Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2019-06-17 City Council Agenda Packet
City Council 1 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. Monday, June 17, 2019 Special Meeting Council Chambers 5:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday 11 days preceding the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. Public comment may be addressed to the full City Council via email at City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Closed Session 5:00-6:00 PM 1.CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY- EXISTING LITIGATION Subject: Gustavo Alvarez v. City of Palo Alto, et al. United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 5:19-cv-02328-NC Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) 6:00-7:00 PM 2.CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Representatives: City Manager and his Designees Pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (Ed Shikada, Molly Stump, Kiely Nose, Rumi Portillo) Unrepresented Employee Group: Management, Professional and Confidential Employees Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6 REVISED 2 June 17, 2019 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 Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 7:00-7:10 PM Oral Communications 7:10-7:30 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Minutes Approval 7:30-7:35 PM 3. Approval of Action Minutes for the May 20, 2019 Council Meeting Consent Calendar 7:35-7:40 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 4. Approval of Contract Number C19174797 With Palo Alto Housing Corporation for the Provision of Below Market Rate (BMR) Administration Services for $290,000 Over a Two-year Period 5. Approval of a Side Letter With the Palo Alto Peace Officers’ Association (PAPOA) Regarding Trainee pay Rates-administrative Cleanup 6. Approval of an Exemption From Competitive Solicitation and Approval of Contract Number C19175498 With Integrated Design 360 for Development and Support of: 1) Sustainability Implementation Plan, 2) Green Building Program, 3) Deconstruction and Source Separation Program, 4) Dewatering Monitoring Program, and 5) Utilities On-call Services Through June 30, 2020 for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $576,000 7. Request for Authorization to Increase the Existing Legal Services Agreement With the Law Firm of Jarvis, Fay & Gibson for Litigation Defense Services by an Additional $200,000 for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $695,000, and to Extend the Term of the Agreement to June 30, 2021 8. SECOND READING: Adoption of a Park Improvement Ordinance for Pickleball Courts at Mitchell Park (FIRST READING: June 3, 2019, PASSED: 7-0) 9. SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto for 2321 Wellesley Street to Change the Zoning From R-1 (Single Family Residential) to RMD (NP) (Two Unit Multiple-family Residential District With Neighborhood Preservation Overlay) Zoning District (FIRST READING: June 3, 2019, PASSED 7- 0) 3 June 17, 2019 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. Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 7:40-9:00 PM 10.PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of the Budget Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2020, Including Adoption of the Operating and Capital Budgets and the Municipal Fee Schedule 9:00-9:30 PM 11.PUBLIC HEARING & PROPOSITION 218 HEARING: Staff Recommendation That the City Council Adopt the Following Resolutions: Approving the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Electric Utility Financial Plan; Adopting an Electric Rate Increase and Amending Utility Rate Schedules E-1, E-2, E-2-G, E-4, E-4-G, E-4 TOU, E-7, E-7-G, E-7 TOU, E-14, E-EEC and E-NSE; Approving the FY 2020 Gas Utility Financial Plan; Adopting a Gas Rate Increase and Amending Utility Rate Schedules G-1, G-2, G-3 and G-10; Approving the FY 2020 Wastewater Collection Utility Financial Plan; Adopting a Wastewater Collection Rate Increase and Amending Utility Rate Schedules S-1, S- 2, S-6 and S-7; Approving the FY 2020 Water Utility Financial Plan; Adopting a Water Rate Increase and Amending Utility Rate Schedules W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4 and W-7; Amending Utility Rate Schedule D-1 to Increase Storm Drain Rates 4.5 Percent per Month per Equivalent Residential Unit for FY 2020; Adopting a Dark Fiber Rate Increase of 4.5 Percent; and Amending Utility Rate Schedules EDF-1 and EDF-2 9:30-10:00 PM 12.Adoption of a Resolution Amending Objective Standards for Wireless Communications Facilities in the Public Rights of Way (Continued From June 3, 2019) to Delete Inadvertently Added Language, Clarify Existing Standards, and Adopt an Interim Setback from Schools State/Federal Legislation Update/Action Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) 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. MEMO 4 June 17, 2019 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. Additional Information Standing Committee Meetings Sp. Finance Committee Meeting June 18, 2019 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report Fire Department Emergency Medical Services Future Needs Assessment 2019 Palo Alto Transportation Management Association Strategic Business Plan Public Letters to Council Set 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK June 17, 2019 The Honorable City Council Attention: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California Approval of Action Minutes for the May 20, 2019 Council Meeting Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment A: 05-20-2019 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOCX) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 8 Special Meeting May 20, 2019 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:06 P.M. Present: Cormack, DuBois participating remotely, Filseth, Fine, Kniss, Kou, Tanaka Absent: Special Orders of the Day 1. Introduction of Gunn High School BEAM Students. NO ACTION TAKEN 2. Appointment of two Candidates to the Human Relations Commission, two Candidates to the Library Advisory Commission and Three Candidates to the Utilities Advisory Commission for Three-year Terms Ending May 31, 2022; one Candidate to the Utilities Advisory Commission for an Unfinished Term Ending May 31, 2021; and Three Candidates to the Storm Water Management Oversight Committee for Four-year Terms Ending May 31, 2023. First Round of voting for two positions on the Human Relations Commission with terms ending May 31, 2022. Voting For: Daryl Savage Cormack, DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Kniss, Kou, Tanaka Voting For: Patricia Regehr Cormack, Fine, Kniss, Tanaka Voting For: Adriana Stone DuBois, Filseth, Kou Beth Minor, City Clerk announced that Daryl Savage with 7 votes and Patricia Regehr with 4 votes were appointed to the Human Relations Commission. First Round of voting for two positions on the Library Advisory Commission with terms ending May 31, 2022. Voting For: Alan Bennett ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 8 Sp. City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 05/20/2019 Voting For: Kimberly Blanding Fine, Kniss, Tanaka Voting For: Pancho Chang DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Kniss, Kou Voting For: Nosheen Gothard Voting For: Sarina Grewal Voting For: Robert Moss Cormack, DuBois, Filseth, Kou, Tanaka Voting For: Vidya Pradhan Cormack Voting For: Susan Wolfe Beth Minor, City Clerk announced that Pancho Chang with 5 votes and Robert Moss with 5 votes were appointed to the Library Advisory Commission. First Round of voting for three positions on the Storm Water Management Oversight Committee with terms ending May 31, 2023. Voting For: David Bower Cormack, DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Kniss, Kou, Tanaka Voting For: Claire Elliott Tanaka Voting For: Marilyn Keller Cormack, DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Kniss, Kou Voting For: Ron Owes DuBois, Fine, Kniss, Kou Voting For: Richard Whaley Cormack, Filseth, Tanaka Beth Minor, City Clerk announced that David Bower with 7 votes, Marilyn Keller with 6 votes, and Ron Owes with 4 votes were appointed to the Storm Water Management Oversight Committee. First Round of voting for three positions on the Utilities Advisory Commission with terms ending May 31, 2022. Voting For: Hogene Choi Voting For: Rebecca Eisenberg Voting For: Claude Ezran Voting For: Robert Hinden ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 8 Sp. City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 05/20/2019 Voting For: David Hsieh Filseth Voting For: Donald Jackson Kou, Tanaka Voting For: A.C. Johnston Cormack, DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Kniss, Kou, Tanaka Voting For: Matthew McCullough Cormack Voting For: Greg Scharff Cormack, DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Kniss, Tanaka Voting For: Judith Schwartz Kniss Voting For: Loren Smith DuBois, Fine, Kou Beth Minor, City Clerk announced that A. C. Johnston with 7 votes and Greg Scharff with 6 votes were appointed to the Utilities Advisory Commission. Second Round of voting for three positions on the Utilities Advisory Commission with terms ending May 31, 2022. Voting For: Hogene Choi Kou Voting For: Rebecca Eisenberg Voting For: Claude Ezran Voting For: Robert Hinden Voting For: David Hsieh Voting For: Donald Jackson Filseth, Tanaka Voting For: Matthew McCullough Voting For: Judith Schwartz Voting For: Loren Smith Cormack, DuBois, Fine, Kniss Beth Minor, City Clerk announced that Loren Smith with 4 votes was appointed to the Utilities Advisory Commission. First Round of voting for one position on the Utilities Advisory Commission with a partial term ending May 31, 2021. Voting For: Hogene Choi ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 8 Sp. City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 05/20/2019 Voting For: Rebecca Eisenberg Voting For: Claude Ezran Voting For: Robert Hinden Voting For: David Hsieh Filseth Voting For: Donald Jackson DuBois, Fine, Kou, Tanaka Voting For: Matthew McCullough Cormack Voting For: Judith Schwartz Kniss Beth Minor, City Clerk announced that Donald Jackson with 4 votes was appointed to the Utilities Advisory Commission. Study Session 3. 788-796 San Antonio Road [19PLN-00079]: Prescreening Request to Amend the Zoning Code in Connection With a Proposed Mixed-use Housing Project Being Considered at the Subject Property That Includes 64 Housing Units (10 Below Market Rate Units) in a Four- story Building With Approximately 68,000 Square Feet. Requested Zoning Code Amendments Include: Extending the Housing Incentive Program and Other Incentives Related to Unit Density, Lot Coverage, Rooftop Gardens, and Parking Exceptions for CS Zoned Properties Adjacent to San Antonio Avenue Between Middlefield Road and East Charleston Avenue; Amending the Definition of Gross Floor Area; and Adjustments to Retail Preservation Requirements. No Formal City Council Action Will be Taken at This Meeting. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project; any Subsequent Formal Application Would be Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). NO ACTION TAKEN Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. Minutes Approval 4. Approval of Action Minutes for the May 6, 2019 Council Meeting. ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 8 Sp. City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 05/20/2019 MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Mayor Filseth to approve the Action Minutes for the May 6, 2019 Council Meeting. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Consent Calendar MOTION: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Fine to approve Agenda Item Numbers 5-9. 5. Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 (Building Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Require Management of PCBs During Building Demolition in Compliance With the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit. 6. Resolution 9832 Entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting the 2019 San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan.” 7. Approval of Contract Number C19174910 With JJR Construction Inc., in the Amount of $1,250,993 for the 2019 Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Repairs Project, Capital Improvement Program Projects PO-89003 and PO-12001; Authorization for the City Manager or his Designee to Negotiate and Execute Related Change Orders Not-to-Exceed $125,099 in Total Value; and Approval of a Budget Amendment in the Capital Improvement Fund. 8. Resolution 9833 Entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto of the City Council Expressing Appreciation to Ron Arp Upon his Retirement.” 9. Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Set a 120 Day Statute of Limitations for Challenges to the City’s Gas Rates. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Action Items 10. Adoption of: (1) a Resolution 9834 Entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto of Intent,” and (2) an Ordinance to Amend the Contract Between the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and the City of Palo Alto to Implement the Share of Employer Contribution in Accordance With Section 20516 of the California Government Code, and the ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 8 Sp. City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 05/20/2019 Memorandum of Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Utilities Management and Professional Association of Palo Alto (UMPAPA). MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack to: A. Adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the contract between the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and the City of Palo Alto in order to implement the pension cost share provision in accordance with California Government Code section 20516 and the Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Utilities Management and Professional Association of Palo Alto (UMPAPA); and B. Adopt, on first reading, the attached Ordinance amending the City’s contract with CalPERS. This Ordinance will return to the Council on second reading in accordance with state law. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Council took a break at 7:12 P.M. and returned at 7:21 P.M. 11. Discussion of Airplane Noise and Community Impacts; Direction to Staff Regarding the Star Pirat 2 Procedure Announced by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on April 25, 2019. MOTION: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Fine to direct Staff: A. To schedule a closed session on or by June 10th, that Staff comes prepared with all relevant information to discuss legal options; B. Request a tolling agreement from the FAA to stop the shot clock until we get answers on the impacts of PIRAT2 over Palo Alto, Menlo Park, EPA, Los Altos, Mountain View, and Stanford; and C. Advocate for the agreement to the Select Committee’s recommendation and restated by Council in the May 17, 2018 meeting motion to, whenever able, increase the altitude of aircraft over the Peninsula as long as the change is applied across the whole flight path (including vectored path) and does not result in additional concentration, higher speeds, more speed brakes, or higher aircraft volume over Palo Alto. AMENDMENT: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member XX to explore engaging a new lobbyist who specializes in this topic. ACTION MINUTES Page 7 of 8 Sp. City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 05/20/2019 AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND MOTION PASSED: 7-0 MOTION: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to direct Staff to work with our existing lobbyist to add expertise in the aviation industry. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to change “add expertise” to “ensure appropriate expertise.” MOTION RESTATED: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to direct Staff to work with our existing lobbyist to ensure appropriate expertise in the aviation industry. MOTION FAILED: 3-4 Cormack, Kou, Tanaka yes State/Federal Legislation Update/Action None. Closed Session 12. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Properties: (1) 321 California Avenue (APN 124-33-001); (2) 361 California Avenue (APN 124-33-029); (3) 341 California Avenue (APN 124-33-030); and (4) 2453 Ash Street (APN 124-33-027) Agency Negotiators: Ed Shikada, Brad Eggleston Negotiating Parties: City of Palo Alto; and (1) D.H. and M.A. Edwards Company for 321 California Ave, (2) 361 California Ave, LP for 361 California Ave, (3) 341 Cal Partners LLC for 341 California Ave, and (4) Ash Street Partners LP for 2453 Ash Street Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Subsurface Easements Related to Construction of the California Avenue Garage Authority: Government Code Section 54956.8. MOTION: Vice Mayor Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Council went into Closed Session at 9:19 P.M. Council returned from Closed Session at 9:27 P.M. ACTION MINUTES Page 8 of 8 Sp. City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 05/20/2019 Mayor Filseth announced no reportable action. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 P.M. City of Palo Alto (ID # 10144) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/17/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approve BMR Administration Contract Title: Approval of Contract Number C19174797 With Palo Alto Housing Corporation for the Provision of Below Market Rate (BMR) Administration Services for $290,000 Over a Two-Year Period From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract C19174797 with Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) for administration and consulting services in the amount of $290,000 for administration of the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program for two years. Executive Summary The City of Palo Alto released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for administration of the City’s BMR housing program in April 2019 and PAHC and Hello Housing were two proposals received. PAHC has been administering the City’s BMR housing program for over 40 years and ultimately, given the budget and history, under the terms of the proposed agreement, PAHC has been chosen to continue this role for another two years, from July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2021. Background Palo Alto adopted one of the nation's first inclusionary zoning policies. It required that all residential development include ten percent of the units as Below Market Rate (BMR) units. In 1972, the policy required a mix of cost and type of housing in residential planned unit developments. In 1973, the City Council expanded the policy to all new residential developments. In 1974, anticipating the sale of BMR units in several developments, the City contracted with the Palo Alto Housing Corporation to administer the City's BMR Program. Since the inception of the program in 1974, the BMR administration has been funded by the Residential Housing Fund. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Under contract to the City, Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) has administered the BMR housing program since its inception in the mid-1970s. Examples of some of the services provided by PAHC include: administering the sale and re-sale of new and existing BMR owner units; maintaining the home purchase waiting list; monitoring occupancy of BMR rental units; providing advice and consultation to the City regarding negotiations of BMR agreements with developers; and addressing special issues related to the program. Most of PAHC’s workload is involved with the home ownership component of the BMR program. While PAHC performs most tasks required for the ongoing administration of the home ownership and rental components of the BMR program, planning staff also devotes considerable time to the BMR program, primarily on BMR negotiations and agreements and program improvements. City real property staff handles maintenance evaluation and the determination of credits for capital improvements when units come up for resale. Discussion The term of the City’s current agreement with PAHC is coming to an end on June 30, 2019. As a result, the City released an RFP for BMR Administration on April 10, 2019 anticipating the end of the two-year contract. The RFP released in April 2019 is for the next two years, starting on July 1, 2019 and ending in June 30, 2021. The City received two responses which included PAHC and Hello Housing. Hello Housing’s bid came over the City’s budget for BMR administration currently allocated in the Residential Housing Fund. Hello Housing’s bid was $268,081 in Year 1 of the contract and another $192,248 in Year 2, for a total of $460,329. PAHC proposes to continue their work on BMR Administration for the next two years at a cost not to exceed $290,000. With the selection of PAHC, administration of the program will continue uninterrupted. Palo Alto Housing Corporation has maintained the City’s BMR program since the 1970s and has maintained and annually updated a waiting list of interested potential buyers of BMR units. There are currently 246 below market rate ownership units and 458 below market rate rental units in the program. PAHC coordinates the sale of both newly built BMR units and the resale of existing units. Sales activities include: establishing the resale price; marketing units to the waiting list; scheduling open houses; qualifying and selecting the buyers; coordinating the transaction between the buyer, seller, lender and escrow; and explaining the requirements of the BMR deed restrictions. PAHC has maintained a database on all units and kept statistics on the number and characteristics of the households served by the program. The owner BMR units require periodic monitoring of occupancy and title, which PAHC handles in cooperation with planning staff and the City Attorney’s Office. Monitoring activities include reviewing online assessor’s City of Palo Alto Page 3 records to detect transfers in title or ownership and an annual self-certification letter to owners verifying owner occupancy and to remind them of program rules and to provide updates on procedural changes. When a violation of a deed restriction is discovered, PAHC undertakes initial attempts to remedy the situation. More complex enforcement matters are referred to planning staff or to the City Attorney (if legal action is required). Information workshops for prospective buyers on the waiting list are conducted quarterly by PAHC together with housing counseling staff from Project Sentinel. These workshops focus on preparation for homeownership, understanding credit and mortgage financing and the rules of the BMR program. The workshops have been well received, with about 100 persons attending each year. PAHC collects and reviews applicants’ certification documentation to determine eligibility under the program rules. They also conduct recertification of existing tenants and monitor each complex’s waiting list and tenant selection process. Resource Impact The administration of the BMR program has historically been funded from the Residential Housing Fund, which is a special revenue fund created to support all types of affordable housing programs. The amount needed for the first year of this contract is included in the Contracts budget of the Residential Housing Fund in the Fiscal Year 2020 Proposed Operating budget. Staff will include funding for the second year in the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2021. No additional funding is needed for this action. Policy Implications The recommendation in this staff report does not represent any change to City policies. Implementation of this Agreement is consistent with the City’s Housing Element and various housing policies that support the provision of affordable housing and a variety of housing opportunities. Environmental The approval of an agreement for administrative and consulting services is not an action subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments: Attachment A: Palo Alto Housing BMR Contract #C19174797 (PDF) Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C19174797 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this 1st day of July, 2019, (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION, a California corporation, located at 2595 E. Bayshore, Suite 200, Palo Alto, California, 94303 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to administer the City's Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide services in connection with the Project (“Services”). B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described at Exhibit “A” in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through June 30, 2021 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. DocuSign Envelope ID: 086470C1-EF2C-43DC-979C-BDC6CEAC0A97 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 2 SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”), and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Two Hundred Ninety Thousand Dollars ($290,000.00). Total CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out at Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described at Exhibit “A”. SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit quarterly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C- 1”). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City’s project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT is solely responsible for costs, including, but not limited to, increases in the cost of Services, arising from or caused by DocuSign Envelope ID: 086470C1-EF2C-43DC-979C-BDC6CEAC0A97 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 3 CONSULTANT’s errors and omissions, including, but not limited to, the costs of corrections such errors and omissions, any change order markup costs, or costs arising from delay caused by the errors and omissions or unreasonable delay in correcting the errors and omissions. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Georgina Mascarenhas to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and Lauren Bigelow to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. CITY’s project manager is Hang Huynh, Planning & Community Environment Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: (650) 329-2493. The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. DocuSign Envelope ID: 086470C1-EF2C-43DC-979C-BDC6CEAC0A97 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 4 SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or nonperformance by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in DocuSign Envelope ID: 086470C1-EF2C-43DC-979C-BDC6CEAC0A97 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 5 Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Chief Procurement Officer during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be DocuSign Envelope ID: 086470C1-EF2C-43DC-979C-BDC6CEAC0A97 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 6 paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant” as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, DocuSign Envelope ID: 086470C1-EF2C-43DC-979C-BDC6CEAC0A97 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 7 familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the CITY’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY’s Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of CITY’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, CONSULTANT shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: (a) All printed materials provided by CCONSULTANT to CITY generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by CITY’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post- consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. (b) Goods purchased by CONSULTANT on behalf of CITY shall be purchased in accordance with CITY’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Division’s office. (c) Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONSULTANT, at no additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONSULTANT shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. COMPLIANCE WITH PALO ALTO MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE. CONSULTANT shall comply with all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.62 (Citywide Minimum Wage), as it may be amended from time to time. In particular, for any employee otherwise entitled to the State minimum wage, who performs at least two (2) hours of work in a calendar week within the geographic boundaries of the City, CONSULTANT shall pay such employees no less than the minimum wage set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.030 for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. In addition, CONSULTANT shall post notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.060. SECTION 25. NON-APPROPRIATION 25.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: 086470C1-EF2C-43DC-979C-BDC6CEAC0A97 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 8 SECTION 26. PREVAILING WAGES AND DIR REGISTRATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS 26.1 This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. CONSULTANT is not required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project in accordance with SB 7 if the contract is not a public works contract, if the contract does not include a public works construction project of more than $25,000, or the contract does not include a public works alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance (collectively, ‘improvement’) project of more than $15,000. 26.2 CONSULTANT shall comply with the requirements of Exhibit “E” for any contract for public works construction, alteration, demolition, repair or maintenance. SECTION 27. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 27.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 27.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 27.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties. 27.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 27.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 27.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 27.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. 27.8 In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the exhibits hereto or CONSULTANT’s proposal (if any), the Agreement shall control. In the case of any conflict between the exhibits hereto and CONSULTANT’s proposal, the exhibits shall DocuSign Envelope ID: 086470C1-EF2C-43DC-979C-BDC6CEAC0A97 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 9 control. 27.9 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, CITY shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent. 27.10 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. 27.11 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 27.12 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement DocuSign Envelope ID: 086470C1-EF2C-43DC-979C-BDC6CEAC0A97 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 10 CONTRACT No. C19174797 SIGNATURE PAGE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVED AS TO FORM: PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF SERVICES EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “C-1”: SCHEDULE OF RATES EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS DocuSign Envelope ID: 086470C1-EF2C-43DC-979C-BDC6CEAC0A97 Randal R. Tsuda President & Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer Quinsia Ma Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 11 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES CONSULTANT shall administer the CITY’S Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program in compliance with CITY policy, guidelines, applicable deed restrictions, BMR Program Procedures Manual and in a manner which increases affordable housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income households. Program Outreach: CONSULTANT shall handle all questions and comments through CONSULTANT’S office. CONSULTANT’S BMR assistant and Program Administrator are to be available to take phone calls, e-mails and walk-ins Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. CONSULTANT shall do program marketing and outreach via CONSULTANT’S search-engine optimized program information on CONSULTANT’S website, posting flyers at local community centers, libraries and affordable housing communities as well as to other local affordable housing providers to spread the word about the programs offered by the CONSULTANT. Administration: 1. Maintain all applicant information and perform an annual update to ensure applicants are still interested and/or qualified for the BMR program and to assist in managing the size of the waiting list. 2. Provide a list of primary lender contacts, serve as an intermediary between the buyer and lender to make sure the buyer understands all costs and details associated with the loan and if needed, point the buyer towards other subordinate loans to assist with the purchase. CONSULTANT shall also actively look to add new lenders to the BMR lender list. 3. Use the most current version of the California Association of Realtors (CAR) purchase forms for use of each BMR sale. CONSULTANT shall coordinate the review, explanation, and signing of the Purchase Agreement. CONSULTANT shall coordinate with the escrow company to send over all signed documents and escrow instructions. CONSULTANT shall assist in holding open houses and ordering necessary inspections. CONSULTANT shall stay in contact with escrow officer throughout the escrow period to ensure the sale closes on time. Copies of all closing documents to be sent to the CONSULTANT’S office after closing and filed in the respective BMR owners file. 4. Committing to promoting longevity of the BMR housing inventory shall make every effort to ensure BMR owners’ compliance by maintaining consistent contact with relevant HOA’s and to investigate every complaint and/or concern received regarding a BMR owner potentially being in violation of the Deed Restrictions, e.g. renting out a portion of or their entire home. 5. Troubleshoot homeownership problems that arise with BMR owners that may endanger the BMR Purchase stock. CONSULTANT shall have an open door policy to encourage DocuSign Envelope ID: 086470C1-EF2C-43DC-979C-BDC6CEAC0A97 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 12 BMR owners and renters to seek assistance on any situation which may jeopardize their home. CONSULTANT shall reach out to PAH’s Resident Services Department for referrals and/or resources to assist owners with various services. 6. Work with a local HUD approved housing agency to provide a bi-annual workshop in Palo Alto, covering topics ranging from program eligibility requirements to loan financing. The workshop is offered at no charge to attendees. A prospective buyer must have attended a workshop to be eligible to purchase a BMR home. CONSULTANT shall be present at every seminar to meet applicants and to answer program questions. 7. Mail a letter out annually to each BMR owner requiring copies of documentation verifying owner-occupancy. Documentation includes utility bills, pay stubs, tax returns and property tax bills. 8. Work closely with the CITY to formalize a screening and eligibility process whereby BMR owners facing financial hardship due to unforeseen special assessments could get assistance from the CITY. CONSULTANT shall interview the BMR owner, obtain all relevant income vs. expense documents to prove hardship and either refers the BMR owner to the CITY for approval or denial of the request based on written criteria. 9. Work closely with CITY to assist with creation of and assessment of new BMR Agreements for upcoming housing developments. CONSULTANT shall be involved prior to Regulatory/Development Agreements are signed, CONSULTANT shall review and provide feedback on the language to ensure the Agreements are understandable from the perspective of implementation. 10. Assist the CITY in the growth of the BMR Purchase program by acquisition and rehabilitation of BMR units and properties. 11. Coordinate with CITY staff in the implementation of the new BMR Ordinance. 12. Provide advice, consultation and assistance to CITY staff in negotiations of BMR agreements for new housing developments. 13. Coordinate the process of evaluation, negotiation and financing related to the acquisition and rehabilitation, if necessary, of off-site units or properties contributed under the BMR program. 14. Maintain records and statistics as required by CITY, specifically; a. Annual statistics about the BMR ownership and rental units and the households served; and DocuSign Envelope ID: 086470C1-EF2C-43DC-979C-BDC6CEAC0A97 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 13 b. A permanent database and record of all ownership units placed in the program and statistics about current BMR owners and all households served over the life of the program, including maintenance of files on each BMR owner unit and retention of copies of the actual recorded deed restrictions for the ownership units; and c. Contact information for current BMR owners with mailing labels and, when available, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses. 15. RENTAL PROGRAMS: 16. Work closely with applicants who are next in line for BMR rental units, not including Stanford West Apartments, to answer questions about the property and help gather all necessary documentation for income verification. Applications are approved once all verifications and background checks have been received, income and asset calculations are complete and a determination is made regarding a household’s eligibility. Applicants who do not meet the eligibility criteria are sent denial letters with an option to appeal within 14 days. 17. Send out notices to all BMR tenants approximately 90 days in advance of the effective date, schedules re-certification interviews, obtains relevant income and asset documents, completes income calculations and determines continued eligibility by the process described above. CONSULTANT shall notify site managers of the results of the tenant recertification immediately following the completion of the calculations. 18. Review and approve all new BMR rental move-in files prior to occupation of a BMR unit. Monitor all BMR rental units quarterly to ensure that all BMR rental obligations are being met at each property and that the rents do not exceed the maximum allowable for each respective unit. 19. Maintain contact with site staff and provide on-going training with property managers at BMR properties to ensure compliance with the CITYs BMR program. Stanford West BMR Units: 20. Continue to provide on-going training to site managers and staff to ensure compliance with the CITYs BMR program. 21. Receive quarterly reports from site managers and reviews best practices at the site level as it relates to waitlist management and tenant selection to ensure compliance with the BMR program. DocuSign Envelope ID: 086470C1-EF2C-43DC-979C-BDC6CEAC0A97 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 14 22. Conduct an annual sample file audit of tenant selections, eligibility and income certifications for ten percent 10% of the BMR households to assure compliance with the BMR program. 23. If appropriate, make recommendations to CITY for more comprehensive monitoring. DocuSign Envelope ID: 086470C1-EF2C-43DC-979C-BDC6CEAC0A97 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 15 EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE (Not Applicable) DocuSign Envelope ID: 086470C1-EF2C-43DC-979C-BDC6CEAC0A97 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 16 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the hourly rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services, additional services, and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed the amount(s) stated in Section 4 of this Agreement. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services and Additional Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this/these amount(s). Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth in this Agreement shall be at no cost to the CITY. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: Postage, BMR Seminar refreshments, Supplies, Liability Insurance, etc. (includes $6,095 credit for annual application update fee of $15 each) All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $1000.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expenses, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: 086470C1-EF2C-43DC-979C-BDC6CEAC0A97 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 17 EXHIBIT “C-1” SCHEDULE OF RATES Compensation per year is Not to Exceed $145,000.00 DocuSign Envelope ID: 086470C1-EF2C-43DC-979C-BDC6CEAC0A97 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 18 EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE AT THE FOLLOWING URL: https://www.planetbids.com/portal/portal.cfm?CompanyID=25569. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. DocuSign Envelope ID: 086470C1-EF2C-43DC-979C-BDC6CEAC0A97 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 19 B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON- PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. VENDORS ARE REQUIRED TO FILE THEIR EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE AND ANY OTHER RELATED NOTICES WITH THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AT THE FOLLOWING URL: HTTPS://WWW.PLANETBIDS.COM/PORTAL/PORTAL.CFM?COMPANYID=25569 OR HTTP://WWW.CITYOFPALOALTO.ORG/GOV/DEPTS/ASD/PLANET_BIDS_HOW_TO.ASP DocuSign Envelope ID: 086470C1-EF2C-43DC-979C-BDC6CEAC0A97 City of Palo Alto (ID # 10325) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/17/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Administrative Cleanup- Police Trainee Pay Rates (PAPOA) Title: Approval of a Side Letter With Palo Alto Peace Officers Association Regarding Trainee pay Rates-administrative Cleanup (PAPOA) From: City Manager Lead Department: Human Resources Recommended Motion Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached side letter and revision to the salary schedule for Police Trainee. Background Council adopted a new Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Peace Officers’ Association (PAPOA) effective July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2021. After the MOA was adopted, an oversight was found in regard to Police Trainee pay. Police Trainee is the classification used for new hires while they are attending the Police Academy. Upon successful graduation from the Police Academy, Police Trainees are appointed to the classification of Police Officer. The parties are in agreement that the MOA should have aligned Police Trainee pay to Step 1 of Police Officer, rather than Step 3. The correction is reflected in the attached side letter agreement and the corrected salary schedule. Resource Impact There is no impact to the budget, as this change was assumed during the costing of the new MOA. Environmental Review This item does not constitute a project requiring review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: • Police Trainee Side Letter Proposed Side Letter of Agreement City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Peace Officers’ Association Effective July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40BC33EB-8760-424A-B977-FF2519A530F6 City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Peace Officers’ Association Proposed Side Letter of Agreement: July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2021 The City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Peace Officers’ Association (PAPOA) mutually agree to amend the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) effective July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2021 to incorporate the following changes to the PAPOA Salary Schedule: Job Code Job Title Salary Effective PP following 7/1/2018 Salary Effective PP following 7/1/2019 Salary Effective PP following 7/1/2020 3.45% 3.00% Step Rate Step Rate Step Rate 617 Police Trainee-Bilingual 1 $ 46.98 1 $ 48.61 1 $ 50.07 617 2 $ 46.98 2 $ 48.61 2 $ 50.07 617 3 $ 46.98 3 $ 48.61 3 $ 50.07 617 4 $ 46.98 4 $ 48.61 4 $ 50.07 617 5 $ 46.98 5 $ 48.61 5 $ 50.07 617 6 $ 46.98 6 $ 48.61 6 $ 50.07 620 Police Trainee 1 $ 44.77 1 $ 46.32 1 $ 47.71 620 2 $ 44.77 2 $ 46.32 2 $ 47.71 620 3 $ 44.77 3 $ 46.32 3 $ 47.71 620 4 $ 44.77 4 $ 46.32 4 $ 47.71 620 5 $ 44.77 5 $ 46.32 5 $ 47.71 620 6 $ 44.77 6 $ 46.32 6 $ 47.71 Although this revised PAPOA Salary Schedule contains a reduction in the salary rate identified in the MOA for the identified classifications, the parties mutually agree that persons hired into the identified classifications after July 1, 2018 will be placed within the above PAPOA Salary Schedule pending adoption by the City Council. The City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Peace Officers’ Association further mutually agree to amend Section 7 of the MOA effective July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2021 to incorporate the following clarification to employees’ progression through the PAPOA Salary Schedule: (g) Salary Steps & Ranges (Eligibility) New officers attending the basic police academy will be compensated at the “Police Trainee” level. Academy Graduates and Lateral Officers with less than two years experience will be compensated at the “Police Officer” “Step 1” Level or higher. Jr. First Class Exam: Officers become eligible to take the exam anytime after they complete the Field Training Program. However, the pay increase will not become effective until they have successfully completed the test and have been with the DocuSign Envelope ID: 40BC33EB-8760-424A-B977-FF2519A530F6 City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Peace Officers’ Association Proposed Side Letter of Agreement: July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2021 department for a year from the academy graduation (Laterals a year from hire date). For employees hired prior to July 1, 2018, the pay increase for Jr. First Class is compensated at the “Police Officer” “Step 4” level (Approximate 5% Increase). For employees hired on or after July 1, 2018, the pay increase for Jr. First Class is one step on the salary schedule (approximate 5% increase), no higher than Step 4. First Class Exam: Officers become eligible to take the exam any time after they have successfully completed the Jr. First Class Exam. However, the pay increase will not take effect until one year from the date of the merit increase for the Jr. First Class exam. (Lateral officers’ pay increase may be effective one year from the date of hire) For employees hired prior to July 1, 2018, the pay increase for First Class is compensated at the “Police Officer” “Step 5” Level (Approximate 5% Increase). For employees hired on or after July 1, 2018, the pay increase for First Class is one step on the salary schedule (approximate 5% increase), no higher than Step 5. Subsequent step increases shall be granted at one-year intervals, if the employee has demonstrated continued improvement and efficient and effective service as evidenced by an overall annual performance evaluation of meets standards (or better). For the purpose of determining time requirements, time will commence on the first day of the month coinciding with or following entrance onto a salary step. Step increases shall be effective on the first day of the payroll period in which the time requirements have been met. Effective the first full pay period following adoption of this MOA by City Council, the City will Implement a new step 6 following the same percentage difference as steps 1- 5. Employees with one (1) year or more of service with the City of Palo Alto at Step 5 will be moved to Step 6. Palo Alto Peace Officers’ Association City of Palo Alto ________________________________ Peter Hoffmann Date ________________________________ Tony Becker Date ________________________________ Rumi Portillo Date ________________________________ Nicholas Raisch Date ________________________________ Robert Jonsen Date ________________________________ Molly Stump Date ________________________________ Jim Keene Date DocuSign Envelope ID: 40BC33EB-8760-424A-B977-FF2519A530F6 11/27/2018 11/19/2018 11/19/2018 11/15/2018 11/16/2018 11/26/2018 11/26/2018 City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Peace Officers’ Association Proposed Side Letter of Agreement: July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40BC33EB-8760-424A-B977-FF2519A530F6 Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: 40BC33EB8760424AB977FF2519A530F6 Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: Police Trainee Side Letter Final.docx Source Envelope: Document Pages: 4 Signatures: 7 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 5 Initials: 0 Grace Castor AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 grace.castor@cityofpaloalto.org IP Address: 12.220.157.20 Record Tracking Status: Original 11/15/2018 1:53:01 PM Holder: Grace Castor grace.castor@cityofpaloalto.org Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp James Keene James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org City Manager City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Signature Adoption: Uploaded Signature Image Using IP Address: 12.220.157.20 Sent: 11/15/2018 2:02:51 PM Resent: 11/26/2018 8:58:30 AM Viewed: 11/27/2018 4:43:56 PM Signed: 11/27/2018 4:44:05 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 11/27/2018 4:43:56 PM ID: 247c5f36-4dbf-4322-b199-0a63b9cdc0cd Molly Stump Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org City Attorney City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 12.220.157.20 Sent: 11/15/2018 2:02:51 PM Viewed: 11/19/2018 1:36:41 PM Signed: 11/19/2018 1:37:00 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 11/19/2018 1:36:41 PM ID: dd96c5ba-8ca7-46d8-94ec-b1bd7e14ce5b Nick Raisch Nicholas.Raisch@CityofPaloAlto.org Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 12.220.157.20 Sent: 11/15/2018 2:02:51 PM Viewed: 11/19/2018 12:05:12 PM Signed: 11/19/2018 12:05:25 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 11/19/2018 12:05:12 PM ID: 1b3c1d08-50b4-4758-b0ec-39e686b0be25 Peter Hoffmann phoffmann@rlslawyers.com Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 73.223.61.13 Sent: 11/15/2018 2:02:50 PM Viewed: 11/15/2018 9:36:08 PM Signed: 11/15/2018 10:00:06 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 11/15/2018 9:36:08 PM ID: 6463fa36-1422-4399-b2f6-47e7ff86c0ce Signer Events Signature Timestamp Robert Jonsen Robert.Jonsen@CityofPaloAlto.org Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 12.220.157.20 Sent: 11/15/2018 2:02:51 PM Viewed: 11/16/2018 9:41:08 AM Signed: 11/16/2018 9:41:59 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 11/16/2018 9:41:08 AM ID: 5a555886-ab68-4a73-b92a-b697d6c87c5a Rumi Portillo Rumi.Portillo@CityofPaloAlto.org Director Human Resources/CPO City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Signature Adoption: Uploaded Signature Image Using IP Address: 12.220.157.20 Sent: 11/15/2018 2:02:51 PM Resent: 11/26/2018 8:58:30 AM Viewed: 11/26/2018 10:26:40 AM Signed: 11/26/2018 10:27:55 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 12/18/2017 11:19:17 AM ID: 37c7e3e7-0445-4c86-b493-bcea4938cd7f Tony Becker Tony.Becker@CityofPaloAlto.org Police Sgt/Adv City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 12.220.157.20 Sent: 11/15/2018 2:02:51 PM Resent: 11/26/2018 8:58:30 AM Viewed: 11/16/2018 6:39:38 AM Signed: 11/26/2018 12:53:31 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 11/16/2018 6:39:38 AM ID: 21fb0ca8-b31e-4212-805b-2fea489eb55d In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Notary Events Signature Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 11/26/2018 8:58:30 AM Certified Delivered Security Checked 11/27/2018 4:43:57 PM Signing Complete Security Checked 11/27/2018 4:44:05 PM Completed Security Checked 11/27/2018 4:44:05 PM Payment Events Status Timestamps Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure ELECTRONIC RECORD AND SIGNATURE DISCLOSURE From time to time, City of Palo Alto HR (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through your DocuSign, Inc. (DocuSign) Express user account. Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly, and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to these terms and conditions, please confirm your agreement by clicking the 'I agree' button at the bottom of this document. Getting paper copies At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available electronically to you by us. For such copies, as long as you are an authorized user of the DocuSign system you will have the ability to download and print any documents we send to you through your DocuSign user account for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper copies of any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a $0.00 per-page fee. You may request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the procedure described below. Withdrawing your consent If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically is described below. Consequences of changing your mind If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format, and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such paper notices or disclosures. To indicate to us that you are changing your mind, you must withdraw your consent using the DocuSign 'Withdraw Consent' form on the signing page of your DocuSign account. This will indicate to us that you have withdrawn your consent to receive required notices and disclosures electronically from us and you will no longer be able to use your DocuSign Express user account to receive required notices and consents electronically from us or to sign electronically documents from us. All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide electronically to you through your DocuSign user account all required notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures electronically from us. Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 1/18/2017 12:07:48 PM Parties agreed to: James Keene, Molly Stump, Nick Raisch, Peter Hoffmann, Robert Jonsen, Rumi Portillo, Tony Becker How to contact City of Palo Alto HR: You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically, to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows: To contact us by email send messages to: grace.castor@cityofpaloalto.org To advise City of Palo Alto HR of your new e-mail address To let us know of a change in your e-mail address where we should send notices and disclosures electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at grace.castor@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state: your previous e-mail address, your new e-mail address. We do not require any other information from you to change your email address.. In addition, you must notify DocuSign, Inc to arrange for your new email address to be reflected in your DocuSign account by following the process for changing e-mail in DocuSign. To request paper copies from City of Palo Alto HR To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided by us to you electronically, you must send us an e-mail to grace.castor@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state your e-mail address, full name, US Postal address, and telephone number. We will bill you for any fees at that time, if any. To withdraw your consent with City of Palo Alto HR To inform us that you no longer want to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic format you may: i. decline to sign a document from within your DocuSign account, and on the subsequent page, select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may; ii. send us an e-mail to grace.castor@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state your e-mail, full name, IS Postal Address, telephone number, and account number. We do not need any other information from you to withdraw consent.. The consequences of your withdrawing consent for online documents will be that transactions may take a longer time to process.. Required hardware and software Operating Systems: Windows2000? or WindowsXP? Browsers (for SENDERS): Internet Explorer 6.0? or above Browsers (for SIGNERS): Internet Explorer 6.0?, Mozilla FireFox 1.0, NetScape 7.2 (or above) Email: Access to a valid email account Screen Resolution: 800 x 600 minimum Enabled Security Settings: •Allow per session cookies •Users accessing the internet behind a Proxy Server must enable HTTP 1.1 settings via proxy connection ** These minimum requirements are subject to change. If these requirements change, we will provide you with an email message at the email address we have on file for you at that time providing you with the revised hardware and software requirements, at which time you will have the right to withdraw your consent. Acknowledging your access and consent to receive materials electronically To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please verify that you were able to read this electronic disclosure and that you also were able to print on paper or electronically save this page for your future reference and access or that you were able to e-mail this disclosure and consent to an address where you will be able to print on paper or save it for your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and disclosures exclusively in electronic format on the terms and conditions described above, please let us know by clicking the 'I agree' button below. By checking the 'I Agree' box, I confirm that: • I can access and read this Electronic CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC RECEIPT OF ELECTRONIC RECORD AND SIGNATURE DISCLOSURES document; and • I can print on paper the disclosure or save or send the disclosure to a place where I can print it, for future reference and access; and • Until or unless I notify City of Palo Alto HR as described above, I consent to receive from exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to me by City of Palo Alto HR during the course of my relationship with you. City of Palo Alto (ID # 10334) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/17/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of Contract with Integrated Design 360 Title: Approval of an Exemption From Competitive Solicitation and Approval of Contract Number C19175498 With Integrated Design 360 for Development and Support of; Sustainability Implementation Plan, Green Building Program, Deconstruction and Source Separation Program, Dewatering Monitoring Program, and Utilities On-call Services Through June 30, 2020 for a Total Not- to-Exceed Amount of $576,000 From: City Manager Lead Department: Development Services Department Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve an exemption from competitive solicitation and authorize the City Manager or designee to approve Contract C19175498 with Integrated Design 360 for professional services within the Development Services, Utilities, and Public Works departments focusing on programs related to the City’s overall sustainability efforts such as Green Building, De-Watering, Deconstruction and Source Separation, Energy Savings, Electrification, Rebates and Incentives, and Enhanced Building Commissioning initiatives as they relate to the City’s Sustainability Implementation Plan and Utilities Strategic Plan through June 30, 2020 for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $576,000, of which $150,200 is earmarked as optional work. Background The City, through the Development Services Department, has contracted with Integrated Design 360 since September 2014 for development and technical assistance for City programs. These programs include local amendments to the California Green Building Code, California Energy Code, and the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The initial City Council approved contract (C15154454) was amended in January 2016, April 2016, and August 2017 for a combined total of $1,255,005. On June 18, 2018, the City Council approved a one- year contract (C18172547) through June 30, 2019 for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $606,291; which also provided support to Public Works and Utilities for the aforementioned activities related to the City’s Sustainability Implementation Plan. For further background please see City Council Staff Report #9354 (link). City of Palo Alto Page 2 Discussion Staff is requesting City Council approval of a new contract (C19175498) with Integrated Design 360 for Fiscal Year 2020 to support Development Services with the creation of the City’s local amendments to the 2019 California Green Building and Energy Codes, provide technical assistance for the Green Building Program, and act as technical advisor on sustainability policies; support Public Works with implementing new programs such as Deconstruction, Source Separation, and Dewatering Monitoring; and continue to provide Utilities with on-call services for activities related to the Sustainability Implementation Plan and the Utilities Strategic Plan. Specifics about these activities can be found in Attachment A – Exhibit A. Similar to last year, staff requests that the City Council find this one-year contract exempt from the City’s competitive solicitation requirements. While it is rare for such a request to be made for a second year, external circumstances have caused project work performed by this firm originally scheduled to have been completed last fiscal year to extend into the coming fiscal year. Specifically, proposed revisions to the Green Building and Energy Reach Codes were postponed due to the formation of a statewide study on electrification, and the work of the associated community advisory group has been extended into a new fiscal year. For background information on the Green Building and Energy Reach Codes projects, please see staff report #10208 (link). Integrated Design 360 has managed and facilitated all stakeholder engagement on that initiative and provides considerable technical and policy expertise on Green Building and Energy Reach Code issues. Given Integrated Design 360’s history with the City, the firm has unique insight into the various program policies, procedures, codes, and operations as well as the perspectives of our community. The firm is the best positioned to continue to develop and support these programs and initiatives, particularly the development of the City’s Green Building and Energy Reach Code update. It would cause substantial loss of efficiency with city operations if this contract is not approved. Furthermore, due to the seasonal nature of construction, projects are underway. For example, this firm is currently providing customer service to residents and builders about green building requirements; implementing education, outreach and enforcement of the deconstruction and source separation program; and monitoring dewatering at construction sites. Disruption to services could cause economic loss and delay projects. At this time, given an exceptional number of vacancies due to retirements and the imminent merger and reorganization of the Planning and Community Environment and Development Services departments, staff does not believe it is the appropriate time to evaluate a new service provider for the programs supported by Integrated Design 360. Staff seeks to maintain continuity by utilizing the expertise of Integrated Design 360 and to provide the new department director and his management team – including several positions currently under recruitment -- time to review and evaluate service delivery models of the new department with the commitment to perform an RFP for these services in the coming fiscal year and plan, in coordination with the Public Works and Utilities departments, for the possible transition to a different firm for any/all of the above services as appropriate. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Resource Impact Fiscal Year 2020 department budgets in the General Fund for Development Services ($327,000), Refuse Fund and Stormwater Management Fund for Public Works ($218,900) and in the Electric and Electric Supply Funds for Utilities ($30,000) are anticipated to have sufficient funding for this contract, as the Fiscal Year 2020 Proposed Budget is still subject to adoption by the City Council, which is scheduled for June 17. A cost per task per department per fiscal year is outlined in Exhibit C-1 of the attached contract. Attachments: • Attachment A: Contract C19175498 with Integrated Design 360 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C19175498 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND INTEGRATED DESIGN 360, LLC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this 10th day of June, 2019, (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and INTEGRATED DESIGN 360, LLC. a California limited liability company, located at 727 Industrial Road, Suite 128, San Carlos, California, 94070, Telephone (415) 866- 6744 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to obtain assistance to manage programs related to the CITY’s overall sustainability efforts (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide services in connection with the Project (“Services”). B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described at Exhibit “A” in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through June 30, 2020 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the DocuSign Envelope ID: F2C254F6-7BFF-46C9-B8C0-C967A1BA2E6A Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 2 CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”), and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Five Hundred Seventy Six Thousand Dollars ($576,000.00). CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out at Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described at Exhibit “A”. SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C- 1”). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City’s project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to DocuSign Envelope ID: F2C254F6-7BFF-46C9-B8C0-C967A1BA2E6A Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 3 perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT is solely responsible for costs, including, but not limited to, increases in the cost of Services, arising from or caused by CONSULTANT’s errors and omissions, including, but not limited to, the costs of corrections such errors and omissions, any change order markup costs, or costs arising from delay caused by the errors and omissions or unreasonable delay in correcting the errors and omissions. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Melanie Jacobson to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a DocuSign Envelope ID: F2C254F6-7BFF-46C9-B8C0-C967A1BA2E6A Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 4 threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. CITY’s project manager is Khashayar Alaee, Development Center 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: (650)329-2230. The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests originally developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of original work product pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. The parties acknowledge that in performing the Services, CONSULTANT may utilize and leverage intellectual property created by CONSULTANT prior to this Agreement (“Pre-Existing IP”). CONSULTANT retains all propriety rights with respect to Pre-Existing IP but grants CITY an irrevocable, royalty-free, perpetual and non-exclusive license to use, copy, distribute, sublicense and make derivative works of such Pre-Existing IP to the extent it is incorporated into the Services. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. DocuSign Envelope ID: F2C254F6-7BFF-46C9-B8C0-C967A1BA2E6A Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 5 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Chief Procurement Officer during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. DocuSign Envelope ID: F2C254F6-7BFF-46C9-B8C0-C967A1BA2E6A Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 6 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently DocuSign Envelope ID: F2C254F6-7BFF-46C9-B8C0-C967A1BA2E6A Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 7 has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant” as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person due to that person’s race, skin color, gender, gender identity, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, pregnancy, genetic information or condition, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the CITY’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY’s Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of CITY’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, CONSULTANT shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: (a) All printed materials provided by CCONSULTANT to CITY generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by CITY’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post- consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. (b) Goods purchased by CONSULTANT on behalf of CITY shall be purchased in accordance with CITY’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Division’s office. (c) Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONSULTANT, at no additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONSULTANT shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not DocuSign Envelope ID: F2C254F6-7BFF-46C9-B8C0-C967A1BA2E6A Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 8 being disposed. SECTION 24. COMPLIANCE WITH PALO ALTO MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE. CONSULTANT shall comply with all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.62 (Citywide Minimum Wage), as it may be amended from time to time. In particular, for any employee otherwise entitled to the State minimum wage, who performs at least two (2) hours of work in a calendar week within the geographic boundaries of the City, CONSULTANT shall pay such employees no less than the minimum wage set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.030 for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. In addition, CONSULTANT shall post notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.060. SECTION 25. NON-APPROPRIATION 25.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 26. PREVAILING WAGES AND DIR REGISTRATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS 26.1 This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. CONSULTANT is not required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project in accordance with SB 7 if the contract is not a public works contract, if the contract does not include a public works construction project of more than $25,000, or the contract does not include a public works alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance (collectively, ‘improvement’) project of more than $15,000. SECTION 27. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 27.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 27.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 27.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties. 27.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the DocuSign Envelope ID: F2C254F6-7BFF-46C9-B8C0-C967A1BA2E6A Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 9 parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 27.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 27.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 27.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. 27.8 In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the exhibits hereto or CONSULTANT’s proposal (if any), the Agreement shall control. In the case of any conflict between the exhibits hereto and CONSULTANT’s proposal, the exhibits shall control. 27.9 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, CITY shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent. 27.10 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this Agreement. 27.11 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 27.12 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: F2C254F6-7BFF-46C9-B8C0-C967A1BA2E6A Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 10 CONTRACT No. C19175498 SIGNATURE PAGE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONSULTANT Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF SERVICES EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “C-1”: SCHEDULE OF RATES EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS DocuSign Envelope ID: F2C254F6-7BFF-46C9-B8C0-C967A1BA2E6A Principal melanie jacobson Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 11 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES CONSULTANT shall provide professional services for CITY’s Development Services, Utilities, and Public Works departments focusing on programs related to the CITY’s overall sustainability efforts. Programs include but not limited to Green Building, De-Watering, Deconstruction and Source Separation, Energy Savings, Electrification, Rebates and Incentives, and Commissioning. The CONSULTANT shall manage these programs within the policy framework set forth by the CITY and act with independent judgement to ensure deliverables are met in accordance to the terms of this exhibit. Development Services Department Tasks: Task 1 - Green Building Program Management, Customer Services, and Implementation Assistance Task 2 - Metrics Management and Reporting Task 3 - Green Building Training (Optional) Task 4 - Policy Review and Creation Task 5 - Sustainability Implementation Plan Support to Development Services (Optional) Task 6 - Commercial Green Building Special Inspector Program Design & Implementation (Optional) Public Works Department Tasks: Task 7 - Deconstruction and Source Separation Program Development Task 8 - Deconstruction and Source Separation Program Implementation Task 9 - Dewatering Monitoring Program Development & Implementation Task 10- PCBs Program Development, Education & Outreach Implementation Task 11 – Storm water Program Design, Education & Outreach Implementation Utilities Department Tasks: Task 12- On-Call Support Services Development Services Department Tasks Task 1 –Green Building Program Management and Implementation Provide program implementation for the existing green and energy reach building program and applicable municipal code. Examples of these tasks may include the items listed below: Green Building Technical Assistance - Provide green building technical coordination assistance to staff and project applicants. Consultant may specify hours during which technical assistance is available and may elect to provide assistance by phone, email, or over- the counter. Technical assistance focuses on the CITY’s Green Building and Energy Reach Program and applicable municipal code, local green building and energy policies, compliance processes, forms, handouts, and green building requirements associated with planning, plan check, inspection, and green building special inspection. Focus subject areas include the statewide California Green Building Code, the California Energy Code, and reference standards within DocuSign Envelope ID: F2C254F6-7BFF-46C9-B8C0-C967A1BA2E6A Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 12 the associated municipal codes. Program Efficiency Improvement – Provide suggestions to senior staff for process improvements related to Accela permitting software and green building approvals for planning, plan check, and inspection staff. Program Development, Goals, Updates, Implementation – Adjust technical assistance and outreach content based on state and local changes to codes, policies, staff processes, and senior management goals. Perform quality control reviews of existing processes and suggest best practices for tasks identified at various stages of the development process within the Planning and Building Departments, including: Planner Quality Control – Perform an annual update to the standard Green Building Conditions of Approval template documents. Project Coordinator Quality Control – Provide an annual quality control review of technical challenges related to the Green Building and Energy Reach code impacting the Project Coordinator staff at the front counter. Plan Checker Quality Control – Perform a monthly quality control review of five percent of permit applications that trigger the green building and energy reach code requirements in the local municipal code. Inspector Quality Control – Provide recommended updates to the Green Building Inspection Checklist on an annual basis. Attend a monthly technical analysis meeting to review progress and challenges related to green building inspection. Develop Green Building Program Process Guides: Develop clearly defined paths that are user friendly that guide the applicant through the process from start to finish. These paths will be readily accessible either through access to CITY’s Green Building web page and/or handouts that are available for distribution from CITY’s Development Center. Develop content for tutorial-based videos explaining the Green Building process including, requirements, forms, timelines, inspections, etc. Provide voice recording of training material. Video production will be performed by a separate City vendor. Task 2 - Metrics Management and Reporting Provide detailed quantitative analysis that measure how effective the CITY’s Green Building and Energy Reach program and applicable municipal code is per the following: Building Performance Database - Data entry and management for statistics and annual report. Compile Green Building and Energy Reach metrics from building permit applications. Performance Report - Compile standard report for fiscal year data for Green Building and Energy Reach for annual Performance and SEA Report. Earth Day Report – Compile standard report for fiscal year data for Annual Earth Day Report. Task 3 - Green Building Training (Optional) Perform two public trainings per year on the Green Building and Energy Reach Program and compliance requirements to be made available to the community and staff. Perform four staff trainings per year on the Green Building and Energy Reach Program and enforcement requirements. Perform an annual half-day training for Green Building Special Inspectors on local green building and energy reach requirements and enforcement procedures. DocuSign Envelope ID: F2C254F6-7BFF-46C9-B8C0-C967A1BA2E6A Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 13 Task 4 - Policy Review and Creation Collaborate with stakeholder groups in the review of existing and creation of new green building and energy reach policies and guidelines that forward the city’s vision to be a leader in sustainable development. CONSULTANT is expected to draw on best in class examples and latest advances in technology to promote this agenda. CONSULTANT shall use exceptional writing and communication skills to craft and articulate these policies and guidelines. Provide project management to develop the technical criteria for the local Green Building Ordinance and local Energy Reach Code ordinance for the 2019 Building Code. Task 5 - Sustainability Implementation Plan Support (Optional) Support staff in completing task items on the Sustainability Implementation Plan (SIP) in the areas of “Energy”, “Water”, and “EV”. Provide support to staff in completing specific tasks on the Sustainability Implementation Plan. Provide coordination and technical support to help staff plan for future endeavors regarding the Sustainability Implementation Plan “Key Actions”. The “Key Actions” assigned to Development Services within the “Sustainability Implementation Plan” not already addressed in this contract are as follows: Energy: “Encourage voluntary electrification (and mandates) of natural gas appliances”: Feasibility assessment of mandating readiness features building infrastructure. “ZNE Roadmap: Develop programs for implementation beyond 2020” “Develop building benchmarking requirements” Electric Vehicles: “Evaluate incentives, outreach, policies, and financing options to stimulate charging infrastructure and EV ownership/use”: Update policies and guidelines for existing homeowners to promote and expedite EVSE installations in existing buildings as part of routine maintenance. “Consider requiring EV Readiness and charger installation in existing buildings”: Work with internal and external stakeholders to revise building code language to support future proofing existing buildings for EV. “Develop a plan for expanding EV charging infrastructure in the public right-of-way and on publicly-owned property”: Review policies and develop a work plan. “Build public awareness of EV options through communications, outreach, and ride-and-drive events”: Support two annual EV ride-and-drive events, co-sponsored by Utilities and Development Services. Water: “Develop programs and ordinances to facilitate the use of non-traditional, non-potable water sources (e.g. graywater, storm water, black water, etc.”: Develop a list of potential ordinances and regulatory barriers to expand systems for black water systems. “Develop a Green Storm Water Infrastructure Plan to better capture and infiltrate storm water back into the hydrologic cycle” Task 6 – Commercial Special Inspector Program Development and Implementation (Optional) Develop a Commercial Special Inspector Program for the green building regulations. Develop written strategies, attend coordination meetings, and develop program implementation documents. Develop education and outreach material and execute a campaign to support DocuSign Envelope ID: F2C254F6-7BFF-46C9-B8C0-C967A1BA2E6A Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 14 community success of the policy implementation. Implement the new Commercial Special Inspector Program in accordance with adopted local green building regulations. Program implementation shall include, at a minimum: executing campaign to train new inspectors; education and outreach material provided to special inspectors during training; customer service support for inspector implementation; and biannual progress reports and associated metrics. Public Works Department Tasks Task 7 - Deconstruction & Source Separation Program Support Develop and adopt increased rigor of the local deconstruction and source separation regulation. Perform technical policy research, develop written strategies, attend coordination meetings, and develop a program phasing schedule for policy implementation. Develop education and outreach material and execute a campaign to support community success of the policy implementation. Task 8 - Deconstruction & Source Separation Program Implementation Implement the new Deconstruction & Source Separation program in accordance with adopted local Deconstruction & Source Separation regulations. Program implementation shall include, at a minimum: inspections by ICC CALGreen Certified Inspectors; education and outreach material provided to contractors during site visits; and biannual progress reports and associated metrics. Provide Education & Outreach services to project applicants. Task 9 - Dewatering Monitoring Program Development Create and refine processes and organizational systems for construction site monitoring of local dewatering laws. Visit a limited number of construction sites with an active building permit and monitor dewatering activity as necessary to develop recommendations. Provide Education & Outreach services to project applicants. Task 10 - PCBs Program Development, Education & Outreach Implementation Create and refine processes and organizational systems for permitted project scoping monitoring of local Polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs) laws. Provide Education & Outreach services to project applicants. Task 11 – Storm water Compliance Program Development & Implementation Create and refine processes and organizational systems for compliance with the local stormwater laws. Provide Education & Outreach services to project applicants. Utilities Department Tasks Task 12 - On-Call Support Services Provide on-call technical support and coordination tasks related the Sustainability Implementation Plan (SIP) and the Utilities Strategic Plan. These tasks may be related to the following subject areas: energy efficiency savings associated with permitted projects; electrification related support tasks related to electric vehicle chargers permits, checklists, rebates, and incentives; and development of preliminary criteria for an Enhanced Building Commissioning Program. On call support and coordination shall be limited term, project-based services specified in a professional services task order (Exhibit D). DocuSign Envelope ID: F2C254F6-7BFF-46C9-B8C0-C967A1BA2E6A Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 15 EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each task as specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. Development Services Department Tasks: Task 1 Green Building Program Management, Customer Services, and Implementation Assistance Ongoing Task 2 Metric Management and Reporting Report Due Dates Task 3 Green Building Training (Optional) December 31, 2019, June 30, 2020, Task 4 Policy Review and Creation January 1, 2020 Task 5 Sustainability Implementation Plan Support (Optional) TBD Task 6 Commercial Special Inspector Program Development and Implementation (Optional) December 31, 2019 Public Work Department Tasks: Task 7 Deconstruction & Source Separation Program Development Support December 31, 2019 Task 8 Deconstruction & Source Separation Program Implementation TBD Task 9 Dewatering Monitoring Program Development & Implementation Ongoing Task 10 PCBs Program Design & Implementation Ongoing Task 11 Storm water Compliance Program Design & Implementation Ongoing Utilities Department Tasks: Task 12 On-Call Support Services TBD DocuSign Envelope ID: F2C254F6-7BFF-46C9-B8C0-C967A1BA2E6A Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 16 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule below. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $576,000. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. The CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $ 576,000. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Task 1 $148,000 (Green Building Program Management, Customer Services, and Implementation Assistance) Task 2 $38,300 (Metrics Management and Reporting) Task 3 $16,500 (Green Building Training – Optional) Task 4 $20,600 (Policy Review and Creation) Task 5 $60,600 (Sustainability Implementation Plan Support to Development Services - Optional) Task 6 $43,100 (Commercial Green Building Special Inspector Program Design & Implementation - Optional) Task 7 $52,200 (Deconstruction and Source Separation Program Development) Task 8 $66,200 (Deconstruction and Source Separation Program Implementation) Task 9 $70,500 (Dewatering Monitoring Program Development & Implementation) DocuSign Envelope ID: F2C254F6-7BFF-46C9-B8C0-C967A1BA2E6A Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 17 Task 10 $20,00 (PCBs Program Development, Education & Outreach Implementation) Task 11 $10,000 (Stormwater Program Design, Education & Outreach Implementation) Task 12 $30,000 (On-Call Support Services) Sub-total Basic Services $576,000 Reimbursable Expenses $0.00 (None) Maximum Total Compensation $576,000 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: None All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: F2C254F6-7BFF-46C9-B8C0-C967A1BA2E6A Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 18 EXHIBIT “C-1” SCHEDULE OF RATES Development Services Tasks FY2020 Total Task 1 - Customer Services, Program Management & Implementation $148,000 $148,000 Task 2 - Metrics Management and Reporting $38,300 $38,300 Task 3 - On-Going Training (Optional)$16,500 $16,500 Task 4 - Policy Review and Creation $20,600 $20,600 Task 5 - Sustainability Implementation Plan Support (Optional)$60,600 $60,600 Task 6 - Commercial Special Inspector Program Development & Implementation (Optional) $43,100 $43,100 $327,100 $327,100 Public Works Tasks FY2020 Total Task 7 - Deconstruction & Source Separation Program Development Support $52,200 $52,200 $66,200 $66,200 Task 9 - Dewatering Monitoring Program Development & Implementation $70,500 $70,500 Task 10 - PCBs Program Design & Implementation $20,000 $20,000 Task 11 - Stormwater Compliance Program Design & Implementation $10,000 $10,000 $218,900 $218,900 Utilities Department Tasks FY2020 Total Task 12 - On-Call Support Services (Optional)$30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 Total Fee FY2020 Total Total $576,000 $576,000 Task 8 - Deconstruction & Source Separation Program Implementation HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE Labor Category FY2020 Principal $221.71 Senior Program Manager $181.53 Program Manager $155.00 Project Manager II $140.60 Project Manager I $115.00 On-Site Technician $97.85 Associate $82.40 DocuSign Envelope ID: F2C254F6-7BFF-46C9-B8C0-C967A1BA2E6A Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 19 EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE AT THE FOLLOWING URL: https://www.planetbids.com/portal/portal.cfm?CompanyID=25569. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. DocuSign Envelope ID: F2C254F6-7BFF-46C9-B8C0-C967A1BA2E6A Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 20 B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON- PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. VENDORS ARE REQUIRED TO FILE THEIR EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE AND ANY OTHER RELATED NOTICES WITH THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AT THE FOLLOWING URL: HTTPS://WWW.PLANETBIDS.COM/PORTAL/PORTAL.CFM?COMPANYID=25569 OR HTTP://WWW.CITYOFPALOALTO.ORG/GOV/DEPTS/ASD/PLANET_BIDS_HOW_TO.ASP DocuSign Envelope ID: F2C254F6-7BFF-46C9-B8C0-C967A1BA2E6A CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY June 17, 2019 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Request for Authorization to Increase the Existing Legal Services Agreement With the Law Firm of Jarvis Fay & Gibson for Litigation Defense Services by an Additional $200,000 for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $695,000 and to Extend the Term of the Agreement to June 30, 2021 Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council authorize an increase to the legal services agreement with the law firm of Jarvis Fay & Gibson for litigation defense in the case of Staats v. City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara Co. Sup. Ct. Case No. 1-15-CV-284956 (Contract S15159508) by an additional $200,000 for a total not to exceed amount of $695,000. In addition, staff recommends that the City Council authorize extension of the term of the agreement to June 30, 2021. Discussion Jarvis Fay & Gibson LLP is a law firm representing cities in a variety of areas, including land use, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), construction law, and municipal taxes and fees. In April 2015, the City entered into a $50,000 agreement with Jarvis Fay & Gibson for pre- litigation and initial litigation defense services in a Government Claims Act claim and subsequently-filed civil suit Staats v. City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara Co. Sup. Ct. Case No. 1-15-CV- 284956. In November 2016 and March 2018, the City Council authorized amendment of the agreement to add $325,000 and $120,000, respectively, for a total of $495,000, to fund continuing litigation defense. The contract term was also extended to June 30, 2019. The recommended amendment will fund continuing defense services in this matter. If the matter is not resolved this year, we will return to Council for additional funding authority. Resource Impact Funding for the recommended amendment does not require additional budgetary authority as it can be accommodated within the Office of the City Attorney’s FY2020 budget. Environmental Review Page 2 Amendment of a legal services contract is not a project requiring environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Department Head: Molly Stump, City Attorney City of Palo Alto (ID # 10450) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/17/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: SECOND READING: Mitchell Park Court Park Improvement Ordinance Title: SECOND READING: Adoption of a Park Improvement Ordinance for Pickleball Courts at Mitchell Park (FIRST READING: June 3, 2019 PASSED: 7-0) From: City Manager Lead Department: City Clerk This was first heard by the City Council on Monday, June 3, 2019, where it passed 7-0, with no changes. It is now before the Council for the second reading and adoption. Attachments: • Attachment A: Mitchell Park Pickleball Park Improvement Ordinance NOT YET ADOPTED 1 ORDINANCE NO. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Pickleball Courts at Mitchell Park The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares that: (a) Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and section 22.08.005 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code require that, before any substantial building, construction, reconstruction or development is commenced or approved, upon or with respect to any land held by the City for park purposes, the Council shall first cause to be prepared and by ordinance approve and adopt a plan therefor. (b) Mitchell Park (the “Park”) is dedicated to park purposes. (See Municipal Code section 22.08.200) (c) The City intends to authorize construction of two new pickleball courts, converting one (existing) tennis court to four dedicated pickleball courts, and striping two (existing) tennis courts for tennis and pickleball use at the Park. (d) The plan of improvements shall comprise as follows: (1) Remove four trees, and follow City Arborist’s replanting recommendation; (2) Install two new pickleball courts and perimeter fencing in passive grass area adjacent to existing tennis courts; (3) Install concrete walkway along exterior of the two new pickleball courts; (4) Convert one (existing) tennis court into four dedicated pickleball courts; (5) Stripe the two (existing) tennis courts for tennis and pickleball use to allow for shared use; and (6) Install one drinking fountain adjacent to the tennis/pickleball courts. (e) Exhibit A depicts the expected implementation of the plan of improvements. (f) The plan of improvements described above is consistent with park, playground, recreation, and conservation purposes. (g) The City Council desires to approve the plan of improvements described above. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves the plan of improvements in the Park described in this Ordinance. NOT YET ADOPTED 2 SECTION 3. The City Council finds that this ordinance falls under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemptions found in Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15303 (New Construction of Small Facilities or Structures). SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Deputy City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Community Services ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services ±8 ' ±6.8' ±8 ' ±6.3' ±6'±6'±6' ±8 ' ±1 5 . 6 ' ±16.9'±8.5'±8' ±7' ±7' ±7.5' ±8 ' ±8 '±8 '±8 ' ±17' ±0.9' ±7'±8' ±1 6 ' ±6' ±6' ±8 ' ±1 6 ' ±8 ' ±8 ' ±8 ' ±1 5 . 8 ' ±1 5 . 9 ' ±1 6 ' ±8 ' ±8 ' ±5.5' ±25.6' ±8' ±13' 20' 10' 10' 22'7'15' KEY NOTES 1 PICKLEBALL STRIPING - BLENDED USTA STANDARD BLUE 25% WHITE 1 NOTE: DISTANCES SHOWN IN DETAIL 1 ARE APPROXIMATE. DISTANCES ARE SHOWN TO CENTER OF 2" STRIPE. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY PRIOR TO ANY DEMOLITION. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM LAYOUT OF NEW COURTS WITH THE CITY PRIOR TO STRIPING. NOTE: DISTANCES SHOWN ARE FOR QUICK REFERENCE ONLY. SEE SHEETS 15 & 16 FOR STRIPING NOTES AND DETAILS.10'20' SCALE: 1"=20' 40'0' 2 78' TENNIS COURT, SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY 3 STANDARD PICKLEBALL COURT PER DETAIL 1 THIS SHEET, AND SHEETS 15 & 16 2 2 4 4 4 4 3244 Brookside Road Suite 100 Stockton,California 95219 209-943-2021 Fax: 209-942-0214 www.siegfriedeng.com CIVIL ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 10' SETBACK LINE 3 3 EXISTING WALL AT CREEK, TYP. 4 PROPOSED PICKLE BALL STRIPING 4 4 4 3 3 5 EXTEND EXISTING CONCRETE PATHWAY TO NORTHWEST, TERMINATE AT EXISTING 10' DG PATHWAY. CONTRACTOR TO DETERMINE WITH CITY IF RETAINING CURB REQUIRED AGAINST HILLSIDE. 6 FUTURE CONCRETE PAD (BLEACHERS) - 4" (3000 PSI) CONCRETE OVER 4" CLASS II AGGREGATE BASE (CITY REQUEST)7 INSTALL NEW ASPHALT CONCRETE TENNIS COURTS, COURTS SHALL BE 2" ASPHALT CONCRETE (3/8" MAX. AGGREGATE SIZE ON FINAL LIFT) OVER 8" CLASS II AGGREGATE BASE. 8 6 9 MODIFY EXISTING FENCE TO ACCOMMODATE STORAGE OF ROLLING NETS WITH ACCESS GATES INSIDE COURTS. COORDINATE EXACT SIZE AND LOCATION WITH CITY. REMOVE EXISTING TREE 5 5 5 5 10 PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING DRAIN INLET, POTENTIAL TIE IN LOCATION OF NEW COURT DRAINAGE SYSTEM 11 INSTALL NEW LOW LEVEL FENCE AS SHOWN (MATCH EXISTING), COORDINATE WITH CITY FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND LENGTHS 12 INSTALL NEW HIGH LEVEL FENCE (MATCH EXISTING), COORDINATE WITH CITY FOR EXACT LOCATION OF GATES AND OPENINGS 9 8 10 10 10 10 10 13 MODIFY EXISTING HIGH FENCE INTO LOW FENCE, COORDINATE WITH CITY FOR EXACT LOCATIONS OF OPENINGS. 11 11 11 11 14 INSTALL NEW DYNAMITE CRAPE MYRTLE - 24" BOX, SINGLE TRUNK TREE (TYPICAL OF 4); INSTALL WOOD CHIPS FOR GROUND COVER 15 INSTALL NEW ARBUSTUS MARINA - 24" BOX, SINGLE TRUNK TREE (TYPICAL OF 1); INSTALL WOOD CHIPS FOR GROUND COVER 13 13 14 14 15 EX I S T I N G C R E E K 16 REMOVE PORTION OF EXISTING WALKWAY, NEW SURFACING TO MATCH EXISTING FENCE 16 LA N D S C A P E A R E A EX I S T I N G P A T H EXISTING PATH EXISTING SIDEWALKNEW SIDEWALK 17 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF NEW DRINKING FOUNTAIN, COORDINATE EXACT LOCATION WITH CITY 17 City of Palo Alto (ID # 10451) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/17/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: SECOND READING: 2321 Wellesley Street: Zone Change from R-1 to RMD(NP) Title: SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto for 2321 Wellesley Street to Change the Zoning from the R-1 (Single Family Residential) to the RMD (NP) (Two Unit Multiple-Family Residential District With Neighborhood Preservation Overlay) Zoning District (FIRST READING: June 3, 2019, PASSED 7-0) From: City Manager Lead Department: City Clerk The City Council first heard this on Monday, June 3, 2019 where it passed 7-0 with no changes. It is now before the City Council for second reading. Attachments: Attachment A: Draft Ordiance (DOCX) Attachment C: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOCX) Not Yet Approved 1 of 5 Ordinance No. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto for 2321 Wellesley Street to Change the Zoning from the R-1 (Single Family Residential) to the RMD(NP) (Two Unit Multiple-Family Residential District with Neighborhood Preservation Overlay) Zoning District. The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. A. The Planning and Transportation Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on December 12, 2018, at which it reviewed, considered, and recommended the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) be amended to rezone that certain real property commonly known as 2321 Wellesley Street and more particularly described in Exhibit A) change the zoning from the R-1 (Single Family Residential) to the RMD(NP) (Two Unit Multiple-Family Residential District with Neighborhood Preservation Overlay) zoning district. B. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on May 13, 2019, and considered the subject amendment of the Zoning Map, including the recommendation by staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission and all public comments received prior to or at the hearing. C. The site has existed as a vacant site within the R-1 zone, and the uses proposed for the site under the RMD (NP) zone are of such characteristics that the proposed dwellings meets the application of the general district and the combining district. D. Development of the site under the provisions of the RMD (NP) (Two Unit Multiple-Family Residential District) (Neighborhood Preservation Combining District) will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of existing general district (R-1 Single Family Residential) in that the Project includes the following public benefit that id inherent to the Project and above those required by city zoning districts: • An undeveloped lot will be developed with a two unit residential building in a residential neighborhood with mixed zoning, developed under the RMD(NP) general district and combining district to provided two dwelling units with less restrictions in regards to the development standards for the additional dwelling unit if the site were to be developed within the existing R-1 general district. • The council further finds that these public benefits are of sufficient Not Yet Approved 2 of 5 importance to make the Project as a whole, which includes an additional housing unit of greater size than that which the existing zoning would permit, and as the additional housing unit is located below grade and would be exempted from the calculation of floor area, allowing more desirable dwellings to be developed which are considered a public benefit. E. The uses permitted and the site development regulations applicable within the District are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the existing and potential uses on the adjoining sites or within the general vicinity in that the Project would be consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: • Local Land Use Policy L-3.1 which seeks to “Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures” SECTION 2. Amendment of Zoning Map. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the “Zoning Map,” is hereby amended by changing the zoning from the Single Family Residential (R-1) to the Two Unit Multiple-Family Residential District with Neighborhood Preservation Overlay (RMD(NP)) zoning district for all that real property situated in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described in Exhibit A (Legal Description and Map) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and commonly known as 2321 Wellesley Street. SECTION 3. Environmental Review. The City Council finds that the zoning map amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(b) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). This application falls under this exemption as it involves a proposed duplex residential structure that totals no more than six dwelling units in an urbanized area. SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage and adoption. INTRODUED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Not Yet Approved 3 of 5 ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Deputy City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment Exhibit A – Legal Description and Map Not Yet Approved 4 of 5 Not Yet Approved 5 of 5 Page 1 of 14 APPROVAL NO. 2019-____ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE APPROVAL FOR 2321 WELLESLEY: MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (18PLN-00174) On _______, 2019, the Council held a duly noticed public hearing and, after considering all of the evidence presented, approved the application to allow a request for Major Architectural Review and Zone Change to change the zoning district from R-1 to RMD(NP) and allow the construction of a new attached duplex two-story home. In approving the application, the Council make the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. A. The applicant requested a Zone Change and Major Architectural Review to change the zoning district from R-1 to RMD(NP) and allow the construction of a new attached duplex comprised of an approximately 2,915 square foot, two-story single family home with an attached 1,126 square foot duplex unit in the basement (“The Project”). B. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed the project on December 12, 2018, and the Architectural Review Board Review (ARB) reviewed the project on December 20, 2018. The PTC recommended approval of the construction project and the zoning map amendment no additional conditions. The ARB recommended approval of the project with conditions to update the landscaping to better meet the ARB findings for native landscaping, revise the front yard pathway to provide ease of access to the trash enclosure, and to not allow mechanical equipment near the setbacks. The plans were updated accordingly per the ARB’s conditions of approval. C. On June 3, 2019, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, at which evidence was presented and all persons were afforded an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Council’s Policies and Procedures. