress (housing costs 30% or more of income) Below City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 14 LL aa nn dd UUss ee aa nn dd ZZ oonnii nngg Community development contributes to a feeling among residents and even visitors of the attention given to the speed of growth, the location of residences and businesses, the kind of housing that is appropriate for the community and the ease of access to commerce, green space and residences. Even the community’s overall appearance often is attributed to the planning and enforcement functions of the local jurisdiction. Residents will appreciate an attractive, well- planned community. The NCS questionnaire asked residents to evaluate the quality of new development, the appearance of the City of Palo Alto and the speed of population growth. Problems with the appearance of property were rated, and the quality of land use planning, zoning and code enforcement services were evaluated. The overall quality of new development in the City of Palo Alto was rated as “excellent” or “good” by 57% of respondents. The overall appearance of Palo Alto was rated as “excellent” or “good” by 89% of respondents and was higher than the benchmark. When rating to what extent run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles were a problem in the City of Palo Alto, 73% thought they were a “major” problem. The services of land use, planning and zoning, code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) and animal control were rated above the benchmark. FIGURE 18: RATINGS OF THE COMMUNITY'S "BUILT ENVIRONMENT" BY YEAR 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 57% 57% 62% 56% . . Overall appearance of Palo Alto 89% 86% 85% 85% 86% 87% Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 19: BUILT ENVIRONMENT BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Quality of new development in city Similar Overall appearance of Palo Alto Above City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 15 FIGURE 20: RATINGS OF POPULATION GROWTH BY YEAR 40%39% 49%44% 55%51% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Percent rating the "right amount" of population growth FIGURE 21: POPULATION GROWTH BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Population growth seen as too fast Similar FIGURE 22: RATINGS OF NUISANCE PROBLEMS BY YEAR 63%67%65%69% 61% 73% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Percent rating run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles as a "major" problem City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 16 FIGURE 23: NUISANCE PROBLEMS BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Run down buildings, weed lots and junk vehicles are a "major" problem Below FIGURE 24: RATINGS OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES BY YEAR 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Land use, planning and zoning 47% 49% 50% 46% 48% 41% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) 59% 59% 61% 56% 59% 55% Animal control 78% 79% 78% 79% 79% 79% Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 25: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Land use, planning and zoning Above Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) Above Animal control Above City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 17 EECC OONN OOMMIICC SS UU SSTTAA II NNAA BB II LLIITTYY The health of the economy may color how residents perceive their environment and all the services that local government delivers. In particular, a strong or weak local economy will shape what residents think about job and shopping opportunities. Just as residents have an idea about the speed of local population growth, they have a sense of how fast job and shopping opportunities are growing. Survey respondents were asked to rate a number of community features related to economic opportunity and growth. The most positively rated features were Palo Alto as a place to work and Overall quality of business and service establishments. Receiving the lowest rating was employment opportunities. FIGURE 26: RATINGS OF ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY AND OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Employment opportunities 61% 61% 59% 45% 43% 33% Shopping opportunities 71% 79% 80% 75% . . Palo Alto as a place to work 90% 90% 84% 81% . . Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 77% . . . . . Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 27: ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY AND OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Employment opportunities Above Shopping opportunities Above Place to work Above Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto Above City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 18 Residents were asked to evaluate the speed of jobs growth and retail growth on scale from “much too slow” to “much too fast.” When asked about the rate of job growth in Palo Alto, 48% responded that it was “too slow,” while 28% reported retail growth as “too slow.” Fewer residents in Palo Alto compared to other jurisdictions believed that retail growth was too slow and fewer residents believed that job growth was too slow. FIGURE 28: RATINGS OF RETAIL AND JOB GROWTH BY YEAR 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Jobs growth (too slow) 48% 38% 49% 63% 69% 76% Retail growth (too fast) 10% 18% 17% 19% 18% 22% Percent of respondents of growth FIGURE 29: RETAIL AND JOB GROWTH BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Retail growth seen as too slow Below Jobs growth seen as too slow Below FIGURE 30: RATINGS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BY YEAR 48% 58%55% 61%62%63% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 31: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Positive impact of economy on household income Below City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 19 Residents were asked to reflect on their economic prospects in the near term. Four percent of the City of Palo Alto residents expected that the coming six months would have a “somewhat” or “very” positive impact on their family. FIGURE 32: RATINGS OF PERSONAL ECONOMIC FUTURE BY YEAR 25%27% 20%26%25% 4% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Percent "very" or "somewhat" positive City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 20 PP UU BBLLIICC SS AAFF EETTYY Safety from violent or property crimes creates the cornerstone of an attractive community. No one wants to live in fear of crime, fire or natural hazards, and communities in which residents feel protected or unthreatened are communities that are more likely to show growth in population, commerce and property value. Residents were asked to rate their feelings of safety from violent crimes, property crimes, fire and environmental dangers and to evaluate the local agencies whose main charge is to provide protection from these dangers. A majority gave positive ratings of safety in the City Palo Alto. About 85% percent of those completing the questionnaire said they felt “very” or “somewhat” safe from violent crimes and 80% felt “very” or “somewhat” safe from environmental hazards. Daytime sense of safety was better than nighttime safety. FIGURE 33: RATINGS OF COMMUNITY AND PERSONAL PUBLIC SAFETY BY YEAR 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Safety in your neighborhood during the day 95% 98% 94% 98% 98% 97% Safety in your neighborhood after dark 78% 85% 79% 84% 82% 83% Safety in Palo Alto's downtown area during the day 96% 94% 91% 96% 94% 95% Safety in Palo Alto's downtown area after dark 65% 74% 69% 69% 76% 71% Safety from violent crime 85% 86% 75% 87% 84% 84% Safety from property crimes 74% 75% 62% 76% 71% 73% Safety from environmental hazards 80% . . . . . Percent "very" or "somewhat" safe FIGURE 34: COMMUNITY AND PERSONAL PUBLIC SAFETY BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Safety in your neighborhood during the day Above Safety in your neighborhood after dark Above Safety in Palo Alto's downtown area during the day Above Safety in Palo Alto's downtown area after dark Above Safety from violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) Above Safety from property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) Above Toxic waste or other environmental hazard(s) Above City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 21 As assessed by the survey, ten percent of respondents reported that someone in the household had been the victim of one or more crimes in the past year. Of those who had been the victim of a crime, 73% had reported it to police. Compared to other jurisdictions fewer Palo Alto residents had been victims of crime in the 12 months preceding the survey and fewer Palo Alto residents had reported their most recent crime victimization to the police. FIGURE 35: CRIME VICTIMIZATION AND REPORTING BY YEAR 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 During the past twelve months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? 10% 9% 12% 10% 11% 13% If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? 73% 62% 62% 69% 62% 80% Percent "yes" FIGURE 36: CRIME VICTIMIZATION AND REPORTING BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Victim of crime Below Reported crimes Below Residents rated seven City public safety services; of these, six were rated above the benchmark comparison, one was rated similar to the benchmark comparison. Results were varied when compared to previous years. FIGURE 37: RATINGS OF PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES BY YEAR 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Police services 84% 91% 87% 87% 90% 89% Fire services 96% 98% 95% 94% 97% 96% Ambulance or emergency medical services 95% 94% 94% 95% 95% 95% Crime prevention 74% 83% 77% 86% 86% . Fire prevention and education 87% 86% 84% 82% 85% . Traffic enforcement 64% 72% 63% 63% 64% 64% Emergency preparedness 71% . . . . . Percent "excellent" or "good" City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 22 FIGURE 38: PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Police services Above Fire services Above EMS/ambulance Above Crime prevention Above Fire prevention and education Above Traffic enforcement Similar Emergency preparedness Above City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 23 EE NNVVIIRROO NN MMEE NNTTAA LL SS UUSS TT AAIINN AABBIILL II TT YY Residents value the aesthetic qualities of their hometowns and appreciate features such as overall cleanliness and landscaping. In addition, the appearance and smell or taste of the air and water do not go unnoticed. These days, increasing attention is paid to proper treatment of the environment. At the same time that they are attending to community appearance and cleanliness, cities, counties, states and the nation are going “Green”. These strengthening environmental concerns extend to trash haul, recycling, sewer services, the delivery of power and water and preservation of open spaces. Treatment of the environment affects air and water quality and, generally, how habitable and inviting a place appears Residents of the City of Palo Alto were asked to evaluate their local environment and the services provided to ensure its quality. The overall quality of the natural environment was rated as “excellent” or “good” by 85% of survey respondents. Cleanliness of Palo Alto received the highest rating, and it was above the benchmark. FIGURE 39: RATINGS OF THE COMMUNITY'S NATURAL ENVIRONMENT BY YEAR 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Cleanliness of Palo Alto 88% . . . . . Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 85% . . . . . Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 78% . . . . . Air quality 75% 79% 80% . . . Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 40: COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Cleanliness of Palo Alto Above Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto Above Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts Above Air quality Above City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 24 Resident recycling was greater than recycling reported in comparison communities. FIGURE 41: FREQUENCY OF RECYCLING IN LAST 12 MONTHS 82%84%87%99%97%98% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Percent using at least once in past 12 months FIGURE 42: FREQUENCY OF RECYCLING BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home Above Of the six utility services rated by those completing the questionnaire, all were higher than the benchmark comparison. These service ratings trends were varied when compared to past surveys. FIGURE 43: RATINGS OF UTILITY SERVICES BY YEAR 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Sewer services 81% 83% 83% 82% 80% 84% Drinking water 87% 79% 80% 80% 74% 82% Storm drainage 70% 59% 61% 60% 57% 65% Yard waste pick-up 89% 93% 90% 91% 88% 88% Recycling 90% 93% 92% 91% 90% 90% Garbage collection 92% 91% 92% 92% 91% 94% Percent "excellent" or "good" City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 25 FIGURE 44: UTILITY SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Sewer services Above Drinking water Above Storm drainage Above Yard waste pick-up Above Recycling Above Garbage collection Above City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 26 RREE CCRR EE AATTIIOO NN AANN DD WW EE LL LLNNEESS SS PP aa rrkkss aanndd RRee ccrr ee aa tt ii oonn Quality parks and recreation opportunities help to define a community as more than the grind of its business, traffic and hard work. Leisure activities vastly can improve the quality of life of residents, serving both to entertain and mobilize good health. The survey contained questions seeking residents’ perspectives about opportunities and services related to the community’s parks and recreation services. Recreation opportunities in the City of Palo Alto were rated positively as were services related to parks and recreation. All were rated higher than the benchmark.. Parks and recreation ratings have stayed constant over time. Resident use of Palo Alto parks and recreation facilities tells its own story about the attractiveness and accessibility of those services. The percent of residents that used Palo Alto recreation centers was greater than the percent of users in comparison jurisdictions. Similarly, recreation program use in Palo Alto was higher than use in comparison jurisdictions. FIGURE 45: RATINGS OF COMMUNITY RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR 83%85%82% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 46: COMMUNITY RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Recreation opportunities Above City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 27 FIGURE 47: PARTICIPATION IN PARKS AND RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Used Palo Alto recreation centers 68% 67% 63% 62% 60% 53% Participated in a recreation program or activity 56% 53% 54% 52% 50% 49% Visited a neighborhood park or City park 93% 92% 93% 93% 91% 92% Percent using at least once in last 12 months FIGURE 48: PARTICIPATION IN PARKS AND RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Used Palo Alto recreation centers Above Participated in a recreation program or activity Above Visited a neighborhood park or City park Above FIGURE 49: RATINGS OF PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES BY YEAR 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 City parks 89% 91% 87% 92% 91% 90% Recreation programs or classes 87% 90% 85% 87% 85% 83% Recreation centers or facilities 77% 82% 81% 78% 84% 77% Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 50: PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark City parks Above Recreation programs or classes Above Recreation centers or facilities Above City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 28 CCuullttuurr ee ,, AA rrttss aa nn dd EE dd uu cc aa tt ii oo nn A full service community does not address only the life and safety of its residents. Like an individual who drudges to the office and returns home, a community that pays attention only to the life sustaining basics becomes insular, dreary and uninspiring to business and individuals. In the case of communities without thriving culture, arts and education opportunities, the magnet that attracts those who might consider relocating there is vastly weakened. Cultural, artistic, social and educational services elevate the opportunities for personal growth among residents. In the survey, residents were asked about the quality of opportunities to participate in cultural and educational activities. Opportunities to attend cultural activities was rated as “excellent” or “good” by 79% of respondents. Educational opportunities were rated as “excellent” or “good” by 93% of respondents. Compared to the benchmark data, educational opportunities were above the average of comparison jurisdictions, as was/while cultural activity opportunities. About 74% of Palo Alto residents used a City library at least once in the twelve months preceding the survey. This participation rate for library use was similar to comparison jurisdictions. FIGURE 51: RATINGS OF CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Opportunities to attend cultural activities 79% 81% 85% 77% 83% . Educational opportunities 93% 94% 93% . . . Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 52: CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Opportunities to attend cultural activities Above Educational opportunities Above FIGURE 53: PARTICIPATION IN CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 74% 79% 76% 79% 77% 80% Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto 40% . . . . . Percent using at least once in last 12 months City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 29 FIGURE 54: PARTICIPATION IN CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services Similar Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto Below FIGURE 55: PERCEPTION OF CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES BY YEAR 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Public library services 75% 81% 78% 80% 81% 81% Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 56: CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Public library services Below City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 30 HHeeaall tt hh aa nndd WWee llllnneess ss Healthy residents have the wherewithal to contribute to the economy as volunteers or employees and they do not present a burden in cost and time to others. Although residents bear the primary responsibility for their good health, local government provides services that can foster that well being and that provide care when residents are ill. Residents of the City of Palo Alto were asked to rate the community’s health services as well as the availability of health care, high quality affordable food and preventive health care services. The availability of preventative health services was rated most positively for the City of Palo Alto. Among Palo Alto residents, 57% rated affordable quality health care as “excellent” or “good.” Those ratings were above the ratings of comparison communities. FIGURE 57: RATINGS OF COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Availability of affordable quality health care 57% 56% 57% . . . Availability of affordable quality food 64% 71% 62% . . . Availability of preventive health services 70% . . . . . Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 58: COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Availability of affordable quality health care Above Availability of affordable quality food Above Availability of preventive health services Above Of the three health related services offered in the City of Palo Alto, all were above the benchmark. City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 31 CC OOMMMMUUNN II TT YY IINN CCLLUUSSIIVVEENN EESSSS Diverse communities that include among their residents a mix of races, ages, wealth, ideas and beliefs have the raw material for the most vibrant and creative society. However, the presence of these features alone does not ensure a high quality or desirable space. Surveyed residents were asked about the success of the mix: the sense of community, the openness of residents to people of diverse backgrounds and the attractiveness of the City of Palo Alto as a place to raise children or to retire. They were also questioned about the quality of services delivered to various population subgroups, including older adults, youth and residents with few resources. A community that succeeds in creating an inclusive environment for a variety of residents is a community that offers more to many. A high percentage of residents rated the City of Palo Alto as an “excellent” or “good” place to raise kids and a moderate percentage rated it as an excellent or good place to retire. Most residents felt that the local sense of community was “excellent” or “good.” Most survey respondents felt the City of Palo Alto was open and accepting towards people of diverse backgrounds. Availability of affordable quality child care was rated the lowest by residents and was lower than the benchmark. FIGURE 59: RATINGS OF COMMUNITY QUALITY AND INCLUSIVENESS BY YEAR 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Sense of community 70% 70% 66% 68% 69% 70% Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds 77% 79% 75% 72% 73% 73% Availability of affordable quality child care 28% 26% 35% 26% 25% 25% Palo Alto as a place to raise children 94% 92% 92% 92% 93% 90% Palo Alto as a place to retire 67% 61% 68% 60% 63% 62% Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 60: COMMUNITY QUALITY AND INCLUSIVENESS BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Sense of community Above Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds Above Availability of affordable quality child care Below Palo Alto as a place to raise kids Above Palo Alto as a place to retire Above City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 32 Services to more vulnerable populations (e.g., seniors, youth or low-income residents) ranged from 46 to 81 percent with ratings of “excellent” or “good.” All were above the benchmark. FIGURE 61: RATINGS OF QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED FOR POPULATION SUBGROUPS BY YEAR 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Services to seniors 81% 79% 84% 78% 82% 77% Services to youth 73% 73% 70% 68% 68% 66% Services to low-income people 46% 46% 54% 45% 37% . Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 62: SERVICES PROVIDED FOR POPULATION SUBGROUPS BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Services to seniors Above Services to youth Above Services to low income residents Above City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 33 CC II VV II CC EE NN GGAA GG EE MM EENN TT Government leaders, elected or hired, cannot run a jurisdiction alone and a jurisdiction cannot run effectively if residents remain strangers with little to connect them. Staff and elected officials require the assistance of local residents whether that assistance comes in tacit approval or eager help; and commonality of purpose among the electorate facilitates policies and programs that appeal to most and causes discord among few. Furthermore, when neighbors help neighbors, the cost to the community to provide services to residents in need declines. When residents are civically engaged, they have taken the opportunity to participate in making the community more livable for all. The extent to which local government provides opportunities to become informed and engaged and the extent to which residents take those opportunities is an indicator of the connection between government and populace. By understanding your residents’ level of connection to, knowledge of and participation in local government, the City can find better opportunities to communicate and educate citizens about its mission, services, accomplishments and plans. This survey information is essential for public communication and for helping local government staff to conceive strategies for reaching reluctant voters whose confidence in government may need boosting prior to important referenda. CCiivviicc AAcc tt ii vv ii tt yy Respondents were asked about the perceived community volunteering opportunities and their participation as citizens of the City of Palo Alto. Survey participants rated the volunteer opportunities in the City of Palo Alto favorably. Opportunities to attend or participate in community matters were rated similarly. Ratings of civic engagement opportunities were above ratings from comparison jurisdictions where these questions were asked. FIGURE 63: RATINGS OF CIVIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES 86% 75% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Opportunities to volunteer Opportunities to participate in community matters Percent "excellent" or "good" Note: These questions were not asked in previous surveys. City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 34 FIGURE 64: CIVIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Opportunities to participate in community matters Above Opportunities to volunteer Above Most of the participants in this survey had not attended a public meeting, or participated in a club in the 12 months prior to the survey, but the vast majority had helped a friend. The participation rates of these civic behaviors were compared to the rates in other jurisdictions. Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting, participated in a club or civic group in Palo Alto and provided help to a friend or neighbor showed similar rates of involvement; volunteered your time to some group or activity showed higher rates. Those who had watched a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting on cable television showed lower rates of community engagement. FIGURE 65: PARTICIPATION IN CIVIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 26% 26% 27% 30% 28% 30% Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting on cable television 26% 26% 31% 29% 27% 28% Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Palo Alto 51% 52% 53% 52% 52% 49% Participated in a club or civic group in Palo Alto 34% . . . . . Provided help to a friend or neighbor 93% . . . . . Percent participating at least once in the last 12 months FIGURE 66: PARTICIPATION IN CIVIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting Similar Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting on cable television Below Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Palo Alto Above Participated in a club or civic group in Palo Alto Similar Provided help to a friend or neighbor Similar City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 35 City of Palo Alto residents showed the largest amount of civic engagement in the area of electoral participation. Eighty-nine percent reported they were registered to vote and 87% indicated they had voted in the last general election. This rate of self-reported voting was higher than that of comparison communities. FIGURE 67: REPORTED VOTING BEHAVIOR BY YEAR 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Registered to vote 89% 79% 77% 80% 83% 78% Voted in the last general election 87% 76% 70% 79% 78% 72% Percent "yes" FIGURE 68: VOTING BEHAVIOR BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Registered to vote Similar Voted in last general election Above City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 36 II nnffoo rrmm aa ttii oonn aanndd AA wwaa rree nn ee ss ss Those completing the survey were asked about their use and perceptions of various information sources and local government media services. When asked whether they had visited the City of Palo Alto Web site in the previous 12 months, 78% reported they had done so at least once. Public information services were rated favorably compared to benchmark data. FIGURE 69: USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BY YEAR 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Read Palo Alto Newsletter 83% 83% 84% 63% 62% . Visited the City of Palo Alto Web site (at www.cityofpaloalto.org) 78% 62% 54% 52% . . Percent using at least once in last 12 months FIGURE 70: USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Read Palo Alto Newsletter Similar Visited the City of Palo Alto Web site Above FIGURE 71: RATINGS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEDIA SERVICES AND INFORMATION DISSEMINATION BY YEAR 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Public information services 76% 73% 72% 74% 77% 72% Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 72: LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEDIA SERVICES AND INFORMATION DISSEMINATION BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Public information services Above City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 37 SS oocc ii aall EEnnggaa gg ee mmeenntt Opportunities to participate in social events and activities were rated as “excellent” or “good” by 80% of respondents, a similar proportion rated opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities as “excellent” or “good.” FIGURE 73: RATINGS OF SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES 30% 25% 53% 55% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities Opportunities to participate in social events and activities Percent of respondents Excellent Good Note: This question was not asked in previous surveys. FIGURE 74: SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Opportunities to participate in social events and activities Above Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events Above City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 38 Residents in Palo Alto reported a fair amount of neighborliness. About 81% indicated talking or visiting with their neighbors at least once a month. This amount of contact with neighbors was less than the amount of contact reported in other communities. FIGURE 75: CONTACT WITH IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS Less than once a month 19% At least once a month 81% About how often, if at all, do you talk to or visit with your immediate neighbors? Note: This question was not asked in previous surveys. FIGURE 76: CONTACT WITH IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Has contact with neighbors at least once per month Below City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 39 PP UU BB LLIICC TTRR UU SSTT When local government leaders are trusted, an environment of cooperation is more likely to surround all decisions they make. Cooperation leads to easier communication between leaders and residents and increases the likelihood that high value policies and programs will be implemented to improve the quality of life of the entire community. Trust can be measured in residents’ opinions about the overall direction the City of Palo Alto is taking, their perspectives about the service value their taxes purchase and the openness of government to citizen participation. In addition, resident opinion about services provided by the City of Palo Alto could be compared to their opinion about services provided by the state and federal governments. If residents find nothing to admire in the services delivered by any level of government, their opinions about the City of Palo Alto may be colored by their dislike of what all levels of government provide. A majority of respondents felt that the value of services for taxes paid was “excellent” or “good.” When asked to rate the job the City of Palo Alto does at listening to citizens, 52% rated it as “excellent” or “good.” Of these five ratings, two were above the benchmark, two were similar to the benchmark and one was below the benchmark. FIGURE 77: PUBLIC TRUST RATINGS BY YEAR 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 64% 67% 74% 70% 74% 69% The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 63% 57% 62% 54% 63% 54% The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 57% 68% 73% 59% 70% 65% The job Palo Alto government does at listening to citizens 52% 53% 59% 50% 60% 54% Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 92% 93% 91% . . . Percent "excellent" or "good" Note: In previous years, these questions were asked on an “agree/disagree” scale. FIGURE 78: PUBLIC TRUST BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto Above The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking Similar Job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement Below Job Palo Alto government does at listening to citizens Similar Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto Above City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 40 On average, residents of the City of Palo Alto gave the highest evaluations to their own local government and the lowest average rating to the federal government. The overall quality of services delivered by the City of Palo Alto was rated as “excellent” or “good” by 85% of survey participants. The City of Palo Alto’s rating was above the benchmark when compared to other communities in the nation. Ratings of overall City services have remained stable over the last six years. FIGURE 79: RATING OVERALL QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO BY YEAR 87%90%88%87%86%85% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 80: RATINGS OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS BY YEAR 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Services provided by City of Palo Alto 85% 86% 87% 88% 90% 87% Services provided by the Federal Government 33% 33% 33% 32% 38% 32% Services provided by the State Government 34% 44% 38% 32% 35% 31% Services provided by Santa Clara County Government 54% . . . . . Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 81: SERVICES PROVIDED BY LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Services provided by the City of Palo Alto Above Services provided by the Federal Government Below Services provided by the State Government Below Services provided by Santa Clara County Government Above City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 41 CC iitt yy oo ff PPaalloo AA lltt oo EEmm pp ll ooyyeeeess The employees of the City of Palo Alto who interact with the public create the first impression that most residents have of the City of Palo Alto. Front line staff who provide information, assist with bill paying, create service schedules, fight fires and crime and even give traffic tickets are the collective face of the City of Palo Alto. As such, it is important to know about residents’ experience talking with that “face.” When employees appear to be knowledgeable, responsive and courteous, residents are more likely to feel that any needs or problems may be solved through positive and productive interactions with the City of Palo Alto staff. Those completing the survey were asked if they had been in contact with a City employee either in-person or over the phone in the last 12 months; the 54% who reported that they had been in contact (a percent that is lower than the benchmark comparison) were then asked to indicate overall how satisfied they were with the employee in their most recent contact. City employees were rated highly; 73% of respondents rated their overall impression as “excellent” or “good.” Employee ratings were mostly similar to the benchmark. Most were similar to past survey years. FIGURE 82: PROPORTION OF RESPONDENTS WHO HAD CONTACT WITH CITY EMPLOYEES IN PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS BY YEAR 62%64% 56%54%57%54% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Percent "yes" City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 42 FIGURE 83: RATINGS OF CITY EMPLOYEES (AMONG THOSE WHO HAD CONTACT) BY YEAR 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Knowledge 75% 85% 83% 84% 85% 85% Responsiveness 73% 80% 78% 77% 83% 74% Courtesy 78% 84% 83% 83% 84% 83% Overall impression 73% 79% 79% 79% 84% 78% Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 84: CONTACT WITH CITY EMPLOYEES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Had contact with city employee(s) in last 12 months Below FIGURE 85: RATINGS OF CITY EMPLOYEES (AMONG THOSE WHO HAD CONTACT) BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark City employee knowledge Similar City employee responsiveness Similar City employee courteousness Above Overall impression Similar City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 43 FF rr oo mm DD aa tt aa tt oo AA cc tt ii oo nn RREE SS II DD EE NN TT PPRRIIOORR II TT II EE SS Knowing where to focus limited resources to improve residents’ opinions of local government requires information that targets the services that are most important to residents. However, when residents are asked what services are most important, they rarely stray beyond core services – those directed to save lives and improve safety. In market research, identifying the most important characteristics of a transaction or product is called Key Driver Analysis. The key drivers that are identified from that analysis do not come from asking customers to self-report which service or product characteristic most influenced their decision to buy or return, but rather from statistical analyses of the predictors of their behavior. When customers are asked to name the most important characteristics of a good or service, responses often are expected or misleading – just as they can be in the context of a citizen survey. For example, air travelers often claim that safety is the primary consideration in their choice of an airline, yet key driver analysis reveals that frequent flier perks or in-flight entertainment predicts their buying decisions. In local government core services – like fire protection – invariably land at the top of the list created when residents are asked about the most important local government services. And core services are important. But by using Key Driver Analysis, our approach digs deeper to identify the less obvious, but more influential services that are most related to residents’ ratings of overall quality of local government services. Because services focused directly on life and safety remain essential to quality government, it is suggested that core services should remain the focus of continuous monitoring and improvement where necessary – but monitoring core services or asking residents to identify important services is not enough. A Key Driver Analysis (KDA) was conducted for the City of Palo Alto by examining the relationships between ratings of each service and ratings of the City of Palo Alto’s overall services. Those key driver services that correlated most highly with residents’ perceptions about overall City service quality have been identified. By targeting improvements in key services, the City of Palo Alto can focus on the services that have the greatest likelihood of influencing residents’ opinions about overall service quality. Services found to be most strongly correlated with ratings of overall service quality from the Palo Alto Key Driver Analysis were: ƒ Street repair ƒ Land use, planning and zoning City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 44 CC II TT YY OO FF PPAA LL OO AALL TT OO AACC TT II OONN CC HHAA RRTT The 2008 City of Palo Alto Action Chart™ on the following page combines three dimensions of performance: ƒ Comparison to resident evaluations from other communities. When a comparison is available, the background color of each service box indicates whether the service is above the benchmark (green), similar to the benchmark (yellow) or below the benchmark (red). ƒ Identification of key services. A black key icon next to a service box indicates that service is key (either core or key driver) ƒ Trend line icons (up and down arrows), indicating whether the current ratings are higher or lower than the previous survey. Twenty-four services were included in the KDA for the City of Palo Alto. Of these, 15 were above the benchmark, one was below the benchmark and two were similar to the benchmark (no comparison was available for six services). Ratings for two services were trending up and ten were trending down, while a majority remained similar to the previous survey. The two key drivers are shown. Considering all performance data included in the Action Chart, a jurisdiction typically will want to consider improvements to any key driver services that are trending down or that are not at least similar to the benchmark. In the case of Palo Alto, no key drivers were below the benchmark or trending lower in the current survey. Palo Alto may wish to seek improvements to street repair, as this key driver received ratings similar to other benchmark jurisdictions. More detail about interpreting results can be found in the next section. Services with a high percent of respondents answering “don’t know” were excluded from the analysis and were considered services that would be less influential. See Appendix A: Complete Survey Frequencies, Frequencies Including “Don’t Know” Responses for the percent “don’t know” for each service. City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 45 FIGURE 86: CITY OF PALO ALTO ACTION CHART™ Overall Quality of City of Palo Alto Services Recreation and Wellness Civic Engagement Exclusive Services Legend Above Benchmark Similar to Benchmark Below Benchmark Rating decreaseRating increaseKey Driver Public Safety Environmental Sustainability Community Design Str eet repair Planning and zoning Si dew alk Maintenance Str eet lighting Street cleaning Traffic signal timing Traffic enforcement Police services Preservation of natural areas Sew er services Drinking water Storm drainage Garbage collection Recycling City parks Library Recreati on Faci lities Public information Street tree maintenance Electric utility Neighborhood libraries Gas utility Variety of library materials Neighborhood park City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 46 UUss iinn gg YYoo uu rr AAcc ttii oonn CC hh aa rrtt™™ The key drivers derived for City of Palo Alto provide a list of those services that are uniquely related to overall service quality. Those key drivers are marked with the symbol of a key in the action chart. Because key driver results are based on a relatively small number of responses, the relationships or correlations that define the key drivers are subject to more variability than is seen when key drivers are derived from a large national dataset of resident responses. To benefit City of Palo Alto, NRC lists the key drivers derived from tens of thousands of resident responses from across the country. This national list is updated periodically so that you can compare your key drivers to the key drivers from the entire NRC data set. Where your locally derived key drivers overlap national key drivers, it makes sense to focus even more strongly on your keys. Similarly, when your local key drivers overlap your core services, there is stronger argument to make for attending to your key drivers that overlap with core services. In the following table, we have listed your key drivers, core services and the national key drivers and we have indicated, with shaded rows, City of Palo Alto key drivers that overlap core services or the nationally derived keys. FIGURE 87: KEY DRIVERS COMPARED Service City of Palo Alto Key Drivers National Key Drivers Core Services Code enforcement 9 Economic development 9 EMS 9 Fire 9 Garbage collection 9 Land use planning and zoning 9 9 Police services 9 9 Public information services 9 Public schools 9 Sewer 9 Storm drainage 9 Street repair 9 9 Water 9 City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 47 PP oo ll ii cc yy QQ uu ee ss tt ii oo nn ss “Don’t know” responses have been removed from the following questions. Policy Question 1 During the past twelve months, did you or anyone in your family household have contact with the Palo Alto Police Department? Percent of respondents Yes 34% No 66% Total 100% Policy Question 2 If yes, how do you rate the quality of your contact with the Palo Alto Police Department? Percent of respondents Excellent 45% Good 28% Fair 10% Poor 17% Total 100% Policy Question 3 Are you and your household prepared to sustain yourself for 72 hours with sufficient food and water in the event of a major disaster such as an earthquake or flood? Percent of respondents Yes 60% No 40% Total 100% City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 48 AA pp pp ee nn dd ii xx AA :: CC oo mm pp ll ee tt ee SS uu rr vv ee yy FF rr ee qq uu ee nn cc ii ee ss FF RREEQQ UU EE NN CCIIEESS EEXXCC LL UU DDIINNGG ““DD OONN’’TT KKNN OOWW ”” RREESS PPOO NNSS EE SS Question 1: Quality of Life Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Palo Alto as a place to live 55% 40% 4% 1% 100% Your neighborhood as a place to live 46% 45% 9% 0% 100% Palo Alto as a place to raise children 54% 40% 5% 0% 100% Palo Alto as a place to work 47% 43% 8% 3% 100% Palo Alto as a place to retire 32% 35% 20% 13% 100% The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 44% 47% 8% 1% 100% Question 2: Community Characteristics Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Sense of community 18% 52% 26% 5% 100% Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds 33% 44% 17% 6% 100% Overall appearance of Palo Alto 30% 58% 10% 1% 100% Cleanliness of Palo Alto 32% 56% 11% 1% 100% Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 12% 45% 32% 10% 100% Variety of housing options 6% 28% 41% 25% 100% Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 24% 52% 21% 2% 100% Shopping opportunities 36% 35% 24% 5% 100% Opportunities to attend cultural activities 33% 46% 16% 5% 100% Recreational opportunities 29% 53% 15% 3% 100% Employment opportunities 17% 44% 34% 5% 100% Educational opportunities 59% 35% 6% 0% 100% Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 25% 55% 16% 4% 100% Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 30% 53% 17% 1% 100% Opportunities to volunteer 35% 51% 13% 1% 100% City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 49 Question 2: Community Characteristics Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Opportunities to participate in community matters 26% 48% 23% 2% 100% Ease of car travel in Palo Alto 18% 41% 36% 4% 100% Ease of bus travel in Palo Alto 10% 24% 35% 31% 100% Ease of rail or subway travel in Palo Alto 13% 39% 31% 17% 100% Ease of bicycle travel in Palo Alto 31% 48% 18% 4% 100% Ease of walking in Palo Alto 36% 50% 11% 3% 100% Availability of paths and walking trails 27% 47% 23% 3% 100% Traffic flow on major streets 6% 32% 48% 14% 100% Amount of public parking 14% 38% 39% 10% 100% Availability of affordable quality housing 4% 9% 28% 59% 100% Availability of affordable quality child care 9% 19% 38% 34% 100% Availability of affordable quality health care 24% 33% 28% 15% 100% Availability of affordable quality food 25% 39% 28% 8% 100% Availability of preventive health services 27% 43% 25% 5% 100% Air quality 20% 55% 22% 3% 100% Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 28% 56% 14% 1% 100% Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 47% 45% 6% 1% 100% Question 3: Growth Please rate the speed of growth in the following categories in Palo Alto over the past 2 years: Much too slow Somewhat too slow Right amount Somewhat too fast Much too fast Total Population growth 1% 1% 47% 35% 16% 100% Retail growth (stores, restaurants, etc.) 5% 23% 62% 9% 1% 100% Jobs growth 8% 40% 50% 1% 1% 100% Question 4: Code Enforcement To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles a problem in Palo Alto? Percent of respondents Not a problem 27% Minor problem 49% City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 50 Question 4: Code Enforcement To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles a problem in Palo Alto? Percent of respondents Moderate problem 21% Major problem 3% Total 100% Question 5: Community Safety Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel from the following in Palo Alto: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Total Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 39% 46% 6% 8% 1% 100% Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) 24% 50% 12% 11% 3% 100% Environmental hazards, including toxic waste 40% 40% 14% 5% 2% 100% Question 6: Personal Safety Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Total In your neighborhood during the day 82% 13% 2% 2% 1% 100% In your neighborhood after dark 33% 46% 10% 9% 3% 100% In Palo Alto's downtown area during the day 71% 24% 3% 1% 0% 100% In Palo Alto's downtown area after dark 24% 42% 14% 17% 4% 100% Question 7: Crime Victim During the past twelve months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? Percent of respondents No 90% Yes 10% Total 100% City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 51 Question 8: Crime Reporting If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? Percent of respondents No 27% Yes 73% Total 100% Question 9: Resident Behaviors In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated in the following activities in Palo Alto? Never Once or twice 3 to 12 times 13 to 26 times More than 26 times Total Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 26% 17% 26% 14% 17% 100% Used Palo Alto recreation centers 32% 24% 27% 8% 8% 100% Participated in a recreation program or activity 44% 23% 19% 6% 7% 100% Visited a neighborhood park or City park 7% 14% 31% 24% 24% 100% Ridden a local bus within Palo Alto 67% 16% 8% 3% 4% 100% Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 74% 19% 6% 1% 0% 100% Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting on cable television 74% 17% 7% 1% 1% 100% Read Palo Alto Newsletter 17% 19% 26% 15% 22% 100% Visited the City of Palo Alto Web site (at www.cityofpaloalto.org) 22% 21% 36% 12% 9% 100% Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home 1% 2% 3% 8% 86% 100% Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Palo Alto 49% 16% 12% 10% 13% 100% Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto 60% 11% 12% 6% 10% 100% Participated in a club or civic group in Palo Alto 66% 14% 12% 4% 5% 100% Provided help to a friend or neighbor 7% 20% 40% 17% 16% 100% City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 52 Question 10: Neighborliness About how often, if at all, do you talk to or visit with your immediate neighbors (people who live in the 10 or 20 households that are closest to you)? Percent of respondents Just about everyday 16% Several times a week 23% Several times a month 32% Once a month 9% Several times a year 8% Once a year or less 4% Never 8% Total 100% Question 11: Service Quality Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Police services 36% 48% 12% 5% 100% Fire services 55% 41% 4% 0% 100% Ambulance or emergency medical services 54% 41% 5% 0% 100% Crime prevention 27% 47% 19% 6% 100% Fire prevention and education 31% 56% 10% 3% 100% Traffic enforcement 15% 48% 25% 11% 100% Street repair 10% 37% 30% 23% 100% Street cleaning 25% 50% 23% 2% 100% Street lighting 17% 47% 26% 10% 100% Sidewalk maintenance 11% 42% 36% 11% 100% Traffic signal timing 13% 43% 30% 14% 100% Bus or transit services 17% 33% 30% 21% 100% Garbage collection 42% 50% 8% 1% 100% Recycling 48% 42% 9% 1% 100% Yard waste pick-up 47% 43% 8% 2% 100% Storm drainage 25% 46% 20% 10% 100% Drinking water 48% 39% 10% 3% 100% Sewer services 30% 51% 17% 2% 100% City parks 43% 46% 10% 1% 100% City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 53 Question 11: Service Quality Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Recreation programs or classes 32% 55% 12% 0% 100% Recreation centers or facilities 26% 51% 20% 3% 100% Land use, planning and zoning 10% 36% 37% 17% 100% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) 13% 46% 33% 8% 100% Animal control 27% 51% 18% 4% 100% Economic development 12% 51% 26% 11% 100% Services to seniors 25% 56% 16% 3% 100% Services to youth 27% 46% 21% 6% 100% Services to low-income people 19% 27% 31% 23% 100% Public library services 30% 46% 20% 5% 100% Public information services 21% 55% 19% 4% 100% Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 19% 52% 24% 5% 100% Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 33% 45% 17% 5% 100% Neighborhood branch libraries 27% 44% 22% 7% 100% Your neighborhood park 35% 51% 12% 2% 100% Variety of library materials 22% 45% 28% 6% 100% Street tree maintenance 22% 46% 26% 6% 100% Electric utility 30% 55% 13% 2% 100% Power utility 29% 55% 15% 1% 100% Question 12: Government Services Overall Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The City of Palo Alto 24% 61% 13% 2% 100% The Federal Government 3% 30% 45% 22% 100% The State Government 4% 30% 52% 15% 100% Santa Clara County Government 6% 48% 41% 5% 100% City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 54 Question 13: Contact with City Employees Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Palo Alto within the last 12 months (including police, receptionists, planners or any others)? Percent of respondents No 46% Yes 54% Total 100% Question 14: City Employees What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City of Palo Alto in your most recent contact? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Knowledge 35% 40% 14% 10% 100% Responsiveness 39% 34% 11% 16% 100% Courtesy 48% 30% 9% 13% 100% Overall impression 38% 35% 13% 14% 100% Question 15: Government Performance Please rate the following categories of Palo Alto government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 16% 49% 27% 9% 100% The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 10% 52% 27% 11% 100% The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 13% 44% 31% 12% 100% The job Palo Alto government does at listening to citizens 13% 39% 33% 14% 100% Question 16: Recommendation and Longevity Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Total Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 60% 31% 6% 3% 100% Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 62% 23% 10% 5% 100% City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 55 Question 17: Impact of the Economy What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Percent of respondents Very positive 1% Somewhat positive 3% Neutral 32% Somewhat negative 46% Very negative 17% Total 100% Question 18a: Policy Question 1 During the past twelve months, did you or anyone in your family household have contact with the Palo Alto Police Department? Percent of respondents Yes 34% No 66% Total 100% Question 18b: Policy Question 2 If yes, how do you rate the quality of your contact with the Palo Alto Police Department? Percent of respondents Excellent 45% Good 28% Fair 10% Poor 17% Total 100% Question 18c: Policy Question 3 Are you and your household prepared to sustain yourself for 72 hours with sufficient food and water in the event of a major disaster such as an earthquake or flood? Percent of respondents Yes 60% No 40% Total 100% City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 56 Question D1: Employment Status Are you currently employed for pay? Percent of respondents No 32% Yes, full-time 56% Yes, part-time 12% Total 100% Question D2: Mode of Transportation Used for Commute During a typical week, how many days do you commute to work (for the longest distance of your commute) in each of the ways listed below? Percent of days mode used Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc…) by myself 59% Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc…) with other children or adults 6% Bus, rail, subway or other public transportation 5% Walk 4% Bicycle 16% Work at home 9% Other 0% Question D3: Length of Residency How many years have you lived in Palo Alto? Percent of respondents Less than 2 years 18% 2 to 5 years 25% 6 to 10 years 12% 11 to 20 years 15% More than 20 years 30% Total 100% Question D4: Housing Unit Type Which best describes the building you live in? Percent of respondents One family house detached from any other houses 53% House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a duplex or townhome) 5% Building with two or more apartments or condominiums 40% City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 57 Question D4: Housing Unit Type Which best describes the building you live in? Percent of respondents Mobile home 0% Other 2% Total 100% Question D5: Housing Tenure (Rent/Own) Is this house, apartment or mobile home… Percent of respondents Rented for cash or occupied without cash payment 43% Owned by you or someone in this house with a mortgage or free and clear 57% Total 100% Question D6: Monthly Housing Cost About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners’ association (HOA) fees)? Percent of respondents Less than $300 per month 4% $300 to $599 per month 6% $600 to $999 per month 8% $1,000 to $1,499 per month 16% $1,500 to $2,499 per month 20% $2,500 or more per month 45% Total 100% Question D7: Presence of Children in Household Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent of respondents No 65% Yes 35% Total 100% City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 58 Question D8: Presence of Older Adults in Household Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent of respondents No 74% Yes 26% Total 100% Question D9: Household Income How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent of respondents Less than $24,999 5% $25,000 to $49,999 10% $50,000 to $99,999 24% $100,000 to $149,000 23% $150,000 or more 38% Total 100% Question D10: Ethnicity Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent of respondents No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 96% Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 4% Total 100% Question D11: Race What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent of respondents American Indian or Alaskan Native 0% Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 25% Black or African American 2% White 71% Other 5% Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 59 Question D12: Age In which category is your age? Percent of respondents 18 to 24 years 2% 25 to 34 years 23% 35 to 44 years 21% 45 to 54 years 21% 55 to 64 years 11% 65 to 74 years 8% 75 years or older 14% Total 100% Question D13: Gender What is your sex? Percent of respondents Female 53% Male 47% Total 100% Question D14: Registered to Vote Are you registered to vote in your jurisdiction? Percent of respondents No 10% Yes 80% Ineligible to vote 10% Total 100% Question D15: Voted in Last General Election Many people don't have time to vote in elections. Did you vote in the last general election? Percent of respondents No 11% Yes 75% Ineligible to vote 14% Total 100% City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 60 FF RREEQQ UU EE NNCC II EESS II NN CCLL UU DD II NNGG ““DDOO NN’’TT KKNN OOWW ”” RREE SS PPOO NNSS EESS These tables contain the percentage of respondents for each response category as well as the “n” or total number of respondents for each category, next to the percentage. Question 1: Quality of Life Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Palo Alto as a place to live 55% 226 40% 168 4% 15 1% 6 0% 0 100% 415 Your neighborhood as a place to live 46% 190 45% 184 9% 35 0% 2 0% 1 100% 413 Palo Alto as a place to raise children 46% 187 34% 140 5% 19 0% 1 15% 61 100% 408 Palo Alto as a place to work 38% 154 35% 142 6% 26 2% 9 18% 74 