HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-03-20 Finance Committee Summary MinutesSpecial Meeting
March 20, 2018
Chairperson Scharff called the meeting to order at 6:01 P.M. in the Community Meeting Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Filseth, Kniss, Scharff (Chair)
Absent: Kou, Tanaka
Oral Communications
Andrew Boone wanted to bring attention to several streets that could use improvement for walking and bicycling. These are a section of El Camino Real and East Bayshore Road.
Agenda Items
1. Review of Options to Address Funding Gap for Infrastructure Plan Projects, and Approval of Objectives and Elements of Initial Public Opinion Survey Regarding Potential 2018 Ballot
Measure to Raise Revenue.
Chair Scharff stated there is a short Staff presentation.
James Keene, City Manager noted they brought a report on the status of various infrastructure initiatives that the City has, and Dave Metz with Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates
(FM3) was asked to discuss some next steps that could be taken as part of a survey that could play a role in how the Council ultimately decides about funding. Following an initial survey
Staff wanted to come back to the Finance Committee (Committee) for a Refinement Survey on April 17, 2018 and would be looking for a recommendation from the Committee to ultimately go
to Council to approve the objective of that Refinement Survey which will be done in May. Dave Metz and FM3 has done polling work for the City and he will talk about what the City will
be attempting to achieve at this stage as part of discussions about how the Committee will ensure they are able to make progress on the infrastructure needs that have been identified.
Dave Metz, Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates discussed their proposed research approach which mirrors a series of surveys they did previously when the City was contemplating
ways to increase funding for infrastructure. They started with a survey that allows them to test building blocks that might go into a ballot measure that would be placed before voters.
There were three sections: 1) The relative importance that voters assign to a variety of specific projects and infrastructure improvements that might be funded; 2) The viability of a
range of funding mechanisms that might be used to generate dollars to fund those projects; and 3) The durability of support for those mechanisms in the face of pro and con arguments
specific to those mechanisms that might be put forward. With that data, they planned on coming back to the Committee with some recommendations about how combinations of projects and
finance mechanisms might be put together to form a measure that voters in the City would likely support. After that, the refinement survey was to be used to make sure the package met
the standards needed to have a high likelihood of passage. They wanted to propose asking some questions in the survey that were asked in surveys done for the City going back a decade
- tracking people’s perceptions of the quality of life, the performance of City Government and the condition of the City’s infrastructure overall, to determine if those perceptions are
remaining static or have changed. If changed, what the implications of those shifting opinions might be for voters’ willingness to support additional infrastructure funding. One modification
to their research approach relative to what was done in the past is, they recommend conducting the survey through three different modes of outreach to voters; 1) Calls on land-line phones;
2) Calls on wireless phones; and 3) Reaching out to voters on line via e-mail. People were severing their land-line connections and are more comfortable with on-line communications,
so using all these modes to reach out to voters, enables FM3 to get a broad and representative sample and to obtain it more cost effectively. The underlying sampling methodology was
still the same. They draw a random sample of voters who were likely to vote in November’s election from the voter. E-mail was simply added as a way of reaching out to those voters in
addition to phone calls. In a lot of other communities, most recently in Mountain View, this was found to be a very effective way of broadening the sample and gathering more public feedback
without significant additional expense. This was built into the proposed approach put before you.
Chair Scharff put this to the public.
Ann Pianetta, Board Member for the Friends of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter stated they have been trying for five years to upgrade and eventually replace the existing animal shelter.
Pets-In-Need has offered to manage the facility but has been waiting for three years for a final decision by City Council. They asked that Pets-In-Need be the authorized organization
to run the shelter. Also, as the animal shelter falls under auspices of the Police Department, they asked that the shelter expenses be included with the new Public Safety Building infrastructure
plan.
David Coale with Carbon-Free Palo Alto asked to add a few numbers to their report and analysis at the Staff Report. For each California Avenue Garage new parking space, it was $124,000
and for the Downtown Garage it’s $112,000. He put forth some solutions, including Transportation Demand Management (TDM). When polling people about potential funding measures, he encouraged
including both Business Tax and a Special Assessment Tax.
James Pflasterer wished to address the Arastadero Corridor Project. He encouraged completion of this project and prioritizing this higher than other projects.
Libby Lundgren, Parent Teacher Association (PTA), Safe Rides to School, wished to express support for the bike and pedestrian plans in the Budget Plan. She wanted Council to consider
the projects that will affect the most people in the most cost-effective way.
Penny Ellson asked for support of funding for the three Bike/Pedestrian Transportation Plan projects in the Infrastructure Budget. She noticed that in the list of potential revenue sources
in the Staff Report there is no Business License Tax or Business Tax of any kind and no plan to price automobile parking for users. She felt businesses should think about helping fund
projects that serve them.
Paul Goldstein urged the Council to continue making progress on the bicycle and pedestrian projects in the Infrastructure Plan. He suggested that, as the parking deficit appears mainly
around the noon hour, implementing variable time-of-day pricing strategies might be an appropriate source of revenue for some garages.
Sophie Alexis stated she is a sophomore at Gunn High School and was hit by a car when she was biking through the El Camino/Arastadero intersection. She encouraged the Committee to address
the safety issues at that intersection.
Michael Maurier reiterated his support for the Charleston/Arastadero Plan and asked the Committee to prioritize the expenditures required to complete the plan.
Nina Bell voiced her encouragement to finish the Charleston/Arastadero project.