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. On June 3, 2019, The City Council made a determination that was in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from CEQA per Guideline Section 15303(b) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). This application falls under this exemption as it involves a proposed duplex residential structure that totals no more than six dwelling units in an urbanized area. SECTION 3. Architectural Review Findings. The design is approved as it meets the required Architectural Review Findings as detailed by the following: Page 2 of 14 Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The proposed project complies with the RMD zoning code and requires no exceptions to the development standards. The project is subject to the Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (NP) Design Guidelines. The purpose of design review of properties in an (NP) combining district is to achieve compatibility of scale, silhouette, façade articulation, and materials of new construction with existing structure on the same property or on surrounding properties within a combining district. The proposed project is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, below is an analysis of the applicable goals and policies: Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Single Family (SF) Residential which applies to residential neighborhoods primarily characterized by detached single-family homes. Accessory dwelling units or duplexes are allowed subject to certain size limitations and other development standards and duplexes may be allowed in select, limited areas where they would be compatible with neighborhood character and do not create traffic and parking problems. The project consists of a two family residential development (duplex), which is consistent with the Comp Plan land use designation. Land Use and Community Design GOAL L-1: A compact and resilient city providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping districts, public facilities and open spaces. This is an infill project that would develop an existing vacant lot with low density residential uses. The project proposes a duplex with an architectural style and massing that fits within the character of the neighborhood. Goal L-2 An enhanced sense of “community” with development designed to foster public life, meet citywide needs and embrace the principles of sustainability The design of the project fits into the character of the neighborhood and provides two new units of housing in the City. Policy L-3.1 Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The design of the two family dwelling with its two story craftsmen style is compatible with the adjacent multiple family developments and the single family developments in the area as it would be an intermediary between the massing of the adjacent single family residential and multi-family residential Page 3 of 14 developments in the neighborhood. Goal L-3 Safe, attractive residential neighborhoods, each with its own distinct character and within walking distance of shopping, services, schools and/or other public gathering places. The project will develop a vacant parcel within a residential neighborhood, directly adjacent to a public facility (College Terrace Library) with a craftsman styled two family dwelling that is consistent in scale with the surrounding neighborhood character. The project has also been reviewed for conformance with the development standards in the Zoning Code and found to be in compliance with the intent and regulations contained therein. A comprehensive review of the project to applicable development standards is included in the administrative record. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The neighborhood is comprised of various residential buildings one to two stories in height. The project proposes to construct a building that is taller than the single family homes across the street, although the proposed height of 28 feet tall is consistent with the adjacent RMD zoned properties with multifamily buildings. Though the project proposed two dwelling units, the second (smaller) dwelling unit is proposed in the basement and is accessed via lightwells on each side of the proposed residence, allowing the proposed building to be consistent with the single family homes in the area, while providing larger residences within walking distance of City amenities. The context-based design criteria are not applicable to the RMD(NP) zoning district. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The project proposes a new duplex with a classic craftsmen inspired two story style with appropriate architectural features such as exposed rafters and wood shingle siding. This would allow the new Page 4 of 14 building to blend in with the existing homes, the College Terrace Library, and a neighborhood that has an eclectic collection of architectural styles. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The design of the new buildings will provide sufficient parking on site that is accessible to both dwellings within the proposed duplex. The project also provides sufficient open space for each unit in both private and common areas on-site. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: The project provides a variety of low to moderate water usage plants. Some of the plantings that are selected in the landscape plan are California native plants such as the Hearst's Ceanothus, Pacific Wax Myrtle, and the Western Columbine. In addition, the plant selection includes some species that attract pollinators such as Dwarf English Lavender, Citrus limon 'Meyer Improved', Hearst's Ceanothus, Star Jasmine, and the Cecil Brunner Climbing Rose when they flower. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the project will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. In addition, as shown on sheet 1 of the submitted plans, the project includes solar panels on the roof. SECTION 4. Architectural Review Approval Granted. Architectural Review Approval is hereby granted for the Project by the City Council pursuant to PAMC Section 18.77.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, June 3, 2019 and subject to the conditions of approval in Section 6 of this Record. SECTION 5. Plan Approval. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Jarvis Architects titled “2321 & 2323 Wellesley Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306”, consisting of 13 pages, dated August 2, 2018, and received April 11, 2019. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Development. The conditions of approval in Section 6 shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. Page 5 of 14 SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval. PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS: Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "2321 & 2323 Wellesley Street” stamped as received by the City on April 11th, 2019 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. Project plans submitted for Building permits shall incorporate the following changes: a. Update the project landscaping to better meet the ARB findings for native landscaping, b. Revise the front yard pathway to provide ease of access to the trash enclosure 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. REQUIRED PARKING: All RMD zoned two family residential developments shall be provided with a minimum of two covered parking space (10 foot by 20 foot interior dimensions) and one uncovered parking space (8.5 feet by 17.5 feet). 6. UTILITY LOCATIONS: In no case shall utilities be placed in a location that requires equipment and/or bollards to encroach into a required parking space. In no case shall a pipeline be placed within 10 feet of a proposed tree and/or tree designated to remain. 7. BAY WINDOWS: The proposed bay windows shall have an interior base at least 18 inches above the floor joists, have no exterior skirt wall, projecting no more than two feet, and with more than 50% window surface. Bay windows that do not meet this definition will be counted towards the homes floor area ratio (FAR), which may cause the home to be out of compliance with required Zoning standards. Any changes to proposed bay windows must first be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. 8. NOISE PRODUCING EQUIPMENT: All noise producing equipment shall be located outside of required setbacks, except they may project 6 feet into the required street side setbacks. In accordance with Section 9.10.030, no person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any Page 6 of 14 machine, animal or device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. 9. FENCES. Fences and walls shall comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 16.24, Fences, of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Heights of all new and existing fencing must be shown on the Building Permit plans. 10. BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION WALLS: Any walls, temporary or otherwise, installed to facilitate construction of a basement shall be removed or constructed in such a way as to not significantly restrict the growth of required landscaping, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 11. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the ARB approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. 12. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE: Development Impact Fees, currently estimated in the amount of $9,656.00, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 13. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90- day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 14. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. Page 7 of 14 15. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY 16. NEW TREES—PERFORMANCE MEASURES. New trees shall be shown on all relevant plans: site, utility, irrigation, landscape, etc. in a location 10’ clear radius from any (new or existing) underground utility or curb cut. a. Add note on the Planting Plan that states, “Tree Planting. Prior to in-ground installation, Urban Forestry inspection/approval required for tree stock, planting conditions and irrigation adequacy. Contact (650-496-5953).” b. Landscape Plan tree planting shall state the Urban Forestry approved species, size and using Standard Planting Dwg. #604 for street trees or those planted in a parking median, and shall note the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. Wooden cross-brace is prohibited. c. Add note on the Planting & Irrigation Plan that states, “Irrigation and tree planting in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards.” d. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. e. Automatic irrigation bubblers shall be provided for each tree. Standard Dwg. #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Bubblers mounted inside an aeration tube are prohibited. 17. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. Page 8 of 14 18. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 19. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 20. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 21. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b) verified all his/her updated TPR mitigation measures and changes are incorporated in the plan set, (c) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (d) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. 22. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 23. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 24. OBLIGATION TO MONITOR AND PROTECT NEIGHBORING TREES. Project site arborist will protect and monitor neighboring trees/protected redwood/protected oak during construction and share information with the tree owner. All work shall be done in conformance with State regulations so as to ensure the long term health of the tree. Project site arborist will request access to the tree on the neighboring property as necessary to measure an exact diameter, assess condition, and/or perform treatment. If access is not granted, monitoring and any necessary treatment will be performed from the project site. Page 9 of 14 PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 25. EXCAVATION & GRADING PERMIT: The site plan must include an earthworks table showing cut and fill volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. Applicant shall prepare and submit an excavation and grading permit to Public Works separately from the building permit set and prior to building permit issuance. The permit application and instructions are available at the Development Center and on our website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp. 26. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10-feet from the property line and 3-feet from side and rear property lines, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. Include these dimensions on the plan. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 27. The site drainage system that collects runoff from downspouts and landscape area shall be separated from the pump system that discharges runoff from light wells. Plot and clearly label the two separate systems and include the separate outfalls for each system. 28. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring Plans prepared by a licensed professional are required for the Basement Excavation and shall be submitted with the Grading and Excavation Permit. Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. 29. DEWATERING: Contact Public Works as soon as possible to set up a meeting to discuss new dewatering regulations. Excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is not allowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend that a piezometer be installed in the soil boring. The contractor shall determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using a piezometer or by drilling an exploratory hole. Based on the determined groundwater depth and season, the contractor may be required to dewater the site or stop all grading and excavation work. In addition Public Works may require that all groundwater be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an Page 10 of 14 independent testing firm to test the discharge water for contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. 30. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 5% or 2% per 2013 CBC section 1804.3. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales, area drains, bubblers, etc. Grading that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from neighboring properties will not be allowed. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. 31. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 32. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: This project creates or replaces 500 square feet or more of impervious area, the applicant needs to fill out the impervious area worksheet and submit it with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2718 33. RESIDENTIAL&SMALL PROJECTS STORMWATER TREATMENT: This project may trigger the California Regional WaterQuality Control Board’s revised provision C.3 for stormwater regulations(incorporated into the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section16.11) that apply to residential land development projects that create or replace between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. The applicant must implement one or more of the following site design measures: •Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse. •Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas. •Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas. •Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas. •Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces. •Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces. 34. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and/or Grading and Drainage Plan:“Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.” Construction phasing shall be coordinated to keep materials and equipment on-site. 35. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Page 11 of 14 Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter, and planter strip. 36. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and adjacent to the work within the Public road right- of-way: “Any construction within the city’s public road right-of-way shall have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.” 37. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Provide a note adjacent to street trees: “Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within10 feet of street trees must be approved by PublicWorks' arborist (phone:650- 496-5953).”Show construction protection of the trees per City requirements. 38. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked, displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip. Contact the Public Works’ Inspector at 650- 496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. Include a scan copy of the Site Inspection Directive from the PW Inspector in the plan set whether replacement work is required or not. If replacement work is required, the site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 39. Provide the following as a note on the Site Plan: “The contractor may be required to submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, stormwater pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected surrounding properties, and schedule of work. The requirement to submit a logistics plan will be dependent on the number of applications Public Works Engineering receives within close proximity to help mitigate and control the impact to the public right-of-way. If necessary, Public Works may require a Logistics Plan during construction.” UTILITIES WGW 40. Any water service, gas service, or wastewater lateral not in use must be disconnected and abandoned. Page 12 of 14 41. The City’s gas and sewer main only reach half way of the property on Wellesley St. (owner to contact CPAU for water & gas meter and sewer clean out locations). 42. Each unit shall have its own water and gas meter. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service, and wastewater lateral connection. (all WGW utility services/meters/lateral per CPAU latest standards) 43. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 44. The contractor/applicant shall not disconnect any part of the existing water, gas, or wastewater mains except by expressed permission of the WGW utilities inspector and shall submit a schedule of the estimated shutdown time to obtain said permission. 45. If the existing utility service/s will cross one property to serve another property after the property line is moved, the utility service/s has to be relocated or the applicant will need a PUE across the impacted property. 46. Only City Staff can work on the City gas distribution system. GREEN BUILDING This section contains general information to assist the applicant team in understanding the requirements that will be applicable to the project at plan check, inspection, and post-occupancy. Requirements are subject to change. You may also email Melanie Jacobson or Kelsey Anderson at greenbuilding@CityofPaloAlto.org for specific questions about your project. Please also visit the Green Building Compliance page for more details: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp Local Energy Reach Code for Residential Projects There are two options for compliance with the local Energy Reach Code: 47. Energy Efficiency Option 1: No Photovoltaic System. If the project includes new construction, then the project triggers the Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. For all new single-family residential and multi-family residential, non-residential construction, the performance approach specified within the 2016 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed new-single family residential or multi-family construction is at least: 10 percent less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design if the proposed building does not include a photovoltaic system. (Ord. 5383 § 1 (part), 2016) 48. Energy Efficiency Option 2: With a Photovoltaic System. If the project includes new construction, then the project triggers the Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. For all new single-family residential and multi-family residential, the performance approach specified within the 2016 Page 13 of 14 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed new- single family residential or multi-family construction is at least: 20 percent less than TDV Energy of the Standard Design if proposed building includes a photovoltaic system. (Ord. 5383 § 1 (part), 2016) Green Building Requirements for Residential Projects The following conditions apply to the project: 49. CALGreen Checklist: If the project is a new construction residential building, then the project must meet the California Green Building Code Mandatory requirements outlined in Chapter 4, (with local amendments) plus Tier 2 minimum pre-requisites and electives outlined in Appendix A4* (with local amendments). The project must hire a Green Building Special Inspector for a pre- permit third-party design review and a third-party green building inspection process. The project must select from the City’s list of approved inspectors found on the Green Building Compliance Webpage. PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) *Note: Projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2016 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18. 50. Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance: If the rehabilitated project has an aggregate (combined) landscape area of greater than 2,500 square feet, the project is subject to the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) and the project will require an separate permit for Outdoor Water Efficiency. See Outdoor Water Efficiency Submittal Guidelines and permit instructions at the following link. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/outdoor_water_efficiency_.asp 51. Recycled Water Infrastructure for Landscape: If the project is either a new construction or a rehabilitated landscape and is greater than 1,000 square feet, then the project must install a dedicated irrigation meter related to the recycled water infrastructure. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 52. Recycled Water Infrastructure for Landscape: If the project is outside the boundaries of the recycled water project area and is greater than 1,000 square feet, then the project must install recycled water infrastructure for irrigation systems. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 53. Construction & Demolition: For residential construction projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 requirements, the project must meet the enhanced construction waste reduction at 80% construction waste reduction. PAMC 16.14.260 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. https://www.greenhalosystems.com 54. Deconstruction Survey: If the project is a single-family residential dwellings of any size applying for a demolition permit, a deconstruction survey is required. PAMC 16.14.135 (Ord. 5393 § 1 Page 14 of 14 (part), 2016) Projects shall comply with the instructions found on the following page: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/cnd_debris_diversion_program.asp 55. EVSE: If the project is a new detached single-family dwelling, then the project shall comply with the following requirements for electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) as shown in: a) The property owner shall provide as minimum a panel capable to accommodate a dedicated branch circuit and service capacity to install at least a 208/240V, 50 amperes grounded AC outlet (Level 2 EVSE). The raceway shall terminate in close proximity to the proposed location of the charging system into a listed cabinet, box, enclosure, or receptacle. The raceway shall be installed so that minimal removal of materials is necessary to complete the final installation. The raceway shall have capacity to accommodate a 100-ampere circuit. (b) Design. The proposed location of a charging station may be internal or external to the dwelling, and shall be in close proximity to an on-site parking space. The proposed design must comply with all applicable design guidelines, setbacks and other code requirements. PAMC 16.14.420. (Ord. 5393 § 2, 2016) 56. OPTIONAL: The project may be eligible for several rebates offered through the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department. These rebates are most successfully obtained when planned into the project early in design. For the incentives available for the project, please see the information provided on the Utilities website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/residents/resrebate SECTION 7. Term of Approval. Architectural Review Approval. The approval shall be valid for two years from the original date of approval. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Page 15 of 14 Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: 1. Those plans prepared by Jarvis Architects titled “2321 & 2323 Wellesley Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306”, consisting of 13 pages, dated August 2, 2018, and received April 11, 2019. City of Palo Alto (ID # 10419) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/17/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Fiscal Sustainability Summary Title: Adoption of FY 2020 Budget & Municipal Fees Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of Budget Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2020, Including Adoption of Operating and Capital Budgets and Municipal Fee Schedule From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services RECOMMENDED MOTION Staff and the Finance Committee Recommend that the City Council: 1. Adopt the Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Ordinance (Attachment A), which includes: a. City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2020 Proposed Operating and Capital Budgets, previously distributed at the April 22nd City Council meeting (Attachment A, Exhibit 1); b. Amendments to the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2020 Proposed Operating Budget (Attachment A, Exhibit 2); c. Amendments to the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2020 Proposed Capital Budget (Attachment A, Exhibit 3); d. Fiscal Year 2020 City Table of Organization (Attachment A, Exhibit 4); and e. Fiscal Year 2020 Municipal Fee Changes (Attachment A, Exhibit 5). 2. Amend the Municipal Fee Cost Recovery Policy 1-57/ASD to include language clarifying that certain types of fees are not subject to state laws limiting fees to cost recovery (Attachment B); and 3. Accept the 2020-2024 Capital Improvement Plan including: the addition of the Automated Parking Guidance System to the 2014 Council approved Infrastructure Plan, allocation of new hotel Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues, and the November 2018 voter approved increase in TOT revenues towards ensuring sufficient funding for this plan. 4. Potentially provide direction to staff on Finance Committee requested referrals for additional staff work. City of Palo Alto Page 2 BACKGROUND Per the Municipal Code, the City Manager is charged with proposing a budget that provides a clear and complete financial plan for all City activities proposed for the ensuing budget cycle, or fiscal year. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Proposed Operating and Capital Budgets were transmitted to the City Council on April 22, 2019. These documents represented the planned expenditures and revenues for FY 2020 for the various fund types that make up the City’s budget: General Fund, Capital Fund, Enterprise Funds, Internal Service Funds, Special Revenue Funds, and Debt Service Funds. The budget documents contain an overview section with descriptions of each of these fund types, and detailed information for the revenues and expenses for each fund, as well as for each individual department. Throughout the month of May, the Finance Committee conducted budget hearings to review the Proposed Operating and Capital Budgets. After an overview of the entire budget process, the Finance Committee went through the Proposed Operating Budget department by department and fund by fund; the Finance Committee reviewed the Proposed Capital Budget in the respective Enterprise Funds as well as by project category in the General Capital Fund. These meetings were open to the public and provided a venue for the Finance Committee to propose amendments to the budget. The Finance Committee also discussed utility rates changes and various fee changes recommended by staff. During these discussions, changes were recommended to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget by both the Finance Committee and staff. On May 28, 2019, the Committee successfully wrapped the FY 2020 budget. Below summarizes the Finance Committee recommendation: Adoption of the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2020 Proposed Operating and Capital Budgets and Fiscal Year 2020 Municipal Fee Schedule, including the amendments summarized in the FY 2020 Budget Wrap-up Memorandum and the “Funding for Palo Alto Downtown Business and Professional Association” at places memorandum. These amendments included all changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule and Table of Organization. The Committee also recommended the approval of the FY 2020-2024 Capital Improvement Plan including: • The addition of the Automated Parking Guidance System to the 2014 Council approved Infrastructure Plan; and • Dedication of new hotel Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues and the voter approved rate increase in TOT revenues towards ensuring sufficient funding for this plan. Separately, the Committee recommended the additional changes as outlined below: SEPARATE MOTION: Recommend the City Council approve funds of $30,000 as an ongoing cost for automated performance evaluation tools and funds of $80,000 as a one-time cost for a pilot program for screening tools for job applications for the Human Resources Department. Motion Passed: 3-0 City of Palo Alto Page 3 SEPARATE MOTION: Recommend the City Council restore one-time funding of $100,000 to the Information Technology Department Contract Services to be used as seen fit between the Department Head and the City Manager. Motion Passed: 2-1 Fine no This report summarizes the actions approved by the Finance Committee, as well as the various administrative actions necessary to perform those actions such as changes to the Table of Organization. As a result of actions recommended in this report, both by staff and the Finance Committee, the total Fiscal Year 2020 Proposed Budget of $699.2 million will increase by $19.4 million, which reflects a 2.8% increase, for a total Fiscal Year 2020 Adopted Budget of $718.6 million. This increase is primarily attributed to the reappropriation of capital projects projected to continue in FY 2020 and therefore funds are recommended to be carried into FY 2020 for the continuation of the projects. This Adopted Budget leaves the City in a fiscally healthy situation and in the General Fund, the Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) is at the Council recommended level of 18.5% of the General Fund adopted budget total expenses. In addition to the adoption of the City’s annual budget, included in this memorandum is a referral item for full City Council at the request of the Finance Committee. Staff will work to address this item with the Finance Committee and the City Council throughout FY 2020 and incorporate the outcomes of those meetings into the development of the FY 2021 budget if these items are approved here. This report includes the following sections: Fiscal Year 2020 Finance Committee Budget Balancing & Final Recommended Changes: A summary of the budget balancing process including major changes approved by the Finance Committee and additional recommended adjustments from staff. This is organized by fund type beginning with Citywide, General Fund, General Capital Fund, Enterprise Funds, Internal Service Funds, Special Revenue Funds, and Capital Reappropriations (Attachment A, Exhibit 2 and Attachment A, Exhibit 3). Table of Organization: A summary of additional changes to the Table of Organization subsequent to the version released April 22, 2019 (Attachment A, Exhibit 4). Municipal Fee Schedule: A summary of the changes recommended in CMR 10225 FY 2020 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule as well as staff revisions made subsequently as part of the Finance Committee hearing on May 23, 2018 (Attachment A, Exhibit 5). Fiscal Year 2020 Rate Changes (various utilities such as electric): A brief overview of the rate changes recommended as reviewed by the Utilities Advisory Commission and Finance Committee; each of these rate changes are included in the FY 2020 budget assumptions. This section references those changes for informational purposes only; a separate report recommending final rate changes is scheduled for consideration by the City Council on June 17, 2019 (CMR 10295). City of Palo Alto Page 4 Referral Items for Full City Council at the Request of the Finance Committee: This report details a list of topics that the Finance Committee wished to discuss with the full City Council for potential referral to staff. These are areas identified for potentially deeper analysis or alternative funding strategies to be explored over the course of the next fiscal year. Attachments: Attached to this report are a number of documents as outlined and referenced throughout the recommendation language and the report. In addition, links to all the materials presented throughout the budget process to both the City Council and/or the Finance Committee such as CMRs, At Places Memorandums, presentations made during the budget hearings, and transcripts from Finance Committee Hearings are included (Attachment D). Not included in this CMR is the approval of the GANN Limit. This will be transmitted separately for City Council consideration on June 24, 2019. DISCUSSION Fiscal Year 2020 Finance Committee Budget Balancing Process & Final Recommended Changes During the Finance Committee meetings, the Finance Committee approved staff recommended changes and recommended and approved their own changes. Based on the Finance Committee deliberations during the month of May 2019, including changes at the behest of staff, this section aggregates and outlines all the final amendments recommended to be made to the FY 2020 Proposed Operating and Capital Budgets distributed to the City Council on April 22, 2019. Included below is a summary of the changes across all funds, including the General Fund, accounting for the various approved motions and staff recommendations. All adjustments are outlined in greater detail in Attachment A, Exhibits 2 and 3. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Revenues Expenses Revenues Expenses Citywide Proposed Budget, released April 22, 2019 ($000s)$232,052 $230,777 $631,834 $699,213 Finance Committee Approved Amendments Finance Committee Initiated Human Resources Funding (Performance Evaluations and Candidate Screening - One-time)$0 $110 $30 $140 Information Technology Professional Services Augmentation (One-time)$0 $100 $100 $200 Children's Library Sunday Hours (One-time) $0 $18 $0 $18 Parking Fee Realignment $0 ($16)$203 $170 Budget Uncertainty (City Council) Reserve Offset $0 ($228)$0 ($228) Staff Initiated Planning and Community Environment/Development Services Realignment $50 $302 $50 $211 Community Services Position Reclassification $0 $7 $0 $7 Various Capital Reappropriations $0 $0 $0 $18,782 Transfer from the General Fund to the Business Improvement District (BID)$0 $17 $17 $34 CDBG Augmentation - Additional Revenues $0 $0 $64 $64 Budget Operations Reserve Offset $0 ($277)$0 $0 SUBTOTAL CHANGES FROM FY 2020 PROPOSED BUDGET $50 $34 $464 $19,398 Citywide Proposed Revenue and Expenses (as of June 17th Adoption Hearing)$232,102 $230,811 $632,298 $718,611 All FundsGeneral Fund Specifically, the City has worked this year to achieve increased funding for supplemental pension contributions to proactively fund pension liabilities. Below are two charts to help depict where the City is at in this activity as well as the near-term outlook. This FY 2020 Adopted Budget results in maintaining the BSR at 18.5%, consistent with prior City Council direction. General Fund Balancing by Year ($000s)FY 2019 a FY 2020 FY 2021 Revenues 214,497 232,103 241,845 Expenses 210,706 230,810 241,447 Contribution needed to Maintain BSR @ 18.5%- 1,283 1,957 Surplus/(Deficit)3,791 10 (1,559) a At the direction of City Council, the FY 2019 Expense Budget included a $4M reduction to General Expenses while the City pursued ongoing reductions to proactively fund pension contributions. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Department FY 2020 Ongoing Administrative Services (277,547) - City Attorney - - City Auditor - - City Clerk (16,000) (16,000) City Council - - City Manager - - Community Services (295,027) (490,000) Fire (667,871) (630,720) Human Resources - - Information Technology a (114,450) (160,230) Library (172,630) (173,000) Non-Departmental b (25,000) (25,000) Office of Emergency Services (40,000) (40,000) Office of Transportation - - Planning and Community Environment/Development Services (152,393) - Police (855,246) (440,000) Public Works c (487,813) (512,712) General Fund c This action includes the General Fund's share of savings in the Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund that will generate $203,000 in savings across all funds in FY 2020 and $209,000 in savings in FY 2021. a Actions in the Information Technology Department will save $250,000 across all funds in FY 2020, and $350,000 across all funds in FY 2021. Recommended Reductions in the FY 2020 Operating Budget b This $25,000 reduction in Non-Departmental is an ongoing reduction in the City Manager's Contingency. The FY 2020 Operating Budget reflects the second year of continued reductions in the General Fund. FY 2019’s Adopted Operating Budget contained $2.3 million in General Fund structural reductions. As part of that $2.3 million in reductions, positions were eliminated in the Offices of the City Clerk, the City Attorney’s Office, the Administrative Services Department, the Community Services Department, the Library Department, and Public Works. Subsequent to the adoption of the budget, a position was eliminated in the City Auditor’s Office. The reductions taken in FY 2019 and recommended in FY 2020 are necessitated in part by the City Council’s direction to proactively fund the City’s long-term pension obligations to ensure the City’s long- term fiscal sustainability. The following sections detail the changes made to the FY 2020 Proposed Budget through the Finance Committee Budget Hearings, summarized by fund type. City of Palo Alto Page 7 General Fund Throughout the Finance Committee meetings, various minor amendments were proposed by both the Finance Committee and staff in the General Fund. All departmental budgets as amended by the Committee were approved by majority vote. Summary of Recommended Changes to the FY 2020 City Manager Proposed Budget Throughout the FY 2020 Budget Hearings, the Finance Committee members recommended amendments to the FY 2020 City Manager Proposed Budget. Staff has worked to incorporate those directions into the amended budget and recommended a few additional actions as a result of changes approved by the Finance Committee. Items are ongoing, unless specifically noted as one-time, and are detailed more completely below. • An increase in the Planning and Community Environment Department expense appropriation of $302,409 to reflect the reorganization and authorized staffing levels to merge the former Development Services Department and the Planning and Community Environment Department. $252,901 of this funding is from the Budget Operations Reserve while the remaining $49,508 is offset by an increase in revenue; • As directed by the Finance Committee, a $110,000 increase in budgeted expenses in the Human Resources Department to automate performance evaluations ($30,000) and pilot a candidate screening system ($80,000, one-time). Funding for this action will be provided by the Budget Uncertainty Reserve (City Council) in FY 2020. • As directed by the Finance Committee, a one-time $100,000 increase in allocated charges across General Fund departments for internal services provided by the Information Technology Department funded by the Budget Uncertainty Reserve (City Council). • As requested by the Finance Committee, a one-time $18,000 increase in temporary salary expenses for the equivalent of 0.30 FTE to fund Sunday hours at the Children’s Library for FY 2020. Currently, the Children’s Library is open Monday through Saturday from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm and Sundays 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm. The Children’s Library receives an average of 31.25 visits per hour on an 8-hour day and 41.50 visits per hour on Sundays due to shorter open hours. Funding for this action will be provided from the Budget Uncertainty Reserve (City Council); • A one-time $17,000 transfer from the General Fund to the Business Improvement District (BID) Fund to appropriately align funding for fee assessment collections; funded by the Budget Operations Reserve; and • Various budget actions associated with a $180,000 increase in budgeted expenses for Transportation Management Association (TMA) services, offset by an increase of 7.5% to Employee Parking Permit fees (discussed in more detail in the Special Revenue Funds and Municipal Fee sections), specifically: City of Palo Alto Page 8 o a $21,000 increase in the General Fund transfer to the University Avenue Fund for the purchase of City employee parking permits, from $281,250 to $302,250; and o a $37,000 decrease in the General Fund transfer to the Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Fund to cover an operating deficit in FY 2020, from $720,000 to $683,000; and • a $7,200 increase in salary expenses in the Community Services Department, funded by the Budget Operations Reserve, with a corresponding update to the department’s Table of Organization as a result of the reclassification of a 1.0 FTE Program Assistant II to a 1.0 FTE Coordinator Recreation Programs. Actions recommended in this report result in a $277,101 decrease in the Budget Operations Reserve, a $228,000 decrease in the Budget Uncertainty Reserve (City Council), and an increase in the contribution to the Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) of $16,000. The Budget Operations Reserve was established for FY 2020 in the amount of $1.4 million. As discussed in the FY 2020 Proposed Budget, it was created to offset anticipated impacts in the General Fund for items that, at the time the FY 2020 Proposed Budget was released, did not yet have fully refined costs. The reorganization of the Planning and Community Environment Department, transfer to the BID Fund, and position reclassification in the Community Services Department are funded by this reserve, bringing its balance to $1.1 million. Consistent with past practice, staff set aside $300,000 in one-time funding to be used at the City Council’s discretion during the FY 2020 Budget review process - Budget Uncertainty Reserve (City Council). The actions supporting the Human Resources Department’s technology investments, the Information Technology Department’s professional services, and the Library Department’s additional hours are funded by this reserve, bringing its remaining balance to $72,000. By policy, the City maintains a reserve level of 15.0 - 20.0 percent of the General Fund operating budget, with a targeted goal of 18.5 percent. The FY 2020 Proposed Budget included a $1.3 million contribution to the BSR to ensure that it meets this target; at the time the Proposed Budget was transmitted the BSR was projected to have a balance of $42.7 million. Through the actions recommended in this report, most increases in expenses in the General Fund are offset by decreases to either the Budget Operations Reserve or the Budget Uncertainty Reserve (City Council). However, an increase in expenses of $49,508 offset by fee revenue in the Planning and Community Environment Department is also recommended, which would increase the necessary contribution to the BSR by $9,200 to maintain the BSR at 18.5%. The adjustments to the General Fund transfers to Special Revenue Funds for parking-related costs will result in a net savings of $16,000; this savings is recommended to be contributed to the BSR. This savings will provide the necessary contribution to the BSR for the revenue-backed expense increase in the Planning and Community Environment Department. City of Palo Alto Page 9 General Capital Improvement Fund At the Finance Committee Budget meetings, the vote on the tentative approval of the FY 2020 General Capital Improvement Fund was unanimous, 3-0. The General Capital Improvement Fund recognizes a positive fund balance at the end of FY 2020 as well as each year of the 2020- 2024 five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). However, there are some assumptions in that calculation that should be noted. Within the capital budget, the top priority is to fund and complete the nine 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan (IP) projects approved by the City Council in June 2014. • As part of the FY Proposed 2020 Capital Budget, staff recommended and the Finance Committee approved the addition of a tenth project to the IP: the Downtown Automated Parking Guidance Systems, Access Controls & Revenue Collection Equipment (PL-15002). Due to the City Council's decision to defer one of the original IP projects, the New Downtown Parking Garage Project (PE-15007) in February 2019 (Action Minutes), this tenth IP project will mitigate parking congestion in downtown while plans for the Downtown Garage are reevaluated. • The IP relies on the total 3.5 percent TOT rate increases approved in 2014 and 2018 plus revenue from new hotels built after January 2015, including new Marriott hotels anticipated to open in FY 2021. In addition to the IP projects, there are a number of other significant potential capital projects that have been identified as needs that do not have funding identified. The following are some other potential competing community asset projects: Animal Shelter reconstruction; Caltrain Westside Fencing; Cubberley Master Plan implementation; Junior Museum and Zoo Phase II; and Parks Master Plan implementation. The only recommended adjustments to the General Capital Improvement Fund are staff recommended amendments for reappropriations for specific projects. These changes are detailed more in Attachment A, Exhibit 3. Enterprise Funds As directed by the Finance Committee during the May 15, 2019 meeting, a $4,000 increase ($48,000 to $52,000) in the Utilities Fund transfer to the University Avenue Fund is recommended for the purchase of City staff parking permits. In order to support the recommendation to increase Transportation Management Authority (TMA) funding, various increases to the costs of parking permits are needed. Additional information pertaining to parking permit increases can be found in the Special Revenue Funds and Municipal Fee sections of this report. Internal Service Funds As directed by the Finance Committee during the May 28, 2019 wrap-up Budget Hearing, a $100,000 increase in professional services funding has been added to the Information Technology (IT) Department’s operating budget in the Technology Fund. Additional professional services funding will benefit multiple departments through consultant support for projects such as infrastructure upgrades, full migration to Windows 10, the Enterprise Resource Planning City of Palo Alto Page 10 (ERP) upgrade, implementation of the Citywide Data Strategy and Data Governance efforts, and other department-lead and citywide innovation projects. The Information Technology Department also serves as the contract administrator for the City’s online recruitment vendor. As discussed above, the Finance Committee directed that $30,000 be appropriated to automate performance evaluations in the Human Resources Department. Attachment A, Exhibit 2 includes the necessary transactions to allocate this $30,000 appropriately. As directed by the Finance Committee during the May 15, 2019 meeting, a $2,000 increase ($24,000 to $26,000) in the Information Technology Fund transfer to the University Avenue Fund is recommended for the purchase of City staff parking permits. In order to support the recommendation to increase Transportation Management Authority (TMA) funding, various increases to the costs of parking permits are recommended. Additional information pertaining to parking permit increases can be found in the Special Revenue Funds and Municipal Fee sections of this report. Special Revenue Funds As discussed with the Finance Committee during the May 28, 2019 Wrap-Up Budget Hearing, a $17,000 transfer from the General Fund to the Business Improvement District (BID) Fund is recommended to appropriate funding for fee assessment collections. As part of the development of the FY 2020 Proposed Budget, the costs to collect the BID assessment fee were assumed in the General Fund. In order to more appropriately allocate and display the expected expenses for the BID, a transfer of these funds from the General Fund to the BID Fund is recommended. Additional details can be found in the at places memorandum provided during the May 28th committee meeting: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71653 As discussed with the Finance Committee during the May 28, 2019 Wrap-Up Budget Hearing, an increase of $63,533 is recommended to align funding with final 2019-2020 CDBG allocations. The City of Palo Alto receives funds annually from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as an entitlement city under the CDBG program. This is the principal Federal program that provides funds to the CDBG Program to expand and maintain affordable housing supply, promote housing opportunities, improve and maintain community facilities, and increase economic opportunities for persons of low and moderate income. The final allocations by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for 2019-2020 had not yet been confirmed at the time of the development of the FY 2020 Proposed Budget. The recommended action will add $63,533 to revenue and expense appropriations to align the budget with the final CDBG allocation ($724,578) as approved by the City Council on May 6, 2019 (CMR 10192). As directed by the Finance Committee during the May 15, 2019 Budget Hearing, an increase of $180,000 is recommended for the Transportation Management Authority (TMA) to be funded through a 7.5% increase to Employee Parking Permit fees. On April 16, 2019, the TMA presented potential reductions to single occupancy vehicles (SOV) rates that could be City of Palo Alto Page 11 accomplished through additional funding levels (CMR 10198). Following this meeting, the Finance Committee requested that staff provide analysis to outline the implications of providing additional funding to the TMA. Staff presented four scenarios at the May 15, 2019 committee hearing with the goal of increasing TMA funding through increases in Employee Parking Permit fees. Ultimately, the Finance Committee directed that a 7.5% increase to Employee Parking Permit fees be applied to generate additional funding of $180,000 to the TMA, from $480,000 to $660,000. The funding for TMA is fully expensed out of the University Avenue Fund; however, prices are recommended to increase across all parking funds in order to maintain the alignment of the Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Districts with the Downtown and California Avenue garages and remove incentive for permit holders to park in residential areas due to lower permit pricing. As result of this action, various budget adjustments are recommended: • Increase the price of Employee Parking Permits 7.5%; from $750 to $806 per year in University Avenue and Downtown RPP district and from $375 to $403 per year in the California Avenue, Evergreen Park/Mayfield district, and Southgate district. • Increase permit sales revenue estimates in University Avenue ($155,000), California Avenue ($21,000), and Residential Parking Permit Funds ($37,000) to reflect parking permit increases. • Increase transfers from the General Fund ($21,000), Information Technology Fund ($2,000), and Utilities Funds ($4,000) to reflect the increased cost for the City’s purchase of employee parking permits. • Reduce the General Fund operating subsidy transfer to the Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Fund by $37,000, from $720,000 to $683,000, as a result of additional parking permit revenues. The funding scenarios presented to Finance Committee can be found in the at places memorandum provided during the May 15, 2019 committee meeting: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71352 A detailed presentation of budgetary and Municipal Fee adjustments resulting from the selected funding scenario can be found in the at place memorandum provided during the May 23, 2019 meeting: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71463 City of Palo Alto Page 12 Capital Reappropriations As a result of an October 2014 change to the Municipal Code, City Council authorization is now required for reappropriation of funds for capital projects from one fiscal year to the next. The FY 2020 budget process continues this process with the FY 2020 Proposed Capital Budget including approximately $52.6 million in reappropriated funds for project expenditures across all funds. The FY 2020 Proposed Budget figures were developed in early Spring of 2019; departments have subsequently refined current year estimates and the reappropriation amounts built into the FY 2020 Proposed Capital Budget. Additional reappropriation adjustments are recommended as part of this memorandum in order to update the FY 2020 Capital Budget with more refined estimated activity levels in Fiscal Year 2019. Cumulatively, this re-review of projects has resulted in staff’s recommendation to increase the Fiscal Year 2020 Proposed Budget by a total of $18.8 million, from $172.8 million to $191.6 million. These adjustments, as outlined by project in Attachment A, Exhibit 3, combined with those outlined in the FY 2020 Proposed Capital Budget will ensure that funds are available at the onset of Fiscal Year 2020 for projects that have experienced delays in the current year and will reduce the Fiscal Year 2020 Proposed Budget for projects that experienced higher than anticipated expenditure levels within Fiscal Year 2019. In total, reappropriations of an estimated $71.4 million in FY 2020 are above those assumed in the FY 2019 Adopted Capital Budget of $47.7 million. This is the result of a few factors, including more proactively revising the timing of funding needed for projects, the ability to encumber contracts for some projects being pushed to FY 2020, and a few larger projects budgeted in FY 2019 being moved to FY 2020. City of Palo Alto Page 13 Table of Organization There were minimal changes to the authorized position levels through the Finance Committee Budget hearings. This included changes to the Table of Organization recommended by staff to realign staff in the newly merged Planning and Community Environment and former Development Services Department. This reorganization is recommended to assist in merging the functions, while maintaining the Development Center as a "one-stop shop" and ensuring a successful and sustainable allocation of resources. An additional recommendation was brought forward by staff to reclassify 1.0 Program Assistant II to a 1.0 Coordinator of Recreation Programs in the Community Services Department as the result of an agreement to resolve a grievance. An updated Table of Organization is included as Attachment A, Exhibit 4. Additional details regarding the Planning and Community Environment and Development Services Department merger can be found in the at places memorandum provided during the May 15th committee meeting: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71332 Additional details regarding the Community Services Department reclassification can be found at the at places memorandum provided during the May 23rd committee meeting: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71460 Municipal Fee Schedule On May 23, 2019 the Finance Committee recommended that the City Council adopt the changes to the Fiscal Year 2020 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule with amendments (Attachment A, Exhibit 5). Notable changes proposed to the Municipal Fee Schedule in Fiscal Year 2020 include a 7.5% percent fee increase for average salary and benefits and adjustments to achieve cost recovery levels per the guidelines approved by the City Council and adjustments to Planning and Community Environment Impact Fees in accordance with prior City Council resolutions. As detailed in the Attachment A, Exhibit 5, the Finance Committee approved the addition of 8 new fees, the deletion of 23 fees, and the change of 65 fees to adjust for cost recovery levels, align with market value, or capture other technical adjustments. Finance Committee also reviewed staff recommendations to update the Municipal Fee Cost Recovery Policy, which is discussed in further detail under the Municipal Fee Policy Update section of this memo. Through the Finance Committee budget hearings, one change was made to fees. Employee Parking Permit Fees: As discussed above in the Special Revenue Fund section, on May 15, 2019 the Finance Committee reviewed the implications of increasing the price of employee parking permits with the goal of generating increased funding for the Transportation Management Association (TMA). The Finance Committee recommended increases of 7.5%, in alignment with a majority of City Fees, to five of the related municipal fees for parking permits. These fee changes are discussed in the Special Revenue Fund section and detailed in Attachment A, Exhibit 5. At the May 28, 2019 meeting, the Finance Committee requested additional information from the Planning and Community Environment Department regarding the fee rate necessary to fully City of Palo Alto Page 14 recover the costs of appeals. The Appeals and Request for Hearing before City Council or Planning & Transportation Commission Fee is outlined in the FY 2020 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule at a rate of $280 per application and falls within the low cost recovery range (0.0% - 30.0%). At the time of the most recent fee study (CMR 6638), staff and the consultant recommended a low recovery rate so as not to discourage appeals filings. If this fee were recalculated at a rate of full recovery by applying the recommended general rate increases since completion of the fee study in 2016, the fee would be $597 per application in FY 2020. Municipal Fee Cost Recovery Policy Update The Municipal Fee Cost Recovery Policy describes fees in relation to the City’s cost to provide the service or program for which fees are charged. The policy includes a description of various issues that should be considered in determining the level of program and service costs that should be recovered through user fees, versus paid by the City’s general funds. Staff recommends updating the Municipal Fee Cost Recovery Policy to clarify that certain programs and services provided by the City are not subject to state laws limiting user fees to the City’s costs. This update is contained in Attachment B (redlined version) and Attachment C (clean version). Fiscal Year 2020 Rate Changes From March through May 2019, the Utilities Advisory Commission and Finance Committee received and reviewed various utility financial plans, transfer requests, and rate changes recommended by staff. Adoption of the resolutions to approve rate adjustments for FY 2020 is scheduled to be considered by the City Council on June 17, 2019. Full details can be found in CMR 10295, which outlines the actions requested, transmits the relevant resolutions, and requests City Council approval and adoption. Below is a brief summary of the proposed rate adjustments for various utilities. Rate Changes • Electric: For FY 2020, an 8% overall rate increase is proposed. Beyond FY 2020, annual increases of 4% are projected through FY 2023. For more information, see CMR 10217, approved by the Finance Committee on May 15, 2019. • Gas: For FY 2020, a 5% overall rate increase is proposed. Beyond FY 2020, annual increases between 4% and 8% are projected through FY 2024. For more information, see CMR 10255, approved by the Finance Committee on May 15, 2019. • Wastewater Collections: For FY 2020, a 7% overall rate increase is proposed. Beyond FY 2020, annual increases of 6% are projected through FY 2024. For more information, see CMR 10107, approved by the Finance Committee on April 16, 2019. City of Palo Alto Page 15 • Water: For FY 2020, a 1% overall rate increase is proposed. Beyond FY 2020, annual increases between 2% and 6% are projected annually through FY 2024. For more information, see CMR 10149, approved by the Finance Committee on April 16, 2019. • Storm Water Management: For FY 2020, a 4.5% increase based on the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) change in the San Francisco Bay Area is proposed. For more information, see CMR 10147, approved by the Finance Committee on April 16, 2019. • Dark Fiber: For FY 2020, a 4.5% increase for the EDF-1 and EDF-2 rates is proposed. Future year adjustments will continue to be based on year-to-year change in the CPI in the San Francisco Bay Area. Referral Items for Full Council at the Request of the Finance Committee The Finance Committee approved a motion on May 28, 2019 to recommend that the full City Council refer the following items to staff for further review. A motion by the full City Council would be necessary to refer these items to staff. • Return to the Finance Committee to strategize the use of uncommitted funds from the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) development agreement. More information regarding this potential referral can be found below. Staff agrees and intends to return to the City Council after further review of the SUMC fund. However, additional information below is provided based on the discussion at the May 28, 2019 committee meeting where a summary of uncommitted balances in the SUMC Fund, assuming that the FY 2020-2024 Capital Improvement Plan projects are expended as planned was requested. The table below outlines this plan. Of note, the Intermodal Transit category is over committed based on the FY 2022 planned expenditures for Quarry Road Improvement project (PL-16000) to continue improvements to the connection from the Intermodal Transit Center to El Camino Real/Quarry Road. The PL- 16000 Quarry Road Improvement project includes two components that are outlined in the development agreement as follows: • Improvements to and within the public right of way to enhance the pedestrian and bicycle connection from the west side of El Camino Real to Welch Road, including urban design elements and way finding, wider bicycle lanes, as necessary on Quarry Road, enhanced transit nodes for bus and/or shuttle stops, and prominent bicycle facilities. To be funded through Quarry Road Improvements/”linkages”; and • Improvements to Enhance the Pedestrian and Bicycle Connection from the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center to the existing intersection at El Camino Real and Quarry Road, including development of an attractive, landscaped passive park/green space with a clearly marked and lighted pedestrian pathway, benches and flower borders to improve the connection from the Intermodal Transit Center to El Camino Real/Quarry Road intersection. Additional information on the use of this funding is included in the City of Palo Alto Page 16 subsequent SUMC Environmental Impact Report (EIR) mitigation and monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). To be funded through Intermodal Transit. Additional details can be found at the at places memorandum provided during the May 28th committee meeting: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71652 City of Palo Alto Page 17 In addition to this formal request, additional topics were discussed however, already identified by workplans and therefore no formal action is necessary as follow-up is already scheduled. • Discuss options for long-term Pension and Other Post-Employment Benefit (OPEB) funding, including potential development of a policy, with the Finance Committee. This topic was included in the Fiscal Sustainability Workplan that was approved by the City Council on April 22, 2019 as an item that was identified but not yet resourced. • Discuss Library fines with the Library Advisory Commission. More extensively discuss the trade-offs associated with fines in the Library and the disadvantages and advantages of using fines. • Provide an update on the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan to the City Council in Fall 2019. Staff anticipates returning to City Council with a follow-up report on the Bike Boulevard and lessons learned after the summer recess, as identified in the Transportation Workplan approved by the City Council on May 7, 2019. • Analyze the appropriate price levels for the gated Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ), anticipated to open in summer 2020, to ensure appropriate cost recovery levels. It is anticipated that Staff will include this analysis as part of the development of the business plan for the JMZ in Winter 2019 and will recommend potential options to the Finance Committee and City Council. RESOURCE IMPACT This report summarizes and seeks the City Council approval of the FY 2020 Operating and Capital Budgets, the supporting fee schedules, and table of organization in order to support the projections and appropriations included. The approval of the City Manager’s FY 2020 Capital and Operating Budget as recommended to be amended in this report would result in the appropriation of funds for these services and programs to be completed during the 2020 Fiscal Year. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Adoption of the attached Financial Plans and budgeted transfers does not meet the California Environmental Quality Act’s definition of a project, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) and (5), because it is a governmental fiscal and administrative activity which will not cause a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. After reviewing the staff report and all attachments presented to City Council, the City Council incorporates these documents herein and finds that sufficient evidence has been presented setting forth with specificity the basis for this claim of CEQA exemption. Attachments: • Attachment A: FY 2020 Budget Adoption Ordinance City of Palo Alto Page 18 • Attachment A, Exhibit 1: City Manager's Fiscal Year 2020 Proposed Operating & Capital Budgets & Municipal Fee Schedule • Attachment A, Exhibit 2: Amendments to the City Manager's Fiscal Year 2020 Proposed Operating Budget • Attachment A, Exhibit 3: Amendments to the City Manager's Fiscal Year 2020 Proposed Capital Budget • Attachment A, Exhibit 4: Table of Organization • Attachment A, Exhibit 5: FY 2020 Municipal Fee Schedule (Changed Fees) • Attachment B: Municipal User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy (Red-lined) • Attachment C: Municipal User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy • Attachment D: FY 2020 Finance Committee Budget Proceedings NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT A 1 ORDINANCE NO. XXXX ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020 SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 6(g) of Article IV of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and Chapter 2.28 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the City Manager has prepared and submitted to the City Council, by letter of transmittal, a budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2020; and B. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter, the Council did, on June 17, 2019, hold public hearings on the budget after publication of notice in accordance with Section 2.28.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; and C. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 8 of Division 1, of Title 7, commencing with Section 66016 of the Government Code, as applicable, the Council did on June 17, 2019, hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Municipal Fee Schedule, after publication of notice and after availability of the data supporting the amendments was made available to the public at least 10 days prior to the hearing. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Chapter 2.28 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the following documents, collectively referred to as “the budget” are hereby approved and adopted for Fiscal Year 2020: (a) The budget document (Exhibit “1”) containing the proposed operating and capital budgets submitted on April 22, 2019, by the City Manager for Fiscal Year 2020, entitled “City of Palo Alto - City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2020 Proposed Budget” covering General Government Funds, Enterprise Funds, Special Revenue Funds, and Internal Service Funds, a copy of which is on file in the Department of Administrative Services, to which copy reference is hereby made concerning the full particulars thereof, and by such reference is made a part hereof; and (b) The Amendments to the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2020 Proposed Budget, attached hereto as Exhibit “2,” and Exhibit “3”, and made a part hereof; and (c) Changes and revised pages in the Table of Organization displayed on pages 465 through 482 of “Exhibit 1,” and as attached hereto as Exhibit “4” made a part hereof; and NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT A 2 (d) Fee changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit “5” and made a part hereof. SECTION 3. The sums set forth in the budget for the various departments of the City, as herein amended, are hereby appropriated to the uses and purposes set forth therein. SECTION 4. All expenditures made on behalf of the City, directly or through any agency, except those required by state law, shall be made in accordance with the authorization contained in this ordinance and the budget as herein established and as may from time to time be amended. SECTION 5. Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2019 that are encumbered by approved purchase orders and contracts for which goods or services have not been received or contract completed, and/or for which all payments have not been made, by the last day of the Fiscal Year 2019 shall be carried forward and added to the fund or department appropriations for Fiscal Year 2020. SECTION 6. The City Manager is authorized and directed to make changes in the department and fund totals and summary pages of the budget necessary to reflect the amendments enumerated and aggregated in the budget as shown in Exhibit “2” and Exhibit “3” and the Fiscal Year 2019 appropriations carried forward as provided in Section 5. SECTION 7. As specified in Section 2.04.320 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a majority vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance. SECTION 8. As specified in Section 2.28.140(b) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby delegates the authority to invest the City’s funds to the Director of Administrative Services, as Treasurer, in accordance with the City’s Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2020. SECTION 9. The Council of the City of Palo Alto adopts the changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule as set forth in Exhibit “5”. Where required by law, the amount of the new or increased fees and charges is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity, and the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payer bears a fair and reasonable relationship to the payer’s burden on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity. All new and increased fees shall go into effect immediately; provided that pursuant to Government Code Section 66017, all Planning & Community Environment Department fees relating to a “development project” as defined in Government Code Section 66000 shall become effective sixty (60) days from the date of adoption. SECTION 10. Certain fees in the Municipal Fee Schedule are for government services provided directly to the payor that are not provided to those not charged. Where required by NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT A 3 law, the amount of these fees do not exceed the reasonable costs to the City of providing the services. Consequently, pursuant to Art. XIII C, Section 1(e)(2), such fees are not a tax. SECTION 11. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. SECTION 12. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: Enter Date Here AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: _________________________ ___________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: City Attorney City Manager Director of Administrative Services Fiscal Year 2020 City Manager’s Proposed Operating & Capital Budgets and Municipal Fees These documents were originally distributed on April 22, 2019. Printed copies are available upon request for $29 per book (FY 2019 fee). These documents may be viewed at any City of Palo Alto Library or the City’s website: www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/asd/budget.asp Changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule were distributed in Finance Committee Packet on May 23, 2019. The City Manager’s Staff Report can be viewed on the City’s website: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71320 − At places memorandum: (Employee Parking Permit Municipal Fees) www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71463 In addition, various at places memorandum and presentations were presented throughout the Finance Committee Hearings in May 2019 to provide additional information. These documents can be found on the City’s website under “FY 2020 Budget Hearings”: www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/asd/budget.asp ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1 ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 2 Department Adjustment Adjustment GENERAL FUND (102 & 103) Administrative Services Technology Services Adjustments Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 28, 2019, this action adjusts the allocated charges for professional consultant support services provided through the Information Technology Department. A corresponding action in the Technology Fund is recommended to offset this action and a reduction in the Budget Uncertainty Reserve (City Council) will offset the General Fund costs. -$ 4,525$ Attorney Technology Services Adjustments Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 28, 2019, this action adjusts the allocated charges for professional consultant support services provided through the Information Technology Department. A corresponding action in the Technology Fund is recommended to offset this action and a reduction in the Budget Uncertainty Reserve (City Council) will offset the General Fund costs. -$ 1,854$ Auditor Technology Services Adjustments Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 28, 2019, this action adjusts the allocated charges for professional consultant support services provided through the Information Technology Department. A corresponding action in the Technology Fund is recommended to offset this action and a reduction in the Budget Uncertainty Reserve (City Council) will offset the General Fund costs. -$ 715$ Clerk Technology Services Adjustments Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 28, 2019, this action adjusts the allocated charges for professional consultant support services provided through the Information Technology Department. A corresponding action in the Technology Fund is recommended to offset this action and a reduction in the Budget Uncertainty Reserve (City Council) will offset the General Fund costs. -$ 1,005$ City Manager's Office Technology Services Adjustments Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 28, 2019, this action adjusts the allocated charges for professional consultant support services provided through the Information Technology Department. A corresponding action in the Technology Fund is recommended to offset this action and a reduction in the Budget Uncertainty Reserve (City Council) will offset the General Fund costs. -$ 2,492$ CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2020 PROPOSED BUDGET Revenues Expenses Attachment A, Exhibit 2: Page 1 ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 2 Department Adjustment Adjustment GENERAL FUND (102 & 103) CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2020 PROPOSED BUDGET Revenues Expenses Community Services Staffing Realignment Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 23, 2019, this action increases salary expenses in the Community Services Department, to reclassify a 1.0 FTE Program Assistant II to a 1.0 FTE Coordinator Recreation Programs as a result of an agreement to resolve a grievance. An offsetting transaction in the Budget Operations Reserve is recommended to fund this action. -$ 7,200$ Community Services Technology Services Adjustments Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 28, 2019, this action adjusts the allocated charges for professional consultant support services provided through the Information Technology Department. A corresponding action in the Technology Fund is recommended to offset this action and a reduction in the Budget Uncertainty Reserve (City Council) will offset the General Fund costs. -$ 16,431$ Fire Technology Services Adjustments Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 28, 2019, this action adjusts the allocated charges for professional consultant support services provided through the Information Technology Department. A corresponding action in the Technology Fund is recommended to offset this action and a reduction in the Budget Uncertainty Reserve (City Council) will offset the General Fund costs. -$ 18,085$ Human Resources Technology Services Adjustments Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 28, 2019, this action adjusts the allocated charges for professional consultant support services provided through the Information Technology Department. A corresponding action in the Technology Fund is recommended to offset this action and a reduction in the Budget Uncertainty Reserve (City Council) will offset the General Fund costs. -$ 2,065$ Human Resources Technology Investments - Candidate Screening Tools Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 28, 2019, this action increases funding by $80,000 (one-time) to pilot a candidate screening system. An offsetting transaction in the Budget Uncertainty Reserve (City Council) is recommended to fund this action. -$ 80,000$ Attachment A, Exhibit 2: Page 2 ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 2 Department Adjustment Adjustment GENERAL FUND (102 & 103) CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2020 PROPOSED BUDGET Revenues Expenses Human Resources Technology Investments - Performance Evaluation Systems Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 28, 2019, this action increases funding by $30,000 to automate performance evaluations. This action will be facilitated through the Information Technology Department and the cost allocated to the Human Resources Department; therefore, a corresponding action in the Technology Fund is also recommended in this report. An offsetting transaction in the Budget Uncertainty Reserve (City Council) is recommended to fund this action in FY 2020. In future budget cycles, these costs will be allocated to the various departments that utilize these services. -$ 30,000$ Library Technology Services Adjustments Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 28, 2019, this action adjusts the allocated charges for professional consultant support services provided through the Information Technology Department. A corresponding action in the Technology Fund is recommended to offset this action and a reduction in the Budget Uncertainty Reserve (City Council) will offset the General Fund costs. -$ 5,491$ Library One-time Restoration of Sunday Hours at the Children's Library Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 23, 2019, this action provides one-time funding for the equivalent of 0.30 FTE to fund Sunday hours at the Children’s Library for FY 2020. Currently, the Children’s Library is open Monday through Saturday from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm and Sundays 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm. The Children’s Library receives an average of 31.25 visits per hour on an 8-hour day and 41.50 visits per hour on Sundays due to shorter open hours. An offsetting transaction in the Budget Uncertainty Reserve (City Council) is recommended to fund this action. -$ 18,000$ Non- Departmental Transfer to the Business Improvement District (BID) Fund Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 28, 2019, this action increases the transfer from the General Fund to the Business Improvement District (BID) Fund to appropriate funding for collection services. As part of the development of the FY Proposed 2020 Budget, funding for collection services was anticipated to be absorbed in the General Fund. This action ensures that the expenditure is appropriately budgeted and displayed in the BID Fund. Funding for this transfer will be provided by an offset in the Budget Operations Reserve. -$ 17,000$ Attachment A, Exhibit 2: Page 3 ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 2 Department Adjustment Adjustment GENERAL FUND (102 & 103) CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2020 PROPOSED BUDGET Revenues Expenses Non- Departmental Transfer to the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 15, 2019, this action increases the transfer from the General Fund to the University Avenue Fund. In order to support increased Transportation Management Authority (TMA) funding, an increase to the cost of parking permits is recommended in the University Avenue Fund. Employee parking permit prices are recommended to increase from $750 to $806 per year, and this action represents the marginal cost increase to the General Fund associated with the increase in parking permit costs for City staff. -$ 21,000$ Non- Departmental Operating Subsidy Transfer to the Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Fund Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 15, 2019, this action reduces the operating deficit transfer from the General Fund to the RPP Fund from $720,000 to $683,000 as a result of increases to parking permit fees. Employee Parking Permit fees in the University Avenue Fund are recommended to increase in order to support additional funding to the Transportation Management Authority (TMA). In order to align parking permit prices across the City and remove incentive for permit holders to park in residential areas, additional actions are recommended to increase parking permit rates in parking funds across the City. The additional revenues resulting from parking permit increases in the RPP Fund are recommended to partially offset a transfer from the General Fund to cover an operating deficit in the RPP Fund in FY 2020. -$ (37,000)$ Non- Departmental Budget Uncertainty Reserve (City Council) This action adjusts the Budget Uncertainty Reserve (City Council) to offset actions recommended by the Finance Committee to augment the FY 2020 Proposed Budget. These actions include increased funding in the Human Resources Department ($110,000), the Information Technology Department ($100,000), and the Library Department ($18,000) and described in more detail in this report. -$ (228,000)$ Non- Departmental Budget Operations Reserve This action adjusts the Budget Operations Reserve to offset the actions recommended in this report for the non-revenue backe portion of the Planning and Community Environment Staffing Reorganization, transfer to the Business Improvement District (BID) Fund, and the Community Services position staffing realignment. -$ (277,101)$ Attachment A, Exhibit 2: Page 4 ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 2 Department Adjustment Adjustment GENERAL FUND (102 & 103) CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2020 PROPOSED BUDGET Revenues Expenses Office of Emergency Services Technology Services Adjustments Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 28, 2019, this action adjusts the allocated charges for professional consultant support services provided through the Information Technology Department. A corresponding action in the Technology Fund is recommended to offset this action and a reduction in the Budget Uncertainty Reserve (City Council) will offset the General Fund costs. -$ 858$ Planning and Community Environment Technology Services Adjustments Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 28, 2019, this action adjusts the allocated charges for professional consultant support services provided through the Information Technology Department. A corresponding action in the Technology Fund is recommended to offset this action and a reduction in the Budget Uncertainty Reserve (City Council) will offset the General Fund costs. -$ 12,133$ Planning and Community Environment Planning and Community Environment Staffing Reorganization Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 15, 2019, this action recommends staffing adjustments to complete the merger of the former Development Services Department (DSD) with the Planning and Community Environment Department. This reorganization results in a net addition of 2.0 full time positions in FY 2020; however, only 1.0 of these positions is ongoing and the other is partially offset by the elimination of part-time staffing equivalent of 1.46 FTE. Overall, this reorganization increases costs in FY 2020 by $200,000 in all funds and approximately $300,000 in the General Fund. Of the General Fund costs, approximately $50,000 will be offset by fees for services in the Development Center. An offsetting transaction to the Budget Operations Reserve is recommended to fund the remainder of this action. 49,508$ 302,409$ Police Technology Services Adjustments Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 28, 2019, this action adjusts the allocated charges for professional consultant support services provided through the Information Technology Department. A corresponding action in the Technology Fund is recommended to offset this action and a reduction in the Budget Uncertainty Reserve (City Council) will offset the General Fund costs. -$ 23,838$ Attachment A, Exhibit 2: Page 5 ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 2 Department Adjustment Adjustment GENERAL FUND (102 & 103) CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2020 PROPOSED BUDGET Revenues Expenses Public Works Technology Services Adjustments Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 28, 2019, this action adjusts the allocated charges for professional consultant support services provided through the Information Technology Department. A corresponding action in the Technology Fund is recommended to offset this action and a reduction in the Budget Uncertainty Reserve (City Council) will offset the General Fund costs. -$ 10,508$ Fund Balance Adjustment to Fund Balance (Budget Stabilization Reserve) This action adjusts the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve to offset the actions recommended in this report. -$ 16,000$ GENERAL FUND (102 & 103) SUBTOTAL 49,508$ 49,508$ Attachment A, Exhibit 2: Page 6 ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 2 Department Adjustment Adjustment CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (471) Capital Capital Improvement Project Reappropriations This action reflects the combined impact from adjustments to projects as outlined in Attachment A, Exhibit 3. -$ 15,423,300$ Planning and Community Environment Planning and Community Environment Staffing Reorganization Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 15, 2019, this action recommends staffing adjustments to complete the merger of the former Development Services Department (DSD) with the Planning and Community Environment Department. This reorganization results in a net addition of 2.0 full time positions in FY 2020; however, only 1.0 of those positions is ongoing and the other is partially offset by the elimination of part-time staffing equivalent of 1.46 FTE. In the Capital Improvement Fund, this reorganization results in the reduction of 0.35 FTE and savings of approximately $63,000. -$ (62,674)$ Fund Balance Adjustment to Fund Balance (Infrastructure Reserve) This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments recommended in this report. -$ (15,360,626)$ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (471) SUBTOTAL -$ -$ CUBBERLEY INFRASTRUCTURE FUND (472) Capital Capital Improvement Project Reappropriations This action reflects the combined impact from adjustments to projects as outlined in Attachment A, Exhibit 3. -$ 309,800$ Fund Balance Adjustment to Fund Balance (Infrastructure Reserve) This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments recommended in this report. -$ (309,800)$ CUBBERLEY INFRASTRUCTURE FUND (472) SUBTOTAL -$ -$ CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2020 PROPOSED BUDGET Revenues Expenses Attachment A, Exhibit 2: Page 7 ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 2 Department Adjustment Adjustment ENTERPRISE FUNDS ELECTRIC FUND (513 & 523) Capital Capital Improvement Project Reappropriations This action reflects the combined impact from adjustments to projects as outlined in Attachment A, Exhibit 3. -$ 3,281,100$ Utilities Transfer to the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 15, 2019, in order to support increased Transportation Management Authority (TMA) funding, an increase to the cost of parking permits is recommended in the University Avenue Fund. This action increases the transfer to the University Avenue Fund by the marginal costs associated with the increase in permit costs for City staff. 1,797$ Utilities Adjustment to Fund Balance This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments recommended in this report. -$ (3,282,897)$ ELECTRIC FUND (513 & 523) SUBTOTAL -$ -$ FIBER OPTICS FUND (533) Utilities Transfer to the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 15, 2019, in order to support increased Transportation Management Authority (TMA) funding, an increase to the cost of parking permits is recommended in the University Avenue Fund. This action increases the transfer to the University Avenue Fund by the marginal costs associated with the increase in permit costs for City staff. 114$ Utilities Adjustment to Fund Balance This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments recommended in this report. -$ (114)$ FIBER OPTICS FUND (533) SUBTOTAL -$ -$ CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2020 PROPOSED BUDGET Revenues Expenses Attachment A, Exhibit 2: Page 8 ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 2 Department Adjustment Adjustment ENTERPRISE FUNDS CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2020 PROPOSED BUDGET Revenues Expenses GAS FUND (514 & 524) Capital Capital Improvement Project Reappropriations This action reflects the combined impact from adjustments to projects as outlined in Attachment A, Exhibit 3. -$ (400,000)$ Utilities Transfer to the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 15, 2019, in order to support increased Transportation Management Authority (TMA) funding, an increase to the cost of parking permits is recommended in the University Avenue Fund. This action increases the transfer to the University Avenue Fund by the marginal costs associated with the increase in permit costs for City staff. 863$ Utilities Adjustment to Fund Balance This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments recommended in this report. -$ 399,137$ GAS FUND (514 & 524) SUBTOTAL -$ -$ WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND (527) Capital Capital Improvement Project Reappropriations This action reflects the combined impact from adjustments to projects as outlined in Attachment A, Exhibit 3. -$ 292,750$ Utilities Transfer to the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 15, 2019, in order to support increased Transportation Management Authority (TMA) funding, an increase to the cost of parking permits is recommended in the University Avenue Fund. This action increases the transfer to the University Avenue Fund by the marginal costs associated with the increase in permit costs for City staff. 476$ Utilities Adjustment to Fund Balance This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments recommended in this report. -$ (293,226)$ WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND (527) SUBTOTAL -$ -$ Attachment A, Exhibit 2: Page 9 ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 2 Department Adjustment Adjustment ENTERPRISE FUNDS CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2020 PROPOSED BUDGET Revenues Expenses WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND (526) Capital Capital Improvement Project Reappropriations This action reflects the combined impact from adjustments to projects as outlined in Attachment A, Exhibit 3. -$ (154,700)$ Public Works Adjustment to Fund Balance This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments recommended in this report. -$ 154,700$ WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND (526) SUBTOTAL -$ -$ WATER FUND (522) Capital Capital Improvement Project Reappropriations This action reflects the combined impact from adjustments to projects as outlined in Attachment A, Exhibit 3. -$ 1,027,500$ Utilities Transfer to the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 15, 2019, in order to support increased Transportation Management Authority (TMA) funding, an increase to the cost of parking permits is recommended in the University Avenue Fund. This action increases the transfer to the University Avenue Fund by the marginal costs associated with the increase in permit costs for City staff. 750$ Utilities Adjustment to Fund Balance This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments recommended in this report. -$ (1,028,250)$ WATER FUND (522) SUBTOTAL -$ -$ Attachment A, Exhibit 2: Page 10 ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 2 Department Adjustment Adjustment INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS TECHNOLOGY FUND (682) Capital Capital Improvement Project Reappropriations This action reflects the combined impact from adjustments to projects as outlined in Attachment A, Exhibit 3. -$ (201,100)$ Information Technology Professional Services Funding/Charges to Other Funds Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 28, 2019, this action increases funding by $100,000 for professional services investments through consultant support for technology projects. The cost of these services are budgeted as allocated charges in General Fund departments; therefore, corresponding increases in various departments' allocated charges for internal services provided by the Information Technology Department are also recommended to offset this expense. 100,000$ 100,000$ Information Technology Human Resources Technology Investments/Charges to Other Funds Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 28, 2019, this action increases funding by $30,000 for technology investments in the Human Resources Department to automate performance evaluations. The cost of the internal services provided by the Information Technology Department are budgeted as allocated charges in General Fund departments; therefore, a corresponding increase in the Human Resource Department's allocated charges for these services is also recommended in this report. An offsetting transaction in the Budget Uncertainty Reserve (City Council) is recommended to fund this action in FY 2020. In future budget cycles, these costs will be allocated to the various departments that utilize these services. 30,000$ 30,000$ Information Technology Transfer to the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 15, 2019, this action increases the transfer from the Technology Fund to the University Avenue Fund. In order to support increased Transportation Management Authority (TMA) funding, an increase to the cost of parking permits is recommended in the University Avenue Fund. Employee parking permit prices are recommended to increase from $750 to $806 per year, and this action represents the marginal cost increase to the Technology Fund associated with the increase in parking permit costs for City staff. -$ 2,000$ Fund Balance Adjustment to Fund Balance This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments recommended in this report. -$ 199,100$ TECHNOLOGY FUND (682) SUBTOTAL 130,000$ 130,000$ CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2020 PROPOSED BUDGET Revenues Expenses Attachment A, Exhibit 2: Page 11 ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 2 Department Adjustment Adjustment INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2020 PROPOSED BUDGET Revenues Expenses VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND (681) Capital Capital Improvement Project Reappropriations This action reflects the combined impact from adjustments to projects as outlined in Attachment A, Exhibit 3. -$ (797,600)$ Fund Balance Adjustment to Fund Balance This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments recommended in this report. -$ 797,600$ VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND (681) SUBTOTAL -$ -$ Attachment A, Exhibit 2: Page 12 ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 2 Department Adjustment Adjustment SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (BID) FUND (220) Non- Departmental Transfer from the General Fund/BID Assessment Collection Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 28, 2019, this action increases the transfer from the General Fund to the Business Improvement District (BID) Fund to appropriate funding for collection services. As part of the development of the FY Proposed 2020 Budget, funding for collection services was anticipated to be absorbed in the General Fund. This action ensures that the expenditure is appropriately budgeted and displayed in the BID Fund. 17,000$ 17,000$ BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (BID) FUND (220) SUBTOTAL 17,000$ 17,000$ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUND (232) Planning & Community Environment FY 2020 CDBG Grant Funding/Program Allocation Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 28, 2019, this action increases revenue and expense estimates to align with final 2019-2020 CDBG allocations. At the timing of the development of the FY 2020 Proposed Budget, the CDBG federal appropriations for Fiscal Year 2019-2020 had not yet been confirmed. For budgeting purposes, staff included estimates for the HUD Entitlement Grant for FY 2020. This action will add $63,533 to revenue and expense appropriations to align the budget with the final CDBG allocation ($724,578) as approved by the City Council on May 6, 2019 (CMR 10192). 63,533$ 63,533$ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUND (232) SUBTOTAL 63,533$ 63,533$ CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2020 PROPOSED BUDGET Revenues Expenses Attachment A, Exhibit 2: Page 13 ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 2 Department Adjustment Adjustment SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2020 PROPOSED BUDGET Revenues Expenses UNIVERSITY AVENUE PARKING PERMITS FUND (236) Office of Transportation Parking Permit Revenue Alignment Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 15th, 2019, to support increased Transportation Management Authority (TMA) funding, an increase to the cost of parking permits is recommended in the University Avenue Fund. Employee parking permit prices are recommended to increase from $750 to $806 per year, and this action increases the revenue estimate for parking permit sales in FY 2020. 155,000$ -$ Office of Transportation Transfer from the General Fund Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 15, 2019, this action increases the transfer from the General Fund to the University Avenue Fund. In order to support increased Transportation Management Authority (TMA) funding, an increase to the cost of parking permits is recommended in the University Avenue Fund. Employee parking permit prices are recommended to increase from $750 to $806 per year, and this action represents the marginal cost increase to the General Fund associated with the increase in parking permit costs for City staff. 21,000$ -$ Office of Transportation Transfer from the Utilities Funds Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 15, 2019, this action increases the transfer from the Utilities Funds to the University Avenue Fund. In order to support increased Transportation Management Authority (TMA) funding, an increase to the cost of parking permits is recommended in the University Avenue Fund. Employee parking permit prices are recommended to increase from $750 to $806 per year, and this action represents the marginal cost increase to the Utilities Funds associated with the increase in parking permit costs for City staff. 4,000$ -$ Office of Transportation Transfer from the Technology Fund Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 15, 2019, this action increases the transfer from the Technology Fund to the University Avenue Fund. In order to support increased Transportation Management Authority (TMA) funding, an increase to the cost of parking permits is recommended in the University Avenue Fund. Employee parking permit prices are recommended to increase from $750 to $806 per year, and this action represents the marginal cost increase to the Technology Fund associated with the increase in parking permit costs for City staff. 2,000$ -$ Attachment A, Exhibit 2: Page 14 ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 2 Department Adjustment Adjustment SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2020 PROPOSED BUDGET Revenues Expenses Office of Transportation Transportation Management Authority (TMA) Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 15, 2019, this action increases funding for the TMA from $480,000 to $660,000 in FY 2020 to further reduce single occupancy vehicle (SOV) rates as presented by the TMA to the Finance Committee on April 16, 2019 (CMR 10198). This action is funded through recommended increases in parking permit rates, thereby minimizing the General Fund subsidy for this activity. -$ 180,000$ Planning and Community Environment Planning and Community Environment Staffing Reorganization Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 15, 2019, this action recommends staffing adjustments to complete the merger of the former Development Services Department (DSD) with the Planning and Community Environment Department. This reorganization results in a net addition of 2.0 full time positions in FY 2020; however, only 1.0 of those positions is ongoing and the other is partially offset by the elimination of part-time staffing equivalent of 1.46 FTE. In the University Avenue Fund, this reorganization results in the reduction of 0.05 FTE and savings of approximately $6,000. -$ (5,681)$ Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance This action adjusts the fund balance to offset the actions recommended in this report. 7,681$ UNIVERSITY AVENUE PARKING PERMITS FUND (236) SUBTOTAL 182,000$ 182,000$ CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING PERMITS FUND (237) Office of Transportation Parking Permit Revenue Alignment Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 15th, 2019, a recommendation to fund additional Transportation Management Authority (TMA) expenses through parking permit increases in University Avenue is outlined in more detail above. In order to align prices with Downtown and California Avenue garages and remove incentive for permit holders to park in residential areas, this action increases parking permits in California Avenue by the same 7.5%, from $375 to $403 per year and increases the revenue estimate for parking permit sales 21,000$ -$ Attachment A, Exhibit 2: Page 15 ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 2 Department Adjustment Adjustment SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2020 PROPOSED BUDGET Revenues Expenses Planning and Community Environment Planning and Community Environment Staffing Reorganization Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 15, 2019, this action recommends staffing adjustments to complete the merger of the former Development Services Department (DSD) with the Planning and Community Environment Department. This reorganization results in a net addition of 2.0 full time positions in FY 2020; however, only 1.0 of those positions is ongoing and the other is partially offset by the elimination of part-time staffing equivalent of 1.46 FTE. In the California Avenue Fund, this reorganization results in the reduction of 0.05 FTE and savings of approximately $6,000. -$ (5,681)$ Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance This action adjusts the fund balance to offset the actions recommended in this report. -$ 26,681$ CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING PERMITS FUND (237) SUBTOTAL 21,000$ 21,000$ RESIDENT PARKING PERMITS (RPP) FUND (239) Office of Transportation Parking Permit Revenue Alignment Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 15th, 2019, this action increases the revenue estimate for parking permit sales. A recommendation to fund additional Transportation Management Authority (TMA) expenses through parking permit increases in University Avenue is outlined in more detail above. In order to align prices with Downtown and California Avenue garages and remove incentive for permit holders to park in residential areas, this action increases parking permits in the Downtown district from $750 to $806 and in the Evergreen Park/Mayfield and Southgate districts from $375 to $403, the same 7.5% increase as University Avenue. 