100%404 Palo Alto as a place to retire 25% 102 27% 110 15% 63 10% 41 23% 93 100% 410 The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 44% 181 47% 193 8% 32 1% 5 0% 0 100% 411 Question 2: Community Characteristics Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Sense of community 17% 70 51% 207 25% 102 5% 19 3% 12 100% 409 Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds 33% 133 43% 174 16% 66 6% 23 3% 10 100% 407 Overall appearance of Palo Alto 30% 125 58% 241 10% 40 1% 6 0% 0 100% 412 Cleanliness of Palo Alto 32% 131 56% 231 11% 45 1% 4 0% 1 100% 411 Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 11% 44 40% 166 29% 119 9% 38 10% 43 100% 410 Variety of housing options 6% 23 26% 105 38% 151 23% 94 7% 27 100% 401 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo 24% 99 52% 213 21% 85 2% 9 2% 7 100% 413 City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 61 Question 2: Community Characteristics Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Alto Shopping opportunities 36% 148 35% 146 24% 101 5% 19 0% 0 100% 415 Opportunities to attend cultural activities 32% 133 44% 184 16% 65 5% 21 3% 12 100% 416 Recreational opportunities 28% 115 51% 211 14% 60 3% 11 4% 17 100% 414 Employment opportunities 12% 51 31% 128 25% 100 4% 15 28% 114 100% 407 Educational opportunities 54% 222 32% 131 6% 24 0% 2 9% 35 100% 414 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 23% 93 49% 200 15% 60 3% 14 11% 43 100% 409 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 21% 88 38% 156 12% 50 1% 4 28% 113 100% 410 Opportunities to volunteer 28% 113 40% 165 11% 43 0% 2 21% 86 100% 409 Opportunities to participate in community matters 22% 87 40% 161 19% 77 2% 7 18% 74 100% 406 Ease of car travel in Palo Alto 17% 72 40% 165 35% 145 4% 16 4% 15 100% 413 Ease of bus travel in Palo Alto 7% 27 16% 67 24% 98 21% 87 32% 129 100% 407 Ease of rail or subway travel in Palo Alto 11% 44 32% 130 25% 103 14% 55 18% 73 100% 406 Ease of bicycle travel in Palo Alto 26% 108 41% 167 15% 63 3% 13 14% 58 100% 409 Ease of walking in Palo Alto 36% 148 50% 204 11% 47 3% 11 1% 2 100%412 Availability of paths and walking trails 26% 105 44% 182 21% 87 3% 13 5% 22 100% 409 Traffic flow on major streets 6% 23 32% 131 48% 196 14% 57 1% 4 100% 411 Amount of public parking 14% 57 37% 151 38% 155 9% 38 2% 9 100% 411 Availability of affordable quality housing 3% 13 8% 32 25% 101 52% 213 12% 51 100% 409 Availability of affordable quality child care 4% 17 8% 34 17% 70 15% 62 55% 223 100% 405 City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 62 Question 2: Community Characteristics Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Availability of affordable quality health care 20% 82 27% 111 24%96 12% 50 17% 68 100% 407 Availability of affordable quality food 24% 98 38% 154 27% 110 8% 32 4% 16 100% 410 Availability of preventive health services 20% 80 32% 129 18% 74 3% 14 27% 108 100% 406 Air quality 20% 81 52% 216 21% 89 2% 10 4% 19 100% 415 Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 28% 116 56% 229 14% 58 1% 5 1% 3 100% 412 Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 47% 195 44% 183 6% 27 1% 6 0% 1 100% 412 Question 3: Growth Please rate the speed of growth in the following categories in Palo Alto over the past 2 years: Much too slow Somewhat too slow Right amount Somewhat too fast Much too fast Don't know Total Population growth 1% 4 1% 2 35% 144 27% 109 12% 48 25% 101 100% 409 Retail growth (stores, restaurants, etc.) 4% 18 19% 78 51% 210 8% 32 1% 4 17% 69 100% 409 Jobs growth 4% 17 20% 82 26% 104 0% 2 0% 1 49% 200 100% 406 City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 63 Question 4: Code Enforcement To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles a problem in Palo Alto? Percent of respondents Count Not a problem 25% 103 Minor problem 45% 187 Moderate problem 20% 82 Major problem 3% 12 Don't know 7% 29 Total 100% 413 Question 5: Community Safety Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel from the following in Palo Alto: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Don't know Total Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 39% 158 45% 185 6% 26 7% 31 1% 5 1% 5 100% 410 Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) 24% 97 50% 204 12% 48 11% 46 3% 12 1% 4 100% 411 Environmental hazards, including toxic waste 38% 155 37% 153 13% 53 5% 19 2% 6 6% 24 100% 409 City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 64 Question 6: Personal Safety Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Don't know Total In your neighborhood during the day 82% 336 13% 54 2% 9 2% 9 1% 3 0% 0 100% 413 In your neighborhood after dark 33% 135 45% 188 10% 40 9% 38 3% 11 0% 2 100% 413 In Palo Alto's downtown area during the day 69% 286 24% 98 3% 12 1% 4 0% 1 3% 13 100% 414 In Palo Alto's downtown area after dark 22% 92 39% 162 13% 54 16% 65 4% 16 6% 24 100% 412 Question 7: Crime Victim During the past twelve months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? Percent of respondents Count No 89% 365 Yes 10% 42 Don't know 0% 1 Total 100% 408 Question 8: Crime Reporting If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? Percent of respondents Count No 26% 11 Yes 70% 30 Don't know 4% 2 Total 100% 42 City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 65 Question 9: Resident Behaviors In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated in the following activities in Palo Alto? Never Once or twice 3 to 12 times 13 to 26 times More than 26 times Total Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 26% 108 17% 71 26% 107 14% 58 17% 69 100% 413 Used Palo Alto recreation centers 32% 132 24% 99 27% 110 8% 32 8% 33 100% 405 Participated in a recreation program or activity 44% 181 23% 96 19% 77 6% 26 7% 30 100% 410 Visited a neighborhood park or City park 7% 28 14% 56 31% 128 24% 100 24% 98 100% 410 Ridden a local bus within Palo Alto 67% 275 16% 67 8% 35 3% 13 4% 17 100% 408 Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 74% 303 19% 78 6% 24 1% 5 0% 0 100% 411 Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting on cable television 74% 305 17% 70 7% 29 1% 4 1% 4 100% 412 Read Palo Alto Newsletter 17% 70 19% 77 26% 107 15% 61 22% 90 100% 405 Visited the City of Palo Alto Web site (at www.cityofpaloalto.org) 22% 90 21% 86 36% 148 12% 50 9% 36 100% 410 Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home 1% 5 2% 7 3% 12 8% 33 86% 348 100% 405 Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Palo Alto 49% 197 16% 65 12% 48 10% 40 13% 51 100% 402 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto 60% 245 11% 44 12% 49 6% 25 10% 43 100% 406 Participated in a club or civic group in Palo Alto 66% 264 14% 56 12% 46 4% 18 5% 19 100% 403 Provided help to a friend or neighbor 7% 29 20% 84 40% 166 17% 68 16% 66 100% 413 City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 66 Question 10: Neighborliness About how often, if at all, do you talk to or visit with your immediate neighbors (people who live in the 10 or 20 households that are closest to you)? Percent of respondents Count Just about everyday 16% 66 Several times a week 23% 96 Several times a month 32% 133 Once a month 9% 37 Several times a year 8% 32 Once a year or less 4% 15 Never 8% 33 Total 100% 412 Question 11: Service Quality Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Police services 29% 121 39% 159 10% 40 4% 16 18% 75 100% 410 Fire services 35% 143 26% 106 3% 11 0% 0 37% 149 100% 409 Ambulance or emergency medical services 30% 122 23% 91 3% 11 0% 0 45% 180 100% 405 Crime prevention 18% 73 31% 125 13% 52 4% 17 34% 134 100% 401 Fire prevention and education 17% 68 31% 123 6% 23 2% 6 45% 179 100% 399 Traffic enforcement 13% 52 41% 163 21% 86 9% 37 15% 61 100% 398 Street repair 9% 38 35% 140 28% 114 22% 88 6% 25 100% 404 Street cleaning 24% 98 48% 196 22% 90 2% 8 3% 14 100% 405 Street lighting 17% 68 46% 186 26% 104 9% 38 2% 9 100% 404 City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 67 Question 11: Service Quality Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Sidewalk maintenance 11% 43 41% 162 35% 140 11% 43 3% 12 100% 401 Traffic signal timing 13% 52 41% 166 29% 117 14% 55 4% 15 100% 404 Bus or transit services 10% 40 19% 78 18% 70 13% 50 41% 163 100% 401 Garbage collection 41% 166 48% 196 7% 30 1% 2 3% 10 100% 405 Recycling 47% 191 41% 167 9% 35 1% 2 3% 12 100% 407 Yard waste pick-up 37% 149 34% 136 7% 27 2% 8 21% 86 100% 404 Storm drainage 19% 76 35% 141 15% 62 7% 29 23% 93 100% 401 Drinking water 45% 183 37% 150 9% 36 3% 13 6% 24 100% 406 Sewer services 24% 98 41% 164 14% 55 2% 7 19% 76 100% 401 City parks 42% 168 45% 182 10% 40 1% 3 3% 11 100% 404 Recreation programs or classes 22% 87 37% 148 8% 33 0% 1 33% 131 100% 401 Recreation centers or facilities 18% 72 36% 143 14% 55 2% 9 30% 119 100% 397 Land use, planning and zoning 7% 29 26% 103 26% 104 12% 47 29% 114 100% 397 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) 8% 32 28% 112 20% 81 5% 20 39% 154 100% 399 Animal control 16% 63 30% 122 11% 44 2% 9 41% 162 100% 399 Economic development 8% 31 33% 131 17% 68 7% 27 35% 136 100% 394 Services to seniors 11% 46 26% 104 7% 29 1% 6 54% 217 100% 401 Services to youth 14% 56 24% 97 11% 45 3% 13 47% 186 100% 397 Services to low-income people 6% 25 9% 35 10% 41 8% 30 67% 262 100%393 Public library services 25% 100 38% 153 16% 66 4% 18 16% 64 100% 401 Public information services 15% 59 39% 153 14% 54 3% 11 30% 117 100% 394 City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 68 Question 11: Service Quality Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 12% 46 32% 129 15% 59 3% 13 38% 151 100% 397 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 28% 114 39% 155 15% 59 4% 16 14% 55 100% 399 Neighborhood branch libraries 21% 84 34% 135 18% 69 5% 22 22% 88 100% 397 Your neighborhood park 33% 133 48% 189 11% 45 2% 7 6% 23 100% 397 Variety of library materials 17% 67 35% 137 22% 86 5% 18 22% 88 100%396 Street tree maintenance 20% 80 43% 173 24% 97 6% 23 6% 25 100% 398 Electric utility 29% 116 52% 208 12% 50 2% 6 5% 22 100% 402 Power utility 26% 106 49% 198 13% 54 1% 3 10% 41 100% 402 City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 69 Question 12: Government Services Overall Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The City of Palo Alto 23% 92 58% 234 12% 49 2% 8 5% 18 100% 402 The Federal Government 3% 10 24% 98 37% 149 18% 71 18% 74 100% 402 The State Government 3% 12 25% 100 43% 170 12% 48 17% 70 100% 401 Santa Clara County Government 4% 17 33% 133 29% 115 3% 13 31% 123 100%400 Question 13: Contact with City Employees Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Palo Alto within the last 12 months (including police, receptionists, planners or any others)? Percent of respondents Count No 46% 188 Yes 54% 225 Total 100% 413 Question 14: City Employees What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City of Palo Alto in your most recent contact? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Knowledge 35% 77 40% 89 14% 32 10% 23 1% 1 100% 222 Responsiveness 39% 86 33% 73 11% 24 16% 35 0% 1 100% 219 Courtesy 48% 107 30% 66 9% 20 13% 28 0% 0 100% 221 Overall impression 38% 85 35% 76 13% 29 14% 30 0% 0 100% 220 City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 70 Question 15: Government Performance Please rate the following categories of Palo Alto government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 13% 54 42% 168 23% 94 7% 29 14% 57 100% 402 The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 9% 34 44% 177 22% 90 9% 36 16% 63 100% 401 The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 9% 35 29% 116 20% 82 8% 33 34% 137 100% 402 The job Palo Alto government does at listening to citizens 9% 35 26% 104 22% 89 9% 38 34% 136 100% 402 Question 16: Recommendation and Longevity Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Don't know Total Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 60% 250 31% 128 6% 26 3% 11 0% 2 100% 417 Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 59% 247 22% 91 9% 38 5% 21 5% 20 100% 417 Question 17: Impact of the Economy What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Percent of respondents Count Very positive 1% 6 Somewhat positive 3% 13 Neutral 32% 135 Somewhat negative 46% 191 Very negative 17% 72 Total 100% 417 City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 71 Question 18a: Policy Question 1 During the past twelve months, did you or anyone in your family household have contact with the Palo Alto Police Department? Percent of respondents Count Yes 34% 142 No 65% 272 Don’t know 1% 4 Total 100% 418 Question 18b: Policy Question 2 If yes, how do you rate the quality of your contact with the Palo Alto Police Department? Percent of respondents Count Excellent 45% 63 Good 28% 40 Fair 10% 14 Poor 17% 25 Don't know 0% 0 Total 100% 141 Question 18c: Policy Question 3 Are you and your household prepared to sustain yourself for 72 hours with sufficient food and water in the event of a major disaster such as an earthquake or flood? Percent of respondents Count Yes 60% 246 No 40% 164 Total 100% 410 City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 72 Question D1: Employment Status Are you currently employed for pay? Percent of respondents Count No 32% 131 Yes, full-time 56% 231 Yes, part-time 12% 49 Total 100% 411 Question D2: Mode of Transportation Used for Commute During a typical week, how many days do you commute to work (for the longest distance of your commute) in each of the ways listed below? Percent of days mode used Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc…) by myself 59% Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc…) with other children or adults 6% Bus, rail, subway or other public transportation 5% Walk 4% Bicycle 16% Work at home 9% Other 0% Question D3: Length of Residency How many years have you lived in Palo Alto? Percent of respondents Count Less than 2 years 18% 74 2 to 5 years 25% 105 6 to 10 years 12% 50 11 to 20 years 15% 60 City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 73 Question D3: Length of Residency How many years have you lived in Palo Alto? Percent of respondents Count More than 20 years 30% 124 Total 100% 414 Question D4: Housing Unit Type Which best describes the building you live in? Percent of respondents Count One family house detached from any other houses 53% 220 House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a duplex or townhome) 5% 20 Building with two or more apartments or condominiums 40% 164 Mobile home 0% 0 Other 2% 8 Total 100% 412 Question D5: Housing Tenure (Rent/Own) Is this house, apartment or mobile home… Percent of respondents Count Rented for cash or occupied without cash payment 43% 170 Owned by you or someone in this house with a mortgage or free and clear 57% 225 Total 100% 395 Question D6: Monthly Housing Cost About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners" association (HOA) fees)? Percent of respondents Count Less than $300 per month 4% 14 City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 74 Question D6: Monthly Housing Cost About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners" association (HOA) fees)? Percent of respondents Count $300 to $599 per month 6% 25 $600 to $999 per month 8% 34 $1,000 to $1,499 per month 16% 66 $1,500 to $2,499 per month 20% 83 $2,500 or more per month 45% 185 Total 100% 408 Question D7: Presence of Children in Household Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent of respondents Count No 65% 269 Yes 35% 144 Total 100% 413 Question D8: Presence of Older Adults in Household Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent of respondents Count No 74% 308 Yes 26% 106 Total 100% 414 City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 75 Question D9: Household Income How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent of respondents Count Less than $24,999 5% 20 $25,000 to $49,999 10% 41 $50,000 to $99,999 24% 95 $100,000 to $149,000 23% 90 $150,000 or more 38% 151 Total 100% 396 Question D10: Ethnicity Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent of respondents Count No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 96% 394 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 4% 15 Total 100% 410 Question D11: Race What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent of respondents Count American Indian or Alaskan Native 0% 1 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 25% 101 Black or African American 2% 9 White 71% 289 Other 5% 22 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 76 Question D12: Age In which category is your age? Percent of respondents Count 18 to 24 years 2% 10 25 to 34 years 23% 94 35 to 44 years 21% 88 45 to 54 years 21% 86 55 to 64 years 11% 47 65 to 74 years 8% 33 75 years or older 14% 56 Total 100% 414 Question D13: Gender What is your sex? Percent of respondents Count Female 53% 217 Male 47% 195 Total 100% 412 Question D14: Registered to Vote Are you registered to vote in your jurisdiction? Percent of respondents Count No 10% 41 Yes 79% 327 Ineligible to vote 10% 40 Don't know 2% 6 Total 100% 414 City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 77 Question D14: Registered to Vote Are you registered to vote in your jurisdiction? Percent of respondents Count Question D15: Voted in Last General Election Many people don't have time to vote in elections. Did you vote in the last general election? Percent of respondents Count No 11% 46 Yes 74% 308 Ineligible to vote 14% 58 Don't know 1% 2 Total 100% 414 City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 78 AA pp pp ee nn dd ii xx BB :: SS uu rr vv ee yy MM ee tt hh oo dd oo ll oo gg yy The National Citizen Survey™ was developed to provide local jurisdictions an accurate, affordable and easy way to assess and interpret resident opinion about important community issues. While standardization of question wording and survey methods provide the rigor to assure valid results, each jurisdiction has enough flexibility to construct a customized version of The National Citizen Survey™ that asks residents about key local services and important local issues. Results offer insight into residents’ perspectives about local government performance and as such provide important benchmarks for jurisdictions working on performance measurement. The National Citizen Survey™ is designed to help with budget, land use and strategic planning as well as to communicate with local residents. The National Citizen Survey™ permits questions to test support for local policies and answers to its questions also speak to community trust and involvement in community-building activities as well as to resident demographic characteristics. SS UU RR VV EE YY VVAA LLIIDDIITTYY The question of survey validity has two parts: 1) how can a jurisdiction be confident that the results from those who completed the questionnaire are representative of the results that would have been obtained had the survey been administered to the entire population? and 2) how closely do the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect what residents really believe or do? To answer the first question, the best survey research practices were used for the resources spent to ensure that the results from the survey respondents reflect the opinions of residents in the entire jurisdiction. These practices include: ƒ Using a mail-out/mail-back methodology, which typically gets a higher response rate than phone for the same dollars spent. A higher response rate lessens the worry that those who did not respond are different than those who did respond. ƒ Selecting households at random within the jurisdiction to receive the survey. A random selection ensures that the households selected to receive the survey are similar to the entire population. A