Melanie Liu with Divest Palo Alto and Alliance and Solidarity with Standing Rock wished to remind the Committee that they are still actively looking for divestment from fossil fuels
from Palo Alto. She provided some information from Los Angeles on their move to divest.
Evan Lurie expressed his disappointment with Palo Alto regarding losing sight of what our core values used to be. He encouraged developing a mechanism for prioritizing projects on the
table and support for the Charleston/Arastadero Corridor. He encouraged regulating future growth and felt those benefiting from the improvements must be asked to defray the costs.
Chair Scharff indicated that tonight the primary thing on the Agenda was to give direction to Dave Metz and FM3. He briefly outlined this and thought all of the projects on the list
could be done. A Colleague’s Memo in 2010 from the Committee to Council listed infrastructure needs to be done and the Committee came up with a list of projects. Those projects are in
the Staff Report. He agreed the Charleston-Arastadero Project needed to be finished. Also discussed at that time was a Public Safety Building, a parking garage downtown and a parking
garage on California Avenue, two Fire Stations, a bike bridge and some money for Bixby Park. It was decided the best way to fund it was a Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), which is primarily
a tax on business. The TOT since 2010 has been funding the Infrastructure Plan. That’s been the Council direction and the Council policy. The question to the public was, what should
the TOT be. On a 5-4 vote it was decided the TOT should be 2 percent. He reiterated the City needs to complete this Infrastructure Plan. He believed the City should poll the voters and
move forward with a TOT to fund all the items on the Infrastructure Plan. One of the things the Staff Report pointed out about the downtown parking garage was that there will likely
be an additional $2.8 million in Parking In-Lieu Funds that were paid to the downtown. With that extra $2.8 million, there was expected to be about $10 million in that fund and he stated
that if the Downton parking garage is not built, that $10 million would have to be given back to the developers. The reason there was $10 million in that fund is that the City has allowed
people to pay into the In-Lieu Fund rather than building a parking space; so, the $10 million represents parking spaces that have already been promised that were not built. He felt the
City needed to complete that promise to build a Downtown parking garage. The City also needed to fund the Parks Master Plan Fund and buy more park land. The issue with the Animal Shelter
needed to be solved. The second phase of the Junior Museum and Zoo needed to be funded, as well as other things related to parks and recreation. He suggested a $0.25 Sales Tax and stated
that if Palo Alto doesn’t take it first, another government entity could get that. The grade separation issue also needed to be solved. A preferred alternative for what grade separations
looked like in Palo Alto is needed, then projects can be made ready and a decision made on how best to fund that. He felt the best way to fund that would be a Business Tax in 2020 or
2022.
Vice Mayor Filseth questioned how many responses were expected from the survey.
Mr. Metz stated they are shooting for 600..
Vice Mayor Filseth asked if that would be at random across the City.
Mr. Metz answered yes, a random sample of likely voters.
Mayor Kniss recalled over the last couple of years several polls have been done and she presumed that included in this poll would be general questions. She asked that a sample be given
to the City.
Mr. Metz replied that surveys were designed to provide a specific information need, but there were also a range of questions asked which were helpful as general management tools for
the City. These included how people feel about the quality of life in the community, what they see as the major issues facing it and their overall evaluation of the performance of City
Government.
Mayor Kniss asked Mr. Metz how many polls his firm has done for Palo Alto.
Mr. Metz believed going back to the bond measures tested in 2007, probably six or seven polls.
Mayor Kniss remarked that in today’s world, people felt that polls don’t count anymore. She felt polls were important regarding support for budgetary needs and what is happening in the
community.
Chair Scharff asked Mr. Metz if his firm is planning on polling on the individual projects listed in the Staff Report or not.
Mr. Metz replied some questions will ask people to rate the importance of general categories of spending and also some specific projects.
Chair Scharff thought other areas where the Council may want to spend money would be a dedicated funding source out of the TOT to expand the Transportation Management Association (TMA)
and, the Roth Building renovation.
Mayor Kniss believed Chair Scharff did a good job of summing up everything that happened while he was on the Council.
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Mayor Kniss to recommend to the City Council to approve the objectives and elements of an initial public opinion survey regarding a potential
ballot measure to raise revenue, and direct Staff to return with more information on the Parks Master Plan Projects.
Chair Scharff added into the Motion that Staff return with more information on the Parks Master Plan Projects.
Mr. Keene restated that this would be an initial poll. FM3 was to come back to the Committee with the findings and the Committee could then weigh in more specifically on strategic angles
to pursue. He reiterated that to have something on the November 18 ballot, the Council needs to make the ballot question decisions before the end of June.
Vice Mayor Filseth hoped everyone was aware of the need to move expeditiously. He thought Council and Staff needed to develop a plan and the poll was needed to shed light on the way
to pursue this.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Kou, Tanaka absent
Mr. Keene believed the Staff Report presented the challenges and the Committee spoke to measures to resolve these. Staff targets April 17, 2018 to return with the results from this poll
and will be looking for the Committee’s discussion and action on the next step.
Chair Scharff thanked the public for coming out and speaking.
Mr. Keene thanked Mayor Kniss for sitting in for Council Member Kou.
Future Meetings and Agendas
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 6:46 P.M.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 7 of 7
Special Finance Committee Meeting
Final Minutes 3/20/18
FINANCE COMMITTEE
FINAL MINUTES
Page 1 of 7