37,000$ -$ Attachment A, Exhibit 2: Page 16 ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 2 Department Adjustment Adjustment SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2020 PROPOSED BUDGET Revenues Expenses Office of Transportation Operating Subsidy Transfer from General Fund Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 15, 2019, this action reduces the operating deficit transfer from the General Fund to the RPP Fund from $720,000 to $683,000 as a result of increases to parking permit fees. Employee Parking Permit fees in the University Avenue Fund are recommended to increase in order to support additional funding to the Transportation Management Authority (TMA). In order to align parking permit prices across the City and remove incentive for permit holders to park in residential areas, additional actions are recommended to increase parking permit rates in parking funds across the City. The additional revenues resulting from parking permit increases in the RPP Fund are recommended to partially offset a transfer from the General Fund to cover an operating deficit in the RPP Fund in FY 2020. (37,000)$ -$ Planning and Community Environment Planning and Community Environment Staffing Reorganization Consistent with the Finance Committee recommendation approved on May 15, 2019, this action recommends staffing adjustments to complete the merger of the former Development Services Department (DSD) with the Planning and Community Environment Department. This reorganization results in a net addition of 2.0 full time positions in FY 2020; however, only 1.0 of those positions is ongoing and the other is partially offset by the elimination of part-time staffing equivalent of 1.46 FTE. In the RPP Fund, this reorganization results in the reduction of 0.15 FTE and savings of approximately $17,000. -$ (17,043)$ Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance This action adjusts the fund balance to offset the actions recommended in this report. -$ 17,043$ RESIDENT PARKING PERMITS (RPP) FUND (239) SUBTOTAL -$ -$ Attachment A, Exhibit 2: Page 17 ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 3 FY 2020 Funding: Project Project Proposed Capital FY 2020 Funding FY 2020 Revised Number Title Budget Document Adjustment Funding AC-18001 JMZ Renovation $ 703,860 $ 1,071,300 $ 1,775,160 OS-00001 Open Space Trails and Amenities $ 207,000 $ 41,000 $ 248,000 OS-09001 Off-Road Pathway Resurfacing and Repair $ 467,000 $ (12,000) $ 455,000 PD-14000 Internal Alarm System Replacement $ - $ 26,800 $ 26,800 PE-11011 Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass $ 250,000 $ 11,000,000 $ 11,250,000 PE-13014 Street Lights Condition Assessment $ 24,078 $ 200,000 $ 224,078 PE-17010 Civic Center Electrical Upgrade & EV Charger Installation $ 782,248 $ (35,300) $ 746,948 PE-18000 New California Avenue Area Parking Garage $ 1,080,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,280,000 PE-18002 High Street Parking Garage Waterproofing Study $ - $ 130,000 $ 130,000 PE-19001 Water, Gas, Wastewater Office Remodel $ 685,000 $ 70,000 $ 755,000 PE-19002 Animal Shelter Renovation $ 2,428,100 $ 500,000 $ 2,928,100 PE-86070 Street Maintenance $ 8,721,243 $ 1,143,000 $ 9,864,243 PF-00006 Roofing Replacement $ 616,914 $ 59,000 $ 675,914 PF-01003 Building Systems Improvements $ 435,991 $ (16,000) $ 419,991 PF-02022 Facility Interior Finishes Replacement $ 1,138,556 $ 38,300 $ 1,176,856 PF-14002 Fire Station 1 Improvements $ - $ 45,000 $ 45,000 PF-14003 University Avenue Parking Improvements $ 359,000 $ (343,000) $ 16,000 PL-00026 Safe Routes to School $ 104,000 $ 110,200 $ 214,200 PL-05030 Traffic Signal and Intelligent Transportation System $ 1,566,000 $ 790,500 $ 2,356,500 PL-12000 Transportation and Parking Improvements $ 231,000 $ 106,000 $ 337,000 PL-14000 Churchill Avenue Enhanced Bikeway $ 2,875,000 $ 200,000 $ 3,075,000 PL-15002 Downtown Automated Parking Guidance Systems, Access Controls, and Revenue Collection $ 1,130,000 $ 59,000 $ 1,189,000 PL-18000 El Camino Real Pedestrian Safety and Streetscape Project $ 770,000 $ 53,000 $ 823,000 PO-11000 Sign Reflectivity Upgrade $ 241,863 $ (52,400) $ 189,463 PO-11001 Thermoplastic Lane Marking and Striping $ 192,555 $ 38,900 $ 231,455 TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND PROJECT ADJUSTMENTS $ 25,009,408 $ 15,423,300 $ 40,432,708 CB-16002 Cubberley Roof Replacement $ 466,700 $ 121,000 $ 587,700 CB-17001 Cubberley Repairs $ 678,162 $ 96,000 $ 774,162 CB-17002 Cubberley Field Restrooms $ - $ 97,500 $ 97,500 CB-19000 Cubberley Track and Field Replacement $ 1,887,000 $ (4,700) $ 1,882,300 $ 3,031,862 $ 309,800 $ 3,341,662 CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2020 PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND CUBBERLEY INFRASTRUCTURE FUND TOTAL CUBBERLEY INFRASTRUCTURE FUND PROJECT ADJUSTMENTS Attachment A, Exhibit 3: Page 1 ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 3 FY 2020 Funding: Project Project Proposed Capital FY 2020 Funding FY 2020 Revised Number Title Budget Document Adjustment Funding CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2020 PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EL-02010 SCADA System Upgrades $ 215,000 $ 50,000 $ 265,000 EL-02011 Electric Utility Geographic Information System $ 165,000 $ 162,700 $ 327,700 EL-04012 Utility Site Security Improvements $ 50,000 $ 83,500 $ 133,500 EL-06001 230 kV Electric Intertie $ 162,481 $ 15,000 $ 177,481 EL-11003 Rebuild Underground District 15 $ 419,609 $ 40,000 $ 459,609 EL-11010 Underground District 47-Middlefield, Homer, Webster, Addison $ 434,622 $ 40,000 $ 474,622 EL-11014 Smart Grid Technology Installation $ 300,000 $ 586,000 $ 886,000 EL-12001 Underground District 46 - Charleston/El Camino Real $ 566,191 $ 50,000 $ 616,191 EL-13003 Rebuild Underground District 16 $ 340,667 $ 47,000 $ 387,667 EL-14000 Coleridge/Cowper/Tennyson 4/12Kv Conversion $ 1,280,000 $ (350,000) $ 930,000 EL-14002 Rebuild Underground District 20 $ 1,400,000 $ 130,000 $ 1,530,000 EL-16000 Rebuild Underground District 26 $ 650,000 $ 149,000 $ 799,000 EL-16002 Capacitor Bank Installation $ 29,111 $ 151,300 $ 180,411 EL-16003 Substation Security $ 715,118 $ (146,000) $ 569,118 EL-17000 Rebuild Underground District 23 $ 164,000 $ 50,000 $ 214,000 EL-17002 Substation 60kV Breaker Replacement $ 600,000 $ 120,000 $ 720,000 EL-17005 HCB Pilot Wire Relay Replacement $ 162,501 $ (37,000) $ 125,501 EL-17007 Facility Relocation for Caltrain Modernization Project $ 2,869,701 $ 1,180,000 $ 4,049,701 EL-19000 Rebuild Underground District 25 $ 200,000 $ 40,000 $ 240,000 EL-19001 Colorado Power Station Equipment Upgrade $ - $ 600,000 $ 600,000 EL-19003 Rebuild Underground District 30 $ 356,000 $ 50,000 $ 406,000 EL-89038 Substation Protection Improvements $ 300,000 $ 93,000 $ 393,000 EL-89044 Substation Facility Improvements $ 200,000 $ 176,600 $ 376,600 TOTAL ELECTRIC FUND PROJECT ADJUSTMENTS $ 11,580,001 $ 3,281,100 $ 14,861,101 GS-18000 Gas ABS/Tenite Replacement Project $ 700,000 $ (400,000) $ 300,000 TOTAL GAS FUND PROJECT ADJUSTMENTS $ 700,000 $ (400,000) $ 300,000 TE-01012 IT Disaster Recovery Plan $ 74,700 $ 8,900 $ 83,600 TE-05000 Radio Infrastructure Replacement $ 537,300 $ (182,400) $ 354,900 TE-19000 Enterprise Resource Planning Upgrade $ 4,700,000 $ (27,600) $ 4,672,400 $ 5,312,000 $ (201,100) $ 5,110,900 ELECTRIC FUND GAS FUND TECHNOLOGY FUND TOTAL TECHNOLOGY FUND PROJECT ADJUSTMENTS Attachment A, Exhibit 3: Page 2 ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 3 FY 2020 Funding: Project Project Proposed Capital FY 2020 Funding FY 2020 Revised Number Title Budget Document Adjustment Funding CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2020 PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM VR-17000 Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacement - Fiscal Year 2017 $ 282,977 $ (33,000) $ 249,977 VR-18000 Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacement - Fiscal Year 2018 $ 973,144 $ 130,400 $ 1,103,544 VR-19000 Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacement - Fiscal Year 2019 $ 2,644,721 $ (895,000) $ 1,749,721 $ 3,900,842 $ (797,600) $ 3,103,242 WC-11000 Wastewater Collection System Rehabilitation/Augmentation Project 24 $ - $ 34,850 $ 34,850 WC-13001 Wastewater Collection System Rehabilitation/Augmentation Project 26 $ - $ 46,400 $ 46,400 WC-16001 Wastewater Collection System Rehabilitation/Augmentation Project 29 $ 4,428,339 $ 40,000 $ 4,468,339 WC-99013 Sewer Lateral/Manhole Rehab/Replacement $ 750,000 $ 171,500 $ 921,500 $ 5,178,339 $ 292,750 $ 5,471,089 WQ-19001 Secondary Treatment Upgrades $ 807,500 $ 38,300 $ 845,800 WQ-19002 Plant Repair, Retrofit, and Equipment Replacement $ 5,144,019 $ (193,000) $ 4,951,019 $ 5,951,519 $ (154,700) $ 5,796,819 WS-08001 Water Reservoir Coating Improvements $ 213,032 $ (157,500) $ 55,532 WS-09000 Water Tank Seismic Water System Improvements $ 4,068,532 $ 800,000 $ 4,868,532 WS-12001 Water Main Replacement - Project 26 $ - $ 200,000 $ 200,000 WS-19000 Mayfield Reservoir Subgrade and Venting Repair $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 400,000 WS-80015 Water Meters $ 1,340,000 $ (15,000) $ 1,325,000 $ 5,821,564 $ 1,027,500 $ 6,849,064 $ 66,485,535 $ 18,781,050 $ 85,266,585 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND TOTAL VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND PROJECT ADJUSTMENTS TOTAL WATER FUND PROJECT ADJUSTMENTS TOTAL ALL FUNDS WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND TOTAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND PROJECT ADJUSTMENTS WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND TOTAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND PROJECT ADJUSTMENTS WATER FUND Attachment A, Exhibit 3: Page 3 Table of Organization FY 2017 Actuals FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Adopted Budget FY 2020 Proposed Budget FY 2020 Change FTE FY 2020 Change % General Fund Administrative Services Account Specialist 5.88 4.88 4.63 4.63 0.00 0.00% Account Specialist-Lead 4.05 3.05 3.45 3.45 0.00 0.00% Accountant 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00% Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Administrative Associate II 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Assistant Director Administrative Services 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 0.00 0.00% Buyer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Chief Procurement Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Contracts Administrator 1.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 0.00 0.00% Director Administrative Services/CFO 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.00% Director Office of Management and Budget 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 100.00% Manager Accounting 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Manager Budget 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Manager Real Property 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Manager Revenue Collections 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.00 0.00% Manager Treasury, Debt & Investments 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00% Manager, Finance 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Payroll Analyst 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Principal Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Accountant 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Buyer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Management Analyst 4.90 4.90 2.30 2.30 0.00 0.00% Storekeeper 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Storekeeper-Lead 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00% Warehouse Supervisor 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00% Total Administrative Services 38.60 38.60 38.15 39.15 1.00 2.62% City Attorney Assistant City Attorney 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00% Chief Assistant City Attorney 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Claims Investigator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Deputy City Attorney 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Legal Fellow 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 4 Attachment A, Exhibit 4: Page 1 Principal Attorney 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Secretary to City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Assistant City Attorney 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Deputy City Attorney 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Legal Secretary 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Total City Attorney 11.00 11.00 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.00% City Auditor Administrative Assistant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% City Auditor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Performance Auditor I 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)% Performance Auditor II 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Performance Auditor 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Total City Auditor 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 -1.00 (20.00)% City Clerk Administrative Associate III 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Assistant City Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% City Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Deputy City Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Hearing Officer 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total City Clerk 5.75 5.75 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00% City Manager Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 100.00% Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)% Assistant City Manager 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00% Assistant City Manager/Utilities General Manager 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 -0.25 (100.00)% Assistant to the City Manager 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Chief Communications Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Chief Sustainability Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00%) City Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Deputy City Manager 0.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 -1.00 (50.00)% Executive Assistant to the City Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.00% Manager Communications 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Manager Economic Development 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total City Manager 10.00 11.25 12.00 10.75 -1.25 (10.42)% Table of Organization FY 2017 Actuals FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Adopted Budget FY 2020 Proposed Budget FY 2020 Change FTE FY 2020 Change % ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 4 Attachment A, Exhibit 4: Page 2 • Community Services Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Assistant Director Community Services 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Building Serviceperson 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.25 -0.75 (37.50)% Building Serviceperson-Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.60 -1.40 (70.00)% Coordinator Recreation Programs 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 33.33% Director Community Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Division Manager Open Space, Parks and Golf 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Heavy Equipment Operator 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.00% Inspector, Field Services 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Junior Museum & Zoo Educator 2.75 3.60 3.60 3.60 0.00 0.00% Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Management Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Manager Community Services 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00% Manager Community Services Senior Program 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00% Manager Human Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Park Maintenance Person 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00% Park Maintenance-Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Park Ranger 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00% Parks/Golf Crew-Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Producer Arts/Science Program 12.50 11.00 11.00 11.00 0.00 0.00% Program Assistant I 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 0.00 0.00% Program Assistant II 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 -1.00 (25.00)% Project Manager 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00% Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Sprinkler System Representative 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00% Superintendent Community Services 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Superintendent Recreation 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Theater Specialist 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Volunteer Coordinator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total Community Services 78.42 78.77 77.77 75.62 -2.15 (2.76)% Development Services1 Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)% Administrative Associate II 3.00 3.00 2.80 0.00 -2.80 (100.00)% Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)% Table of Organization FY 2017 Actuals FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Adopted Budget FY 2020 Proposed Budget FY 2020 Change FTE FY 2020 Change % ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 4 Attachment A, Exhibit 4: Page 3 Assistant Chief Building Official 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)% Associate Engineer 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 -0.02 (100.00)% Associate Planner 0.90 0.90 1.02 0.00 -1.02 (100.00)% Building Inspector Specialist 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 -4.00 (100.00)% Building/Planning Technician 2.30 2.30 2.30 0.00 -2.30 (100.00)% Chief Building Official 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)% Chief Planning Official 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 -0.01 (100.00)% Code Enforcement Officer 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.00 -0.40 (100.00)% Code Enforcement-Lead 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 -0.20 (100.00)% Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00 -0.80 (100.00)% Development Project Coordinator II 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 -2.00 (100.00)% Development Project Coordinator III 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 -3.00 (100.00)% Development Services Director 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)% Engineer 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.00 -0.64 (100.00)% Engineering Technician III 1.78 1.78 1.78 0.00 -1.78 (100.00)% Fire Inspector 3.20 3.20 3.20 0.00 -3.20 (100.00)% Hazardous Materials Inspector 1.60 1.60 1.60 0.00 -1.60 (100.00)% Industrial Waste Inspector 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 -0.01 (100.00)% Industrial Waste Investigator 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.00 -0.35 (100.00)% Inspector, Field Services 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.00 -0.68 (100.00)% Landscape Architect Park Planner 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 -0.50 (100.00)% Management Analyst 1.01 1.01 1.01 0.00 -1.01 (100.00)% Manager Development Center 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)% Manager Environmental Control Program 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 -0.10 (100.00)% Manager Planning 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 -2.00 (100.00)% Manager Urban Forestry 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 -0.04 (100.00)% Manager Watershed Protection 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Planner 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.00 -0.15 (100.00)% Planning Arborist 0.25 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Principal Planner 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 -0.01 (100.00)% Project Engineer 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 -0.03 (100.00)% Project Manager 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Engineer 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.00 -0.46 (100.00)% Senior Industrial Waste Investigator 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 -0.01 (100.00)% Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)% Senior Planner 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.00 -0.12 (100.00)% Supervisor Inspection and Surveying 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.00 -0.27 (100.00)% Total Development Services 36.53 36.50 36.51 0.00 -36.51 (100.00)% Table of Organization FY 2017 Actuals FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Adopted Budget FY 2020 Proposed Budget FY 2020 Change FTE FY 2020 Change % ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 4 Attachment A, Exhibit 4: Page 4 Fire 40-Hour Training Battalion Chief 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% 40-Hour Training Captain 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Administrative Associate II 2.00 2.00 2.20 2.20 0.00 0.00% Battalion Chief 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00% Business Analyst 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.00% Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00% Deputy Director Technical Services Division 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00% Deputy Fire Chief 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Emergency Medical Service Director 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Emergency Medical Services Data Specialist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Fire Apparatus Operator 30.00 30.00 26.00 26.00 0.00 0.00% Fire Captain 21.00 21.00 21.00 21.00 0.00 0.00% Fire Chief 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Fire Fighter 41.00 41.00 34.00 34.00 0.00 0.00% Fire Inspector 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.00% Geographic Information System Specialist 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00% Hazardous Materials Inspector 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00% Police Chief 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Technologist 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total Fire 108.65 108.65 97.85 97.85 0.00 0.00% Human Resources Administrative Assistant 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Assistant Director Human Resources 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Director Human Resources/CPO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Human Resources Representative 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00% Human Resources Technician 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00% Manager Employee Benefits 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Manager Employee Relations 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Human Resources Administrator 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Management Analyst 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Total Human Resources 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 0.00 0.00% Table of Organization FY 2017 Actuals FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Adopted Budget FY 2020 Proposed Budget FY 2020 Change FTE FY 2020 Change % ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 4 Attachment A, Exhibit 4: Page 5 Library Administrative Assistant 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Administrative Associate III 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Assistant Director Library Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Business Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Coordinator Library Programs 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Director Libraries 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Division Head Library Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Librarian 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 -1.00 (14.29)% Library Assistant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Library Associate 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00 0.00% Library Specialist 12.50 12.50 11.50 11.50 0.00 0.00% Management Analyst 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Management Assistant 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Manager Library Services 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 -1.00 (25.00)% Senior Librarian 9.00 9.00 9.00 8.00 -1.00 (11.11)% Supervising Librarian 2.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 100.00% Total Library 48.50 48.50 47.50 46.50 -1.00 (2.11)% Office of Emergency Services Director Office of Emergency Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Office of Emergency Services Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Program Assistant 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Program Assistant II 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Total Office of Emergency Services 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00% Office of Transportation2 Administrative Assistant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00% Associate Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00% Associate Planner 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00% Chief Transportation Official 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.00% Coordinator Transportation Systems Management 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 1.25 0.00% Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00% Project Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 0.00% Senior Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00% Senior Planner 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00% Traffic Engineering-Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.00% Transportation Planning Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.15 1.15 0.00% Total Office of Transportation 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.20 6.20 0.00% Table of Organization FY 2017 Actuals FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Adopted Budget FY 2020 Proposed Budget FY 2020 Change FTE FY 2020 Change % ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 4 Attachment A, Exhibit 4: Page 6 Planning and Community Environment 1,2 Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Administrative Associate I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Administrative Associate II 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.80 2.80 0.00% Administrative Associate III 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 33.33% Assistant Chief Building Official 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00% Assistant Director PCE 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Assistant Director Public Works 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Associate Engineer 1.00 0.73 0.65 0.22 -0.43 (66.15)% Associate Planner 0.10 0.10 2.25 3.15 0.90 40.00% Building Inspector Specialist 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 4.00 0.00% Building/Planning Technician 0.70 0.70 0.70 3.00 2.30 328.57% Business Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)% Chief Building Official 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00% Chief Planning Official 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.01 1.01% Chief Transportation Official 0.70 0.43 0.64 0.00 -0.64 (100.00)% Code Enforcement Officer 1.60 1.60 1.60 2.00 0.40 25.00% Code Enforcement-Lead 0.80 0.80 0.80 1.00 0.20 25.00% Coordinator Transportation Systems Management 0.60 0.88 0.74 0.00 -0.74 (100.00)% Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.80 0.00% Development Project Coordinator II 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00% Development Project Coordinator III 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 0.00% Development Services Director 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Director Planning/Community Environment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.64 0.00% Engineering Technician III 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.78 1.78 0.00% Fire Fighter 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Fire Inspector 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.20 3.20 0.00% Hazardous Materials Inspector 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.60 1.60 0.00% Industrial Waste Inspector 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00% Industrial Waste Investigator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.00% Inspector, Field Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00% Landscape Architect Park Planner 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00% Management Analyst 0.88 0.98 0.80 0.01 -0.79 (98.75)% Manager Development Center 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Manager Environmental Control Program 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00% Manager Planning 2.00 2.00 1.00 5.00 4.00 200.00% Table of Organization FY 2017 Actuals FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Adopted Budget FY 2020 Proposed Budget FY 2020 Change FTE FY 2020 Change % ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 4 Attachment A, Exhibit 4: Page 7 Manager Urban Forestry 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00% Parking Operations-Lead 0.20 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.10 (100.00)% Planner 3.83 3.83 3.85 4.00 0.15 3.90% Planning Arborist 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Planning Division Manager 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)% Principal Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00% Principal Planner 0.00 0.00 0.99 2.00 1.01 102.02% Program Assistant 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00% Program Assistant II 0.35 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Project Engineer 1.15 0.50 0.80 0.13 -0.67 (83.75)% Senior Business Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00% Senior Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.46 0.00% Senior Industrial Waste Investigator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00% Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 0.88 2.00 1.12 127.27% Senior Planner 6.70 6.51 3.76 3.60 -0.16 (4.26)% Supervisor Inspection and Surveying 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00% Traffic Engineering-Lead 0.10 0.38 0.65 0.10 -0.55 (84.62)% Transportation Planning Manager 0.85 0.20 0.41 0.00 -0.41 (100.00)% Total Planning and Community Environment 31.56 30.24 30.20 62.45 32.25 106.79% Police Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Administrative Associate II 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00% Animal Control Officer 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00% Animal Control Officer-Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Animal Services Specialist II 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 -2.00 (100.00)% Assistant Police Chief 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Business Analyst 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.00% Code Enforcement Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Communications Manager 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Communications Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Community Service Officer 8.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 0.00 0.00% Court Liaison Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Crime Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Deputy Director Technical Services Division 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.00% Geographic Information System Specialist 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00% Police Agent 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 0.00 0.00% Police Captain 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Table of Organization FY 2017 Actuals FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Adopted Budget FY 2020 Proposed Budget FY 2020 Change FTE FY 2020 Change % ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 4 Attachment A, Exhibit 4: Page 8 Police Chief 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Police Lieutenant 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00% Police Officer 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 0.00% Police Records Specialist II 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00% Police Records Specialist-Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Police Sergeant 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 0.00 0.00% Program Assistant II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Property Evidence Technician 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Public Safety Communications Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Public Safety Dispatcher 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 0.00 0.00% Public Safety Dispatcher-Lead 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00% Public Safety Program Manager 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Superintendent Animal Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)% Veterinarian 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)% Veterinarian Technician 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 -2.00 (100.00)% Total Police 155.00 155.00 155.00 149.00 -6.00 (3.87)% Public Works Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Administrative Associate I 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.10 -0.50 (83.33)% Administrative Associate II 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 0.00 0.00% Administrative Associate III 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00% Assistant Director Public Works 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.73 -0.14 (16.09)% Associate Engineer 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00 -0.30 (100.00)% Building Serviceperson 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Building Serviceperson-Lead 1.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Cement Finisher 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Cement Finisher-Lead 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.00% Coordinator Public Works Projects 0.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 0.00 0.00% Director Public Works/City Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Electrician 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.00% Engineer 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.36 -0.30 (45.45)% Engineering Technician III 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.47 0.00 0.00% Equipment Operator 3.46 3.46 2.46 2.46 0.00 0.00% Facilities Carpenter 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Facilities Maintenance-Lead 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 0.00 0.00% Facilities Painter 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 0.00 0.00% Facilities Technician 5.55 4.05 4.05 4.05 0.00 0.00% Table of Organization FY 2017 Actuals FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Adopted Budget FY 2020 Proposed Budget FY 2020 Change FTE FY 2020 Change % ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 4 Attachment A, Exhibit 4: Page 9 Heavy Equipment Operator 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 0.00 0.00% Heavy Equipment Operator-Lead 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.00 0.00% Inspector, Field Services 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00% Landscape Architect Park Planner 0.10 0.10 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00% Management Analyst 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.00% Manager Facilities 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.00% Manager Maintenance Operations 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.00% Manager Urban Forestry 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.00 0.00% Manager Watershed Protection 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00% Planning Arborist 0.75 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Project Engineer 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 -0.50 (100.00)% Project Manager 2.58 2.65 2.65 2.65 0.00 0.00% Senior Engineer 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.59 -0.20 (25.32)% Senior Management Analyst 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 0.00 0.00% Senior Project Manager 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 -0.10 (100.00)% Supervisor Inspection and Surveying 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00% Surveyor, Public Works 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00% Traffic Controller Maintainer I 1.94 1.94 1.94 1.94 0.00 0.00% Traffic Controller Maintainer II 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Tree Maintenance Person 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Tree Trim/Line Clear 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00 0.00% Tree Trim/Line Clear-Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Total Public Works 55.93 54.66 51.45 49.41 -2.04 (3.96)% Total General Fund 603.94 602.92 585.43 574.93 -10.50 (1.79)% Enterprise Fund Public Works Account Specialist 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00% Accountant 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00% Administrative Associate I 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00% Administrative Associate II 2.15 2.15 2.15 2.15 0.00 0.00% Administrative Associate III 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00% Assistant Director Public Works 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 0.00 0.00% Assistant Manager WQCP 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Associate Engineer 1.99 2.99 2.99 2.99 0.00 0.00% Chemist 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00% Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.00% Electrician 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00% Electrician-Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Table of Organization FY 2017 Actuals FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Adopted Budget FY 2020 Proposed Budget FY 2020 Change FTE FY 2020 Change % ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 4 Attachment A, Exhibit 4: Page 10 Engineer 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.00% Engineering Technician III 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00% Environmental Specialist 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Equipment Operator 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.00% Facilities Maintenance Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Facilities Technician 0.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 0.00 0.00% Hazardous Materials Inspector 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00% Heavy Equipment Operator 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.00% Heavy Equipment Operator-Lead 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 0.00 0.00% Industrial Waste Inspector 2.99 2.99 2.99 2.99 0.00 0.00% Industrial Waste Investigator 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 0.00 0.00% Laboratory Technician WQC 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00% Landfill Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Management Analyst 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 0.00 0.00% Manager Airport 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Manager Environmental Control Program 4.90 4.90 4.90 4.90 0.00 0.00% Manager Laboratory Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Manager Maintenance Operations 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 0.00 0.00% Manager Solid Waste 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Manager Water Quality Control Plant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Manager Watershed Protection 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.00 0.00% Plant Mechanic 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00 0.00% Program Assistant I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Program Assistant II 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Project Engineer 1.83 1.83 1.83 1.83 0.00 0.00% Project Manager 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 0.00 0.00% Senior Accountant 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00% Senior Buyer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Chemist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Engineer 3.76 3.76 3.76 3.76 0.00 0.00% Senior Industrial Waste Investigator 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.00% Senior Management Analyst 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.00% Senior Mechanic 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Operator WQC 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Technologist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Storekeeper 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Street Maintenance Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Street Sweeper Operator 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 0.00 0.00% Supervisor WQCP Operations 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00% Table of Organization FY 2017 Actuals FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Adopted Budget FY 2020 Proposed Budget FY 2020 Change FTE FY 2020 Change % ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 4 Attachment A, Exhibit 4: Page 11 Surveyor, Public Works 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.00% Technologist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Traffic Controller Maintainer I 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00% WQC Plant Operator II 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 0.00 0.00% Zero Waste Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Total Public Works 98.69 101.19 101.19 101.19 0.00 0.00% Utilities Account Specialist 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 0.00 0.00% Accountant 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00% Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Administrative Associate II 6.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 -1.00 (14.29)% Assistant City Manager/Utilities General Manager 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 -0.75 (100.00)% Assistant Director Administrative Services 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00% Assistant Director Utilities Customer Support Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Assistant Director Utilities Engineering 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Assistant Director Utilities Operations 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Assistant Director Utilities/Resource Management 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Business Analyst 7.00 7.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00% Cathodic Protection Technician Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Cathodic Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Cement Finisher 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Contracts Administrator 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.00% Coordinator Utilities Projects 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00% Customer Service Representative 6.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00 0.00% Customer Service Specialist 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Customer Service Specialist-Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00% Deputy City Attorney 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Director Administrative Services/CFO 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00% Director Utilities 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Electric Project Engineer 2.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 100.00% Electric Underground Inspector 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Electric Underground Inspector-Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Electrical Equipment Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Electrician Assistant I 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00% Table of Organization FY 2017 Actuals FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Adopted Budget FY 2020 Proposed Budget FY 2020 Change FTE FY 2020 Change % ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 4 Attachment A, Exhibit 4: Page 12 Engineer 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00% Engineering Manager - Electric 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Engineering Manager - WGW 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Engineering Technician III 5.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00% Equipment Operator 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Gas and Water Meter Measurement and Control Technician 0.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00% Gas and Water Meter Measurement and Control Technician - Lead 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Gas System Technician II 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Hazardous Materials Inspector 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00% Heavy Equipment Operator 6.70 6.70 6.70 6.70 0.00 0.00% Heavy Equipment Operator - Install/ Repair 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00% Industrial Waste Investigator 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00% Inspector, Field Services 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00% Lineperson/Cable Specialist 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 0.00 0.00% Lineperson/Cable Specialist-Lead 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00% Maintenance Mechanic-Welding 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Manager Communications 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Manager Customer Service 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Manager Electric Operations 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Manager Treasury, Debt & Investments 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00% Manager Utilities Compliance 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Manager Utilities Credit & Collection 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Manager Utilities Marketing Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Manager Utilities Operations WGW 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Manager Utilities Program Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Manager Utilities Strategic Business 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Manager Utilities Telecommunications 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Marketing Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Meter Reader 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00% Meter Reader-Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Metering Technician 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00% Metering Technician-Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Offset Equipment Operator 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.00% Overhead Underground Troubleman 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Planner 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Power Engineer 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 -2.00 (66.67)% Principal Business Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Table of Organization FY 2017 Actuals FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Adopted Budget FY 2020 Proposed Budget FY 2020 Change FTE FY 2020 Change % ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 4 Attachment A, Exhibit 4: Page 13 Program Assistant I 2.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 0.00 0.00% Program Assistant II 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00% Project Engineer 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00% Project Manager 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.00% Resource Planner 6.00 6.00 6.00 5.00 -1.00 (16.67)% Restoration Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% SCADA Technologist 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Accountant 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.00% Senior Business Analyst 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Deputy City Attorney 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Electrical Engineer 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Engineer 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Management Analyst 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.00% Senior Mechanic 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Performance Auditor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Resource Planner 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.50 0.50 8.33% Senior Utilities Field Service Representative 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Water Systems Operator 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Storekeeper 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Storekeeper-Lead 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.00% Street Light, Traffic Signal & Fiber Technician 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00% Street Light, Traffic Signal & Fiber Technician Apprentice 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Street Light, Traffic Signal & Fiber-Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Substation Electrician 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00% Substation Electrician-Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Supervising Electric Project Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Tree Maintenance Person 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Utilities Account Representative 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Utilities Chief Operating Officer 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Utilities Compliance Technician 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Utilities Compliance Technician-Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Utilities Credit/Collection Specialist 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Utilities Director 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00% Utilities Engineer Estimator 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00% Utilities Field Services Representative 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00% Utilities Install Repair-Lead-Welding Certified 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Table of Organization FY 2017 Actuals FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Adopted Budget FY 2020 Proposed Budget FY 2020 Change FTE FY 2020 Change % ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 4 Attachment A, Exhibit 4: Page 14 Utilities Install Repair-Welding Certified 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00% Utilities Install/Repair 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.00% Utilities Install/Repair Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Utilities Install/Repair-Lead 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00% Utilities Key Account Representative 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00% Utilities Locator 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00% Utilities Marketing Program Administrator 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 33.33% Utilities Safety Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Utilities Supervisor 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 0.00 0.00% Utilities System Operator 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00% Utility Engineering Estimator - Lead 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Warehouse Supervisor 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.00% Water System Operator I 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Water System Operator II 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00% Total Utilities 254.92 256.67 256.67 257.42 0.75 0.29% Total Enterprise Fund 353.61 357.86 357.86 358.61 0.75 0.21% Other Funds Capital Project Fund Administrative Assistant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00% Administrative Associate I 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.00% Administrative Associate III 0.89 0.89 1.09 0.89 -0.20 (18.35)% Assistant Director Public Works 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.72 0.14 24.14% Associate Engineer 2.69 2.96 3.04 2.49 -0.55 (18.09)% Associate Planner 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.30 -0.01 (3.23)% Building Serviceperson 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00% Building Serviceperson-Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.40 1.40 0.00% Cement Finisher-Lead 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.00% Chief Transportation Official 0.30 0.52 0.36 0.30 -0.06 (16.67)% Contracts Administrator 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00% Coordinator Public Works Projects 1.50 1.30 1.30 1.30 0.00 0.00% Coordinator Transportation Systems Management 0.90 0.62 0.76 0.75 -0.01 (1.32)% Engineer 2.80 2.80 2.80 3.10 0.30 10.71% Engineering Technician III 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00% Facilities Technician 0.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 0.00 0.00% Heavy Equipment Operator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Inspector, Field Services 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 0.00 0.00% Table of Organization FY 2017 Actuals FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Adopted Budget FY 2020 Proposed Budget FY 2020 Change FTE FY 2020 Change % ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 4 Attachment A, Exhibit 4: Page 15 Landscape Architect Park Planner 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.00% Management Analyst 0.89 0.79 0.82 0.94 0.12 14.63% Manager Facilities 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00% Manager Maintenance Operations 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.00 0.00% Parking Operations-Lead 0.30 1.00 0.35 0.40 0.05 14.29% Program Assistant II 0.20 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Project Engineer 6.49 7.14 6.84 7.59 0.75 10.96% Project Manager 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 0.00 0.00% Senior Engineer 1.99 1.99 1.99 2.99 1.00 50.25% Senior Management Analyst 0.60 0.60 0.72 0.60 -0.12 (16.67)% Senior Planner 0.70 0.85 0.72 0.50 -0.22 (30.56)% Senior Project Manager 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 0.10 11.11% Supervisor Inspection and Surveying 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.00% Surveyor, Public Works 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.00% Traffic Engineering-Lead 0.90 0.62 0.35 0.55 0.20 57.14% Transportation Planning Manager 0.15 0.50 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.00% Total Capital Project Fund 30.61 33.79 32.61 36.40 3.79 11.62% Printing and Mailing Services Manager Revenue Collections 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00% Offset Equipment Operator 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 0.00 0.00% Total Printing and Mailing Services 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 0.00 0.00% Special Revenue Funds Account Specialist 1.62 1.62 1.87 1.87 0.00 0.00% Account Specialist-Lead 0.95 0.95 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.00% Administrative Assistant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.00% Administrative Associate II 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00% Administrative Associate III 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 -0.21 (100.00)% Associate Planner 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25 -0.17 (40.48)% Building Serviceperson-Lead 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Chief Transportation Official 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Community Service Officer 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00% Coordinator Public Works Projects 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00% Electrician 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00% Facilities Maintenance-Lead 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00% Facilities Painter 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00% Facilities Technician 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.00% Management Analyst 0.02 0.02 0.17 0.35 0.18 105.88% Table of Organization FY 2017 Actuals FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Adopted Budget FY 2020 Proposed Budget FY 2020 Change FTE FY 2020 Change % ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 4 Attachment A, Exhibit 4: Page 16 Manager Community Services Senior Program 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Manager Maintenance Operations 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.00% Manager Revenue Collections 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.00% Parking Operations-Lead 0.50 0.00 0.55 0.60 0.05 9.09% Program Assistant II 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Planner 0.36 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00% Street Maintenance Assistant 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Street Sweeper Operator 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.00% Transportation Planning Manager 0.00 0.30 0.24 0.50 0.26 108.33% Total Special Revenue Funds 9.69 9.13 10.20 10.66 0.46 4.51% Technology Fund Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Assistant Director Administrative Services 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00% Business Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Desktop Technician 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00% Director Information Technology/CIO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Manager Information Technology 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00% Manager Information Technology Security 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Principal Business Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Business Analyst 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Technologist 16.00 17.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00% Technologist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Total Technology Fund 35.10 36.10 36.10 36.10 0.00 0.00% Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)% Assistant Director Public Works 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00% Assistant Fleet Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Equipment Maintenance Service Person 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Fleet Services Coordinator 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 -1.00 (50.00)% Management Analyst 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00% Management Assistant 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00% Manager Fleet 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Motor Equipment Mechanic II 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00% Motor Equipment Mechanic-Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00% Table of Organization FY 2017 Actuals FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Adopted Budget FY 2020 Proposed Budget FY 2020 Change FTE FY 2020 Change % ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 4 Attachment A, Exhibit 4: Page 17 Project Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Senior Management Analyst 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00% Total Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund 16.53 16.53 16.53 15.53 -1.00 (6.05)% Workers’ Compensation Program Fund Senior Human Resources Administrator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Workers’ Compensation Program Fund Total Workers’ Compensation Program Fund 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00% Total Other Funds 94.55 98.17 98.06 101.31 3.25 3.31% Total Citywide Positions 1,052.10 1,058.95 1,041.35 1,034.85 -6.50 (0.62)% 1 In FY 2020, Development Services has been combined with the Planning and Community Environment Department. 2 In FY 2020, the Office of Transportation has been separated into its own department. Staffing for Transportation in prior years is show in the Planning and Community Environment Department. Table of Organization FY 2017 Actuals FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Adopted Budget FY 2020 Proposed Budget FY 2020 Change FTE FY 2020 Change % ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 4 Attachment A, Exhibit 4: Page 18 Municipal Fee Schedule Amendements for FY 2020 Changed Fees ATTACHMENT A, Exhibit 5 Community Services (CMR#9822 Pets-In-Need) Fee Title 2019 Adopted 2020 Proposed % Change Justification Animal Services (Adoptions): Cockatiels $27.00 per pet $10.00 per pet -62.96% Animal Services (Spay & Neuter Clinic Fees): A. Neuter (0lbs - 50lbs)$95.00 per pet $75.00 per pet -21.05% Animal Services (Vaccinations): DA2PP $20.00 per pet $15.00 per pet -25.00% Animal Services (Adoptions): Rabbits $45.00 per pet $10.00 per pet -77.78% Animal Services (Vaccinations): Bordatella $20.00 per pet $15.00 per pet -25.00% Animal Services (Spay & Neuter Clinic Fees): B. Neuter (51lbs and over) $120.00 per pet $100.00 per pet -16.67% Animal Services (Spay & Neuter Clinic Fees): Spay $90.00 per pet $65.00 per pet -27.78% Animal Services (Spay & Neuter Clinic Fees): C. Spay (0lbs - 50lbs)$110.00 per pet $125.00 per pet 13.64% Animal Services (Vaccinations): FVRCP $20.00 per pet $15.00 per pet -25.00% Animal Services (Spay & Neuter Clinic Fees): D. Spay (51lbs and over)$165.00 per pet $175.00 per pet 6.06% Animal Services (Vaccinations): Leukemia $20.00 per pet $15.00 per pet -25.00% Animal Services (Vaccinations): Microchip $40.00 per pet $25.00 per pet -37.50% Animal Services (Spay & Neuter Clinic Fees): Neuter $65.00 per pet $50.00 per pet -23.08% Animal Services (Boarding): Rabbits $5.00 per pet $20.00 per pet 300.00% Animal Services (Vaccinations): Rabies $10.00 per pet $15.00 per pet 50.00% Animal Services (Adoptions): Rats, Hamsters, Guinea Pigs, & Mice $5.00 per pet $10.00 per pet 100.00% Animal Services (Adoptions): Dogs & Cats $125.00 per pet $150.00 per pet 20.00% Animal Services (Vaccinations): Microchip Rescue Group $20.00 per pet $25.00 per pet 25.00% Animal Services (Adoptions): Parakeets, Chickens, Pigeons, & Doves $5.00 per pet $10.00 per pet 100.00% Animal Services (Boarding): Small Animals (Reptiles, Birds, etc.)$3.00 per pet $20.00 per pet 566.67% Animal Services (Boarding): Cats $20.00 per pet $20.00 per day NA Animal Services (Boarding): Dogs $20.00 per pet $20.00 per day NA These recommended changes will align fees with the new business model for providing Animal Shelter services through a partnership with Pets-In-Need (PIN) approved by Council (CMR#9822). Attachment A, Exhibit 5: Page 1 Municipal Fee Schedule Amendements for FY 2020 Changed Fees ATTACHMENT A, Exhibit 5 Community Services Fee Title 2019 Adopted 2020 Proposed % Change Justification Arts & Sciences: Field Trips Resident Fee: Palo Alto & Ravenswood School Districts: $3.00 - $5.00 per student; Non-Resident Fee: $84.00 - $140.00 per group Resident Fee: $135.00 per group; Non-Resident Fee: $135.00 per group NA Recreation: Card Replacement Fee $1.00 - $5.00 $5.00 per item NA Rentals & Reservations: Auditorium and Stage Resident Fee: $210.00 - $3,150 per hour; Non-Resident Fee: $315.00 - $4,275.00 per hour Resident Fee: $250.00 per hour; Non-Resident Fee: $375.00 per hour NA Rentals & Reservations: Exclusive Monthly Storage Space (As Available) $2 per sq. ft. per month $2 per cubic feet per month NA Rentals & Reservations: Rehearsal Hall Resident Fee: $42.00 - $1,050.00 per hour; Non-Resident Fee: $63.00 - $1,575.00 per hour Resident Fee: $50.00 per hour; Non-Resident Fee: $75.00 per hour NA Rentals & Reservations: Cubberley Banner Marquee $12.00 - $54.00 per week $25.00 per week NA Rentals & Reservations: Park Ranger $75.00 per hour $99.00 per hour 32.00%Fee is increased to align with city staff costs. Rentals & Reservations: Piano - 7' Grand $43.00 per use plus moving and tuning costs $50.00 per use plus moving and tuning costs 16.28% Rentals & Reservations (Foothills Park): A. Oak Grove Picnic 1 - 50 People Resident Fee: $80.00 per group; Non-Resident Fee: Not Available Resident Fee: $90.00 per group; Non-Resident Fee: Not Available 12.50% Rentals & Reservations (Foothills Park): B. Oak Grove Picnic 51 - 100 People Resident Fee: $160.00 per group; Non-Resident Fee: Not Available Resident Fee: $180.00 per group; Non-Resident Fee: Not Available 12.50% Rentals & Reservations (Foothills Park): C. Oak Grove Picnic 101 - 150 People Resident Fee: $240.00 per group; Non-Resident Fee: Not Available Resident Fee: $270.00 per group; Non-Resident Fee: Not Available 12.50% Rentals & Reservations (Foothills Park): Towle Camp Resident Fee: $35.00 per campsite; Non-Resident Fee: Not Available Resident Fee: $40.00 per campsite; Non-Resident Fee: Not Available 14.29% Modify fee structure to align with current service delivery. Fee is increased to align with market value. Attachment A, Exhibit 5: Page 2 Municipal Fee Schedule Amendements for FY 2020 Changed Fees ATTACHMENT A, Exhibit 5 Planning and Community Environment (Development Services: Public Works) Fee Title 2019 Adopted 2020 Proposed % Change Justification Encroachment Permit: A. Dumpster, Container $339.00 each $331.00 each -2.36% Encroachment Permit: B. Non-Residential - Single Day $1,368.00 each $1,339.00 each -2.12% Encroachment Permit: C. Non-Residential Short-Term (Less than 5 days)$1,606.00 each $1,570.00 each -2.24% Encroachment Permit: D. Non-Residential Long-Term (More than 5 days)$2,234.00 each $2,177.00 each -2.55% Encroachment Permit: E. Additional Non-Residential Long-Term (More than 5 days) Monthly $817.00 per month $786.00 per month -3.79% Engineering: A. 101 - 1,000 cubic yards $217.00 for the first 100 cubic yards, plus $217.00 for each additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof $213.00 for the first 100 cubic yards, plus $213.00 for each additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof -1.84% Engineering: B. 1,001 - 10,000 cubic yards $2,170.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards plus $204.00 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof $2,130.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards plus $199.00 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof -1.84% Engineering: C. 10,001 or more cubic yards $4,210.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards plus $770.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yard or fraction thereof $4,120.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards plus $771.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yard or fraction thereof -2.14% Inspection Fees: Tree Inspection for Private Development $164.00 per inspection $162.00 per inspection -1.22% Inspection Fees: Wet Season Construction Site Stormwater Inspection $314.00 per inspection plus $94.00 per hour thereafter, charged monthly October thru April. $308.00 per inspection plus $101.00 per hour thereafter, charged monthly October thru April. -1.91% Map/Plan Review Fees: Architectural Review - Minor Project Trees (ARB Review) $1,249.00 per application $1,223.00 per application -2.08% Map/Plan Review Fees: Architectural Review - Minor Project Trees (Staff Review) $249.00 per hour $244.00 per hour -2.01% Permit Fees: 1. Temporary Discharge to Storm Drain from Non- Exclusionary Construction Site Dewatering $15,442 per request to discharge $15,593.00 per request to discharge 0.98% Permit Fees: 2. Additional Temporary Discharge to Storm Drain from Non-Exclusionary Construction Site Dewatering $342.00 per week for the duration of dewatering activities $341.00 per week for the duration of dewatering activities -0.29% Permit Fees: A. Construction in Public Right-of-Way ($1.00 - $5,999)$783.00 per occurrence $751.00 per occurrence -4.09% Permit Fees: B. Construction in Public Right-of-Way ($6,000 - $25,999) $783.00 + 9.7% of value greater than $6,000.00 $751.00 + 9.4% of value greater than $6,000.00 -4.09% Permit Fees: C. Construction in Public Right-of-Way ($26,000 - $100,999) $2,723.00 + 11.9% of value greater than $26,000.00 $2,631.00 + 11.5% of value greater than $26,000.00 -3.38% Permit Fees: D. Construction in Public Right-of-Way ($101,000 +)$11,648.00 + 9.8% of value greater than $100,000.00 $11,265.00 + 9.6% of value greater than $100,000.00 -3.29% Permit Fees: Right of Way Closure Management $91.00 per closure $87.00 per closure -4.40% Permit Fees: Storm Drain Plan Check Fee $814 per project $1,017.00 per project 24.94%Council approved to bring this fee to 100% cost recovery in 25% increments, this is the final year. Fees were analyzed; proposed fees reflect costing refined to maintain cost recovery levels. Attachment A, Exhibit 5: Page 3 Municipal Fee Schedule Amendements for FY 2020 Changed Fees ATTACHMENT A, Exhibit 5 Planning and Community Environment (Development Services) Fee Title 2019 Adopted 2020 Proposed % Change Justification Building Permit Fee 1.50% of Construction Value 1.50% of Construction Value for projects between $1.00 to $4,000,000.00; 1.0% of Construction Value for projects between $4,000,000.01 to $10,000,000; 0.5% of Construction Value for projects above $10,000,000.00, progressively applied in a tier structure as value increases; if project is out of scope from a traditional building structure and/or additional services are required then an alternative fee arrangement may be established by the Chief Building Official to achieve cost recovery. Building Plan Check 75% of Building Permit fee 75% of Building Permit Fee for projects between $1.00 to $4,000,000; 50% of Building Permit Fee for projects between $4,000,000.01 to $10,000,000; 25% of Building Permit Fee for projects above $10,000,000, progressively applied in a tier structure as value increases. Fire and Life Safety Plan Check 54% of Building Permit fee 54% of Building Permit Fee for projects between $1.00 to $4,000,000; 35% of Building Permit Fee for projects between $4,000,000.01 to $10,000,000; 18% of Building Permit Fee for projects above $10,000,000, progressively applied in a tier structure as value increases. Fire and Life Safety Plan Check - Commercial The Fire and Life Safety Plan Review Fee is 54% of the Building Plan Check Fee and is collected by the Building Division at the time an application of a Building Permit is submitted 54% of Building Permit Fee for projects between $1.00 to $4,000,000; 35% of Building Permit Fee for projects between $4,000,000.01 to $10,000,000; 18% of Building Permit Fee for projects above $10,000,000, progressively applied in a tier structure as value increases. Public Works Plan Check 44% of Building Permit fee 44% of Building Permit Fee for projects between $1.00 to $4,000,000; 30% of Building Permit Fee for projects between $4,000,000.01 to $10,000,000; 15% of Building Permit Fee for projects above $10,000,000, progressively applied in a tier structure as value increases. Fees were changed from flat percent to a progressive tier structure to ensure appropriate cost recovery for projects over $4 million dollars; this was recommended after internal analysis and review with outside consultant. Attachment A, Exhibit 5: Page 4 Municipal Fee Schedule Amendements for FY 2020 Changed Fees ATTACHMENT A, Exhibit 5 Planning and Community Environment (Parking In-Lieu) Fee Title 2019 Adopted 2020 Proposed % Change Justification Parking In-Lieu Fee for Downtown Assessment District $70,094 per parking space $106,171 per parking space 51.47%Please see page 6 of CMR #10225 for detailed justification. Planning and Community Environment (Parking Permit - Employee) Parking Area: Fee Title 2019 Adopted 2020 Proposed % Change Justification Downtown Core: All Downtown and SOFA Lots and Garages Annual Parking Permit $750.00 per year $806.00 per year 7.50% Downtown RPP: Downtown RPP Full Price Employee Parking Permit $375.00 per six months $403.00 per six months 7.50% California Avenue: California Avenue Area All Garages and Lots Annual Parking Permit $375.00 per year $403.00 per year 7.50% Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP: Evergreen Park - Mayfield RPP Full Price Employee Parking Permit $187.50 per six months $201.00 per six months 7.50% Southgate RPP: Southgate RPP - Full Price Employee Parking Permit $187.50 per six months $201.00 per six months 7.50% Please see page 10 of the Budget Wrap-up Memo from May 28th, 2019 for detailed justification. Attachment A, Exhibit 5: Page 5 POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1‐57/ASD May 2015 2020 Page 1 of 3 USER FEE COST RECOVERY LEVEL POLICY BACKGROUND The City provides a variety of services to the public which benefit the entire community or individual residents or businesses. For certain services such as regulatory fees, arts and science classes, or recreational activities, the City traditionally has recovered partially or fully the cost for providing these services, which would have been otherwise paid from the General Fund. Propositions 13, 218, and 26 have placed both substantive and procedural limits on cities’ ability to impose fees and charges. Collectively these constitutional amendments provide safeguards against taxes being imposed without a vote of the people. Proposition 26 in particular contains a general articulation of the cost of service principle and includes a requirement that the local government “bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity.” (California Constitution, Article XIII C, Section 1). Certain types of fees, such as fines, penalties and/or late charges, or any charges imposed for entrance to or use of, as well as the purchase, rental, or lease of local government property, are expressly exempted from the provision quoted above and not required to be based on actual costs of providing service. Instead, these types of fees are more typically governed by local market rates, reasonableness, and potentially other policy factors. Fees such as facility rental fees, or golf course greens fees fall into this category, where fee rates are more appropriately set based on local market rates. Other fees for services such as lessons and classes, where participation is voluntary and there are meaningful private sector alternatives, may also be exempt from Prop 26’s limitations as they are not “imposed” by government. Consequently, these fees are not bound to certain cost recovery levels and can even have rates that are higher than the full cost recovery level, if appropriate. Staff should consult with the City Attorney’s office when considering a fee that exceeds full cost recovery. This policy was approved by the City Council on May Jun 1817, 2015 2019 (CMR # 573510419). ATTACHMENT B POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1‐57/ASD May 2015 2020 Page 2 of 3 POLICY STATEMENT It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to set Municipal Fees based on cost recovery levels in lieu of fully subsidizing fee‐related activities with General Fund dollars. The cost recovery levels are reflective of the following policy statements. 1. Community‐wide vs. Private Benefit: Funding services such as Police patrol services only through taxpayer dollars is appropriate for services that benefit the entire community. When the service or program provides a benefit to specific individuals or businesses such as the issuance of building permits, it is expected that individuals or businesses receiving that benefit pay for all of the cost of that service. 2. Service Recipient vs. Community Benefit: For regulated activities such as development review and Police issued permits, it is appropriate that the service recipient such as an applicant of a building permit or a Pushcart Vendor permit pay for the permit although the community at large benefits from the regulation. 3. Consistency with City Goals and Policies: City policies and Council goals related to the community’s quality of life are factors in setting cost recovery levels. For example, fee levels can be set to promote healthy habits, facilitate environmental stewardship, or discourage certain actions (e.g. false alarms). 4. Elasticity of Demand for Services: The level of cost recovery can affect the demand for services. A higher level of cost recovery could ensure the City is providing services such as recreational classes or summer camps for children and youth without over stimulating a market with artificially low prices. Such low prices, which are a reflection of a high General Fund subsidy, may result in huge waiting lists and attract participants from other cities; however, high cost recovery levels could negatively impact the demand for such services from low income individuals, special needs individuals, and seniors. 5. Availability of Services from the Private Sector: High cost recovery levels are generally sought in situations where the service is available from other sources in order to preserve taxpayer funds for other General Fund funded City services. Conversely, services that are not available from other sources and are typically delivered when residents experience an emergency basis typically have low or zero cost recovery levels. ATTACHMENT B POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1‐57/ASD May 2015 2020 Page 3 of 3 Based on these policy statements, the table below overlays certain cost recovery levels grouped in low (0‐30%), medium (30.1% to 70%), and high (70.1% to 100%) cost recovery percentage ranges that includes a provision to clarify the category of fees that are exempted from state laws limiting rates to full cost recovery. It is important to note that these groupings provide policy guidance and are not absolute. Some policy statements may weigh more heavily than others, which may result in a different cost recovery level grouping for particular fees. For example, fees for recreational activities are expected to be set in general at the medium cost recovery level. However, fees for recreational activities for which there is a high demand may have abe set in general at the high cost recovery level due to high enrollment levels per class. It is important to note that Municipal fees will be reviewed annually by the Finance Committee and subsequently by the City Council as part of approval of the Municipal Fee Schedule. Cost Recovery Level Group Cost Recovery Percentage Range Policy Considerations Low 0% ‐ 30% • No intended relationship between the amount paid and the benefit received • Fee collection would not be cost effective and/or would discourage compliance with regulatory requirements • No intent to limit the use of the service • Public at large benefits even if they are not the direct users of the service • Affordability of service to low‐income residents • The service is heavily supported through donations Medium 30.1% ‐ 70% • Services which promote healthy activities and educational enrichment to the community • Services having factors associated with the low and high cost recovery levels High 70.1% ‐ 100%* • Individual users or participants receive most or all of the benefit of the service • Other private or public sector alternatives provide the service • The use of the service is specifically discouraged • The service is regulatory in nature *Certain types of fees, such as fines, penalties and/or late charges, or any charge imposed for entrance to or use of, as well as the purchase, rental, or lease of local government property, are not bound by state laws that limit to full cost recovery. ATTACHMENT B POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1‐57/ASD May 2020 Page 1 of 3 USER FEE COST RECOVERY LEVEL POLICY BACKGROUND The City provides a variety of services to the public which benefit the entire community or individual residents or businesses. For certain services such as regulatory fees, arts and science classes, or recreational activities, the City traditionally has recovered partially or fully the cost for providing these services, which would have been otherwise paid from the General Fund. Propositions 13, 218, and 26 have placed both substantive and procedural limits on cities’ ability to impose fees and charges. Collectively these constitutional amendments provide safeguards against taxes being imposed without a vote of the people. Proposition 26 in particular contains a general articulation of the cost of service principle and includes a requirement that the local government “bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity.” (California Constitution, Article XIII C, Section 1). Certain types of fees, such as fines, penalties and/or late charges, or charges imposed for entrance to or use of, as well as the purchase, rental, or lease of local government property, are expressly exempted from the provision quoted above and not required to be based on actual costs of providing service. Instead, these types of fees are more typically governed by local market rates, reasonableness, and potentially other policy factors. Fees such as facility rental fees, or golf course greens fees fall into this category. Other fees for services such as lessons and classes, where participation is voluntary and there are meaningful private sector alternatives, may also be exempt from Prop 26’s limitations as they are not “imposed” by government. Consequently, these fees are not bound to certain cost recovery levels and can even have rates that are higher than the full cost recovery level, if appropriate. Staff should consult with the City Attorney’s office when considering a fee that exceeds full cost recovery. This policy was approved by the City Council on Jun 17, 2019 (CMR # 10419). ATTACHMENT C POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1‐57/ASD May 2020 Page 2 of 3 POLICY STATEMENT It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to set Municipal Fees based on cost recovery levels in lieu of fully subsidizing fee‐related activities with General Fund dollars. The cost recovery levels are reflective of the following policy statements. 1. Community‐wide vs. Private Benefit: Funding services such as Police patrol services only through taxpayer dollars is appropriate for services that benefit the entire community. When the service or program provides a benefit to specific individuals or businesses such as the issuance of building permits, it is expected that individuals or businesses receiving that benefit pay for all of the cost of that service. 2. Service Recipient vs. Community Benefit: For regulated activities such as development review and Police issued permits, it is appropriate that the service recipient such as an applicant of a building permit or a Pushcart Vendor permit pay for the permit although the community at large benefits from the regulation. 3. Consistency with City Goals and Policies: City policies and Council goals related to the community’s quality of life are factors in setting cost recovery levels. For example, fee levels can be set to promote healthy habits, facilitate environmental stewardship, or discourage certain actions (e.g. false alarms). 4. Elasticity of Demand for Services: The level of cost recovery can affect the demand for services. A higher level of cost recovery could ensure the City is providing services such as recreational classes or summer camps for children and youth without over stimulating a market with artificially low prices. Such low prices, which are a reflection of a high General Fund subsidy, may result in huge waiting lists and attract participants from other cities; however, high cost recovery levels could negatively impact the demand for such services from low income individuals, special needs individuals, and seniors. 5. Availability of Services from the Private Sector: High cost recovery levels are generally sought in situations where the service is available from other sources in order to preserve taxpayer funds for other General Fund funded City services. Conversely, services that are not available from other sources and are typically delivered when residents experience an emergency basis typically have low or zero cost recovery levels. ATTACHMENT C POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1‐57/ASD May 2020 Page 3 of 3 Based on these policy statements, the table below overlays certain cost recovery levels grouped in low (0‐30%), medium (30.1% to 70%), and high (70.1% to 100%) cost recovery percentage ranges that includes a provision to clarify the category of fees that are exempted from state laws limiting rates to full cost recovery. It is important to note that these groupings provide policy guidance and are not absolute. Some policy statements may weigh more heavily than others, which may result in a different cost recovery level grouping for particular fees. For example, fees for recreational activities are expected to be set in general at the medium cost recovery level. However, fees for recreational activities for which there is a high demand may be set in general at the high cost recovery level due to high enrollment levels per class. It is important to note that Municipal fees will be reviewed annually by the Finance Committee and subsequently by the City Council as part of approval of the Municipal Fee Schedule. Cost Recovery Level Group Cost Recovery Percentage Range Policy Considerations Low 0% ‐ 30% • No intended relationship between the amount paid and the benefit received • Fee collection would not be cost effective and/or would discourage compliance with regulatory requirements • No intent to limit the use of the service • Public at large benefits even if they are not the direct users of the service • Affordability of service to low‐income residents • The service is heavily supported through donations Medium 30.1% ‐ 70% • Services which promote healthy activities and educational enrichment to the community • Services having factors associated with the low and high cost recovery levels High 70.1% ‐ 100%* • Individual users or participants receive most or all of the benefit of the service • Other private or public sector alternatives provide the service • The use of the service is specifically discouraged • The service is regulatory in nature *Certain types of fees, such as fines, penalties and/or late charges, or any charge imposed for entrance to or use of, as well as the purchase, rental, or lease of local government property, are not bound by state laws that limit to full cost recovery. ATTACHMENT C Fiscal Year 2020 City Manager’s Proposed Operating & Capital Budget & Municipal Fees Finance Committee Proceedings (Presentations, At Places Memorandum, Action Minutes) These documents were originally distributed throughout the Finance Committee Budget Hearing proceedings including the Planning and Transportation Commission review of the FY 2020-2024 Capital Improvement Program during the month of May 2019. Documents and presentations are organized by the date of distribution. May 15, 2019: Finance Committee - Agenda: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=40181.54&BlobID=71036 - Presentations: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=71022.32&BlobID=71330 - At Places Memorandum: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=73001.36&BlobID=71331 (Supplemental Information) www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=71846.34&BlobID=71332 (PCE Reorganization) www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=71980.98&BlobID=71333 (TMA Funding Request) - Action Minutes: TBD - Video: www.midpenmedia.org/finance-committee-50-5152019/ May 23, 2019: Finance Committee - Agenda: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=39444.97&BlobID=71257 - Presentation: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=63977.98&BlobID=71456 - At Places Memorandum: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71461 (PTC CIP Review) www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71463 (Employee Parking Permit Adjustments) www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71462 (Community Services Department Staffing) - Municipal Fee CMR: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71320 - Action Minutes: TBD - Video: www.midpenmedia.org/finance-committee-50-5232019/ May 8, 2019: Planning & Transportation Commission - Agenda: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71073 - Action Minutes: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71765 May 28, 2019: Finance Committee - Agenda: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=40733.16&BlobID=71430 - At Places Memorandum: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71497 (Business Improvement District) www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71496 (Budget Wrap-Up) - Action Minutes: TBD - Video: www.midpenmedia.org/finance-committee-50-5282019/ ATTACHMENT D 1 of 3 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: KIELY NOSE, DIRECTOR, ADMINSTRATIVE SERVICES/CFO DATE: JUNE 13, 2019 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 10 – PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPTION OF THE BUDGET ORDINANCE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020, INCLUDING ADOPTION OF THE OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGETS AND THE MUNICIPAL FEE SCHEDULE This memorandum transmits supplemental information pertaining to the FY 2020 Budget. Answers to questions submitted by Councilmember Tanaka regarding various aspects of the FY 2020 Budget and answers are provided here. Additionally, an updated overview of the University Avenue parking fund is provided as a result of changes recommended by the Finance Committee. Questions asked by Councilmember Tanaka During the transmittal of the Proposed Budget on April 22, 2019 Councilmember Tanaka asked various questions about the FY 2020 Operating Budget. These questions, responses to the questions, and detailed information regarding when these topics were discussed through the Finance Committee Hearings can be found below. The questions are italicized and responses immediately follow. 1)We have fewer Council Members, how come the budget is about the same? Could this budget be used for individual Council Members to do polling to understand the community better? The City Council budget is primarily used to fund the stipends and benefits of the Councilmembers and costs associated with contracts such as the contract for appointee reviews. As discussed at the Finance Committee, the primary driver for expenses remaining consistent despite the change in number of Councilmembers is the proactive funding of pensions and the increase healthcare costs that individual Councilmembers elect during open enrollment. The detailed discussion of this item, specifically why the increased costs and the use of budgeted expenses can be watched in the video beginning at 7:01, Item 5 on the May 15, 2019 Finance Committee Agenda. 2)For every $1M in salary increases awarded to City MISCELLANEOUS employees--what is the impact on the UAL (Unfunded Accrued Liability)? In other words, what is the UAL increase/$1M of increased regular salary? 10 2 of 3 The effect of salary increases on UAL depends on how the increase compares to CalPERS actuarial assumptions. While this is a complex relationship, two notable variables are CalPERS’ investment earning assumptions and payroll growth assumptions. When CalPERS investment earning assumptions are lower than what actually occurs, UAL increases. This is specifically the issue that the City Council addressed through its direction to assume a 6.2% earnings rate rather than CalPERS’ current 7.0%. UAL also increases when payroll growth is higher than CalPERS assumptions. CalPERS currently assumes 2.8% payroll growth plus annual merit or professional progression growth in salaries. These and other assumptions are reviewed and adjusted regularly and reflected in the annual contribution rates set by CalPERS. City staff does not currently have a specific calculation as suggested in this question. 3)Why did fire budget increase 8.4% while the headcount is going down on page 220? The FY 2020 Proposed Budget does not recommend a reduction in ongoing headcount in the Fire Department, it does recommend holding one position vacant and eliminating a 12-hour ambulance staffed on overtime. The major increase in costs is due to the implementation of the proactive pension funding assuming a more conservative discount rate for the calculation of normal cost contributions. As outlined in the at places memorandum reviewed by the Finance Committee, which can be found here: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71350. Specifically for the Fire Department, on page 223, this proactive pension funding constitutes $973,000 of the $2.6 million increase or 38% of the increase. 4)Why is there a 30% increase in IT and 11.7% in salary and benefits on page 257? The Finance Committee discussed this increase, the predominant driver of the increase from FY 2019 expenses is a $5.3 million increase in capital expenses. This is primarily attributable to the Council Chambers upgrade project and the Enterprise Resource Planning and Customer Information System upgrades. As discussed in the at places memorandum cited above and for the Fire department, the year over year increase in salary & benefits of 11.7% or $926,000 is due to additional pension contributions. As identified on page 259, $448,000 of the increase in expenses is due to proactive funding of contributions to the 115 Pension Trust Fund. The detailed discussion of both of these items can be watched in the video beginning at 5:07 in the video, or Item 4 on the May 15, 2019 Finance Committee Agenda. 5)Why on page 39, is there a 38% increase on facilities and equipment and 28% increase in general expense vs. a 1.7% in the overall budget? 3 of 3 The increase in facilities & equipment of 38% or $249,000 is primarily due to a grant received by the Office of Emergency Services for a mobile solar energy generation and storage trailer (details can be found on page 281). The increase in general expenses of $28% or $4.3 million is due to the action the City Council took as part of the FY 2019 Adopted Budget. A $4 million adjustment to lower General Fund expenses was identified in the FY 2019 Adopted Budget, with the specific reductions to be identified at a later date. The FY 2020 budget restores this $4 million adjustment in the ‘general expenses’ category, but takes a number of reductions in various expense categories where the recommended reductions in costs and services are funded. 6)Why is there a 9% increase in total salary and benefits page 39 vs. bay area average increase of 3.9%? Included in the presentation to the Finance Committee was a detailed look at the 9.1% increase in overall salary and benefit growth. The presentation can be found here: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=71022.32&BlobID=71330 specifically on page 7 and 8 of the PDF. As discussed previously, the primary drivers are the proactive pension contributions totaling $8.5 million in FY 2020. Updated Overview of the University Avenue Parking Fund Through the Finance Committee Budget Hearings, the Committee recommended increasing employee parking permit fees. This recommendation is included in the FY 2020 Operating Budget, submitted for City Council adoption. The impact of this change on the University Avenue Parking Fund is detailed in Attachment A. The attachment provides a comprehensive look at Fund 236 and depicts the flow of funds through the FY 2019 Adopted Budget, current estimates for FY 2019, and for FY 2020. The attachment also details the Capital Projects supported by funding from the University Avenue Parking Fund. _______________________ Kiely Nose Director of Administrative Services _______________________ Ed Shikada City Manager ATTACHMENT A: Updated University Avenue Parking Fund Overview University Avenue Parking Permit Fund - Overview Adopted Estimate FY 2019 FY 2019 FY 2020 Beginning Fund Balance 3,759,461 3,759,461 3,769,778 Revenues Permit Sales 2,217,000 2,054,340 2,372,000 Day Passes 675,000 546,064 675,000 Ticket Machine 215,000 311,455 215,000 Transfer from Other Funds for City Share 354,000 354,000 380,250 Investment Income 21,800 37,178 68,200 - Total Revenue 3,482,800 3,303,037 3,710,450 Expenditures Administration Positions 1.30 1.30 1.66 Salaries & Benefits 189,541 189,541 249,261 Contract Staffing 182,248 173,071 182,248 Parking Occupancy Services 77,031 38,497 77,031 Miscellaneous Supplies 21,048 21,048 21,048 Ticket Machine (bankcard services, transmission, maintenance)20,790 14,103 28,100 - Subtotal Administration 490,658 436,260 557,688 Maintenance Positions 3.87 3.87 3.87 Salaries & Benefits 495,785 495,785 547,542 Supplies 60,090 60,090 60,090 Twinkle/Tree Lights 30,000 30,000 30,000 Landscaping 16,451 20,287 20,090 Maintenance (garage, elevator, fire sprinkler)72,300 72,300 78,024 Custodial (janitorial services, power washing, sweeping)270,519 270,519 280,346 Steam Cleaning 94,660 94,660 94,660 - Subtotal Maintenance 1,039,805 1,043,641 1,110,752 ATTACHMENT A Police Patrol Positions 0.50 0.50 0.50 Salaries & Benefits 121,723 121,723 128,598 Subtotal Patrols 121,723 121,723 128,598 Other Valet Programs (Lots R, CC, CW, & S) 289,972 232,000 289,972 Temporary Valet Programs (garage construction) 150,000 - - Downtown Streets Team 118,744 118,744 118,744 Transportation Management Authority (TMA) 480,000 480,000 660,000 Utilities/Indirect costs 224,716 224,716 207,986 Transfer to GF (PARS trust)5,621 5,621 - (1) Transfer to CIP Fund 2,337,015 630,015 1,135,220 Subtotal Other 3,606,068 1,691,096 2,411,922 Total Operating Expenses 5,258,254 3,292,720 4,208,960 Income from Operations (1,775,454) 10,317 (498,510) Ending Fund Balance 1,984,007 3,769,778 3,271,268 (1) Capital Improvement Plan Downtown Automated Parking Guidance System (APGS), Access Controls, and Revenue Collections Equipment (PL-15002)1,100,000 - - Downtown Parking Management and System Implementation (PL- 16002)607,000 - 752,220 Downtown Parking Wayfinding (PL-15004)280,015 280,015 40,000 High Street Parking Garage Waterproofing Study (PE-18002)300,000 300,000 - Parking Lot J Elevator Modernization (PF-18000)50,000 50,000 - University Avenue Parking Improvements (PF-14003)- - 343,000 Total 2,337,015 630,015 1,135,220 City of Palo Alto (ID # 10295) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/17/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Fiscal Sustainability Summary Title: FY 2020 Proposed Rates and Financial Plans Title: PUBLIC HEARING & PROPOSITION 218 HEARING: Staff Recommendation That the City Council Adopt the Following Resolutions: Approving the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Electric Utility Financial Plan; Adopting an Electric Rate Increase and Amending Utility Rate Schedules E-1, E-2, E-2-G, E-4, E-4-G, E-4 TOU, E-7, E-7-G, E-7 TOU, E-14, E-EEC and E-NSE; Approving the FY 2020 Gas Utility Financial Plan; Adopting a Gas Rate Increase and Amending Utility Rate Schedules G-1, G-2, G-3 and G-10; Approving the FY 2020 Wastewater Collection Utility Financial Plan; Adopting a Wastewater Collection Rate Increase and Amending Utility Rate Schedules S-1, S-2, S-6 and S-7; Approving the FY 2020 Water Utility Financial Plan; Adopting a Water Rate Increase and Amending Utility Rate Schedules W-1, W-2, W-3, W- 4 and W-7; Amending Utility Rate Schedule D-1 to Increase Storm Drain Rates 4.5 Percent per Month per Equivalent Residential Unit for FY 2020; Adopting a Dark Fiber Rate Increase of 4.5 Percent and Amending Utility Rate Schedules EDF-1 and EDF-2 From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff and the Finance Committee recommend that the City Council approve and adopt the following: 1. Resolutions of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto: a. Approving the FY 2020 Electric Financial Plan and proposed transfers (Attachments A and B); b. Adopting an Electric Rate Increase and Amending Utility Rate Schedules E-1, E-2, E-2-G, E-4, E-4-G, E-4 TOU, E-7, E-7-G, E-7 TOU, E-14, E-EEC and E-NSE (Attachments C & D); City of Palo Alto Page 2 c. Approving the FY 2020 Gas Utility Financial Plan and proposed transfers (Attachment E, F, G & H); d. Adopting a Gas Rate Increase and Amending Utility Rate Schedules G-1, G-2, G-3 and G-10 (Attachments I & J); e. Approving the FY 2020 Wastewater Collection Utility Financial Plan and proposed transfers (Attachments K & L); f. Adopting a Wastewater Collection Rate Increase and Amending Utility Rate Schedules S-1, S-2, S-6 and S-7 (Attachments M & N); g. Approving the FY 2020 Water Utility Financial Plan and proposed transfers (Attachments O, P & Q); h. Adopting a Water Rate Increase and Amending Utility Rate Schedules W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4 and W-7 (Attachments R & S); i. Amending Utility Rate Schedule D-1 to Increase Storm Water Management Fee Rates by 4.5 Percent per Month per Equivalent Residential Unit for FY 2020 (Attachments T & U); and j. Adopting a Dark Fiber Rate Increase of 4.5 Percent and Amending Utility Rate Schedules EDF-1 and EDF-2 (Attachments V & W); Executive Summary During April and May 2019, the Finance Committee reviewed various rate changes recommended by staff for Fiscal Year 2020. This report summarizes the hearings that occurred, including all staff recommendations and changes to recommendations. This comprehensive utility rates report includes separate sections for each of the Utilities with recommended rate changes: electric, gas, water, wastewater collection, dark fiber, and storm drainage and surface water. Each of these rate changes is included in the FY 2020 budget assumptions. This report outlines the actions requested, transmits the resolutions from these reviews, and requests City Council approval and adoption. In addition, during the City Council’s June 11, 2018 meeting, Council Member DuBois encouraged Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission to consider budget-based pricing for water to incentivize customers to conserve water. The City of Palo Alto engaged Raftelis Financial Consultants to prepare a brief memo on considerations in evaluating water budget- based rate structures. The memo provides a high-level overview of water budget-based rate structures and the advantages and disadvantages of such a structure as well as factors to consider in evaluating the feasibility of developing and implementing a water budget-based rate structure for the City of Palo Alto. The memo (Attachment X) is for the Council’s information and no action is required. Background On April 16, 2019, Utilities and Public Works staff presented the Finance Committee three reports: City of Palo Alto Page 3 • Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation that the City Council Adopt: (1) a Resolution Approving the Fiscal Year 2020 Water Utility Financial Plan; and (2) a Resolution Increasing Water Rates by Amending Rate Schedules W-1 (General Residential Water Service), W-2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants), W-3 (Fire Service Connections),W-4 (Residential Master-Metered and General Non-Residential Water Service), and W-7 (Non-Residential Irrigation Water Service) (Staff Report #101491); and • Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend that the City Council Adopt: (1) a Resolution Approving the Fiscal Year 2020 Wastewater Collection Financial Plan; and (2) a Resolution Increasing Wastewater Rates by 7 Percent by Amending Rate Schedules S-1 (Residential Wastewater Collection and Disposal), S-2 (Commercial Wastewater Collection and Disposal), S-6 (Restaurant Wastewater Collection and Disposal) and S-7 (Commercial Wastewater Collection and Disposal – Industrial Discharger) (Staff Report #101072) • Recommendation that the Finance Committee recommends the City Council adopt a resolution amending Utiity Rate Schedule D-1 (General Storm and Surface Water Drainage) to implement a 4.5 percent rate increase consistent with the applicable Consumer Price Index, increasing the monthly charge per Equivalent Residential Unit by $0.63, from $14.05 to $14.68 for Fiscal Year 2020(Staff Report #101473) The Finance Committee unanimously recommended approval of all three increases. As required by Article XIIID of the State Constitution (added by Proposition 218), the City mailed a Notice of Public Hearing to property owners and customers on May 3, 2019 regarding the proposed water and wastewater collection rate changes. This notice informed the public that the proposed rate changes would be considered for Council adoption at a Public Hearing on June 17, 2019 at 5 pm, and outlined the process for submitting written or oral testimony and written protests to any or all of the proposed rate increases. Council may consider and adopt the proposed water and wastewater rates unless written protests are filed by a majority of the affected customers. Any approved water and/or wastewater collection rate changes will become effective July 1, 2019. The Public Hearing at which Council will consider adoption of the proposed water and wastewater collection rates must be opened on June 17th as stated in the notice, and may be continued, if needed. On May 15, 2019, Utilities and Public Works staff presented the Finance Committee two reports: • Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation that the City Council Adopt: (1) a 1 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/70187 2 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/70186 3 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/70147 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Resolution Approving the Fiscal Year 2020 Electric Utility Financial Plan and Proposed Transfers; and (2) a Resolution Increasing Electric Rates by Amending Rate Schedules E-1 (Residential Electric Service), E-2 (Small Non-Residential Electric Service), E-2-G (Small Non-Residential Green Power Electric Service), E-4 (Medium Non-Residential Electric Service), E-4-G (Medium Non-Residential Green Power Electric Service), E-4 TOU (Medium Non-Residential Time of Use Electric Service), E-7 (Large Non-Residential Electric Service), E7-G (Large Non-Residential Green Power Electric Service), E-7 TOU (Large Non-Residential Time of Use Electric Service), E-14 (Street Lights), E-NSE (Net Metering Net Surplus Electricity Compensation), and E-EEC (Export Electricity Compensation) (Staff Report #102174); and • Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend that the City Council Adopt: (1) a Resolution Approving the Fiscal Year 2020 Gas Utility Financial Plan and Proposed Transfers; and (2) a Resolution Increasing Gas Utility Rates by Amending Rate Schedules G-1 (Residential Gas Service), G-2 (Residential Master-Metered and Commercial Gas Service), G-3 (Large Commercial Gas Service), and G-10 (Compressed Natural Gas Service) (Staff Report #102555) The Finance Committee unanimously recommended approval of both increases. Discussion From March through May 2019, the Utilities Advisory Commission and Finance Committee received and reviewed various utility financial plans, transfer requests, and rate changes recommended by staff. This report outlines the actions requested, transmits the resolutions from these reviews, and requests City Council approval and adoption. Attached to this report are a number of documents, referenced throughout the recommendation language and the report. In addition, this report also includes links to the City’s website for all the staff reports presented throughout the review process to the Utilities Advisory Commission, Finance Committee, and City Council. Staff and the Finance Committee recommend that the City Council approve the Utility financial plans and rate changes listed below. These financial plans and rate changes were reviewed and approved by the Utilities Advisory Commission between March and May of 2019, and by the Finance Committee between April and May of 2019. Proposed Rate Changes and Financial Plans Electric The FY 2020 Electric Utility Financial Plan (Attachment B) includes projections of the utility’s costs and revenues through FY 2024. Costs for electric supply purchases are primarily increasing 4 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=61968.02&BlobID=71094 5 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71084 City of Palo Alto Page 5 as a result of increases in statewide transmission costs. Substantial additional capital investment in the electric distribution system is planned for FY 2020 through FY 2024, and operational costs are increasing. There has been some decrease in the City’s electric load. Lastly, revenues are below costs as of FY 2019. Because of these rising costs and other factors, an increase in sales revenues is required. An 8 percent overall rate increase is proposed for July 1, 2019, with 4 percent increases in the following years. A breakdown of the primary drivers for the rate increase is shown in Figure 1 below. More than half of the increase is related to rising supply costs, mainly driven by transmission related costs. These are due to rehabilitation and replacement of the existing statewide electric transmission system as well as expansion of that system to accommodate new generation, mostly renewable. Operations and Capital Improvement expenses account for another 2.4%. A portion of the increase is attributable to making up existing revenue shortfalls, as well as increases needed to make up for system load loss. Figure 1: Electric Rate Increase While 8 percent represents the overall increase in average rates, different customer classes will see slightly different increases ranging from 4 to 9 percent. The overall rate change for the residential class is roughly 4 percent. Actual rate increases are calculated using the 2016 cost of service analysis (COSA) model created for the City by EES Consulting, which was implemented on July 1, 2016. In addition, the plan proposes transfers of up to: a) $4 million from the Hydro Stabilization Reserve to the Supply Operations Reserve, to maintain reserve adequacy; b) $9.011 million from the Rate Stabilization reserve to the Supply Operations Reserve; and c) $2 million from the Supply Operations to the Distribution Operations reserve, to maintain reserve adequacy. Reserve balance projections for FY 2019 have taken these transfers into account. To effect City of Palo Alto Page 6 these transfers, staff is re-ratifying the following transfer proposals, which were previously approved in resolution 9692 to take place in FY 2017, but which were not performed: 1) transfer up to $9.0 million from the Hydroelectric Stabilization Reserve to the Supply Operations Reserve, 2) transfer up to $9.011 million from the Supply Rate Stabilization Reserve to the Supply Operations Reserve, and 3) transfer up to $4.5 million from the Supply Operations Reserve to the Distribution Operations Reserve. For more information, see Staff Report 102176, approved by the Finance Committee on May 15, 2019. Gas The FY 2020 Gas Utility Financial Plan (Attachment F) includes projections of the utility’s costs and revenues for FY 2020 through FY 2024. Gas utility costs are made up of supply-related costs (35 percent of costs) and distribution-related costs (65 percent of costs). Supply-related costs (and customer rates) vary monthly with the gas markets, but customer rates for gas distribution are evaluated annually and set by Council action like other utility rates. Gas rates related to distribution costs were last increased by 6 percent on July 1, 2018. The proposed FY 2020 Gas Utility Financial Plan includes an 8 percent overall increase in distribution rates on July 1, 2019. Because distribution accounts for only 65 percent of the average customer’s bill, this is projected to increase system rate revenues (and billings) by approximately 5 percent overall. Further distribution increases of 5 to 12 percent are projected over the following four years (with a 4 to 8 percent increase in overall gas rates). A breakdown of the primary drivers for the distribution rate increase are shown in Figure 2 below. More than half of the rate increase is driven by Capital Improvement expense increases, while much of the remainder is from O&M related expenses. A portion of the increase can also be attributed to an anticipated decrease in usage, which is consistent with long term trends. Figure 2: Gas Distribution Rate Increase 6 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=61968.02&BlobID=71094 City of Palo Alto Page 7 With the completion of the 2019 Natural Gas Cost of Service and Rates Study (Attachment H), staff and the consultants have identified a realignment in cost allocations required for the gas customer rate classes. While the distribution rate increase across all customer classes is proposed to be 8 percent, the residential (G1) class will see a larger increase of 13.25 percent, while the commercial classes (G2 and G3) will see between a 2. 