non-random sample may only include households from one geographic area, or from households of only one type. ƒ Over-sampling multi-family housing units to improve response from hard-to-reach, lower income, or younger apartment dwellers. ƒ Selecting the respondent within the household using an unbiased sampling procedure; in this case, the “birthday method.” The cover letter included an instruction requesting that the respondent in the household be the adult (18 years old or older) who most recently had a birthday, irrespective of year of birth. City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 79 ƒ Contacting potential respondents three times to encourage response from people who may have different opinions or habits than those who would respond with only a single prompt. ƒ Soliciting response on jurisdiction letterhead signed by the highest ranking elected official or staff member, thus appealing to the recipients’ sense of civic responsibility. ƒ Providing a self-addressed, postage-paid return envelope. ƒ Offering the survey in Spanish when appropriate and requested by City officials. ƒ Using the most recent available information about the characteristics of jurisdiction residents to weight the data to reflect the demographics of the population. The answer to the second question about how closely the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect what residents really believe or do is more complex. Resident responses to surveys are influenced by a variety of factors. For questions about service quality, residents’ expectations for service quality play a role as well as the “objective” quality of the service provided, the way the resident perceives the entire community (that is, the context in which the service is provided), the scale on which the resident is asked to record his or her opinion and, of course, the opinion, itself, that a resident holds about the service. Similarly a resident’s report of certain behaviors is colored by what he or she believes is the socially desirable response (e.g., reporting tolerant behaviors toward “oppressed groups,” likelihood of voting a tax increase for services to poor people, use of alternative modes of travel to work besides the single occupancy vehicle), his or her memory of the actual behavior (if it is not a question speculating about future actions, like a vote), his or her confidence that he or she can be honest without suffering any negative consequences (thus the need for anonymity) as well as the actual behavior itself. How closely survey results come to recording the way a person really feels or behaves often is measured by the coincidence of reported behavior with observed current behavior (e.g., driving habits), reported intentions to behave with observed future behavior (e.g., voting choices) or reported opinions about current community quality with objective characteristics of the community (e.g., feelings of safety correlated with rates of crime). There is a body of scientific literature that has investigated the relationship between reported behaviors and actual behaviors. Well-conducted surveys, by and large, do capture true respondent behaviors or intentions to act with great accuracy. Predictions of voting outcomes tend to be quite accurate using survey research, as do reported behaviors that are not about highly sensitive issues (e.g., family abuse or other illegal or morally sanctioned activities). For self-reports about highly sensitive issues, statistical adjustments can be made to correct for the respondents’ tendency to report what they think the “correct” response should be. Research on the correlation of resident opinion about service quality and “objective” ratings of service quality tend to be ambiguous, some showing stronger relationships than others. NRC’s own research has demonstrated that residents who report the lowest ratings of street repair live City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 80 in communities with objectively worse street conditions than those who report high ratings of street repair (based on road quality, delay in street repair, number of road repair employees). Similarly, the lowest rated fire services appear to be “objectively” worse than the highest rated fire services (expenditures per capita, response time, “professional” status of firefighters, breadth of services and training provided). Whether or not some research confirms the relationship between what residents think about a community and what can be seen “objectively” in a community, NRC has argued that resident opinion is a perspective that cannot be ignored by government administrators. NRC principals have written, “If you collect trash three times a day but residents think that your trash haul is lousy, you still have a problem.” SS UU RR VV EE YY SS AAMMPP LL II NNGG “Sampling” refers to the method by which survey recipients were chosen. All households within the City of Palo Alto were eligible to participate in the survey; 1,200 were selected to receive the survey. These 1,200 households were randomly selected from a comprehensive list of all housing units within the City of Palo Alto boundaries. The basis of the list of all housing units was a United States Postal Service listing of housing units within zip codes. Since some of the zip codes that serve the City of Palo Alto households may also serve addresses that lie outside of the jurisdiction, the exact geographic location of each housing unit was compared to jurisdiction boundaries, using the most current municipal boundary file (updated on a quarterly basis), and addresses located outside of the City of Palo Alto boundaries were removed from consideration. To choose the 1,200 survey recipients, a systematic sampling method was applied to the list of households known to be within the City of Palo Alto. Systematic sampling is a procedure whereby a complete list of all possible items is culled, selecting every Nth one until the appropriate amount of items is selected. Multi-family housing units were over sampled as residents of this type of housing typically respond at lower rates to surveys than do those in single-family housing units. An individual within each household was selected using the birthday method. The birthday method selects a person within the household by asking the “person whose birthday has most recently passed” to complete the questionnaire. The underlying assumption in this method is that day of birth has no relationship to the way people respond to surveys. This instruction was contained in the cover letter accompanying the questionnaire. SSUURR VV EE YY AA DD MM II NNIISS TTRR AATTIIOO NN Selected households received three mailings, one week apart, beginning September 15, 2008. The first mailing was a pre-notification postcard announcing the upcoming survey. The next mailing contained a letter from the City Auditor inviting the household to participate, a City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 81 questionnaire and a postage-paid return envelope. The final mailing contained a reminder letter, another survey and a postage-paid return envelope. The second cover letter asked those who had not completed the survey to do so and those who have already done so to refrain from turning in another survey. Completed surveys were collected over the following five weeks. SSUU RRVVEEYY RREESS PPOO NNSS EE RR AATTEE AANN DD CC OONN FF IIDDEE NNCC EE IINN TT EERRVVAA LLSS Thirty surveys mailed were returned because the housing unit was vacant or the postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the 1,170 households receiving the survey mailings, 415 completed the survey, providing a response rate of 36%. In general, response rates obtained on local government resident surveys range from 25% to 40%. In theory, in 95 cases out of 100, the results based on the number of responses obtained will differ by no more than five percentage points in either direction from what would have been obtained had responses been collected from all City of Palo Alto adults. This difference from the presumed population finding is referred to as the sampling error (or the “margin of error” or 95% confidence interval”). For subgroups of responses, the margin of sampling error is larger. In addition to sampling error, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey of the public may introduce other sources of error. For example, the failure of some of the selected adults to participate in the sample or the difficulty of including all sectors of the population, such as residents of some institutions or group residences, may lead to somewhat different results. In addition to sampling error, other sources of error may affect any survey, including the non- response of residents with opinions different from survey responders that may affect sample findings. Though standardized on The NCS, on other surveys, differences in question wording, order, translation and data entry, as examples, can lead to somewhat varying results. SSUURRVVEEYY PPRR OOCC EESSSS II NNGG ((DDAA TT AA EE NN TT RR YY )) Completed surveys received by NRC were assigned a unique identification number. Additionally, each survey was reviewed and “cleaned” as necessary. For example, a question may have asked a respondent to pick two items out of a list of five, but the respondent checked three; NRC staff would choose randomly two of the three selected items to be coded in the dataset. Once all surveys were assigned a unique identification number, they were entered into an electronic dataset. This dataset was subject to a data entry protocol of “key and verify,” in which survey data were entered twice into an electronic dataset and then compared. Discrepancies were evaluated against the original survey form and corrected. Range checks as well as other forms of quality control were also performed. City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 82 SSUURR VVEE YY DD AATTAA WW EE II GG HHTT II NN GG The demographic characteristics of the survey sample were compared to those found in the 2000 Census estimates for adults in the City of Palo Alto. Sample results were weighted using the population norms to reflect the appropriate percent of those residents. Other discrepancies between the whole population and the sample were also aided by the weighting due to the intercorrelation of many socioeconomic characteristics. The variables used for weighting were gender/age and housing tenure. This decision was based on: ƒ The disparity between the survey respondent characteristics and the population norms for these variables ƒ The saliency of these variables in detecting differences of opinion among subgroups ƒ The historical use of the variables and the desirability of consistently representing different groups over the years The primary objective of weighting survey data is to make the survey sample reflective of the larger population of the community. This is done by: 1) reviewing the sample demographics and comparing them to the population norms from the most recent Census or other sources and 2) comparing the responses to different questions for demographic subgroups. The demographic characteristics that are least similar to the Census and yield the most different results are the best candidates for data weighting. A third criterion sometimes used is the importance that the community places on a specific variable. For example, if a jurisdiction feels that accurate race representation is key to staff and public acceptance of the study results, additional consideration will be given in the weighting process to adjusting the race variable. A special software program using mathematical algorithms is used to calculate the appropriate weights. A limitation of data weighting is that only 2-3 demographic variables can be adjusted in a single study. Several different weighting “schemes” are tested to ensure the best fit for the data. The process actually begins at the point of sampling. Knowing that residents in single family dwellings are more likely to respond to a mail survey, NRC oversamples residents of multi-family dwellings to ensure their proper representation in the sample data. Rather than giving all residents an equal chance of receiving the survey, this is systematic, stratified sampling, which gives each resident of the jurisdiction a known chance of receiving the survey (and apartment dwellers, for example, a greater chance than single family home dwellers). As a consequence, results must be weighted to recapture the proper representation of apartment dwellers. The results of the weighting scheme are presented in the table on the following page. City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 83 Palo Alto Citizen Survey Weighting Table Characteristic Population Norm1 Unweighted Data Weighted Data Housing Rent home 43% 28% 43% Own home 57% 72% 57% Detached unit 59% 64% 54% Attached unit 41% 36% 46% Race and Ethnicity Not Hispanic 95% 96% 96% Hispanic 5% 4% 4% White 76% 70% 68% Non-white 24% 30% 32% Sex and Age Female 52% 54% 53% Male 48% 46% 47% 18-34 years of age 25% 10% 25% 35-54 years of age 43% 39% 42% 55+ years of age 32% 51% 33% Females 18-34 12% 6% 12% Females 35-54 22% 24% 22% Females 55+ 18% 24% 18% Males 18-34 13% 4% 13% Males 35-54 21% 15% 21% Males 55+ 14% 27% 14% City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 84 SSUURR VVEE YY DD AATTAA AA NNAA LL YY SS II SS AANN DD RR EE PPOO RRTTII NN GG The survey dataset was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Frequency distributions were presented in the body of the report. UUssee oo ff tthhee ““EE xx cceelllleenntt,, GG oooo dd ,, FF aa ii rr,, PPoo oorr ”” RR ee sspp oonnssee SS ccaallee The scale on which respondents are asked to record their opinions about service and community quality is “excellent,” “good,” “fair” or “poor” (EGFP). This scale has important advantages over other scale possibilities (very good to very bad; very satisfied to very dissatisfied; strongly agree to strongly disagree, as examples). EGFP is used by the plurality of jurisdictions conducting citizen surveys across the U.S. The advantage of familiarity was one that NRC did not want to dismiss when crafting The National Citizen Survey™ questionnaire, because elected officials, staff and residents already are acquainted with opinion surveys measured this way. EGFP also has the advantage of offering three positive options, rather than only two, over which a resident can offer an opinion. While symmetrical scales often are the right choice in other measurement tasks, NRC has found that ratings of almost every local government service in almost every jurisdiction tend, on average, to be positive (that is, above the scale midpoint). Therefore, to permit finer distinctions among positively rated services, EGFP offers three options across which to spread those ratings. EGFP is more neutral because it requires no positive statement of service quality to judge (as agree-disagree scales require) and, finally, EGFP intends to measure absolute quality of service delivery or community quality (unlike satisfaction scales which ignore residents’ perceptions of quality in favor of their report on the acceptability of the level of service offered). ““DDoo nn ’’tt KKnnoo ww”” RRee ss ppoo nn sseess On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer “don’t know.” The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the body of the report. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. BB eenn cchh mmaa rrkk CC oo mmppaa rr ii ssoonnss NRC has been leading the strategic use of surveys for local governments since 1991, when the principals of the company wrote the first edition of what became the classic text on citizen surveying. In Citizen Surveys: how to do them, how to use them, what they mean, published by ICMA, not only were the principles for quality survey methods articulated, but both the idea of benchmark data for citizen opinion and the method for gathering benchmark data were pioneered. The argument for benchmarks was called “In Search of Standards.” “What has been City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 85 missing from a local government’s analysis of its survey results is the context that school administrators can supply when they tell parents how an 80 percent score on the social studies test compares to test results from other school systems...” NRC’s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in citizen surveys from approximately 500 jurisdictions whose residents evaluated local government services. Conducted with typically no fewer than 400 residents in each jurisdiction, opinions are intended to represent over 30 million Americans. NRC has innovated a method for quantitatively integrating the results of surveys that conducted by NRC with those that others have conducted. The integration methods have been thoroughly described not only in the Citizen Surveys book, but also in Public Administration Review, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Scholars who specialize in the analysis of citizen surveys regularly have relied on this work (e.g., Kelly, J. & Swindell, D. (2002). Service quality variation across urban space: First steps towards a model of citizen satisfaction. Journal of Urban Affairs, 24, 271-288.; Van Ryzin, G., Muzzio, D., Immerwahr, S., Gulick, L. & Martinez, E. (2004). Drivers and consequences of citizen satisfaction: An application of the American Customer Satisfaction Index Model to New York City, Public Administration Review, 64, 331- 341). The method described in those publications is refined regularly and statistically tested on a growing number of citizen surveys in NRC’s proprietary databases. NRC’s work on calculating national benchmarks for resident opinions about service delivery and quality of life won the Samuel C. May award for research excellence from the Western Governmental Research Association. TT hh ee RRoollee oo ff CC oo mmppaarrii ssoonn ss Benchmark comparisons are used for performance measurement. Jurisdictions use the comparative information to help interpret their own citizen survey results, to create or revise community plans, to evaluate the success of policy or budget decisions, to measure local government performance. Taking the pulse of the community has little meaning without knowing what pulse rate is too high and what is too low. When surveys of service satisfaction turn up “good” citizen evaluations, jurisdictions need to know how others rate their services to understand if “good” is good enough. Furthermore, in the absence of national or peer community comparisons, a jurisdiction is left with comparing its fire protection rating to its street maintenance rating. That comparison is unfair. Streets always lose to fire. More important and harder questions need to be asked; for example, how do residents’ ratings of fire service compare to opinions about fire service in other communities? A police department that provides the fastest and most efficient service—one that closes most of its cases, solves most of its crimes and keeps the crime rate low—still has a problem to fix if the residents in the community it intends to protect believe services are not very good compared to City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 86 ratings given by residents to their own objectively “worse” departments. The benchmark data can help that police department – or any department – to understand how well citizens think it is doing. Without the comparative data, it would be like bowling in a tournament without knowing what the other teams are scoring. NRC recommends that citizen opinion be used in conjunction with other sources of data about budget, personnel and politics to help managers know how to respond to comparative results. Jurisdictions in the benchmark database are distributed geographically across the country and range from small to large in population size. Most commonly, comparisons are made to the entire database. Comparisons may also be made to subsets of jurisdictions (for example, within a given region or population category). Despite the differences in jurisdiction characteristics, all are in the business of providing local government services to residents. Though individual jurisdiction circumstances, resources and practices vary, the objective in every community is to provide services that are so timely, tailored and effective that residents conclude the services are of the highest quality. High ratings in any jurisdiction, like SAT scores in any teen household, bring pride and a sense of accomplishment. CC oo mm pp aarriissoonn oo ff PP aa lloo AAlltt oo ttoo tthh ee BB eenncchh mmaa rr kk DDaa ttaa bb aass ee The City of Palo Alto chose to have comparisons made to the entire database. A benchmark comparison (the average rating from all the comparison jurisdictions where a similar question was asked) has been provided when a similar question on the City of Palo Alto Survey was included in NRC’s database and there were at least five jurisdictions in which the question was asked. For most questions compared to the entire dataset, there were more than 100 jurisdictions included in the benchmark comparison. Where comparisons are available, Palo Alto results are noted as being “above” the benchmark, “below” the benchmark or “similar to” the benchmark. This evaluation of “above,” “below” or “similar to” comes from a statistical comparison of Palo Alto's rating to the benchmark (the rating from all the comparison jurisdictions where a similar question was asked). City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 87 AA pp pp ee nn dd ii xx CC :: SS uu rr vv ee yy MM aa tt ee rr ii aa ll ss The following pages contain copies of the survey materials sent to randomly selected households within the City of Palo Alto.         