87 and 5.07 percent increase respectively, as detailed below. These correspond to an overall system rate increase of 5%, and rate increase (including supply) of 8.1 percent for residential and of 3.0 and 1.5 percent for the two commercial classes. These cost shifts between customer classes are a result of increased fixed costs, declining customer usage and shifts in how customers use the gas system. These changes are outlined in Table 1 below. The proposed Gas rate schedules are included as Attachment J. Table 1: Revenue Allocation by Customer Class in FY 2020 Projected FY 2020 Revenues under Current Rates Net Distribution Revenue Requirement Projected Deficiency in FY 2020 Revenue Based on Current Rates Revenue Increase needed for Distribution Charges Increase for Combined Commodity and Distribution Charges G1 – Residential $8,928,944 $10,111,795 $1,182,850 13.25% 8.1% G2 - Small Commercial $9,921,058 $10,423,850 $502,792 5.07% 3.0% G3 – Large Commercial $3,463,070 $3,562,355 $99,286 2.87% 1.5% TOTAL $22,313,072 $24,098,000 $1,784,928 8.0% 4.7% In addition, the plan proposes transfers to the Operations Reserve of up to $6.3 million from the Rate Stabilization Reserve and up to $6 million to the CIP Reserve from the Operations Reserve, to ensure that there are appropriate financial reserves for contingencies. The Rate Stabilization Reserve is projected to be zero by the end of FY 2020. For more information, see Staff Report 102557, approved by the Finance Committee on May 15, 2019. 7 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71084 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Wastewater Collection The FY 2020 Wastewater Collection Utility Financial Plan (Attachment L) includes projections of the utility’s costs and revenues through FY 2024. The Financial Plan projects costs to rise substantially for the next several years due primarily to increasing treatment costs related to capital improvements and increasing operational costs at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), as well as increasing collection system costs for operations and capital. In addition, current revenues are only 90 percent of cost. Staff proposes a 7 percent wastewater collection rate increase in FY 2020, and projects rate increases of 6 percent annually through FY 2024 to raise rate revenues to cover current and projected costs. In addition, the financial plan proposes a transfer of up to $978,000 from the CIP reserve to the Operations Reserve, to maintain reserve adequacy. Further information can be found in the FY 2020 Wastewater Collection Financial Plan, presented here as Attachment L. The proposed Wastewater Collection rate schedules are included as Attachment N. For more information, see Staff Report #10107, approved by the Finance Committee on April 16, 2019. Water The FY 2020 Water Utility Financial Plan (Attachment P) includes projections of the utility’s costs and revenues for FY 2019 through FY 2024. Costs are projected to rise on average by about 3 to 4 percent per year over the next several years. As a result, staff projects the need for a 1 percent overall water rate increase on July 1, 2019 and 2 to 6 percent rate increases in later years. The 1 percent increase in FY 2020 is needed to raise revenue for rising capital and operations expenses. The current rate proposals are based on the cost of service (COS) methodology described in the 2012 Palo Alto Water Cost of Service and Rate Study, the 2015 Study update, the 2015 Drought Rate memorandum, and the 2019 Study update titled “Proposed FY 2020 Water Rates” (Attachment Q), each completed by Raftelis Financial Consultants. The overall proposed change in customer bills is between -2% to 2%, depending on customer class, though the change may be higher (up to 5%) depending on usage. As noted above, staff has updated the 2015 COS study according to the attached memo. It was updated to reflect the most current customer consumption patterns, which have normalized several years after the drought. It also reflects changes to the utility’s cost structure. The updated COS study generated some shifts in the way costs should be allocated across customer classes. Over the past several years, customer usage patterns have changed. This may be because of customer experiences and changes that occurred during the recent drought of 2014 – 2017. These changes create different peak usage levels, or peaking factors, that each customer class imposes on the water system. Peaking factors are the rate of use compared to the average rate of use of any class or of the water system as a whole. These changed usage patterns and peaking factors, together with the updated costs, reflect the current cost of water service. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Based on the analysis, the relative changes to customer class groups are shown in Table 2 below: Table 2: Revenue Allocation by Customer Class in FY 2020 Customer Class Customer Class Revenue Difference Customer Class Percentage of Total Revenue at Current Rates Customer Class Percentage of Total Revenue at Cost of Service At Current Rates At Cost of Service Residential – W1 $21,269,490 $21,770,016 2% 47% 48% Master MFR/Commercial – W4 $17,477,323 $17,187,130 (2%) 39% 38% Irrigation – W7 $5,744,331 $5,877,794 2% 13% 13% Construction – W2 $52,010 $51,546 (1%) 0% 0% Fire Service – W3 $611,593 $606,922 (1%) 1% 1% TOTAL $45,154,747 $45,493,408 1% 100% 100% As a result of the COS update, residential customers (W1) will see a 2% increase (on average), Commercial Irrigation (W7) a 2% increase, and the other customer classes (W2, W3, W4) will see between a -1 to -2% decrease. In addition, the financial plan proposes a transfer of up to $5 million from the Operations Reserve to the CIP reserve. Further information on the transfer can be found in the FY2020 Financial Plan, presented here as Attachment P. The Rate Schedules have been revised and are presented here as Attachment S. For more information on the original proposal, see Staff Report #10149, presented to the Finance Committee on April 16, 2019. Storm Water and Surface Water Drainage On April 11, 2017, a majority of Palo Alto property owners approved a ballot measure approving a monthly Storm Water Management Fee. This fee will fund thirteen storm drainage capital improvement projects listed in the ballot measure, enhanced maintenance of the storm drainage system, and a variety of stormwater quality protection programs. The approved ballot measure allows for an annual adjustment based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or six percent, whichever is less. The General Storm Water and Surface Drainage Rate (Attachment U) will increase 4.5 percent, effective July 1, 2019, to reflect the annual CPI change. See Staff Report #101478 for more information. Dark Fiber Since 2007, the EDF-1 and EDF-2 rates for Dark Fiber (Attachment W) customers have increased annually by the annual December change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) in the San Francisco area, as stated in their dark fiber contract agreements. Based on prior Utilities Advisory Committee and City Council direction, these rate changes are routinely included as part of the Budget adoption process and rather than in a separate staff report. This 8 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/70182 City of Palo Alto Page 10 year’s change in CPI-U was 4.5 percent, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Water Budget Rate Structure Evaluation Staff has also included a memorandum on water budget rate structures as an informational item. A water-budget rate structure “is a form of increasing block rates where the amount of water within the first block or blocks is based on the estimated efficient water needs of the individual customer.”9 For example, the water budget could take into consideration the efficient indoor needs based on the number of people living in a residence and the efficient outdoor use based on the square footage of landscape, weather conditions and other factors. The result of water budget-based rates is that customers pay a lower rate for water use within the budget and a higher rate for water use above the budget. Water budget-based rates have been in use in Southern California since the early 1990s. Water agencies have used water budget-based rates to incentivize efficient water use under uncertain water supply conditions. Since that time, water budget-based rate structures have been implemented by at least 25 water providers across the United States (see Attachment X for more details). There are advantages and disadvantages to using water budget-based rates to take into consideration when evaluating the possible use of this type of rate structure in Palo Alto. Water budget-based rate structures promote a culture of using water efficiently. In instances where agencies have faced supply shortages, water budget-based rates have been shown to reduce inefficient and wasteful water use. Conversely, water budget rate structures are complex to understand and implement, and the costs of implementation and administration vary by agency and can be substantial. If the City of Palo Alto decides to consider water budget rates further, staff believes the costs would likely be higher than reflected in Attachment X due to testing and change management efforts of billing and customer service staff as well as marketing and additional staff time associated with implementation and maintenance. Developing a more detailed cost estimate warrants further investigation to inform decisions regarding Palo Alto’s further consideration of water budget rate structures. Timeline Water and Wastewater Collection Rates After the June 17th Public Hearing is opened and testimony from members of the public accepted, City Council may choose to: 1. Close the hearing and take action; or 2. Close the hearing and defer action until the close of the Budget Adoption Hearing on 9 American Water Works Association. Manual of Water Supply Practices-M1, Seventh Edition, Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges, Chris Woodcock, Rick Giardina, Todd Cristiano, 2017. City of Palo Alto Page 11 June 17th; or 3. Continue the hearing until the end of the Budget Adoption Hearing (should the Budget Adoption Hearing be continued to another Council meeting), and then reconvene the hearing, take any additional water and wastewater collection rate testimony, close the hearing, and take action. The latter option has been used in prior years when the Budget Adoption process has spanned multiple City Council meetings. It is customary in such circumstances to continue to accept written protests up until the hearing is closed. Unless written protests are filed by a majority of affected water and wastewater customers, Council may vote on the proposed rate actions. If approved, the water and wastewater rates will become effective July 1, 2019. Electric, Gas, Dark Fiber and Storm Water rates, as well as Utility Financial Plans The written majority protest process described above is set forth by the California Constitution and applies to changes to the City’s water and wastewater rates. The electric, gas, dark fiber and storm drainage rates and plans are will also be considered at the June 17, 2019 public hearing. Should the City Council take action to approve any or all of these rates or plans, they will become effective July 1, 2019. Resource Impact Resource impacts related to the proposed Water, Wastewater Collections, Electric, Gas, and Storm Drainage rate actions are detailed fully in the attached Finance Committee reports and are in alignment with assumptions used in the development of the FY 2020 budget that is to be considered by the City Council on June 17, 2019. Policy Implications Policy Implications related to the proposed Water, Wastewater Collections, Electric and Gas rate actions are detailed fully in the linked Finance Committee reports. There are no policy changes contained in the adoption of the proposed new Dark Fiber and Storm Drainage Rates. Environmental Review Adoption of the attached Financial Plans and budgeted transfers does not meet the California Environmental Quality Act’s definition of a project, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) and (5), because it is a governmental fiscal and administrative activity which will not cause a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. Adoption of the proposed electric, gas, water, wastewater collection and dark fiber rates to meet operating expenses, purchase supplies and materials, meet financial reserve needs and obtain funds for capital improvements necessary to maintain service is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a). After City of Palo Alto Page 12 reviewing the staff report and all attachments presented to Council, the Council incorporates these documents herein and finds that sufficient evidence has been presented setting forth with specificity the basis for this claim of CEQA exemption. Attachments: • ID 10295 Attachment Sheet list • Attachment A: Resolution Approving FY 2020 Electric Utility Financial Plan and Proposed Transfers • Attachment B: FY 2020 Electric Utility Financial Plan • Attachment C: Resolution Adopting Electric Rates effective July 1, 2019 • Attachment D: Proposed Electric Rate Schedules E-1, E-2, E-2-G, E-4, E-4-G, E-4-TOU, E- 7, E-7-G, E-7-TOU, E-14, E-NSE and E-EEC • Attachment E: Resolution Adopting FY 2020 Gas Utility Financial Plan and Proposed Transfers • Attachment F: FY 2020 Gas Utility Financial Plan • Attachment G: Info item - Gas Hedging Memo • Attachment H: Draft Palo Alto Gas Cost of Service Memo 2019 • Attachment I: Resolution Amending Gas Utility Rates G-1, G-2, G-3 and G-10 Effective July 1, 2019 • Attachment J: Proposed Gas Utility Rate Schedules G-1, G-2, G-3 and G-10 • Attachment K: Resolution Approving FY 2020 Wastewater Collection Utility Financial Plan and Proposed Transfers • Attachment L: FY 2020 Wastewater Collection Utility Financial Plan • Attachment M: Resolution Adopting Wastewater Collection Rate Schedules S-1, S-2, S-6 and S-7 • Attachment N: Proposed Wastewater Collection Rate SchedulesS-1, S-2, S-6 and S-7 • Attachment O: Resolution Adopting FY 2020 Water Utility Financial Plan and Proposed Transfers • Attachment P: FY 2020 Water Utility Financial Plan • Attachment Q - Palo Alto Water Cost of Service Memo 2019 • Attachment R: Resolution Adopting Water Utility Rates Effective July 1, 2019 • Attachment S: Proposed Water Utility Rate Schedules W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4 and W-7 • Attachment T: Resolution Amending Storm Water Management and Drainage Rate Schedule D-1 • Attachment U: Proposed Storm Water and Surface Water Drainage Schedule D-1 • Attachment V: Resolution Amending Dark Fiber Rate Schedules EDF-1 and EDF-2 • Attachment W: Proposed Dark Fiber Rate Schedules EDF-1 and EDF-2 • Attachment X: Water Budget Rates Memorandum Staff Report 10295 Attachment Sheet Attachment B: FY 2020 Electric Utility Financial Plan https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=60223.49&BlobI D=71361 Attachment D: Proposed Electric Rate Schedules E-1, E-2, E-2-G, E-4, E-4-G, E-4-TOU, E-7, E- 7-G, E-7-TOU, E-14, E-NSE and E-EEC https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=60303.99&BlobI D=71362 Attachment F: FY 2020 Gas Utility Financial Plan https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=60939.34&BlobI D=71364 Attachment G: Gas Hedging Memo https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=60857.63&BlobI D=71363 Attachment H: Palo Alto Gas Cost of Service Memo 2019 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=84125.75&BlobI D=71421 Attachment J: Proposed Gas Rate Schedules G-1, G-2, G-3 and G-10 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=61104.55&BlobI D=71365 Attachment L: FY 2020 Wastewater Collection Utility Financial Plan https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=61290.09&BlobI D=71366 Attachment N: Proposed Wastewater Collection Rate Schedules S-1, S-2, S-6 and S-7 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=61499.86&BlobI D=71367 Attachment P: FY 2020 Water Utility Financial Plan https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=61704.19&BlobI D=71368 Attachment Q: Palo Alto Water Cost of Service Memo 2019 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=48180.98&BlobI D=71405 Attachment S: Proposed Water Rate Schedules W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4 and W-7 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=61959.92&BlobI D=71369 Attachment U: Proposed Storm and Surface Water Drainage Rate Schedule D-1 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=62120.81&BlobI D=71370 Attachment W: Proposed Dark Fiber Rate Schedules EDF-1 and EDF-2 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=66234.43&BlobI D=71371 Attachment X: Water Budget Rates Memorandum https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=48331.38&BlobI D=71406 Attachment A * NOT YET APPROVED * 6055193 Resolution No. _________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Fiscal Year 2020 Electric Utility Financial Plan R E C I T A L S A. Each year the City of Palo Alto (“City”) regularly assesses the financial position of its utilities with the goal of ensuring adequate revenue to fund operations. This includes making long-term projections of market conditions, the physical condition of the system, and other factors that could affect utility costs, and setting rates adequate to recover these costs. This is done with the goal of providing safe, reliable, and sustainable utility services at competitive rates. The City adopts Financial Plans to summarize these projections. B. The City uses reserves to protect against contingencies and to manage other aspects of its operations, and regularly assesses the adequacy of these reserves and the management practices governing their operation. The status of utility reserves and their management practices are included in Reserves Management Practices attached to and made part of the Financial Plans. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The Council hereby approves the FY 2020 Electric Utility Financial Plan. SECTION 2. The following transfers that were previously approved by resolution 9692 to take place in FY 2017, but which were not performed due to staff error, are hereby reauthorized in FY 2019: 1) transfer up to $9.0 million from the Hydroelectric Stabilization Reserve to the Supply Operations Reserve, 2) transfer up to $9.011 million from the Supply Rate Stabilization Reserve to the Supply Operations Reserve, and 3) transfer up to $4.5 million from the Supply Operations Reserve to the Distribution Operations Reserve. // // // // // // // Attachment A * NOT YET APPROVED * 6055193 // // SECTION 3. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the California Environmental Quality Act’s (CEQA) definition of a project under Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), because it is an administrative governmental activity which will not cause a direct or indirect physical change in the environment, and therefore, no environmental review is required. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ___________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ___________________________ Director of Utilities ___________________________ Director of Administrative Services See Attachment Sheet List to below document Link FY 2020 Electric Utility Financial Plan Attachment C *NOT YET APPROVED * 6055196 1 Resolution No. _________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting an Electric Rate Increase and Amending Rate Schedules E-1 (Residential Electric Service), E-2 (Residential Master-Metered and Small Non-Residential Electric Service), E-2-G (Residential Master-Metered and Small Non- Residential Green Power Electric Service), E-4 (Medium Non- Residential Electric Service), E-4-G (Medium Non-Residential Green Power Electric Service), E-4 TOU (Medium Non-Residential Time of Use Electric Service), E 7 (Large Non-Residential Electric Service), E-7- G (Large Non-Residential Green Power Electric Service), E-7 TOU (Large Non-Residential Time of Use Electric Service), E-14 (Street Lights), E-NSE (Net Metering Net Surplus Electricity Compensation), and E-EEC (Export Electricity Compensation). R E C I T A L S A.Pursuant to Chapter 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Council of the City of Palo Alto may by resolution adopt rules and regulations governing utility services, fees and charges. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule E-1 (Residential Electric Service) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule E-1, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2019. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule E-2 (Residential Master-Metered and Small Non-Residential Electric Service) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule E-2, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2019. SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule E-2-G (Residential Master-Metered and Small Non-Residential Green Power Electric Service) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule E-2-G, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2019. SECTION 4. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule E-4 (Medium Non-Residential Electric Service) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule E-4, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2019. SECTION 5. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule E-4-G (Medium Non-Residential Green Power Electric Service) is hereby Attachment C * NOT YET APPROVED * 6055196 2 amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule E-4-G, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2019. SECTION 6. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule E-4 TOU (Medium Non-Residential Time of Use Electric Service) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule E-4 TOU, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2019. SECTION 7. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule E-7 (Large Non-Residential Electric Service) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule E-7, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2019. SECTION 8. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule E-7-G (Large Non-Residential Green Power Electric Service) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule E-7-G, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2019. SECTION 9. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule E-7 TOU (Large Non-Residential Time of Use Electric Service) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule E-7 TOU, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2019. SECTION 10. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule E-14 (Street Lights) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule E-14, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2019. SECTION 11. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule E-NSE (Net Metering Net Surplus Electricity Compensation) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule E-NSE, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2019. SECTION 12. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule E-EEC (Export Electricity Compensation) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule E-EEC, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2019. SECTION 13. The Council makes the following findings: a. The revenue derived from the adoption of this resolution shall be used only for the purpose set forth in Article VII, Section 2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto. b. The fees and charges adopted by this resolution are charges imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that are not provided Attachment C * NOT YET APPROVED * 6055196 3 to those not charged, and do not exceed the reasonable costs to the City of providing the service or product. c. The adoption of this resolution changing electric rates to meet operating expenses, purchase supplies and materials, meet financial reserve needs and obtain funds for capital improvements necessary to maintain service is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a). After reviewing the staff report and all attachments presented to Council, the Council incorporates these documents herein and finds that sufficient evidence has been presented setting forth with specificity the basis for this claim of CEQA exemption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ___________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ___________________________ Director of Utilities ___________________________ Director of Administrative Services See Attachment Sheet List to below document Link Proposed Electric Rate Schedules E-1, E-2, E-2-G, E-4, E-4-G, E-4-TOU, E-7, E-7-G, E-7-TOU, E-14, E-NSE and E-EEC Attachment E *NOT YET APPROVED * MM001 Resolution No. _________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the FY 2019 Gas Utility Financial Plan R E C I T A L S A.Each year the City of Palo Alto (“City”) regularly assesses the financial position of its utilities with the goal of ensuring adequate revenue to fund operations. This includes making long-term projections of market conditions, the physical condition of the system, and other factors that could affect utility costs, and setting rates adequate to recover these costs. It does this with the goal of providing safe, reliable, and sustainable utility services at competitive rates. The City adopts Financial Plans to summarize these projections. B.The City uses reserves to protect against contingencies and to manage other aspects of its operations, and regularly assesses the adequacy of these reserves and the management practices governing their operation. The status of utility reserves and their management practices are included in Reserves Management Practices attached to and made part of the Financial Plans. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The Council hereby adopts the FY 2020 Gas Utility Financial Plan. SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the transfer of up to $6.3 Million from the Rate Stabilization Reserve to the Operations Reserve, and up $6 Million from the Operations Reserve to the CIP Reserve, as described in the FY 2020 Gas Utility Financial Plan approved via this resolution. // // // // // // // // // Attachment A * NOT YET APPROVED * MM001 // // SECTION 3. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the California Environmental Quality Act’s (CEQA) definition of a project under Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), because it is an administrative governmental activity which will not cause a direct or indirect physical change in the environment, and therefore, no environmental assessment is required. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ___________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ___________________________ Director of Utilities ___________________________ Director of Administrative Services See Attachment Sheet List to below document Link FY 2020 Gas Utility Financial Plan See Attachment Sheet List to below document Link Gas Hedging Memo City of Palo Alto Prepared by: 570 Kirkland Way, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 A registered professional engineering corporation with offices in Kirkland, WA; Portland, OR and La Quinta, CA Telephone: (425) 889-2700 Facsimile: (425) 889-2725 City of Palo Alto Natural Gas Cost of Service and Rate Study Draft May 16, 2019 DRAFT CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY i Contents CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................................................. I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 1 REVENUE REQUIREMENT ................................................................................................................................................. 1 COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS.............................................................................................................................................. 2 RATE DESIGN OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................. 4 RECOMMENDATION ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 OVERVIEW OF RATE SETTING PRINCIPLES .............................................................................................................. 7 OVERVIEW AND ORGANIZATION OF REPORT ........................................................................................................................ 7 OVERVIEW OF THE ANALYSES ........................................................................................................................................... 7 OVERVIEW OF REVENUE REQUIREMENT METHODOLOGIES ..................................................................................................... 8 OVERVIEW OF COST ALLOCATION PROCEDURES ................................................................................................................... 8 RATE DESIGN AND ECONOMIC THEORY .............................................................................................................................. 8 DEVELOPMENT OF THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT .................................................................................................. 9 OVERVIEW OF CPA’S REVENUE REQUIREMENT METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................. 9 DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL GAS COMMODITY COSTS ........................................................................................................ 10 OTHER OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES ........................................................................................................... 10 GENERAL FUND TRANSFER ............................................................................................................................................. 11 DEBT SERVICE AND RATE-FUNDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) .......................................................................... 11 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES ........................................................................................................................................... 11 TRANSFERS FROM RESERVES .......................................................................................................................................... 11 SUMMARY OF REVENUE REQUIREMENT ............................................................................................................................ 12 RECOMMENDATION ..................................................................................................................................................... 12 COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................. 13 COSA DEFINITION AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES ................................................................................................................... 13 FUNCTIONALIZATION OF COSTS ....................................................................................................................................... 14 CLASSIFICATION AND ALLOCATION OF COSTS ..................................................................................................................... 15 REVIEW OF CUSTOMER CLASSES OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................................... 21 COST OF SERVICE RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................. 22 RATE DESIGN ....................................................................................................................................................... 28 RATE DESIGN – DISTRIBUTION ........................................................................................................................................ 28 RATE DESIGN – NATURAL GAS SUPPLY (COMMODITY) ........................................................................................................ 29 PROPOSED RATE DESIGN ............................................................................................................................................... 29 TECHNICAL APPENDIX .......................................................................................................................................... 37 COST OF SERVICE MODEL DRAFT CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 1 Executive Summary The City of Palo Alto (CPA) retained EES Consulting, Inc. (EES) to perform a natural gas cost of service analysis (COSA) and rate study as part of its ongoing efforts to maintain fiscally prudent and fair, cost-based rates for its natural gas customers. The purpose of this report is to discuss the data inputs, assumptions and results that were part of developing the rate study. A comprehensive rate study generally consists of three separate, yet interrelated analyses. These three analyses are the revenue requirement, the COSA, and the rate design. Revenue Requirement A revenue requirement analysis compares the overall revenues of the utility to its expenses and helps determine whether an overall adjustment to rate levels is required. CPA has prepared a financial analysis that includes a forecast of FY2020 sales, revenues and expenses to determine the need for an overall rate increase for the natural gas utility. For this COSA, a “cash basis” method was used for determining CPA’s revenue requirement based on CPA’s financial forecast. A base case was defined to develop the COSA. This base case assumed the following: ◼ Historic/recorded year is FY 2018 (July 2017 – June 2018). ◼ Test year/allocation year is FY 2020. ◼ Billing determinants were based on FY 2020 forecasts. ◼ Expenses were based on forecasted FY 2020 expenses. ◼ An overall rate increase of 8.0% for the distribution portion rates was used, as provided by the financial forecast. FY 2020 natural gas commodity costs were included in the COSA based on the financial forecast for the year. However the rate of the CPA’s supply (commodity) charge to its gas customers is adjusted monthly to pass-through actual commodity rates charged to CPA by its wholesaler. Therefore, supply charges are not set on the basis of the COSA. The COSA is used for setting the distribution charges for the year. If CPA’s rates currently in effect remain unchanged, FY 2020 revenues from all sources would equal $38.0 million (including revenues associated with natural gas commodity charges) and $22.3 million for distribution charges only. Budgeted expenses are $39.8 million with the cost of natural gas commodity included, and $24.1 million for distribution related costs alone. With no rate change, forecasted sales revenues for FY 2020 are short by $1.8 million, which means an 8.0% increase is required in the distribution charges overall (and an approximately 4.7% change in total bills). The increases for individual customer classes of service will vary, as DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 2 discussed in the section on the COSA. A summary of the draft revenue requirement is shown in Table 1. Additional detail can be found in Schedule 3.1. Table 1 Summary of the Revenue Requirement FY: 2019-2020 Revenue Requirement Purchased Gas Supply $15,718,000 Distribution O&M $6,022,000 Customer Accounts and Services $2,501,000 Administration and General $3,832,000 Debt Service & CIP from Rates $3,150,000 General Fund Transfer $7,106,000 Total Expenses $38,329,000 Transfers to Reserves $2,872,000 Other Revenues ($1,385,000) Total Revenue Required from Rates (Revenue Requirement) $39,816,000 with Gas Supply $24,098,000 without Gas Supply Revenues Based on Rates Currently in Effect $38,031,072 with Gas Supply $22,313,072 without Gas Supply Additional Rate Revenue Needed $1,784,928 Total Required Rate Revenue Increase (Decrease) 4.7% with Gas Supply 8.0% without Gas Supply Cost of Service Analysis A COSA is concerned with the equitable allocation of the revenue requirement to the various customer classes of service. As is standard procedure for COSAs, the revenue requirement shown in Table 1 for CPA was functionalized, classified and allocated. This process is described in detail in the section below titled “Cost of Service Analysis.” Table 2 shows the results of the COSA. It shows the revenues that would be realized in FY 2020 without any rate changes (i.e. keeping the rates currently in effect), the share of the FY 2020 revenue requirement that should be allocated to each rate class as determined by the COSA, and the deficiency in revenue if current rates are left unchanged. Without a rate change, FY 2020 revenues will be less than allocated FY 2020 costs for every class of service. Note that the revenues and costs in Table 2 are based on distribution charges/costs only. The COSA is not used to set the gas commodity rates, however, the FY 2020 projected natural gas commodity costs for each month are included in the COSA. Natural gas commodity costs are flowed through on the basis of actual costs, updated each month. Any changes in natural gas supply costs that differ from the forecast will be passed on to customers but are not DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 3 included in the COSA results. The COSA results are used to set the distribution costs for each customer class. The required rate increases by class are shown on a percentage basis in Table 2 for distribution costs alone and for the combined distribution and commodity charges. More detail is presented in Schedules 1.1 and 1.2, and the COSA methodology is described in more detail below in the “Cost of Service Analysis” section of this report. Table 2 Summary of Cost of Service Analysis for FY 2020 Test Year Distribution Costs Only Projected FY 2020 Revenues under Current Rates Net Distribution Revenue Requirement Projected Deficiency in FY 2020 Revenue Based on Current Rates Revenue Increase needed for Distribution Charges1 Increase for Combined Commodity and Distribution Charges G1 – Residential $8,928,944 $10,111,795 $1,182,850 13.25% 8.1% G2 - Small Commercial $9,921,058 $10,423,850 $502,792 5.07% 3.0% G3 – Large Commercial $3,463,070 $3,562,355 $99,286 2.87% 1.5% TOTAL $22,313,072 $24,098,000 $1,784,928 8.0% 4.7% Overall CPA needs an 8% increase in distribution rates for FY 2020. The results show that residential customers need a larger than average increase while small and large commercial customers need a rate increase that is less than the average. As is typical with most rate schedules, particularly those without large fixed charges, when energy consumption increases or decreases significantly, a COSA may reveal the need for realignment of revenue collection among classes of service. Classes whose consumption and demand have decreased since the last COSA will typically see higher rate increases so they are paying their share of fixed system costs, while classes with increasing consumption and demand will see lower rate increases. If energy use declines, these fixed costs may be spread over a lesser amount of sales, driving up the per on a per therm basis. The impacts to each class required as a result of the analysis done in the COSA are described below: ◼ Energy consumption per customer has decreased by roughly 10 percent for the Residential class of service when compared to the 2012 COSA. This means that the fixed costs associated with the Residential class are spread among a smaller amount of therms, increasing the per unit cost for the class. While energy consumption has declined, the peak day demand has not declined as much for the residential class. Because a large portion of costs are allocated to customer classes on the basis of peak day demand, the residential class still sees a large percentage of costs assigned to them. Because the allocated cost has 1 Projected FY 2020 revenue deficiency divided by projected FY 2020 revenue based on rates currently in effect. Numbers rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent. DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 4 not declined as fast as their energy use, they end up needing a larger than average rate increase when compared to other classes. ◼ Small Commercial use per customer has also decreased by roughly 10 percent since the 2012 COSA. Both the use per customer and load factor are higher than for the Residential class, leading to a lower average cost than for the residential class. ◼ While the Large Commercial class has seen a much larger drop in use per customer (40%), that is partly the result of more mid-size customers qualifying for this rate as the number of Large Commercial customers has increased since the 2012 COSA. This class has the highest use per customer and the highest load factor, and therefore is allocated less costs per therm than the other two classes. The growth in the costs within different functions of the utility also has an impact on the cost of service by class. Overall, costs related to the distribution system have increased by only 8% between 2012 and 2020. The majority of this cost increase occurred in the specific distribution operations and maintenance (O&M) expense category. The distribution O&M cost represents roughly 25 percent of the overall distribution cost and relates to the physical distribution system. As part of the COSA, the composition of each rate class was reviewed to determine whether classes should be combined, or additional classes created. Options were considered where the largest customers in the Small Commercial class would be moved to the Large Commercial class or the Small and Large Commercial classes would be combined. After reviewing the results, we do not recommend changing the rate classes at this time. Rate Design Overview The final step in the rate study process is to design rates for each class of service. In California, local governments are subject to Article XIII C of the California Constitution, as amended by Proposition 26 (2010). As a result, CPA has been setting rates to match the COSA results for each class. All of the rate classes are charged a monthly service charge and distribution charge per therm to cover distribution costs. The residential class has a tiered distribution charge per therm while the two commercial classes do not. No change in the rate design structure is proposed at this time. The rates for the Residential and Commercial customers are designed to reflect the differences in costs among the various rate classes. The costs per class differ based on the seasonal shape of consumption (referred to as energy use) as well as the daily peak demand for each class. Differences in energy use by season and the level of peak demand have an impact on the utility’s need for distribution facilities and the costs to operate and maintain those facilities. DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 5 The Residential G1 rate class is fairly homogenous in energy and peak demand use compared to the other rate classes, and the additional cost associated with peak demand can be captured in a tiered rate design. For the two Commercial classes, there are inherent size differences, in terms of both physical space and energy use, related to the types of business within the commercial rate classes. It is not appropriate to charge large businesses more through a tiered rate just because of the size of the business due to the fact that the larger sized customers do not have higher distribution costs on a per therm basis. For that reason, the distribution charge for Commercial rates are the same for all therms. For each class, the proposed rates are based on the unit costs resulting from the COSA. Table 3 provides a comparison of the proposed rates to current rates for each customer class. Table 3 Comparison of Proposed Rates to Current Current Rate Proposed Rate $ Change Percent Change Residential G1 Monthly Service Charge $10.94 $13.35 $2.41 22.0% Distribution Charge ($/therm) Tier 1: First 60 therms winter First 20 therms summer $0.4239 $0.4835 $0.0596 14.1% Tier 2: Over 60 therms winter Over 20 therms summer $0.9948 $1.04260 $0.0478 4.8% Small Commercial G2 Monthly Service Charge $82.94 $104.95 $22.01 26.5% Distribution Charge ($/therm) $0.6183 $0.6102 -$0.0081 -1.3% Large Commercial G3 Monthly Service Charge $400.08 $690.45 $290.35 72.6% Distribution Charge ($/therm) $0.60980 $0.60560 -$0.00420 -0.7% For each of the three classes, the proposed percentage rate increase for the monthly service charge is higher than the percentage rate increase for the distribution charges per therm. For the residential class, the proposed Tier 1 charge has a larger rate increase than the proposed Tier 2 charge. Recommendation Based on the projected revenue requirement and COSA analysis, the following observations can be made for CPA: ◼ CPA will need to increase overall distribution revenues by 8 percent for FY 2020 in order to recover sufficient revenues to meet costs. ◼ Revenues for each rate class should be aligned with the costs allocated to that rate class. DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 6 ◼ The residential class needs an above average rate increase while the two commercial classes need a below average rate increase to reflect the cost of service. DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 7 Overview of Rate Setting Principles EES Consulting, Inc. (EES) was retained by the City of Palo Alto (CPA) to perform a comprehensive natural gas cost of service and rate study for the natural gas utility. Performing a natural gas rate study is necessary to assure that CPA’s rates are structured to be fair, equitable and based on the cost of providing service to all City customers. In conducting a cost of service and rate study, three inter-related analyses are performed: 1. Revenue Requirement Analysis: This analysis examines the various sources and uses of funds for the utility and determines the overall revenue required to operate the utility. 2. Cost of Service Analysis (COSA): The COSA is used to determine the fair and equitable allocation of the total revenue requirement to the various customer classes of service (e.g. residential, small commercial, large commercial). This analysis provides a determination of the level of revenue responsibility of each class of service and the adjustments from current revenues required to meet the cost of service. 3. Rate Design Analysis: The third analysis involves evaluating the rate design options available and designing rate schedules that can be applied to each rate class to equitably collect revenues that match the cost to serve each customer in that class. Overview and Organization of Report This report is divided into sections that follow these three analyses. This first section is a generic discussion of the theory and financial principles behind setting rates. This is followed by a section discussing the development of the natural gas revenue requirement analysis for CPA. The next section discusses the COSA. Finally, rate design options are presented in the fourth and final section. A technical appendix is attached at the end of this report that provides details of the various analyses. The schedules contained in the technical appendix are referenced throughout the report. The purpose of this section of the report is to provide a brief overview of the fundamentals of cost identification and allocation for purposes of developing natural gas rates. From this base- level of knowledge, more insight and understanding can be obtained from the following sections of the report that discuss the specifics of the Revenue Requirement, Cost of Service, and Rate Design analyses mentioned above. Overview of the Analyses All utility rate cost allocation methodologies share the same basic framework. That is, in allocating natural gas costs, multiple separate yet interrelated analyses (revenue requirement DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 8 analysis, COSA, and rate design analysis) are performed. A variety of reasonable methodologies exist within each of these separate analyses. Overview of Revenue Requirement Methodologies For this study, a cash basis was used to determine CPA’s natural gas utility’s revenue requirement. The cash basis methodology aligns well to most Publicly Owned Utility (POU) budgetary processes and is the standard approach used by CPA for budgeting and financial forecasting. Under a cash basis approach, the revenue requirement includes debt service and capital improvement projects (CIP) funded from rates. It does not include the depreciation of assets. Overview of Cost Allocation Procedures After the total revenue requirement has been determined, it is allocated to the various customer classes of service based upon a cost-based methodology that reflects cost causation and cost-causal relationships between customer characteristics and the production and distribution of the services. This analytical exercise usually takes the form of a COSA. A COSA begins by assigning each cost in a utility’s revenue requirement into major categories that reflect the utility’s capital investment and services provided to customers, such as natural gas natural gas supply, transmission, distribution and customer. This is called “functionalization.” Next, the functionalized costs are linked to categories (such as demand-, energy-, and customer-related costs) and a direct assignment category. This is called “classification.” Allocation factors are then used to allocate each cost to each class of service. At that point the revenue requirement has been allocated to each class of service and a determination of the necessary revenue adjustments between classes of service can be made. Rate Design and Economic Theory The final step in the rate study process is to design rates for each class of service. Rates can be structured in many ways, but, ultimately, they should reflect the types of costs that the utility incurs to serve the customer (e.g. natural gas supply, distribution and customer-related costs), and should collect the required level of revenues to safely and reliably operate the utility. DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 9 Development of the Revenue Requirement This section of the report presents the development of the natural gas revenue requirement for CPA. Simply stated, a revenue requirement analysis compares the overall revenues of the utility to its expenses and determines the overall adjustment to rate levels that is required. Overview of CPA’s Revenue Requirement Methodology As discussed in the previous section of the report, CPA utilizes the “cash basis” approach for determining its revenue requirement. In summary form, CPA’s components to its revenue requirement include the elements shown in Table 4. Table 4 Elements of a Cash Basis Revenue Requirement + Operating Expenses ✓ Natural Gas Supply Expense ✓ Distribution O&M Expense ✓ Customer Accounting Expenses ✓ Administrative and General Expense + Capital Improvements funded from Rates + General Fund Transfer = Total Revenue Requirement - Transfers from Reserves - Miscellaneous Revenue Sources = Net Revenues Required From Rates From this basic analytical framework, the next step in determining the revenue requirement methodology is to select a time period over which to review revenue and expenses. In the case of CPA, a fiscal year test period was utilized (July through June) rather than a calendar year test period. The test period may either be a past fiscal year or a future fiscal year. The former is appropriate when costs do not change significantly from year to year, while the latter is more appropriate when costs are expected to change significantly. CPA provided a financial forecast of costs for FY 2020 (July 2019 through June 2020). The next step in the analysis was to translate the CPA-budgeted costs into the system of accounts used by a natural gas utility. The detailed FY 2020 revenue requirement by account is provided in Schedule 3.1, as provided in the Technical Appendix. DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 10 Development of Natural Gas Commodity Costs As with most natural gas utilities, a major expense associated with operating the utility is the cost of natural gas supply. Approximately $15.7 million or 39 percent of the FY 2020 total revenue requirement of the utility is natural gas supply costs, as shown in Schedule 3.1. CPA acquires natural gas to serve its customers through the market, with a mix of different contract lengths. While the cost of natural gas supply is included in the COSA, it is treated as a separate category as the cost of natural gas supply is collected through separate rate components. Natural gas supply is a pass through of costs and the rates adjust monthly to reflect actual wholesale costs. Other Operating Expenses CPA’s proposed FY 2020 Operating Budget was also used for the derivation of all distribution- related expenses. Total FY 2020 expenses for distribution (i.e. excluding natural gas supply) are projected to be $24 million. As shown in Schedules 1.4 and 3.1, this is made up of the following: ◼ Physical system expenses of $6.0 million. These costs include the operation and maintenance of distribution system infrastructure such as distribution mains, regulators and meters. ◼ Customer service related costs of $2.5 million. These costs include meter reading, billing, key account representatives and general customer service. ◼ Administrative and general costs of $3.8 million. These costs include functions like accounting, benefit overhead, insurance, and other types of administrative overhead. The customer service category includes expenses for efficiency, demand side management, and low income programs. These expenses are incurred by the gas enterprise as part of a program established by the CPA pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 898. By virtue of this program, gas customers are exempted from a state surcharge that would otherwise be collected on utility bills pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 890. These programs reduce customer gas demand, and therefore are designed to reduce the need for capital expenditures to expand the capacity of the gas distribution system. The FY 2020 natural gas utility expense for CPA is $24.1 million without natural gas supply and $39.8 million when combined with natural gas supply, as shown in Schedule 3.1. DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 11 General Fund Transfer CPA calculates the equity transfer from its natural gas utility based on a methodology adopted by Council in 2009,2 which has remained unchanged since then. The General Fund Transfer will be $7.1 million in FY 2020, as shown in Schedule 3.1. Debt Service and Rate-Funded Capital Improvement Program (CIP) CPA must cover its capital projects (CIP) through either debt or cash from rates. For FY 2020 CPA has debt service payments of $800,000 for past borrowings to fund CIP. No new debt is planned for FY 2020. The majority of CIP is funded through cash from rates. For FY 2020, the budgeted CIP is $2.3 million, as shown in Schedule 3.1. This amount is offset, in effect, by customer contributions made in the form of connection fees. The $1.1 million in connection fees in included in other revenues, which is discussed below. Miscellaneous/Other Revenues CPA receives additional operating and non-operating revenues and contributions. These come in the form of interest revenues, connection fees and other miscellaneous service revenues. Interest revenues represent interest on the utility’s reserves. Connection fees are contributions paid by customers to cover the cost of new facilities built on their behalf. For FY 2020 the projection for such revenues and contributions is $1.4 million, as shown in Schedule 3.1. These revenues are outside of the revenue collected from the natural gas rates charged to retail customers. For that reason, they are used as an offset to the revenue requirement. That way, the revenue requirement and COSA reflect the amounts that need to be collected from retail rates only. Transfers to/from Reserves In its FY 2020 natural gas financial plan, CPA is anticipating that $2.9 million in rate revenues will be added to the reserve fund in FY 2020 to cover future CIP costs and for rate stabilization. CPA is planning on low CIP expenditures in FY 2020, followed by much larger CIP expenditures in FY 2021. Because CIP amounts are not consistent across years, reserve funds are used to balance out that amount and avoid large swings in rates due to CIP schedules. The use of the reserve fund allows CPA to have more stable and gradual rate increases over time. For that 2 City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report (CMR) 280:09, “Adoption of an Ordinance Adopting the Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 Budget, Including the Fiscal Year 2010 Capital Improvement Program, Changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule, Utility Rates and Charges, Equity Transfer Methodology Change and Changes to Compensation Plans,” June 15, 2009 and CMR 260:09, “Recommendation to City Council to Change the Methodology Used to Calculate the Equity Transfer from Utilities Funds to the General Fund,” May 26, 2009. DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 12 reason, a reserve fund contribution is included for FY 2020 so that CPA has sufficient funds to pay for the larger CIP amount expected in FY 2021 without a corresponding large increase in rates. Each year in the future, CPA will need to look at the use of reserves as a way to pay for CIP and mitigate future rate increases. Summary of Revenue Requirement Once all of the components of the cash basis revenue requirement have been determined, the parts can be summed to equal the total revenue requirement. CPA’s revenue requirement for the FY 2020 test period is summarized in Table 5. More detail on the individual components of the revenue requirement can be found in Schedule 3.1. Table 5 Summary of the Revenue Requirement FY: 2019-2020 Revenue Requirement Gas Supply $15,718,000 Distribution O&M $6,022,000 Customer Accounts and Services $2,501,000 Administration and General $3,832,000 Debt Service & CIP from Rates $3,150,000 General Fund Transfer $7,106,000 Total Expenses $38,329,000 Transfers from Reserves $2,872,000 Other Revenues ($1,385,000) Total Revenue Required from Rates (Revenue Requirement) $39,816,000 with Gas Supply $24,098,000 without Gas Supply Revenues Based on Rates Currently in Effect $38,031,072 with Gas Supply $22,313,072 without Gas Supply Additional Rate Revenue Needed $1,784,928 Total Required Rate Revenue Increase (Decrease) 4.7% with Gas Supply 8.0% without Gas Supply Recommendation CPA’s revenues are not sufficient to cover its projected expenses in FY 2020 under current rates. The proposed rate increase for the distribution rates is 8.0%. It is important to note that CPA’s revenue-to-cost balance needs to be continually monitored. DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 13 Cost of Service Analysis The objective of the cost of service analysis (COSA) is to allocate the costs in the revenue requirement to each customer class of service to determine the cost to serve those customers. An essential principle of cost allocation is the concept of cost-causation. Cost-causation evaluates which customer or group of customers causes the utility to incur certain costs by linking system facility investments and the operating costs to serve certain facilities to the way customers use those facilities and services. This section of the report will discuss the general approach used to apportion the CPA’s costs, and will provide a summary of the results. COSA Definition and General Principles A COSA study allocates the costs of providing utility service to the various customer classes served by the utility based upon the cost-causal relationship associated with specific expense items. This approach is taken to develop a fair and equitable designation of costs to each class of service. The COSA allocates joint and common costs among the various classes using factors appropriate to each type of expense. The COSA is the second step in a traditional three-step process for developing natural gas service rates, after development of the revenue requirement but before designing rates. A COSA study can be performed using embedded costs or marginal costs. Embedded costs generally reflect the actual costs incurred by the utility and closely track the costs kept in its accounting records. Marginal costs reflect the cost associated with adding a new customer and are based on costs of facilities and services if incurred at the present time. This study uses an embedded COSA as its standard methodology, however it uses some marginal concepts, (for example, the examination of the relative cost of new meters in determining cost allocation between rate classes). There are three basic steps to follow in developing a COSA, namely: ◼ Functionalization ◼ Classification ◼ Allocation Functionalization separates costs into major categories that reflect the different services provided to customers and the types of assets used to provide those services. The primary functional categories for CPA are natural gas supply and distribution. Shared services (overhead) to be allocated across multiple functional categories are also identified in this phase. Classification determines the portion of each cost that is related to specific cost-causal factors, or “classifiers.” These classifiers might be demand-related (related to the class of service’s peak energy usage over a given period), energy-related (related to the total energy used by the class DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 14 of service over a given period), or customer-related (costs incurred as a result of receiving service, regardless of the energy use or peak demand). Natural gas supply or commodity costs are related to the amount of natural gas purchased and are therefore considered energy- related. The distribution system is designed to extend service to all customers attached to the system and to meet both the peak day demand and the annual energy requirement of each customer, meaning that costs are both demand-related and energy-related. Some operational costs, such as billing, are generally customer-related. Costs can also be classified based on system revenues or directly assigned to a customer or group of customers if appropriate. Allocation of costs to specific classes of service happens after those costs have been classified. Allocation factors are chosen to allocate the costs assigned to each classification, and the share of costs allocated to each class of service are based on the class’s contribution to the specific allocation factor selected. For example, certain distribution costs might be classified as partially demand-related and partially energy-related. The demand-related costs would be allocated to the classes of service using each class’s contribution to the annual system peak day demand (the highest day for the system as a whole at any time during the year), while the energy- related costs would be allocated to classes based on their annual energy usage. In this example, the allocation factors are 1) each class of service’s contribution to the annual system peak day demand and 2) the annual energy usage of each class of service. An analysis of customer requirements, loads, and usage characteristics is completed to develop allocation factors reflecting each of the classifiers employed within the COSA. Functionalization of Costs As discussed above, the first step in the COSA process following finalization of the revenue requirement is to functionalize the revenue requirement. Certain types of costs in the revenue requirement (primarily O&M costs associated with various types of capital assets) are allocated based on the use of the underlying capital assets by customer class. To determine this, the underlying capital assets of the utility (the “rate base”) are functionalized into cost categories and allocated to customer classes. The functionalization, classification, and allocation of the rate base will be used as a basis for functionalization, classification, and allocation of certain types of operating expenses in the revenue requirement, such as maintenance of the capital assets included in the rate base. In CPA’s case, the rate base and revenue requirement are functionalized into Natural Gas Supply , Distribution, and Shared Services categories. Schedule 3.1 shows the functional category for each cost in the revenue requirement, while Schedule 3.3 shows the results of the functionalization and classification of each cost. Schedules 4.1 and 4.2 show the same information for the rate base. The functional categories are described in more detail below: ◼ Natural Gas Supply. The natural gas supply function category includes all costs associated with the procurement of natural gas. This includes the commodity purchases from the market, gas transportation purchased to deliver the purchased gas to the CPA system, alternative energy programs, cap and trade compliance and carbon offsets. It also includes DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 15 certain amounts for rent and administration related to the natural gas supply function. CPA does not have any rate base items that are associated with natural gas supply. ◼ Distribution. Distribution services include all services required to move the natural gas from the point of interconnection to CPA’s system to the end user of the natural gas. These primarily include service lines and gas mains. ◼ Shared Services. Shared services include assets used across multiple functions or costs that apply across multiple functions, such as facilities used for general management of the operation or insurance or benefits costs. Assets and costs in the shared services category are not shown in the attached schedules as a separate functional category. Instead, they are allocated across the Natural Gas Supply and Distribution functions as overhead. Classification and Allocation of Costs The next step in performing a COSA is to classify and allocate the functionalized expenses. The classifications and allocations are directly related to specific consumption behavior or system configuration measurements such as peak day demand, energy consumption, or number of customers. Each cost in the rate base and revenue requirement will be classified into one or more categories and will then be allocated to customer classes of service based on a specific allocator. The classification and allocation factors used for each component of the rate base and revenue requirement are shown in Tables 6 and 7 and are discussed in more detail below. Descriptions of each factor are included in Table 8. In general, the same methodology employed for the 2012 COSA was used for the FY2020 COSA. The following are the specific classifiers used in CPA’s COSA within the Natural Gas Supply and Distribution functions. As noted earlier, the Shared Services function is spread across the Natural Gas Supply and Distribution functions as overhead, so it does not have its own classifiers: ◼ Natural Gas Supply Function Within this study, natural gas supply costs are classified as 100% energy-related based on discussion with CPA staff related to cost causation. Gas purchases are made from the market at sufficient levels to meet all of the gas requirements of CPA’s customers. All costs related to the provision of natural gas supply are passed through to the customer in energy rates that vary with costs each month. ◼ Distribution Function Distribution services include all services required to get gas supply from the point of interconnection to the City delivered to the customer. Distribution costs are split between demand, energy and customer components. The demand component reflects the portion of costs driven by peak day demand for natural gas. The energy component is related to DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 16 costs incurred to serve the annual energy amount of natural gas to customers. The customer component is the cost of facilities that varies with the number of customers, such as meters. The following are the specific classifiers used for CPA’s distribution function: Demand. Demand-related costs are those that vary with the peak day demand or the maximum rates of natural gas supply to classes of service. Customer and system demands for this analysis are measured in peak day therms. Demand costs are generally related to the size of facilities needed to meet a customer’s maximum daily demand. Energy. Energy-related costs are those that vary with the total amount of natural gas consumed by a customer. Usage measured in therms is used in this portion of the analysis. Energy costs are the costs of consumption over a specified period of time, such as a month or year. Customer. Customer-related costs are those that vary with the number of customers. Customer costs may be weighted to account for differences in the cost of providing services to those customers. For example, the service drop and metering associated with serving a large commercial customer is more costly and requires substantially more work and material than the service and meter for a small residential customer. Direct Assignment. Some costs are directly assigned to specific classes of service. Costs associated with providing account representatives to large customers are allocated directly to those classes of service. The methodology for functionalization, classification, and allocation of CPA’s rate base is summarized in Table 6 and in Technical Appendix Schedule 4.1. The results of the process for the rate base can be found in Schedule 4.2. Note that the rate base does not reflect the annual expenses associated with running the utility but instead reflects the capital investments made by the utility for the physical assets in the distribution system. The purpose of looking at the rate base in the COSA is to set the cost causation associated with the physical assets, which are then used to guide the allocation of the annual expenses. Working capital is traditionally added to cover the cash on hand needed to run the utility. An estimate of 1/8th of operating costs is typically used to reflect the lag time between revenue collections and accounts payable. The same information for the revenue requirement can be found in Table 7, Schedule 3.1, and Schedule 3.3. More detail on the classification and allocation factor codes used in the classification and allocation process can be found in Table 8. Schedule 6.1 shows how each code is used to separate costs into functions (natural gas supply and distribution) and classifications (demand, energy, customer, and direct assignment). Schedule 6.2 shows the way each code then allocates the costs within each classification across classes of service. DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 17 Table 6 Rate Base Functionalization, Classification, and Allocation Asset Description FY 2020 Total Functionalization Category Classification and Allocation Factor Code3 Distribution Plant Equip-Meters $10,668,188 D CUSTM Equip-Services $47,991,995 D SERVICES Equip-Misc $1,704,032 D AE Equipment-Regulators $976,067 D AE Equip-Distribution Mains $66,908,410 D MAINS Equip-Measuring $2,211,951 D AE Total Distribution Plant $130,460,643 General Plant Building-Gen Plant $1,910,425 D GPLT Equip-Gen Plant $2,490,102 D GPLT Total General Plant $4,400,527 Total Gross Plant in Service $134,861,170 Less: Accumulated Depreciation Distribution Plant $35,044,144 D RBD General Plant $2,880,125 D RBGP Total Accumulated Depreciation $37,924,268 Total Net Plant $96,936,902 Working Capital 1/8 Operating Costs $1,544,375 D OMWOP Total Working Capital $1,544,375 TOTAL RATE BASE $98,481,277 CWIP Distribution Plant $2,903,905 D RBD Total CWIP $2,903,905 TOTAL RATE BASE plus CWIP $101,385,182 Table 7 Revenue Requirement Functionalization, Classification, and Allocation 3 See Table 8 for more detail and fully spelled-out acronyms DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 18 Plant Description FY 2020 Total Functionalization Category Classification and Allocation Factor Code4 Gas Supply Expenses Supply Commodity $14,362,000 S Therm General Admin and Overhead $1,356,000 S Therm Total Gas Supply $15,718,000 Distribution Engineering Support $373,000 D RBD Operations & Maintenance $5,649,000 D RBD Total Distribution $6,022,000 Customer Service, Accounts, & Sales Admin - Customer & Marketing $139,000 D CUSTW Meter Reading $328,000 D CUSTM Utility Billing $338,000 D CUSTW Credit & Collections $37,000 D CUSTW Key & Major Accounts $111,000 D DA1 Customer Service $679,000 D CUSTW2 Research & Development $14,000 D CUSTW Low Income Programs $12,000 D therm Efficiency - Demand Side Management $843,000 D therm no CNG Total Customer Service, Accounts & Sales $2,501,000 Administrative & General Administrative & General Salaries $338,000 D OMAG Services & Facilities Provided by CPA/Enterprises $3,494,000 D OMAG Total Administrative & General $3,832,000 Total Costs with A&G $28,073,000 Interest and Debt Service Expense Interest on Long-Term Debt $156,000 D NETPLT Principal on Long-Term Debt $644,000 D NETPLT Customer Design & Connection $1,342,000 D NETPLT System Improvement $1,008,000 D NETPLT Total Debt Service /CIP Expense $3,150,000 General Fund Transfer $7,106,000 D NETPLT Reserves $2,872,000 D OMAG Revenue Requirement Before Other Revenues $41,201,000 4 See Table 8 for more detail. DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 19 Table 7 Revenue Requirement Functionalization, Classification, and Allocation Plant Description FY 2020 Total Functionalization Category Classification and Allocation Factor Code4 Other Revenues/Discounts Customer Discounts -$110,000 D OMAG Connection Fees $1,111,000 D CUSTM Misc. Revenue (Other) $31,000 D OMAG Transfer Credits $96,000 D OMAG Income (Loss) from Equity Investments $257,000 D NETPLT Total Other Revenues $1,385,000 REVENUE REQUIREMENT for COST ALLOCATION - With Gas Supply $39,816,000 REVENUE REQUIREMENT for COST ALLOCATION - Without Gas Supply $24,098,000 DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 20 Table 8 Classification and Allocation Factors Factor Code Factor Name Classification Allocation Basis AE Average and Excess 100% Demand An allocation of demand costs that calculates the difference between the peak demand and average demand Therm Annual Energy (therm) 100% Energy Energy consumption of each class of service in annual therms therm no CNG Annual Energy (therm) w/o CNG 100% Energy Energy consumption of each class of service in annual therms, excluding CNG sales CUSTW Customers Weighted for Accounting/Metering 100% Customer # customers weighted for cost of billing, and account management CUSTM Customers Weighted for Meters and Services 100% Customer # customers weighted for cost of installing, maintaining and reading meters CUSTW2 Customers Weighted for Accounting/Metering w/o G3 100% Customer # customers weighted for cost of billing, and account management excluding G3 DA1 Direct Assignment for Large Commercial 100% Customer Direct assignment of key account costs to G3 large commercial class RBD On the Basis of Distribution Rate Base Shared Classified and allocated to classes of service based on the net book value of all shared services assets and other capital assets assigned to each class of service OM On the Basis of All O&M Shared Allocated on the basis of all other O&M costs in the revenue requirement. OMAG On the Basis of O&M (w/o Gas Supply and A&G) Shared Allocated based on O&M without Gas Supply or A&G costs OMD On the Basis of Distribution O&M Shared Allocated based on O&M for all distribution accounts GPLT On the Basis of Gross Plant (w/o General Plant & Intangible) Shared Allocated on the basis of the gross book value of all capital assets (initial cost) assigned to each class of service. NETPLT On the Basis of Net Plant Shared Allocated on the basis of the net book value of all capital assets (initial cost less accumulated depreciation) assigned to each class of service. OMWOP On the Basis of O&M (w/o Purch. Gas Supply) Allocated based on O&M without the cost of Purchased Gas Supply MAINS 58% Energy, 42% Avg & Excess 58% Energy 42% Demand Classified on the basis of load factor, with a portion allocated on the basis of energy and a portion allocated on the basis of peak demand using the average and excess method SERVICES 40% CUSTM, 35% Energy, 25% Avg & Excess 40% Customer 35% Energy 25% Demand A classification that splits costs between customer-related, energy-related and demand-related; the split was developed for the 2012 COSA DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 21 Review of Customer Classes of Service Customer classes of service refer to the arrangement of customers into groups that reflect common usage characteristics or facility requirement. The classes of service used within this study were as follows: ◼ Residential G1 ◼ Small Commercial G2 ◼ Large Commercial G3 The one CNG customer was excluded from the COSA because their service differs from the other classes. Before finalizing the classes of service used for the COSA, two alternative cases were looked at. In the first case, all commercial customers were broken out between customers with usage above and below 10,000 therms. There are 275 existing Small Commercial (G2) customers with usage above 10,000 therms. Based on the COSA, the per unit cost for demand and energy-related costs for all customers above 10,000 therms were lower than for all customers below 10,000 therms. The costs for all customers above 10,000 therms were close to, but higher than, the per unit cost for the Large Commercial (G3) customers. This is expected because larger customers typically have more even gas use throughout the year and are less driven by peak day demand as are smaller customers. Because this occurs gradually between large and small customers, there is no clear delineating point where costs are all of a sudden lower for customers above a certain size. The customer-related costs, however, were the same for all Small Commercial (G2) customers, regardless of whether they were above or below 10,000 therms, and much lower than the customer-related costs for Large Commercial (G3) customers. This is based in large part because the meter cost is roughly the same for all G2 customers while the meter costs are higher for the G3 customers. Similarly, a case was looked at where the Small Commercial (G2) and Large Commercial (G3) customers were combined into one class. The result would be a higher customer-related cost and lower demand and energy-related costs. When the Small Commercial customers over 10,000 therms were included with the Large Commercial class, their customer-related cost went up substantially, leading to higher bills than if they remained in the Small Commercial class. This is due to the fact that the G3 monthly service charge (designed to cover customer-related expenses) is substantially higher than for the G2 class. In the combined case, the energy costs differ by less than 1 percent. But the customer-related cost for the Large Commercial (G3) customers would be roughly one-fourth of the cost if they remained a separate class. This would reduce the overall rate increase for Large Commercial (G3) customers at the expense of a slightly higher rate increase for the Small Commercial (G2) class. DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 22 In both cases, some or all of the Small Commercial (G2) customers would see higher bills and the Large Commercial (G3) customers would see lower bills. When looking at different options for assigning commercial customers into various categories, cost differences occurred between classes under all of the configurations considered. Because costs change gradually over the continuum of customers based on usage levels, there was no clear delineation in costs by size that would be an improvement over the current split of customers into the G2 and G3 classes. For that reason, no changes in the customer classes are recommended at this time. CPA may want to monitor this over time and consider alternatives in the future if costs change in the future. Cost of Service Results Given the key assumptions listed above, the COSA was completed. Tables 9 and 10 provide a summary of the Rate Base and Revenue Requirements allocated across the various customer classes. Schedules 3.4 and 4.3 in the appendix also show the detailed functionalized and classified rate base and revenue requirement allocated to each class of service. These schedules are calculated by multiplying the applicable classification and allocation factors to each cost in the revenue requirement or rate base. DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 23 Table 9 Rate Base Allocated Across Customer Classes Asset Description FY 2020 Total G1 Residential G2 Commercial G3 Large Commercial Distribution Plant Equip-Meters $10,668,188 $4,552,164 $5,961,270 $154,755 Equip-Services $47,991,995 $19,219,240 $23,120,736 $5,652,020 Equip-Misc $1,704,032 $699,609 $703,108 $301,315 Equipment-Regulators $976,067 $400,735 $402,739 $172,593 Equip-Distribution Mains $66,908,410 $25,634,887 $28,791,312 $12,482,212 Equip-Measuring $2,211,951 $908,141 $912,682 $391,128 Total Distribution Plant $130,460,643 $51,414,776 $59,891,845 $19,154,022 General Plant Building-Gen Plant $1,910,425 $752,902 $877,038 $280,486 Equip-Gen Plant $2,490,102 $981,354 $1,143,156 $365,593 Total General Plant $4,400,527 $1,734,256 $2,020,193 $646,078 Total Gross Plant in Service $134,861,170 $51,414,776 $59,891,845 $19,154,022 Less: Accumulated Depreciation Distribution Plant $35,044,144 $13,810,961 $16,088,058 $5,145,125 General Plant $2,880,125 $1,135,062 $1,322,207 $422,855 Total Accumulated Depreciation $37,924,268 $14,946,023 $17,410,265 $5,567,980 Total Net Plant $96,936,902 $38,203,009 $44,501,773 $14,232,120 Working Capital 1/8 Operating Expenses $1,544,375 $674,736 $655,352 $214,287 Total Working Capital $1,544,375 $674,736 $655,352 $214,287 TOTAL RATE BASE $98,481,277 $38,877,745 $45,157,125 $14,446,407 CWIP Distribution Plant $2,903,905 $1,144,434 $1,333,124 $426,347 Total CWIP $2,903,905 $1,144,434 $1,333,124 $426,347 TOTAL RATE BASE plus CWIP $101,385,182 $40,022,179 $46,490,249 $14,872,753 DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 24 Table 10 Revenue Requirement Allocated Across Customer Classes Plant Description FY 2020 Total G1 Residential G2 Commercial G3 Large Commercial Operation & Maintenance Expense Supply Commodity $14,362,000 $5,217,326 $6,364,134 $2,780,540 General Admin & Overhead $1,356,000 $492,598 $600,875 $262,527 Total Gas Supply $15,718,000 $5,709,924 $6,965,009 $3,043,067 Distribution Engineering Support $373,000 $147,000 $171,237 $54,763 Operations & Maintenance $5,649,000 $2,226,281 $2,593,342 $829,377 Total Distribution $6,022,000 $2,373,281 $2,764,579 $884,140 Customer Service, Accounts, & Sales Admin - Customer & Marketing $139,000 $101,706 $32,775 $4,518 Meter Reading $328,000 $139,959 $183,283 $4,758 Utility Billing $338,000 $247,315 $79,698 $10,987 Credit & Collections $37,000 $27,073 $8,724 $1,203 Key & Major Accounts $111,000 $0 $0 $111,000 Customer Service $679,000 $513,517 $165,483 $0 Research & Development $14,000 $10,244 $3,301 $455 Low Income Programs $12,000 $4,359 $5,317 $2,323 Efficiency - Gas DSM $843,000 $306,239 $373,553 $163,208 Total Customer Service, Accounts & Sales $2,501,000 $1,350,412 $852,136 $298,452 Administrative & General Administrative & General Salaries $338,000 $147,672 $143,429 $46,899 Allocated Charges $2,113,000 $923,168 $896,646 $293,185 Rents $571,000 $249,470 $242,302 $79,228 Transfers to Non-Enterprise Funds $120,000 $52,428 $50,922 $16,650 Transfers to Enterprise Funds $690,000 $301,461 $292,800 $95,740 Total Administrative & General $3,832,000 $1,674,198 $1,626,100 $531,702 Total Operating Expenses with A&G $28,073,000 $11,107,816 $12,207,823 $4,757,361 Interest and Debt Service Expense Interest on Long-Term Debt $156,000 $61,480 $71,616 $22,904 Principal on Long-Term Debt $644,000 $253,802 $295,647 $94,551 Customer Design & Connection $1,342,000 $528,885 $616,085 $197,030 System Improvement $1,008,000 $397,255 $462,752 $147,993 Total Debt Service /CIP Expense $3,150,000 $1,241,421 $1,446,101 $462,478 General Fund Transfer $7,106,000 $2,800,487 $3,262,221 $1,043,291 Reserves $2,872,000 $1,254,775 $1,218,726 $398,499 Revenue Requirement Before Other Revenues $41,201,000 $16,404,499 $18,134,871 $6,661,630 DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 25 Table 10 Revenue Requirement Allocated Across Customer Classes Plant Description FY 2020 Total G1 Residential G2 Commercial G3 Large Commercial Other Revenues Customer Discounts -$110,000 -$48,059 -$46,678 -$15,263 Connection Fees $1,111,000 $474,069 $620,815 $16,116 Misc. Revenue (Other) $31,000 $13,544 $13,155 $4,301 Transfer Credits $96,000 $41,942 $40,737 $13,320 Income (Loss) from Equity Investments $257,000 $101,285 $117,983 $37,732 Total Other Revenues $1,385,000 $582,780 $746,012 $56,208 REVENUE REQUIREMENT for COST ALLOCATION - With Gas Supply $39,816,000 $15,821,719 $17,388,859 $6,605,422 REVENUE REQUIREMENT for COST ALLOCATION - Without Gas Supply $24,098,000 $10,111,795 $10,423,850 $3,562,355 Table 11 provides a summary of the COSA results when just the distribution costs are considered. These results are the basis for the distribution charges. Summary data and additional detail is presented in Schedules 1.1 and 1.2. Table 11 Summary of Cost of Service Analysis for FY 2020 Test Year Distribution Costs Only Projected FY 2020 Revenues under Rates Currently in Effect Net Revenue Requirement Projected Deficiency in FY 2020 Revenue Based on Rates Currently in Effect Revenue Increase needed5 G1 - Residential $8,928,944 $10,111,795 $1,182,850 13.25% G2 - Small Commercial $9,921,058 $10,423,850 $502,792 5.07% G3 – Large Commercial $3,463,070 $3,562,355 $99,286 2.87% TOTAL $22,313,072 $24,098,000 $1,784,928 8.0% The results show that with present rates, CPA will not collect sufficient revenues to meet FY 2020 costs. As discussed previously in the report, the amount of additional revenue required varies by class of service. While the COSA is used to set distribution rates, with natural gas supply cost flowed through on the basis of actual costs updated each month, the overall impact on customer bills is important to consider. The COSA uses the FY2020 projected natural gas costs for each month. Any changes in natural gas supply costs that differ from the forecast will be passed on to customers 5 Projected FY 2020 revenue deficiency divided by projected FY 2020 revenue based on rates currently in effect. Numbers rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent. DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 26 but are not included in the COSA results. Table 12 shows the COSA results when both natural gas supply costs and distribution costs are combined. On a combined basis, the rate increases required for each class are lower than those shown in Table 9. Table 12 Summary of Cost of Service Analysis for FY 2020 Test Year Natural Gas Supply and Distribution Costs Combined Projected FY 2020 Revenues under Rates Currently in Effect Net Revenue Requirement Projected Deficiency in FY 2020 Revenue Based on Rates Currently in Effect Revenue Increase needed6 G1 – Residential $14,638,868 $15,821,719 $1,182,850 8.1% G2 - Small Commercial $16,886,067 $17,388,859 $502,792 3.0% G3 – Large Commercial $6,506,136 $6,605,422 $99,286 1.5% TOTAL $38,031,072 $39,816,000 $1,784,928 4.7% As described throughout this section, costs are allocated to customers based on their consumption patterns, particularly energy consumption and peak demand. As customer consumption patterns change, some of the utility’s costs change as well, but others are fixed over the short term. For example, some charges to the utility, like market natural gas purchases, are directly related to energy consumption. These costs decrease as customer energy consumption decreases, usually in real-time. If a customer class uses less energy, fewer of these costs will be allocated to them and their revenue requirement will decrease. Other costs only change slowly over time, such as the amount of distribution capacity the utility builds and maintains. These costs are largely fixed and change over the long term with changes in peak day demand or energy use. The majority of the City of Palo Alto’s cost change slowly over the long term. If energy use declines, these fixed costs may be spread over a lesser amount of sales, driving up the per on a per therm basis. The growth in the costs within different functions of the utility also have an impact of the cost of service by class. Overall, costs related to the distribution system have increased by only 8% between 2012 and 2020. The majority of this cost increase occurred in the distribution operations and maintenance (O&M) expenses. Rates for each customer class are set based on the energy and peak demand patterns over the study period. If energy use and peak demand decrease or increase after the rate study is completed, costs that change only over the long term might not change. When a subsequent COSA is performed, different revenue adjustments may need to be made for each customer class. The impacts to each class required as a result of the analysis done in the COSA are described below: 6 Projected FY 2020 revenue deficiency divided by projected FY 2020 revenue based on rates currently in effect. Numbers rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent. DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 27 ◼ Energy consumption per customer has decreased by roughly 10 percent for the Residential class of service when compared to the 2012 COSA. This means that the fixed costs associated with the Residential class are spread among a smaller amount of therms, increasing the per unit cost for the class. Also, because many of the costs are allocated on the basis of the number of customers or the peak day demand, more costs are allocated to the Residential class than if energy use was the only allocator. While energy consumption has declined, the peak day demand has not declined as much for the residential class. Because a large portion of costs are allocated to customer classes on the basis of peak day demand, the residential class still sees a large percentage of costs assigned to them. Because the allocated cost has not declined as fast as their energy use, they end up needing a larger than average rate increase when compared to other classes. Because the Residential class has the lowest use per customer, and the lowest load factor (average use relative to peak day use), the resulting cost of service for the class is higher on a per unit basis. This results in a required rate increase of 13.25%, which is above the average rate increase of 8.0%. ◼ Small Commercial use per customer has also decreased by roughly 10 percent since the 2012 COSA. Both the use per customer and load factor are higher than for the Residential class. Therefore, the COSA shows they need a 5.07% increase, which is below the average increase of 8.0%. ◼ While the Large Commercial class has seen a much larger drop in use per customer (40%), that is partly the result of more mid-size customers qualifying for this rate as the number of Large Commercial customers has increased since the 2012 COSA. This class has the highest use per customer and the highest load factor, and therefore is allocated less costs per therm than for the other two classes. The resulting rate increase required is only 2.87%. When examining the results, it is important to note that the inter-class cost allocation is based on load data estimates and usage pattern assumptions. Since these can vary from year to year, the results of applying this COSA may deviate from these allocations over time. To avoid these deviations, the COSA model built for CPA can be updated when necessitated by significant changes to customer consumption patterns or the CPA’s costs. DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 28 Rate Design The final step in the rate study process is to design rates for each class of service. In California, local governments are subject to Article XIII C of the California Constitution, amended by Proposition 26 (2010). As a result, CPA has set rates to match the COSA results for each class. It is important to note that the results of the revenue requirement and COSA study are based on forecasted load data estimates and usage pattern assumptions. Actual load and usage patterns may differ from forecast. For this study, rates are developed based on the forecast loads and observed historical usage patterns for each rate class. The rates for the Residential and Commercial customers are designed to reflect the differences in costs among the various rate classes. The costs per class differ based on the seasonal shape of consumption (referred to as energy use) as well as the daily peak demand for each class. Differences in energy use by season and the level of peak demand have an impact on the utility’s need for distribution facilities and the costs to operate and maintain those facilities. The Residential G1 rate class is fairly homogenous in energy and peak demand use compared to the other rate classes, and the additional cost associated with peak demand can be captured in a tiered energy rate design. For the two Commercial classes, there are inherent size differences, in terms of both physical space and energy use, related to the types of business within the commercial rate classes. It is not appropriate to charge large businesses more through a tiered rate just because of the size of the business due to the fact that the larger sized customers do not have higher distribution costs on a per therm basis. For that reason, the distribution charge for Commercial rates are the same for all therms. Rate Design – Distribution The COSA and rate design for FY 2020 is primarily concerned with setting the distribution rates for each customer class. Costs associated with the distribution system, meter reading and billing, customer service, administration and general costs, debt service, capital costs and transfer to the City’s general fund are all included in the distribution charge. These various costs are classified and allocated on the basis of some combination of customer, demand and energy-related costs, as discussed in the previous section. The distribution charge is made up of a monthly service charge (tied to customer-related costs) and a distribution charge per therm (tied to combined demand-related and energy-related costs). As the rate design does not include a peak day demand charge, all demand-related costs are included in the energy rate. Once the distribution charges are set, they remain in place until the following year’s budget is established and the need for any overall rate changes are determined. The allocation of distribution costs among the various rate classes is based on an analysis of the base and excess monthly energy and capacity costs associated with that rate class, also known as the Average and Excess method. The Average and Excess method compares the baseline DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 29 capacity and energy used (the “average,” or “baseline”) against the maximum capacity and energy used on a seasonal basis (the “excess”). This captures the level of system capacity required to serve the customer during peak times as opposed to average times. The rate design for the Residential G1 class is tiered, with the first tier reflecting the baseline usage, which is defined as energy usage below 60 therms per day in the winter and 20 therms per day in the summer. The costs per therm associated with the average use (as defined in the Average and Excess method) apply to both Tier 1 and Tier 2 use. Costs associated with the excess use of the system were applied only to the Tier 2 use, and added to the cost associated with average use to get the Tier 2 cost per therm. Rate Design – Natural Gas Supply (Commodity) The commodity component of the rate design is based on differences in the cost of energy from the market and is changed each month to reflect actual costs. The Natural Gas supply charges are the same per therm for each customer class. The total charge is made up of four separate components, as follows: ◼ Commodity Rate ◼ Cap and Trade Compliance Charge ◼ Transportation Charge ◼ Carbon Offset Charge For the FY 2020 financial forecast, the average cost for Natural Gas Supply is $0.563 per therm. Unlike the distribution charge, the actual commodity cost will vary in real time and is not being set as part of the COSA and rate design process. The cost of Natural Gas Supply is included in the COSA, primarily to show the impact on customers when the cost is combined with the distribution costs. Proposed Rate Design This section of the report will review the present rate structures for CPA and will provide a comparison with the proposed rates based on this cost of service study. Residential G-1 The present Residential rate design is composed of a monthly service charge, a two-tier rate per therm for distribution charges, and separate rates for natural gas supply charged on the basis of energy use that can vary each month. The Tier 1 distribution charge applies to usage below 60 therms in the winter months (November-March) and below 20 therms in the summer months (April-October). This compares to average winter use of 63 therms per customer and average summer use of 23 therms per customer. No change is proposed to the overall rate structure for the Residential class. DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 30 Presented below, in Table 13, are the present and proposed rates for the Residential G1 customers. Table 13 Comparison of Proposed Rates to Current –Residential G1 Current Rate Proposed Rate $ Change Percent Change Monthly Service Charge $10.94 $13.35 $2.41 22.0% Distribution Charge ($/therm) Tier 1: First 60 therms winter First 20 therms summer $0.4239 $0.4835 $0.0596 14.0% Tier 2: Over 60 therms winter Over 20 therms summer $0.9948 $1.0426 $0.0478 4.8% Average Natural Gas Supply Charge ($/therm) $0.563 Overall Distribution Rate Change 13.25% Overall Combined Gas Supply and Distribution Rate Change 8.1% Based on the proposed rates relative to current rate levels, Tables 14 and 15 show the bill impacts at various usage levels with and without the Natural Gas Supply charge included. The average forecast rate for FY 2020 is used for the supply charge for comparison purposes. Actual supply charges per therm will differ each month. For distribution charges, the percentage increase is higher than the average 13.25% for bills with usage up to 30 therms in the summer and up to 75 therms in the winter. This is because both the monthly service charge and Tier 1 distribution charge have a larger than average increase. The dollar impacts for these customers are below $4.00 per month in the summer and $7.00 per month in the winter. Note that the average bill increase for all Residential customers is $4.63 per month. The customers with higher usage levels see a larger dollar impact, but a smaller percentage increase than average. DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 31 Table 14 Rate Impacts at Different Usage Levels –Residential G1 Distribution Charges Only Therms per month Current Rate Proposed Rate $ Change Percent Change Summer 5 $13.06 $15.77 $2.71 21% 10 $15.18 $18.19 $3.01 20% 15 $17.30 $20.60 $3.30 19% 20 $19.42 $23.02 $3.60 19% 25 $24.39 $28.23 $3.84 16% 30 $29.37 $33.45 $4.08 14% 35 $34.34 $38.66 $4.32 13% 40 $39.31 $43.87 $4.56 12% 50 $49.26 $54.30 $5.04 10% 60 $59.21 $64.72 $5.51 9% Winter 20 $19.42 $23.02 $3.60 19% 40 $27.90 $32.69 $4.79 17% 60 $36.37 $42.36 $5.99 16% 75 $51.30 $58.00 $6.70 13% 90 $66.60 $74.04 $7.44 11% 125 $101.04 $110.13 $9.09 9% 150 $125.91 $136.19 $10.29 8% 175 $150.78 $162.26 $11.48 8% 200 $175.65 $188.32 $12.68 7% DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 32 Table 15 Rate Impacts at Different Usage Levels –Residential G1 Combined Distribution and Supply Charges Therms per month Current Rate Proposed Rate $ Change Percent Change Summer 5 $15.88 $18.58 $2.71 17% 10 $20.81 $23.82 $3.01 14% 15 $25.75 $29.05 $3.30 13% 20 $30.68 $34.28 $3.60 12% 25 $38.47 $42.31 $3.84 10% 30 $46.26 $50.34 $4.08 9% 35 $54.05 $58.37 $4.32 8% 40 $61.84 $66.40 $4.56 7% 50 $77.42 $82.46 $5.04 7% 60 $93.00 $98.51 $5.51 6% Winter 20 $29.29 $32.89 $3.60 12% 40 $47.64 $52.43 $4.79 10% 60 $65.99 $71.98 $5.99 9% 75 $88.32 $95.02 $6.70 8% 90 $111.22 $118.65 $7.44 7% 125 $162.74 $171.83 $9.09 6% 150 $199.95 $210.24 $10.29 5% 175 $237.16 $248.64 $11.48 5% 200 $274.37 $287.05 $12.68 5% Small Commercial G2 The present Small Commercial G2 rate design is composed of a monthly service charge and flat distribution charge per therm No change is proposed in the overall design of the rate. The COSA shows in Schedule 1.1 that the overall rate increase for the class is less than the average for the utility overall, but that the monthly service charge needs to increase significantly. Presented below, in Table 16, are the present and proposed rates for the Small Commercial G2 customers. DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 33 Table 16 Comparison of Proposed Rates to Current –Small Commercial G2 Current Rate Proposed Rate $ Change Percent Change Monthly Service Charge $82.94 $104.95 $22.01 26.5% Distribution Charge ($/therm) $0.6183 $0.61020 -$0.0081 -1.3% Average Natural Gas Supply Charge ($/therm) $0.563 Overall Distribution Rate Change 5.07% Overall Combined Rate Change 3.0% Based on the proposed rates relative to current rate levels, Table 17 shows the bill impacts at various usage levels with and without the Natural Gas Supply commodity charge included. The average forecast rate for FY 2020 is used for the commodity charge for comparison purposes. Actual commodity charges will differ each month. For distribution charges, the percentage increase is higher than the average 5.07% for usage under 500 therms per month, as shown in Table 17. This is because the monthly service charge has a much higher percentage increase than the distribution charge per therm. The average bill increase for all Small Commercial customers is roughly $18 per month. The customers with higher usage levels see a larger dollar impact, but a smaller percentage increase than average. DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 34 Table 17 Rate Impacts at Different Usage Levels –Small Commercial G2 Distribution Charges Only Therms per month Current Rate Proposed Rate $ Change Percent Change Distribution Charges Only 50 $114 $135 $22 19.0% 75 $129 $151 $21 16.6% 100 $145 $166 $21 14.6% 200 $207 $227 $20 9.9% 300 $268 $288 $20 7.3% 400 $330 $349 $19 5.7% 500 $392 $410 $18 4.6% 600 $454 $471 $17 3.8% 700 $516 $532 $16 3.2% 800 $578 $593 $16 2.7% 900 $639 $654 $15 2.3% 1,000 $701 $715 $14 2.0% 1,200 $825 $837 $12 1.5% 1,500 $1,010 $1,020 $10 1.0% Combined Distribution and Commodity Charges 50 $142 $164 $22 15.2% 75 $172 $193 $21 12.5% 100 $201 $222 $21 10.5% 200 $319 $340 $20 6.4% 300 $437 $457 $20 4.5% 400 $556 $574 $19 3.4% 500 $674 $692 $18 2.7% 600 $792 $809 $17 2.2% 700 $910 $926 $16 1.8% 800 $1,028 $1,044 $16 1.5% 900 $1,146 $1,161 $15 1.3% 1,000 $1,264 $1,278 $14 1.1% 1,200 $1,501 $1,513 $12 0.8% 1,500 $1,855 $1,865 $10 0.5% Large Commercial G3 The present Large Commercial G3 rate design is composed of a monthly service charge and flat distribution charge per therm. No change is proposed in the overall design of the rate. This class is proposed to get the smallest rate increase, based on the COSA results. While the monthly service charge needs a higher increase than the distribution charge per therm, as shown in Schedule 2.1, it is not as high as the customer charge increase required for the Residential or Small Commercial class based on the results of the COSA. Presented below, in Table 18, are the present and proposed rates for the Large Commercial G3 customers. DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 35 Table 18 Comparison of Proposed Rates to Current –Large Commercial G3 Current Rate Proposed Rate $ Change Percent Change Monthly Service Charge $400.08 $690.44 $290.37 72.6%% Distribution Energy Charge ($/therm) $0.60980 $0.60560 -$0.00420 -0.7% Average Natural Gas Supply Charge ($/therm) $0.563 Overall Distribution Rate Change 2.87% Overall Combined Rate Change 1.5% Based on the proposed rates relative to current rate levels, Table 19 shows the bill impacts at various usage levels with and without the Natural Gas Supply commodity charge included. The average forecast rate for FY 2020 is used for the commodity charge for comparison purposes. Actual commodity charges will differ each month. For distribution charges, the percentage increase does not vary significantly for customers at different usage levels. While the monthly service charge requires a larger increase than the distribution charge per therm, the monthly service charge makes up a smaller portion of the overall bill than it does for the other two rate classes. The average bill increase for all Large Commercial customers is $236 per month. DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 36 Table 19 Rate Impacts at Different Usage Levels –Large Commercial G3 Therms per month Current Rate Proposed Rate $ Change Percent Change Distribution Charges Only 5,000 $3,449 $3,718 $269 7.8% 6,000 $4,059 $4,324 $265 6.5% 8,000 $5,278 $5,535 $257 4.9% 10,000 $6,498 $6,746 $248 3.8% 9,815 $6,385 $6,634 $249 3.9% 13,000 $8,327 $8,563 $236 2.8% 15,000 $9,547 $9,774 $227 2.4% 18,000 $11,376 $11,591 $215 1.9% 20,000 $12,596 $12,802 $206 1.6% 25,000 $15,645 $15,830 $185 1.2% 30,000 $18,694 $18,858 $164 0.9% Combined Distribution and Commodity Charges 5,000 $6,265 $6,534 $269 4.3% 6,000 $7,438 $7,703 $265 3.6% 8,000 $9,784 $10,041 $257 2.6% 10,000 $12,130 $12,378 $248 2.0% 9,815 $11,913 $12,162 $249 2.1% 13,000 $15,649 $15,884 $236 1.5% 15,000 $17,995 $18,222 $227 1.3% 18,000 $21,514 $21,728 $215 1.0% 20,000 $23,859 $24,066 $206 0.9% 25,000 $29,724 $29,910 $185 0.6% 30,000 $35,589 $35,754 $164 0.5% 1,000 $1,220 $1,288 $68 5.6% 1,200 $1,447 $1,524 $76 5.3% 1,500 $1,789 $1,877 $88 4.9% CNG Rate G10 There is one CNG customer on the system and that customer differs in the use of facilities than the other classes, requiring a unique analysis in the COSA. It is expected that the costs to serve the CNG customer have increased at the same rate as for the distribution expenses overall. For that reason, it is proposed that the customer receive an average 8% rate increase overall. That percentage could either be applied to both the monthly service charge and distribution charge per therm. Alternatively, the Distribution charge per therm could be held constant and the monthly service charge would absorb all of the rate increase. That would result in a monthly service charge of $64.00 per month. DRAFT 6055205 CITY OF PALO ALTO —NATURAL GAS COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY 37 Technical Appendix Attachment I *NOT YET APPROVED * MM002 Resolution No. _________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Increasing Gas Rates by Amending Rate Schedules G-1 (Residential Gas Service), G-2 (Residential Master-Metered and Commercial Gas Service), G-3 (Large Commercial Gas Service), and G-10 (Compressed Natural Gas Service Service) R E C I T A L S A.Pursuant to Chapter 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Council of the City of Palo Alto may by resolution adopt rules and regulations governing utility services, fees and charges. B.On ____, 2019, the City Council heard and approved the proposed rate increase at a noticed public hearing. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule G-1 (Residential Gas Service) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule G-1, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2019. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule G-2 (Residential Master-Metered and Commercial Gas Service) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule G-2, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2019. SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule G-3 (Large Commercial Gas Service) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule G-3, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2019. SECTION 4. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule G-10 (Compressed Natural Gas Service Service) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule G-10, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2019. SECTION 5. The City Council finds as follows: a.Revenues derived from the gas rates approved by this resolution do not exceed the funds required to provide gas service. b.Revenues derived from the gas rates approved by this resolution shall not be used for any purpose other than providing gas service, and the purposes set forth in Article VII, Section 2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto. Attachment C * NOT YET APPROVED * MM002 SECTION 6. The Council finds that the fees and charges adopted by this resolution are charges imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that are not provided to those not charged, and do not exceed the reasonable costs to the City of providing the service or product. SECTION 7. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution changing gas rates to meet operating expenses, purchase supplies and materials, meet financial reserve needs and obtain funds for capital improvements necessary to maintain service is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a). After reviewing the staff report and all attachments presented to Council, the Council incorporates these documents herein and finds that sufficient evidence has been presented setting forth with specificity the basis for this claim of CEQA exemption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ___________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ___________________________ Director of Utilities ___________________________ Director of Administrative Services See Attachment Sheet List to below document Link Proposed Gas Rate Schedules G-1, G-2, G-3 and G-10 Attachment K *NOT YET APPROVED * 6055183 Resolution No. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the FY 2020 Wastewater Utility Financial Plan R E C I T A L S A.Each year the City of Palo Alto (“City”) assesses the financial position of its utilities with the goal of ensuring adequate revenue to fund operations. This includes making long-term projections of market conditions, the physical condition of the system, and other factors that could affect utility costs, and setting rates adequate to recover these costs. It does this with the goal of providing safe, reliable, and sustainable utility services at competitive rates. The City adopts Financial Plans to summarize these projections. B.The City uses reserves to protect against contingencies and to manage other aspects of its operations, and regularly assesses the adequacy of these reserves and the management practices governing their operation. The status of utility reserves and their management practices are included in Reserves Management Practices attached to and made a part of the Financial Plans. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: Plan. SECTION 1. The Council hereby approves the FY 2020 Wastewater Utility Financial SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the transfer of up to $978,000 in FY 2020 from the Capital Improvement Projects Reserve to the Operations Reserve, as described in the FY 2020 Wastewater Utility Financial Plan and approved via this resolution. SECTION 3. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the California Environmental Quality Act’s definition of a project under Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), because it is an administrative governmental activity which will not cause a direct or indirect physical change in the environment, and therefore, no environmental review is required. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Attachment K * NOT YET APPROVED * 6055183 ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Assistant City Attorney City Manager Director of Utilities Director of Administrative Services See Attachment Sheet List to below document Link FY 2020 Wastewater Collection Utility Financial Plan Attachment M *NOT YET APPROVED * 6055185 Resolution No. _________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Increasing Wastewater Rates by Amending Rate Schedules S-1 (Residential Wastewater Collection and Disposal), S-2 (Commercial Wastewater Collection and Disposal), S-6 (Restaurant Wastewater Collection and Disposal) and S-7 (Commercial Wastewater Collection and Disposal – Industrial Discharger) R E C I T A L S A.Pursuant to Chapter 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Council of the City of Palo Alto may by resolution adopt rules and regulations governing utility services, fees and charges. B.On ____, 2019, the City Council held a full and fair public hearing regarding the proposed rate increase and considered all protests against the proposals. C.As required by Article XIII D, Section 6 of the California Constitution and applicable law, notice of the ________ 2019 public hearing was mailed to all City of Palo Alto Utilities wastewater customers by _______, 2019. D.The City Clerk has tabulated the total number of written protests presented by the close of the public hearing, and determined that it was less than fifty percent (50%) of the total number of customers and property owners subject to the proposed wastewater rate amendments, therefore a majority protest does not exist against the proposal. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule S-1 (Residential Wastewater Collection and Disposal) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule S-1, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2019. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule S-2 (Commercial Wastewater Collection and Disposal) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule S-2, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2019. SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule S-6 (Restaurant Wastewater Collection and Disposal) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule S-6, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2019. Attachment M * NOT YET APPROVED * 6055185 SECTION 4. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule S-7 (Commercial Wastewater Collection and Disposal – Industrial Discharger) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule S-7, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2019. SECTION 5. The Council finds that the revenue derived from the wastewater rates approved by this resolution do not exceed the funds required to provide wastewater service, and the revenue derived from the adoption of this resolution shall be used only for the purposes set forth in Article VII, Section 2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto. SECTION 6. The Council finds that the fees and charges adopted by this resolution are charges imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that are not provided to those not charged, and do not exceed the reasonable costs to the City of providing the service or product. SECTION 7. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution changing wastewater collection rates to meet operating expenses, purchase supplies and materials, meet financial reserve needs and obtain funds for capital improvements necessary to maintain service is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a). After reviewing the staff report and all attachments presented to Council, the Council incorporates these documents herein and finds that sufficient evidence has been presented setting forth with specificity the basis for this claim of CEQA exemption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ___________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager Attachment M * NOT YET APPROVED * 6055185 ___________________________ Director of Utilities ___________________________ Director of Administrative Services See Attachment Sheet List to below document Link Proposed Wastewater Collection Rate Schedules S-1, S-2, S-6 and S-7 Attachment O *NOT YET APPROVED * 6055182 Resolution No. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the FY 2020 Water Utility Financial Plan R E C I T A L S A.Each year the City of Palo Alto (“City”) regularly assesses the financial position of its utilities with the goal of ensuring adequate revenue to fund operations. This includes making long-term projections of market conditions, the physical condition of the system, and other factors that could affect utility costs, and setting rates adequate to recover these costs. The City does this with the goal of providing safe, reliable, and sustainable utility services at competitive rates. The City adopts Financial Plans to summarize these projections. B.The City uses reserves to protect against contingencies and to manage other aspects of its operations, and regularly assesses the adequacy of these reserves and the management practices governing their operation. The status of utility reserves and their management practices are included in Reserves Management Practices attached to and made part of the Financial Plans. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The Council hereby adopts the FY 2020 Water Utility Financial Plan. SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the transfer of up to $5,000,000 in FY 2020 from the Operations Reserve to the Capital Improvement Projects Reserve, as described in the FY 2020 Water Utility Financial Plan and approved via this resolution. . SECTION 3. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the California Environmental Quality Act’s (CEQA) definition of a project under Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), because it is an administrative governmental activity which will not cause a direct or indirect physical change in the environment, and therefore, no environmental review is required. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: Attachment O * NOT YET APPROVED * 6055182 City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Assistant City Attorney City Manager Director of Utilities Director of Administrative Services See Attachment Sheet List to below document Link FY 2020 Water Utility Financial Plan See Attachment Sheet List to below document Link Palo Alto Water Cost of Service Memo 2019 Attachment R *NOT YET APPROVED * 6055179 Resolution No. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Increasing Water Rates by Amending Rate Schedules W-1 (General Residential Water Service), W-2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants), W-3 (Fire Service Connections), W-4 (Residential Master-Metered and General Non- Residential Water Service), and W-7 (Non-Residential Irrigation Water Service) R E C I T A L S A.Pursuant to Chapter 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Council of the City of Palo Alto may by resolution adopt rules and regulations governing utility services, fees and charges. B.On , 2019, the City Council held a full and fair public hearing regarding the proposed rate increase and considered all protests against the proposals. C.As required by Article XIII D, Section 6 of the California Constitution and applicable law, notice of the 2019 public hearing was mailed to all City of Palo Alto Utilities water customers by , 2019. D.The City Clerk has tabulated the total number of written protests presented by the close of the public hearing, and determined that it was less than fifty percent (50%) of the total number of customers and property owners subject to the proposed water rate amendments, therefore a majority protest does not exist against the proposal. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule W-1 (General Residential Water Service) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-1, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2019. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule W-2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-2, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2019. SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule W-3 (Fire Service Connections) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-3, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2019. SECTION 4. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule W-4 (Residential Master-Metered and General Non-Residential Water Service) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-4, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2019. Attachment R * NOT YET APPROVED * 6055179 SECTION 5. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule W-7 (Non-Residential Irrigation Water Service) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-7, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2019. SECTION 6. The City Council finds as follows: a. Revenues derived from the water rates approved by this resolution do not exceed the funds required to provide water service. b. Revenues derived from the water rates approved by this resolution shall not be used for any purpose other than providing water service, and the purposes set forth in Article VII, Section 2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto. c. The amount of the water rates imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership shall not exceed the proportional cost of the water service attributable to the parcel. SECTION 7. The Council finds that the fees and charges adopted by this resolution are charges imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that are not provided to those not charged, and do not exceed the reasonable costs to the City of providing the service or product. SECTION 8. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution changing water rates to meet operating expenses, purchase supplies and materials, meet financial reserve needs and obtain funds for capital improvements necessary to maintain service is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a). After reviewing the staff report and all attachments presented to Council, the Council incorporates these documents herein and finds that sufficient evidence has been presented setting forth with specificity the basis for this claim of CEQA exemption. Attachment R * NOT YET APPROVED * 6055179 INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Assistant City Attorney City Manager Director of Utilities Director of Administrative Services See Attachment Sheet List to below document Link Proposed Water Rate Schedules W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4 and W-7 NOT YET APPROVED 1 Resolution No. ______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Utility Rate Schedule D-1 (Storm and Surface Water Drainage) to Increase Storm Water Management Fee Rates by 4.5% Per Month Per Equivalent Residential Unit for Fiscal Year 2020 The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule D-1 (Storm and Surface Water Drainage) is hereby amended to read in accordance with sheet D- 1-1, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The foregoing Utility Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2019. SECTION 2. The Council finds that this rate increase is being imposed to offset the effects of inflation on labor and material costs pursuant to the annual inflationary fee escalator provision of the Storm Water Management Fee ballot measure, which was approved by a majority of Palo Alto property owners on April 11, 2017. SECTION 3. The Council finds that the revenue derived from the authorized adoption enumerated herein shall be used only for the purpose set forth in Article VII, Section 2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / NOT YET APPROVED 2 SECTION 4. The Council finds that modification and approval of this change to the Utility Rate Schedule D-1 (Storm and Surface Water Drainage) for the purpose of meeting operating expenses is statutorily exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 15273(a), as a modification of a rate or charge for the purpose funding capital projects and operating expenses necessary to maintain service within existing service areas. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ _____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Public Works _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services See Attachment Sheet List to below document Link Proposed Storm and Surface Water Drainage Rate Schedule D-1 Attachment V *NOT YET APPROVED * 1 Resolution No. _________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Dark Fiber Rate Increase and Amending Rate Schedules EDF-1 (Dark Fiber Licensing Services) and EDF-2 (Dark Fiber Connection Fees) The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule EDF-1 (Dark Fiber Licensing Services) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule EDF-1, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2019. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule EDF-2 (Dark Fiber Connection Fees) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule EDF-2, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2019. SECTION 3. The Council finds that the revenue derived from the adoption of this resolution shall be used only for the purpose set forth in Article VII, Section 2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto. SECTION 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution increasing dark fiber rates by the Consumer Price Index to meet operating expenses, purchase supplies and materials, meet financial reserve needs and obtain funds for capital improvements necessary to maintain service is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a). After reviewing the staff report and all attachments presented to Council, the Council incorporates these documents herein and finds that sufficient evidence has been presented setting forth with specificity the basis for this claim of CEQA exemption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________ City Clerk Mayor Attachment V * NOT YET APPROVED * 2 APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ___________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ___________________________ Director of Utilities ___________________________ Director of Administrative Services See Attachment Sheet List to below document Link Proposed Dark Fiber Rate Schedules EDF-1 and EDF-2 See Attachment Sheet List to below document Link Water Budget Rates Memorandum City of Palo Alto (ID # 10449) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/17/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Resolution Correcting Wood Pole Wireless Standards Title: Adoption of a Resolution Amending Objective Standards for Wireless Communications Facilities in the Public Rights of Way (Continued From June 3, 2019) to Delete Inadvertently Added Language, Clarify Existing Standards, and Adopt an Interim Setback from Schools From: City Manager Lead Department: City Attorney Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A), amending the recently adopted objective standards for Wireless Communications Facilities (WCFs) attached to wood utility poles in the public rights of way to delete a standard inadvertently included through an administrative error. In addition, the resolution clarifies that WCFs may not be attached to poles outside of the public rights of way (e.g. on a private rear or side lot line) and adopts an interim standard regarding setbacks from public schools for WCFs on both Streetlight and Wood Utility Poles. Staff will continue to work with consultants to develop appropriate updates to the City’s objective standards for WCFs. Discussion On June 3, 2019, the City Council voted to delay consideration of staff’s request to correct an administrative error in the objective standards for small cell Wireless Communications Facilities on Wood Utility Poles, first adopted on April 15, 2019 (June 3, 2019 Staff report available at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71447; April 15, 2019 Staff report available at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/70193; and April 15, 2019 action minutes available at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=50627.15&BlobID=71238). The adopted standards for the placement of small cell nodes on Wood Utility Poles inadvertently included draft text (Attachment A, Exhibit 2, page 2, item number 22) that staff did not intend as a final standard. This text represents an initial concept to regulate impacts related to second-story windows that staff was unable to fully develop prior to the Council’s April 15 meeting. This error was only present in the standards for Wood Utility Poles; it was not included in the standards for Streetlight Poles. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The existing language is poorly drafted: “22) WCF equipment and antennas shall be located on poles such that they do not fall within the horizontal plane defined by a 45 degree angle extending 50 feet from the center point of upper story windows, doors, balconies, and other openings.” The most straightforward interpretation of the standard would result in little practical impact. The plain text of the restriction prohibits equipment only within a two-dimensional horizontal area, or “pizza slice”, defined by the center point of upper story windows, balconies or doors and two lines, separated by 45 degrees, extending from that center point to a distance of 50 feet (see Fig. 1 below). An applicant could easily comply with this standard by slightly shifting equipment placement, and it therefore represents a limited restriction on placement of WCFs. Additionally, the restriction applies only for upper story locations and offers no similar limitation for single-story structures. After careful review, staff determined that alternative interpretations restricting WCF placement within a three-dimensional space are unsupported by the language as currently drafted. Staff are not prepared at this time to propose alternative language that would create a more effective restriction, as additional analysis is required to understand the practical and policy impacts of such a standard. For example, it is unclear whether it is desirable to prioritize multi-story structures over single-story structures. In addition, City policies and regulations typically regulate from the perspective of streetscape and street design (e.g. Comprehensive Plan Goal L-9 and Policy L-9.10), rather than with respect to features of private property such as windows or door openings that may change over time. Staff are in the process of conducting the additional analysis necessary to develop additional standards and hope to return with more thoroughly-considered proposals in advance of the 1-year timeline directed by the Council on April 15, 2019. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Nonetheless, staff understand the urgency of these issues for the Council and community. In particular, numerous public comments have focused on a desire for a setback from schools. Should the Council feel the need to take immediate action, staff recommend: 1. Clarifying that an applicant may not utilize Streetlight or Wood Utility poles outside of the public right of way (e.g. along private rear or side lot lines); and 2. Adopting an interim standard establishing a 300-foot setback from public schools. Staff believe the appearance of WCFs will no longer be reasonably distinguishable at a distance of 300 feet (equivalent to the length of a football playing field). If approved by Council, these new and revised standards would apply only to WCF applications filed after the date the standard is adopted. Under Federal regulations, they cannot be applied to pending applications nor would they impact existing equipment or previously approved projects. The attached resolution shows in redline the proposed deletion of the erroneously added language with respect to Wood Utility Poles, the added clarifications that WCFs may not be attached to poles in locations other than the public right of way (e.g. along private rear or side lot lines), and the new interim standards governing WCF distances from public schools. Staff will continue to develop the City’s objective aesthetic standards for WCFs consistent with the Council’s direction on April 15, 2019. Attachments: • Attachment A: 2019-06-17 WCF Standards Clean Up Resolution NOT YET ADOPTED 1 Resolution No. ______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Objective Aesthetic, Noise, and Related Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Rights of Way The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. a.On April 15, 2019, the City Council adopted a resolution establishing objective aesthetic, noise, and related standards for Wireless Communication Facilities (WCFs) on Streetlight and Wood Utility Poles in the Public Rights‐of‐Way. b.The adopted standards for WCFs on Wood Utility Poles contain a provision that was included as a result of an administrative error. c.The City Council wishes to adopt amended standards for WCFs on Wood Utility Poles to correct this error. d.The City Council wishes to revise the pole location standards to clarify that WCFs shall not be located on poles outside of the public rights of way (e.g. along private rear or side lot lines). e.The City Council wishes to adopt a new interim standard setback from public schools for all WCFs on Streetlight Poles and Wood Utility Poles. SECTION 2. Objective Standards for WCFs on Streetlight Poles in the Public Rights‐of‐ Way Amended. The City Council hereby adopts the standards in Exhibit 1, attached to and incorporated into this resolution as if fully set forth herein, for Wireless Communication Facilities on Streetlight Poles in the Public Rights‐of‐Way. SECTION 3. Objective Standards for WCFs on Wood Utility Poles in the Public Rights‐of‐ Way Amended. The City Council hereby adopts the standards in Exhibit 2, attached to and incorporated into this resolution as if fully set forth herein, for Wireless Communication Facilities on Wood Utility Poles in the Public Rights‐of‐Way. SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this resolution or the attached standards is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the resolution and exhibits. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the resolution and exhibits, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 5. Environmental Review. The Council finds that this resolution is exempt from NOT YET ADOPTED 2 the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it does not authorize the construction of Wireless Communication Facilities in any locations where such facilities are not already permitted; therefore it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. The resolution is further exempt under CEQA Guidelines sections 15301, 15302, 15303 and 15305 because it simply represents part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme governing minor alterations to existing facilities or small structures. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Deputy City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment EXHIBIT 1 1 Streetlight Poles Standard designs for WCFs located on Streetlights – An applicant proposing to attach to a Streetlight in the public right of way shall utilize one of the other designs specified herein. a) Underground design: Radio equipment shall be placed in an underground vault in the pedestrian right of way. The antennae shall be placed in a shroud at the top of a nearby pole. i) Underground vaults shall be the minimum volume necessary to house WCF equipment. Application materials should explain why the proposed dimensions are required. In no event shall vault dimensions exceed 5 feet 8‐inches x 8 feet 2‐inches x 5 feet 7‐inches or 260 cu. ft., excluding space required for ventilation or sump pump equipment. b) Top‐mounted design: All equipment shall be enclosed within a shroud at the top of the pole containing both radio and antenna equipment. i) Top‐mounted equipment shrouds shall not exceed 5.5 feet from the top of the streetlight pole and shall taper to meet the pole above the mast arm. The diameter of the antenna and shroud shall not exceed 15” at their widest. c) Minimal sunshield design: Radio equipment shall be enclosed within one or two sunshields not exceeding 8 inches wide nor 0.75 cubic feet in volume each, mounted directly to the side of the pole. Sunshields shall be attached at least 12 feet above ground level. To the extent separate antennae are required, antennae shall be placed in a shroud at the top of the pole. d) Existing signage: Radio equipment shall be attached to a pole behind existing signage under the following conditions: i) Radio equipment shall be placed within a shroud that does not exceed the dimensions of the sign in height and width, nor 4 inches in depth, including any required mounting bracket. ii) In no event shall WCF equipment obscure or interfere with the visibility or functioning of the signage. iii) To the extent separate antennae are required, antennae shall be placed in a shroud at the top of the pole. General standards for all WCFs located on Streetlights in the public right of way WCF equipment and shrouds 1) Antennae shall be the smallest antennae possible to achieve the coverage objective. Except in the case of top‐mounted designs, antennae shall not exceed 3 feet from the top of the streetlight pole and the associated “antenna skirt” shall taper to meet the pole above the mast arm. The diameter of the antenna and shroud shall not exceed 15” at their widest. 2) All shrouds and equipment shall be painted to match Public Works Department (PWD) standards or the existing pole, as applicable. 3) All shrouds and equipment shall be designed without gaps between materials or sky visible between component surfaces. 4) Equipment that cannot propagate an adequate signal within the shrouding required by the standard designs shall be attached to a streetlight pole at a height of 2 feet below the light mast or higher. Each instance of such equipment shall not exceed 0.85 cu. ft. nor shall the total volume of such equipment and any shrouding exceed 2.6 cu. ft. per streetlight pole. Height EXHIBIT 1 2 5) Except for top‐mounted designs, poles and all attachments will not exceed the height of similar surrounding poles by more than 3 feet. For top‐mounted designs, poles and all attachments shall not exceed the height of similar surrounding poles by more than 6 feet. 6) Replacement poles will conform to PWD style guidelines where the City has adopted standards and will match the pole being replaced where no standards exist. For integrated pole designs, poles shall incorporate decorative elements (e.g. fluting, decorative mast arm and luminaire, etc.) from PWD standards or existing poles, as applicable. Landscaping 7) At the direction of the Urban Forestry division, Applicant shall provide street trees and/or smaller amenity trees that interrupt direct views of WCF equipment where Urban Forestry determines appropriate space exists within 35 feet of the pole. 8) Any existing landscaping removed or damaged by installation shall be replaced in kind. Noise 9) Noise shall comply with PAMC Chapter 9.10 and shall be consistent with noise‐related Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. a) In residential areas with an average 24‐hour noise level (Ldn) at or below 60 decibels (dB), noise generated by WCF equipment shall not cause the Ldn exceed 60dB or to increase by 5.0 dB or more, even if the resulting Ldn would remain below 60 dB. b) In residential areas with an Ldn above 60 dB, noise generated by WCF equipment shall not cause the average to increase by 3.0 decibels (dB) or more. Curb clearances 10) If placed below 16’ above ground level, attachments shall not be placed closer than 18” to the curb, nor shall they extend over the sidewalk (Caltrans Highway Design Manual Section 309). 11) WCF node equipment must be at least 3’ from a curb cut. Miscellaneous 12) WCF installations shall not require any changes in the City’s existing banner marketing program. 13) All cabling shall be routed entirely within the pole or an attached shroud. 14) Safety signage shall be the smallest size possible to accomplish its purpose. 15) Power disconnects shall be placed in a vault near the base of the pole. 16) Except as provided in these standards, no equipment cabinets may be placed at grade. 17) Light mast orientation, height, color temperature and other photometric information shall comply with PWD standards. Pole location 18) Nodes shall utilize existing streetlight pole locations. Any new pole locations are prohibited unless approved through PWD/CPAU pole placement application. 19) Streetlight nodes at a designated gateway location or along a scenic corridor shall not utilize a top‐mounted design. 19)20) WCF nodes shall not be placed in locations within 300 feet of any parcel containing a public school. EXHIBIT 2 1 Wood Utility Poles Standard designs for WCFs located on Wood Utility Poles – An applicant proposing to attach to a wood utility pole in the public right of way shall utilize one of the other designs specified herein. a) Underground design: Radio equipment shall be placed in an underground vault in the pedestrian right of way. The antennae shall be placed in a shroud at the top of a nearby pole. i) Underground vaults shall be the minimum volume necessary to house WCF equipment. Application materials should explain why the proposed dimensions are required. In no event shall vault dimensions exceed 5 feet 8‐inches x 8 feet 2‐inches x 5 feet 7‐inches or 260 cu. ft., excluding space required for ventilation or sump pump equipment. b) Top‐mounted design: All equipment shall be enclosed within a shroud at the top of the pole containing both radio and antenna equipment. i) Top‐mounted equipment shrouds shall not exceed 5.5 feet from the top of the pole or bayonet attachment, if one is used, and shall taper to meet the pole above the mast arm. The diameter of the antenna and shroud shall not exceed 15” at their widest. c) Minimal sunshield design: Radio equipment shall be enclosed within one or two sunshields not exceeding 8 inches wide nor 0.75 cubic feet in volume each, mounted directly to the side of the pole. To the extent separate antennae are required, antennae shall be placed in a shroud at the top of the pole. d) Existing signage: Radio equipment shall be attached to a pole behind existing signage under the following conditions: i) Radio equipment shall be placed within a shroud that does not exceed the dimensions of the sign in height and width, nor 4 inches in depth, including any required mounting bracket. ii) In no event shall WCF equipment obscure or interfere with the visibility or functioning of the signage. iii) To the extent separate antennae are required, antennae shall be placed in a shroud at the top of the pole. General standards for all WCFs located on Wood Utility Poles in the public right of way WCF equipment and shrouds 1) Antennae shall be the smallest antennae possible to achieve the coverage objective. Antennae shall not exceed 5.5 feet from the top of the pole or bayonet attachment, if one is used. The diameter of the antenna and shroud shall not exceed 15” at their widest. 2) Bayonet attachments and equipment or antennae at the top of the shroud shall be covered by a single integrated shroud and “antenna skirt” that shall meet the pole without any gaps. 3) All conduit shall be mounted flush to the pole. 4) All shrouds and equipment shall be painted to match PWD standards or the existing pole, as applicable. Paint shall be maintained regularly and shrouds shall be repainted if necessary to match changes in pole color over time. 5) All shrouds and equipment shall be designed without gaps between materials or sky visible between component surfaces. 6) Equipment that cannot propagate an adequate signal within the shrouding required by the standard designs shall be attached to the top of the pole or on a cross arm or brace protruding from the pole to the minimum extent necessary to comply with safety EXHIBIT 2 2 standards including GO95. Such cross arm shall be placed as high on the pole as technically feasible. Each instance of such equipment shall not exceed 0.85 cu. ft. nor shall the total volume of such equipment exceed 2.6 cu. ft. per wood utility pole. Height 7)For wood utility poles carrying power lines, replacement poles and pole‐top bayonet attachments shall be the minimum height necessary to provide GO‐95 mandated clearance between WCF equipment and power lines. 8)For wood utility poles without power lines, any pole top equipment shall not increase the height of the pole by more than six feet. 9)In no event shall the total height of a pole or replacement pole, including all equipment exceed 55 feet. 10)Replacement poles will conform to all standards adopted by CPAU. Landscaping 11)At the direction of the Urban Forestry division, Applicant shall provide street trees and/or smaller amenity trees that interrupt direct views of WCF equipment where Urban Forestry determines appropriate space exists within 35 feet of the pole. 12)Any existing landscaping removed or damaged by installation shall be replaced in kind. Noise 13)Noise shall comply with PAMC Chapter 9.10 and shall be consistent with noise‐related Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. a)In residential areas with an average 24‐hour noise level (Ldn) at or below 60 decibels (dB), noise generated by WCF equipment shall not cause the Ldn exceed 60dB or to increase by 5.0 dB or more, even if the resulting Ldn would remain below 60 dB. b)In residential areas with an Ldn above 60 dB, noise generated by WCF equipment shall not cause the average to increase by 3.0 decibels (dB) or more. Curb clearances 14)If placed below 16’ above ground level, attachments shall not be placed closer than 18” to the curb, nor shall they extend over the sidewalk (Caltrans Highway Design Manual Section 309). 15)WCF node equipment must be at least 3’ from a curb cut. Miscellaneous 16)Safety signage shall be the smallest size possible to accomplish its purpose. 17)Power disconnects shall be placed on the wood pole or in a vault near the base of the pole. 18)Except as provided in these standards, no equipment cabinets may be placed at grade. 19)If applicable, light mast orientation, height, color temperature and other photometric information shall comply with PWD standards. Pole location 20)Nodes shall utilize existing wood utility pole locations. Any new pole locations are prohibited unless approved through PWD/CPAU pole placement application. 21)Wood utility poles at a designated gateway location or along a scenic corridor shall not utilize a top‐mounted design. 22)WCF equipment and antennas shall be located on poles such that they do not fall within the horizontal plane defined by a 45 degree angle extending 50 feet from the center point of upper story windows, doors, balconies, and other openings. WCF nodes shall utilize only wood utility poles located in the public rights of way. 21)23) WCF nodes shall not be placed in locations within 300 feet of any parcel containing a public school. City of Palo Alto (ID # 10400) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 6/17/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Fire Department Emergency Medical Services Future Needs Assessment Title: Fire Department Emergency Medical Services Future Needs Assessment From: City Manager Lead Department: Fire Recommendation Staff recommends that Council review and accept the Fire Department Emergency Medical Services Future Needs Assessment. Background In Fiscal Year 2016, City Council authorized one-time funding for the Fire Department to contract with an expert consulting firm to conduct a study to understand the health risks of the community members based on age, demographics, and utilization of emergency medical services. The Department contracted with Actionable Insights, a respected consulting firm that conducts studies for hospitals and health organizations on the Peninsula, to complete a Community Health Needs Assessment (CHNA). A CHNA is a data-driven examination of the health status indicators that is used to identify key problems and assets in a community and draws upon research on evidence-based interventions to make recommendations specific to the emerging needs of the community. Typically utilized by hospitals and health providers, the Fire Department worked with Actionable Insights to tailor the research focus and data projection methodologies for the Department with a specific focus on emergency medical needs. This included qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis; predictive data modeling on the anticipated health needs of the community; literature review of emergency health service provider innovations and best practices; and recommended next steps for the Department and City to consider. The first draft of the report was presented to Policy & Services Committee on November 13, 2018. The Policy and Services Committee instructed staff to work with Actionable City of Palo Alto Page 2 Insights to expand the executive summary section of the report and update the predictions with the final growth scenarios chosen from the Comprehensive Plan before transmitting a final version to City Council. Staff and the consultant have worked together to make the modifications to the draft report, and this provides the final report to City Council. Discussion The Community Health Needs Assessment report is the first of a two-phase initiative to identify the current and future community health needs that have an impact on the Department and develop innovative alternative services and programs to meet those needs more effectively and in a less costly manner. The CHNA report includes three primary elements: Information gathering: This included analysis of two years of call volume and patient statistics, and community input from focus groups and key informant interviews. Predictive analysis: Utilizing the two population models from the City Comprehensive Plan and a period life table approach, a prediction of future demographics and call volume was estimated. Distinct predictions were made for daytime and nighttime. The limited data available for Stanford’s daytime population restricted the predictive modeling for Stanford campus to nighttime residential needs only. Literature review of evidence-based interventions and programs: This focused on scientific program evaluations conducted on alternative models for emergency medical service delivery. The programs found to have an impact on reducing reliance on 911 and emergency response are highlighted for consideration of replicating locally. The data show that the overwhelming need for emergency response is for medical incidents, and with the older population expected to age in place there will be a significant impact on the draw of resources by 2030. The study found a statistically significant correlation with age and engagement of emergency resources for medical needs. Adults age 65 and older represent seventeen percent (17%) of the resident population of the City of Palo Alto, yet make up forty-seven percent (47%) of all Fire Department EMS patients. The predictive analysis estimates that all call types will increase by 2030, with EMS experiencing the largest proportional increase. Emergency Medical Calls are expected to increase between twenty-seven to thirty-one percent (27 – 31%), while all other call types are projected to see an increase between ten and fifteen percent (10 – 15%). Proportionally, the largest increase is expected in EMS calls during nighttime hours (8PM to 8AM). However, this increase is not enough to impact the historical trend of City of Palo Alto Page 3 most incidents occurring during the daytime (8AM to 8PM). The future of the community needs from the Fire Department will be overwhelmingly for emergency medical services. Some of these calls for service are for incidents that could be treated or prevented without a trip to the hospital. Other jurisdictions already grappling with swells in emergency medical incidents have found great success by implementing alternative service delivery models. The literature review provides several examples that have been proven successful at diverting and reducing the need for emergency response or hospital transport. This includes models such as mobile integrated healthcare; use of nurses or physician assistants in triage; in-home preventive care; or targeted outreach efforts. After the consideration of the data and projected future increases in demand for emergency medical services, the Department will begin the second phase of this project. The Community Impact Planning phase will bring key leaders of health and emergency service agencies together to assess the feasibility of bringing these alternative service delivery models to Palo Alto and explore multi-agency collaboration. Resource Impact Funding for the second phase of the project, the Community Impact Planning phase, has been identified, and no resource impact is identified at this time. However, the final resource assessment to implement recommended EMS strategies, as described in the study and/or determined during the Community Impact Planning phase, will most likely require a realignment of existing resources and/or new resources to fund these new services. It is anticipated that upon completion of the second phase, additional services will need to be evaluated in the context of the City’s financial outlook. Policy Implications There are no immediate policy implications at this time, however, as the Department moves forward with the second phase of the project it will be seeking to collaborate with local health service providers to explore alternative models of service delivery. If any innovations are identified as viable, the Department will bring forward proposals to the Policy and Services Committee and the City Council for consideration. Environmental Review Not applicable. Attachments: CHNA Report Final_June 2019 STUDY OF THE HEALTH NEEDS OF THE PALO ALTO/STANFORD AREA AND PAFD EMERGENCY RESPONSE June, 2019 1346 The Alameda, Ste. 7-507 San Jose, CA 95126 www.actionableLLC.com PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC ii June 6, 2019 Acknowledgments The Palo Alto Fire Department acknowledges the contributions of the following people and organizations toward this study of the health needs of the Palo Alto/Stanford area and PAFD emergency response: Palo Alto Fire Department Previous Fire Chief Eric Nickel Strategic Operations and Initiatives Manager Amber Cameron EMS Chief Kim Roderick Deputy Fire Chief, and Current Interim Chief Geo Blackshire Deputy Fire Chief Catherine Capriles (Retired) Deputy Fire Chief Kevin McNally Training Battalion Chief Shane Yarbrough Fire Marshal James Henrikson Community partners American Muslim Voice Foundation Stanford Health Care Stanford University Public Safety Stanford University Student Affairs Stevenson House (affordable housing for seniors) Vaden Health Center at Stanford University Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System Actionable Insights, LLC Co-Founder and Principal Melanie Espino Co-Founder and Principal Jennifer van Stelle, Ph.D. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC iii June 6, 2019 Table of Contents Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................... ii Table of Figures ...................................................................................................................... vi Table of Tables ...................................................................................................................... viii Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Pressing Health Needs .............................................................................................................................. 2 Predictive Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5 Study Team ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Situation Overview .................................................................................................................................... 6 CHNA Methods Summary ........................................................................................................ 7 Secondary Statistical Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 7 Sources of Secondary Statistical Data Used in the Assessment ............................................................................ 7 Methodology for Collection, Interpretation, and Analysis of Secondary Data ..................................................... 7 Community Input ...................................................................................................................................... 8 Community Input Gathered Via Key Informant Interviews and Focus Groups ..................................................... 8 Methodology for Collection and Interpretation of Community Input .................................................................. 9 Data Limitations and Information Gaps ................................................................................................. 10 Predictive Analysis Methods Summary .................................................................................. 11 Data Used for Predictive Analysis ........................................................................................................... 11 City of Palo Alto .................................................................................................................................................. 11 Stanford .............................................................................................................................................................. 13 Analytical Methods Used for Predictive Analysis .................................................................................... 13 Palo Alto/Stanford Area Geography and Demographics ........................................................ 16 City of Palo Alto ....................................................................................................................................... 17 Ethnicity, Origin, and Language .......................................................................................................................... 18 Age ...................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Stanford ................................................................................................................................................... 19 Ethnicity, Origin, and Language .......................................................................................................................... 20 Age ...................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Community Health Needs Assessment (CHNA) ...................................................................... 22 Research Questions ................................................................................................................................. 22 Pressing Health Needs ............................................................................................................................ 22 PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC iv June 6, 2019 Behavioral Health................................................................................................................................................ 22 Health Care Access and Delivery ......................................................................................................................... 24 Housing ............................................................................................................................................................... 25 Older Adult Health .............................................................................................................................................. 25 Transportation and Traffic .................................................................................................................................. 27 Youth and Young Adult Health ............................................................................................................................ 28 Equity and Cultural Competency ............................................................................................................. 29 Additional Community Concerns ............................................................................................................. 30 PAFD Calls and Medical Emergency Patients: City of Palo Alto, 2015 and 2016 ...................... 31 PAFD CAD Calls Originating in the City of Palo Alto ................................................................................ 31 Current Call Volume and Type ............................................................................................................................ 31 Current Medical Emergency Calls by Time of Day .............................................................................................. 33 PAFD Medical Emergency Patient Volume Originating in the City of Palo Alto ...................................... 33 Current Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Age .......................................................................................... 34 Current Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Gender .................................................................................... 35 Current Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Incident Location (ZIP Code) ................................................... 35 Current Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Type of Illness/Issue ............................................................... 37 Predictive Analysis Findings: City of Palo Alto, Year 2030 ...................................................... 39 Projected Population Overall and by Time of Day .................................................................................. 39 Predicted Medical Emergency Call Volume and Other Call Types by Time of Day .................................. 41 Predicted Medical Emergency Patient Volume Originating in the City of Palo Alto ............................... 44 Predicted Medical Emergency Patient Volume Overall and by Age ................................................................... 44 Predicted Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Time of Day ......................................................................... 45 Predicted Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Type of Illness/Issue ............................................................ 46 PAFD Calls and Medical Emergency Patients: Stanford, 2015 and 2016 ................................. 49 PAFD CAD Calls Originating in the Stanford Area ................................................................................... 49 Current Call Volume and Type ............................................................................................................................ 49 Current Medical Emergency Calls by Time of Day .............................................................................................. 50 PAFD Medical Emergency Patient Volume Originating in the Stanford Area ......................................... 51 Current Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Age .......................................................................................... 52 Current Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Gender .................................................................................... 53 Current Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Incident Location (ZIP Code) ................................................... 53 Current Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Type of Illness/Issue ............................................................... 54 Predictive Analysis Findings: Stanford, Year 2030 .................................................................. 56 Projected Population ............................................................................................................................... 56 Predicted Medical Emergency Call Volume and Other Call Types .......................................................... 57 Predicted Medical Emergency Patient Volume Originating in the Stanford Area .................................. 61 Predicted Medical Emergency Patient Volume Overall and by Age ................................................................... 61 Predicted Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Type of Illness/Issue ............................................................ 62 PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC v June 6, 2019 Recommendations & Next Steps ........................................................................................... 65 Addressing the Expected Increase in EMS Calls ...................................................................................... 65 Successful Strategies to Reduce EMS Calls and/or Reliance on Emergency Transport ...................................... 65 Implementation Challenges and Best Practices in CP/MIHP .............................................................................. 70 Addressing Community Health Needs ..................................................................................................... 72 Next Steps in Addressing Future Needs and Capacity ............................................................................. 74 Appendix 1 ............................................................................................................................ 75 Sources .................................................................................................................................................... 75 Appendix 2 ............................................................................................................................ 85 Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 85 Appendix 3 ............................................................................................................................ 87 Mapping of Primary Impressions to Categories ...................................................................................... 87 Appendix 4 ............................................................................................................................ 93 Call/Patient Volume and Call Type Predictions ....................................................................................... 93 Appendix 5 ............................................................................................................................ 95 Population Figures by Age – Current and Predicted ............................................................................... 95 Current Figures, Including Populations by Age ................................................................................................... 95 Year 2030 Predictions, Including Predictions by Age .......................................................................................... 96 Appendix 6 .......................................................................................................................... 102 2030 Predicted ME Call/Patient Volume, Based on CAD Calls and ESO ME Patient Volume ................ 102 City of Palo Alto ................................................................................................................................................ 102 Stanford ............................................................................................................................................................ 105 Appendix 7 .......................................................................................................................... 108 Total Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Incident ZIP Code by Year: Percentage and Number .... 108 Appendix 8 .......................................................................................................................... 110 Current 2015/2016 Average Patient Volume by Primary Impression and Age ..................................... 110 Appendix 9 .......................................................................................................................... 112 Current 2015/2016 Average and Predicted 2030 Patient Volume by Primary Impression, by City and Time of Day ........................................................................................................................................... 112 Appendix 10 ........................................................................................................................ 114 Palo Alto/Stanford CHNA Data Dashboard ........................................................................................... 114 Appendix 11 ........................................................................................................................ 128 Palo Alto/Stanford Neighborhood Data Dashboard ............................................................................. 128 PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC vi June 6, 2019 Table of Figures Figure 1, Map of the Cities of Palo Alto and Stanford .................................................................. 16 Figure 2, City of Palo Alto Daytime Population by Resident Status ............................................. 17 Figure 3, Ethnicity by Geography, Santa Clara County versus City of Palo Alto Neighborhoods . 18 Figure 4, Population by Geography and Age Range, Santa Clara County versus City of Palo Alto ....................................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 5, City of Stanford Daytime Population by Resident Status .............................................. 20 Figure 6, Ethnicity by Geography .................................................................................................. 20 Figure 7, Population by Geography and Age Range ..................................................................... 21 Figure 8, Proportion of Population Spending 30% or More of Income on Housing, 2011-2015 . 25 Figure 9, Alzheimer’s Disease Mortality Rate ............................................................................... 26 Figure 10, PAFD Calls for Service Originating in the City of Palo Alto, 2015/2016 Average ........ 32 Figure 11, PAFD Calls by Type and Time of Day, 2015/2016 Average, City of Palo Alto .............. 33 Figure 12, Current Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Age Category, 2015/2016 Average Counts and Percentages, City of Palo Alto ................................................................................... 34 Figure 13, Current Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Age Category, 2015/2016 Average Percentages, Compared to Residential Population by Age Category, City of Palo Alto ............... 35 Figure 14, Map of Current Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Incident ZIP Code, 2015/2016 Average ......................................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 15, Current and Year 2030 Projected Populations by Age Category, Daytime, City of Palo Alto ................................................................................................................................................ 40 Figure 16, Current and Year 2030 Projected Populations by Age Category, Nighttime, City of Palo Alto ........................................................................................................................................ 41 Figure 17, Predicted Change in Average Annual Call Volume from 2015/2016 to 2030, Major Call Types, City of Palo Alto ................................................................................................................. 42 Figure 18, Predicted Change in Average Annual Call Volume from 2015/2016 to 2030, Major Call Types, Daytime, City of Palo Alto .................................................................................................. 43 Figure 19, Predicted Change in Average Annual Call Volume from 2015/2016 to 2030, Major Call Types, Nighttime, City of Palo Alto ............................................................................................... 44 Figure 20, Current and Year 2030 Predicted Age-Adjusted Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Age Category, City of Palo Alto ................................................................................................ 45 Figure 21, Comparison of Actual Average Annual Patient Volume versus Predicted Change in Average Annual Patient Volume from 2015/2016 to 2030, by Primary Impression, City of Palo Alto, Daytime ................................................................................................................................ 47 Figure 22, Comparison of Actual Average Annual Patient Volume versus Predicted Change in Average Annual Patient Volume from 2015/2016 to 2030, by Primary Impression, City of Palo Alto, Nighttime .............................................................................................................................. 48 Figure 23, PAFD Calls for Service Originating from Stanford, 2015/2016 Average ...................... 50 Figure 24, PAFD Calls by Type and Time of Day, 2015/2016 Average, Stanford .......................... 51 PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC vii June 6, 2019 Figure 25, Current Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Age Category, 2015/2016 Average Counts and Percentages, Stanford ............................................................................................... 52 Figure 26, Current Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Age Category, 2015/2016 Average Percentages, Compared to Residential Population by Age Category, Stanford ........................... 53 Figure 27, Current and Year 2030 Projected Residential Populations by Age Category, Stanford ....................................................................................................................................................... 57 Figure 28, Predicted Change in Average Annual Call Volume from 2015/2016 to 2030, Major Call Types, Stanford ............................................................................................................................. 58 Figure 29, Predicted Change in Average Annual Call Volume from 2015/2016 to 2030, Major Call Types, Daytime, Stanford .............................................................................................................. 59 Figure 30, Predicted Change in Average Annual Call Volume from 2015/2016 to 2030, Major Call Types, Nighttime, Stanford ........................................................................................................... 60 Figure 31, Current and Year 2030 Predicted Age-Adjusted Residential Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Age Category, Stanford .................................................................................. 61 Figure 32, Comparison of Actual versus Predicted Absolute Change in Average Annual Patient Volume from 2015/2016 to 2030, by Primary Impression, Stanford, Daytime ........................... 63 Figure 33, Comparison of Actual versus Predicted Absolute Change in Average Annual Patient Volume from 2015/2016 to 2030, by Primary Impression, Stanford, Nighttime ......................... 64 PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC viii June 6, 2019 Table of Tables Table 1, Details of Key Informants Interviewed ............................................................................. 9 Table 2, Details of Focus Groups Conducted .................................................................................. 9 Table 3, Summary of EIR Preferred Scenario: Population and Employment Parameters(1) ........ 12 Table 4, All Medical Emergency (ME) Patients, Categories of Primary Impressions, 2015/2016 Average, in Order of Frequency for the City of Palo Alto ............................................................. 37 Table 5, Predicted Year 2030 Medical Emergency Patients, Categories of Primary Impressions, by City, in Order of Frequency, City of Palo Alto .......................................................................... 46 Table 6, All Medical Emergency (ME) Patients, Categories of Primary Impressions, 2015/2016 Average, in Order of Frequency for Stanford ............................................................................... 54 Table 7, Predicted Year 2030 Medical Emergency Patients, Categories of Primary Impressions, in Order of Frequency ....................................................................................................................... 62 Table 8, Total Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Primary Impression by Year: Percentage and Number .................................................................................................................................. 87 Table 9, Stanford Projected Growth in Academic Year Residential Population Through 2035 (from Stanford GUP Tab 5.5) ...................................................................................................... 100 Table 10, Stanford Projected Growth in Worker Population Through 2035 (from Stanford GUP Tab 8) .......................................................................................................................................... 101 Table 11, Current 2015/2016 Call Volume, City of Palo Alto ..................................................... 102 Table 12, Current 2015/2016 and Predicted 2030 Call Volume, City of Palo Alto ..................... 103 Table 13, Current 2015/2016 and Predicted 2030 Daytime Call Volume, City of Palo Alto ...... 103 Table 14, Current 2015/2016 and Predicted 2030 Nighttime Call Volume, City of Palo Alto .... 104 Table 15, Current 2015/2016 and Predicted 2030 Medical Emergency (ME) Patient Volume, City of Palo Alto .................................................................................................................................. 104 Table 16, Current 2015/2016 Call Volume, Stanford ................................................................. 105 Table 17, Current 2015/2016 and Predicted 2030 Call Volume, Stanford ................................. 106 Table 18, Current 2015/2016 and Predicted 2030 Daytime Call Volume, Stanford .................. 106 Table 19, Current 2015/2016 and Predicted 2030 Nighttime Call Volume, Stanford ............... 107 Table 20, Current 2015/2016 and Predicted 2030 Patient Volume, Day versus Night, Stanford ..................................................................................................................................................... 107 Table 21, Total Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Incident ZIP Code by Year .................. 108 Table 22, Current 2015/2016 Average Patient Volume by Primary Impression and Age, City of Palo Alto ...................................................................................................................................... 110 Table 23, Current 2015/2016 Average Patient Volume by Primary Impression and Age, Stanford ..................................................................................................................................................... 111 Table 24, Current and Predicted Year 2030 Medical Emergency Patients, Categories of Primary Impressions, by Time of Day, City of Palo Alto ........................................................................... 112 Table 25, Current and Predicted Year 2030 Medical Emergency Patients, Categories of Primary Impressions, by Time of Day, Stanford ....................................................................................... 113 PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC ix June 6, 2019 Table 26, Data Employed for Community Health Needs Assessment: Combined Palo Alto/Stanford Area ...................................................................................................................... 114 Table 27, Data Employed for Community Health Needs Assessment: Cities of Palo Alto and Stanford (Separately) .................................................................................................................. 128 PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 1 June 6, 2019 Executive Summary In the spring and summer of 2017, the City of Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) conducted a study of the Palo Alto/Stanford area and PAFD emergency response to determine current health needs of the area and to predict future needs. Health needs were defined as physical health conditions and outcomes, mental and behavioral health, and social determinants of health. The study involved three elements: 1. A community health needs assessment (CHNA), which included collection of statistical data and community input; 2. A predictive analysis, which included a review of current data from PAFD and a modified or “period” life table approach to predict future PAFD volume using demographic projections; and 3. A brief literature review to understand alternative models for emergency medical services (EMS) delivery, including prevention efforts. This data analysis and report is the first step towards implementing changes in the community. Following presentation of this report, including some suggestions for consideration, PAFD hopes to convene community partners that play a part in preventive health to develop recommendations and an action plan. Methods Actionable Insights, a professional health research company contracted to complete this study, gathered both primary and secondary data for this study. For the CHNA, our firm blended primary and secondary data to better understand the community’s health needs. The health needs that were identified include physical health, behavioral health (wellbeing), and social determinants of health (including economic factors and education). The secondary data came from a variety of sources (see Appendices 10 and 11 for statistical data and sources). We also conducted primary research for the CHNA by soliciting input, via interviews and focus groups, from community members and professionals who serve the Palo Alto/Stanford area and who have insight into the community’s needs. For the predictive analysis, looking separately at the City of Palo Alto and at Stanford, we analyzed current emergency medical needs using secondary data from the PAFD, and predicted how the need for EMS will change by 2030 based on current information and expected demographic trends. The methods for the predictive analysis are further detailed in the Predictive Analysis Methods Summary section of this report. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 2 June 6, 2019 Finally, we conducted a brief literature review on new models for EMS service delivery, using both scholarly and journalistic literature, in order to make informed recommendations to the PAFD. Based on these research activities, we created a list of health needs, predictions of future call volume by city and call type, and a set of recommendations for action. Pressing Health Needs The CHNA determined the pressing health needs in the Palo Alto/Stanford area to be (in alphabetical order): • Behavioral health (mental health and substance abuse) • Health care access and delivery (including equity and cultural competency) • Housing • Older adult health • Transportation and traffic • Youth/young adult health Predictive Analysis Actionable Insights conducted a predictive analysis of PAFD’s future (year 2030) call volume by call type and EMS patient volume, using population projections and current data from PAFD. The current data, averaged across the years 2015 and 2016, indicate: • On average, across the two years 2015/2016, 67% of calls to PAFD originating in the Palo Alto/Stanford area were for EMS. Breaking that down: o Fully 70% of calls originating in the City of Palo Alto were for EMS. o An average of 50% of calls from Stanford were for EMS.1 • The most common reason for EMS in the Palo Alto/Stanford area across the two years was altered level of consciousness (ALOC), followed by injury/hemorrhage. More specifically: o The top three reasons for EMS in the City of Palo Alto were ALOC (29% on average), injury/hemorrhage (23% on average), and cardiac-related issues (average of 11%). o The top three reasons for EMS in Stanford were ALOC (29% on average), injury/hemorrhage (28% on average), and behavioral health-related issues (average of 9%). 1 The average of both is higher than one might expect because there are far more calls from the City of Palo Alto than there are from Stanford. Note that these figures are based on PAFD computer-aided dispatch (CAD) unduplicated data for 2015 and 2016. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 3 June 6, 2019 o Generally, the patient volume for EMS increases with age. However, Stanford has a larger population of younger residents due to its university, explaining the spike in patient volume for Stanford among those aged 15-24. We calculated year 2030 predictions based on the low-end and high-end of the preferred growth scenario provided by the City of Palo Alto and on the latest Stanford University General Use Permit Application. The City of Palo Alto’s preferred growth scenario range for the years 2014 to 2030 “test the impacts of various policy changes which would presumably yield different amounts of job and population growth” (Hillary Gitelman, Director, Planning & Community Environment Department, City of Palo Alto, personal communication, December 21, 2016). Findings indicate that the total number of calls will increase between now and 2030 for all call types, and the volume of patients will increase between now and 2030 for EMS. More specifically: • The EMS call increase is expected to be proportionally higher than the increase in other call types (for the City of Palo Alto between 27% and 31% compared to all other call types’ combined increase of 10% to 15%; for Stanford, about 36% compared to all other call types’ combined increase of between 30% and 42%). Medical emergency calls will increase from 70% of the City of Palo Alto’s total call volume in 2015/16 to 73% in 2030, while Stanford’s medical emergency call volume will stay at its current level of 50% of all calls. • The proportion of all daytime calls from the City of Palo Alto is predicted to remain the same over time (68%). The predictive analysis suggests that proportion of all nighttime calls from Stanford may increase over time, such that daytime call from Stanford is reduced to 58%.2 • Finally, the prediction is that by 2030, EMS patient volume will increase between 26% and 30% from the 2015/2016 annual average for the City of Palo Alto and about 30% for Stanford. PAFD’s data show that older individuals are more likely than younger individuals to have a medical emergency in the combined Palo Alto/Stanford jurisdiction. Comparatively, a much greater proportion of older adults are being served by PAFD for medical emergencies compared to the proportion of older adults in the resident population. Both cities will have more older medical emergency patients in 2030 than they have had in 2015/2016. However, because Stanford has – and will continue to have – a smaller and younger set of medical emergency patients, despite the increasing median age of area populations, the City of Palo Alto will see both a much greater absolute number and a greater skew towards older adult patients in 2030 than Stanford will. For example, in the City of Palo Alto, at the high end of the preferred scenario, the volume of annual EMS 2 We caution that Stanford’s daytime call predictions were made without access to age projections for that population. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 4 June 6, 2019 patients is expected to rise from 4,330 to as many as 5,617, with 66% of those being age 55+, while in Stanford, the volume of annual EMS patients is expected to rise from 933 to 1,213, with only 32% of those being age 55+. Recommendations Nationally, hospitals and healthcare systems have seen an increase in Emergency Department (ED) visits, mainly for substance and alcohol-related issues, diabetes, and heart disease (Skinner et al, 2014). So-called “super-users” of 911 and EDs have been found to account for up to 40% of all U.S. ambulance utilization (Scott et al. 2014). Researchers estimate that inappropriate (i.e., non-emergency) use of 911 and EDs comprises between 10% and 40% of all EMS responses, and up to 33% of all ED visits nationwide (National Conference of State Legislatures, undated; Rocovich and Patel, 2012). In the U.S., EMS calls to fire departments have increased from 54% to 64% in the 30 years between 1986 and 2015 (National Fire Protection Association, 2016). Locally, the projected increase in future population (especially the senior population) demands that cities across the Bay Area begin planning now to address these changes. The Palo Alto and Stanford community’s concerns about today’s health needs are a bellwether of future needs and, as such, deserve attention. Almost all of the community’s top concerns are issues that PAFD currently addresses through EMS. The predicted corresponding increase in the number of EMS patients by the year 2030 raises the question of how the City of Palo Alto can improve its preparedness to address the community’s needs and concerns. The community has expressed a need for preventive health services, health education, and outreach to address the health needs. Many communities have invested in integrated community health care to improve health outcomes for residents and prevent the need for EMS. Actionable Insights recommends exploring such prevention approaches with proven results. These approaches should be aligned with PAFD’s mission and organizational values. Implementing interventions that increase access to preventive health services can include a range of options from low-cost efforts to the creation of large-scale programs. These interventions could include services delivered in collaboration with community partners, other health and service agencies, or by the Fire Department itself. Some evidence-based, best- practice models to consider include: • Integrated healthcare models (e.g., home visits, telemedicine, and/or mobile integrated health units that provide non-emergency treatment and proactive health services, which could include teaming up with healthcare systems to partner with NPs/PAs and for medical direction); • Outreach/community education through health workers (such as those utilized in the promotores model, see Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016); and PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 5 June 6, 2019 • Partnering with community organizations (e.g., social services, healthcare systems), both to provide non-medical referrals and possibly to introduce remote health services (such as firehouse clinics). Data from existing programs suggest that approaches like these may have the effect of improving community health outcomes by reducing health disparities, lowering hospital readmission rates for certain conditions, increasing immunization rates, preventing injuries, and reducing mortality rates, as well as lowering healthcare costs, both directly and via reduction in ED transports and/or hospital readmissions. Introduction The City of Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) conducted a study of the health needs of the Palo Alto/Stanford area and PAFD emergency response in 2017. The results of this study will inform PAFD’s planning and strategy for serving the Palo Alto/Stanford community. The study builds upon a countywide community health needs assessment (CHNA) conducted in Santa Clara County by Stanford Health Care and other nonprofit hospitals, but with a focus on the Palo Alto/Stanford area specifically. The Palo Alto/Stanford study focused on three questions: 1. What are the community’s current health needs, including emergency medical needs? 2. How are the community’s emergency medical needs predicted to change by the year 2030? 3. What does the research say about successful models for meeting community health needs, including emergency medical needs? Study Team Fire Chief Eric Nickel of the PAFD, who has served as Fire Chief since 2012 and has a background not only as a firefighter but also as a paramedic, initiated and directed the study. Amber Cameron, Strategic Operations Manager for the Public Safety Department, assisted Chief Nickel. PAFD contracted Actionable Insights, LLC, a Bay Area consulting firm, to conduct the study based on its experience in conducting CHNAs in Santa Clara County and other California counties, and to make recommendations for action such as those found in this report. Jennifer van Stelle, Ph.D. and Melanie Espino, Actionable Insights’ principals and co-leads on the Palo Alto/Stanford study, have experience conducting a variety of research and evaluation projects on topics including health and wellness, wellbeing, social justice, equity and diversity, and higher education. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 6 June 6, 2019 Situation Overview According to National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) data, the proportion of total fire department calls nationwide that were solely for medical aid increased from 54% in 1986 to 64% in 2015 (NFPA, 2016). Fire departments nationwide have reported this trend of increasing emergency medical services (EMS) calls (see, for example, Cooper, 2016; Keisling, 2015; Los Angeles Fire Department, 2015; Luthern, 2014). In the two years 2015 and 2016, emergency medical calls to the PAFD from the Palo Alto/Stanford area were 67% of all PAFD calls (based on PAFD CAD unduplicated data). Breaking that down, fully 70% of calls originating in the City of Palo Alto were for EMS, while 50% of calls from Stanford were for EMS.3 It has been projected that the City of Palo Alto’s resident population will continue an ongoing trend of increasing median age (age 32 in 1970, age 42 in 2010), which is similar to the national trend (City of Palo Alto, 2014). However, it has been noted that the City of Palo Alto’s older adult resident population is “larger than typical” (City of Palo Alto, 2014). Indeed, the median age for most of the counties in California is lower (i.e., younger) than the City of Palo Alto’s median of 41.9 years of age (Governing.com, 2017; City of Palo Alto, 2014). The City of Palo Alto’s median age is also higher (i.e., older) than that of all Bay Area counties except Marin (Governing.com, 2017). Older adults tend to require more care, and research reflects the common-sense notion that “ED [Emergency Department] resource use intensity increases with age” (Latham & Ackroyd- Stolarz, 2014). It is logical to assume (and we do in fact find in PAFD’s current data) that older adults call 911 for medical emergencies more often than younger adults. The Public Safety Department, which includes police, fire service, and EMS for the City of Palo Alto, is in a unique position to take a broad look at the needs of the community and craft a strategy for addressing those needs now and in the future. By bringing together statistical analyses and the wisdom of the community to understand the community health needs, and leveraging existing research on the changing demographics of the Palo Alto/Stanford area, the PAFD can determine how its current structure and staffing aligns with forecasted changes. Specifically, the PAFD wants to understand how well-prepared it is to respond to the growing proportions of emergency medical calls, as well as the expected rise in absolute numbers of all types of calls over time and how the PAFD can increase its preparedness. 3 The average of both is higher than one might expect because there are far more calls from the City of Palo Alto than there are from Stanford. Note that these figures are based on PAFD CAD unduplicated data for 2015 and 2016. 4 Healthy People is an initiative of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. For nearly 40 years, it has proffered 10-year national aspirational goals for improving the health of Americans based on existing scientific data. The most recent set of 2020 objectives was updated in December 2014 to reflect the most accurate population data available (www.healthypeople.gov). PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 7 June 6, 2019 CHNA Methods Summary In 2017, the PAFD identified community health needs in a process that mirrors that of the IRS requirements for nonprofit hospitals per the Affordable Care Act. The PAFD CHNA identified health conditions and, secondarily, the drivers of those conditions (including health care access and delivery), via both statistical data and community input. Note that experts and community representatives were asked to comment about the entire Palo Alto/Stanford area, and thus we present the CHNA data for the entire area, blended rather than separated out by city. The CHNA data collection process took place over four months and culminated in this written report in January of 2018. Secondary Statistical Data Collection Sources of Secondary Statistical Data Used in the Assessment Actionable Insights collected secondary statistical data on the combined cities of Palo Alto and Stanford from the Community Commons (2017) data platform, a publicly available source that includes a compilation of over 150 health need indicators. The Community Commons data served as the foundation for PAFD’s statistical data-gathering on community health. In addition, Actionable Insights collected secondary statistical data from the Santa Clara County Public Health Department, including their city and neighborhood profiles. Data from the California Department of Public Health (2013) and other online sources were also collected. Demographic data on the daytime population and resident population were collected from the U.S. Census Bureau. Details about specific sources and dates of the data used may be found in Appendix 1. Methodology for Collection, Interpretation, and Analysis of Secondary Data Actionable Insights used a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to list indicator data. As described, data were collected primarily through the Community Commons data platform and other statistical sources. Actionable Insights generally retained the health need categories used in the Community Commons data platform spreadsheet (rubric) and integrated data indicators from other sources into the spreadsheet/rubric. Refer to Appendices 10 and 11 for the health needs assessment data collected through the two primary sources, Community Commons and Santa Clara County Public Health Department City and Small Area/Neighborhood Profiles. Specifically related to secondary statistical data, PAFD requested that Actionable Insights examine the following: • How do the data perform compared to Healthy People 2020 (HP 2020) aspirational goals4 or against Santa Clara County and California rates or percentages? 4 Healthy People is an initiative of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. For nearly 40 years, it has proffered 10-year national aspirational goals for improving the health of Americans based on existing scientific data. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 8 June 6, 2019 • Are there disparities in outcomes and/or conditions for people in the Palo Alto/Stanford community? Actionable Insights compiled all the combined Palo Alto/Stanford area data indicators and compared them with existing benchmarks (either HP 2020 aspirational goals or statewide averages, whichever was more stringent) in order to evaluate how the indicators performed against these benchmarks. Indicator data were reviewed by gender, age groups, race/ethnicity, and/or geographies when available in order to discover any health disparities. Actionable Insights presented these data to PAFD and its analysis of which indicators failed the benchmarks in an April 2017 telephone meeting with PAFD. Community Input PAFD contracted with Actionable Insights to conduct primary research. The Actionable Insights team collected community input via key informant interviews and focus groups with health experts, community representatives, and community members. Community Input Gathered Via Key Informant Interviews and Focus Groups Following the guidance provided by the IRS for community health needs assessments conducted by nonprofit hospitals, Actionable Insights consulted with individuals with expertise in health and individuals who represent the Palo Alto/Stanford community, and with Palo Alto/Stanford residents. See the lists in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 includes key informants’ titles and expertise as well as the date each was interviewed. Table 2 briefly describes each focus group and the date and location each took place. Actionable Insights interviewed these experts and community leaders/representatives by telephone for approximately one hour each, May through September 2017. Actionable Insights also conducted focus groups that ran for approximately one hour each in June and July 2017. In these interviews and focus groups, Actionable Insights asked experts and community members the following: • What are the health needs that are most important and pressing in the community? • Are there any groups or geographies that may have greater or special needs? • What solutions do you suggest for addressing those health needs? • Are all members of the community benefiting equally from available services, or are there concerns about equity and cultural competency related to physical and mental health? • How do you think health care will change in the future? The most recent set of 2020 objectives was updated in December 2014 to reflect the most accurate population data available (www.healthypeople.gov). PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 9 June 6, 2019 • What do you think about alternative service delivery models that could prevent emergency incidents, such as mobile and remote health models focused on prevention and early intervention? • (Professionals only) What are your ideas about how to address the issue of 911 “super- users?” In all, Actionable Insights consulted with six key informants via individual interviews and 22 community members via focus groups. Table 1, Details of Key Informants Interviewed Title and Organization Date Interviewed Public Safety Chief, Stanford University 5/27/2017 Chief Medical Officer, Stanford Health Care 6/2/2017 Vice Provost for Student Affairs, Stanford University 6/14/2017 Associate Vice Provost for Student Affairs and Director of Vaden Health Center, Stanford University 6/14/2017 Manager of Aging Adult Services, Stanford Health Care 7/14/2017 Director, American Muslim Voice Foundation 7/24/2017 Deputy Chief of Staff, VA Palo Alto Health Care System 9/1/2017 Source: Actionable Insights, LLC, 2017, unpublished data. Table 2, Details of Focus Groups Conducted Group Focus Location Date Nonprofit Professionals Mitchell Park Community Center 6/20/2017 Low-Income Seniors Stevenson House 7/6/2017 Neighborhood Representatives Mitchell Park Community Center 7/11/2017 Source: Actionable Insights, LLC, 2017, unpublished data. Methodology for Collection and Interpretation of Community Input Each key informant interview was recorded for internal use only, with permission from the interviewees, and transcribed for use as a stand-alone data source. When all interviews and PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 10 June 6, 2019 focus groups had been conducted, Actionable Insights used qualitative research software tools5 to analyze the information and tabulate all of the health needs that were identified as important and pressing to the community. The key findings were combined with the statistical data. This combined articulation was then used to assess community health priorities. Data Limitations and Information Gaps Despite the substantial amount of information collected, data were not available for every single aspect of each community health need, keeping us from being able to fully assess the identified needs. While this is typical for community health needs assessments (CHNAs), it is still important to acknowledge here. Limited data also constrained our understanding of the needs of special populations, including the undocumented, the LGBTQI population, and monolingual speakers of certain languages. Related to this issue, data for these populations can be statistically unstable due to the small numbers or small response rates of community members from these populations, and, as such, are of limited utility in assessing community health needs. Again, these concerns are typical for CHNAs, and are a perennial issue for public health departments and others whose work involves research into community health needs. 5 Dedoose Version 7.0.23, web application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data (2016). Los Angeles, CA: SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC (www.dedoose.com). PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 11 June 6, 2019 Predictive Analysis Methods Summary This is a summary of the data and methods used in the predictive analysis. For a detailed description of the data and methods, as well as charts displaying the 2015/2016 data and 2030 predictions, please see Appendices 2-9. Data Used for Predictive Analysis Actionable Insights obtained from PAFD two datasets containing data from the years 2015 and 2016. The dataset from the computer-aided dispatch records system (CAD) contained all calls, by type (e.g., fire, medical emergency, false alarm), and by city for the City of Palo Alto and for Stanford. The dataset from the emergency medical records management system (ESO) contained all patients by age, gender, incident ZIP Code, and primary impression (e.g., diabetic symptoms, respiratory distress, cardiac rhythm disturbance). Both datasets contained information on date and time of day of each incident. For the sake of increased data stability, we generated averages of each call type in the CAD dataset across the two years, and of patient volume, by age, in the ESO dataset across the two years. These averages formed the basis for the year 2030 predictions. City of Palo Alto The City of Palo Alto provided a preferred growth scenario, containing low- and high-end figures for the year 2030 based on 2014 resident, jobs, and housing data, which were developed as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Certain information on the population projection scenario figures were provided to Actionable Insights by Hillary Gitelman, Director, Planning & Community Environment Department, City of Palo Alto, via email on December 21, 2016. In her email, Ms. Gitelman explained: Our EIR [Environmental Impact Report] planning scenarios look out to the year 2030 and are testing the impacts of various policy changes which would presumably yield different amounts of job and population growth. Our Scenario 2 [the basis for the lower end of the preferred scenario’s range of new employees] reflects… [the City] tak[ing] steps to temper the rate of job growth. Our Scenario 4 [the basis for the higher end of the preferred scenario’s range of new housing units and new population] reflects ABAG projections of …housing. Table 3, on the next page, provides the preferred scenario figures. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 12 June 6, 2019 Table 3, Summary of EIR Preferred Scenario: Population and Employment Parameters(1) Population(2)/ Housing Non-Res Sq. Ft. (3) Jobs Jobs/Housing Balance (4) BASE FIGURES (2014) 65,685/28,545 27.0M 95,460 Jobs/Employed Residents Ratio of 3.03 Preferred Scenario: Net Change 2015-2030 (City of Palo Alto Only) Jobs/Housing Balance (3) Population/ Housing Non-Res Sq. Ft. (2) Jobs Low End of Range 8,435/3,545 3.0M 9,850 Jobs/Employed Residents Ratio of 2.88 High End of Range 10,455/4,420 3.0M 11,500 Jobs/Employed Residents Ratio of 3.01 Notes: (1) The scenario also includes different ideas for zoning/implementation actions, transportation investments, and sustainability measures. (2) Population is calculated based on a housing unit vacancy rate of five percent. Population is also based on an average household size provided by ABAG Projections 2013 of 2.40 persons per household in 2014 and 2.41 persons per household in 2030 within the city limit. Household sizes were developed by City staff based on data in ABAG Projections 2013. (3) This number includes 1.3M sq. ft. that has already been approved at the Stanford Medical Center. The balance of the new nonresidential square footage would be located in areas both inside and outside of the “monitored areas” referenced in Policy L-8 and Map L-6 in the Comp Plan and in areas both inside and outside of the area subject to the interim annual limit of 50,000 square feet new office/R&D space. (4) The number of employed residents in 2030 is estimated at approximately 48% of total population based on ABAG Projections 2013. The ratio of jobs to employed residents in this column assumes a 2014 base of 65,685 people [i.e., total residents] and 95,460 jobs. Sources: Hilary Gitelman, City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment department, personal communication, December 21, 2016; preferred scenario ranges and note 4, Table 2.1, City of Palo Alto, 2017c. To align our 2030 predictions with these preferred scenario figures, Actionable Insights obtained additional 2014 population data, including resident age breakdowns by city, county, and state from the U.S. Census Bureau (2014). We also obtained daytime visitor estimates for the City of Palo Alto from its Chamber of Commerce, and calculated nighttime visitor estimates for the City of Palo Alto based on reported hotel occupancy rates and related taxes for 2014. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 13 June 6, 2019 Additionally, we acquired U.S. projections of year 2030 population by age from the U.S. Census (Colby & Ortman, 2015). Year 2030 age projections for the populations of Bay Area counties and the state were obtained from the California Department of Finance (CA DOF, 2017).6 Finally, we estimated daytime population figures for the City of Palo Alto based in part on a 2013 City of Palo Alto transportation survey that reported percentages of out-commuters and in-commuters from various nearby counties. Further explanation of these figures, including population proportions by age for 2014 and 2030, are available in Appendix 5. Stanford Stanford University (2016) provided 2015 data, 2018 projections, 2020 projections, and a growth scenario for 2035, both for residents and for its daytime population, in its 2018 General Use Permit Application or “GUP.” The GUP, published by Stanford University on November 21, 2016, provides estimates of the resident population (Tab 5) and of the daytime population (Tab 8), including both workers and students, for the years 2015, 2018, 2020, and 2035 (see Appendix 5). However, the GUP data and estimates are not provided at a granular-enough level to determine population ages, despite requests for the same.7 Use of age groups from other geographies (e.g., San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, the City of Palo Alto) as proxies for Stanford’s daytime or nighttime populations are inappropriate because Stanford is not like these other areas; it has a much larger young-adult population due to its university. After considerable effort by Actionable Insights and discussions with PAFD, it was decided that Stanford’s daytime population would not be estimated by age group. For both current and 2030 Stanford nighttime population projections, we used the U.S. Census Bureau’s estimates of Stanford’s 2014 resident (nighttime) population and age proportions.8 We obtained daytime visitor estimates for Stanford from its Visitor’s Center. Further explanation of these figures, including population proportions by age for 2014 and 2030, are available in Appendix 5. Analytical Methods Used for Predictive Analysis After consultation with several statistical experts, it was determined that the most appropriate method for predicting future call volume/type and medical emergency patient volume by age group, gender, incident location, and/or primary impression was a modified life table approach. 6 Note that we were unable to obtain age projections by city, and were advised that no agency or organization provides such projections (Stephen Levy, personal communication, December 14, 2016). 7 Note that a request for age-related information about the Stanford daytime population was made to the authors of the GUP. The request netted some additional information from Stanford University’s Human Resources department, but the information provided was still not enough to allow us to determine age groups for Stanford’s daytime population. 8 We used 2014 rather than 2015 data for Stanford because all City of Palo Alto “current” data and the six 2030 scenarios are also based on 2014 figures; this allows for comparisons between Stanford and the City of Palo Alto if desired. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 14 June 6, 2019 This is a population ecology approach used to describe a current population and predict future growth or decline (see, for example, Begon, Harper, & Townsend, 1990; Begon, Mortimer, & Thompson, 1996; Krebs, 1985). The U.S. Centers for Disease Control calls this a period life table approach (Arias, 2012). We used a snapshot of the years 2015/2016 and assumed that the cohort of individuals alive at that time in each city, plus the expected increase in individuals in each city over the next 15 years, would be subject (proportionally) to the age-specific Medical Emergency (ME) call/patient volumes, other call types, incident locations, and primary impressions that prevailed for the actual populations in 2015/2016. The greatest factor to affect construction of period life tables for 2030 is the expected increase in the older population in the City of Palo Alto. As one might expect, the 2015/2016 ESO data show that older individuals are more likely than younger individuals to be ME patients in the combined Palo Alto/Stanford jurisdiction. After predicting expected 2030 ME call/patient volume by age group, as well as by location and primary impression, we adjusted the predictions based on CA DOF (2017) age projections. More information about this process may be found in Appendices 4-9. We provide separate age- adjusted predictions for the City of Palo Alto (daytime and nighttime) and for Stanford (nighttime only). Another factor one would expect to affect construction of period life tables for 2030 is gender. While gender is associated with ME patient volume overall (with females somewhat more likely to be ME patients than males), the gender composition of the two cities is not expected to change significantly within the next 15 years.9 Thus, we did not take gender into account in generating the period life tables predicting ME call/patient volume, call types, locations, or primary impressions in 2030. Although it is possible that the proportions of the population of the various ZIP Code areas in the combined Palo Alto/Stanford jurisdiction may change within the next 15 years, no data were available to address population change in such a fine-grained way (i.e., by ZIP Code). Therefore, we did not predict ME patient volume in 2030 by ZIP Code of interaction, either overall or by category of primary impression. Finally, we provide ME call/patient volume and call type projections both overall and separately for daytime (City of Palo Alto only) and nighttime (both City of Palo Alto and Stanford, separately). The nighttime population is equivalent to the resident population plus any estimates of overnight visitors. As suggested by Bhadur (2007), daytime and nighttime 9 Note that while there were no data projecting gender for sub-county-level areas, the projections of gender by county (CA DOF, 2017) suggest that the expected change in gender proportions between now and 2030 is not statistically significant in either San Mateo County or Santa Clara County (Chi-square = 2.00, p > 0.05). Therefore, we do not include gender as a factor in our predictions. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 15 June 6, 2019 populations are fundamentally different, with daytime population including workers, tourists, and business travelers, as well as the residual nighttime resident population that does not leave the area during the day. For PAFD’s purposes, it is important to predict year 2030 call/patient volume and call type, as well as ME patients by location and primary impression, based on these two very different daytime and nighttime populations. Further information on how these populations were constructed and the predictions based on them are available in Appendices 4-9. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 16 June 6, 2019 Palo Alto/Stanford Area Geography and Demographics The Palo Alto/Stanford area is the focus of the study. Places in the City of Palo Alto are commonly referred to as north and south, with Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road serving as the dividing line between the two. As shown on the map in Figure 1, the Palo Alto/Stanford area has many distinct neighborhoods. Figure 1, Map of the Cities of Palo Alto and Stanford Source: Amber Cameron, City of Palo Alto Public Safety Department, personal communication, October 4, 2017. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 17 June 6, 2019 The Santa Clara County Public Health Department provides health data for the City of Palo Alto, City of Stanford, and for certain local neighborhoods, which are grouped into five areas to facilitate data analysis in this study:10,11 • Barron Park: Includes Green Acres. • Downtown North: Includes Crescent Park. • Midtown North: South of Oregon Expressway and northeast of Middlefield Road. Includes Palo Verde and Charleston Gardens. • Midtown South: South of Oregon Expressway and southwest of Middlefield Road. Includes Ventura and Charleston Meadow (Fairmeadow). • Professorville: Includes Old Palo Alto, Duveneck, and St. Francis. City of Palo Alto The City of Palo Alto is the northernmost of the 15 cities in Santa Clara County. The resident population of the City of Palo Alto is approximately 65,700 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014). However, during the day there is a large influx of workers into the area, as well as approximately 2,400 daily and/or overnight visitors, which together increase the daytime population of the combined area to approximately 132,000 (double the resident population). See Figure 2 for a comparison of resident and non-resident proportions during the daytime. Figure 2, City of Palo Alto Daytime Population by Resident Status Sources: Dawn Billman, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, personal communication, April 26, 2017; Hilary Gitelman, City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment department, personal communication, December 21, 2016; Thorp, 2014; U.S. Census Bureau, 2014. See Appendix 5 for more details. 10 Visit www.sccgov.org/sites/sccphd/en-us/Partners/Data/Pages/Palo-Alto.aspx for more information on the Santa Clara County Public Health Department’s methodology. 11 Palo Alto Hills was not included in the Palo Alto neighborhood profiles published by Santa Clara County Public Health Department. Non-resident population, 50% Resident population, 50% PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 18 June 6, 2019 Ethnicity, Origin, and Language Compared to Santa Clara County, all City of Palo Alto neighborhoods have a higher proportion of White residents (between 50% and 70% compared to 35% in the county overall). Both Midtown areas (North and South) have higher proportions of Asian residents than the county overall, at 38% and 33% respectively, compared to 32% in the county. (See Figure 3 for chart.) Figure 3, Ethnicity by Geography, Santa Clara County versus City of Palo Alto Neighborhoods Source: SCCPHD, 2016. Between 23% and 37% of the residents of each neighborhood are foreign-born (37% in the county overall), and one quarter or more speak a language other than English at home (52% in the county overall). Those speaking a language other than English at home are most likely to live in Midtown neighborhoods (where the rate is 48% in the north, and 43% in the south). While these data do not specify whether these residents also speak English, it is worth noting that in Santa Clara County over half of those who speak one of the county’s top seven non- English languages at home also speak English “very well” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). Age The City of Palo Alto has a higher proportion of adults aged 65 and older than the county overall (17% compared to 12% in the county). The proportion of children in the City of Palo Alto under age five is smaller than the county overall (5% compared to the county at 7%). See Figure 4, below. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Santa Clara County Barron Park Downtown North Midtown North Midtown South Professorville Black/Af-Am Latino Asian White PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 19 June 6, 2019 Figure 4, Population by Geography and Age Range, Santa Clara County versus City of Palo Alto Santa Clara County City of Palo Alto Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014. The neighborhood with the highest proportion of older adults is Downtown North, where one in five (21%) is over age 65 (SCCPHD, 2016). See Appendix 11 for additional neighborhood data. Stanford The City of Stanford is bounded by the City of Palo Alto on three sides; its remaining boundary, to the southwest, is Junipero Serra Boulevard (show on the map in Figure 1 as the road immediately southwest of the small lake depicted on the Stanford University campus). The resident population of Stanford is estimated at approximately 13,500. However, during the day there is a large influx of workers into the area, as well as approximately 370 daily visitors, which together increase the daytime population of Stanford to nearly 40,000. See Figure 5 for a comparison of resident and non-resident proportions during the daytime. 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-3435-44 45-54 55-64 65+0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 20 June 6, 2019 Figure 5, City of Stanford Daytime Population by Resident Status Sources: D.J. Dull-MacKenzie, Stanford University Visitors Center, personal communication, April 26, 2017; Stanford University, 2016; U.S. Census Bureau, 2014. Note: No estimate is available for overnight visitors to the City of Stanford. See Appendix 5 for more details. Ethnicity, Origin, and Language Just over one quarter of Stanford residents are foreign-born (26%) compared to 37% in the county overall. More than one third (35%) speak a language other than English at home, compared to 52% of county residents overall. While these data do not specify whether these residents also speak English, as mentioned previously, in Santa Clara County over half of those who speak one of the county’s top seven non-English languages at home also speak English “very well” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). Compared to Santa Clara County, Stanford has a higher proportion of White residents (44% compared to 35% in the county overall) and Black residents (5% compared to 2% in the county overall). Stanford has a lower proportion of Latino residents than Santa Clara County (11% compared to 27% in the county overall). See Figure 6. Figure 6, Ethnicity by Geography Source: SCCPHD, 2016. Non- resident population, 66% Resident population, 34% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Santa Clara County Stanford Black/Af-Am Latino Asian White PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 21 June 6, 2019 Age Due to its university, Stanford has much higher proportions of young adults aged 15-19 and 20- 24 than the county overall (respectively, 29% and 35% compared to 6% for each age group in the county overall). The proportion of children residents in Stanford under age five is smaller than the county overall (3% compared to the county at 7%) and the older adult resident population (age 65+) of Stanford is also smaller than the county (5% compared to 12% in the county overall). See Figure 7, below. Figure 7, Population by Geography and Age Range Santa Clara County Stanford Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014. 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-3435-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 22 June 6, 2019 Community Health Needs Assessment (CHNA) Research Questions The PAFD’s CHNA focused on three main questions: 1. What are the pressing health needs in the Palo Alto/Stanford area? 2. Are all Palo Alto/Stanford area residents benefiting equally from available health care services? 3. What suggestions does the community have for improving health in the Palo Alto/Stanford area? We review each of these questions in the sections below. Pressing Health Needs Actionable Insights reviewed statistical data about health needs in the Palo Alto/Stanford area and combined this with the community feedback (six key informant interviews and three focus groups). Note that experts and community representatives were asked to comment about the entire Palo Alto/Stanford area, and thus we present the CHNA data for the entire area, blended rather than separated out by city. The list below was derived by comparing statistical data to benchmarks (county statistics or statewide statistics) and by analyzing the community feedback for common themes. (Please see Appendices 10 and 11 for detailed statistical data.) The following pressing health needs emerged from this analysis (in alphabetical order): • Behavioral health (mental health and substance abuse) • Health care access and delivery, including equity and cultural competency • Housing • Older adult health • Transportation and traffic • Youth/young adult health The PAFD did not engage in ranking the health needs; the goal was to bring together both available statistics and community perceptions to identify the set of most pressing community health needs. Behavioral Health Behavioral health is a category of health needs that includes mental health and substance use. This umbrella designation is often used in health settings, including public health departments, since mental health and substance use issues (including use of illegal drugs, misuse of PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 23 June 6, 2019 prescription drugs, excessive use of alcohol, and the use of tobacco) co-occur so frequently.12 While data on illegal drug use in the Palo Alto/Stanford area are lacking, the data do show that Palo Alto/Stanford area residents spend 18% of their household expenditures on alcohol compared to 13% in California households overall (Community Commons, 2017). Substance use was mentioned by four of six key informants, and excessive alcohol use was mentioned specifically by those who serve the students of Stanford University. Further data on accessibility of alcohol and tobacco are found in the Housing section below. Mental health was discussed in all focus groups and in all but one key informant interview. Many concerns related to mental health were discussed, including the prevalence of mental health issues within the homeless population, youth suicide, social isolation, and PTSD among veterans. The Veterans Affairs (VA) representative also mentioned that veterans with traumatic brain disorders (TBIs) may also have mental health issues, and sometimes TBI symptoms are mistaken for mental health problems. Also, some mentioned the difficulty that first responders face when addressing medical emergencies where there are also mental health concerns. The third-highest type of primary impression among patients whose incidents occurred in the Stanford area is behavioral health, representing over 9% of Stanford’s annual Medical Emergency patient volume on average (see Table 6 on page 55). “One thing that is weighing heavily on me these days, mostly because of the criticism that we’re taking, really is more of around mental health. Are we, as a community, as a nation, addressing mental health issues appropriately?” – Key Informant Regarding proximity to tobacco retail outlets, all of the City of Palo Alto’s neighborhoods have a lower density of those establishments compared to the county (Santa Clara County Public Health Department [SCCPHD], 2016). However, Downtown North, Midtown North, and Midtown South have higher densities of alcohol retail outlets than the City of Palo Alto overall (SCCPHD, 2016). In Downtown North and Midtown North, the number of establishments that sell alcohol per square mile exceeds that of the county overall at 5.1 and 3.7 respectively (compared to 2.7 in the county) (SCCPHD, 2016). Excessive alcohol use can drive the rate of violent crime (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 1997). We note that Downtown North has the highest rate of violent crimes within one mile – 11.6 per 100,000 – among the City of Palo Alto’s neighborhoods, which is 28% lower than the county overall (at 16.0), but 84% higher than the City of Palo Alto overall (at 6.3) (SCCPHD, 2016). 12 See SAMHSA website for more information: www.samhsa.gov/disorders. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 24 June 6, 2019 Health Care Access and Delivery Health care access was mentioned in every focus group and key informant interview. Nearly two thirds (65%) of Palo Alto residents say that the availability of affordable, quality health care is good or excellent, and 74% say that the availability of preventive health care services is good or excellent (Palo Alto City Auditor, 2016). Indeed, 2012 data indicate that in most neighborhoods, only between 4% and 10% of adults are uninsured (SCCPHD, 2016). The highest estimates of uninsured are in Barron Park (13%-15%) and Midtown South (10%-13%), which are still better than the national baseline of 58% (SCCPHD, 2016). Indeed, many community members who participated in this study perceive that most Palo Alto/Stanford area residents have health insurance and the means to afford health care.13 Despite the low proportions of uninsured, the community is concerned that some health care is unaffordable, especially for those in the middle class. While many programs exist for those with low incomes, the community feels that many in the middle class who do not qualify for Medi- Cal or other subsidies may struggle to afford health care. This may be particularly true for seniors in the City of Palo Alto who own homes and do not qualify for Medi-Cal. Affording in- home services may be difficult for those who want to remain in their homes (a significant asset) but have limited incomes. It is also worth noting that the Palo Alto/Stanford area has fewer Federally Qualified Health Centers than the county (1.3 compared to 2.4 per 100,000) (Community Commons, 2017). Regarding mental health care access, fewer than half of the City of Palo Alto’s residents (46%) say there is good availability of affordable, quality mental health care, worse than in 2014 when 63% said so (Palo Alto City Auditor, 2016). Community input validates this finding. One participant explained that traditional mental health office hours (ending at 5:00 p.m.) do not serve the student community well. This limited access puts the burden of addressing mental health crises on the police department or emergency paramedics. “In the U.S. . . . insurance companies have increasingly restricted access to psychiatrists, psychologists, and counseling as part of their health care plans. And what it means is psychiatrists and psychologists have increasingly gone to pay out-of-pocket plans. And so, it restricts who can access those services to just the wealthy.” – Key Informant Our discussion of equity and cultural competency in health care access and delivery may be found in the next section, since focus groups and key informants were asked a distinct and separate question about this topic. 13 We appreciate a reader comment noting that availability and the ability to access are not the same. Further research is suggested to determine whether residents of neighborhoods with relatively higher proportions of uninsured receive the necessary information and resources to access affordable and high-quality health care. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 25 June 6, 2019 Housing Quality and type of housing are important determinants of health, and substandard housing is a major public health issue. Residents of the City of Palo Alto and Stanford are more likely than county residents overall to live in multi-unit housing, with 38% in the City of Palo Alto and 90% in Stanford, compared to 33% in the county (SCCPHD, 2016). However, a smaller proportion in the combined Palo Alto/Stanford area live in overcrowded households (3% or less compared to 8% in the county) (SCCPHD, 2016). Housing in the county is extremely expensive, as evidenced by 38% of the population spending 30% or more of their income on housing. In the Palo Alto/Stanford area, this applies to 35% of the population. See Figure 8. Figure 8, Proportion of Population Spending 30% or More of Income on Housing, 2011-2015 Source: SCCPHD, 2016. Older Adult Health With older adult populations making up a disproportionate share of patients, it was important to consult seniors and professionals who serve seniors for this study. Many concerns were expressed, including concerns about chronic conditions. In the county, 8% have been diagnosed with diabetes, and 10% have been diagnosed with pre-diabetes (SCCPHD, 2014a). The prevalence among those aged 65 and older is highest, at 18% with diabetes and 16% with pre-diabetes (SCCPHD, 2014a). Heart disease prevalence among adults in the county (5.3%) overall is better than the state (6.3%), but worse among Latino adults in the county (5.0%) (University of California Center for Health Policy Research, 2012). It is estimated that 27% of the county’s residents have been diagnosed with high blood pressure (SCCPHD, 2014c). (Data on diabetes prevalence and high blood pressure are not available for Palo Alto/Stanford.) It should be noted that in Palo Alto/Stanford the rates of overweight/obesity, stroke mortality, heart 38%35% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Santa Clara County Palo Alto/Stanford Area PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 26 June 6, 2019 disease mortality, and diabetes hospitalizations are favorable compared to the county, but heart disease prevalence is essentially the same compared to the county (both 5.3) (SCCPHD, 2016; University of California Center for Health Policy Research, 2012). However, Alzheimer’s disease mortality data do indicate reason for concern (discussed further below; see Figure 9). “I think senior care is a big problem in a lot of areas. If you’re wealthy, you can look at the fee or whatever, and you get great care. And there are a couple of very good chronic care facilities in Palo Alto, but there’s still lots of [seniors] that have problems accessing care. . . So, I think that population is relatively underserved.” – Key Informant Figure 9, Alzheimer’s Disease Mortality Rate Source: SCCPHD, 2016. Note: See Demographics section for neighborhood definitions. Dementia and cognitive functioning were also big concerns. The mortality rate for Alzheimer’s disease in the City of Palo Alto is 32.4 per 100,000, similar to that of the county overall (at 34.6 per 100,000) (SCCPHD, 2016). In Midtown South, the rate is 40.0 per 100,000, which is 15% higher than the county rate (SCCPHD, 2016). While this rate is not age-adjusted, the proportion of residents aged 65 and older in Midtown South is lower than in most other neighborhoods (15%, compared to 17% in the City of Palo Alto overall) (SCCPHD, 2016) , which may indicate that the likelihood of dying from Alzheimer’s disease in Midtown South is higher than in other neighborhoods (SCCPHD, 2016). Further research is required to better assess this issue. 14 Regarding senior falls, county data show that seniors in Santa Clara County are less likely to be hospitalized but are more likely to die from a fall than California seniors overall (county rate of 14 This rate may be related to skilled nursing facilities and/or senior home care facilities in the area. Mapping these various facilities was beyond the scope of this assessment. 34.6 32.4 34.0 31.9 28.7 40.0 25.7 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 Santa Clara County City of Palo Alto Barron Park Downtown North Midtown North Midtown South Professorville PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 27 June 6, 2019 55.4 deaths per 100,000 people compared to state rate of 36.1 per 100,000, not age-adjusted) (California Department of Public Health EpiCenter [EPIC], 2013). Seniors also talked about social isolation and the need for a community where people look out for one another. “In my neighborhood, we are so separated because we have larger lots and actually you don’t see them. Most of the time, you don’t see the neighbors except for an annual function that we have.” – Focus Group Participant Transportation and Traffic Transportation and traffic are public health hazards that can affect individual decisions about health, and can compromise community members’ health through exposure to pollution and other harmful elements. Transportation and traffic were mentioned in all three focus groups, and by two out of six key informants. Residents are concerned with the amount of traffic causing stress, traffic accidents, and threatening the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. As described earlier, two thirds (64%) of the City of Palo Alto’s daytime population are non- residents and thus commute to the city (Actionable Insights, unpublished data, 2017). We also know that the most common mode of transportation to work among the City of Palo Alto’s residents is driving alone (65%) (SCCPHD, 2016), which contributes to the amount of traffic experienced in the community. The vast majority of Palo Alto/Stanford area residents live in close proximity to public transportation (within a half-mile of a regional bus or train and within a quarter-mile of any bus/light rail) (SCCPHD, 2016). However, in the Midtown North neighborhood, this proportion is only 59%, compared to 85% in the City of Palo Alto overall (SCCPHD, 2016). Twelve percent of the City of Palo Alto’s residents carpool to work or take public transportation most of the time, which is similar to the county (13%) (SCCPHD, 2016). But there has been a substantial decrease in the proportion of City of Palo Alto residents who say that public transportation is easy to use, dropping from 60% in 2006 to 28% in 2016 (Palo Alto City Auditor, 2016). A concern of study participants may be related to the large influx of daytime workers in the Palo Alto/Stanford area; some participants believe that car commuters are using neighborhood streets to get to work. Community members in the study (and those in the countywide study, Stanford Health Care, 2016) expressed concern about the increased risk of traffic and pedestrian accidents in their neighborhoods, as well as the increased noise from traffic. Airplane noise was also cited as a cause of noise pollution and stress. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 28 June 6, 2019 Youth and Young Adult Health Referring back to Figure 7, nearly two thirds of the Stanford population (65%) are adults aged 18-24, due in part to the undergraduate and graduate student populations at Stanford University. Youth and young adult health was mentioned by several study participants, including three key informants. Mental health (and specifically suicide) is a problem that the community has been very aware of since 2009, and the issue has been the subject of a CDC study (Garcia-Williams et al., 2016) and numerous media articles across the country (Lee, 2017; Rosin, 2015). According to the Santa Clara County Public Health Department’s 2016 report, the suicide rate among youth and young adults 10 to 24 years old is highest in the City of Palo Alto, at 14.1 per 100,000, more than double the county rate of 5.4 deaths of those aged 10-24 (Garcia-Williams et al., 2016). Project Safety Net is a collaborative that was formed in 2009 in response to this crisis, and includes the Palo Alto Unified School District and the Santa Clara County Public Health Department (City of Palo Alto, 2017a). Indeed, many new programs related to suicide prevention have been instituted in the community since 2009, which were known to study participants. Some community members indicated that youth and young adults are well aware of resources for mental health crisis supports. However, mental health was not the only health need mentioned in the context of youth and young adult health. Participants who serve Stanford University students also discussed the risk of injury and death due to alcohol consumption. There was concern among participants that the problem of alcohol consumption can mask more complex mental health issues. For example, students with mental health problems who have consumed excessive alcohol may be treated for drunkenness but in fact may also need help for underlying mental health issues. Likewise, a student who calls 911 because they were injured while intoxicated may receive treatment for the injury without being assessed for alcohol dependence. For this reason, study participants felt a holistic approach to treating this population is needed. Pedestrian/bicycle safety is another need that youth and young adults have expressed to community providers that serve them, as described in the quote below. “A lot of the kids in this area ride their bikes to school, so they talk about safety a lot. They also talk about . . . getting to school – and the high levels of traffic that there are in the mornings that impede them from getting to school on time.” – Focus Group Participant PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 29 June 6, 2019 Equity and Cultural Competency One of the primary CHNA research questions related to equity: Are all residents of the Palo Alto/Stanford area benefiting equally from available health care services and other things that make residents healthy? Regarding equity, community members expressed concern that not everyone has the same access to quality health care within the area and within the county because not all workers can afford to live in the area due to the high cost of living. Specific local populations identified by community members as lacking access to health care were those experiencing homelessness, those who are low-income, and undocumented immigrants who do not have access to subsidized health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. Cultural competence is the ability to interact effectively with people of different cultures, which is key to effective health care access and delivery. A lack of cultural competency contributes to health disparities, resulting in behaviors, attitudes, and policies that undermine the goal of providing quality health care and emergency response. PAFD asked key informants whether cultural competency was an issue in the Palo Alto/Stanford area. Health care professionals who were consulted explained that cultural competency is addressed adequately in health systems such as the VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Stanford Health Care, and Stanford University’s Vaden Health Center, and that there is a recent focus on building competencies to serve the LGBTQI population. For example, a key informant explained that while gynecologists are understandably trained to address pregnancy with patients, asking lesbian patients about their risk for pregnancy can cause these patients to feel misunderstood and/or disrespected. Professionals who participated in a focus group also said that cultural competency related to gender and sexual orientation is important so that everyone feels welcome by health care professionals. One key informant who represented the Muslim population also indicated that it is important for first responders to understand cultural norms, and that there are some misconceptions about treating Muslims. For example, she explained that while Muslims generally prefer a clinician of the same sex, in emergencies one should not hold back providing care if only a male EMT is available to treat a female patient. To Muslims and many others, maintaining modesty (with regards to exposing one’s body) is important; when clinicians cover patients or keep onlookers away, they preserve the dignity of their patients. In addition, this same key informant indicated that because many people in the Palo Alto/Stanford area are vegetarian, hospitals should take extra care to offer foods that are made without any animal products (e.g. gelatin, broth). While cultural competency regarding race/ethnicity was not mentioned by other study participants, additional information provided by the African Ancestry Report indicated that Africans/African Americans of different national origins, religions, and sexual orientations in PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 30 June 6, 2019 the county commonly experience mistreatment and a lack of cultural competence among health care providers (SCCPHD, 2014b). For the veteran population, gender equity was discussed by the expert interviewed. While men are estimated to make up 91% of veterans in the U.S., the proportion of female veterans is rising over time (U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2017). The Veterans Affairs (VA) representative interviewed said, “If you’re not thinking about women as veterans, then you may miss out on a host of issues that women may face.” The representative suggested that women combat veterans who choose to go to non-VA providers are particularly at risk in this regard, as non-VA providers may be less likely to know about or consider the health implications of their patient being a combat veteran. It is important for residents to be able to understand information, warnings, and directions given by health care and emergency medical personnel to their clients and those who are caring for their clients. Language capacity is also important for delivery of services because, as expressed by a study key informant, when professional interpretation is lacking, patients rely on family members to translate, and those family members may “introduce their own cultural sentiments.” This creates uncertainty for health care providers about whether everything they are saying is being shared with the patient. Such uncertainty is of particular concern in an emergency situation, when the impact of communication barriers or breakdowns could be especially dire (Pressman & Schneider, 2009). Study participants indicated that Spanish and Mandarin are common languages where interpretation and translation are needed for health care/emergency services in the Palo Alto/Stanford area. Additional Community Concerns In response to a question about what changes they predict are coming in the future, the key informants expressed concern about possible changes in health insurance, namely that changes to the Affordable Care Act could result in many Palo Alto/Stanford area residents losing health insurance. Key informants and residents alike also reported that they anticipate technology playing a larger role in health care. Examples include innovations in wearable technology, laboratory testing, and telemedicine. Community members cautioned, however, that telemedicine (such as video visits or communicating with doctors using messaging) is not a mode that is accessible for all older adults, and that technology cannot always take the place of face-to-face visits with health care professionals. Residents’ and experts’ feedback on how to improve the health of the community may be found in the Recommendations chapter of this report. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 31 June 6, 2019 PAFD Calls and Medical Emergency Patients: City of Palo Alto, 2015 and 2016 The data provided by PAFD contained all unique 2015 and 2016 calls from PAFD’s internal CAD and ESO Solutions medical emergency services data systems. The CAD dataset includes all of the various calls to PAFD for dispatch (e.g., fire, medical emergency, false alarm), which were restricted for the purposes of these analyses to the City of Palo Alto (and, in a later section of this report, Stanford). Note that CAD call types are the initial presumption of incident type, based on what dispatchers are told, not the incident type verified by PAFD personnel once they are at the scene. The ESO dataset contains only medical emergency patients for whom PAFD was dispatched, but includes incident ZIP Code, patient age, gender, and primary impression. A “primary impression” is the main problem, condition, or symptom that brought about the encounter between the patient and EMS personnel. This section briefly describes the current data, with a special focus on medical emergency calls/patients. PAFD CAD Calls Originating in the City of Palo Alto Current Call Volume and Type Of all calls for service to PAFD during 2015 and 2016, an average of approximately 85% per year originated in the City of Palo Alto (84.2% in 2015 and 85.7% in 2016). Based on the CAD data provided by PAFD for calls originating only in the City of Palo Alto, in 2015 and 2016 there were a total of 14,037 calls for service to PAFD (6,887 in 2015 and 7,150 in 2016).15 See Figure 10 for a chart of the percentage of calls by call type originating in the City of Palo Alto. Appendix 6 shows the number of unique calls of each type by year. 15 Note that these figures do not tie to PAFD’s total annual costs because they represent only calls from individuals in the City of Palo Alto, not in all cities. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 32 June 6, 2019 Figure 10, PAFD Calls for Service Originating in the City of Palo Alto, 2015/2016 Average Source: Amber Cameron, City of Palo Alto Public Safety Department, personal communication containing PAFD CAD unduplicated data (2015/2016), January 24, 2017 (“City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: CAD unduplicated data 2015/2016”). Note: “Service” calls are, for example, assisting with lock-outs, water leaks, police assists. * “All Other” is comprised of all call types that by themselves represent less than 1.5% of calls from the City of Palo Alto to PAFD.16 16 The categories of call included in “All Other” are: Airplane Emergency, Auto Aid, Full First Alarm, Gas, Hazardous Materials, Mutual Aid, Second Alarm, 1056 (suicide), Suspicious Circumstances, Technical Rescue, Train, Utilities, Vegetation Fire, Welfare Check, and Wires. Taken all together, these represent less than 3% of calls from the City of Palo Alto to PAFD. Fire Smoke All Other * Accident Service False Alarm Medical Emergency 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80% PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 33 June 6, 2019 Current Medical Emergency Calls by Time of Day Approximately 70% of all calls for service in Palo Alto each year were classified as medical emergency (70.7% in 2015 and 69.7% in 2016). More total calls (68%) came in during the day than at night. See Figure 11. Figure 11, PAFD Calls by Type and Time of Day, 2015/2016 Average, City of Palo Alto Source: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: CAD unduplicated data 2015/2016. PAFD Medical Emergency Patient Volume Originating in the City of Palo Alto Based on the ESO data provided by PAFD, there were a total of 8,837 medical emergency patients during 2015 and 2016 (4,446 in 2015 and 4,391 in 2016). Note that an individual may be a patient more than once in a given year, and each time a patient presents, s/he requires PAFD’s attention. Actionable Insights was asked to analyze the ESO data by age, gender, ZIP Code, and primary impression, and to provide PAFD with predictions about future medical emergency patients in the City of Palo Alto (and, in a later section of this report, in the Stanford area) based on these data. Current data are found in this section, while predictions may be found in the next section. 3,342 1,584 1,434 659 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 Palo Alto Daytime Palo Alto Nighttime All Others Medical Emergency PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 34 June 6, 2019 Current Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Age Almost all (98.1%) cases had data on age. Based on a preliminary analysis of the ESO data,17 we found the relationship of the number of patients to patient age to be positive (1.033) and statistically significant (p < 0.001). That is, there are more older individuals represented in the ESO dataset than younger individuals, to a statistically significant degree. This indicates that older individuals are more likely than younger individuals to have a medical emergency in the combined Palo Alto/Stanford jurisdiction. We converted age into categories used by the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) and the CA DOF, the better to compare statistics on current age of patients to predicted age of future patients. Note that certain ACS/DOF age groups contain fewer years (e.g., 60-64) than others (e.g., 65-74). For ease of viewing in the various charts below, the three lowest age categories have been merged; the 15-19 and 20-24 age categories have been merged, and the 55-59 and 60-64 age categories have been merged. (Data by original age categories are available upon request.) As shown in Figure 12, there tend to be more medical emergencies as individuals age. Figure 12, Current Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Age Category, 2015/2016 Average Counts and Percentages, City of Palo Alto Source: Amber Cameron, City of Palo Alto Public Safety Department, personal communication containing PAFD ESO unduplicated data (2015/2016), July 24, 2017 (“City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: ESO unduplicated data 2015/2016”). Notes: City was determined by ZIP Codes. Data for the City of Palo Alto are shown only for the 98% of cases where age of patient was available. Data for Stanford are shown in the chart in the Stanford section; data for other cities (2% of the cases used to generate the average counts and percentages) are not shown. 17 We used a simple linear regression in which we predicted number of medical emergency patients by patient age in combined years 2015 and 2016. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 Age 0-14 Age 15-24 Age 25-34 Age 35-44 Age 45-54 Age 55-64 Age 65-74 Age 75-84 Age 85+ Av e r a g e N u m b e r o f P a t i e n t s ( P a t i e n t Vo l u m e ) Palo Alto # Palo Alto % PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 35 June 6, 2019 Comparatively, a much greater proportion of older adults are being served by PAFD for medical emergencies compared to the proportion of older adults in the resident population. In Figure 13, we compare the average current medical emergency patient volume in the City of Palo Alto to its residential population, by the proportion of individuals of each age group represented among patients and residents. Figure 13, Current Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Age Category, 2015/2016 Average Percentages, Compared to Residential Population by Age Category, City of Palo Alto Sources: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: ESO unduplicated data 2015/2016; U.S. Census Bureau, 2014. Notes: For purposes of medical emergency data, city was determined by ZIP Codes. Data for Stanford are shown in the chart in the Stanford section; data for other cities (216 of the 10,943 cases used to generate the percentages) are not shown. One can see that in Palo Alto, adults aged 55 and older are medical emergency patients at higher rates than they are present in the residential population, with medical emergency patients who are aged 85 and older representing more than seven times their proportion in the residential population. Current Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Gender Of the patients originating in the City of Palo Alto for whom gender was reported (97.1%), slightly more than half (52.3%) were female, on average. Current Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Incident Location (ZIP Code) Virtually all cases included data on incident ZIP Code. The vast majority of medical emergency patients (98%) identified in the ESO dataset were assisted in the cities of Palo Alto or Stanford (see Figure 14; map does not show the approximately 8% of cases associated with ZIP Codes 4% 7% 9%8% 10% 14% 12%13% 22% 19% 10% 13%14%15% 12% 9% 5% 3% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Age 0-14 Age 15-24 Age 25-34 Age 35-44 Age 45-54 Age 55-64 Age 65-74 Age 75-84 Age 85+ Palo Alto Medical Emergency Patient Volume Palo Alto Resident Population PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 36 June 6, 2019 representing P.O. boxes). Most patients (an average of 43%) were found downtown, in the 94301 ZIP Code. A further breakdown of patient volume by ZIP Code, by year, may be found in Appendix 7. Figure 14, Map of Current Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Incident ZIP Code, 2015/2016 Average Sources: Map from DataSF.org, 2017; data from City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: ESO unduplicated data 2015/2016. Note: Map does not show P.O. box ZIP Codes 94302 (6.4%) and 94309 (1.5%). 2,360 (43%) 546 (10%) 696 (13%) 862 (16%) 467 (9%) PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 37 June 6, 2019 Current Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Type of Illness/Issue Medical emergency patients called 911 with a wide variety of symptoms. Table 4 offers categories (higher-level groupings) of primary impressions by year. We remind the reader that some patients are represented more than once in the ESO data, since they may have called and been seen by PAFD more than once. The primary impressions associated with the greatest proportions of medical emergency patients in Palo Alto appear to be altered level of consciousness (ALOC)18, followed by injury and cardiac-related issues. Table 4, All Medical Emergency (ME) Patients, Categories of Primary Impressions, 2015/2016 Average, in Order of Frequency for the City of Palo Alto Primary Impression Category Annual Avg. % (#) of ME Patients in Palo Alto, 2015/2016 Altered Level of Consciousness 29.2% (1,290) Injury (Traumatic or Otherwise) or Hemorrhage 23.2% (1,026) Cardiac-Related 10.6% (469) Non-Specific Pain 8.8% (389) Abdominal Discomfort 7.4% (328) Respiratory-Related 6.6% (291) Behavioral Health 5.0% (220) All Other* 4.5% (198) No Complaints or Injury/Illness Noted 2.6% (116) Data Missing 2.2% (96) TOTAL 4,423 Source: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: ESO unduplicated data 2015/2016. Note: Percentages may not add to exactly 100% due to rounding. *“All other” comprises other impression types that represented < 1% of calls both years. 18 Note that this last category is based on a patient’s actual level of wakefulness and/or disorientation (Tindall, 1990), and does not refer to drug-induced hallucinatory experience. However, based on a scan of the data, some small number (<5%) of cases identified as ALOC may be related to alcohol or drug use. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 38 June 6, 2019 Appendix 9 provides patient volume by primary impression, separately for day versus night. Based on Appendix 9, medical emergency patients are seen more often during the day than at night in the City of Palo Alto. More specifically, ALOC, injury/hemorrhage, and (to a lesser extent) cardiac-related issues occur significantly more often (p < 0.05, based on a one-way ANOVA analysis) during the daytime, while behavioral health issues, abdominal discomfort, and non-specific pain occur significantly more often at night, statistically speaking (p < 0.05). For reference, Appendix 3 lists the total number and percentage of patient cases by all primary impressions by year, and includes the category into which each primary impression was placed. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 39 June 6, 2019 Predictive Analysis Findings: City of Palo Alto, Year 2030 Based on our analysis of current call volume and calls by type, we have predicted year 2030 call volume and calls by type for the City of Palo Alto (and for Stanford, separately, in the next section).19 As described briefly in the Predictive Analysis Methods Summary section at the beginning of this report, we used a modified life table approach, which is generally used to describe a current population and predict future growth or decline. We assume that the 2030 cohort will be subject, proportionally, to the age-specific medical emergency call/patient volumes, other call type volumes, incident locations, and primary impressions that prevailed for the 2015/2016 cohort. We adjusted medical emergency call/patient volume predictions by age based on CA DOF (2017) projections. We predicted call/patient volume and calls by type for day and night separately, using population figures based on CA DOF figures, City of Palo Alto preferred scenario figures, and City of Palo Alto Transportation Survey results (2013). A full description of this process may be found in Appendices 4-5. We provide predictions for all call types that represented at least 1% of calls in the 2015 or 2016 CAD datasets. The remainder are grouped into a call type category labeled “Other.” We used ESO data (described in Predictive Analysis Methods Summary section of this report) to adjust predictions for the medical emergency call type based on medical emergency patient volume and expected age-related shifts in the demographics for the City of Palo Alto (and for Stanford, separately, in the next section) between now and 2030.20 This process is also further described in Appendices 4-5. The overall 2030 predictions for the City of Palo Alto for all call types and for patient volumes take into account projected daytime and nighttime visitors, as well as larger daytime populations based on net commuters, again based on CA DOF figures, City of Palo Alto scenarios, and City of Palo Alto Transportation Survey results.21 Further information on this process may be found in Appendices 4-5. Projected Population Overall and by Time of Day As shown earlier in Table 3, the City of Palo Alto has a current (2014) residential population of 65,685 people, which is projected to rise to between 74,120 and 76,140 by the year 2030 (see preferred scenario figures in Table 2.4, City of Palo Alto (2017c)). Nighttime population is the same as what the U.S. Census would consider the residential population. Daytime population is 19 Due to the lack of ZIP Codes in the CAD data, we were not able to estimate call volume by ZIP Code, PAFD district, or other sub-city-level areas (e.g., neighborhood). 20 Note that while there were no data projecting gender for sub-county-level areas, the projections of gender by county (CA DOF, 2017) suggest that the projected change in gender proportions between now and 2030 is not statistically significant in either San Mateo County or Santa Clara County (Chi-square = 2.00, p > 0.05). Therefore, we do not include gender as a factor in our predictions. 21 However, figures and tables in this report that show data by age group generally do not include visitors (see text associated with various figures/tables for explanation). PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 40 June 6, 2019 a net total of nighttime residents who stay, residents who “out-commute” to somewhere besides the City of Palo Alto, and individuals from other cities who “in-commute” to the City of Palo Alto. Based on Table 3, the City of Palo Alto’s year 2014 daytime population (not including visitors) was estimated to be 129,616 people, and projected to rise to between 142,864 and 147,565 by the year 2030. Figures 15 and 16 show the recent (2014) and projected 2030 population for the City of Palo Alto, comparing daytime (Figure 15) and nighttime (Figure 16) figures by age. The charts show the low-end and high-end 2030 population projections based on the range of the preferred scenario provided by the City of Palo Alto (see Table 3). Visitors were not included in Figures 15 and 16 because the data available for estimating visitors’ ages in 2030 grouped age into four broad categories rather than the 13 categories available for estimating residents’ and workers’ ages; however, visitors are very small proportions of the total populations. Figure 15, Current and Year 2030 Projected Populations by Age Category, Daytime, City of Palo Alto Sources: Table 2.1, City of Palo Alto, 2017c; U.S. Census Bureau, 2014. Note: Excludes visitors to increase age category granularity (see text for further explanation). At both the low and high ends, the projections are higher than their 2014 comparison for all age categories except age 0-14 and 65-74.22 22 Since the workforce is overwhelmingly made up of individuals between ages 20-64 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016), even though labor force participation among those aged 65 and older has been increasing due to longer life spans and financial obligations (Kromer & Howard, 2013), we remained conservative in our predictions and used age - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 Age 0-14 Age 15-24 Age 25-34 Age 35-44 Age 45-54 Age 55-64 Age 65-74 Age 75-84 Age 85+ 2014 Daytime (Residential &Commuter) Pop. 2030 Projected Daytime Pop., Low End 2030 Projected Daytime Pop., High End PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 41 June 6, 2019 Figure 16, Current and Year 2030 Projected Populations by Age Category, Nighttime, City of Palo Alto Sources: Table 2.1, City of Palo Alto, 2017c; U.S. Census Bureau, 2014. Note: Excludes visitors to increase age category granularity (see text for further explanation). At both the low and high ends of the preferred scenario, the projections are higher than their year 2014 comparison for all age categories except ages 0-14 and 25-34. Overall, based on the preferred scenario range, it appears that the absolute numbers of people in youngest age category (age 0-14, but not age 15-2423) are generally projected to be similar or to decrease in 2030 compared to 2014, while the numbers of people in older age categories (particularly ages 55 and older22) are generally projected to increase in 2030 compared to 2014. Predicted Medical Emergency Call Volume and Other Call Types by Time of Day For the purposes of our predictions, daytime is considered to be 8:00 a.m. to 7:59 p.m., and nighttime is considered to be 8:00 p.m. to 7:59 a.m. (Amber Cameron, City of Palo Alto Public Safety Department, personal communication, March 18, 2017). The time indicator used was the groups 20-64 to represent the working population in the City of Palo Alto. It may well be that there are more individuals aged 65-74 commuting into the City of Palo Alto than our predictions indicate. 23 It may be that the 15-24 age group is not predicted to decrease in part because some of Stanford University’s students live in Palo Alto and the university’s student population is expected to increase over time (Stanford University, 2016).24 Since ESO medical emergency patient volume predicted increases are within one percentage point of CAD medical emergency call volume predicted increases, we do not display them separately here. They may be found in Appendix 6. - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 Age 0-14 Age 15-24 Age 25-34 Age 35-44 Age 45-54 Age 55-64 Age 65-74 Age 75-84 Age 85+ 2014 Nighttime (Residential) Pop. 2030 Projected Nighttime (Residential) Pop., Low End 2030 Projected Nighttime (Residential) Pop., High End PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 42 June 6, 2019 time of dispatch. Tables 13-15 in Appendix 6 show the average annual 2015/2016 call volume and the age-adjusted 2030 predicted call volume, by call type and time of day, for the City of Palo Alto. Tables 13-15 also take into account the different City of Palo Alto preferred scenario figures. See Table 3 earlier in this report for the scenario range. It is clear from the tables generated by the data that the total number of calls will increase between now and 2030 for all call types, and the volume of patients will increase between now and 2030 for medical emergencies. Figure 17 below shows the predicted change from 2015/2016 to 2030 for medical emergency calls and other major call types, for the City of Palo Alto. The grey portion of the bars shows the current (2015/2016 average) number of calls by type, the light green portion of the bars illustrates the low-end predicted increase, and the dark green portion of the bars indicates the high-end predicted increase based on the City of Palo Alto preferred scenario range. Proportionally, it is predicted that CAD medical emergency calls will increase between 27% and 31%, while other types of calls will increase between 10% and 15% each.24 Figure 17, Predicted Change in Average Annual Call Volume from 2015/2016 to 2030, Major Call Types, City of Palo Alto Source: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: CAD unduplicated data 2015/2016. Notes: Medical emergency calls are age- adjusted. “All other” comprises calls that make up less than 1.5% each in the unduplicated 2015/2016 CAD dataset (Gas, HazMat, Mutual Aid, etc.). As described in the section on current call volume, Medical Emergency calls were 70% of the City of Palo Alto’s total call volume in 2015/2016. Based on the above, in both the low and high ends of the preferred scenario, Medical Emergency calls are predicted to increase to 73% of the City’s total call volume in 2030. 24 Since ESO medical emergency patient volume predicted increases are within one percentage point of CAD medical emergency call volume predicted increases, we do not display them separately here. They may be found in Appendix 6. 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 Fire Smoke All Other* Accident Service False Alarm Medical Emergency Base (2015/2016 Average) Minimum Predicted Increase Maximum Predicted Increase PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 43 June 6, 2019 Figure 18 below shows the predicted change from 2015/2016 to 2030 for Medical Emergency calls and other major call types, for the City of Palo Alto during the daytime hours. The grey portion of the bars shows the current (2015/2016 average) number of calls by type, the light orange portion of the bars illustrates the low-end predicted increase, and the dark orange portion of the bars indicates the high-end predicted increase based on the City of Palo Alto preferred scenario range. It is predicted that medical emergency calls will increase between 26% and 30% during the daytime, while other types of calls will increase between 9% and 14% each during the daytime. Figure 18, Predicted Change in Average Annual Call Volume from 2015/2016 to 2030, Major Call Types, Daytime, City of Palo Alto Source: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: CAD unduplicated data 2015/2016.Notes: Medical emergency calls are age- adjusted. “All other” comprises calls that make up less than 1.5% each in the unduplicated 2015/2016 CAD dataset (Gas, HazMat, Mutual Aid, etc.). 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 Fire Smoke All Other* Accident Service False Alarm Medical Emergency Base (2015/2016 Average) Minimum Predicted Increase Maximum Predicted Increase PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 44 June 6, 2019 Figure 19 below shows the predicted change from 2015/2016 to 2030 for medical emergency calls and other major call types, for the City of Palo Alto during the nighttime hours. The grey portion of the bars shows the current (2015/2016 average) number of calls by type, the light blue portion of the bars illustrates the low-end predicted increase, and the darker blue portion of the bars indicates the high-end predicted increase based on the City of Palo Alto preferred scenario range. For the nighttime, it is predicted that medical emergency calls will increase between 29% and 32%, while other types of calls will increase between 11% and 17% each at night. Figure 19, Predicted Change in Average Annual Call Volume from 2015/2016 to 2030, Major Call Types, Nighttime, City of Palo Alto Source: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: CAD unduplicated data 2015/2016.Notes: Medical emergency calls are age- adjusted. “All other” comprises calls that make up less than 1.5% each in the unduplicated 2015/2016 CAD dataset (Gas, HazMat, Mutual Aid, etc.). Although the absolute numbers of increased calls are smaller for nighttime than for daytime, the maximum proportional increases of medical emergency and other calls at night (32% and 17%, respectively) will be slightly greater than the maximum proportional increases of medical emergency and other calls during the day (30% and 14%, respectively). Daytime call volume overall is expected to remain at 68% of total call volume for the City of Palo Alto in 2030 – no change from 2015/2016. Predicted Medical Emergency Patient Volume Originating in the City of Palo Alto Predicted Medical Emergency Patient Volume Overall and by Age Again, we converted age into categories used by the ACS and DOF, the better to compare statistics on current age of patients to predicted age of patients. For the sake of simplicity, in Figure 20 we merged certain age categories and show current and projected data for the City of 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 Fire Smoke All Other* Accident Service False Alarm Medical Emergency Base (2015/2016 Average) Minimum Predicted Increase Maximum Predicted Increase PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 45 June 6, 2019 Palo Alto’s preferred scenario range. Visitors were not included in Figure 20 because the data available for estimating visitors’ ages in 2030 grouped age into four broad categories rather than the 13 categories available for estimating residents’ and workers’ ages; however, visitors are very small proportions of the total populations.25 Figure 20, Current and Year 2030 Predicted Age-Adjusted Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Age Category, City of Palo Alto Source: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: ESO unduplicated data 2015/2016. Note: Excludes visitors to increase age category granularity (see text for further explanation). The 2030 City of Palo Alto predictions show overall increases of 26% to 30% in medical emergency patient volume compared to current medical emergency patient volume (see Appendix 6). Nearly two thirds (66%) of the City of Palo Alto’s predicted 2030 medical emergency patients will be age 55+. The City of Palo Alto will experience a statistically significant change in age between current and 2030 medical emergency patients.26 The data suggest that the City of Palo Alto’s medical emergency patients in 2030 will skew significantly towards older adults, from a mean patient age of 55-64 to a slightly older demographic, with the modal, i.e., most common, patient age category in 2030 being those aged 85+ in the preferred scenario. In other words, the City of Palo Alto will have more older medical emergency patients in 2030, both in terms of absolute numbers (Figure 20) and a skew towards older adult patients. This is the major issue for which the City of Palo Alto and PAFD will need to prepare. Predicted Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Time of Day Based on ESO data, there will be very little change in the City of Palo Alto’s proportion of medical emergency patients by time of day. In 2015/2016, the average proportion of daytime medical emergency patients was 68.6%, while in 2030 the proportion of daytime medical 25 Including daytime and overnight visitors would only increase the predicted numbers of patients by an average of 72 in total, across all age groups – about 6% of the total number of predicted interactions overall. 26 An increase of 0.29 for the low end of the preferred scenario and 0.28 for the high end of the preferred scenario, more than one quarter of an age category using the merged age categories in the chart above, p < 0.001 in both scenarios, F = 33.327 for the low end and 32.397 for the high end. - 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 Age 0-14 Age 15-24 Age 25-34 Age 35-44 Age 45-54 Age 55-64 Age 65-74 Age 75-84 Age 85+ 2015/2016 Avg. # PA ME Patients 2030 Predicted # PA ME Patients, Low End 2030 Predicted # PA ME Patients, High End PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 46 June 6, 2019 emergency patient volume originating in the City of Palo Alto is predicted to be between 67.9% and 68.0% – slightly lower than the current proportion. The proportional change from 2015/2016 to 2030 is not statistically significant. This means that PAFD will continue to see a much higher call volume from the City of Palo Alto during the daytime than at night. Predicted Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Type of Illness/Issue In 2015/2016, the primary impressions that were associated with the greatest proportions of medical emergency patients in the City of Palo Alto were altered level of consciousness,27 followed by injury and cardiac-related issues (see Table 4, earlier in this report). As shown in Table 5, the order of the top primary impressions remains the same in the predictions for year 2030. Table 5, Predicted Year 2030 Medical Emergency Patients, Categories of Primary Impressions, by City, in Order of Frequency, City of Palo Alto Primary Impression Category Low End PA, 2030 High End PA, 2030 % of All Primary Impressions Altered Level of Consciousness 1,653 1,701 30.4% Injury/Hemorrhage 1,259 1,295 23.2% Cardiac-Related 617 635 11.4% Non-Specific Pain 486 500 8.9% Abdominal Discomfort 410 422 7.5% Respiratory-Related 378 389 7.0% Behavioral Health 248 256 4.6% All Other* 242 249 4.4% No Complaints 139 143 2.6% TOTAL 5,432 5,591 Source: Actionable Insights, LLC, 2019, unpublished data, based on City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: ESO unduplicated data 2015/2016. Note: Percentages may not add to exactly 100% due to rounding. *“All other” comprises other primary impression types that represented < 1% of calls in both years. However, it is also important for PAFD’s future planning to review the primary impressions that will increase the most between 2015/2016 and the year 2030. In absolute numbers, predictions suggest that the greatest increase in the City of Palo Alto will be among ALOC patients (ranging from an increase of 363, or 28%, to an increase of 411, or 32%). However, proportionally, the 27 Altered level of consciousness is based on “a patient’s actual level of wakefulness and/or disorientation” (Tindall, 1990) and has a variety of causes, including dehydration, hypoglycemia, and shock, but is not intended to refer to symptoms that are directly related to drug or alcohol use. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 47 June 6, 2019 greatest increases in the City of Palo Alto will be among cardiac patients28 and respiratory patients.29 See Figures 21 and 22 for a representation of City of Palo Alto increases in absolute numbers by primary impression, for daytime and nighttime separately. See Appendix 9 for total predicted changes in primary impression categories, by city and time of day. Figure 21, Comparison of Actual Average Annual Patient Volume versus Predicted Change in Average Annual Patient Volume from 2015/2016 to 2030, by Primary Impression, City of Palo Alto, Daytime Source: Actionable Insights, LLC, 2019, unpublished data, and City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: ESO unduplicated data 2015/2016. 28 Ranging from an increase of 32%, or 149 more patients, to an increase of 36%, or 167 more patients. 29 Ranging from an increase of 30%, or 88 more patients, to an increase of 34%, or 98 more patients. - 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 Abdominal Altered Level of Consciousness Behavioral Health Cardiac Injury/ Hemorrhage Non-Specific Pain Respiratory 2015/2016 Average 2030 Low End # Increase 2030 High End # Increase PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 48 June 6, 2019 Figure 22, Comparison of Actual Average Annual Patient Volume versus Predicted Change in Average Annual Patient Volume from 2015/2016 to 2030, by Primary Impression, City of Palo Alto, Nighttime Source: Actionable Insights, LLC, 2019, unpublished data, and City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: ESO unduplicated data 2015/2016. We conducted a binary logistic regression analysis to determine which variables, if any, were significant in determining the increase in patient volume between 2015/2016 and 2030 (note that we used the high end of the preferred range for the City of Palo Alto’s 2030 figures). Regression analysis is a statistical method to explain the relationship between a dependent variable (in this case, medical emergency patient volume in the year 2015/2016 compared to the year 2030) and various independent or “explanatory” variables (for this analysis, patient age categories, daytime versus nighttime dispatch, and what kind of primary impression the patient presents). Binary logistic regression is a special form of regression analysis used when the dependent variable has only two values (in this case, total patient volume for the year 2015/2016 and predicted total patient volume for the year 2030). We tried a variety of regression equations, changing how we represented primary impression as a variable in the models. No matter how we constructed the primary impression variable(s), only patient age was significant in the binary logistic regression analyses for the City of Palo Alto; primary impressions were not statistically significant indicators in any model. As described earlier in this section on 2030 predictions for PAFD, the main issue for which the City of Palo Alto and PAFD will need to prepare is the expected increase in older medical emergency patients in 2030. - 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 Abdominal Altered LevelofConsciousness BehavioralHealth Cardiac Injury/Hemorrhage Non-SpecificPain Respiratory 2015/2016 Average 2030 Low End # Increase 2030 High End # Increase PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 49 June 6, 2019 PAFD Calls and Medical Emergency Patients: Stanford, 2015 and 2016 As described in the City of Palo Alto section, the PAFD data contained all unique 2015 and 2016 calls from PAFD’s internal CAD and ESO medical emergency services data systems. The CAD dataset includes all types of calls to PAFD for dispatch (e.g., fire, medical emergency, false alarm), which were restricted for the purposes of these analyses to Stanford (and, in the previous section, the City of Palo Alto). Note that CAD call types are the initial presumption of incident type, based on what dispatchers are told, not the incident type verified by PAFD personnel once they are at the scene. The ESO dataset contains only medical emergency patients for whom PAFD was dispatched, but includes incident ZIP Code, patient age, gender, and primary impression. A “primary impression” is the main problem, condition, or symptom that brought about the encounter between the patient and EMS personnel. This section briefly describes the current data for Stanford, with a special focus on medical emergency calls/patients. PAFD CAD Calls Originating in the Stanford Area Current Call Volume and Type Of all calls for service to PAFD during 2015 and 2016, an average of approximately 15% per year originated in Stanford (15.8% in 2015 and 14.3% in 2016). Based on the CAD data provided by PAFD for calls originating only from Stanford, in 2015 and 2016 there were a total of 2,482 calls for service to PAFD (1,289 in 2015 and 1,193 in 2016). See Figure 23 on the next page for a chart of the percentage of calls by call type originating from Stanford. Appendix 6 shows how many unique calls of each type by city, on average. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 50 June 6, 2019 Figure 23, PAFD Calls for Service Originating from Stanford, 2015/2016 Average Source: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: CAD unduplicated data 2015/2016. Note: “Service” calls are, for example, assisting with lock-outs, water leaks, police assists. * “All Other” is comprised of all call types that by themselves represent less than 1.5% of calls from Stanford to PAFD.30 Current Medical Emergency Calls by Time of Day Approximately 50% of all calls for service in Stanford each year were classified as medical emergency (50.2% in 2015 and 50.1% in 2016). More total calls (62%) came in during the day 30 The categories of call included in “All Other” for Stanford are: Auto Aid, Gas, Hazardous Materials, Mutual Aid, Second Alarm, Vegetation Fire, and Wires. Taken all together, these represent less than 3% of calls from Stanford to PAFD. Smoke remains a separate category so this chart can be comparable to Figure 10 (City of Palo Alto calls by type). Smoke Fire Accident All Other * Service False Alarm Medical Emergency 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 51 June 6, 2019 than at night. See Figure 24. It is important to note that the total difference in volume between daytime and nighttime calls on Stanford is much smaller than that of the City of Palo Alto. Figure 24, PAFD Calls by Type and Time of Day, 2015/2016 Average, Stanford Source: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: CAD unduplicated data 2015/2016. PAFD Medical Emergency Patient Volume Originating in the Stanford Area Based on the ESO data provided by PAFD for the Stanford area, there were a total of 1,890 medical emergency patients during 2015 and 2016 (916 in 2015 and 974 in 2016). Note that an individual may be a patient more than once in a given year, and each time a patient presents, s/he requires PAFD’s attention. Actionable Insights was asked to analyze the ESO data by age, gender, ZIP Code, and primary impression, and to provide PAFD with predictions about future medical emergency patients in the Stanford area based on these data. Current data are found in this section, while predictions may be found in the next section. 370 253 399 220 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 Stanford Daytime Stanford Nighttime All Others MedicalEmergency PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 52 June 6, 2019 Current Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Age As described in the section on the City of Palo Alto, based on a preliminary analysis of the ESO data,31 we find that the relationship of the number of patients to patient age is positive (1.033) and statistically significant (p < 0.001). That is, there are more older individuals represented in the ESO dataset than younger individuals, to a statistically significant degree. This indicates that older individuals are more likely than younger individuals to have a medical emergency in the combined Palo Alto/Stanford jurisdiction. We converted age into categories used by the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) and the CA DOF, the better to compare statistics on current age of patients to predicted age of future patients. Note that certain ACS/DOF age groups contain fewer years (e.g., 60-64) than others (e.g., 65-74). For ease of viewing in the various charts below, the three lowest age categories have been merged; the 15-19 and 20-24 age categories have been merged, and the 55-59 and 60-64 age categories have been merged. (Data by original age categories are available upon request.) As shown in Figure 25, aside from the spike for young adults ages 15-24 (which is appropriate given the demographics of the Stanford area), there tend to be more medical emergencies as individuals age. Figure 25, Current Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Age Category, 2015/2016 Average Counts and Percentages, Stanford Source: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: ESO unduplicated data 2015/2016. Notes: City was determined by ZIP Codes. Data for Stanford are shown only for the 99% of cases where age of patient was available. Data for the City of Palo Alto are shown in the chart in the Palo Alto section; data for other cities (2% of the cases used to generate the average counts and percentages) are not shown. 31 We used a simple linear regression in which we predicted number of medical emergency patients by patient age in combined years 2015 and 2016. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Age 0-14 Age 15-24 Age 25-34 Age 35-44 Age 45-54 Age 55-64 Age 65-74 Age 75-84 Age 85+ Av e r a g e N u m b e r o f P a t i e n t s ( P a t i e n t Vo l u m e ) Stanford # Stanford % PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 53 June 6, 2019 Comparatively, a much greater proportion of older adults are being served by PAFD for medical emergencies compared to the proportion of older adults in the resident population. In Figure 26, we compare the average current medical emergency patient volume for Stanford to its residential population, by the proportion of individuals of each age group represented among patients and residents. Figure 26, Current Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Age Category, 2015/2016 Average Percentages, Compared to Residential Population by Age Category, Stanford Sources: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: ESO unduplicated data 2015/2016; U.S. Census Bureau, 2014. Notes: For purposes of medical emergency data, city was determined by ZIP Codes. Data for the City of Palo Alto are shown in the chart in the Palo Alto section; data for other cities (216 of the 10,943 cases used to generate the percentages) are not shown. At Stanford, adults aged 35 and older are medical emergency patients at higher rates than they are present in the residential population, with medical emergency patients who are aged 85 and older being represented at 15 times their proportion in the residential population. Current Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Gender Of the patients originating in the Stanford area for whom gender was reported (98.4%), slightly more than half (52.1%) were female, on average. Current Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Incident Location (ZIP Code) Virtually all cases included data on incident ZIP Code. The vast majority of medical emergency patients (98%) identified in the ESO dataset were assisted in the cities of Palo Alto or Stanford 4% 28% 13% 7%8%10%7%8% 15% 6% 64% 15% 4%3%4%3%1%1%0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% Age 0-14 Age 15-24 Age 25-34 Age 35-44 Age 45-54 Age 55-64 Age 65-74 Age 75-84 Age 85+ Stanford Medical Emergency Patient Volume Stanford Resident Population PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 54 June 6, 2019 (see map in the City of Palo section, Figure 14; map does not show the approximately 8% of cases associated with ZIP Codes representing P.O. boxes). An average of 16% of all patients were found in the 94305 (Stanford) ZIP Code. A further breakdown of patient volume by ZIP Code, by year, may be found in Appendix 7. Current Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Type of Illness/Issue Medical emergency patients called 911 with a wide variety of symptoms. Table 6 offers categories (higher-level groupings) of primary impressions by year. We remind the reader that some patients are represented more than once in the ESO data, since they may have called and been seen by PAFD more than once. Table 6, All Medical Emergency (ME) Patients, Categories of Primary Impressions, 2015/2016 Average, in Order of Frequency for Stanford Primary Impression Category Annual Avg. % (#) of ME Patients in Stanford, 2015/2016 Altered Level of Consciousness 28.9% (273) Injury (Traumatic or Otherwise) or Hemorrhage 28.0% (265) Behavioral Health 9.4% (89) Non-Specific Pain 7.3% (69) Abdominal Discomfort 7.0% (66) Cardiac-Related 6.1% (58) Respiratory-Related 4.8% (45) All Other* 4.0% (38) No Complaints or Injury/Illness Noted 3.3% (31) Data Missing 1.2% (11) TOTAL 945 Source: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: ESO unduplicated data 2015/2016. Note: Percentages may not add to exactly 100% due to rounding. *“All other” comprises other impression types that represented < 1% of calls both years. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 55 June 6, 2019 The primary impressions associated with the greatest proportions of medical emergency patients in the Stanford area appear to be ALOC32, followed by injury and behavioral health issues. Appendix 9 provides patient volume by primary impression, separately for day versus night. Based on Appendix 9, in the Stanford area all primary impressions except behavioral health issues occur more often during the day than at night. Behavioral health issues occur significantly more often at night than any other primary impression, statistically speaking.33 For reference, Appendix 3 lists the total number and percentage of patient cases by all primary impressions by year, and includes the category into which each primary impression was placed. 32 Note that this last category is based on a patient’s actual level of wakefulness and/or disorientation (Tindall, 1990), and does not refer to drug-induced hallucinatory experience. However, based on a scan of the data, some small number (<5%) of cases identified as ALOC may be related to alcohol or drug use. 33 Depending on the primary impression to which behavioral health is being compared, these differences range from 28% more often (compared to abdominal discomfort) to 39% more often (compared to injury/hemorrhage). PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 56 June 6, 2019 Predictive Analysis Findings: Stanford, Year 2030 Based on our analysis of current call volume and calls by type, we have predicted year 2030 call volume and calls by type for Stanford (and for the City of Palo Alto, separately, in the previous section).34 As described briefly in the Predictive Analysis Methods Summary section at the beginning of this report, we used a modified life table approach, which is generally used to describe a current population and predict future growth or decline. Stanford’s daytime population could not be broken down by age, as data on age ranges of the Stanford workforce were not available to us at a granular-enough level. Therefore, we adjusted nighttime (but not daytime) medical emergency call/patient volume predictions by age based on CA DOF (2017) projections (see Appendices 4-5 for details).35 We predicted call/patient volume and calls by type for day and night separately, using population figures based on CA DOF figures, Stanford University (2016) GUP projections, and City of Palo Alto Transportation Survey results (2013). A full description of this process may be found in Appendices 4-5. We provide predictions for all call types that represented at least 1% of calls in the 2015 or 2016 CAD datasets. The remainder are grouped into a call type category labeled “Other.” We used ESO data (described in the Predictive Analysis Methods Summary section at the beginning of this report) to adjust predictions for the medical emergency call type based on medical emergency patient volume and (for the nighttime population only) expected age- related shifts in the demographics for Stanford between now and 2030. This process is also further described in Appendices 4-5. The 2030 predictions for Stanford for all call types and for patient volumes take into account projected daytime and nighttime visitors, as well as larger daytime populations based on net commuters, again based on CA DOF figures, Stanford University GUP projections, and City of Palo Alto Transportation Survey results. Further information on this process may be found in Appendices 4-5. Projected Population The Stanford area has a current (2014) residential population of 13,506 people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014), which is projected to rise to 20,296 by the year 2030 (calculated based on the GUP, Stanford University, 2016). The “nighttime” population we discuss in this section is the same as what the U.S. Census would consider the residential population. 34 Due to the lack of ZIP Codes in the CAD data, we were not able to estimate call volume by ZIP Code, PAFD district, or other sub-city-level areas (e.g., neighborhood). 35 Note that while there were no data projecting gender for sub-county-level areas, the projections of gender by county (CA DOF, 2017) suggest that the projected change in gender proportions between now and 2030 is not statistically significant in either San Mateo County or Santa Clara County (Chi-square = 2.00, p > 0.05). Therefore, we do not include gender as a factor in our predictions. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 57 June 6, 2019 Daytime population is a net total of nighttime residents who stay, residents who “out- commute” to somewhere besides Stanford, and individuals from other cities who “in- commute” to Stanford. Stanford’s 2014 daytime population was estimated to be 38,327 people, and projected to rise to 49,695 (see Appendix 5 for further information on the calculation of projected populations). As mentioned previously, Stanford’s daytime population could not be broken down by age, as data on age ranges of the Stanford workforce were not available to us at a granular-enough level. Figure 27 shows the recent (2014) and projected 2030 residential (nighttime) population for Stanford, by age range. Note that visitors were not included in the chart because the data available for estimating visitors’ ages in 2030 grouped age into four broad categories rather than the 13 categories available for estimating residents’ ages; however, visitors are very small proportions of the total population. Figure 27, Current and Year 2030 Projected Residential Populations by Age Category, Stanford Source: Stanford University, 2016; U.S. Census Bureau, 2014. Note: Excludes visitors to increase age category granularity (see text for further explanation). Predicted Medical Emergency Call Volume and Other Call Types For the purposes of our predictions, daytime is considered to be 8:00 a.m. to 7:59 p.m., and nighttime is considered to be 8:00 p.m. to 7:59 a.m. (Amber Cameron, personal communication, March 18, 2017). The time indicator used was the time of dispatch. Appendix 6 contains tables showing the average annual 2015/2016 call volume and the age-adjusted 2030 predicted call volume, by call type and time of day (not age-adjusted for Stanford daytime predicted 2030 calls). As mentioned previously, Stanford’s daytime population could not be - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 Age 0-14 Age 15-24 Age 25-34 Age 35-44 Age 45-54 Age 55-64 Age 65-74 Age 75-84 Age 85+ 2014 Nighttime (Residential) Pop. 2030 Projected Nighttime (Residential) Pop. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 58 June 6, 2019 broken down by age, as data on age ranges of the Stanford workforce were not available to us at a granular-enough level. This means that only nighttime, not daytime, CAD medical emergency call predictions for Stanford are age-adjusted. Total average nighttime Stanford call volume in 2015/2016 was 473, and predicted to be 710 (age-adjusted) in 2030. Total average daytime Stanford call volume in 2015/2016 was 769, and predicted to be 973 (not age-adjusted) in 2030. It is clear from these data that the total number of calls will increase between now and 2030 for all call types. Figure 28 below shows the predicted change from 2015/2016 to 2030 for medical emergency calls and other major call types, for Stanford. The grey portion of the bars shows the current (2015/2016 average) number of calls by type and the red portion of the bars shows the predicted increase. Proportionally, it is predicted that medical emergency calls will increase by 36%.36 Figure 28, Predicted Change in Average Annual Call Volume from 2015/2016 to 2030, Major Call Types, Stanford Source: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: CAD unduplicated data 2015/2016. Notes: Nighttime medical emergency calls are age-adjusted, daytime medical emergency calls are not (see text for explanation). “All other” comprises calls that make up less than 1.5% each in the unduplicated 2015/2016 CAD dataset (Gas, HazMat, Mutual Aid, etc.). As described in the section on current call volume, Medical Emergency calls were 50% of Stanford’s total call volume in 2015/2016. Based on the above, Medical Emergency calls are predicted to remain at 50% of Stanford’s total call volume in 2030. 36 Since ESO medical emergency residential patient volume predicted increases are within one to two percentage points of CAD medical emergency residential call volume predicted increases, we do not display them separately here. They may be found in Appendix 6. 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 Smoke Fire Accident All Other* Service False Alarm Medical Emergency Base (2015/2016 Average) Predicted Increase PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 59 June 6, 2019 Figure 29 below shows the predicted change from 2015/2016 to 2030 for medical emergency calls and other major call types, for Stanford during the daytime hours. Again, we note that these figures are not age-adjusted due to the lack of granularity in age-range information for Stanford employees. The grey portion of the bars shows the current (2015/2016 average) number of calls by type and the yellow portion of the bars indicates the predicted increase. It is predicted that medical emergency calls will increase by approximately 27% during the daytime. Figure 29, Predicted Change in Average Annual Call Volume from 2015/2016 to 2030, Major Call Types, Daytime, Stanford Source: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: CAD unduplicated data 2015/2016. Notes: Daytime medical emergency calls are not age-adjusted (see text for explanation). “All other” comprises calls that make up less than 1.5% each in the unduplicated 2015/2016 CAD dataset (Gas, HazMat, Mutual Aid, etc.). 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 Smoke Fire Accident All Other* Service False Alarm Medical Emergency Base (2015/2016 Average) Predicted Increase PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 60 June 6, 2019 Figure 30 below shows the predicted change from 2015/2016 to 2030 for medical emergency calls and other major call types, for Stanford during the nighttime hours. The grey portion of the bars shows the current (2015/2016 average) number of calls by type and the dark blue portion of the bars indicates the predicted increase. It is predicted that medical emergency calls will increase by 50% during the nighttime. Figure 30, Predicted Change in Average Annual Call Volume from 2015/2016 to 2030, Major Call Types, Nighttime, Stanford Source: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: CAD unduplicated data 2015/2016. Notes: Nighttime medical emergency calls are age-adjusted, daytime medical emergency calls are not (see text for explanation). “All other” comprises calls that make up less than 1.5% each in the unduplicated 2015/2016 CAD dataset (Gas, HazMat, Mutual Aid, etc.). Although the absolute numbers of increased calls are smaller for Stanford during the nighttime than for the daytime, the proportional increases of medical emergency and other calls at night (50%) will be much greater than the proportional increases of medical emergency and other calls during the day (27%). These predictions, taken with the current baseline data, could suggest that nighttime call volume at Stanford may increase faster than daytime call volume over time, resulting in a closer balance between day and night call volume. That is, based on this analysis (which we remind the reader is limited by the fact that Stanford daytime medical emergency call predictions could not be age-adjusted), nighttime calls to PAFD from Stanford are predicted to drop from 62% to 58% of total Stanford call volume by 2030. 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 Smoke Fire Accident All Other* Service False Alarm Medical Emergency Base (2015/2016 Average) Predicted Increase PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 61 June 6, 2019 Predicted Medical Emergency Patient Volume Originating in the Stanford Area Predicted Medical Emergency Patient Volume Overall and by Age Overall, there were an average of 933 medical emergency patients annually from Stanford in 2015/2016, with 600 during the daytime and 333 at night. It is predicted that there will be 1,213 medical emergency patients from Stanford in 2030, with 713 predicted during the daytime (not age-adjusted) and 500 predicted at night (age-adjusted). Below, we review the nighttime (residential) predictions by age. Again, we converted age into categories used by the ACS and DOF, the better to compare statistics on current age of patients to predicted age of patients. For the sake of simplicity, in Figure 31 we merged certain age categories. The figure shows current and projected data on Stanford’s residential (i.e., nighttime) population. As mentioned previously, granular-enough data are not available for Stanford’s daytime population by age range. Visitors were not included in the figure because the data available for estimating visitors’ ages in 2030 grouped age into four broad categories rather than the 13 categories available for estimating residents’ and workers’ ages; however, visitors are very small proportions of the total population.37 Figure 31, Current and Year 2030 Predicted Age-Adjusted Residential Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Age Category, Stanford Source: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: ESO unduplicated data 2015/2016. Note: Excludes visitors to increase age category granularity (see text for further explanation). 37 Including daytime and overnight visitors would only increase the predicted numbers of patients by an average of 39, across all age groups – a very small proportion of the total number of predicted interactions overall. - 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Age 0-14 Age 15-24 Age 25-34 Age 35-44 Age 45-54 Age 55-64 Age 65-74 Age 75-84 Age 85+ 2015-16 Avg. # Stanford ME Patients 2030 Predicted # Stanford ME Patients PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 62 June 6, 2019 As with the 2030 Palo Alto predictions, the 2030 Stanford predictions show increases in medical emergency patient volume compared to current medical emergency patient volume at approximately 31% overall (see Appendix 6). However, less than a third (32%) of Stanford’s predicted 2030 residential medical emergency patients will be age 55+, while over 40% will be age 15-24. Predicted Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Type of Illness/Issue In 2015/2016, the primary impressions that were associated with the greatest proportions of medical emergency patients in Stanford were altered level of consciousness,38 followed by injury and behavioral health issues. The order of the top primary impressions for Stanford (see Table 7) remains the same in the predictions for year 2030, although we note that the portion of primary impression predictions that relate to the daytime population are not age-adjusted due, as discussed previously, to a lack of granular-enough data on Stanford’s employees’ age ranges. Table 7, Predicted Year 2030 Medical Emergency Patients, Categories of Primary Impressions, in Order of Frequency Primary Impression Category % (#) Stanford, 2030 Altered Level of Consciousness 29.2% (367) Injury/Hemorrhage 28.0% (352) Behavioral Health 10.1% (127) Non-Specific Pain 7.4% (93) Abdominal Discomfort 7.1% (90) Cardiac-Related 6.2% (78) Respiratory-Related 4.8% (61) All Other* 4.1% (51) No Complaints 3.2% (40) TOTAL 1,259 Source: Actionable Insights, LLC, 2017, unpublished data, based City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: ESO unduplicated data 2015/2016. Notes: Not age-adjusted. Percentages may not add to exactly 100% due to rounding. *“All other” comprises other primary impression types that represented < 1% of calls in both years. 38 Altered level of consciousness is based on “a patient’s actual level of wakefulness and/or disorientation” (Tindall, 1990) and has a variety of causes, including dehydration, hypoglycemia, and shock, but is not intended to refer to symptoms that are directly related to drug or alcohol use. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 63 June 6, 2019 However, it is also important for PAFD’s future planning to review the primary impressions that will increase the most between 2015/2016 and the year 2030. Stanford predictions suggest that the greatest increase in absolute numbers will be among ALOC patients39 and injury patients.40 However, the greatest proportional increases will be among behavioral health patients (43%, or an increase of 38 more patients). See Figures 32 and 32 for a representation of Stanford increases in absolute numbers by primary impression, for daytime and nighttime separately. See Appendix 9 for total predicted changes in primary impression categories, by city and time of day. Figure 32, Comparison of Actual versus Predicted Absolute Change in Average Annual Patient Volume from 2015/2016 to 2030, by Primary Impression, Stanford, Daytime Source: Actionable Insights, LLC, 2017, unpublished data, and City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: ESO unduplicated data 2015/2016. Note: Not age-adjusted. 39 An increase of 94 more patients, or 34%. 40 An increase of 87 more patients, or 33%. - 100 200 300 Abdominal Altered Level of Consciousness Behavioral Health Cardiac Injury/ Hemorrhage Non-Specific Pain Respiratory 2015/2016 Average 2030 # Increase PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 64 June 6, 2019 Figure 33, Comparison of Actual versus Predicted Absolute Change in Average Annual Patient Volume from 2015/2016 to 2030, by Primary Impression, Stanford, Nighttime Source: Actionable Insights, LLC, 2017, unpublished data, and City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: ESO unduplicated data 2015/2016. As described in the section predicting the City of Palo Alto’s primary impressions, age was the predominant factor in the increase in medical emergency patient volume between 2015/2016 and 2030. Because we did not have projections of age for Stanford’s daytime population, we did not conduct such an analysis for Stanford. - 100 200 300 Abdominal Altered LevelofConsciousness BehavioralHealth Cardiac Injury/Hemorrhage Non-SpecificPain Respiratory 2015/2016 Average 2030 # Increase PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 65 June 6, 2019 Recommendations & Next Steps Addressing the Expected Increase in EMS Calls Increases in fire department EMS calls are a national issue. According to the National Fire Protection Association’s data, the proportion of total fire department calls nationwide that were for medical aid increased from 54% in 1986 to 64% in 2015 (National Fire Protection Association, 2016). Fire departments nationwide have reported this trend of increasing EMS calls (see, for example, Cooper, 2016; Keisling, 2015; Los Angeles Fire Department, 2015; Luthern 2014). Fire departments with ambulance services are also having to address non- emergency use of 911 dispatch. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) (n.d.) identified research that suggests non-emergencies account for between 10% and 40% of EMS responses, and other researchers have suggested that successful reduction of inappropriate ambulance use could consequently reduce the load on emergency departments (EDs) by 11% (Patton & Thakore, 2012). The traditional model to address expected increases in EMS calls would be to add more 24-hour ambulances. However, this is a costly method of addressing increases in call volume. Other jurisdictions have turned to alternate models, including various forms of community paramedicine and mobile integrated health care practice approaches (CP/MIHP). We review these approaches below, with reference to Actionable Insights’ literature review conducted on behalf of PAFD (unpublished, 2017). In 2015 there were over 100 CP/MIHP programs nationwide, and they are expanding rapidly. This presents PAFD with a timely opportunity to leverage the knowledge gains from these other programs. Successful Strategies to Reduce EMS Calls and/or Reliance on Emergency Transport The following are four primary evidence-based programs and strategies that are applicable to the situation facing the Palo Alto/Stanford community. 1. Community paramedicine and mobile integrated health care practice (CP/MIHP) approaches. The CP/MIHP approach is broadly characterized as a model in which a community has greater access to 24/7 non-emergency healthcare, including health education, outreach, monitoring, and prevention, brought to the patient by inter-professional teams41 who are integrated into and/or partnered with local or regional healthcare systems and under appropriate medical direction (HRSA, 2012, Myers et al., 2012, NCSL, n.d.). This could include any or all of the following (NCSL, n.d., Wang, 2011, WECAD, 2011): • Conducting assessments and/or screenings (e.g., for congestive heart failure or 41 These may include paramedics, emergency medical technicians (EMTs), nurse practitioners (NPs), registered nurses (RNs), physician assistants (PAs), and other allied health professionals. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 66 June 6, 2019 diabetes) • Providing treatment (such as wound care) • Engaging in prevention (like health education, heat surveillance, vaccinations, fall assessment, helmet fitting, and car seat installation) • Making referrals (that is, to other medical providers or social services) including addressing mental health, housing, and other needs (also known as “patient navigation”) • Regularly checking in with high-risk patients – 911 or ED super-users – to assist with chronic disease management, medication compliance, and/or insurance enrollment. CP/MIHP programs look different in different communities because they are uniquely responsive to gaps in assessed community needs, and no two communities’ needs are the same (Myers et al., 2012) However, all CP/MIHP programs involve partnerships with existing healthcare organizations/infrastructure, address gaps in service, enable providers to exercise the full scope of their practice, and focus on patient outcomes to improve individual and community health. The focus on patient outcomes is particularly important. One reporter described CP/MIHP as “a redefining of what EMS is, emphasizing measuring patient outcomes over processes like response times” (Goodwin, 2013). Recently, certain researchers (Choi et al., 2016) noted that while there are relatively few studies assessing CP/MIHP program safety, efficacy, and cost- benefit ratios, data from existing programs suggest that these approaches may have impacts such as reduced health disparities; reduced Examples of EMS CP/ MIHP Program Results MedStar, Ft. Worth, TX (AHRQ, 2016): Frequent 911 users enrolled in program (incl. home visits and phone support). Total of 300 program “graduates.” ▪ 911 call volume from “graduates” down by 61% in the 12 months post-program ▪ Transport costs reduced from pre- to post-program by $4.98M ($16,600 per “graduate” in 1 year) ▪ Freed up 14,000 bed hours at local EDs over 5 years CARES, Colorado Springs, CO (Zavadsky et al., 2015): Frequent 911 users enrolled in program (incl. home visits, health ed, navigation to resources). Total of 500 patients. ▪ 911 call volume from two-thirds of patients down 50% in first 2 years ▪ Hospital readmissions down 75% in first 3 months post-program, led to $150K savings in Medicaid claims REMSA, Reno, NV (Gerber, 2015): Post-discharge congestive heart failure patients enrolled in program (incl. 1 hospital visit, follow-up home visits, screenings, assessments, services). Total of 444 patients. ▪ Avoided 28 readmissions and 97 ED visits ▪ First year total savings of $1.6M PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 67 June 6, 2019 hospital readmission rates for congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and pneumonia; increased immunization rates; injury prevention; and reduced mortality rates (Choi et al., 2016, Myers et al., 2012, Wang, 2011, WECAD, 2011). Another important element of CP/MIHP is the reduction in healthcare costs, both directly and via reduction in ED transports and/or hospital readmissions. Krumperman (2010) has indicated that part of the value of CP/MIHP is its ability to provide cost- effective care to patients for whom services could be provided in a non-ED setting. Several writers have described the cost savings that may be found in reducing unnecessary ED transports and potential hospital readmissions (Coffman & LaFrance, 2016, Tadros et al., 2012, and Widiatmoko et al., 2008). 2. Use of nurses and/or physician assistants (PAs) in EMS and/or triage; can also be considered part of a CP/MIHP approach. Dr. Eric Beck, the medical director for the City of Chicago EMS System and the Chicago Fire Department, has been quoted as saying, “EMS needs to rethink its basic mission of being about transportation and instead be about providing care in the most effective way for the patient. …That could be community paramedicine. It could be by integrating nurse triage into dispatch, or using telemedicine to enable patients to be treated at home without having to transport” (Goodwin, 2013, emphasis ours). Walsh and Little’s (2001) small study of a nurse practitioner (NP) working in a paramedic role found that although the NP took more time at the scene to diagnose and treat a patient than a conventional EMS team would have, up to one third of calls attended to by the NP avoided ED transport. Widiatmoko et al. (2008), in describing a pilot study of nurse/paramedic partners dispatched to visit non-urgent emergency calls, suggested that the costs of such partnerships to the national Ambulance Services would be more than made up for by the savings in secondary care costs. There have been similar findings in studies on nurse telephone consultation (also known as telephone triage). A UK study found after-hours nurse telephone consultation was “at least as safe” as existing after-hours options and reduced both home visits by general practitioners and ED visits outside of normal business hours (Lattimer et al., 1998). The companion study found that there were moderate net annual cost savings of £13,185, the equivalent of about $33,000 in 2018 dollars (Lattimer et al., 2000).42 The researchers stated, “The greatest impact on the results of the cost analysis was generated by costs for emergency hospital admissions, a secondary analysis of admission data for this trial 42 Currency conversion from British pounds to U.S. dollars for historical period January 1997-January 1998 via fxtop.com. Calculation for inflation to 2018 dollars via www.in2013dollars.com. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 68 June 6, 2019 having shown that the intervention saved short stays (1-3 days) in hospital” (Lattimer et al., 2000:1056). They noted that this savings excludes the reduced costs of physicians not having to attend at the ED (Lattimer et al., 2000). There are a limited number of studies on the use of physician assistants (PAs) in EMS and/or triage (Bloemhoff et al., 2016, Callard, 2012, Nestler et al., 2012). ED-related studies found improvement in patient wait times, and one reported reduced stress on medical staff (Callard, 2012). A study of nearly 1,000 patients in the Netherlands, which compared results of the use of PAs versus nurses as solo EMS providers in ambulances, found that while PAs consulted twice as often with medical specialists than did nurses, PAs also referred a significantly smaller proportion of patients to general practitioners or the ED compared to nurses (50% versus 73%), with no apparent difference in 72-hour follow-up (Bloemhoff et al., 2016). This research suggests that use of PAs can reduce unnecessary hospital admissions and related costs (Bloemhoff et al., 2016). 3. Telemedicine and in-home visit preventive care models; can also be considered part of a CP/MIHP approach. Some studies have shown that home visits (face-to-face care at home) by community health workers, community paramedics, and/or personal support workers result in good patient outcomes and reduce the volume of 911 calls, ambulance transports, and ED visits (see, for example, Findley et al., 2014 and Ruest et al., 2012). Qualitative studies available on community paramedic home visits have described improved access to and use of healthcare services by patients, improved disease management, improved safety, and increased patient satisfaction and/or peace of mind (see, for example, Do et al., 2016 and Pennell et al., 2016). A meta-analysis of studies comparing in-home care to no home care found that in-home care delivered by nurses led to improved outcomes in patients with various levels of heart disease (Health Quality Ontario, 2013). This meta-analysis also found that home visits from physical or occupational therapists with the goal of modifying tasks and the home environment improved the ability of adults with chronic disease to engage in activities of daily living (Health Quality Ontario, 2013). With regard to end-of-life, researchers found that home visits by nurses or by community-based palliative care teams were effective in lowering levels of patient distress, reducing ED visits, and allowing more individuals to die at home rather than in the hospital (see, for example, McCorkle et al., 1989 and Seow et al., 2014). As mentioned briefly in the previous section, the use of telemedicine may be an effective way to provide patient care. There are several categories of telemedicine, including remote monitoring, “store-and-forward” technology (data transmission to a remote clinician followed by a later report or consultation), and real-time consultation (Flodgren PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 69 June 6, 2019 et al., 2015). A meta-analysis of 93 studies of interactive telemedicine concluded that face-to-face and telephone delivery of care in managing congestive heart failure and diabetes have similar outcomes, with perhaps greater decreases in high blood pressure and better control of blood glucose for telemedicine patients compared to those receiving face-to-face care (Flodgren et al., 2015). Research on the use of telemedicine for those who suffer chronic wounds found that advice-giving via telemedicine correlated with significantly increased healing of wounds in comparison to a best-practice conventional approach (Zarchi et al., 2015). A study of the implementation of a telemedicine service at a nursing home found fewer hospitalizations of nursing home residents (associated with reduced health complications and lower mortality), and consequent Medicare savings (Grabowski and O’Malley, 2014). Telemedicine was also used to good effect in palliative care for advanced cancer patients by improving healthcare access, reducing EMS use, and improving symptom assessment/control (Hennemann-Krause et al., 2015). 4. Outreach and education efforts also complement a prevention approach. A review of research shows that lay health educators (such as promotores) have been found to be effective in improving community members’ health status (Ayala, 2010). Reductions in hospital expenditures for diabetes and hypertension were identified in areas that had lay health educators (Boone, 2002). In a Denver community served by community health workers, economic savings were realized in health care costs, including urgent care (Whitley et al., 2006). The community consulted for this study suggested that the community lacks awareness of the appropriate use of the emergency departments and alternatives, including urgent care clinics. “Well, I think that a lot of people don’t know about urgent care and express care. I mean we deescalate so many things to express care clinics rather than the emergency room. I deescalated one just the other day for a gentleman. His sister couldn’t get into primary care. He had something going on with his neck. He was recently moved here from out of state just to be by Stanford. And they had a little bit of wait to go into primary care and they were gonna come back to the emergency room. And I told them about this express care clinic and it worked out great.” – Key Informant PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 70 June 6, 2019 Based on our research, community paramedicine and integrated health care practice models currently appear to be the most successful and innovative approaches available to fire departments with ambulance services. As described, these models can be implemented in a wide variety of ways, including telemedicine, home visits, arrangements for direct transport/diversion, community clinic extensions, nurse/PA triage, etc. Below, we describe some of the challenges to and best practices for implementing a CP/MIHP approach. Implementation Challenges and Best Practices in CP/MIHP The NCSL (n.d.) has identified several challenges to implementation of a CP/MIHP program, including financial, regulatory, and workforce-related issues. 1. Solutions to financial (i.e., reimbursement) challenges: It is suggested that financial issues (that is, reimbursement) can be worked out on the state or community level with public and/or private insurers (NCSL, n.d.). There are a variety of examples in the literature, including obtaining added funding via non-EMS work (HRSA, 2012), adapting the payment models of accountable care organizations (ACOs) to CP/MIHP programs (Kizer et al., 2013), and aligning CP/MIHP program financial interests with the financial interests of their partners by “linking sustainable program funding to savings accruing to system payers from reduced re-admission rates” (MIHP Resource Center, 2014). Goodwin (2013) observes that the latter requires the CP/MIHP program to share both the savings and the risk. With regard to other sustainable funding models, there are various subscription programs (City of Arcadia, 2015, City of Fountain Valley, 2010, City of Huntington Beach, 2017, Farkas, 2016), some of which include sliding scale fees for low- income households, and there are financial models based on property taxes or other municipal funds (Pearson & Shaler, 2015, Snohomish County Fire District 1, 2017, Zavadsky et al., 2015). 2. Solutions to regulatory challenges: With regard to regulatory barriers, the NCSL (n.d.) has noted that some states are working to define CPs as a class and to overcome regulatory barriers for CP programs. The Western Eagle County Ambulance District (WECAD) in Colorado has recommended that CP/MIHP program developers talk with their state’s EMS regulatory body to address any issues that may impact the operation of such a program. While WECAD began their program at the grassroots level by partnering with their area public health department, they have stated clearly that the program was “in cooperation with the state EMS Office” (WECAD, 2011:6). PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 71 June 6, 2019 3. Solutions to workforce-related challenges: With regard to workforce concerns, the NCSL (n.d.) has indicated that health professionals (like nurses or home healthcare associations) have occasionally opposed CP/MIHP programs because of concerns about encroachment on their scope of practice. Wang (2011:10) stated, “Rapid implementation of CP without identification of expanded roles causes resistance from other health care professionals.” Wang (2011) also noted that past CP/MIHP program failure has occurred in part simply because of a lack of relationships with community residents, from whom program support might otherwise be found. The literature has suggested that continued engagement of providers and other community members throughout the development and introduction of CP/MIHP programs is essential for role clarity, to address various concerns among providers and the community, and to plan for optimal collaboration among all providers (NCSL, n.d.). EMS agencies that already have CP/MIHP programs in place have recommended that program developers involve stakeholders from the very start to assure them the program is intended for collaboration rather than competition (Zavadsky et al., 2015). It is noted that “[i]n well developed, mature CP programs, the community paramedic can be the eyes and ears of primary and emergency care physicians and an extension to their practices” (NOSORH, 2010). The literature has emphasized that CP/MIHP programs expand the role of EMS practitioners but do not change their scope of practice. The International Roundtable of Community Paramedicine (2011) stated that community paramedics work “in non-traditional roles using existing skills… [and] will provide services through unique models of delivery and enhanced protocols through an integrated collaborative network with other health care providers.” Goodwin (2013) described how EMTs and paramedics working in CP/MIHP have an expanded role rather than an expanded scope; they simply apply skills for which they are already licensed in order to help community members manage chronic disease, navigate through the healthcare system, and prevent ED visits via prevention campaigns and/or public education. 4. Best practices: Engage in external quality control (Wang, 2011) and address quality assurance via medical direction and program evaluation (WECAD, 2011); for the latter, integration with state or area electronic health information exchanges is crucial in order to measure patient outcomes, experience, and the program’s impact on patient costs (Zavadsky et al., 2015). Use WECAD (2011) handbook with recommended steps for a grassroots approach to implementing a CP/MIHP program: a. Plan to plan (learn about CP/MIHP) b. Assess program feasibility and engage key partners (like medical providers) PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 72 June 6, 2019 c. Determine how to provide medical direction d. Assess community health needs e. Determine the scope of the program (services, staffing, budget/funding needs) f. Engage the community (approach key stakeholders with your community health needs assessment, program vision statement, and fact sheet with problem/ opportunity statement and FAQ) g. Develop policies and procedures h. Plan and implement training i. Develop an evaluation plan j. Begin operations k. Evaluate the pilot phase Follow broad principles developed by an MIHP working group to guide CP/MIHP program developers (Goodwin, 2013): a. Assess community needs, remain value-focused, and feature a competency- and evidence-based practice that ensures continual education, 24-hour community access, and ongoing performance improvement. b. Ensure community partnership with active medical direction. c. Deliver improved access to care and health equity for populations served through 24-hour care availability. d. Focus on patient-centered navigation and offer community-centered care by integrating existing infrastructures and resources and bringing care to patients through technology, communications, and health information exchange. e. Use evidence-based practice, incorporating multidisciplinary and inter- professional teams through which providers utilize their full scope of practice. Focus on integration with current health care and social services systems to develop a robust network of resources (Zavadsky et al., 2015). Addressing Community Health Needs Our primary research for this study indicates that the need for preventive services in the Palo Alto/Stanford area is supported by the community. For example, residents who participated in the neighborhood association focus group stressed that education is needed in the areas of emergency preparedness, especially for those who do not live in close proximity to a fire station. In response to a question about solutions to the overuse of emergency departments, some suggested that residents need to know what constitutes a medical emergency, and also where to call or go for non-emergencies. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 73 June 6, 2019 Some residents also indicated support for community integrated health care; in one focus group, the firehouse clinic operating in Hayward, CA, was suggested as a model (City of Hayward, 2015). The community envisioned it as “checking in” on those who otherwise would not go to a clinic. For example, seniors with whom we talked appreciated having access to a nurse practitioner at their senior housing facility several times per week. They observed that they checked their blood pressure and vision more often when this service was available. Also, the need to reach isolated and homebound community members was mentioned in more than one group. Health education was mentioned multiple times. Community key informants and residents suggested subjects such as youth mental health (for parents), adult caregiving, stroke risk and prevention, and falls prevention. Cultural competency and capacity of first responders were mentioned several times by community members. For example, one key informant recommended sending mental health specialists out with first responders (such as the Santa Clara County Behavioral Health pilot program). As mentioned earlier, training first responders on how to serve people of diverse cultures, gender identities, and languages is also important. In addition to the services that can be provided through an integrated community health care model, the community expressed the need for more services that are traditionally provided by other organizations such as nonprofit organizations or hospitals: • Home health care for seniors, including those of the middle class who can’t afford it • Phone buddy program for seniors • Discharge planning • Geriatric care managers • Social workers to serve those with depression and handling life transitions (e.g., moving to senior housing) • Telemedicine (e.g., using photographs to communicate with doctors) • Sobering station with the capacity to screen for mental health problems and substance abuse • Mental health services during non-traditional hours PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 74 June 6, 2019 Next Steps in Addressing Future Needs and Capacity To “engineer out” unplanned emergencies (i.e., EMS incidents) and understand what it will take to work together as a community to help address these risk factors and help prevent emergencies from occurring, Actionable Insights recommends a three-pronged approach: 1. PAFD conducts an internal resource assessment to assess its capacity to implement the recommended EMS strategies described above. Such an assessment, combined with this study of current needs, will serve as the foundation of a plan for a community integrated health model that best fits Palo Alto/Stanford. 2. PAFD convenes internal City of Palo Alto stakeholders and external stakeholders with a focus on prevention efforts in Palo Alto/Stanford. This includes discussion of those risk factors that have been identified through the work underlying this report. These discussions will include preliminary identification of community partnerships that might best help to minimize the need for emergency response by preventing emergencies from happening. Actionable Insights will meet with PAFD to review the results of the discussions. 3. Actionable Insights will then assist PAFD in developing a collective impact plan to prevent medical emergencies. A collective impact plan provides structure to collaborative efforts and recognizes the contribution of many different partners towards the same goals. This effort will bring stakeholders from the City of Palo Alto and other organizations together to plan how they will make collective impact in the years to come. Ideally, the collective impact group can also inform and even shape the integrated health model that PAFD plans to adopt. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 75 June 6, 2019 Appendix 1 Sources Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). (2016). Trained paramedics provide ongoing support to frequent 911 callers, reducing use of ambulance and emergency department services. Service Delivery Innovation Profile, February 21, 2016. Accessed February 5, 2017: http://www.innovations.ahrq.gov/content.aspx?id=3343. Arias, E. (2012). United States life tables, 2008. National Vital Statistics Reports, 61(3), September 24, 2012. Accessed June 6, 2017: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_03.pdf. Ayala, G. X. et al. (2010). Outcome effectiveness of the lay health advisor model among Latinos in the United States: an examination by role. Health Education Research, 25(5), 815–840, https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyq035. Bay Area Census. (2010). City of Palo Alto. Retrieved from: http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/cities/PaloAlto.htm. Begon, M., Harper, J. L., & Townsend, C. R. (1990). Ecology: individuals, populations and communities. 2nd ed. Blackwell Scientific Publications: Cambridge, MA. Begon, M., Mortimer, M., & Thompson, D. J. (1996). Population ecology: a unified study of animals and plants. 3rd ed. Blackwell Scientific Publications: Cambridge, MA. Bhadur, B. (2007). Population distribution during the day. Encyclopedia of GIS. Shekhar, S., & Xiong, H., eds. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC: New York. Bloemhoff, A., Schoonhoven, L., de Kreek, A. J. L., van Grunsven, P. M., Laurant, M. G. H., & Berben, S. A. A. (2016). Solo emergency care by a physician assistant versus an ambulance nurse: a cross-sectional document study. Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation, and Emergency Medicine, 24, 86. Boone, K. (2002). Lay health advisors reduce the cost of hospital expenditures for hypertension and diabetes. The 130th Annual Meeting of APHA. Presented November 12, 2002. Retrieved from: https://apha.confex.com/apha/130am/techprogram/paper_46783.htm. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016). Household data annual averages: 11b. Employed persons by detailed occupation and age. Accessed June 8, 2017: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11b.pdf. California Department of Finance (DOF). (2017). Projections, February 2017. Accessed May 20, 2017: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/projections/. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 76 June 6, 2019 California Department of Public Health EpiCenter (EPIC). (2013). CDPH Vital statistics death master files, CA Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (inpatient discharge data and emergency department data). Retrieved from: http://epicenter.cdph.ca.gov. Callard, J. (2012). Physician assistant provider in triage. Urgent Matters, The George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences. Accessed January 25, 2017: https://smhs.gwu.edu/urgentmatters/sites/urgentmatters/files/AAPAFeaturedTool2012.pdf. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). Promotores de salud / community health workers. Accessed December 15, 2017: https://www.cdc.gov/minorityhealth/promotores/index.html. Choi, B. Y., Blumberg, C., & Williams, K. (2016). Mobile integrated health care and community paramedicine: an emerging emergency medical services concept. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 67(3), 361-366. City of Arcadia. (2015). Paramedic Membership Program. Accessed July 23, 2017: https://www.arcadiaca.gov/government/city-departments/fire-department/paramedic- membership-program . See also Questions & Answers for Business Members (https://www.arcadiaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=1568). City of Fountain Valley. (2010). Fees & Subscription Program. Accessed July 23, 2017: http://www.fountainvalley.org/258/Fees-Subscription-Program. See also How the Paramedic Membership Program Works (http://www.fountainvalley.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1409) and Fountain Valley Fire Department Paramedic Membership Program (http://www.fountainvalley.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/277). City of Hayward. (2015). Hayward’s trailblazing “firehouse clinic” set to open. Retrieved from: https://www.hayward-ca.gov/discover/news/oct15/hayward%E2%80%99s-trailblazing- %E2%80%9Cfirehouse-clinic%E2%80%9D-set-open. City of Huntington Beach. (2017). FireMed Paramedic Subscription Program. Accessed July 23, 2017: http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/government/departments/fire/firemed/. See also FireMed FAQ (http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/government/departments/fire/FireMed/FireMedFAQ.cfm ) and FireMed Fact Sheet (http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/files/users/fire/firemed_fact_sheet_jun_2005.pdf). City of Palo Alto. (2013). City of Palo Alto city council staff report #4322, transportation survey 2013, dated December 9, 2013. Accessed April 21, 2017: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/38089. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 77 June 6, 2019 City of Palo Alto. (2014). Demographic analysis draft. City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation, dated September 2014. Accessed May 30, 2017: http://www.paloaltoparksplan.org/pdf/PTOSR-Demographic-Analysis-September2014.pdf. City of Palo Alto. (2017a). Project safety net. Retrieved from: www.psnpaloalto.com/psn- plan/implementation/. City of Palo Alto. (2017b). FY 2016 Performance Report, The National Citizen SurveyTM, and Citizen Centric Report: Attachment B, The 2016 National Citizen SurveyTM. Retrieved from: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55618. City of Palo Alto. (2017c). Comprehensive Plan Update Final EIR for the City of Palo Alto. Volume 1: Final EIR. Prepared by PlaceWorks in association with Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., MIG | TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc. August 30, 2017. Retrieved from: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/08/PaloAltoCompPlanFEIR_Aug2017.pdf. Coffman, J. & LaFrance, A. (2016). Mobile Integrated Health Care – Community Paramedicine: A Resource for Community-Dwelling People at Risk for Needing Long-Term Care. San Francisco, CA: UCSF Health Workforce Research Center. Accessed May 24, 2017: http://healthworkforce.ucsf.edu/sites/healthworkforce.ucsf.edu/files/REPORT_2016_Mobile_I ntegrated_HC_Paramedicine.pdf. Colby, S.L. & Ortman, J.M. (2015). Projections of the size and composition of the U.S. population: 2014 to 2060. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates and Projections, Current Population Reports, issued March 2015, P25-1143. Accessed April 25, 2017: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p25-1143.pdf. Community Commons (2017). Database. Retrieved from: https://www.communitycommons.org/. Cooper, M. (2016). Ohio fire, EMS department struggling with 911 call volume. Springfield News-Sun, March 30, 2016. Accessed January 25, 2017: https://www.ems1.com/ems- management/articles/76601048-Ohio-fire-EMS-department-struggling-with-911-call-volume/. CTV (2011). Community paramedics helping those on the fringes. CTV News, Monday, January 10, 2011. Accessed January 21, 2017: http://www.ctvnews.ca/community-paramedics-helping- those-on-the-fringes-1.594246. DataSF. (2017). Bay Area ZIP Codes. DataSF.org. Accessed June 6, 2017: https://data.sfgov.org/Geographic-Locations-and-Boundaries/Bay-Area-ZIP-Codes/u5j3- svi6/data. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 78 June 6, 2019 Do, L., Flores-Keown, B., Vu, A., & Warholak, T. (2016). Qualitative evaluation of the Rio Rico Fire Department Community Integrated Paramedic Program. Accessed January 30, 2017: http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/613964/2/Do,Flores- Keown,Vu2016.pdf. Farkas, R. (2016). Annual fee offers unlimited Shaler EMS ambulance trips. Tribune-Review. Accessed July 23, 2017: http://triblive.com/news/neighborhoods/northhills/10158151-74/ems- ambulance-shaler. Findley, S., Matos, S., Hicks, A., Chang, J., & Reich, D. (2014). Community health worker integration into the health care team accomplishes the triple aim in a patient-centered medical home: a Bronx tale. The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 37(1), 82-91. Flodgren, G., Rachas, A., Farmer, A. J., Inzitari, M., & Shepperd, S. (2015). Interactive telemedicine: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. The Cochrane Library. Accessed January 30, 2017: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gerd_Flodgren/publication/281588584_Interactive_tele medicine_effects_on_professional_practice_and_health_care_outcomes/links/57ac28ec08ae0 932c9725445.pdf Garcia-Williams, A. et al. (2016). Epi-Aid 2016-018: Undetermined risk factors for suicide among youth, ages 10–24 — Santa Clara County, CA. Report prepared for Santa Clara County Public Health Department. Retrieved from: http://www.sccgov.org. Gerber, M. (2015). How an EMS System in Reno, Nev., Watches Over Post-Discharge Patients to Avoid Costly Readmissions. Journal of Emergency Medical Services. March 23, 2015. Accessed May 24, 2017: http://www.jems.com/articles/print/volume-40/issue-3/features/how-ems- system-reno-nev-watches-over-pos.html. Goodwin, J. (2013). Finding a new seat at the healthcare table. EMS World, 42(7). Accessed January 23, 2017: http://www.emsworld.com/article/10957645/community-paramedicine- mobile-integrated-healthcare. Governing.com. (2017). Median age for U.S. counties map, statistics. Accessed December 7, 2017: http://www.governing.com/gov-data/census/median-age-county-population-map.html. Grabowski, D. C., & O’Malley, A. J. (2014). Use of telemedicine can reduce hospitalizations of nursing home residents and generate savings for Medicare. Health Affairs, 33(2), 244-250. Health Quality Ontario (2013). In-home care for optimizing chronic disease management in the community: an evidence-based analysis. Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series, 13(5), 1. Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) (2012). Community Paramedicine Evaluation Tool. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 79 June 6, 2019 Administration, Office of Rural Health Policy. Accessed January 21, 2017: https://www.hrsa.gov/ruralhealth/pdf/paramedicevaltool.pdf. Hennemann-Krause, L., Lopes, A. J., Araújo, J. A., Petersen, E. M., & Nunes, R. A. (2015). The assessment of telemedicine to support outpatient palliative care in advanced cancer. Palliative and Supportive Care, 13(04), 1025-1030. International Roundtable on Community Paramedicine (IRCP) (2017). IRCP vision and mission statements. Accessed January 21, 2017: http://ircp.info/About-Us. Keisling, P. (2015). Why we need to take the “fire” out of “fire department.” Governing, July 1, 2015. Accessed January 25, 2017: http://www.governing.com/columns/smart-mgmt/col-fire- departments-rethink-delivery-emergency-medical-services.html. Kizer, K., Shore, K., & Moulin, A. (2013). Community paramedicine: a promising model for integrating emergency and primary care. University of California eScholarship. UC Davis Previously Published Works. Accessed January 30, 2017: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8jq9c187. Krebs, C.J. (1985). Ecology: the experimental analysis of distribution and abundance. 3rd ed. Harper and Row: New York, NY. Kromer, B., & Howard, D. (2013). Labor force participation and work status of people 65 years and older. US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau. Accessed December 21, 2017: https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11- 09.pdf. Krumperman, K. (2010). History of Community Paramedicine. Journal of Emergency Medical Services. January 22, 2010. Accessed February 5, 2017: http://www.jems.com/articles/2010/06/history-community-paramedicine.html. Latham, L. P., & Ackroyd-Stolarz, S. (2014). Emergency department utilization by older adults: A descriptive study. Canadian Geriatrics Journal, 17(4), 118–125. http://doi.org/10.5770/cgj.17.108 Lattimer, V., George, S., Thompson, F., Thomas, E., Mullee, M., Turnbull, J., Smith, H., Moore, M., Bond, H., & Glasper, A. (1998). Safety and effectiveness of nurse telephone consultation in out of hours primary care: randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 317(7165), 1054-1059. Lattimer, V., Sassi, F., George, S., Moore, M., Turnbull, J., Mullee, M., & Smith, H. (2000). Cost analysis of nurse telephone consultation in out of hours primary care: evidence from a randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 320(7241), 1053-1057. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 80 June 6, 2019 Lee, J. (2017, March 3). CDC report: Youth suicide rates in Santa Clara County highest in Palo Alto, Morgan Hill. The Mercury News. Retrieved from: http://www.mercurynews.com. Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD). (2015). EMS calls increase nearly 13 percent from 2013- 2014. County of Los Angeles Fire Department. March 23, 2015. Accessed January 25, 2017: https://www.fire.lacounty.gov/ems-calls-increase-nearly-13-percent-2013-2014/. Luthern, A. (2014). As medical calls flow in, fire department paramedics respond. Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, September 24, 2014. Accessed January 25, 2017: http://archive.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/as-medical-calls-flow-in-fire-department- paramedics-respond-b99332685z1-276869941.html. McCorkle, R., Benoliel, J.Q., Donaldson, G., Georgiadou, F., Moinpour, C., Goodell, B. (1989). A randomized clinical trial of home nursing care for lung cancer patients. Cancer, 64: 1375-1382. McKenzie, B., Koerber, W., Fields, A., Benetsky, M., & Rapino, M. (2013). Commuter-adjusted population estimates: ACS 2006-2010. Accessed December 3, 2017: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working- papers/2013/acs/2013_McKenzie_02.pdf. MIHP Resource Center. (2014, September). AMR “PRIME Medic” CHF re-admission reduction program. Accessed January 30, 2017: http://mihpresources.com/programs/amr-prime- medicchf-re-admission-reduction-program/. Myers, B., Racht, E., Tan, D., & White, L. (2012). Mobile integrated healthcare practice: a healthcare delivery strategy to improve access, outcomes, and value. Accessed January 21, 2017: http://media.cygnus.com/files/cygnus/document/EMSR/2013/DEC/medtronic- download-12-9_11273203.pdf. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). (n.d.). Beyond 911: State and community strategies for expanding the primary care role of first responders. Accessed December 29, 2016: http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/expanding-the-primary-care-role-of-first-responder.aspx. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). (2016). News & research: Fire department calls. Updated September 2016. Accessed January 25, 2017: http://www.nfpa.org/news-and- research/fire-statistics-and-reports/fire-statistics/the-fire-service/fire-department-calls/fire- department-calls. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (1997). Alcohol alert. Retrieved from: https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa38.htm. National Organization of State Offices of Rural Health (NOSORH). (2010). Discussion paper on development of community paramedic programs. State Perspectives, December 2010, Joint Committee on Rural Emergency Care, National Association of State Emergency Medical Services PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 81 June 6, 2019 Officials, National Organization of State Offices of Rural Health. Accessed January 21, 2017: https://nosorh.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/State-Perspectives-Discussion-Paper-on- Development-of-Community-Paramedic-Programs.pdf. Nestler, D. M., Fratzke, A. R., Church, C. J., Scanlan-Hanson, L., Sadosty, A. T., Halasy, M. P., Finley, J.L., Boggust, A., Hess, E. P. (2012). Effect of a physician assistant as triage liaison provider on patient throughput in an academic emergency department.” Academic Emergency Medicine: Official Journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 19(11), 1235–1241. Patton, G. G., & Thakore, S. (2012). Reducing inappropriate emergency department attendances—a review of ambulance service attendances at a regional teaching hospital in Scotland. Emergency Medicine Journal, 30(6), 459-461. Pearson, K., & Shaler, G. (2015). Maine EMS Community Paramedicine Pilot Program Evaluation. Accessed July 23, 2017: https://www1.maine.gov/ems/documents/cp_muskie_report.pdf. Pennel, C. L., Tamayo, L., Wells, R., & Sunbury, T. (2016). Emergency medical service-based care coordination for three rural communities. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 27(4), 159-180. Pressman, H., & Schneider, J. (2009, August 17). Overcoming communication barriers in emergency situations. Patient Provider Communications. Accessed December 21, 2017: http://www.patientprovidercommunication.org/article_1.htm. Rocovich, C., & Patel, T. (2012). Emergency department visits: why adults choose the emergency room over a primary care physician visit during regular office hours? World Journal of Emergency Medicine, 3(2), 91. Rosin, H. (2015, December). The Silicon Valley suicides: Why are so many kids with bright prospects killing themselves in Palo Alto? The Atlantic. Retrieved from: http://www.theatlantic.com. Ruest, M., Stitchman, A., & Day, C. (2012). Evaluating the impact of 911 calls by an in-home programme with a multidisciplinary team. International Paramedic Practice, 1(4), 125-132. Santa Clara County Public Health Department (SCCPHD). (2014a). 2013-14 behavioral risk factor survey (BRFS) health status quick facts. Retrieved from: http://www.sccgov.org. Santa Clara County Public Health Department (SCCPHD). (2014b). African & African ancestry. Retrieved from: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/opa/nr/Documents/AFRICAN%20ANCESTRY%20REPORT.pdf. Santa Clara County Public Health Department (SCCPHD). (2014c). Partners for health Santa Clara County 2015-2020: Community health assessment Community health improvement plan. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 82 June 6, 2019 Retrieved from: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/phd/collab/chip/Documents/cha-chip/cha- chip.pdf. Santa Clara County Public Health Department (SCCPHD). (2016). Neighborhood profiles. Retrieved from: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/sccphd/en-us/Partners/Data/Pages/San- Jose.aspx. Scott, J., Strickland, A. P., Warner, K., & Dawson, P. (2014). Frequent callers to and users of emergency medical systems: a systematic review. Emergency Medicine Journal, 31(8), 684-691. Seow, H., Brazil, K., Sussman, J., Pereira, J., Marshall, D., Austin, P. C., Husain, A., Rangrej, J., & Barbera, L. (2014). Impact of community based, specialist palliative care teams on hospitalisations and emergency department visits late in life and hospital deaths: a pooled analysis. BMJ, 348, g3496. Skinner, H.G., Blanchard, J. & Elixhauser, A. (2014). Trends in emergency department visits, 2006-2011. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Statistical Brief #179. September 2014. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. Accessed January 23, 2017: https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb179-Emergency-Department-Trends.pdf. Snohomish Co. Fire District 1. (2017). Community Paramedic. Accessed July 23, 2017: http://www.firedistrict1.org/our-services/ems/community-paramedic. Stanford Health Care. (2016.) Community Health Needs Assessment. Retrieved from: https://stanfordhealthcare.org/content/dam/SHC/about-us/public-services-and-community- partnerships/docs/FINAL-SHC-2016-CHNA-with-attachments.pdf. Stanford University. (2016). Stanford University 2018 general use permit application, transmitted November 21, 2016. Accessed December 13, 2016: https://gup.stanford.edu/the- project/2018-gup-application. Tadros, A. S., Castillo, E. M., Chan, T. C., Jensen, A. M., Patel, E., Watts, K., & Dunford, J. V. (2012). Effects of an emergency medical services-based resource access program on frequent users of health services. Prehospital Emergency Care, 16(4), 541-547. Thorp, V. (2014). Palo Alto finances – Where does the money come from and where does it go? Palo Alto Pulse, November 1, 2014. Accessed April 26, 2017: http://www.paloaltopulse.com/2014/11/01/pulse-asks-city-of-palo-alto-finances-where-does- the-money-come-from-and-where-does-it-go/. Tindall, S.C. (1990). Level of consciousness. In Clinical Methods: The History, Physical, and Laboratory Examinations. 3rd edition, Ch. 57. Walker, H.K., Hall, W.D., & Hurst, J.W., editors. Butterworth Publishers: Boston, MA. Accessed May 26, 2017: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK380/. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 83 June 6, 2019 U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). Commuting (Journey to Work). Retrieved from: https://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/data/calculations.html. U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). Selected demographic estimates, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. U.S. Census Bureau. (2015). Selected demographic estimates, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (2017). National center for veterans analysis and statistics [database]. Retrieved from: https://www.va.gov/vetdata/. University of California Center for Health Policy Research. 2012. California Health interview survey (CHIS). 2011-12. Walsh, M., & Little, S. (2001). Study of a nurse practitioner working in a paramedic role. Emergency Nurse: The Journal of the RCN Accident and Emergency Nursing Association, 9(6), 11-14. Wang, H. (2011). Community paramedicine. Accessed January 21, 2017: http://communityparamedic.ca/site/media/download_gallery/comm%20paramed.pdf. Western Eagle County Ambulance District (WECAD) (2011). Community Paramedic Program Handbook. Western Eagle County Health Services District, Version 1.2 (Fall 2011). Retrieved from: http://communityparamedic.org/Program-Handbook. Whitley, E. M. & Everhart, R. M. & Wright, R. A. (2006). Measuring return on investment of outreach by Community Health Workers. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 17(1), 6-15. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/hpu.2006.0015. Widiatmoko, D., Machen, I., Dickinson, A., Williams, J., & Kendall, S. (2008). Developing a new response to non-urgent emergency calls: Evaluation of a nurse and paramedic partnership intervention. Primary Health Care Research & Development, 9(3), 183-190. Zarchi, K., Haugaard, V. B., Dufour, D. N., & Jemec, G. B. (2015). Expert advice provided through telemedicine improves healing of chronic wounds: prospective cluster controlled study. The Journal of investigative dermatology, 135(3), 895. Zavadsky, M., Hagen, T., Hinchey, P., McGinnis, K., Bourn, S., & Myers, B. (2015). Mobile Integrated Healthcare and Community Paramedicine (MIH-CP). National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians. Accessed January 30, 2017: PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 84 June 6, 2019 https://www.naemt.org/docs/default-source/community-paramedicine/naemt-mih-cp- report.pdf?sfvrsn=4. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 85 June 6, 2019 Appendix 2 Methods After consultation with several statistical experts (Kristi Kelly, Ph.D., personal communication, May 10, 2016; Professor Stefanie Bailey Möllborn, Ph.D., personal communication, November 28, 2016; Christina Branom, Ph.D., personal communication, February 17, 2017), Actionable Insights determined that the most appropriate method for predicting future unit call volume/type and proportion of emergency medical interactions by age group, gender, incident location, and/or primary impression was a modified life table approach. This is a population ecology approach used to describe a current population and predict future growth or decline (see, for example, Begon et al. 1990; Begon et al. 1996; Krebs, 1985). The U.S. Centers for Disease Control calls this a period life table approach (Arias, 2012). We use a snapshot of the years 2015/2016 and assume that the cohort of individuals alive at that time in the combined Palo Alto/Stanford jurisdiction, plus the expected increase in individuals in the jurisdiction over the next 15 years, will be subject (proportionally) to the age-specific call/patient volumes, call types, locations, and primary impressions that prevailed for the actual population in 2015/2016. The greatest factor that would affect construction of period life tables for 2030 is the expected increase in the older population in the City of Palo Alto. Based on a preliminary analysis of the ESO data, a simple linear regression in which we predict number of medical emergency patients by patient age in combined years 2015 and 2016 shows that the relationship of the number of patients by patient age is positive (1.033) and statistically significant (p < 0.001). That is, there are more older individuals represented in the ESO dataset than younger individuals, to a statistically significant degree. This supports the hypothesis that older individuals are more likely than younger individuals to have a medical emergency in the combined Palo Alto/Stanford jurisdiction. After predicting expected 2030 call volume by call type, medical emergency call/patient volume by age group, and patient volume by location and primary impression, we adjusted medical emergency predictions based on CA DOF (2017) age projections. More information about this process may be found in Appendices 4 and 5. We provide separate predictions for the City of Palo Alto and for Stanford.43 Another factor one would expect to affect construction of period life tables for 2030 is gender. While gender is associated with number of medical emergency (ME) patients overall (with females somewhat more likely to be an ME patient than males), the gender composition of the combined Palo Alto/Stanford jurisdiction is not expected to change significantly within the next 15 years (see footnote 9). Thus, we did not take gender into account in generating the period 43 Note that we do not apply these age adjustments to Stanford’s daytime population due to the lack of granularity in age-range data for Stanford employees. See Appendix 5 for more information. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 86 June 6, 2019 life tables predicting call type, call/patient volume, or call/patient volume by location or primary impression in 2030. Although it is possible that the proportions of the population of the various ZIP Code areas in the combined Palo Alto/Stanford jurisdiction may change within the next 15 years, no data were available to address population change in such a fine-grained way (i.e., by ZIP Code). Therefore, we did not develop period life tables predicting patient volume in 2030 by ZIP Code of interaction. Finally, we provide call/patient volume and call type projections both overall, and separately for daytime and nighttime. As suggested by Bhadur (2007), daytime and nighttime populations are fundamentally different, with daytime population including workers, tourists, and business travelers, as well as the residual nighttime resident population that does not leave the area during the day. For PAFD’s purposes, it is important to predict year 2030 call/patient volume and call type, as well as ME patient volume by location and primary impression, based on these two very different daytime and nighttime populations. Again, we provide separate predictions for the City of Palo Alto and for Stanford. Further information on how these populations were constructed is available in Appendices 4-5. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 87 June 6, 2019 Appendix 3 Mapping of Primary Impressions to Categories Table 8, Total Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Primary Impression by Year: Percentage and Number44 Primary Impression Category # of Patients in 2015 # of Patients in 2016 Abdominal Pain Abdominal Discomfort < 1% 1.1% (59) Abdominal Pain/Discomfort Abdominal Discomfort < 1% None Abdominal Pain/Problems Abdominal Discomfort 6.4% (342) 5.6% (301) Acute Appendicitis Abdominal Discomfort None < 1% Acute Bronchitis Respiratory- Related Issues None < 1% Acute Respiratory Distress Respiratory- Related Issues < 1% < 1% Acute Respiratory Distress (Dyspnea) Respiratory- Related Issues None < 1% Airway Obstruction Respiratory- Related Issues < 1% < 1% Alcohol Behavioral Health Issues < 1% None Alcohol Use Behavioral Health Issues < 1% < 1% Allergic Reaction All Other 1.7% (89) 1.8% (100) Altered Level of Consciousness Altered Level of Consciousness 8.3% (443) 6.8% (364) Altered Mental Status Altered Level of Consciousness < 1% < 1% Asthma Respiratory- Related Issues < 1% < 1% Back Pain Non-Specific Pain < 1% < 1% Behavioral/Psychiatric Disorder Behavioral Health Issues 1.9% (103) 2.5% (135) 44 City of Palo Alto and Stanford only. A total of 234 cases across the two years (<3%) are from other ZIP Codes. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 88 June 6, 2019 Bowel Obstruction Abdominal Discomfort < 1% < 1% Cardiac Arrest Cardiac-Related Issues < 1% < 1% Cardiac Arrhythmia/Dysrhythmia Cardiac-Related Issues < 1% < 1% Cardiac-Related Issues Cardiac-Related Issues < 1% < 1% Cardiac Rhythm Disturbance Cardiac-Related Issues 1.8% (99) 1.4% (74) Chest Pain/Discomfort Cardiac-Related Issues 5.7% (309) 5.6% (301) Chest Pain, Other (Non-Cardiac) Non-Specific Pain None < 1% CHF (Congestive Heart Failure) Cardiac-Related Issues < 1% < 1% Common Cold Respiratory- Related Issues < 1% < 1% Concussion Injury/ Hemorrhage None < 1% Confusion/Delirium Altered Level of Consciousness None < 1% Constipation Abdominal Discomfort None < 1% Contact with Venomous Animal All Other < 1% None Dehydration Altered Level of Consciousness < 1% < 1% Diabetic Hyperglycemia Altered Level of Consciousness < 1% < 1% Diabetic Hypoglycemia Altered Level of Consciousness < 1% < 1% Diabetic Symptoms Altered Level of Consciousness < 1% < 1% Diarrhea Abdominal Discomfort < 1% < 1% Electrocution All Other < 1% < 1% Epistaxis Injury/ Hemorrhage < 1% < 1% Esophageal Obstruction Respiratory- Related Issues None < 1% Eye Pain Non-Specific Pain None < 1% PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 89 June 6, 2019 Fatigue Altered Level of Consciousness None < 1% Fever All Other < 1% < 1% Foreign Body in Alimentary Tract Abdominal Discomfort None < 1% Foreign Body in Ear All Other None < 1% Foreign Body in Respiratory Tract Respiratory- Related Issues None < 1% G.I. Bleed Injury/ Hemorrhage < 1% < 1% Gastro-esophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) Abdominal Discomfort None < 1% Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage Injury/ Hemorrhage < 1% < 1% Generalized Weakness Altered Level of Consciousness 7.3% (390) 8.5% (458) Hallucinogen-Related Disorders Behavioral Health Issues None < 1% Headache Non-Specific Pain 1.0% (53) 1.0% (51) Hemorrhage Injury/ Hemorrhage < 1% < 1% Hypertension Cardiac-Related Issues < 1% 1.2% (64) Hyperthermia Altered Level of Consciousness < 1% < 1% Hyperventilation Respiratory- Related Issues None < 1% Hypotension Cardiac-Related Issues < 1% < 1% Hypothermia Altered Level of Consciousness < 1% < 1% Hypovolemia Cardiac-Related Issues None < 1% Hypovolemia/Shock Cardiac-Related Issues < 1% < 1% Influenza Respiratory- Related Issues < 1% < 1% Inhalation Injury (Toxic Gas) Respiratory- Related Issues < 1% < 1% Injury Injury/ Hemorrhage 2.1% (112) 3.1% (169) PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 90 June 6, 2019 Injury of Head Injury/ Hemorrhage None < 1% Injury of Lower Back Injury/ Hemorrhage < 1% < 1% Injury of Pelvis Injury/ Hemorrhage None < 1% Injury of Thorax (Upper Chest) Injury/ Hemorrhage None < 1% Malaise Altered Level of Consciousness < 1% < 1% Mental Disorder Behavioral Health Issues < 1% < 1% Migraine Non-Specific Pain < 1% < 1% Nausea Abdominal Discomfort < 1% < 1% Obvious Death All Other < 1% < 1% Opioid-Related Disorders Behavioral Health Issues None < 1% Other Stimulant-Related Disorders Behavioral Health Issues None < 1% Pain (Non-Traumatic) Non-Specific Pain 7.4% (392) 6.7% (360) Pelvic and Perineal Pain Non-Specific Pain < 1% < 1% Pneumothorax Respiratory- Related Issues None < 1% Poisoning/Drug Ingestion Behavioral Health Issues 1.3% (68) 1.2% (64) Pregnancy/OB Delivery All Other < 1% < 1% Pregnancy-Related Conditions All Other None < 1% Pulmonary Edema, Acute Respiratory- Related Issues None < 1% Pulmonary Embolism Respiratory- Related Issues None < 1% Renal Failure All Other < 1% < 1% Respiratory Arrest Respiratory- Related Issues < 1% < 1% Respiratory Distress Respiratory- Related Issues 4.6% (246) 4.3% (230) PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 91 June 6, 2019 Respiratory Failure Respiratory- Related Issues None < 1% Respiratory-Related Issues Respiratory- Related Issues < 1% < 1% Seizure(s) Altered Level of Consciousness 2.3% (126) 2.6% (145) Seizures Without Status Epilepticus Altered Level of Consciousness None < 1% Sepsis/Septicemia Altered Level of Consciousness < 1% < 1% Sexual Assault/Rape All Other None < 1% Smoke Inhalation Respiratory- Related Issues None < 1% Stings/Venomous Bites All Other < 1% < 1% Stroke Altered Level of Consciousness < 1% < 1% Stroke/Cerebrovascular Accident (CVA) Altered Level of Consciousness 2.3% (126) 2.1% (110) Substance/Drug Abuse Behavioral Health Issues 1.2% (66) < 1% Syncope/Fainting Altered Level of Consciousness 6.1% (327) 5.9% (316) Transient Cerebral Ischemic Attack (TIA) Altered Level of Consciousness < 1% < 1% Trauma Injury/ Hemorrhage < 1% None Traumatic Circulatory Arrest Cardiac-Related Issues < 1% < 1% Traumatic Injury Injury/ Hemorrhage 21.4% (1,147) 17.9% (962) Vaginal Hemorrhage Injury/ Hemorrhage < 1% < 1% Vertigo Altered Level of Consciousness < 1% < 1% Visual Disturbance All Other < 1% < 1% Vomiting Abdominal Discomfort < 1% < 1% No Complaints or Injury/Illness Noted No Complaints 2.9% (154) 2.5% (140) “Everything Else” All Other 1.7% (89) 1.2% (67) PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 92 June 6, 2019 Missing Missing 1.7% (92) 2.3% (123) TOTAL 5,362 5,365 Source: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: ESO unduplicated data 2015/2016. Notes: Primary impressions with more than zero but less than 50 patients are marked as “< 1%” to preserve patient confidentiality. Rounding of averages or predictions may cause minor differences in totals. Primary impression categories developed in consultation with Mary Vizzi, R.N. (ret.), personal communication, May 27, 2017, August 3, 2017). PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 93 June 6, 2019 Appendix 4 Call/Patient Volume and Call Type Predictions Call volume and call type predictions for 2030 are based on calendar years 2015 and 2016 data from the computer aided dispatch records system (CAD). We averaged the call counts across years 2015 and 2016 to generate an annual average before making the prediction calculations, in order to base them on more stable figures. Data are broken into daytime and nighttime calls by city; based on discussions with PAFD’s Strategic Operations Manager, daytime is considered to be 8:00 a.m. to 7:59 p.m., and nighttime is considered to be 8:00 p.m. to 7:59 a.m. (Amber Cameron, personal communication, March 18, 2017). The time indicator used was the time of dispatch. Each call type/call volume prediction is based on the proportion of such calls in 2015/2016 to the total daytime or nighttime population in that city in 2014 (see Appendix 5 for a further description of the calculation of current daytime and nighttime city populations and the rationale for using 2014 population with 2015/2016 calls), and increased proportionate to the projected 2030 total daytime or nighttime population for each city. Call type/volume predictions for the City of Palo Alto are made for the low and high end of the preferred scenario (see main text, Table 3), as well as for Stanford alone (not applying the City of Palo Alto preferred scenario). In order to show the difference between the CAD data and the ESO data, medical emergency call type predictions for 2030 were generated for both datasets. Note that we used ESO data for City of Palo Alto and Stanford ZIP Codes only, in order to align more closely with CAD data (which were only provided for the two cities). The advantage of the ESO data was that patients’ ages were made available in the ESO dataset, and age is considered a primary factor in predicting future medical emergency patient volume. As with the CAD data, we averaged annual patient counts in the ESO dataset across years 2015 and 2016 to obtain more stable figures. As described elsewhere in this report, we assigned age to one of 13 groups, to align with U.S. Census Bureau ACS age categories. To generate the medical emergency patient volume predictions, we first generated from the ESO dataset average patient counts for each city by age group and by daytime versus nighttime. Then, for daytime and nighttime populations separately, these average medical emergency patient counts were then divided by the number of individuals in the population who were of that age group, to obtain a ratio of medical emergency patients for each age group. Having the average ESO medical emergency patient counts by age, we were able to apply these to the CAD data by dividing each average ESO medical emergency age group count by the total average ESO medical emergency count and then multiplying by the total average CAD medical emergency calls to obtain estimated average counts and ratios by age group for CAD medical emergency calls. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 94 June 6, 2019 These two sets of medical emergency ratios, ESO and CAD, were then applied to the projected 2030 populations, by city, age group, and time of day, to generate predicted counts of 2030 medical emergency patients and 2030 medical emergency calls. Note that for Stanford, the age adjustments described in this paragraph were applied only to the nighttime population, as the data for the daytime population were not granular enough to determine age ranges for Stanford employees. Information on how the 2030 populations were obtained, including more information on the lack of age-range granularity for Stanford’s data, may be found in Appendix 5. For example, there were an estimated 2,066 individuals age 25-34 in the Stanford nighttime population in 2014, and an average of 41 medical emergency patients in the 2015/2016 EMS dataset for individuals age 25-34 that were found in Stanford ZIP Codes 94305 or 94309 between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. The medical emergency patient ratio for Stanford residents aged 25-34 during the nighttime was thus 0.02 (41 divided by 2,066). PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 95 June 6, 2019 Appendix 5 Population Figures by Age – Current and Predicted Current Figures, Including Populations by Age City of Palo Alto In all cases, “current” figures are 2014 actuals or estimates, to align with the 2014 baseline figures used for the six City of Palo Alto 2030 scenarios.45 To obtain current City of Palo Alto resident figures, we began with the total 2014 base population for the City of Palo Alto (see main text, Table 3, Summary of City of Palo Alto EIR Preferred Scenario, note 3). We applied to this base number the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2010-2014 percentages of the City of Palo Alto’s residents by age. To obtain current City of Palo Alto nightly (overnight) visitor figures (a conservative estimate of tourists and business travelers), we began with the dollar amount of Transient Occupancy Tax (i.e., hotel tax) reported in 2014 ($14 million), the 12% tax rate at the time, and the average room rate of $202 per night (Thorp, 2014). Dividing $14 million by 12% of $202, then dividing by 365, gave us an estimate of 1,582 occupied rooms per night. We used a conservative estimate of one person per room, giving us an estimated 1,582 overnight visitors in the City of Palo Alto during each 24-hour period.46 We applied to this base number the U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2010-14 percentages of U.S. residents by age.47 To obtain current City of Palo Alto daily visitor figures (i.e., shoppers and others making non- work-related day-trips to Palo Alto), we contacted the City of Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, which estimated approximately 300,000 visitors in the year 2016 (Dawn Billman, personal conversation, March 26, 2017).48 We estimated the total population of the City of Palo Alto in 2016 based on the net increase between the 2014 and 2015 City of Palo Alto populations as provided by the U.S. Census Bureau (2014; 2015),49 then adjusted downward the estimated 45 PAFD’s CAD and ESO data systems were not implemented until March of 2014, and confidence by PAFD in the 2014 CAD and ESO data quality was not as strong as in the 2015 and 2016 data (Amber Cameron, Judy Maloney, & Kim Roderick, personal communication, December 6, 2016); thus, we received 2015/2016 data and employed averages from the 2015 and 2016 combined datasets to obtain more stable statistics related to call volume, call type, and medical emergency interactions in connection with the 2014 population figures. 46 We realize that there are informal options for overnight guests (e.g., staying with friends/relatives, using AirBnB or other services not formally subject to the hotel tax); again, this is a conservative estimate of overnight visitors to the City of Palo Alto. 47 While it is likely that some visitors are from outside the U.S., we could not estimate what proportion of total visitors these might be, and therefore applied only U.S. age percentages. Note that visitors are a very small proportion of total population numbers. 48 While we attempted to obtain shopper statistics from Stanford Shopping Center (located within the boundaries of the City of Palo Alto), the local mall management office claimed it did not track such figures and its Chicag0-based headquarters (Simon Property Group) did not respond to requests for information. 49 Note that 2016 population estimates were not yet available at the time of these analyses. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 96 June 6, 2019 2016 annual number of visitors using the total 2014 base population for the City of Palo Alto (see main text, Table 3, note 3). We applied to this base number the U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2010-14 percentages of U.S. residents by age.47 Stanford To obtain current Stanford resident figures, we employed the U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2010- 2014 estimates and applied percentages of Stanford residents by age from the same source. To obtain current Stanford daily visitor figures (i.e., tourists and others making non-work day- trips to Stanford), we contacted Stanford University’s Visitor Center, which estimated approximately 150,000 visitors in the year 2016 (D.J. Dull-MacKenzie, personal conversation, April 26, 2017). We estimated the total population of Stanford in 2016 based on one quarter of the difference between the 2015 and 2018 estimated Stanford resident populations as provided by the Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit Application (GUP) (Stanford University, 2016), then adjusted downward the estimated 2016 annual number of visitors using the U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2010-2014 population for Stanford. We applied to this base number the U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2010-14 percentages of U.S. residents by age.47,50 Year 2030 Predictions, Including Predictions by Age City of Palo Alto Nighttime Population • To predict 2030 City of Palo Alto residents, we took the 2014 base population as provided in Table 3, note 3, and added to it, for both ends of the preferred scenario range, the predicted net change in population indicated in the City of Palo Alto scenario (Table 3). • To predict 2030 City of Palo Alto overnight visitors, we took the 2014 overnight visitors estimate and adjusted it upward by applying, to the 2014 estimate, the ratios of the 2014 base population to the projected 2030 resident population figures associated with both ends of the range of the preferred scenario (2030 projected resident population figures calculated as described in the bullet above). We applied to the low- and high-end estimates of the City of Palo Alto resident scenario CA DOF projected 2030 percentages of San Mateo County residents by age (CA DOF, 2017). Although the City of Palo Alto is technically in Santa Clara County, it is just south of the San Mateo County line; we use San Mateo County 2030 projected age percentages because (a) neither the DOF nor any other agency provides age projections by city (Stephen Levy, personal communication, December 14, 2016), and (b) the latest available population age distribution of the City of Palo 50 There are no hotels within the city limits of Stanford, no record of the number of informal overnight guests on the campus/within the city limits, and no clear way to determine this number; thus, we did not estimate figures for overnight visitors to Stanford. Note that daytime visitors are a very small proportion of total population numbers, and it might be expected that nighttime visitors are similarly a small proportion compared to the total population. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 97 June 6, 2019 Alto was more like the population age distribution of San Mateo County than it was like the population age distribution of Santa Clara County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). For overnight visitors to the City of Palo Alto, we applied to the various 2030 estimates U.S. Census 2030 projections of percentages of U.S. residents by age (Colby & Ortman, 2015).47 City of Palo Alto nighttime population estimates by age thus comprise age-adjusted numbers of residents and overnight visitors for the low and high ends of the 2030 preferred resident scenario. City of Palo Alto Daytime Population • To predict 2030 City of Palo Alto residents, we took the 2014 base population from Table 3, note 3, and added to it, for both ends of the preferred scenario, the predicted net change in population indicated Table 3. • To predict 2030 City of Palo Alto jobs, we took the 2014 base number of jobs as provided in Table 3, note 3, and added to it, for both ends of the preferred scenario, the predicted net change in jobs indicated in Table 3. • The figures for predicted 2030 Palo Alto employed residents in both ends of the preferred scenario were derived by taking the predicted number of jobs and dividing them by the “Jobs/Employed Residents” ratio from Table 3. • Finally, using the U.S. Census Bureau’s “Method #2” for calculating daytime population estimates (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013; see also McKenzie et al., 2013), for both ends of the 2030 City of Palo Alto preferred scenario we then took the total predicted resident population, plus the total predicted workers working in the city51, minus the total predicted workers living in the city.52 This provided estimated daytime populations for the low and high ends of the preferred 2030 scenario but did not include visitors. • To predict 2030 City of Palo Alto daytime visitors, we took the 2014 daytime visitors estimate and adjusted it upward by applying to the 2014 estimate the ratios of the base 2014 population to the projected resident population figures for both ends of the2030 scenario (calculated as described above). 51 McKenzie et al. state that “The total number of workers working in an area includes all workers who indicate a specified area as their place of work regardless of where they live” (2013:3). While we do not have the total number of predicted workers who work in the city (such projections are not available on the city level, per Stephen Levy, personal communication, December 14, 2016), we do have the total number of projected jobs in the city. For purposes of this analysis, we use total projected jobs in the city as a proxy for total predicted workers working in the city. 52 McKenzie et al. state that “The total workers living in a specified geography is defined as the number of workers who are also residents. This estimate does not reflect location of work” (2013:3); predicted workers living in the city thus equate to predicted employed residents as provided by the City of Palo Alto, 2017c (see Table 3). PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 98 June 6, 2019 We expect that overnight visitors to the City of Palo Alto also enjoy the City of Palo Alto during the day. Thus, the total estimated daytime populations for low and high ends of the 2030 preferred scenario included both daytime visitors and overnight visitors to the City of Palo Alto. For daytime and overnight visitors to the City of Palo Alto, we applied to the various 2030 estimates U.S. Census Bureau 2030 projections of percentages of U.S. residents by age (Colby & Ortman, 2015).47 To predict the City of Palo Alto’s daytime population by age: • We retained 39% of the predicted City of Palo Alto employed residents aged 20-64,53 using the proportion of employed respondents who reported that they lived and worked locally, based on the City of Palo Alto Transportation Survey (City of Palo Alto, 2013).54 We treated the remaining proportion of employed residents as out-commuters. • We calculated in-commuters to the City of Palo Alto based on the remaining predicted number of jobs, using the proportions of the working population (aged 20-64) in the top three counties identified as City of Palo Alto in-commuters in the Transportation Survey (City of Palo Alto, 2013): Santa Clara County (39%), San Mateo County (27%), and Alameda County (15%). We attributed the rest (“Other”) to California generally (19%). • We then had four sets of in-commuters for both ends of the 2030 City of Palo Alto preferred scenario (three counties and California generally). For each set of predicted in- commuters, we applied that county’s projected 2030 percentages of residents by age for the working population (aged 20-64) only, using California state projected percentages by age for the set not representing a specific county (CA DOF, 2017 for counties and state). Therefore, the overall City of Palo Alto 2030 daytime population estimates by age for the low and high ends of the preferred scenario include both remaining residents and expected in- commuters, as well as daytime and overnight visitors, all age-adjusted. Stanford Nighttime Population The GUP provides, in its Tab 5.5 (reproduced below in Table 9), projections of the Stanford resident population for the years 2015 and 2035 (Stanford University, 2016). We calculated the 2030 Stanford resident population by taking the average increase per year between 2018 and 53 The vast majority of the U.S. labor force is aged 20-64 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016). Even though labor force participation among those aged 65 and older has been increasing due to longer life spans and financial obligations (Kromer & Howard, 2013), we remain conservative in our predictions and use age groups 20-64 to represent the working population in the City of Palo Alto. 54 We note that 39% is consistent with prior reports of Palo Alto residents who work where they live (e.g., this figure was 36% in the 2000 U.S. Census; see Bay Area Census, 2010). PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 99 June 6, 2019 2035, and subtracting 5 years’ worth of that average from the 2035 estimates. The estimated 2030 resident population is equal to the estimated 2030 nighttime population for Stanford.50 For Stanford, dramatic change was not expected by age category for residents, given that most of the residents are students, who are generally likely to be from certain age groups. For age ranges in both current and 2030 Stanford nighttime population projections, we used the U.S. Census Bureau’s estimates of Stanford’s 2014 resident (nighttime) population proportions by age.55 Stanford nighttime population estimates by age are thus comprised of predicted, age-adjusted 2030 residents only. Stanford Daytime Population To obtain the predicted 2030 daytime population: • Daytime Resident, Student, and Worker Population: o Overall: The GUP (Stanford University, 2016) provides in its Tab 8 estimates of the daytime population, including both workers and students, for the years 2018 and 2035. These estimates are reproduced below in Table 10. We calculated the 2030 Stanford daytime population by taking the average increase per year between 2018 and 2035, and subtracting 5 years’ worth of that average from the 2035 estimates. We added graduate students’ non-student spouses and faculty/staff “other family members” in the same proportions, and added in children of graduate students (a number that is not projected to change between 2018 and 2035, based on Tab 5.5 of the GUP; see Table 9). o By age: The GUP (Stanford University, 2016) data and estimates are not provided at a granular-enough level to determine commute (i.e., daytime) population ages, despite requests for the same.56 Use of age groups from other geographies (e.g., Santa Clara County, the City of Palo Alto) as proxies for Stanford’s daytime population is inappropriate because Stanford is not like these other areas; it has a much larger young-adult population due to its university. After considerable effort and discussions with PAFD, it was decided that Stanford’s daytime population would not be estimated by age group. Because we do not have granular-enough data on the current Stanford daytime population by age, we cannot predict how many working-age adults will stay on the campus and how 55 We used 2014 rather than 2015 data for Stanford because all City of Palo Alto “current” data and the six 2030 scenarios are also based on 2014 figures; this allows for comparisons between Stanford and the City of Palo Alto if desired. 56 Note that a request for age-related information about the Stanford daytime population was made to the authors of the GUP. The request netted some additional information from Stanford University’s Human Resources department, but the information provided was still not enough to allow us to determine age groups for Stanford’s daytime population. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 100 June 6, 2019 many will out-commute, so we treat them all as staying. This means our analysis uses a slightly more liberal estimate of Stanford’s daytime population than might otherwise be generated. • Daytime Visitors: To predict 2030 Stanford daytime visitors, we took the 2014 Stanford daytime visitors estimate and adjusted it upward by applying to the 2014 estimate the ration of the 2014 resident population to the projected 2030 resident population figure. Together, these figures provided the estimated 2030 daytime population for Stanford. Table 9, Stanford Projected Growth in Academic Year Residential Population Through 2035 (from Stanford GUP Tab 5.5) Affiliation Fall 2015 On- Campus Residential Population Housing Units/ Student Beds Added by Fall 2018 and Resulting Residential Population in 2018 Housing Units/ Student Beds Added by Fall 2020 and Resulting Residential Population in 2020 Housing Units/ Student Beds Added under 2018 General Use Permit and Resulting Residential Population in 2035 Undergraduates 6,401 existing beds occupied 216 beds added at Lagunita 0 beds added 1,700 beds added 6,401 undergraduate students living on campus 6,617 undergraduate students living on campus 6,617 undergraduate students living on campus 8,317 undergraduate students living on campus Graduate Students, including Ph.D.s (see note below) 4,892 existing beds occupied 200 beds added at Highland Hall 2,020 beds added at EVGR 900 beds added 5,001 graduate students living on campus plus 644 non-student spouses and 420 children 5,205 graduate students living on campus plus 660 non-student spouses and 420 children 7,265 graduate students living on campus plus 822 non-student spouses and 420 children 8,183 graduate students plus 894 non-student spouses and 420 children Postdoctoral Scholars 28 existing beds occupied 0 units added 0 units added N/A – included with faculty/staff 28 postdocs living on campus 28 postdocs living on campus 28 postdocs living on campus Faculty/Staff 937 existing faculty/staff housing units built 0 units added 0 units added 550 units added 937 faculty/staff living on campus plus 1,471 other family members 937 faculty/staff living on campus plus 1,471 other family members 937 faculty/staff living on campus plus 1,471 other family members 1,515 faculty/staff/ postdocs living on campus plus 2,335 other family members Total 14,902 15,338 17,560 21,664 Source: Reproduced from Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit (Stanford University, 2016), Tab 5, Table 3. Original source: Stanford University Land Use and Environmental Planning Office, in consultation with Stanford University Residential and Dining Enterprises. Original note: Increases in units/beds are not one-to-one increases except with regard to undergraduates. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 101 June 6, 2019 Table 10, Stanford Projected Growth in Worker Population Through 2035 (from Stanford GUP Tab 8) Population Fall 2015 Fall 2015 to Fall 2018 Fall 2018 to Fall 20201 Fall 2018 to Fall 2035 Total Increase Total Increase Total Increase Total Students Undergraduate Students 6,994 91 7,085 0 7,085 1,700 8,785 Graduate Students 9,196 332 9,528 0 9,528 1,200 10,728 Total Students 16,190 423 16,613 0 16,613 2,900 19,513 Stanford Faculty & Staff Faculty 2,959 114 3,073 0 3,073 789 3,862 Staff 8,612 373 8,985 0 8,985 2,438 11,423 Postdoctoral Scholars 2,264 139 2,403 0 2,403 961 3,364 Total Faculty/Staff 13,835 626 14,461 0 14,461 4,188 18,649 Stanford Other Workers Casual 2,080 87 2,167 0 2,167 579 2,746 Contingent 980 41 1,021 0 1,021 273 1,294 Temporary 1,390 58 1,448 0 1,448 387 1,835 Non-Employee Affiliates (Including Non-Matriculated Students) 2,636 111 2,747 0 2,747 733 3,480 Total Stanford Other Workers 7,086 297 7,383 0 7,383 1,971ǂ 9,354 Non-Stanford Workers Third Party Contractors 300 24 324 0 324 72 396 Janitorial Shift Contractors 240 19 259 0 259 57 316 Construction Contractors 1,200 0 1,200 0 1,200 0 1,200 Total Non-Stanford Workers 1,740 43 1,783 0 1,783 129 1,912 Grand Total 38,851 1,389 40,240 0 40,240 9,188ǂ 49,428 Original source: Stanford LUEP & Fehr & Peers, 2016. Original note: (1) Fall 2018 to Fall 2020 Scenario evaluates the change in VMT with the new Escondido Village Graduate Residents (2020 beds). Source: Reproduced from Stanford General Use Plan, Tab 8, Table 3 (Stanford University, 2016). Note: ǂ Total is incorrect; figures copied from original source. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 102 June 6, 2019 Appendix 6 2030 Predicted ME Call/Patient Volume, Based on CAD Calls and ESO ME Patient Volume City of Palo Alto Table 11 below shows the average 2015/16 CAD call volume by call type (in alphabetical order) for the City of Palo Alto. Note that these are based on unique (unduplicated) CAD calls, not unit calls. Table 11, Current 2015/2016 Call Volume, City of Palo Alto CAD Call Type 2015 2016 2015/2016 Average 1056 0 1 0.5 2nd Alarm 1 6 3.5 Accident 245 299 272.0 Airplane Emergency 3 6 4.5 Auto Aid 3 3 3.0 False Alarm 922 985 953.5 Fire 105 105 105.0 Full First Alarm 1 6 3.5 Gas 47 41 44.0 Hazmat 73 72 72.5 Medical Emergency 4,866 4,986 4,926.0 Mutual Aid 2 5 3.5 Service 443 490 466.5 Smoke 148 110 129.0 Suspicious Circumstance 1 0 0.5 Technical Rescue 5 1 3.0 Train-FD 2 3 2.5 Utilities 0 1 0.5 Vegetation Fire 12 11 11.5 Welfare Check 0 3 1.5 Wires 8 16 12.0 CAD Total 6,887 7,150 7,018.5 Source: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: CAD unduplicated data 2015/2016. Table 12 below shows the average 2015/16 CAD call volume and the 2030 predicted call volume, by major call type for the City of Palo Alto, taking the low- and high-end estimates of the preferred scenario into account (see main text, Table 3 for the scenario figures). Medical PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 103 June 6, 2019 Emergency call volume predictions are age-adjusted. Note that these are based on unique (unduplicated) CAD calls, not unit calls. Table 12, Current 2015/2016 and Predicted 2030 Call Volume, City of Palo Alto CAD Call Type 2015/2016 Average 2030 Predictions Low End High End Accident 272 301 311 False Alarm 954 1,060 1,092 Fire 105 117 120 CAD-ME 4,926 6,249 6,432 Service 467 519 535 Smoke 129 144 148 All Other* 166 184 190 CAD Total 7,022ǂ 8,574 8,828 Source: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: CAD unduplicated data 2015/2016. Notes: CAD ME call volume predictions are age-adjusted. *“All other” comprises call types that represented < 1% of unique calls in the unduplicated 2015/2016 CAD dataset. ǂRounding of averages may cause minor differences in totals. Table 13 below shows the average daytime 2015/2016 CAD call volume and the 2030 predicted daytime call volume, by major call type for the City of Palo Alto, taking both ends of the preferred scenario range into account. Again, Medical Emergency call volume predictions are age-adjusted. Table 13, Current 2015/2016 and Predicted 2030 Daytime Call Volume, City of Palo Alto CAD Call Type 2015/2016 Average 2030 Predictions Low End High End Accident 223 246 254 False Alarm 637 702 725 Fire 70 77 79 CAD-ME 3,342 4,210 4,337 Service 296 326 337 Smoke 78 85 88 All Other* 132 145 150 CAD Total 4,778ǂ 5,791 5,969 Source: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: CAD unduplicated data 2015/2016. Notes: CAD ME call volume predictions are age-adjusted. *“All other” comprises call types that represented < 1% of unique calls in the unduplicated 20152016 CAD dataset. ǂRounding of averages may cause minor differences in totals. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 104 June 6, 2019 Table 14 shows the average nighttime 2015/2016 CAD call volume and the 2030 predicted nighttime call volume, by major call type for the City of Palo Alto, taking the low- and high-end estimates of the preferred scenario into account. Once again, Medical Emergency call volume predictions are age-adjusted. Table 14, Current 2015/2016 and Predicted 2030 Nighttime Call Volume, City of Palo Alto CAD Call Type 2015/2016 Average 2030 Predictions Low End High End Accident 49 55 57 False Alarm 317 358 367 Fire 36 40 41 CAD-ME 1,584 2,040 2,095 Service 171 193 198 Smoke 52 58 60 All Other* 35 39 41 CAD Total 2,244ǂ 2,783 2,859 Source: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: CAD unduplicated data 2015/2016. Notes: CAD ME call volume predictions are age-adjusted. *“All other” comprises call types that represented < 1% of unique calls in the unduplicated 2015/2016 CAD dataset. ǂRounding of averages may cause minor differences in totals. Table 15 shows the average 2015/2016 ESO Medical Emergency patient volume and the 2030 predicted patient volume, for daytime compared to nighttime, for the City of Palo Alto, taking both ends of the preferred scenario range into account. Medical Emergency patient volume predictions are age-adjusted. Table 15, Current 2015/2016 and Predicted 2030 Medical Emergency (ME) Patient Volume, City of Palo Alto ESO Patients 2015/2016 Average 2030 Predictions Low End High End ESO-ME - Daytime 2,971 3,707 3,819 ESO-ME - Nighttime 1,359 1,750 1,798 ESO Total 4,330 5,457 5,617 Source: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: ESO unduplicated data 2015/2016. Note: ESO ME patient volume predictions are age-adjusted. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 105 June 6, 2019 Stanford Table 16 below shows the average 2015/2016 CAD call volume by call type (in alphabetical order) for Stanford. Note that these are based on unique (unduplicated) CAD calls, not unit calls. Table 16, Current 2015/2016 Call Volume, Stanford CAD Call Type 2015 2016 2015/2016 Average 1056 None None None 2nd Alarm 0 1 0.5 Accident 30 33 31.5 Airplane Emergency None None None Auto Aid 1 0 0.5 False Alarm 450 409 429.5 Fire 25 22 23.5 Full First Alarm None None None Gas 18 15 16.5 Hazmat 7 8 7.5 Medical Emergency 647 598 622.5 Mutual Aid 2 1 1.5 Service 83 88 85.5 Smoke 20 11 15.5 Suspicious Circumstance None None None Technical Rescue None None None Train-FD None None None Utilities None None None Vegetation Fire 6 5 5.5 Welfare Check None None None Wires 0 2 1.0 CAD Total 1,289 1,193 1,241.0 Source: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: CAD unduplicated data 2015/2016. Table 17 below provides the average 2015/2016 CAD call volume and the 2030 predicted call volume, by major call type, for Stanford. Medical Emergency call volume predictions are age- adjusted for nighttime but not daytime, due to the lack of granularity of age-range data on Stanford employees. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 106 June 6, 2019 Table 17, Current 2015/2016 and Predicted 2030 Call Volume, Stanford CAD Call Type 2015/2016 Average 2030 Predictions Accident 32 41 False Alarm 430 582 Fire 24 31 CAD-ME 623 848 Service 86 115 Smoke 16 21 All Other* 33 44 CAD Total 1,244ǂ 1,682 Source: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: CAD unduplicated data 2015/2016. Notes: Nighttime CAD ME call volume predictions are age-adjusted, daytime predictions are not. *“All other” comprises call types that represented < 1% of unique calls in the unduplicated 2015/2016 CAD dataset. ǂRounding of averages may cause minor differences in totals. Table 18 below provides the average daytime 2015/2016 CAD call volume and the 2030 predicted daytime call volume, by major call type, for Stanford. Again, Medical Emergency call volume predictions are age-adjusted for nighttime but not daytime, as described above. Table 18, Current 2015/2016 and Predicted 2030 Daytime Call Volume, Stanford CAD Call Type 2015/2016 Average 2030 Predictions Accident 26 32 False Alarm 269 340 Fire 18 23 CAD-ME 370 468 Service 56 71 Smoke 8 9 All Other* 23 30 CAD Total 770 973 Source: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: CAD unduplicated data 2015/2016. Notes: Daytime CAD ME call volume predictions are not age-adjusted. *“All other” comprises call types that represented < 1% of unique calls in the unduplicated 2015/2016 CAD dataset. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 107 June 6, 2019 Table 19 below provides the average nighttime 2015/16 CAD call volume and the 2030 predicted nighttime call volume, by major call type, for Stanford. Once again, Medical Emergency call volume predictions are age-adjusted for nighttime but not daytime, as described above. Table 19, Current 2015/2016 and Predicted 2030 Nighttime Call Volume, Stanford CAD Call Type 2015/2016 Average 2030 Predictions Accident 6 9 False Alarm 161 242 Fire 6 8 CAD-ME 253 380 Service 30 44 Smoke 8 12 All Other* 10 14 CAD Total 474 709 Source: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: CAD unduplicated data 2015/2016. Note: Nighttime CAD ME call volume predictions are age-adjusted. *“All other” comprises call types that represented < 1% of unique calls in the unduplicated 2015/2016 CAD dataset. Table 20 shows the average 2015/16 ESO Medical Emergency patient volume and the 2030 predicted patient volume, for daytime and nighttime separately, for Stanford. Medical Emergency patient volume predictions are age-adjusted for nighttime but not daytime, due to the lack of granularity of age-range data on Stanford employees. Table 20, Current 2015/2016 and Predicted 2030 Patient Volume, Day versus Night, Stanford ESO Patients 2015/2016 Average 2030 Predictions ESO-ME - Daytime 600 713 ESO-ME - Nighttime 333 500 ESO Total 933 1,213 Source: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: ESO unduplicated data 2015/2016. Note: Nighttime ESO ME patient volume predictions are age-adjusted, daytime predictions are not. See report text for explanation. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 108 June 6, 2019 Appendix 7 Total Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Incident ZIP Code by Year: Percentage and Number Table 21, Total Medical Emergency Patient Volume by Incident ZIP Code by Year Incident ZIP Code # of Medical Emergency Patients in 2015 # of Medical Emergency Patients in 2016 72533 < 1% < 1% 93302 < 1% None 94022 < 1% < 1% 94028 < 1% < 1% 94030 None < 1% 94035 < 1% < 1% 94039 < 1% < 1% 94040 < 1% < 1% 94041 < 1% < 1% 94042 < 1% < 1% 94043 < 1% < 1% 94061 < 1% None 94065 None < 1% 94102 < 1% None 94204 None < 1% 94301 44.0% (2,405) 42.3% (2,315) 94302 7.3% (397) 5.5% (302) PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 109 June 6, 2019 94303 11.4% (621) 8.6% (472) 94304 9.9% (539) 15.6% (852) 94305 15.5% (847) 16.0% (878) 94306 8.9% (484) 8.2% (450) 94307 < 1% < 1% 94308 None < 1% 94309 1.3% (69) 1.8% (96) 94310 < 1% < 1% 94930 None < 1% 95050 None < 1% 95301 < 1% None 95305 < 1% None Missing < 1% < 1% TOTAL 5,465 5,478 Source: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: ESO unduplicated data 2015/2016. Note: Totals that are less than 1% are not represented, for the sake of individuals’ confidentiality. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 110 June 6, 2019 Appendix 8 Current 2015/2016 Average Patient Volume by Primary Impression and Age Note that the tables below contain only the categories of primary impression that are relatively specific; categories such as “Everything Else” and “No Complaints or Illness/Injury Noted” are not included in these tables. Table 22, Current 2015/2016 Average Patient Volume by Primary Impression and Age, City of Palo Alto Abdominal Pain/ Discomfort Altered Level of Consciousness Behavioral Health Issues Cardiac-Related Issues Injury/ Hemorrhage Non-Specific Pain Respiratory- Related Issues Age 0-4 <10* 16 <10 None 10 <10 14 Age 5-9 <10 <10 <10 <10 24 <10 <10 Age 10-14 <10 14 <10 <10 28 <10 <10 Age 15-19 <10 30 14 <10 50 <10 <10 Age 20-24 12 44 22 <10 62 11 <10 Age 25-34 38 89 52 17 120 31 19 Age 35-44 24 101 34 41 84 41 <10 Age 45-54 39 126 34 64 84 46 19 Age 55-59 35 92 20 33 50 50 23 Age 60-64 28 81 10 27 52 30 20 Age 65-74 34 151 18 93 96 58 40 Age 75-84 39 206 <10 78 122 40 50 Age 85+ 64 332 <10 102 244 66 80 Total 328 1,288 218 468 1,023 388 290 Source: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: ESO unduplicated data 2015/2016. Note: Totals that represent fewer than 10 patients are not represented, for the sake of individuals’ confidentiality PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 111 June 6, 2019 Table 23, Current 2015/2016 Average Patient Volume by Primary Impression and Age, Stanford Abdominal Pain/ Discomfort Altered Level of Consciousness Behavioral Health Issues Cardiac-Related Issues Injury/ Hemorrhage Non-Specific Pain Respiratory-Related Issues Age 0-4 <10* <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 Age 5-9 None <10 None None <10 <10 <10 Age 10-14 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 Age 15-19 <10 31 27 <10 36 <10 <10 Age 20-24 10 44 26 <10 40 <10 <10 Age 25-34 10 32 16 <10 36 <10 <10 Age 35-44 <10 16 <10 <10 18 <10 <10 Age 45-54 10 20 <10 <10 18 <10 <10 Age 55-59 <10 16 <10 <10 12 <10 <10 Age 60-64 <10 13 <10 <10 13 <10 <10 Age 65-74 <10 22 <10 <10 21 <10 <10 Age 75-84 <10 24 <10 10 24 <10 <10 Age 85+ <10 48 <10 14 36 12 11 Total 66 273 89 58 264 69 45 Source: City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: ESO unduplicated data 2015/2016. Note: Totals that represent fewer than 10 patients are not represented, for the sake of individuals’ confidentiality. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 112 June 6, 2019 Appendix 9 Current 2015/2016 Average and Predicted 2030 Patient Volume by Primary Impression, by City and Time of Day Note that the tables below contain only the categories of Primary Impression that are relatively specific; categories such as “Everything Else” and “No Complaints or Illness/Injury Noted” are not included in these tables. Tables are ordered alphabetically by Primary Impression. Table 24, Current and Predicted Year 2030 Medical Emergency Patients, Categories of Primary Impressions, by Time of Day, City of Palo Alto Primary Impression Category City of Palo Alto (CoPA) 2015/2016 Average, Daytime Low-End CoPA, 2030 Daytime (% incr.) High-End CoPA, 2030 Daytime (% incr.) City of Palo Alto (CoPA) 2015/2016 Average, Nighttime Low-End CoPA, 2030 Nighttime (% incr.) High-End CoPA, 2030 Nighttime (% incr.) Abdominal Discomfort 201 247 (23%) 254 (26%) 127 163 (28%) 168 (33%) ALOC 940 1,197 (32%) 1,233 (31%) 350 456 (30%) 468 (34%) Behavioral Health 131 146 (11%) 151 (15%) 89 102 (15%) 105 (18%) Cardiac- Related 321 421 (31%) 434 (35%) 148 196 (32%) 201 (36%) Injury/ Hemorrhage 749 906 (21%) 933 (25%) 277 353 (27%) 362 (31%) Non-Specific Pain 238 292 (23%) 301 (26%) 151 194 (28%) 199 (32%) Respiratory- Related 185 235 (32%) 242 (31%) 106 143 (35%) 146 (38%) TOTAL 2,765 3,444 (25%) 3,548 (28%) 1,248 1,607 (29%) 1,649 (32%) Source: Actionable Insights, LLC, 2019, unpublished data, based on City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: ESO unduplicated data 2015/201617. Note: All predictions are age-adjusted. Rounding of averages or predictions may cause minor differences in totals. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 113 June 6, 2019 Table 25, Current and Predicted Year 2030 Medical Emergency Patients, Categories of Primary Impressions, by Time of Day, Stanford Primary Impression Category Stanford 2015/2016 Average, Daytime Stanford, 2030 Daytime (% increase) Stanford 2015/2016 Average, Nighttime Stanford 2030 Nighttime (% increase) Abdominal Discomfort 41 52 (27%) 26 38 (46%) ALOC 181 228 (26%) 93 139 (49%) Behavioral Health 30 38 (27%) 60 89 (48%) Cardiac- Related 39 49 (26%) 19 29 (53%) Injury/ Hemorrhage 191 242 (27%) 74 110 (49%) Non-Specific Pain 43 54 (26%) 26 39 (50%) Respiratory- Related 31 39 (26%) 15 22 (47%) TOTAL 556 702 (26%) 313 466 (49%) Source: Actionable Insights, LLC, 2019, unpublished data, based on City of Palo Alto PSD, 2017: ESO unduplicated data 2015/2016. Note: Nighttime predictions are age-adjusted, daytime predictions are not. See report text for explanation. Rounding of averages or predictions may cause minor differences in totals. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 114 June 6, 2019 Appendix 10 Palo Alto/Stanford CHNA Data Dashboard Table 26, Data Employed for Community Health Needs Assessment: Combined Palo Alto/Stanford Area Source57 Indicator Palo Alto/ Stanford Area SC County Trend CA DEMOGRAPHICS CC Change in Total Population 8% 6% 10% SCCPHD Ethnicity: African American 2% 2% SCCPHD Ethnicity: Asian/Pacific Islander 27% 32% CC Ethnicity: Hispanic Population 8% 27% 38% SCCPHD Ethnicity: Latino 6% 27% SCCPHD Ethnicity: White 61% 35% CC Female Population 49% 50% 50% SCCPHD Foreign Language Spoken 39% 52% 57 “CC” stands for Community Commons, 2017. “SCCPHD” stands for Santa Clara County Public Health Department, 2014. “NCS” stands for The 2016 National Citizen SurveyTM (City of Palo Alto, 2017b). “EPIC” stands for California Department of Public Health EpiCenter, 2013. PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 115 June 6, 2019 Source57 Indicator Palo Alto/ Stanford Area SC County Trend CA SCCPHD Foreign-Born 32% 37% SCCPHD Household Size 2.4 2.9 SCCPHD Households with Children 35% 39% CC Male Population 51% 50% 50% CC Population in Limited English Households 5% 11% 9% CC Population with Any Disability 6% 8% 10% CC Population with Limited English Proficiency 11% 21% 19% SCCPHD Single Parent Households 5% 7% CC Population Density 3,033.1 1,447.9 246.6 SCCPHD CalFresh Households 1% 5% CC Children Eligible for Free/Reduced Price Lunch 8% 38% 58% SOCIAL & ECONOMIC FACTORS SCCPHD College Graduate 80% 47% PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 116 June 6, 2019 Source57 Indicator Palo Alto/ Stanford Area SC County Trend CA CC Economic Security - Commute Over 60 Minutes 5% 8% 11% CC Economic Security - Households with No Vehicle 9% 5% 8% SCCPHD Economic Security - Unemployment Proportion 3% 4% CC Economic Security - Unemployment Rate 4.7 3.3 5.0 CC Education - Head Start Program Facilities no data 3.4 6.3 CC Education - Less than High School Diploma (or Equivalent) 3% 13% 18% CC Education - School Enrollment Age 3-4 81% 57% 49% CC Food Security - Food Desert Population 8% 10% 14% CC Food Security - Food Insecurity Rate 12% 12% 15% CC Food Security - Population Receiving SNAP 6% 6% 11% SCCPHD Highest Ed: High School Grad 6% 15% SCCPHD Highest Ed: Some College 11% 24% CC Income Inequality no data 0.47 0.49 PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 117 June 6, 2019 Source57 Indicator Palo Alto/ Stanford Area SC County Trend CA CC Insurance - Population Receiving Medicaid 5% 17% 26% CC Insurance - Uninsured Population 3% 9% 15% CC Lack of Social or Emotional Support county only 22% 25% SCCPHD Median Household Income $ 126,771 $ 93,854 CC Poverty - Children Below 100% FPL 4% 11% 23% SCCPHD Poverty - Children Below 175% FPL 8% 33% SCCPHD Poverty - Families Below 185% FPL 8% 29% CC Poverty - Population Below 100% FPL 7% 10% 16% CC Poverty - Population Below 200% FPL 14% 23% 36% SCCPHD Received Free Food 16%* 11% CC Housing - Cost Burdened Households (by Tract) 35% 38% 44% CC Housing - Substandard Housing (by Tract) 36% 41% 47% CC Housing - Vacant Housing (by Tract) 5% 4% 8% PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 118 June 6, 2019 Source57 Indicator Palo Alto/ Stanford Area SC County Trend CA SCCPHD Lives in Multi-Unit Housing 38% 33% SCCPHD Overcrowded Households 3% 8% NATURAL ENVIRONMENT NCS Air Quality 81% 80% (PA 2006) CC Air Quality - Ozone (O3) 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% CC Air Quality - Particulate Matter 2.5 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% CC Climate and Health - Canopy Cover no data 10% 15% NCS Paths and Walking Trails 76% 74% (PA 2008) SCCPHD Proximity to Open Space (Miles) 0.24 0.29 TRANSIT NCS Carpooled 56% 53% (PA 2014) CC Commute to Work - Alone in Car 58% 76% 73% SCCPHD Commute to Work - Carpooled 7% 10% PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 119 June 6, 2019 Source57 Indicator Palo Alto/ Stanford Area SC County Trend CA SCCPHD Commute to Work - Other 23% 10% SCCPHD Commute to Work - Public Transportation 6% 4% CC Commute to Work - Walking/Biking 23% 4% 4% NCS Drive for Daily Needs 77% NCS Ease of Public Transportation 28% 60% (2006) CC Transit - Public Transit within 0.5 Miles 20.9% 4.43% 15.5% CC Transit - Road Network Density no data 5.23 2.02 NCS Used Public Transportation to Work 53% 50% (PA 2014) NCS Walked or Biked to Work 87% 85% (PA 2014) CC Walking/Biking/Skating to School 48% 48% 43% NCS Walks/Bikes for Daily Needs 21% N/A NCS Health Rating 95% N/A GENERAL HEALTH OUTCOMES PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 120 June 6, 2019 Source57 Indicator Palo Alto/ Stanford Area SC County Trend CA CC Years of Premature Death Rate suppressed 3,721 5,308 CC Poor General Health county only 14% 18% CC Preventable Hospital Events 42.9 58.5 83.2 HEALTH CARE ACCESS & DELIVERY CC Access to Primary Care 103.6 105.9 78.5 CC Federally Qualified Health Centers 1.3 1.6 2.4 NCS Health Care Availability 65% 57% (PA 2006) CC Lack of a Consistent Source of Primary Care county only 12% 14% NCS Preventive Health Services 74% 70% (PA 2008) BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CC Access to Mental Health Providers county only 272.4 280.6 SCCPHD Adult Smokers 3%* 10% CC Alcohol - Excessive Consumption county only 15% 17% CC Alcohol - Expenditures 18% suppressed 13% PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 121 June 6, 2019 Source57 Indicator Palo Alto/ Stanford Area SC County Trend CA CC Depression Among Medicare Beneficiaries 65+ county only 11% 14% CC Needing Mental Health Care county only 14% 16% CC Poor Mental Health Days county only 2.7 3.6 NCS Mental Health Care 46% 63% (PA 2014) CC Mortality - Suicide 10.7 7.9 9.8 CC Tobacco Expenditures 0.5% suppressed 1.0% CC Tobacco Usage county only 10% 13% CANCER CC Breast Cancer Incidence county only 121.5 122.1 CC Cervical Cancer Incidence* county only 5.9 7.7 CC Colon and Rectum Cancer Incidence* county only 38.7 40.0 CC Lung Cancer Incidence county only 41.3 48.0 CC Prostate Cancer Incidence county only 140.6 126.9 PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 122 June 6, 2019 Source57 Indicator Palo Alto/ Stanford Area SC County Trend CA CC Breast Cancer Screening (Mammogram) county only 62% 60% CC Cervical Cancer Screening (Pap) county only 79% 78% CC Colon and Rectum Cancer Screening (Sigmoid/Colonoscopy) county only 65% 58% CC Cancer Mortality 120.4 140.8 157.1 HEART DISEASE & STROKE CC Heart Disease Prevalence county only 5% 6% CC High Blood Pressure - Unmanaged county only 27% 30% CC Ischemic Heart Disease Mortality* county only 118.55 163.18 CC Mortality - Stroke 15.1 27.2 37.4 DIABETES & OBESITY CC Diabetes Hospitalizations 3.1 7.9 10.4 CC Diabetes Management (Hemoglobin A1c Test) 80% 85% 82% CC Diabetes Prevalence county only 8% 8% PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 123 June 6, 2019 Source57 Indicator Palo Alto/ Stanford Area SC County Trend CA CC Obesity (Adult) county only 19% 22% CC Obesity (Youth) no data 15% 19% CC Overweight (Adult) county only 33% 36% CC Overweight (Youth) no data 17% 19% HEALTHY EATING/ACTIVE LIVING SCCPHD Adult Aerobic Physical Activity 75% 58% NCS Affordable Food 59% 62% (PA 2006) SCCPHD Farmers' Markets 1.4 1.6 SCCPHD Fast Food Consumption - Adults 24% 38% SCCPHD Fast Food Proximity 1.5 2.8 NCS Fitness Opportunities 79% 78% (PA 2014) CC Food Environment - Fast Food Restaurants 80.5 78.7 74.5 CC Food Environment - Grocery Stores 17.0 19.0 21.5 PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 124 June 6, 2019 Source57 Indicator Palo Alto/ Stanford Area SC County Trend CA SCCPHD Fruit Consumption - Adults 34% 27% NCS Fruit/Vegetable Consumption 64% N/A CC Fruit/Vegetable Expenditures 14.4% suppressed 14.1% SCCPHD Grocery Stores 0.57 0.56 CC Low Fruit/Vegetable Consumption (Adult) county only 69% 72% CC Low Fruit/Vegetable Consumption (Youth) county only 60% 47% NCS Moderate Physical Activity or Better 67% N/A CC Physical Inactivity (Adult) county only 15% 17% CC Physical Inactivity (Youth) county only 25% 36% NCS Recreational Opportunities 77% 83% (PA 2006) SCCPHD Shops for Fruits/Vegetables Locally 93% 92% CC Soft Drink Expenditures 3.2% suppressed 3.6% PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 125 June 6, 2019 Source57 Indicator Palo Alto/ Stanford Area SC County Trend CA NCS Used Recreation Centers 63% 63% (PA 2006) SCCPHD Vegetable Consumption - Adults 19% 19% NCS Visit Park 93% 93% (PA 2006) INFECTIOUS DISEASE CC STD - Chlamydia county only 329.37 459.2 CC STD - HIV Hospitalizations county only 0.87 1.98 CC STD - HIV Prevalence county only 208.42 376.16 CC STD - No HIV Screening county only 64.0% 60.8% MATERNAL & INFANT HEALTH CC Breastfeeding (Any) county only 97% 93% CC Breastfeeding (Exclusive) county only 77% 65% CC Infant Mortality suppressed 3.5 5 CC Lack of Prenatal Care 0.94% no data 3.1% CC Low Birth Weight 5.7% 6.89% 6.8% PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 126 June 6, 2019 Source57 Indicator Palo Alto/ Stanford Area SC County Trend CA ORAL HEALTH CC Absence of Dental Insurance Coverage county only 36.0% 40.9% CC Dental Care - Lack of Affordability (Youth) county only 4.2% 6.3% CC Dental Care - No Recent Exam (Adult) county only 19% 31% CC Dental Care - No Recent Exam (Youth) county only 30% 19% CC Poor Dental Health county only 8% 11% RESPIRATORY HEALTH CC Asthma - Hospitalizations 4.12 6.57 8.9 CC Asthma - Prevalence county only 14% 14% CC Pneumonia Vaccinations (Age 65+) county only 67% 63% VIOLENCE & INJURY (SAFETY) SCCPHD Bicycle/Vehicle Injuries 83 636 NCS Downtown Safety 74% 67% (PA 2006) NCS Downtown Safety* 92% 91% (PA 2006) PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 127 June 6, 2019 Source57 Indicator Palo Alto/ Stanford Area SC County Trend CA CC Mortality - Homicide 3.50 2.8 5.2 CC Mortality - Motor Vehicle Accident 2.12 4.0 5.2 CC Mortality - Pedestrian Accident* 0.53 1.54 1.97 SCCPHD Motor Vehicle Collisions 459 6,669 NCS Perceived Neighborhood Safety at Night 87% 79% (2006) NCS Perceived Neighborhood Safety during Day 98% 94% (2006) SCCPHD Pedestrian/Vehicle Injuries 30 478 CC Violence - All Violent Crimes county only 262.1 425.0 CC Violence - Assault (Crime) county only 152.2 249.4 CC Violence - Rape (Crime) county only 21.1 21.0 CC Violence - Robbery (Crime) county only 86.3 149.5 EPIC Unintentional Senior Falls Hospitalizations (Crude Rate) county only 1,259.5 1,501.4 EPIC Senior Deaths due to Falls (Crude Rate) county only 55.4 36.1 PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 128 June 6, 2019 Appendix 11 Palo Alto/Stanford Neighborhood Data Dashboard Table 27, Data Employed for Community Health Needs Assessment: Cities of Palo Alto and Stanford (Separately) Neighborhood Desired Direction ↑↓ Santa Clara County City of Palo Alto Stanford Barron Park / Green Acres Downtown North / Crescent Park Midtown North / Palo Verde / Charleston Gardens Midtown South / Ventura / Charleston Meadow Professorville / Old PA / Duveneck / St Francis Population Size N/A 1,781,642 64,403 10,902 14,647 12,094 11,692 14,527 12,755 Race/Ethnicity African American N/A 2% 2% 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% Asian/Pacific Islander N/A 32% 27% 31% 23% 19% 38% 33% 21% Latino N/A 27% 6% 11% 8% 5% 6% 8% 5% White N/A 35% 61% 44% 63% 70% 50% 53% 69% Foreign-Born N/A 37% 32% 29% 32% 28% 34% 37% 25% Speaks Language Other than Eng. at Home N/A 52% 39% 41% 38% 30% 45% 46% 33% Single Parent Households N/A 7% 5% 1%* 5% 4% 4%* 5% 7% Households with Children N/A 39% 35% 12% 35% 24% 44% 37% 37% Average Household Size N/A 2.90 2.41 1.9 2.5 2.1 2.7 2.5 2.5 Income, Employment, Poverty PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 129 June 6, 2019 Neighborhood Desired Direction ↑↓ Santa Clara County City of Palo Alto Stanford Barron Park / Green Acres Downtown North / Crescent Park Midtown North / Palo Verde / Charleston Gardens Midtown South / Ventura / Charleston Meadow Professorville / Old PA / Duveneck / St Francis Median Household Income ($) ↑ 93,854 126,771 33,994 121,332 119,781 156,210 119,932 156,530 Unemployed (Ages ≥ 16 Years) ↓ 4% 3% 6%* 4% 4% 7% 7% 5% Families below 185% FPL ↓ 16% 8% 29% 9% 7%* 4%* 10% 8% Children (Ages 0-17) below 185% FPL ↓ 25% 8% 33%* 12%* 3% 2%* 8%* 12%* Educational Attainment (Ages ≥25) Highest Ed Attained: Less than High School ↓ 13% 3% 2* 5 1* 2* 3* 1* Highest Ed Attained: High School Graduate Relative 15% 6% 2* 7% 6% 4% 6% 5% Highest Ed Attained: Some College/AA Relative 24% 11% 3* 10% 9% 11% 15% 11% Highest Ed Attainment: College Graduate ↑ 47% 80% 94% 79% 84% 82% 76% 84% Transportation N Vehicle-Pedestrian Injury Collisions, 10 Years ↓ 478 30 20 39 94 11 34 35 N Vehicle-Bicycle Injury Collisions, 10 Years ↓ 636 83 68 143 146 39 128 149 N Motor Vehicle Collisions, 1 Year ↓ 6669 459 15 82 83 41 55 86 Lives in Close Proximity to Public Transit ↑ 65 85 96 86 89 59 99 92 Percentage of Residents Who Commute to Work by Mode PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 130 June 6, 2019 Neighborhood Desired Direction ↑↓ Santa Clara County City of Palo Alto Stanford Barron Park / Green Acres Downtown North / Crescent Park Midtown North / Palo Verde / Charleston Gardens Midtown South / Ventura / Charleston Meadow Professorville / Old PA / Duveneck / St Francis Drove Alone ↓ 76 65 11 54 55 73 68 70 Carpooled ↑ 10 7 3 7 6 6 8 6 Public Transportation ↑ 4 6 4 8 6 3 5 5 Other N/A 10 23 82 31 33 18 19 20 Nutrition & Food Households receiving CalFresh Benefits Relative 5% 1% 1* 0* 1* 2* 1* 2* Ave. Miles to Nearest Full-Service Grocery Store ↓ 0.56 0.57 0.75 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.62 0.44 Ave. Miles to Nearest Farmers’ Market ↓ 1.60 1.37 1.00 0.73 1.91 1.77 1.18 1.32 N of Fast Food Outlets per Square Mile ↓ 2.80 1.50 1.50 2.10 7.90 1.20 2.10 1.10 Housing Household Rent >=30% of Household Income ↓ 46 40 69 41 35 36 44 44 Overcrowded Households ↓ 8 3 2* 5* 3 2* 3* 1* Lives in Multi-Unit Housing ↓ 33 38 90 37 60 30 31 24 Average Miles to Nearest Park or Open Space ↓ 0.29 0.24 0.25 0.33 0.21 0.23 0.25 0.24 N of Tobacco Retail Outlets per Square Mile ↓ 3.50 1.20 0.0 1.6 3.4 3.1 2.6 0.5 Average N of Violent Crimes within 1 Mile ↓ 16.04 6.30 1.8 3.1 11.6 1.8 5.1 9.2 N of Alcohol Retail Outlets per Square Mile ↓ 2.7 1.00 0.0 0.7 5.1 3.7 2.1 1.1 Maternal, Child, & Infant Health PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 131 June 6, 2019 Neighborhood Desired Direction ↑↓ Santa Clara County City of Palo Alto Stanford Barron Park / Green Acres Downtown North / Crescent Park Midtown North / Palo Verde / Charleston Gardens Midtown South / Ventura / Charleston Meadow Professorville / Old PA / Duveneck / St Francis Births per 1,000 People N/A 13.50 9.70 7 8 12 9 10 7 Low Birth Weight Infants ↓ 7% 6% 5% 4% 7% 7% 7% 5% Preterm Births ↓ 9% 8% 6% 6% 10% 7% 7% 7% Overweight/Obese in 1st Trimester ↓ 38% 19% 12% 20% 15% 21% 21% 17% Prenatal Care ↑ 74% 85% 83% 85% 87% 85% 82% 88% Teen Live Births ↓ 19.2 2.3 0 2 2 2 3 1 Mortality Life Expectancy ↑ 83.4 87.0 -- 87.2 86.8 87.4 86.8 87.5 Cancer Mortality Rate ↓ 140.3 111.7 -- 109.9 118.0 111.9 116.8 104.1 Heart Disease Mortality Rate ↓ 118.8 82.7 -- 86.9 84.8 72.8 84.1 81.4 Alzheimer’s Disease Mortality Rate ↓ 34.6 32.4 -- 34.0 31.9 28.7 40.0 25.7 Stroke Mortality Rate ↓ 27.8 17.3 -- -- 13.5 -- -- 20.5 Chronic Lower Respiratory Mortality Rate ↓ 25.5 16.7 -- -- 20.6 -- -- -- Unintentional Injury Mortality Rate ↓ 23.4 15.