Dear Palo Alto Resident, Your household has been selected at random to participate in an anonymous citizen survey about the City of Palo Alto. You will receive a copy of the survey next week in the mail with instructions for completing and returning it. Thank you in advance for helping us with this important project! Sincerely, Lynda Flores Brouchoud City Auditor Dear Palo Alto Resident, Your household has been selected at random to participate in an anonymous citizen survey about the City of Palo Alto. You will receive a copy of the survey next week in the mail with instructions for completing and returning it. Thank you in advance for helping us with this important project! Sincerely, Lynda Flores Brouchoud City Auditor Dear Palo Alto Resident, Your household has been selected at random to participate in an anonymous citizen survey about the City of Palo Alto. You will receive a copy of the survey next week in the mail with instructions for completing and returning it. Thank you in advance for helping us with this important project! Sincerely, Lynda Flores Brouchoud City Auditor   Dear Palo Alto Resident, Your household has been selected at random to participate in an anonymous citizen survey about the City of Palo Alto. You will receive a copy of the survey next week in the mail with instructions for completing and returning it. Thank you in advance for helping us with this important project! Sincerely, Lynda Flores Brouchoud City Auditor           City of Palo Alto   Office of the City Auditor       P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303     City of Palo Alto   Office of the City Auditor       P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303     City of Palo Alto   Office of the City Auditor       P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303   City of Palo Alto  Office of the City Auditor       P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303       Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO.94 Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO.94 Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO.94 Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO.94 City of Palo Alto   Office of the City Auditor September 2008 Dear Palo Alto Resident: The City of Palo Alto wants to know what you think about our community and municipal government. You have been randomly selected to participate in Palo Alto’s 2008 Citizen Survey. Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed Citizen Survey. Your answers will help the City Council make decisions that affect our community. You should find the questions interesting and we will definitely find your answers useful. Please participate! To get a representative sample of Palo Alto residents, the adult (anyone 18 years or older) in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. Year of birth of the adult does not matter. Please have the appropriate member of the household spend a few minutes answering all the questions and return the survey in the enclosed postage-paid envelope. Your responses will remain completely anonymous. Your participation in this survey is very important – especially since your household is one of only a small number of households being surveyed. If you have any questions about the Citizen Survey please call 650.329.2667. Please help us shape the future of Palo Alto. Thank you for your time and participation. Sincerely, Lynda Flores Brouchoud City Auditor P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2667 650.329.2297 fax City of Palo Alto   Office of the City Auditor October 2008 Dear Palo Alto Resident: About one week ago, you should have received a copy of the enclosed survey. If you completed it and sent it back, we thank you for your time and ask you to discard this survey. Please do not respond twice. If you have not had a chance to complete the survey, we would appreciate your response. The City of Palo Alto wants to know what you think about our community and municipal government. You have been randomly selected to participate in the City of Palo Alto Citizen Survey. Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed Citizen Survey. Your answers will help the City Council make decisions that affect our community. You should find the questions interesting and we will definitely find your answers useful. Please participate! To get a representative sample of Palo Alto residents, the adult (anyone 18 years or older) in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. Year of birth of the adult does not matter. Please have the appropriate member of the household spend a few minutes answering all the questions and return the survey in the enclosed postage-paid envelope. Your responses will remain completely anonymous. Your participation in this survey is very important – especially since your household is one of only a small number of households being surveyed. If you have any questions about the Citizen Survey please call 650.329.2667. Please help us shape the future of Palo Alto. Thank you for your time and participation. Sincerely, Lynda Flores Brouchoud City Auditor P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2667, Fax 650.329.2297 City of Palo Alto   Office of the City Auditor     P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO.94 The City of Palo Alto 2008 Citizen Survey Page 1 of 9 Please complete this questionnaire if you are the adult (age 18 or older) in the household who most recently had a birthday. The adult's year of birth does not matter. Please select the response (by circling the number or checking the box) that most closely represents your opinion for each question. Your responses are anonymous and will be reported in group form only. 1. Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Palo Alto as a place to live ......................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Your neighborhood as a place to live......................................................1 2 3 4 5 Palo Alto as a place to raise children.......................................................1 2 3 4 5 Palo Alto as a place to work....................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Palo Alto as a place to retire ...................................................................1 2 3 4 5 The overall quality of life in Palo Alto.....................................................1 2 3 4 5 2. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Sense of community................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds ............................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Overall appearance of Palo Alto..............................................................1 2 3 4 5 Cleanliness of Palo Alto...........................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto....................................1 2 3 4 5 Variety of housing options ......................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto........1 2 3 4 5 Shopping opportunities...........................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to attend cultural activities...............................................1 2 3 4 5 Recreational opportunities......................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Employment opportunities......................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Educational opportunities.......................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities.....................1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to volunteer......................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in community matters ................................1 2 3 4 5 Ease of car travel in Palo Alto .................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Ease of bus travel in Palo Alto.................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Ease of rail or subway travel in Palo Alto................................................1 2 3 4 5 Ease of bicycle travel in Palo Alto ...........................................................1 2 3 4 5 Ease of walking in Palo Alto....................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Availability of paths and walking trails...................................................1 2 3 4 5 Traffic flow on major streets...................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Amount of public parking .......................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality housing................................................1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality child care.............................................1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality health care ..........................................1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality food.....................................................1 2 3 4 5 Availability of preventive health services................................................1 2 3 4 5 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ • © 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 0 8 N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h Ce n t e r , I n c . Page 2 of 9 The National Citizen Survey™ Air quality ..............................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto ...............................1 2 3 4 5 Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto.................................................1 2 3 4 5 3. Please rate the speed of growth in the following categories in Palo Alto over the past 2 years: Much Somewhat Right Somewhat Much Don't too slow too slow amount too fast too fast know Population growth.........................................................1 2 3 4 5 6 Retail growth (stores, restaurants, etc.)........................1 2 3 4 5 6 Jobs growth...................................................................1 2 3 4 5 6 The City of Palo Alto 2008 Citizen Survey Page 3 of 9 4. To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles a problem in Palo Alto?  Not a problem  Minor problem  Moderate problem  Major problem  Don’t know 5. Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel from the following in Palo Alto: Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don't safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery)...................1 2 3 4 5 6 Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft)...........................1 2 3 4 5 6 Environmental hazards, including toxic waste..............1 2 3 4 5 6 6. Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don't safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know In your neighborhood during the day ...........................1 2 3 4 5 6 In your neighborhood after dark...................................1 2 3 4 5 6 In Palo Alto's downtown area during the day ...............1 2 3 4 5 6 In Palo Alto's downtown area after dark.......................1 2 3 4 5 6 7. During the past twelve months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime?  No Î Go to Question 9  Yes Î Go to Question 8  Don’t know Î Go to Question 9 8. If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police?  No  Yes  Don’t know 9. In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated in the following activities in Palo Alto? Once or 3 to 12 13 to 26 More than Never twice times times 26 times Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services ......................................1 2 3 4 5 Used Palo Alto recreation centers............................................................1 2 3 4 5 Participated in a recreation program or activity......................................1 2 3 4 5 Visited a neighborhood park or City park ...............................................1 2 3 4 5 Ridden a local bus within Palo Alto ........................................................1 2 3 4 5 Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting on cable television..................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Read Palo Alto Newsletter.......................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Visited the City of Palo Alto Web site (at www.cityofpaloalto.org) ........1 2 3 4 5 Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home............................1 2 3 4 5 Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Palo Alto ................1 2 3 4 5 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto......................1 2 3 4 5 Participated in a club or civic group in Palo Alto ....................................1 2 3 4 5 Provided help to a friend or neighbor.....................................................1 2 3 4 5 10. About how often, if at all, do you talk to or visit with your immediate neighbors (people who live in the 10 or 20 households that are closest to you)?  Just about every day Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ • © 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 0 8 N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h Ce n t e r , I n c . Page 4 of 9 The National Citizen Survey™  Several times a week  Several times a month  Once a month  Several times a year  Once a year or less  Never The City of Palo Alto 2008 Citizen Survey Page 5 of 9 11. Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Police services .........................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Fire services.............................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Ambulance or emergency medical services.............................................1 2 3 4 5 Crime prevention ....................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Fire prevention and education ................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Traffic enforcement.................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Street repair............................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Street cleaning ........................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Street lighting .........................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Sidewalk maintenance ............................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Traffic signal timing................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Bus or transit services .............................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Garbage collection...................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Recycling.................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Yard waste pick-up..................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Storm drainage .......................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Drinking water........................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Sewer services.........................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 City parks................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Recreation programs or classes...............................................................1 2 3 4 5 Recreation centers or facilities................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Land use, planning and zoning ..............................................................1 2 3 4 5 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) ..........................1 2 3 4 5 Animal control .......................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Economic development...........................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Services to seniors...................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Services to youth.....................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Services to low-income people................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Public library services..............................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Public information services .....................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) ................................1 2 3 4 5 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts ............................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Neighborhood branch libraries................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Your neighborhood park.........................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Variety of library materials......................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Street tree maintenance..........................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Electric utility..........................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Gas utility................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 12. Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ • © 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 0 8 N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h Ce n t e r , I n c . Page 6 of 9 The National Citizen Survey™ The City of Palo Alto...............................................................................1 2 3 4 5 The Federal Government.........................................................................1 2 3 4 5 The State Government ............................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Santa Clara County Government.............................................................1 2 3 4 5 The City of Palo Alto 2008 Citizen Survey Page 7 of 9 13. Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Palo Alto within the last 12 months (including police, receptionists, planners or any others)?  No Î Go to Question 15  Yes Î Go to Question 14 14. What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City of Palo Alto in your most recent contact? (Rate each characteristic below.) Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Knowledge ..............................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Responsiveness........................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Courtesy..................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Overall impression ..................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 15. Please rate the following categories of Palo Alto government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto...............................1 2 3 4 5 The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking..........................................1 2 3 4 5 The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement..1 2 3 4 5 The job Palo Alto government does at listening to citizens.....................1 2 3 4 5 16. Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don’t likely likely unlikely unlikely know Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks .................. 1 2 3 4 5 Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years................................... 1 2 3 4 5 17. What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be:  Very positive  Somewhat positive  Neutral  Somewhat negative  Very negative 18. Please check the response that comes closest to your opinion for each of the following questions: a. During the past twelve months, did you or anyone in your family household have contact with the Palo Alto Police Department?  Yes  No  Don’t know b. If yes, how do you rate the quality of your contact with the Palo Alto Police Department?  Excellent  Good  Fair  Poor  Don’t know c. Are you and your household prepared to sustain yourselves for 72 hours with sufficient food and water in the event of a major disaster such as an earthquake or flood?  Yes  No Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ • © 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 0 8 N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h Ce n t e r , I n c . Page 8 of 9 The National Citizen Survey™ Our last questions are about you and your household. Again, all of your responses to this survey are completely anonymous and will be reported in group form only. D1. Are you currently employed for pay?  No Î Go to Question D3  Yes, full time Î Go to Question D2  Yes, part time Î Go to Question D2 D2. During a typical week, how many days do you commute to work (for the longest distance of your commute) in each of the ways listed below? (Enter the total number of days, using whole numbers.) Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc…) by myself.........______days Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc…) with other children or adults..........................______days Bus, Rail, Subway or other public transportation................................______days Walk .................................................______days Bicycle ..............................................______days Work at home ...................................______days Other ................................................______days D3. How many years have you lived in Palo Alto?  Less than 2 years  11-20 years  2-5 years  More than 20 years  6-10 years D4. Which best describes the building you live in?  One family house detached from any other houses  House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a duplex or townhome)  Building with two or more apartments or condominiums  Mobile home  Other D5. Is this house, apartment or mobile home...  Rented for cash or occupied without cash payment?  Owned by you or someone in this house with a mortgage or free and clear? D6. About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners’ association (HOA) fees)?  Less than $300 per month  $300 to $599 per month  $600 to $999 per month  $1,000 to $1,499 per month  $1,500 to $2,499 per month  $2,500 or more per month The City of Palo Alto 2008 Citizen Survey Page 9 of 9 D7. Do any children 17 or under live in your household?  No  Yes D8. Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older?  No  Yes D9. How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.)  Less than $24,999  $25,000 to $49,999  $50,000 to $99,999  $100,000 to $149,999  $150,000 or more Please respond to both question D10 and D11: D10. Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino?  No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino  Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino D11. What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race you consider yourself to be)  American Indian or Alaskan Native  Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander  Black or African American  White  Other D12. In which category is your age?  18-24 years  55-64 years  25-34 years  65-74 years  35-44 years  75 years or older  45-54 years D13. What is your sex?  Female  Male D14. Are you registered to vote in your jurisdiction?  No  Yes  Ineligible to vote  Don’t know D15. Many people don't have time to vote in elections. Did you vote in the last general election?  No  Yes  Ineligible to vote  Don’t know Thank you for completing this survey. Please return the completed survey in the postage paid envelope to: National Research Center, Inc., 3005 30th St., Boulder, CO 80301 3005 30th Street 777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 500 Boulder, CO 80301 Washington, DC 20002 ww.n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 www.icma.org • 202-289-ICMA The National Citizen Survey™ CC II TT YY OO FF PP AA LL OO AA LL TT OO ,, CC AA 22000088 BBeenncchhmmaarrkk RReeppoorrtt City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . CC oo nn tt ee nn tt ss Understanding the Benchmark Comparisons......................................................................1 Comparison Data .....................................................................................................................1 Putting Evaluations onto the 100-point Scale ............................................................................2 Interpreting the Results.............................................................................................................3 National Benchmark Comparisons......................................................................................4 Jurisdictions Included in National Benchmark Comparisons ...................................................13 City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 1 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . UU nn dd ee rr ss tt aa nn dd ii nn gg tt hh ee BB ee nn cc hh mm aa rr kk CC oo mm pp aa rr ii ss oo nn ss CCOO MM PPAARRII SS OO NN DDAATT AA NRC’s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in citizen surveys from approximately 500 jurisdictions whose residents evaluated local government services and gave their opinion about the quality of community life. The City of Palo Alto chose to have comparisons made to the entire database. A benchmark comparison (the average rating from all the comparison jurisdictions where a similar question was asked) has been provided when a similar question on the City of Palo Alto Survey was included in NRC’s database and there were at least five jurisdictions in which the question was asked. For most questions compared to the entire dataset, there were more than 100 jurisdictions included in the benchmark comparison. The jurisdictions in the database represent a wide geographic and population range as shown in the table below. Jurisdiction Characteristic Percent of Jurisdictions Region West Coast1 16% West2 20% North Central West3 11% North Central East4 13% South Central5 9% South6 25% Northeast West7 3% Northeast East8 3% Population Less than 40,000 42% 40,000 to 74,999 20% 75,000 to 149,000 16% 150,000 or more 22% 1 Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii 2 Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico 3 North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota 4 Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin 5 Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas 6 West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Maryland, Delaware, Washington DC 7 New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey 8 Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 2 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . PPUUTT TTII NN GG EE VV AALLUUAATT IIOO NN SS OONNTT OO TTHHEE 1100 00 --PP OOII NN TT SS CCAALLEE Although responses to many of the evaluative questions were made on a 4 point scale with 1 representing the best rating and 4 the worst, the benchmarks are reported on a common scale where 0 is the worst possible rating and 100 is the best possible rating. The 95 percent confidence interval around an average score on the 100-point scale is no greater than plus or minus three points based on all respondents. The 100-point scale is not a percent. It is a conversion of responses to an average rating. Each response option is assigned a value that is used in calculating the average score. For example, “excellent”=100, “good”=67, “fair”=33 and “poor”=0. If everyone reported “excellent,” then the average rating would be 100 on the 100-point scale. Likewise, if all respondents gave a “poor”, the result would be 0 on the 100-point scale. If half the respondents gave a score of “excellent” and half gave a score of “poor,” the average would be in the middle of the scale (like the center post of a teeter totter) between “fair” and “good.” An example of how to convert survey frequencies into an average rating appears below. Example of Converting Responses to the 100-point Scale How do you rate the community as a place to live? Response option Total with “don’t know” Step1: Remove the percent of “don’t know” responses Total without “don’t know” Step 2: Assign scale values Step 3: Multiply the percent by the scale value Step 4: Sum to calculate the average rating Excellent 36% =36÷(100-5)= 38% 100 =38% x 100 = 38 Good 42% =42÷(100-5)= 44% 67 =44% x 67 = 30 Fair 12% =12÷(100-5)= 13% 33 =13% x 33 = 4 Poor 5% =5÷(100-5)= 5% 0 =5% x 0 = 0 Don’t know 5% -- Total 100% 100% 72 How do you rate the community as a place to live? 5% 13% 44% 38% 0 Poor 67 Good 33 Fair 100 Excellent 72 City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 3 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . IINNTT EE RR PP RR EE TTII NN GG TTHHEE RR EE SS UU LLTTSS Average ratings are compared when similar questions are included in NRC’s database, and there are at least five jurisdictions in which the question was asked. Where comparisons are available, three numbers are provided in the table. The first column is your jurisdiction’s rating on the 100- point scale. The second column is the rank assigned to your jurisdiction’s rating among jurisdictions where a similar question was asked. The third column is the number of jurisdictions that asked a similar question. The fourth column shows the comparison of your jurisdiction’s average rating (column one) to the benchmark. The comparison: “above,” “below” or “similar” comes from a statistical comparison of your jurisdiction’s rating to the benchmark (the average rating from all the comparison jurisdictions where a similar question was asked). Differences of more than three points on the 100-point scale between your jurisdiction’s ratings and the average based on the appropriate comparisons from the database are considered “statistically significant,” and thus are marked as “above” or “below” the benchmark. When differences between your jurisdiction’s ratings and the benchmarks are three points or fewer, they are marked as “similar to” the benchmark. This report contains benchmarks comparisons at the national level. City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 4 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . NN aa tt ii oo nn aa ll BB ee nn cc hh mm aa rrkk CC oo mm pp aa rr ii ss oo nn ss Overall Community Quality Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall quality of life in Palo Alto 78 23 305 Above Your neighborhood as place to live 79 18 203 Above Palo Alto as a place to live 83 14 259 Above Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 81 11 39 Above Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 83 8 38 Above Community Transportation Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Ease of bus travel in Palo Alto 37 97 132 Below Ease of rail or subway travel by in Palo Alto 50 17 35 Similar Ease of car travel in Palo Alto 58 48 187 Above Ease of walking in Palo Alto 73 12 189 Above Ease of bicycle travel in Palo Alto 68 8 189 Above Availability of paths and walking trails 66 8 41 Above Traffic flow on major streets 43 44 218 Above Frequency of Bus Use Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Ridden a local bus within Palo Alto 33 29 101 Above City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 5 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Transportation and Parking Services Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Street repair /maintenance 45 161 310 Similar Street cleaning 66 20 225 Above Street lighting 57 77 239 Above Sidewalk maintenance 51 85 202 Above Light timing 52 24 149 Above Bus or transit services 48 94 154 Similar Amount of public parking 52 35 133 Above Housing Characteristics Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Availability of affordable quality housing 19 210 227 Below Variety of housing options 39 31 37 Below Housing Costs Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Experiencing housing costs stress (housing costs 30% or more of income) 31 29 36 Below Built Environment Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Quality of new development in city 53 69 146 Similar Overall appearance of Palo Alto 73 26 237 Above Population Growth Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Population growth seen as too fast 51 81 158 Similar City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 6 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Nuisance Problems Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Run down buildings, weed lots and junk vehicles are a "major" problem 3 126 165 Below Planning and Community Code Enforcement Services Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Land use, planning and zoning 47 58 203 Above Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) 55 43 251 Above Animal control 67 7 223 Above Economic Sustainability and Opportunities Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Employment opportunities 58 8 208 Above Shopping opportunities 67 23 195 Above Place to work 78 3 184 Above Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 66 5 36 Above Economic Development Services Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Economic development 55 36 191 Above Job and Retail Growth Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Retail growth seen as too slow 28 85 158 Below Jobs growth seen as too slow 48 145 158 Below Personal Economic Future Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Positive impact of economy on household income 4 156 156 Below Community and Personal Public Safety Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Safety in your neighborhood during the day 93 28 229 Above City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 7 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Community and Personal Public Safety Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Safety in your neighborhood after dark 74 84 222 Above Safety in Palo Alto's downtown area during the day 91 36 193 Above Safety in Palo Alto's downtown area after dark 66 76 197 Above Safety from violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 78 55 194 Above Safety from property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) 70 41 192 Above Toxic waste or other environmental hazard(s) 78 14 87 Above Crime Victimization and Reporting Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Victim of crime 10 104 159 Below Reported crimes 73 110 159 Below Public Safety Services Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Police services 72 71 304 Above Fire services 84 23 246 Above EMS/ambulance 83 19 233 Above Crime prevention 65 53 212 Above Fire prevention and education 72 27 177 Above Traffic enforcement 56 122 246 Similar Emergency preparedness 61 18 56 Above City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 8 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Community Environment Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Cleanliness of Palo Alto 73 9 43 Above Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 71 8 36 Above Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 69 5 49 Above Air quality 64 42 129 Above Frequency of Recycling Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home 99 1 145 Above Utility Services Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Sewer services 70 15 198 Above Drinking water 77 2 194 Above Storm drainage 62 26 243 Above Yard waste pick- up 78 7 159 Above Recycling 79 6 222 Above Garbage collection 78 26 250 Above Community Recreational Opportunities Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Recreation opportunities 69 33 204 Above Participation in Parks and Recreation Opportunities Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Used Palo Alto recreation centers 68 17 124 Above Participated in a recreation program or activity 56 34 149 Above Visited a neighborhood park or City park 93 12 156 Above City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 9 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Parks and Recreation Services Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark City parks 77 21 226 Above Recreation programs or classes 73 17 238 Above Recreation centers or facilities 67 46 186 Above Cultural and Educational Opportunities Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Opportunities to attend cultural activities 69 13 197 Above Educational opportunities 84 4 133 Above Participation in Cultural and Educational Opportunities Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 74 58 135 Similar Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto 40 16 18 Below Cultural and Educational Services Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Public library services 66 153 218 Below Community Health and Wellness Access and Opportunities Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Availability of affordable quality health care 55 28 146 Above Availability of affordable quality food 60 22 80 Above Availability of preventive health services 64 3 24 Above City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 10 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Community Quality and Inclusiveness Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Sense of community 61 52 209 Above Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 68 15 174 Above Availability of affordable quality child care 34 114 144 Below Palo Alto as a place to raise kids 83 14 252 Above Palo Alto as a place to retire 62 65 233 Above Services Provided for Population Subgroups Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Services to seniors 68 13 200 Above Services to youth 64 17 173 Above Services to low income residents 47 33 157 Above Civic Engagement Opportunities Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Opportunities to participate in community matters 66 4 35 Above Opportunities to volunteer 74 3 34 Above Participation in Civic Engagement Opportunities Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 26 79 157 