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- Diabetes Mortality Rate ↓ 23.3 7.8 -- -- -- -- -- -- Influenza and Pneumonia Mortality Rate ↓ 14.3 10.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- Hypertension Mortality Rate ↓ 14.6 9.4 -- -- 10.7 -- -- -- Other Health-Related PAFD 2017 Report Final Draft © Actionable Insights, LLC Page 132 June 6, 2019 Neighborhood Desired Direction ↑↓ Santa Clara County City of Palo Alto Stanford Barron Park / Green Acres Downtown North / Crescent Park Midtown North / Palo Verde / Charleston Gardens Midtown South / Ventura / Charleston Meadow Professorville / Old PA / Duveneck / St Francis Currently Uninsured (18-64) ↓ -- -- 4% to 10% 13% to 15% 4% to 10% 4% to 10% 10% to 13% 4% to 10% Current Smoker (18+) ↑ -- -- 3% to 8% 8% to 10% 3% to 8% 3% to 8% 8% to 10% 3% to 8% Obese (18+) ↓ -- 11% 1% to 15% 1% to 15% 1% to 15% 1% to 15% 1% to 15% 1% to 15% Overweight or Obese (12-17) ↓ -- -- 0% to 11% 11% to 17% 0% to 11% 0% to 11% 11% to 17% 0% to 11% Overweight for Age (2-11) ↓ -- -- 0% to 6% 0% to 6% 0% to 6% 0% to 6% 0% to 6% 0% to 6% Received Flu Vaccine (65+) ↓ -- -- 75% to 76% 78% to 84% 75% to 76% 78% to 84% 78% to 84% 76% to 78% Received Flu Vaccine (6m-11) ↓ -- -- 52% to 71% 52% to 71% 52% to 71% 49% to 50% 50% to 52% 50% to 52% Source: Santa Clara County Public Health Department, 2016. City of Palo Alto (ID # 10441) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 6/17/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Transportation and Traffic Summary Title: 2019 Palo Alto TMA Strategic Business Plan Title: 2019 Palo Alto Transportation Management Association Strategic Business Plan From: City Manager Lead Department: Transportation Recommendation Staff recommends the Council receive this informational report containing the 2019 Strategic Business Plan and the Final 2018 Annual Report of the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA). Discussion This informational item transmits the 2019 Strategic Business Plan and the final version of the 2018 Annual Report of the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) to the City Council. Both documents are required under the TMA’s funding agreement with the City. In April 2019, the Council Finance Committee received a presentation from the TMA and provided feedback on the Strategic Plan. The April TMA presentation can be found here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=63435.61&BlobID=70 664. The Strategic Plan provides an analysis of growth areas, a 2019 workplan, and the three-year budget projections for the organization. A prior version of the attached 2018 Annual Report was presented to Council in January and it contained some estimated figures for the final quarter of 2018 because complete program data was not yet available. The final report attached here replaces the estimates with results for that quarter. For reference, the January staff report to Council is online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68450. Timeline The funding agreement between the City and the TMA lasts through the end of Fiscal City of Palo Alto Page 2 Year (FY) 2019 (June 30, 2019). Resource Impact A total of $480,000 was budgeted for FY 2019. The revenue source is the University Avenue Parking Fund. TMA funding for FY 2020 is being considered in the annual budget process subject to Council approval. The Finance Committee recommended an annual increase for the TMA for FY 2020, but the increase has not yet been approved by the full Council. Policy Implications (If Applicable) The funding agreement between the City and the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) requires that the TMA strategic plan be regularly updated. In addition, the transportation demand management (TDM) services provided by the TMA are consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies and programs: Policy T-1.1 Take a comprehensive approach to reducing single-occupant vehicle trips by involving those who live, work and shop in Palo Alto in developing strategies that make it easier and more convenient not to drive. Policy T1.2 Collaborate with Palo Alto employers and business owners to develop, implement and expand comprehensive programs like the TMA to reduce single occupant vehicle commute trips, including through incentives. Program T1.2.1 Create a long-term education program to change the travel habits of residents, visitors, shoppers and workers by informing them about transportation alternatives, incentives and impacts. Work with the PAUSD and with other public and private interests, such as the Chamber of Commerce and Commuter Wallet partners, to develop and implement this program. Program T1.2.4 Evaluate the performance of pilot programs implemented by the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association and pursue expansion from Downtown to California Avenue and other areas of the city when appropriate. Program T1.2.6 Pursue full participation of Palo Alto employers in the TMA. Policy T1.13 Encourage services that complement and enhance the transportation options available to help Palo Alto residents and employees make first/last mile connections and travel within the city for daily needs without using a single-occupancy vehicle, including shuttle, taxi and ridesharing services. Policy T2.2 As part of the effort to reduce traffic congestion, seek ongoing funding and engage employers to operate and expand TMAs to address transportation and parking issues as appropriate in the City’s employment districts. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Program T2.2.1 Work in partnership with the Palo Alto TMA and Stanford University to aggregate data and realize measurable reductions in single-occupant vehicle commuting to and from Downtown and in the Stanford Research Park. Policy T5.5 Minimize the need for employees to park in and adjacent to commercial centers, employment districts and schools. Program T7.1.1 Expand transportation opportunities for transit-dependent riders by supporting discounts for taxi fares, rideshare services and transit, by coordinating transit systems to be shared by multiple senior housing developments, by maintaining a database of volunteer drivers and other transit options. Environmental Review This is an informational item, and no action will be taken, therefore no environmental review is required. Attachments: • Attachment A: PATMA Strategic_Business Plan May 17 2019 • Attachment B: FINAL 2018 Annual Report 041119 PATMA CY2019-2021 Strategic Business Plan May 17, 2019. Short URL to this google doc: http://bit.ly/PATMAstratPln Introduction PATMA is a one-of-a-kind TMA, without U.S. peers. PATMA is still a dynamic organization that develops and iteratively refines new commute reduction programs. Funding is unstable and evolving. At this entrepreneurial point in PATMA history, there is a need to plan realistically and regularly, updating the plan each year and then delivering against objectives. Each quarter, progress should be evaluated and the strategy refined. Within the “Strategic Direction Grid Template” of current/new services and current/new markets (in light blue below), the TMA has opportunities for expansion in all four quadrants: In the PATMA’s Strategic Direction Grid (in orange above), opportunities include: ●Untapped demand allows expansion of downtown direct-to-commuter services ●Council & Board’s stated enthusiasm for an employer commute program ●Our Cal Ave transit pass program pilot and Council/Board’s stated enthusiasm to serve more parts of Palo Alto ●The ability to apply fresh market analysis to identify the potential for new services. PATMA CY2019-2021 Strategic Business Plan Page 1 This strategic plan is comprised of three sections: 1) Mission 2) CY2019 work plan with measurable objectives that the TMA is accountable for. Work plan sections, arranged in priority order, include: 2A. Increase Revenue 2B. Cost-Effective Trip Reduction 2C. Grow Existing and New Programs 2D. Financial Management 2E. Research and Analysis 2F. Organizational Growth 2G. “Parking Lot” - items that are not in the CY2019 work plan 3) Three-year budget projections. 1. Mission The Palo Alto TMA reduces SOV trips, traffic congestion and demand for parking by delivering targeted transportation solutions to Palo Alto’s diverse range of employers, employees, visitors and residents. In pursuit of Work Plan objectives, the TMA also serves as an active voice in local and regional transportation issues. While the primary current focus of the TMA is the Downtown population whose travel choices have the highest impacts, its programs and services are beginning to extend beyond these Downtown to assist areas and stakeholders such as Cal Ave, El Camino Real, Town and Country Village, PAUSD, JCC, child care, and dentists. The TMA aspires to become a city-wide MA, serving all areas except those served by SRPGO, the Stanford Research Park TDM program. By encouraging and enabling more non-drive alone trips, the TMA contributes to the overall quality of life both in Downtown and throughout Palo Alto; it supports the city’s economic vitality and helps achieve the city’s environmental goals. By assisting income-limited service workers who are especially hard hit by increases in commute difficulty/distance, the TMA contributes to both economic vitality and social equity. During formation of the TMA, an objective of a 30% reduction in downtown SOV commutes was set. From a baseline overall 2015 SOV rate, a 30% reduction from 57% yields a goal of 40% SOV. For 1 approximately 5,000 downtown workers, a reduction from 57 to 40% requires 850 commuters to change away from SOV. The TMA has limited ability to further influence the TDM programs of the large downtown tech employers - for U.S. employers offering free parking, they already have the nation’s lowest SOV rate, by 20 percentage points. 1 Commute survey methodological challenges are detailed in http://bit.ly/PATMA2018report, Appendix E3. PATMA CY2019-2021 Strategic Business Plan Page 2 Downtown progress against the 30% SOV reduction goal The TMA provides one leg of a multi-legged transportation effort and is not responsible for all of Palo Alto’s commute reduction efforts. The TMA’s efficacy (and overall Palo Alto commute reduction efficacy) may be increased based upon behavior-changing or TMA-supportive public policy; behavior-changing parking policies; improved public transit and app-based mobility services; cost-reduced personal electric transport; improved bike routes, infrastructure and safety; enhancements to existing large employer commute programs; sustainability-driven changes in behavioral norms; sub-regional TDM/TMA collaboration; advances in autonomous transit; and time advantages for higher-occupancy vehicle travel. The TMA is open to collaborations on this multi-legged effort, including collaborations across city boundaries. As of 2019, the TMA’s direct-to-commuter program can be thought of as a “car reduction machine.” Depending on the amount of revenue collected, a certain number of cars are removed. Each increment of about $1,800 in funding removes one years-worth of an SOV commute. 2. CY2019 Work Plan Top 2019 deliverables: ●Secure City of Palo Alto (COPA) FY2019 (July 2019 - June 2020) funding of $660,000. ●To increase chances for future funding increases, educate residents, stakeholders, business associations, and institutions about PATMA’s valuable, cost-effective contributions. ●Generate $200,000 or more from alternate sources at local, regional, and national levels. ●Recruit, hire, on-board, and train a lower-cost TDM Program Manager. ●Assuming total 2019 revenue of $890,000, remove 397 cars (total for new and current programs) in December 2019. ●Reduce more than 70 SOV commutes through the “GoPA” Employer TDM program by December 2019. ●Validate demand and scalability hypotheses for expansion of the transit pass program to California Ave ●Successfully pitch and complete 100% front door clipboard employee commute intercept commute surveys at two employers as additional validation of the annual Downtown Commute Survey methodology. ●In the Fall, complete the annual Downtown Commute Survey, reducing the survey’s cost significantly. PATMA CY2019-2021 Strategic Business Plan Page 3 2A. Increase Revenue 2A1. City Funding Secure COPA FY2019 (July 2019 - June 2020) funding of $660,000 ●Provide dispassionate ROI analysis to inform City budget process. Communicate with key stakeholders to ascertain stakeholder priorities and to clarify how best to communicate the TMA’s ROI metrics. ●Develop FY2019 budget scenarios and budget-related PPT content ●Synchronize TMA messaging with COPA’s wider transportation vision. ●Make informative presentations to Council and Council Finance Committee. Prepare packet materials. ●Reconcile any limitations placed on the TMA’s use of COPA funding versus the TMA’s adopted objectives. ●Provide objective analysis as needed for City consideration of new funding such as a business headcount tax. Educate stakeholders about TMA activities in order to: a) communicate TMA ROI to inform stakeholder feedback and b) collect feedback to refine TMA priorities. ●Towards that end: a) Develop commute-related social media content, b) encourage Palo Alto stakeholders to follow PATMA social media, c) publish journalistic commute-focused content, d) rebuild and streamline paloaltotma.org, e) create and post one or more concise videos explaining aspects of the TMA, f) host a stakeholder-neutral event that is open to the public. Measurables: ○Via an outreach effort attain 300 followers ○Produce 30 tweets ○Motivate/author 4 PA Weekly articles ○Board to review new website and provide a thumbs up ○Attain 150 views of videos ○Attract 40 attendees to the stakeholder-neutral event. 2A2. Public/Private grant funding ●Generate $200,000 or more from alternate sources at local, regional, and national levels. ●Develop a two-page “funding pitch” flyer, emphasizing equity, cost-efficacy, and innovation. ●Pursue four or more funding opportunities. 2A3. “GoPA” employer program revenue (program defined in #2C1 below) ●Generate more than $20,000 in revenue from employers. 2A4. Board Dues ●Generate $31,000 revenue from Board membership fees. PATMA CY2019-2021 Strategic Business Plan Page 4 2B. Cost-Effective Trip Reduction 2B1. Reduce downtown staffing cost ●Recruit, hire, on-board, and train a lower-cost TDM Program Manager. ●Reduce from $17,164 to $11,480 per month. 2B2. Program costs ●Negotiate one or more mobility service discounts. ●Calculate advanced metrics of cost-efficacy, including “annual cost of a non-SOV commute.” ●Undertake analyses of creative cost-cutting brainstorms, such as “is it cost-effective to convert downtown service workers from monthly passes to Go Pass?” ●Advocate on behalf of the Regional Means-Based Fare Program. ●Continue to cultivate SamTrans/Caltrain relationship with an eye towards securing a discount. Advocate on behalf of Caltrain Means-Based Daily Fare Pilot, part of the regional effort. ●Undertake small, continuous improvement to manage the transit pass monthly workflow and back end to surmount Clipper challenges and to ensure customer success. ●Advocate for public policy that reduces demand for SOV commuting or increases demand for non-SOV commuting. ●In hopes of spurring a tipping point away from free workplace parking, advocate to one or more major employers for a Transportation Allowance that could morph into “small stick, big carrot.” ●Advocate to app-based mobility service vendors to utilize their government relations staff to influence game-changing government policies to scale their business models and shift significant commute mode share. 2C. Grow Existing and New Programs Assuming total 2019 revenue of $890,000, remove 397 cars (total for new and current programs) in December 2019. 2C1. GoPA employer TDM program pilot Concept: ●Support modes including transit, bike, e-bike/scooter/skateboard, Scoop, and Waze. ●Provide a service that works for employers with 20 to 2,000 employees. ●Charge employers an annual fee per employee plus charge for a la carte services. ●Distribute vouchers featuring PA merchants to virtuous commuters. ●Manage incentives to maximize green commute behavior. ●Replace current Scoop/Waze direct subsidy expenditure. ●Automated reporting of each green trip. PATMA CY2019-2021 Strategic Business Plan Page 5 ●Verify conversion away from SOV. Measurables: ●Design the concept. ●Pitch the concept to friendlies to iterate the concept. Validate whether the concept is worth pursuing. ●In order for it to be worthwhile to launch, secure participation commitments from either a) three employers or b) one or two employers totalling 300+ employees. ●Advocate for public policy to require employers to participate in the TMA (a la Hotel Parmani). ●Achieve a cost per non-SOV commute of less than $1,800. ●Reduce more than 70 SOV commutes through the GoPA Employer TDM program by December 2019. ●Provide an update to Council in late 2019 or early 2020 that demonstrates progress towards Council’s objective of the TMA having an employer program 2C2. Current Programs ●As funding allows, expand downtown service worker participation. Undertake a “full outreach tour” of downtown merchants with extra emphasis on banks, hotels, and medical centers. ●In order to better solve customer challenges and stay top-of-mind, maintain positive relationships with public transit operators/agencies and private mobility service vendors. ●Leverage Dumbarton Corridor improvements, Manager’s Mobility Partnership bike route, Palo Alto bike/scooter share program, Palo Alto Transit VisionPlan Local Shuttle Service Enhancements, and sub-regional TDM/TMA collaboration. ●To increase demand, advocate for: ○Expanding public transit and preventing service cuts. ○App-based mobility service feature set improvements. ○Improved biking routes and infrastructure. ●To increase demand, research best price/performance commuter e-bikes. ●Without logging billable hours, engage with the professional TDM community to glean program insights and best practices and to keep up on industry developments, freely sharing public information about PATMA. 2C3. Cal Ave Transit Pass Program Pilot ●Validate demand and scalability hypotheses for expansion of the transit pass program to Cal Ave ○Test hypothesis #1: “Demand for the transit pass program scales to areas that have worse transit options than University Ave.” ○Test hypothesis #2: “The TMA’s transit pass workflow and backend can scale to a new area with separate personnel, bookkeeping, web pages, etc. From the perspective of Facebook as 50% project funder, show the program could scale to Menlo Park. ●Identify potential funding sources to extend the program or make it permanent, such as increased Cal Ave parking permit fees. ●Out of the TMA’s interest in cultivating funders, provide appropriate status reporting to the funders. ●Create a high-quality Cal Ave Pilot Final Report PATMA CY2019-2021 Strategic Business Plan Page 6 2D. Financial Management ●Expertly manage cash flow to always fund monthly transit passes. ○Manage ongoing cash flow crunches. Expedite receivables. Expedite contracts and billing. ○Throttle program participation to best utilize funding. ●File the TMA’s first Form 990 by May 15. ●Implement controls per the TMA’s Financial Management Plan. ●To improve cash flow, advocate to Cubic/Clipper for an improved refund policy for unused monthly passes, avoiding six months of negative float. ●To improve cash flow, stay in compliance with the COPA/PATMA funding agreement requirements and follow guidance from COPA’s 2018 performance audit. File quarterly reports as soon as app-based mobility service results are available. ●Manage bookkeeping, payables, receivables. 2F. Research and Analysis 2F1. Fair Value Commuting For COPA’s Fair Value Commuting Project, one of 11 FTA Mobility on Demand Sandbox grantees, the TMA will analyze equity and accessibility of the downtown transit pass program, encompassing: ●Profile program participants ●Identify service worker challenges with non-SOV commuting, suggesting potential remedies ●Analyze non-SOV option quality for downtown workers based on income level ●Analyze cost-efficacy ●Analyze commute measurement challenges, such as “Caltrain monthly pass tagging.” 2F2. Additional research ●Successfully pitch and complete 100% front door clipboard employee commute intercept commute surveys at two employers as additional validation of the annual Downtown Commute Survey methodology. ●In the Fall, complete the annual Downtown Commute Survey, reducing the survey’s cost significantly. ●Refine the downtown workforce population estimate, based on square footage. Update the table in Section 1 above to estimate employment by subtype. PATMA CY2019-2021 Strategic Business Plan Page 7 2G. Organizational Growth ●Add two or more new Board members based on identified organizational needs. ●Strive to maintain Google’s participation on the Board. ●Maintain nonprofit organizational documentation in a “state of good repair,” including Bylaws, Roster, California Secretary of State’s Statement of Information business documentation, Governance Pledge, and Conflict-of-Interest statement. 2H. Parking Lot - items excluded from work plan These items were considered but did not make the 2019 Work Plan: ●Youtube videos in English and Spanish : commuter testimonials, how to use Clipper with 2 Caltrain monthly passes and concise versions of presentations ●Revise bilingual transit pass instructions to improve by about 10%. ●Future pilots: ○Vanshare / Vanpool program based on GIS analysis showing demand ○New, targeted bus and/or microtransit service, including after-hours five-city circulator, based on GIS analysis showing demand ○“Arterial corridor sweep” combining Waze, Chariot, and e-scooters ○E-scooter loan-to-own: pocket-sized first/last mile ●From 2016 strategic plan, does COPA have interest in the TMA taking over operation of Crosstown / Embarcadero shuttles? ●SWOT analysis. Threats include: ○Mobility vendors having troubles, retrenching, etc. ○Transit pass price increases ○Caltrain Clipper interface is problematic and PATMA is pushing Clipper’s technological limits ○Small chance of an economic downturn ○Funding sources 2Example: BART’s Spanish language instructions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTfLfOftQE0 PATMA CY2019-2021 Strategic Business Plan Page 8 3. Three-year budget projections 2019 2020 2021 CARS REMOVED 397 564 831 EXPENSES Staff costs $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 Office expense $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Pgm exp @$1,800/car $715,000 $1,015,000 $1,495,000 Commute survey $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $890,000 $1,190,000 $1,670,000 REVENUE City of Palo Alto $660,000 $960,000 $1,440,000 Board contributions $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 Grant funding $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $890,000 $1,190,000 $1,670,000 Assumptions for City of Palo Alto contribution: ●2019: 6 months of $480,000/year, 6 months of $720,000/year ●2020: 6 months of $720,000/year, 6 months of $1,200,000/year ●2020: 6 months of $1,200,000/year, 6 months of $1,680,000/year PPT slide presented to Council Finance Committee, April 16, 2019. Provides budget options. PATMA CY2019-2021 Strategic Business Plan Page 9 References, Comments REFERENCES: ●PATMA Sept 2016 Strategic plan ●PATMA’s Community Outreach Plan, July 2018, by Christine Maley-Grubl ●Nov 2018 EMC Survey Final Report - 65 slides Comment: the Work Plan serves as a thorough job specification. This “job specification” can serve as a refinement from the work scope in the ALTRANS’ TMA management contract. An apt comment from one nonprofit CEO, “Going into the job, I didn’t know that there would be as much need for one-on-one meetings for entitlements.” PATMA CY2019-2021 Strategic Business Plan Page 10 Calendar Year 2018 Annual Report Feb 13, 2019 version. Short URL to this google doc: http://bit.ly/PATMA2018report Executive Summary This report is targeted at: ●Stakeholders who want verification that money is well-spent ●New Board members, staff, and stakeholders interested in the TMA’s workings ●TDM and mobility professionals interested in collaboration and sharing best practices ●Public and private grant funding organizations. Sections 1-8 explain programs, results, history, mission, 2018 highlights/financials, future direction and commute mode share. Appendices A-E provide additional detail. It is difficult to "solve" traffic. Regions and cities take an incremental approach to improve mobility and reduce congestion. PATMA is but one weapon in Palo Alto’s traffic-fighting arsenal. Downtown Palo Alto technology employers have about 30% Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) commute share. This is the lowest in the entire US, for employers that provide free parking at work 1 and are not located in a metropolitan center central business district. In contrast, service worker commute mode share was initially measured at about 74%, providing PATMA’s largest immediate opportunity for trip reduction. Within the “TDM Social Equity” subdiscipline, PATMA is undertaking three unique activities that are changing lives. Compared to typical US TDM program efficacy, PATMA is cost-effective and impactful, but TDM is gradual and labor-intensive. We have helped to reduce the number of workers parking on city streets. PATMA trip reduction is lower-cost than accommodating new downtown SOV commuters. PATMA’s growing transit subsidy program is labor intensive and prone to error. Improvements to our software backend help alleviate some of the problems with the dated Clipper Card system. Scoop and Waze Carpool are successful compared to 15 past failures for similar services, but both still have a long way to go to achieve a non-subsidized business model. We are proud that we secured more than $140,000 in new funding in 2018. In 2019, PATMA will focus on 1) expanding current programs, 2) implementing new pilots such as e-bikes and shuttle services and expansion to California Avenue and 3) increasing revenue while decreasing costs. Preliminary results of the annual downtown commute survey are encouraging. The survey has a robust methodology, but such surveys face challenges such as self-selection bias and seasonal variation. 1 Figure E.7 (from the 2018 Commute Survey) shows Tech employer SOV at 28%. Tech employers with advanced TDM programs are expected to have lower SOV than smaller tech employers. Unique conditions bring about 30% SOV: tech workers living in SF with faster-than-SOV train commute, nation’s #3 worst traffic congestion, highest ridership Caltrain middle-of-line baby bullet station, jobs within 5 blocks of a middle-of-line Caltrain station. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 1 of 36 Section 1: Context This section positions PATMA within regional and local traffic reduction approaches. Where PATMA fits within local/regional traffic efforts: It is difficult to "solve" traffic. Regions and cities take an incremental approach to improve mobility and reduce congestion. PATMA is but one weapon in Palo Alto’s traffic-fighting arsenal. Worldwide, there have been a small number of bold approaches to address traffic. For example, in 2003, London enacted a “cordon charge,” a daily fee that is now approaching $15 for crossing a ring (or cordon) around Central London. Most US regions, including the Bay Area, take an incremental 2 approach to traffic. One exception is Los Angeles with their comprehensive “100 Hours Stuck in Traffic Per Year” program. State Bill AB 3059 is LA’s 2019 enabling state bill that, if enacted, allows a 3 subsequent two-thirds local vote of Angelinos to enact a cordon charge, called a “de-congestion fee,” around downtown LA. LA’s bold approach will be difficult to enact because two-thirds of US voters 4 have never voted to significantly raise driving prices. The Bay Area follows the rest of the less-ambitious US. MTC’s former Executive Director Steve Heminger states there is no big, bold fix for Bay Area traffic and the Bay Area takes an incremental approach. 5 Los Angeles has the second worst US traffic; the Bay Area has the third worst. Within the Bay Area, 6 cities pursue an incremental approach focused on best practices. Without incremental policies, regional employment and population growth would overwhelm transportation systems. In US history, no local transportation sales tax (funding transportation projects and operations) has significantly reduced traffic, yet such sales taxes play an instrumental role in the incremental approach to keep traffic from getting worse. City of Palo Alto (COPA) pursues best practices for rail grade separation, traffic signals, street design, transportation demand management, parking infrastructure, Residential Parking Permit Program, shuttles, promotion of biking, development review (Stanford General Use Permit, etc), Safe Routes to School, and sub-regional collaboration including the Managers’ Mobility Partnership. PATMA is one tool in COPA’s extensive traffic arsenal. The Weekly’s Gennady Sheyner asked, “Traffic has been Palo Alto Council’s top priority for years. Is it realistic to ‘solve’ a problem of such complexity?” City Manager Ed Shikada replied, “You can make it better. You can deal with traffic hot spots. You can manage traffic, but you can never completely solve it.” 7 2 London Congestion Charge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge 3 100 Hours LA: https://100hoursla.com/ 4 AB 3059 Bill Text: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB3059 5 Joint Venture Silicon Valley: State of The Valley Conference, February 2018: https://youtu.be/iPtNThLctdQ 6 2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard, Texas A&M Transportation Institute, page 18, 7 Weekly's 10/26/18 interview of City Manager Shikada on traffic. See also 10/22/18 Palo Alto town hall meeting on traffic. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 2 of 36 Section 2: PATMA’s Three Programs This section explains PATMA’s three programs. Three programs: transit passes, after-hours Lyft, Scoop/Waze carpooling PATMA is a non-profit with about $500,000 per year in revenue and matching expenses. PATMA’s goal is to reduce commute trips by 30%. In downtown Palo Alto, large tech employers have about 30% Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) commute mode share . For US employers offering free 8 parking, this is the nation’s lowest, with Google (at 50% SOV) being the next lowest. 9 In contrast to tech workers, downtown Palo Alto service worker SOV commute mode share was initially measured at about 70%, providing PATMA’s largest immediate opportunity for trip reduction. Though the TMA does not have a social equity mission, pragmatism has led there. A “TDM Social Equity” subdiscipline has recently arisen (see the gray box below for examples). Within the subdiscipline, PATMA is undertaking three activities that appear to be unique: ●Buying and managing monthly transit passes for more than 240 low-income commuters who work in downtown ●Providing “after hours” Lyft subsidy for low-income commuters before 6 AM and after 8 PM ●Undertaking door-to-door, in-person outreach to 300 downtown Palo Alto businesses. PATMA also provides downtown Palo Alto commuters with subsidized Scoop and Waze Carpool rides, without income restriction. The TMA’s pragmatic approach is to design programs that help the most people with the lowest expense in the shortest amount of time. Other US examples of equity-increasing TDM programs: 10 ●In dense urban centers where bike share is prominent, multiple programs offer subsidized membership to low-income travelers. Better Bike Share Partnership is a leading organization. ●The Chicago Individualized Marketing Go Programs, including Go Pilsen, focus on bringing residential TDM to five Chicago neighborhoods that are low-income and highly ethnically diverse. Locally-hired project Ambassadors persuade residents to increase walking, biking, and public transit. ●Los Angeles’ People for Mobility Justice organization is a Black Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC) collective that corrects past discrimination in how public transportation benefits and burdens are allocated, maintained, and developed. Those who have had the least should be given the most. The organization educates different audiences, creating a safe learning environment to build consciousness around mobility justice. ●In Austin, Texas, the public housing authority offers a program called Smart Work, Learn, Play, which connects underserved communities with opportunities to increase their use of public transportation. The program recruits “mobility ambassadors” to meet residents where they are, provide one-on-one training on utilizing various tools to access transportation options and work together to advocate for transportation change with City officials. ●King County Metro’s ORCA LIFT fare card provides low-income public transit subsidy based on household income. The four-person household maximum income is $48K, one-person is $24K. ●UC Berkeley’s Parking & Transportation Department administers the Educational Opportunity Program to provide low-income, first-generation students with better opportunities to take advantage of TDM programs such as scooters and bike share. Being proactive to deliver new mobility services is one step to ensure equitable access to transit is provided and is more than just a "checkbox item." ●San Jose’s Sacred Heart Community Service organization sponsors Bus Riders United for Transportation Revitalization, a committee of bus riders organizing for transportation justice, influencing transit agency policy 8 From Figure E.7 (from the 2018 Commute Survey). Tech employers with advanced TDM programs are expected to have lower SOV than smaller tech employers. 9 Reduce Bay Area Commuting by 25%, Appendix F, Free-Parked Commute Trip Reduction Leaders, www.cities21.org/wp.pdf. 10 Thanks to the national transp-tdm listserv for listing other equity-increasing programs. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 3 of 36 and priorities for improved transit service and increased affordability. ●Oregon Health and Science University provides subsidized Lyft rides, without income qualification (but benefiting multiple low-income commuters), for people commuting between 7 pm and 5:30 am, up to $15 per trip. “We launched this program just last spring and it has been very popular so far, offering a new option to many of our off-peak commuters.” ●Research by Portland Metro is defining “How to better design TDM programs that serve communities of color.” ●Pleasanton’s Hacienda Business Park provides free Wheels local bus EcoPass to all workers and residents within the service area, without income qualification. “A large portion of the users of our transit pass program are service workers and employees with more limited means. The way that the local bus routes are structured, there are strong connections between the more affordable housing in the region (mostly found in Livermore) and the larger employment centers such as Hacienda. We think that this has provided a key piece of affordability for people who work in service industry jobs within Hacienda.” ●Contra Costa Centre Transit Village subsidizes a portion of transit passes for low-income workers but does not fund 100% of those passes. PATMA undertakes door-to-door, in-person outreach to 300 downtown Palo Alto businesses, some with only a handful of workers. This can be characterized as “retail TDM.” TDM scales more easily in the service of large employers, whereas our outreach efforts are relatively labor-intensive. We purchase and manage the distribution of monthly transit passes for more than 240 low-income commuters who work in downtown Palo Alto. These are service workers at restaurants, hotels, Starbucks, CVS, Verizon Store, etc. We increased our annual household income limit from $50,000 to $70,000 to reflect the high regional cost of living (Santa Clara County defines households earning less than $84,000 as low-income). Our average cost of transit passes for Caltrain, SamTrans, VTA, and 11 AC Transit (Dumbarton Express) is about $133 per commuter per month. We work first with store managers who disseminate program information to their workers. Once a worker applies for our program, we work directly with them to provide a Clipper transit fare card and then electronically add transit passes to their card every month. We provide an after-hours Lyft subsidy for low-income commuters who commute before 6 AM and after 8 PM, times when transit options are limited. Some restaurant workers leave work after 11 PM. We fund up to 15 trips per month per commuter, with a subsidy of up to $10 per trip. We serve trips to/from nearby cities that connect to downtown jobs. 11 Joint Venture Silicon Valley report: Poverty in the Bay Area, March 2015. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 4 of 36 Section 3: PATMA CY 2018 Results This section explains PATMA’s mode shift achieved and cost-efficacy. Additional details are provided in Appendix A. 3A. Mode shift achieved - number of commuters shifted away from Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) This summary table uses data from Tables 5.1, C.1, C.4, and C.5: Table 3.1. Nominal mode shift for low-income Transit / Lyft commuters is 11.9%. (Calculation is (227.3+10.4) / 2,000.) Nominal mode shift for Scoop & Waze Carpool carpoolers, assuming office and technology workers are the prime users, is 3.2%. (Calculation is (50.4+44.1) / 3,000.) 12 Aggregate total for 2018 VMT reduced, societal benefit of $0.21 per VMT reduced and GHG reduced 13 are provided in the following table. Calculations are provided in Appendix A, Table A.1. PATMA Result CY 2018 Estimated VMT reduced 1,320,668 Societal benefit $278,661 Tons GHG reduced 543 Table 3.2. 3B. Cost efficacy - compared to other TDM programs For comparison to PATMA programs, a sampling of non-PATMA program cost-efficacy is provided below. Cost-efficacy is measured by an employer’s cost per year of reducing a single SOV commute. 12 Wendy Silvani provided an estimate that there are 2,000 downtown PA service workers and 3,000 office/technology workers. Updated Business Registry numbers may allow us to refine this number. 13 FHWA’s Allen Greenberg provides an estimated $0.211 benefit for each VMT reduced, broken out as A) $0.101 for broad societal benefit from the reduction of: congestion, crashes, criteria air pollutants, noise and GHG, and B) $0.11 individual driver benefit from reduced gas and auto insurance costs. From “Designing pay-per-mile auto insurance regulatory incentives,” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and the Environment, Volume 14D, 2009, pages 437-445. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 5 of 36 This can also be thought of as the cost of freeing a parking space. Caltrain’s Go Pass program charges $285/year for each employee, whether or not they use Caltrain, meaning that cost-efficacy is higher for employers with high Caltrain mode share. In addition to TDM programs, Row #8 provides an estimated annual cost of a new structured parking space to accommodate an SOV commute to downtown. Some of the costs for TDM programs will change during 2019. Row # For comparison: TDM Program efficacy Annual cost of non-SOV commute 1 Gates Foundation TDM: $12 SOV fee yields 32% SOV -$432 2 "Stanford-like" TDM: $3 SOV fee yields 50% SOV $0 3 Self-motivated bike or carpool $0 4 Go Pass for downtown TechCo at 35% Caltrain mode $814 5 Go Pass for Stanford campus @ 17% mode share $1,676 6 Go Pass for an employer with 10% mode share $2,850 7 Private express bus service from SF, 25 riders $3,508 8 New structured parking space (SOV commute) $3,908 9 Employer housing stipend to live close to work $10,000 Table 3.3. Explanations and calculations for each row are provided in Appendix A, Gray Box A.2. Compared to typical US TDM program efficacy, PATMA is cost-effective. Data for Table 3.4 drew from Tables C.1, C.4 and C.5. Fourth quarter CY2018 costs were used. PATMA Program Efficacy Annual cost of non-SOV commute Waze Carpool $1,224 Transit Pass Subsidy - pass outlay $1,572 Transit pass subsidy including staff time: $2,072 Lyft Program $1,855 Scoop Program $2,729 Table 3.4. Transit pass program costs, metrics and calculations are covered in Section 5 and Appendix B. Compared to other TDM programs, the transit pass subsidy is uniquely labor-intensive, so both “pass outlay” and “subsidy including staff time” costs are provided. Lyft, Waze Carpool, and Scoop costs, metrics and calculations are covered in Section 6 and Appendix C. Agreements between PATMA and our vendors will vary over time. Currently, our agreement with Waze Carpool is more advantageous than our Scoop agreement. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 6 of 36 Section 4: About PATMA This section provides PATMA’s history, mission, Board members, 2018 highlights and 2018 financials. 4A. TMA Founding History Former Mayor Nancy Shepherd along with current Mayor Liz Kniss, former Mayor Greg Scharff and former Councilmember Gail Price led an effort to create the TMA as an independent nonprofit. Mayor Shepherd led trips to visit other TMAs in the region and although no longer on the Council, it was her leadership that lay the groundwork for what we know as PATMA today. Says Shepherd, “We were prospecting many options to divert overflow parking and traffic as alternatives to garages--as they would take years to build.” 14 Says Shepherd, “It was very informative to interview staff and experience the Contra Costa TMA which was started in the late 1980s when BART was expanding. Palo Alto can do this too, it's not as easy since CCTMA was planned during the period of office building development, which was designed intentionally without enough parking spaces by 30%. Development funds were collected to initiate the TMA and subsidize BART commuters. Shuttles, taxi vouchers, carpools, and zip cars augment mobility and emergency needs. We rode around on the shuttle, had lunch, then returned via BART to the peninsula.” The Council’s original 2013 vision was to create a city-wide TMA. The original 2013 colleague’s memo states: “Recommendation: Direct staff to develop a comprehensive Transit Demand Management (TDM) plan for the California Ave and University Ave Downtown Districts and the Stanford Research Park with the goal of reducing solo car trips by at least 30% …” A 2014 Staff Report expanded on the Colleague’s Memo: The plan also asked for staff to consider hiring a third-party consultant to develop the TMA, as well as to deliberate on funding mechanisms for the TMA and potential organizational structures. The TMA, as a third-party entity working closely with City staff, would be considered an umbrella organization for many current and future transportation programs. The TMA could manage, market and brand these programs, develop data and metrics on transit use within the community and identify potential services and programs that could serve various Downtown constituents. The TMA would work closely with City staff’s parking management efforts to provide coordinated efforts that could complement one another.” Starting with our first TDM program in May 2016, we were one of the first adopters of a Scoop carpool subsidy program. This program applies to commuters of all income levels. Our transit subsidy program commenced in August 2016. City of Palo Alto funding for the transit program was conditioned on providing the funding to low-income commuters because higher-income commuters are less in need of subsidy. This “fiscal pragmatism” led the TMA towards social equity. Funding History In August of 2014, the City funded a $499,880 study by consultants Moore Iacofano 14 a) New Non-Profit to Manage Downtown’s Traffic Problems, PA Weekly, August 2014; b) Council TDM Study Session: 12/9/2013; c) City Council Colleagues Memo re TDM Plan, 9/16/13 PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 7 of 36 Goltsman (MIG) to refine the TMA concept. After the TMA was formed in January 2016, this contract continued to fund sub-consultant Wendy Silvani, who served as the TMA’s part time executive director. The TMA received nonprofit status via fiscal sponsorship from Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF). The fiscal sponsorship lasted until the second half of 2018 when the TMA achieved 510c3 status. In June 2016, the City, PATMA, and SVCF executed a funding agreement. That agreement provided $100,000 for the City’s fiscal year 2016, running from July 2015 to June 2016. An amendment to the funding agreement provided: ●additional $100,000 for the City’s fiscal year 2017, running from July 2016 to June 2017 ●additional $100,000 for the City’s fiscal year 2018, running from July 2017 to June 2018. At a June 2017 meeting, the City Council approved an increase to the downtown garage and lot parking permit fees to add revenue to the University Avenue Parking Fund and support SOV commute trip reduction activities of the TMA with dedicated funding of $480,000 for fiscal year 2018. In June of 2018, the Council approved additional $480,000 in such funding for fiscal year 2019. The funding agreement was amended in December 2018 to add these funds and to remove SVCF from the agreement. 4B. PATMA Mission The Palo Alto TMA reduces SOV trips, traffic congestion and demand for parking by delivering targeted transportation solutions to the Downtown area’s diverse range of employers, employees, visitors and residents. The TMA also serves as an active voice in local and regional transportation issues. While the primary focus of the TMA is the Downtown population whose travel choices have the highest impacts, its programs and services may extend beyond these constituents. By encouraging and enabling more non-drive alone trips, the TMA contributes to the overall quality of life both in Downtown and throughout Palo Alto; it supports the city’s economic vitality and helps achieve the city’s environmental goals. 4C. Board members with their employers: Rob George, Chair, Treasurer Lemonade Michelle Flaherty, Secretary City of Palo Alto Bob McGrew, Vice Chair Palantir, OpenAI Lucy Tice Google Jonah Houston IDEO 4D. 2018 PATMA Highlights: Several highlights occurred in 2018: ●Since July, PATMA more than doubled transit pass program participation to 240 monthly transit pass activations in December. We improved our marketing materials. We went door-to-door for outreach to 300 downtown businesses. We created a commuter-centered monthly workflow to increase customer success and improve measurement. For backend software, we authored Kantu browser automation scripts and Google Apps Scripts to automate PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 8 of 36 portions of the workflow. To assist with transit pass program expansion, Executive Director hours were temporarily increased from 20 to 40 per week. In addition, Altrans temporarily brought in Justine Burt for additional hours of bilingual outreach and assistance in helping commuters succeed in using their passes. ●We took PATMA to an even higher level of TDM professionalism by refining previously-confusing metrics for Waze, Scoop, and Lyft, distinguishing actual mode shift from program participation. ●PATMA transitioned from fiscally-sponsored (by Silicon Valley Community Foundation) into a full 501c3 nonprofit. We secured a business checking account and wrestled our bank into supporting PATMA’s $33,000 end-of-month transit pass purchases. We established financial controls. We addressed two cash crunches, remedying a payables/billing problem to put the TMA on stronger cash flow footing. ●We secured new funding including: a) $100,000 in new private-sector seed funding from Palantir and Facebook for a California Avenue pilot and b) $40,000 in Federal Transit Administration Mobility on Demand Sandbox grant funding. ●To address our TMA program expansion and program cost-efficacy goals, we developed and refined two bike pilot concepts. ●Valiantly, but unsuccessfully, we petitioned Caltrain for cost reduction, based on a strong social equity argument. ●Improving from previous home zip code-level data, we modified the annual commute survey to collect residential city block-level data, providing improved spatial data for analysis of potential new transit or microtransit routes. We transitioned PATMA management from Silvani Consulting to Altrans TMA Inc, lowering hourly cost by 33%. Contracted for only 20 hours per week, Wendy Silvani did an impressive job helping to found the TMA, defining our strategic plan and initiating our three programs in a labor-effective manner. In July, we brought in Altrans’ Steve Raney (a Crescent Park resident) as new Executive Director. Raney brings TDM thought-leadership to PATMA: ●To address commute traffic, Raney authored a grant proposal for the Federal Transit Administration’s Mobility on Demand Sandbox program, entitled Fair Value Commuting. As a result, City of Palo Alto was awarded $1.085M as prime contractor for the commute reduction project. ●Raney won Fast Company magazine’s 2017 World Changing Ideas Award for “A Solution to Bay Area’s Traffic Woes.” ●Raney formed and led the “3 Revolutions Book Club” project team to design double capacity freeways. The concept is one of 12 finalists in MTC’s Horizon 2050 Transformative Projects competition. 15 ●Raney led the US Environmental Protection Agency’s “Transforming Office Parks into Transit Villages” Study. 4E. 2018 financials 2018 expenses increased each quarter in line with efforts to increase the transit pass program. Overall 2018 expenses outstripped revenues. 15 Double Capacity Single Occupancy Toll (SOT) Freeway of the future, http://bit.ly/2b8ZPRW. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 9 of 36 Table 4.1. Section 5: Transit Pass Program This section provides information about our transit pass program: ●How we count monthly passes and track turnover ●Profile of participating commuters by employer type ●Commuter testimonials about the life-changing impact of the program ●The pursuit of cost reduction. Additional details are provided in Appendix B. Starting in July, we made a concerted effort to increase program uptake, using door-to-door outreach and a new bilingual flyer. Concerned about our expense level, we reduced outreach in November and December, but momentum and word-of-mouth continued to generate a significant number of new applications for monthly passes. Below is an Aug-Dec monthly tally of passes that were “activated,” meaning physically tagged at a Clipper Card reader at a train station or bus. Each month, a number of new applications for transit passes are processed. Each month we have “turnover,” where transit passes are not activated. Unused transit passes are refunded to the TMA. Some downtown businesses have 200% annual turnover (16% each month) of employees, but our transit pass program turnover is lower. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 10 of 36 Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Passes Activated 117 149 214 227 241 New applications 36 49 74 33 40 Turnover 17 9 20 26 Percent turnover 11.4% 4.2% 8.8% 10.8% Table 5.1 Extrapolating November savings for VMT and GHG for 227 transit pass participants yields: ●1.4M VMT saved per year ●574 tons CO2 reduced per year. Calculations are provided in Appendix B, Table B3. Of the approximately 300 downtown businesses, 66 participate in our transit pass program. Details are provided in Appendix B, Table B4. PATMA’s transit subsidy program is labor intensive and prone to both human and technology errors. Each month, about 15% of our Caltrain commuters “tag on but don’t tag off,” resulting in negative balances that can result in $75 citations. PATMA intervenes on behalf of commuters to remedy negative balances and has also successfully appealed Caltrain citations. 5A. Commuter profile For one restaurant: ●Ten staff bike to work from East Palo Alto or Redwood City. ●70% of staff use Spanish as their primary language. ●Because of the high cost of living, ten staff were priced all the way out of state. ●Tech companies are paying $20/hour for dishwashers, a rate that restaurants have difficulty competing with. For one healthcare employer: ●There was an evening mugging of a staffer right across the street from the facility. ●Five years ago, the majority of staff lived in East Palo Alto, but since have been priced out to San Jose and the East Bay. ●Many staffers hold two jobs. Many have days with long hours. ●Some workers buy reduced price half-year on-street permits, but complain that permits are only available in parking zones with long walks in the cold of winter at night. SOV-commuting employees at coffee shops, cellular stores and drug stores often move their cars every two hours, frequently collecting multiple parking tickets per month. Throughout the day, the walk back from moving cars between colored zones gets longer and longer. While these employees qualify for reduced-price $50 per half-year parking permits, there isn’t much uptake. Barriers include: ●Unwillingness to envision six months at the same job ●Difficulty in completing the permit application process, especially for ESL employees ●Lack of availability of permits in convenient, nearby parking zones. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 11 of 36 One frustrated bartender collected four parking tickets in a month and contemplated quitting. He knows he needs to move his car within 20 minutes but then he gets slammed with customers for about 45 minutes. When the customer rush lets up he goes to move his car only to find a ticket. 5B. Commuter testimonials Figure 5.15. Our transit pass program is changing the lives of low-income commuters and supporting a vibrant downtown by making it easier to recruit staff: Person & Employer Testimonial Quote K, Palo Alto Bicycles "Our hardest thing is hiring people. Alleviating an employee's cost of traveling to work by $150/month is like getting a $1/hour raise." R, Il Fornaio "Being able to offer potential employees the TMA transit pass gives us a leg up to hire new employees. For some people, it's a deciding point about whether they will work here or not." Manager at Keen “Without this program, I wouldn’t be able to work here. This is instrumental in helping people have a job out here.” Manager at MacArthur Park “I love when my employees take the train because then they’re on time for their shifts. When they drive they’re often late because they’re stuck in traffic.” M, Sheraton "I'm thinking of going back to school with the money I save from the TMA's transit pass." I, Sheraton "I'm going to go back to school since I’m now saving enough money on my commute." M, Sheraton "Taking the VTA bus then Caltrain gets me here faster than driving from San Jose. With the bus and train, I get here in 40 minutes. Driving can take one PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 12 of 36 hour and 45 minutes." L, The Westin "The train is much faster than driving." H, Community Pharmacy "This allows me to save more money for pharmacy school next year. The Caltrain from Sunnyvale is faster and more relaxing. In the morning it's express to downtown Palo Alto. This pass is like Christmas." S, Community Pharmacy I live in Hayward and used to spend $90/month on Dumbarton Bridge tolls. Now I'm much less stressed. It's so relaxing on the bus. I'm very happy and very grateful for this transit pass." another Community Pharmacy employee "I feel bad for people who drive and are stuck in traffic. The train is so much faster." R, The Taproom "The Caltrain from San Jose is much faster than driving and I get to relax on the way to work." K, Il Fornaio "I get off late at night and the Caltrain whizzes you home. Having another $80/month makes a big difference, like the City is looking out for you. It's also convenient that I only have to tag on and off one trip and then not the rest of the month. That way if I'm running late for the train I can just jump on. That extra minute makes a difference between catching the train or missing it." Table 5.2. Commuter/employer testimonials collected by Justine Burt on 11/15/18 and 11/29/18 Figure 5.3. Selected responses from October pass renewal emails and text messages 5C. The potential for a Caltrain discount PATMA met with Caltrain on November 7 to explore the potential for a discount, but the effort was unsuccessful. Starting around June 2019, Caltrain will offer low-income discounts for individual PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 13 of 36 Caltrain trips, but not for monthly passes. Unfortunately, on a monthly basis, discounted individual trips are more expensive than monthly passes, consequently Caltrain’s program will not benefit PATMA finances. Details are provided in Appendix B, Section B3. In the past, the TMA had expressed interest in providing Caltrain Go Pass to service workers. Unfortunately, the latest calculations show that the annual cost per car removed for service worker Go Pass would be too expensive. For downtown PA service workers with about 7.5% Caltrain mode share, the cost per Caltrain commuter per year is $3,725 (calculation is $285 Go Pass / (153 Caltrain users / 2,000 service workers) ). $3,725 is far higher than the TMA’s current Caltrain service worker cost per car removed of $1,572 (using monthly passes) shown in Table 3.4. Table 3.3 shows that Go Pass for TechoCo with 35% Caltrain mode share has an annual cost per car removed of $814. This shows that Caltrain mode share of downtown workers varies dramatically. Technology workers can afford to live close to Caltrain, whereas service workers cannot and their hours are often not as conducive to Caltrain usage. Section 6: Scoop, Waze Carpool, Lyft This section explains our app-based TDM for Scoop, Waze Carpool, and after-hours Lyft. Additional details are provided in Appendix C. 6A. App-based carpooling: Waze Carpooling and Scoop PATMA offers subsidized rides for downtown commuters using two competing app-based carpooling services, Waze Carpool and Scoop. With Scoop, commuters schedule their next morning commute the night before. With Waze Carpool, commuters schedule their morning commute in real time. Scoop’s service is described in their marketing material: “With the Scoop carpooling app, you can carpool with co-workers to make better use of your time, improve your well-being, and feel refreshed when you arrive at work! How Scoop makes carpooling work for you: ●Schedule with ease: Separate AM and PM trips to fit your work schedule. Ride or drive to meet your daily needs. Carpoolers split the cost of the commute so everyone saves. ●Backed by trusted connections: Scoop brings together co-workers and neighbors who are going the same way. Vehicle history checks on every Driver. ●Smart routes so you never waste time: Scoop’s algorithm identifies the most efficient door-to-door trip based on the fastest route, nearby carpoolers, carpool lanes, and more. When you carpool with co-workers, you’ll meet new people and make the most of your valuable time. And, for a limited time, we’re making carpooling even more enjoyable (thanks to PATMA subsidy), with special pricing when you ride or drive! Check the app to view your pricing.” Scoop’s primary users are “tech-savvy millennials” with some additional 30- and 40-something usage. The top motivations for using Scoop are meeting people and saving time on the commute. Scoop’s sweet spot is 20-mile carpools, but there are also a few 70-mile carpools. Before Waze Carpool and Scoop, app-based carpooling concepts including Avego, Goose Networks, Carticipate, Piggyback, and NuRide struggled, often matching only a handful of commuters. Given the PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 14 of 36 sparsity of potential matches available, Scoop’s achievements are remarkable. Scoop has matched more commuters than the rest of the industry combined and has succeeded in raising $36M in venture capital. However, Scoop's vision for widespread adoption of unsubsidized rider-funded carpools has yet to materialize. Based on similar programs, if PATMA were to end Scoop subsidies, participation would immediately drop by 80%. Barring future enactment of behavior-changing congestion pricing policies, subsidies are necessary for successful carpool program enactment. Rider-funded carpooling offers the promise of reducing cost per SOV commute reduced to $0/year In a larger implementation of Scoop at Stanford Research Park (SRP), traditional carpooling holds about 11% commute mode share, but about 80% of these carpools are “fampools” with members of the same household commuting together. Such fampools often have higher utility than SOV. For SRP, the non-fampool traditional carpools account for roughly 2.5% commute mode share. Within SRP, Scoop’s commute mode share (additional to traditional carpooling) is approximately 1.6%, freeing 327 parking spaces. Scoop and Waze Carpool subsidies are provided to all Scoop/Waze customers with trips originating or ending in the downtown area. 6B. Lyft program description We provide an after-hours Lyft subsidy for low-income commuters who commute before 6 AM and after 8 PM, times when transit options are limited. Some restaurant workers leave work after 11 PM. We fund up to 15 trips per month per commuter, with a subsidy of up to $10 per trip. We serve trips to/from nearby cities that connect to downtown jobs. Lyft commuter testimonials: K, Cardinal Hotel What a blessing this program has been for me, and I am very grateful to have the option of using Lyft. I live equally distant between the Palo Alto and Menlo Park train stations, and the Lyft credit makes it possible to get to my work in Downtown Palo Alto without a car. Thank you so much. J, Watercourse Way This helps SO much! It takes the stress of finding parking and trying to move the car every two hours down to Zero!! Section 7: New Directions for 2019 This section explains new directions for 2019 encompassing expansion to California Avenue, strategic planning, new pilot concepts, revenue enhancement and cost reduction. 7A. California Avenue Expansion Based on the TMA’s success downtown, we were able to persuade two companies to contribute $100,000 seed funding for a California Avenue pilot, probing how the TMA can serve the area between Page Mill and downtown. Part of the pilot work scope will consider how to secure permanent funding. Details are provided in Appendix D. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 15 of 36 7B. Strategic Planning PATMA will update our strategic plan during Feb-Mar 2019. Items to be considered include: Expand use of our three existing programs with continued vigilance about cost-efficacy. Provide TDM services to medium and large-sized employers, potentially on a fee-for-service arrangement. Can we help mid-sized technology and light office employers, City staff, school district, Town and Country, Sutter PAMF, and other employers with customized commute services? Design and analyze potential new trip reduction programs under the rubric “help the most people with the lowest expense in the shortest amount of time.” Pursue an “e-bike loan-to-own” pilot. Two major tech companies have undertaken e-bike pilots targeting 5- to 10-mile commutes, where e-biking is time-competitive with driving. Proposed is an e-bike pilot for downtown workers commuting similar distances. The initial concept: ●Loan workers e-bikes for 300 one-way commutes, after which the commuter gets to keep the bike. ●Choose an inexpensive, reliable e-bike with good price performance. ●Use GPS/location tracking software to validate that bike commutes have occurred. ●Provide high-touch customer support featuring safe residential bike storage ●PATMA promotes the pilot, recruits commuters and tracks performance in a dashboard, but does not operate/insure the pilot. ●Preferably commence the pilot during nice weather (Spring) ●Leverage the launch of East Palo Alto 101 bike bridge by IKEA and the Peninsula Bikeway. ●Government grant funding may help the project scale. ●E-bike prices will continue to drop, improving cost-efficacy over time. Consider a “Bike Love” pilot a la Seattle Children’s Hospital. The Hospital promotes healthy commuting for staff, to the point of buying bikes for staff. The initial concept: ●Red carpet concierge service for low-income bikers. Generate commuter feedback, “wow, this program really made year-round bike commuting easy for me.” ●Pay-in option for tech employers to provide to each biking employee ●Use a trackable GPS bike lock. ●Aspire for a relatively low annual cost per SOV commute eliminated ●Tuneup once or twice per year. ●Provide free or discounted gear, especially for foul weather and night visibility ●Negotiate “shower-only” gym memberships with local gyms. ○Provide free or discounted showers as part of the program. Additionally, allow bikers outside of the program can also obtain the shower memberships. ●Trick out bikes with fenders, baskets, lights, and anything that makes the commute better ●Help provide secure residential bike storage ●Work with a local bike shop ●If you get a flat, take Uber SUV into work (with the bike in the back). Program fixes your flat before your commute home. A “guaranteed decent commute” program. ●Foster competition between employers over the number of biking days per employee Consider other pilot ideas such as PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 16 of 36 ●Vanshare / Vanpool program based on GIS analysis showing demand ●New, targeted bus and/or microtransit service, including after-hours five-city circulator, based on GIS analysis showing demand ●“Arterial corridor sweep” combining Waze, Chariot, and e-scooters ●E-scooter loan-to-own: pocket-sized first/last mile Leverage Dumbarton Corridor improvements. As a followup to SamTrans’ 2016-17 Dumbarton Corridor Study, MTC, transit agencies and localities on both sides of the bridge are progressing 16 planning. There is some discussion of relatively short-term improvements including transit queue jump lanes, bus on the shoulder, transit signal priority and new transit pickup points/routes in the East Bay. MTC has greenlit traffic signal synchronization on 14 lights between downtown and the Dumbarton Bridge. Funding agreements and MOUs will need to be developed for some of the short-term 17 improvements. Leverage Palo Alto Transit Vision Plan Local Shuttle Service Enhancements. 18 Leverage other transportation improvements. Leverage any employer moves towards eliminating free workplace parking to increase non-SOV demand. 75% of Silicon Valley TDM professionals believe “one employer will eliminate free workplace parking in the next 24 months.” Such a move could lead to a tipping point away from free parking. A 19 first-mover employer could implement a $15 per day “transportation allowance” where no employee is made worse off: ●Provide each employee with $15 per day for commuting ●Charge SOV commuters $15 per day (no net cost to employees) ●Provide $15/day for biking and walking commutes ●Provide $15/day subsidy for Waze Carpool and/or Scoop ●Charge $15/day for access to a private express bus service (no net cost to employees). Such an allowance helps to educate employees that SOV parking isn’t free and better reflects the reality of the daily cost of a structured parking space. Explore enhancements and alternatives to the Annual Downtown Commute Survey. Pursue improved survey accuracy, potentially adding some 100% front-door commute intercept surveys. Increase revenue: ●Pursue county, regional, and philanthropic grants ●Increase revenue from employers Reduce costs: ●Hire a lower-cost general skillset person at 20 hours per week for transit pass program work. ●Reduce Executive Director hours ●We have negotiated a 2019 33% discount from Scoop and will pursue other discounts. Increase collaboration with City staff on comarketing and grant writing. Update our website and increase social media presence. 16 SamTrans’ Dumbarton Corridor Study landing page. 17 University Ave Traffic Signals to be Synchronized, Aug 2018, Weekly. 18 Aug 2017 City of Palo Alto staff report on Palo Alto Transit Vision Plan 19 Reduce Bay Area Commuting by 25%, Section 4E, The end of free workplace parking is inevitable, www.cities21.org/wp.pdf. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 17 of 36 Section 8: Annual Downtown Commute Survey This section explains our commute survey. Addition details are provided in Appendix E. The Downtown Palo Alto Commuter Survey has been conducted annually since 2015 and employed the same methodology each year, using the same survey vendor, EMC Research. Surveys are conducted with employees at businesses located within Downtown Palo Alto. This survey follows an excellent methodology but tackles a challenging estimation problem. In attempting to reach so many employers, the commute survey may be unique to the TDM space. The detailed report on the 2018 survey will be provided in late January 2019. As of the date of this annual report, EMC has provided a shorter report. The top line results for overall downtown commute mode share (for all types of workers combined) are provided in Figure 8.1. A partial set of detailed breakdowns is provided in Appendix E. According to the 2018 survey, downtown SOV trips have decreased while transit trips have increased. Technology workers continue to report the lowest SOV rates, while light office workers report the highest. Figure 8.1. Overall SOV commute mode is down to 49% in 2018 Because of methodological realities, statements such as “SOV mode share has dropped each year,” may be problematic as the survey’s margin of error is greater than the annual change. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 18 of 36 Appendix A: Results - Details This appendix provides further details related to Section 3. Table 3.2 is based on the following table. Within Table A.1, the transit VMT calculation is modeled on Table B.3. Table A.1. For Table 3.3, row by row calculations are as follows: Row by row calculation notes for Table 3.3: 1.At the Gates Foundation in Seattle with 32% SOV mode share, a commuter pays $12/day when they commute via SOV and collects $3/day for avoiding SOV commuting. 32% of commuters pay $12, 68% collect $3, for a 20 net gain of $1.80/day/commuter. Multiply the daily net gain by 240 commute days for $432/year/commuter gain that accrues to the employer. 2.Per US commute price elasticity of demand, a hypothetical $3/day SOV commute fee and $3/day non-SOV incentive payment yields 50% SOV, for a net daily cost of $0 per commute. This program is similar to Stanford 21 Campus TDM (where an A Lot parking permit costs about $3.60 per day). 3.Where commuters are self-motivated to individually commute via SOV alternatives, the employer cost is $0. 4.Large downtown Palo Alto tech employers have many 20-something employees living in SF and traveling to the most popular midpoint Baby Bullet station, resulting in an estimated 35% Caltrain commute mode share (Figure E.7 has 41% 2018 transit mode share and we assume 85% of transit users use Caltrain). Starting January 2019 (per http://www.caltrain.com/Fares/tickettypes/GO_Pass.html), the annual cost of an annual Caltrain Go Pass increased from $237.50 to $285 per employee (whether the employee uses Caltrain or not). The annual cost for Caltrain-using-employee is $285 / 35% Caltrain mode share = $814. . 5.Stanford campus Caltrain commute mode share is 17%, for an annual cost per Caltrain-using-employee of $285 / 17% = $1,676. 22 6.For a hypothetical employer with 10% Caltrain commute mode share that provides Go Pass, the annual cost per Caltrain-using-employee is $285 / 10% = $2,850. 7.Using a $100/hour all-in bus cost (including diesel, maintenance and unionized driver). 1/3 of AM buses take a single SF to Mtn View trip with 2 pickups and 2 drop offs in high traffic (90 min). 2/3 of AM buses: SF to Mtn View (90 min), deadhead back (60), SF to Mtn View (90), for a weighted average trip time of 109.9 min and average cost per trip of $183. Average occupancy: 25 out of 50 seats for a $7.33 cost per passenger per trip. Multiply by 240 commute days with 2 trips/day = $3,516/yr. (Cost is lower for higher occupancy.) Google sheet with calcs. 8.The capital cost for a parking space in a new downtown Palo Alto parking structure is about $60,000. A 30-year, 3.8% mortgage has an annual payment of $3,408 (using Google Mortgage Calculator). Add $500/year in operations and maintenance. Attachment C of the Cal Ave Garage staff report (Cost of Issuance) uses a 3.8% True Interest Cost. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67089. See also Appendix A of this document, where 3.8354% was provided as an estimate for all tax-exempt bonds. 20 The not-so-secret trick to cutting solo car commutes: Charge for parking by the day 21 Reduce Bay Area Commuting by 25%, Appendix H, www.cities21.org/wp.pdf. 22 Stanford Bike Access Study, Oct 2017. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 19 of 36 9.As part of the competitive marketplace of attracting and retaining talented employees, some technology companies offer a housing subsidy for employees to live close to work. Some provide $10,000 subsidy per year, others provide different amounts. Some require employees to live within 10 miles of work, others require employees to live within a shorter distance. Some commit employees to commute by non-SOV, others do not. To implement the commute programs above, organizational costs for TMAs or employer programs are NOT included. Gray Box A.2. Appendix B: Transit Pass Program - Details This appendix provides further details related to Section 4. Between our four transit providers, 82% of revenue goes to SamTrans (Caltrain or SamTrans bus). A mid-November snapshot of our monthly transit pass outlay shows the percent of transit pass expenditure that goes to each transit provider: Nov Transit Passes Number % $ Caltrain 153 65% $24,273 SamTrans 41 17% $2,690 VTA 35 15% $2,800 Transbay DBX 8 3% $1,296 237 $31,059 Table B.1. Our monthly pass prices will see two increases in 2019: Monthly Pass Product 2018 Monthly Cost 2019 Monthly Cost AC Transit Transbay/Dumbarton $162.00 $198.00 Caltrain 2 Zone pass (includes VTA & SamTrans bus) $163.50 Caltrain Zone 3-3 (Menlo Park-Sunnyvale, no bus) $96.00 SamTrans local service $65.60 VTA standard service $80.00 $90.00 Table B.2. Going back to 2017, PATMA has assumed that ●Caltrain and AC Transit commuters use those modes for 100% of commutes ●VTA and SamTrans commuters use those modes 75% of the time. Our transit subsidy application form at www.paloaltotma.org/transit sets eligibility requirements to ensure mode shift from SOV. We use the following language to inform applicants: REMEMBER! To be eligible: -You must work in Downtown Palo Alto. -Your salary must be less than $70,000 per year. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 20 of 36 -You must currently drive to work alone. -You must commit to commuting by transit 3 days per week. Caltrain ridership cannot be confirmed because monthly pass users only tag their Clipper card on their first ride of the month, hence the commuter data that PATMA can access on clippercard.com only shows that single trip. ●To address this shortcoming, PATMA has brainstormed about putting new applicants through a one-month trial to validate high transit usage as follows: In the first month, rather than providing a monthly pass, provide cash value on the Clipper card, requiring these commuters to tag for each ride. A pattern of first-month ridership can be proven that would then provide high confidence of high ridership for monthly pass use from month two onward. It is technically challenging, though possible, to confirm ridership for each bus trip because each clipper card tag at the start of each trip can be seen for each of our commuters. Clippercard.com is a legacy website and does not provide APIs. It is technically possible to use “browser automation with PDF scraping” to collect and analyze this ridership data. To date, no Clipper card-using organization has accomplished this feat. Extrapolated annual transit program Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and GHG savings calculations for 227 November participants moving forwards in time are as follows: Operator Percent People Calculation VMT Lbs CO2 Tons CO2 Caltrain 65% 148 people * 2 trips/day * 240 days * 18 mi/trip 1,274,832 1,155,097 523.9 Samtrans 17% 39 people * 2 trips/day * 180 days/yr * 4.3 mi/trip 29,869 27,063 12.3 VTA 15% 34 people * 2 trips/day * 180 days/yr * 4.3 mi/trip 26,355 23,879 10.8 AC Transit 3% 7 people * 2 trips/day * 240 days * 20 mi/trip 65,376 59,236 26.9 100% 227 1,396,431 1,265,275 573.9 Table B.3. B2. Employers participating in our transit pass program Below is a table revealing the 66 downtown employers that participate in our program, sorted by the number of monthly passes for each employer. Employer # passes Employer # passes Sheraton 29 Edge Hair Salon 2 Apple 17 Footwear 2 DTS Team 16 Garden Court Hotel 2 Westin 16 Gong Cha USA 2 Coupa Cafe 14 La Strada 2 Community Pharm Walgreens 10 Pizzeria Delfina 2 Crepevine 8 Rejuvenation 2 PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 21 of 36 Webster House 6 Title Nine 2 Gobble 5 Vizavoo 2 Lytton Gardens 5 Warby Parker 2 Patagonia 5 Watercourse Way 2 WFM 5 ATT Spring Mobile 1 Yayoi 5 Bell's Book 1 Channing House 4 Buca di Beppo 1 Hassett Ace HW 4 Cafe 220 1 Il Fornaio 4 Connie Ho MD 1 Oren's Hummus Shop 4 First United Methodist Church 1 Palo Alto Bicycles 4 Fraiche Yogurt 1 Walgreens 4 Heinichen's Garage 1 Avenidas 3 Keen 1 Clement Hotel 3 Lily fashion company 1 Lemonade 3 Mac Smoke Shop 1 Local Union 271 3 Mills the Florist 1 MacArthur Park 3 Onigilly 1 Old Pro 3 Pace Gallery 1 PAMF - MIDA Industries 3 Chamber of Commerce 1 Patxi's Pizza 3 Peninsula Creamery 1 Reposado 3 Pizza my heart 1 Rose & Crown 3 Sam’s barber shop 1 Bistro Maxine 2 Shoe Palace 1 Cardinal Hotel 2 Sweetgreen 1 Creamery 2 Tacolicious 1 Dan Gordons 2 The Taproom 1 Table B.4. The list of participating employers is ever-changing. This snapshot was taken in mid-November B3. The potential for a Caltrain discount PATMA met with Caltrain on November 7 to explore the potential for a discount, but the effort was unsuccessful. Starting around June 2019, Caltrain will offer low-income discounts for individual Caltrain trips, but not for monthly passes. Unfortunately, on a monthly basis, discounted individual trips are more expensive than monthly passes, so Caltrain’s program will not benefit PATMA finances. At the May 23, 2018, MTC meeting, the Commission approved a revised program framework for a Regional Means-Based Fare Program. The program will provide a discount of 20 percent to eligible low-income adults on transit rides for four 23 large Bay Area transit operators — BART, Caltrain, Golden Gate Transit and SFMTA — during a pilot period. ●Eligibility for participation is anticipated to be established at 200% of the federal poverty level for adults. The region will create a regional method to validate eligibility. ●The discount program would be implemented through Clipper using a standardized discount on single trips called the “Clipper Coupon.” The Clipper Coupon will allow an eligible Clipper card holder to get a discount on any single trip taken on a participating transit operator. With this approach, only single trips paid with e-cash will 23 MTC’s Means-Based Fare Program: https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/plans-projects/other-plans/means-based-fare-study PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 22 of 36 receive the Means-Based Discount; discounts on passes will not be supported. However, existing transit operator pass programs like Muni Lifeline may continue in parallel to the Means Based Discount Program on Clipper at the operators’ discretion (and own funding). At the December 6, 2018, Caltrain Board meeting, the Caltrain Fare Policy was adopted. Under the Equity category, the Fare Policy contains the following goal: “Advocate for and participate in State and regional programs that make it more affordable for low-income customers to use transit.” Caltrain has concluded that the Go Pass program results in a lower effective cost to well-paid technology workers than to low-income workers. As a result (and also to enhance revenue), Caltrain increased Go Pass annual cost per employee from $237.50 to $285 as of January 2019. B4. Human and technical challenges The Clipper Card system began in 1993 as Translink, the leading edge of transit fare payment. Rebranding from Translink to “Clipper” occurred in 2010. In many ways, this legacy system still 24 works well, but, unfortunately for PATMA’s application, reliability is a problem. A combination of old and newer hardware is used, with varying degrees of reliability. There is two-way communication between the back office Clipper master database and Clipper Readers at train stations and on buses. Train station Clipper hardware is wired to the internet, so is relatively reliable. Buses park near WiFi hubs to allow data exchange with the back office. Some buses do not park at the hub for a sufficient amount of time and drive off with only a portion of the necessary data. At about 2 AM (on more than 90% of days but skipped on a random set of days), a master list of transit passes, cash value to add and blocked cards is transmitted from the back office to Clipper Readers and hubs. When a commuter tags their Clipper card to a Clipper Reader, pending transit passes and cash value is physically encoded onto their Clipper card’s chip. 99% of Clipper card tags are transmitted to the back office database, logged for Clipper cards identified by serial number. One percent of tags are “lost” and are sent to a separate “recovered sales transactions” database that is synched to the main database within 21 days. Train station tags are often visible within four hours, bus tags are collected and transmitted when buses reach a hub. From left to right: Clipper card, add-value machine (available at Palo Alto and Diridon Caltrain stations), train station Clipper Reader, bus Clipper Reader Clippercard.com provides a legacy consumer web portal to manage a few cards for family members 24 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_card PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 23 of 36 under a single login. Users can check transactions, check cash value, add cash value (with a 24 to 48-hour lag before the value is available) and add monthly passes. PATMA manages more than 240 clipper cards out of a single login, something clippercard.com was not designed for. For PATMA, many transactions have a 90-second latency. There are two views into commuter tagging, “My Accounts” and “Transaction History.” Transaction History data can lag actual Caltrain tags by only four hours, whereas My Accounts can lag by 48 hours. My Accounts provides greater utility but less accuracy. When PATMA interacts with distraught commuters, Clippercard.com’s lag interferes with prompt problem resolution. The design of the Clippercard.com back office database is straightforward, but an application programming interface is not provided. MTC is a captive customer of Cubic Transportation Systems, making simple modifications costly. Because of the lack of application programming interface, PATMA uses “browser automation” to facilitate interacting with Clippercard.com. Running browser automation scripts with Clippercard.com is about 95% reliable, requiring frequent script re-starts. The Nashville Clipper Customer Service call center is staffed by friendly, helpful people that PATMA finds itself in frequent communication with. There are more than 19,000 “business rules” in the Clipper system with inconsistencies between Bay Area transit operators. One Level 2 support manager explained that it takes six months to develop a somewhat accurate mental model of the operation of the Clipper hardware/software system. PATMA often runs into edge cases that can challenge Level 1 support personnel. PATMA’s transit program remedies human and technology errors. Each month, about 15% of our Caltrain commuters “tag on but don’t tag off,” resulting in negative balances that can result in $75 citations. Whereas BART has fare gates that ensure commuters tag their Clipper card on a Clipper Reader each time they enter/exit a BART station, Caltrain has ungated platforms. Busy commuters just “space out” about tagging off and there isn’t an obvious remedy. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 24 of 36 Appendix C: Scoop, Waze Carpool, Lyft - Details Further to Section 5, for each of Scoop, Waze Carpool and Lyft, metrics and SOV reduction are provided, with calculations. C1. Scoop 2018 costs and metrics The following table provides PATMA Scoop program costs and metrics for 2018: SCOOP Jan-Mar Apr-June July-Sept Oct-Dec Scoop expense $21,396 $23,788 $35,169 $34,409 1-way person trips (drivers & riders) 6,698 6,790 8,275 7,817 PATMA cost per trip $3.19 $3.50 $4.25 $4.40 working days/Q 62 64 63 62 # pkng space freed: trips / wkng days / 2.5 43.2 42.4 52.5 50.4 Quarterly cost / sp freed $495 $561 $669 $682 Annual cost / sp freed $1,981 $2,242 $2,678 $2,729 Rider miles saved: trips / 2 * 15.5 mi 51,910 52,623 64,131 60,582 Lbs GHG: VMT * 0.906 47,030 47,676 58,103 54,887 Active users / mo 172 179 207 194 Table C.1. The table above benefits from some definitions and explanations: ●A Scoop “trip” is a one-way trip for one person, either a driver or a rider. This means that a daily roundtrip two-person carpool equals 4 person trips. ●“Active users:” Scoop’s “unique matched users” metric is the number of active users who matched with Scoop to either drive or ride in one or more trips per month. ●Scoop’s “cars out of the parking lot” metric can also be characterized as “# of parking spaces freed.” ○Scoop carpoolers may find themselves carpooling with the same people over and over, resulting in some carpools converting to traditional carpools from more expensive Scoop carpools. Such “graduation” is very helpful for SOV reduction and is NOT accounted for. ○Vendor metrics may overstate some dimensions of efficacy. For example, some Scoop use may cannibalize another non-SOV mode or may subsidize a commuter who was already using Scoop. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 25 of 36 ●Most of the Scoop PATMA program “registered users” are inactive. ●GHG calculations assume 15.5-mile one-way trips, a consistent number that arises from Scoop’s monthly data. Table C.1’s “cars out of the parking lot” calculation is ●Number of one-way person trips in the month ●Divided by the number of non-holiday weekdays (IE the working days) ●Divided by 2.5. The 2.5 divisor is relatively consistent from monthly Scoop data. The large majority of Scoop carpools have one rider and one driver, although a new feature creates three-person carpools. About 25% of Scoop customers have two one-way commute trips per day with a two- or three-passenger carpool. About 75% of customers have one Scoop trip per day with a two- or three-passenger carpool. These customers take a different non-SOV mode for their other commute trip of the day. Scoop counts the carpool riders per day in these two scenarios to calculate the number of parking spaces freed. For reporting each month, Scoop precisely calculates parking spaces freed whereas PATMA uses the 2.5 divisor and also applies the 2.5 divisor to Waze Carpool, for apples to apples comparison between the two competing services. Scoop’s detail report on average daily trips trends over 30 months: Figure C.2. Scoop trips: Downtown Palo Alto Average Trips/Day PATMA’s Scoop cost increased over CY 2018. Scoop renegotiated its contract in June, raising rates to $4.25 per trip. This new contract ran June-Dec 2018 and featured a flat $2 per ride cost to carpool riders. For 2019, we negotiated a 33% discount to $3.00 per trip. For 2019, rather than providing a PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 26 of 36 fixed rider or driver incentive per trip, Scoop varies driver/rider incentives to build the business. For example, all things being equal a first-time driver in an area with few drivers gets a higher incentive. Explains Scoop, “Without having the flexibility to vary incentives to fit supply and demand, the incentives create an imbalance.” Palo Alto’s Stanford Research Park TDM efforts have resulted in about 60,000 Scoop trips per month, qualifying for a lower rate than $4.25 per trip, but higher than PATMA’s 2019 rate. As far as Scoop users of the downtown subsidy, Scoop provided some high-level information in December of 2018: “Of the top 19 downtown Scoop destinations, 4 of them were large companies in downtown. The other top destinations are made up of smaller downtown businesses, the Caltrain stop, and co-working spaces. While we can only share this data at a high level, it looks like there is a mix of employees from larger companies as well as lower-income employees using Scoop to commute to and from Palo Alto.” The fee-per-trip is inclusive of all Scoop program management including but not limited to rider/driver balance, route health, marketing, reporting, Guaranteed Ride Home, customer support, etc. Scoop explained that approximately 95% of PATMA’s 2018 subsidy was distributed to commuters. C2. Waze Carpool 2018 costs and metrics Financial agreements between PATMA and our vendors will vary over time. Our current Waze Carpool agreement is advantageous because our monthly expenditure is capped at $4,500. The following table provides PATMA Waze Carpool program costs and metrics for 2018: WAZE Jan-Mar Apr-June July-Sept Oct-Dec Waze expense $4,353 $9,182 $13,500 $13,500 1-way person trips (drivers & riders) 1,624 2,772 5,264 6,832 PATMA cost per trip $2.68 $3.31 $2.56 $1.98 working days/Q 62 64 63 62 # pkng space freed: trips / wkng days / 2.5 10.5 17.3 33.4 44.1 Quarterly cost / sp freed $415 $530 $404 $306 Annual cost / sp freed $1,662 $2,120 $1,616 $1,224 Rider miles saved 15,050 20,236 83,527 106,752 Lbs GHG: VMT * 0.906 13,635 31,167 75,675 96,717 Active users / mo 85 120 155 176 Table C.3. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 27 of 36 C3. Lyft 2018 costs and metrics The following table provides PATMA Lyft program costs and metrics for 2018: LYFT Jan-Mar Apr-June July-Sept Oct-Dec Lyft expense $2,824 $3,194 $3,710 $4,829 1-way person trips 338 375 461 646 PATMA cost per trip $8.35 $8.52 $8.05 $7.48 working days/Q 62 64 63 62 # pkng space freed: trips / wkng days 5.5 5.9 7.3 10.4 Quarterly cost / sp freed $518 $545 $507 $464 Annual cost / sp freed $2,072 $2,180 $2,028 $1,855 Rider miles saved 1,082 1,200 1,475 2,066 Lbs GHG: VMT * 0.906 980 1,087 1,337 1,872 Active users / mo 11.0 11.0 15.0 21.3 trips/user/mo 10.2 11.4 10.2 10.1 Table C.4. For the calculation of parking spaces freed in the table above, we assume each after-hours Lyft trip is accompanied by a non-SOV, non-Lyft commute trip within normal working hours. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 28 of 36 Appendix D: Cal Avenue Pilot Market research has revealed interest in expanding the transit pass program beyond downtown. Whereas downtown features a very popular Caltrain station, the pilot will explore transit pass demand to work sites with fewer transit options. The pilot will also research how to develop permanent funding beyond the $100,000 seed funding provided. The pilot funding commitment letter is provided below: PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 29 of 36 Appendix E: Downtown Survey - Details This appendix provides details for Section 8 on preliminary results, methodology, the survey instrument and methodological challenges. E.1. Survey instrument The survey is a 20-question survey that can be taken on the web or filled out and sent back by mail. Excerpted from the full survey instrument, portions of two example questions follow: 25 Figure E.1. Sample survey questions 25 EMC Research survey instrument. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 30 of 36 For Question 1 regarding commute mode, modes are defined as follows: Category Description Drove alone Drove alone, Motorcycle/Moped Transit Caltrain, SamTrans, VTA, AC Transit, Stanford Marguerite Shuttle, Palo Alto Shuttles, Company-sponsored bus Walk/Bike Walked, Rode a bicycle Rideshare Carpooled (1 or more family/friends), Carpooled (through service like Scoop or Waze or an employer match system), Lyft Line/UberPool/ride-hail service with others, Lyft/Uber/ride-hail service alone, Vanpooled Other Worked remotely, Other Table E.2. Annual survey commute mode definitions E2. Methodology description For the past four years, a random sample of downtown worksites (bounded by El Camino Real, Webster Street, Everett Avenue, and Forest Avenue) was pulled by worksite size, including small, medium and large businesses, using the same vendor, EMC Research, and methodology each year. These sampled worksites were then contacted directly to identify and recruit an onsite survey coordinator who distributed the surveys to all employees at their respective worksite. Some coordinators receive a small amount of compensation for their time and effort. During recruitment, every effort was made to recruit a representative sample of businesses based on their worksite size and type by examining various sources, including Palo Alto business registry, PATMA Customer Relationship Management list, and a business list from an outside vendor. The first three annual surveys were conducted in May, the 2018 survey was conducted October 8 through December 10, 2018. After recruitment, the onsite coordinator was sent the survey either via email or mail per their request. EMC then monitored the survey responses and conducted reminder phone calls and emails as needed. Since not all coordinators follow through with distributing the survey, EMC undertook targeted recruitment to attempt to collect responses from areas necessary to compile a robust sample. The survey is offered in paper and web formats, and is provided in Spanish (upon request) as well as English. This multimodal approach to collecting survey responses allows more businesses to participate, whether they have access to email or not. EMC believes that for commute surveys, the combination of the worksite subtype outreach methodology and the survey sampling is unique. In addition, commuter surveys using multiple modes of communication are rare. E3. Methodology Challenges Web/mail commute surveys have a self-selection bias. Commuters who are proud of taking SOV alternatives are much more likely to respond than SOV commuters. “100% sample front door intercept” commute surveys avoid selection bias. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 31 of 36 Figure E.2. Mountain View City Hall - AM commute intercept. All staff members entering City Hall were surveyed. 26 For City of Mountain View staff, a web commute survey resulted in 75% SOV whereas a front door intercept yielded a more-accurate 86% SOV. The national LEED standard for Alternative Commuting Transportation assumes that the majority of non-respondents commute via SOV. 27 The annual surveys from previous years were conducted in May, where non-SOV is higher compared to surveying in October through December, as was the 2018 annual survey. Active transportation mode use is depressed in November compared to May. For example, bike commuting shrank from 8% in 2015 to 3% in 2018. Some respondents reported that their commute mode changed away from biking because of the air quality alert caused by the Camp Fire (November 2018). Results will vary based on the particular employers that participate in the survey each year within the different downtown employment subtypes. The survey cannot sample from an overall uniform population nor a uniform population within each subtype, because commute behavior varies depending on the employer. Stated using statistical terminology, the sample is not a standard normal distribution where the margin of error can be easily calculated. Within the technology subtype, some employers have more robust TDM programs than others, yielding different SOV rates. EMC explains that more than 80% of technology subtype responses come from employers with 250 or more employees - those generally with more robust TDM programs. Within the service subtype, work hours and parking policies are highly influential on resultant mode results. Nine-to-five service jobs have lower SOV than jobs at bars closing at 11 PM when transit options are limited. The response by particular employers within subtypes varies from year to year, causing variation. The overall SOV result varies partly based on the proportionate number of responses for each of the four worksite subtypes, each of which has a different SOV mode share. The subtype proportions vary 26 Building Entrance Intercept Surveys, http://bit.ly/1KWhHUK 27 Reduce Bay Area Commuting by 25%, Appendix N, www.cities21.org/wp.pdf. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 32 of 36 from year to year. For example, the 2018 technology subtype comprises 34% of responses whereas the subtype encompasses only 28% of responses in 2017. The number of responses varies from year to year. The 2018 survey generated a smaller number of responses, 496, compared to previous years (892 in 2017, 829 in 2016, 1,173 in 2015). EMC indicates, “While this is a smaller number of responses compared to previous years, this year’s N size is perfectly reasonable for a study like this. 2018 results are still a representative sample of downtown employees that we are confident accurately reflects the attitudes, opinions, and behaviors of those who work in downtown Palo Alto. In previous years we enjoyed better response rates and had more data, but 2018 is still a good amount of data for our purposes. One reason that likely explains the reduction in responses is the timing of this survey compared to previous years. In previous years, this survey was conducted in the Spring, but this year the survey was sent out in the Fall. We were likely competing with other emails/mail pieces from political campaigns and were dealing with vacations during the holidays.” As far as explaining why mode has changed over four years, a number of theories can help explain the results, including: ●The TMA plays a positive role in these changes with the highest impact on service workers ●Changes in employer TDM policies are influential. ●Year-to-year changes in demographics and housing location may have changed within subtypes, impacting commute mode. For example, as apartment prices have increased in East Palo Alto, some service workers have moved to San Jose or the East Bay. ●Downtown parking policy plays a role. ●In future years, improved transportation infrastructure may play a role. E4. Preliminary 2018 commute survey results A detailed report covering all of the survey questions will be provided in late January 2019. On January 4, 2019, a shorter report with some results was provided by the vendor. A series of tables and graphs follow, beginning with overall commute mode share in Table E.3. Commute mode 2015 2016 2017 2018 SOV 57% 56% 53% 49% Transit 18% 18% 20% 27% Bike/walk 15% 15% 12% 9% Carpool/rideshare 5% 6% 8% 9% Other (work remote, etc) 5% 5% 7% 6% Table E.3: The overall commute mode data from Figure 8.1 presented in tabular form. For purposes of the survey, downtown worksites are split into four types and are defined in Table E.4. Category % of Sample Description Government 13% Work for the City of Palo Alto Technology 34% Work in a tech-related industry Service 28% Work in restaurants, retail, lodging, salons, etc. Light Office 25% Work for a law firm, insurance, realtor, eye care, dentist, etc. Table E.4. Worksite subtype category definitions, with 2018 sample distribution within subtypes PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 33 of 36 A mode breakdown by worksite type for 2018 followed by 2017 is provided in Figures E.5 and E.6. Figure E.5: 2018 mode share by worksite type Figure E.6: For comparison, 2017 mode share by worksite type. Note how the distribution of subtype responses varies by year. 2018 technology is 34% of responses, with only 28% in 2017. Four years of technology worker commute mode share are provided in Figure E.7. Figure E.7. Technology worker mode share. SOV has remained consistent since 2016, transit has increased significantly since 2017. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 34 of 36 Four years of service worker mode share are provided in Figure E.8. Figure E.8. Service worker mode share. SOV rates have declined significantly, down 24 points from the 2016 peak, while transit and rideshare have increased. Four years of government worker mode share are provided in Figure E.9. Figure E.9. Government workers mode share. SOV trips have declined each year. Four years of light office worker mode share are provided in Figure E.10. Figure E.10. Light office mode share. SOV and transit trips have remained consistent since 2017. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 35 of 36 Jan 14, 2019 Palo Alto City Council meeting: PATMA Packet Elements City’s Staff Report (by Sylvia Star-Lack, reviewed by Sandra Lee, Rob de Geus, Michelle Flaherty) ●Brief recap of TMA founding and mission. $480K/yr funding - revenue source is Downtown Parking funds. List of supporting Comp Plan policies. PATMA’s Jan 14 Council packet elements: ●PATMA Cover Memo ●PATMA Bilingual flyer highlighting our three programs - bilingual flyer ●PATMA CY2018 annual report - see pages 1-33 above ●TDM / suburban commuting backgrounder PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 36 of 36