Similar Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting on cable television 26 116 123 Below Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Palo Alto 51 46 156 Above Participated in a club or civic group in Palo Alto 34 8 21 Similar Provided help to a friend or neighbor 93 13 20 Similar City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 11 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Voter Behavior Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Registered to vote 80 113 169 Similar Voted in last general election 75 60 168 Above Use of Information Sources Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Read Palo Alto Newsletter 83 59 110 Similar Visited the City of Palo Alto Web site 78 3 31 Above Local Government Media Services and Information Dissemination Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Public information services 65 35 198 Above Social Engagement Opportunities Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 67 4 35 Above Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events 70 9 26 Above Contact with Immediate Neighbors Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Has contact with neighbors at least once per month 72 19 25 Below City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 12 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Public Trust Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 57 92 260 Above The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 54 116 214 Similar Job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 53 166 228 Below Job Palo Alto government does at listening to citizens 50 90 201 Similar Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 79 6 176 Above Services Provided by Local, State and Federal Governments Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Services provided by the City of Palo Alto 69 41 291 Above Services provided by the Federal Government 38 139 177 Below Services provided by the State Government 41 135 179 Below Santa Clara County government general 52 11 33 Above Contact with City Employees Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark Had contact with city employee(s) in last 12 months 54 108 159 Below Perceptions of City Employees (Among Those Who Had Contact) Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison Comparison to benchmark City employee knowledge 67 135 233 Similar City employee responsiveness 65 113 230 Similar City employee courteousness 71 62 189 Above Overall impression 66 112 262 Similar City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 13 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . JJUURRIISSDD II CCTT II OONNSS IINNCC LL UU DD EE DD II NN NNAA TTII OONNAALL BB EE NN CC HH MM AA RR KK CCOO MMPP AA RR IISSOO NN SS Valdez, AK.........................4,036 Alabaster, AL....................22,169 Auburn, AL.......................42,987 Tuskegee, AL....................11,846 Fayetteville, AR ................58,047 Fort Smith, AR..................80,268 Hot Springs, AR................35,613 Avondale, AZ...................35,883 Chandler, AZ..................176,581 Cococino County, AZ.....116,320 Flagstaff, AZ .....................52,894 Florence, AZ ....................17,054 Goodyear, AZ ..................18,911 Marana, AZ......................13,556 Peoria, AZ......................108,364 Phoenix, AZ................1,321,045 Prescott Valley, AZ...........25,535 Queen Creek, AZ...............4,316 Safford, AZ.........................9,232 Scottsdale, AZ ................202,705 Sedona, AZ ......................10,192 Tempe, AZ.....................158,625 Tucson, AZ.....................486,699 Yuma, AZ.........................77,515 Yuma County, AZ...........160,026 Agoura Hills, CA..............20,537 Bellflower, CA..................72,878 Benicia, CA......................26,865 Brisbane, CA......................3,597 Burlingame, CA................28,158 Capitola, CA.....................10,033 Carlsbad, CA....................78,247 Chula Vista, CA..............173,556 Claremont, CA .................33,998 Concord, CA ..................121,780 Cupertino, CA..................50,546 Del Mar, CA.......................4,389 Dublin, CA.......................29,973 El Cerrito, CA...................23,171 Galt, CA...........................19,472 La Mesa, CA.....................54,749 Laguna Beach, CA............23,727 Livermore, CA..................73,345 Lodi, CA...........................56,999 Long Beach, CA..............461,522 Lynwood, CA...................69,845 Mission Viejo, CA ............93,102 Morgan Hill, CA...............33,556 Mountain View, CA..........70,708 Newport Beach, CA .........70,032 Palm Springs, CA..............42,807 Poway, CA .......................48,044 Rancho Cordova, CA........55,060 Redding, CA.....................80,865 Richmond, CA..................99,216 Riverside, CA..................255,166 San Bernardino County, CA..................1,709,434 San Francisco, CA...........776,733 San Jose, CA...................894,943 San Rafael, CA..................56,063 San Ramon, CA................44,722 Santa Barbara County, CA.....................399,347 Santa Monica, CA.............84,084 Stockton, CA ..................243,771 Sunnyvale, CA................131,760 Walnut Creek, CA ............64,296 Calgary, Canada.............878,866 District of Saanich,Victoria, Canada...........................103,654 Kelowna, Canada .............96,288 North Vancouver, Canada.............................44,303 Oakville, Canada............144,738 Prince Albert, Canada.......34,291 Thunder Bay, Canada.....109,016 Whitehorse, Canada.........19,058 Yellowknife, Canada ........16,541 Arapahoe County, CO....487,967 Archuleta County, CO........9,898 Arvada, CO ....................102,153 Aspen, CO..........................5,914 Aurora, CO.....................276,393 Boulder, CO.....................94,673 Boulder County, CO.......291,288 Breckenridge, CO...............2,408 Broomfield, CO................38,272 Castle Rock, CO...............20,224 Colorado Springs, CO.....360,890 Craig, CO...........................9,189 Crested Butte, CO ..............1,529 Denver (City and County), CO...................554,636 Douglas County, CO......175,766 Durango, CO....................13,922 Eagle County, CO.............41,659 Englewood, CO................31,727 Fort Collins, CO .............118,652 Frisco, CO..........................2,443 Fruita, CO ..........................6,478 Golden, CO......................17,159 Grand County, CO ...........12,442 Grand Junction, CO..........41,986 Greenwood Village, CO...11,035 Highlands Ranch, CO.......70,931 Hot Sulphur Springs, CO.......521 Jefferson County, CO......527,056 Lakewood, CO ...............144,126 Larimer County, CO .......251,494 Lone Tree, CO....................4,873 Longmont, CO..................71,093 Louisville, CO ..................18,937 Loveland, CO...................50,608 Mesa County, CO...........116,255 Northglenn, CO................31,575 Parker, CO........................23,558 Pitkin County, CO............14,872 Silverthorne, CO.................3,196 Steamboat Springs, CO.......9,815 Sterling, CO......................11,360 Summit County, CO.........23,548 Thornton, CO...................82,384 Vail, CO.............................4,531 Westminster, CO............100,940 Wheat Ridge, CO .............32,913 Coventry, CT ....................11,504 Manchester, CT ................54,740 Wethersfield, CT...............26,271 Windsor, CT.....................28,237 Dover, DE ........................32,135 Belleair Beach, FL...............1,751 Bonita Springs, FL.............32,797 Brevard County, FL.........476,230 Cape Coral, FL................102,286 Charlotte County, FL.......141,627 Clearwater, FL ................108,787 Collier County, FL ..........251,377 Cooper City, FL ................27,939 Coral Springs, FL ............117,549 Dania Beach, FL ...............20,061 Daytona Beach, FL ...........64,112 Delray Beach, FL..............60,020 Destin, FL.........................11,119 Duval County, FL ...........778,879 Escambia County, FL ......294,410 Eustis, FL ..........................15,106 Gainesville, FL..................95,447 Hillsborough County, FL......................998,948 Kissimmee, FL ..................47,814 Melbourne, FL..................71,382 City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 14 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Miami Beach, FL ..............87,933 North Port, FL...................22,797 Oakland Park, FL..............30,966 Ocoee, FL ........................24,391 Oldsmar, FL .....................11,910 Oviedo, FL.......................26,316 Palm Bay, FL ....................79,413 Palm Beach, FL.................10,468 Palm Beach Gardens, FL...35,058 Palm Coast, FL..................32,732 Pinellas County, FL.........921,482 Port Orange, FL................45,823 Sanford, FL.......................38,291 Sarasota, FL......................52,715 Seminole, FL ....................10,890 South Daytona, FL............13,177 Tallahassee, FL...............150,624 Titusville, FL.....................40,670 Volusia County, FL.........443,343 Walton County, FL...........40,601 Winter Park, FL ................24,090 Albany, GA ......................76,939 Alpharetta, GA .................34,854 Cartersville, GA................15,925 Decatur, GA.....................18,147 Smyrna, GA......................40,999 Honolulu, HI..................876,156 Maui, HI.........................128,094 Ames, IA ..........................50,731 Ankeny, IA.......................27,117 Bettendorf, IA...................31,275 Cedar Falls, IA..................36,145 Davenport, IA...................98,359 Des Moines, IA...............198,682 Indianola, IA.....................12,998 Iowa County, IA...............15,671 Marion, IA..........................7,144 Polk County, IA..............374,601 Sheldahl, IA...........................336 Slater, IA ............................1,306 Urbandale, IA...................29,072 Waukee, IA ........................5,126 West Des Moines, IA........46,403 Boise, ID........................185,787 Moscow, ID .....................21,291 Batavia, IL ........................23,866 Collinsville, IL..................24,707 DeKalb, IL........................39,018 Elmhurst, IL......................42,762 Evanston, IL......................74,239 Gurnee, IL........................28,834 Highland Park, IL..............31,365 Homewood, IL.................19,543 Lincolnwood, IL ...............12,359 Naperville, IL..................128,358 Normal, IL........................45,386 O'Fallon, IL......................21,910 Palatine, IL .......................65,479 Park Ridge, IL...................37,775 Peoria County, IL............183,433 Riverside, IL........................8,895 Shorewood, IL....................7,686 Skokie, IL..........................63,348 Sugar Grove, IL...................3,909 Village of Oak Park, IL......52,524 Woodridge, IL ..................30,934 Fishers, IN........................37,835 Munster, IN......................21,511 Arkansas City, KS..............11,963 Fairway, KS ........................3,952 Lawrence, KS....................80,098 Lenexa, KS........................40,238 Merriam, KS .....................11,008 Olathe, KS........................92,962 Overland Park, KS..........149,080 Salina, KS .........................45,679 Wichita, KS ....................344,284 Bowling Green, KY...........49,296 Daviess County, KY..........91,545 Jefferson Parish, LA.........455,466 New Orleans, LA............484,674 Orleans Parish, LA..........484,674 Andover, MA....................31,247 Barnstable, MA.................47,821 Burlington, MA.................22,876 Cambridge, MA..............101,355 Needham, MA..................28,911 Shrewsbury, MA...............31,640 Worcester, MA...............172,648 College Park, MD...........242,657 Gaithersburg, MD.............52,613 La Plata, MD.......................6,551 Montgomery County, MD ...................873,341 Ocean City, MD.................7,173 Rockville, MD..................47,388 Takoma Park, MD ............17,299 Saco, ME ..........................16,822 Ann Arbor, MI................114,024 Battle Creek, MI................53,364 Delhi Township, MI .........22,569 Meridian Charter Township, MI...................38,987 Novi, MI...........................47,386 Oakland Township, MI.....13,071 Ottawa County, MI.........238,314 Sault Sainte Marie, MI.......16,542 South Haven, MI ................5,021 Troy, MI ...........................80,959 Village of Howard City, MI ......................................1,585 Blue Earth, MN...................3,621 Carver County, MN ..........70,205 Chanhassen, MN..............20,321 Dakota County, MN .......355,904 Fridley, MN......................27,449 Hutchinson, MN...............13,080 Mankato, MN...................32,427 Maple Grove, MN ............50,365 Maplewood, MN..............34,947 Medina, MN.......................4,005 Minneapolis, MN ...........382,618 North Branch, MN..............8,023 Prior Lake, MN.................15,917 Scott County, MN.............89,498 St. Cloud, MN ..................59,107 St. Louis County, MN .....200,528 Washington County, MN ...................201,130 Woodbury, MN................46,463 Blue Springs, MO.............48,080 Columbia, MO .................84,531 Ellisville, MO......................9,104 Grandview, MO ...............24,881 Independence, MO ........113,288 Joplin, MO .......................45,504 Kansas City, MO.............441,545 Lee's Summit, MO............70,700 Maryland Heights, MO.....25,756 Maryville, MO..................10,581 O'Fallon, MO...................46,169 Raymore, MO...................11,146 Springfield, MO..............151,580 Starkville, MS....................21,869 Bozeman, MT...................27,509 Missoula, MT....................57,053 Asheville, NC...................68,889 Cary, NC ..........................94,536 Charlotte, NC .................540,828 Concord, NC....................55,977 Davidson, NC.....................7,139 Durham, NC...................187,038 High Point, NC.................85,839 Hudson, NC .......................3,078 Kannapolis, NC ................36,910 Knightdale, NC...................5,958 Wilmington, NC...............90,400 Winston-Salem, NC........185,776 Wahpeton, ND...................8,586 City of Palo Alto | 2008 The National Citizen Survey™ 15 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Cedar Creek, NE....................396 Kearney, NE .....................27,431 La Vista, NE......................11,699 Dover, NH.......................26,884 Lyme, NH ..........................1,679 Willingboro Township, NJ.....................................33,008 Alamogordo, NM.............35,582 Albuquerque, NM..........448,607 Bloomfield, NM .................6,417 Farmington, NM...............37,844 Rio Rancho, NM ..............51,765 Carson City, NV...............52,457 Henderson, NV..............175,381 North Las Vegas, NV......115,488 Reno, NV.......................180,480 Sparks, NV .......................66,346 Washoe County, NV ......339,486 Beekman, NY...................11,452 Canandaigua, NY .............11,264 New York City, NY......8,008,278 Delaware, OH..................25,243 Dublin, OH......................31,392 Hudson, OH ....................22,439 Lebanon, OH ...................16,962 Orange Village, OH ...........3,236 Sandusky, OH..................27,844 Westerville, OH...............35,318 Broken Arrow, OK............74,839 Edmond, OK ....................68,315 Oklahoma City, OK........506,132 Stillwater, OK...................39,065 Ashland, OR.....................19,522 Bend, OR.........................52,029 Corvallis, OR....................49,322 Eugene, OR....................137,893 Gresham, OR ...................90,205 Jackson County, OR .......181,269 Keizer, OR .......................32,203 Lake Oswego, OR............35,278 Portland, OR ..................529,121 Borough of Ebensburg, PA......................................3,091 Cranberry Township, PA...................23,625 Cumberland County, PA.....................213,674 Ephrata Borough, PA ........13,213 Kutztown Borough, PA.......5,067 Lower Providence Township, PA...................22,390 Philadelphia, PA..........1,517,550 State College, PA..............38,420 Upper Merion Township, PA...................28,863 East Providence, RI...........48,688 Newport, RI......................26,475 Greenville, SC..................10,468 Mauldin, SC .....................15,224 Pickens County, SC ........110,757 Rock Hill, SC....................49,765 Sioux Falls, SD ...............123,975 Cookeville, TN.................23,923 Oak Ridge, TN .................27,387 Austin, TX.......................656,562 Benbrook, TX ...................20,208 Bryan, TX .........................34,733 Corpus Christi, TX ..........277,454 Dallas, TX....................1,188,580 Duncanville, TX ...............36,081 El Paso, TX .....................563,662 Fort Worth, TX................534,694 Grand Prairie, TX............127,427 Hurst, TX..........................36,273 Irving, TX........................191,615 McAllen, TX...................106,414 Pasadena, TX..................141,674 Plano, TX........................222,030 Round Rock, TX ...............61,136 San Marcos, TX.................34,733 Shenandoah, TX .................1,503 Sugar Land, TX .................63,328 The Colony, TX ................26,531 Tomball, TX........................9,089 Farmington, UT................12,081 Riverdale, UT.....................7,656 Springville, UT .................20,424 Washington City, UT..........8,186 Albemarle County, VA......79,236 Arlington County, VA.....189,453 Blacksburg, VA.................39,357 Botetourt County, VA .......30,496 Chesapeake, VA.............199,184 Chesterfield County, VA.259,903 Hanover County, VA........86,320 Hopewell, VA...................22,354 James City County, VA .....48,102 Lexington, VA.....................6,867 Lynchburg, VA .................65,269 Newport News, VA ........180,150 Northampton County, VA.......................13,093 Prince William County, VA.....................280,813 Roanoke, VA ....................94,911 Spotsylvania County, VA.......................90,395 Stafford County, VA..........92,446 Staunton, VA ....................23,853 Virginia Beach, VA.........425,257 Williamsburg, VA.............11,998 Chittenden County, VT...146,571 Bellevue, WA.................109,569 Bellingham, WA...............67,171 Clark County, WA ..........345,238 Federal Way, WA.............83,259 Gig Harbor, WA.................6,465 Hoquiam, WA....................9,097 Kent, WA..........................79,524 King County, WA ....... 1,737,034 Kirkland, WA....................45,054 Kitsap County, WA.........231,969 Lynnwood, WA................33,847 Mountlake Terrace, WA....20,362 Ocean Shores, WA.............3,836 Olympia, WA...................42,514 Pasco, WA........................32,066 Renton, WA......................50,052 Richland, WA...................38,708 Snoqualmie, WA ................1,631 Tacoma, WA ..................193,556 Vancouver, WA..............143,560 Ashland County, WI .........16,866 Eau Claire, WI ..................61,704 Marshfield, WI..................18,800 Milton, WI..........................5,132 Ozaukee County, WI........82,317 Suamico, WI.......................8,686 Village of Brown Deer, WI....................................12,170 Wausau, WI......................38,426 Wauwatosa, WI................47,271 Whitewater, WI................13,437 Morgantown, WV.............26,809 Cheyenne, WY .................53,011 Gillette, WY .....................19,646 Teton County, WY............18,251