HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-06-11 City Council Summary Minutes
Regular Meeting June 11, 2001
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ............................................. 167
APPROVAL OF MINUTES ............................................. 167
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of the 2001-02 Budget and in
concept approving the budget for 2002-03. Approval of Budget Adoption Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Adopting the Budget for Fiscal Year 2001-02 and in concept approving the budget for fiscal year 2002-03 (Attachment 1), including: 1) Exhibit A -- The City Manager's Proposed 2001-03 Budget; 2) Exhibit B -- All changes detailed in the Amendments to the City Manager's
Proposed 2001-03 Budget; 3) Exhibit C – 2001-02 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule; 4) Exhibit D -- Changes and revised pages in the Table of Organization; 5) Exhibit E – Amendments to the Municipal Fee Schedule. .................. 168
2. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.08.210 of Chapter 2.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Add the New
Division of Human Services to the Department of Community Services” .................................................. 206
3. Resolution 8061 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Calling its General Municipal Election of Council Members Requesting the Services of the Registrar of
Voters, and Ordering the Consolidation of Said Election” ... 206
4. Resolution 8062 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City Manager to Execute
the Natural Gas Service Agreement with Enron NorthAmerica Corp.” ..................................................... 206
4A. Ordinance 4707 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2000-01 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $1,500,000 for the Acquisition of Residential Property in Accordance with the Housing Assistance Provision of the City Manager’s
Employment Agreement” ...................................... 206
06/11/01 92-165
5. Request for Authorization to Increase the Amount of the Existing Contract for Legal Services with the Law Firm of
McDonough, Holland & Allen from $64,500 to $105,000 ........ 206
6. Recommendation of the Evaluation Committee to Select Palo Alto Housing Corporation as the Developer of the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Affordable Housing Project and Request for Authorization of the City Manager to Negotiate a Pre-
Development Agreement ...................................... 206
7. Annual Adoption of the City of Palo Alto Statement of Investment Policy and Proposed Changes to the City’s
Investment Policy as described in CMR:266:01 ............... 207
8. PUBLIC HEARING: Assessments for California Avenue Area
Parking Bonds Plan G - Fiscal Year 2001-2002 ............... 207
9. Resolution Determining the Calculation of the Appropriation Limit of the City of Palo Alto for Fiscal Year 2001-02 ..... 207
10. Conference with Labor Negotiator ........................... 208
11. Conference with City Attorney - Existing Litigation ........ 208
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:40 a.m. ................ 208
06/11/01 92-166
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:07 p.m.
PRESENT: Burch, Eakins, Fazzino (arrived at 7:30 p.m. via teleconference from Johannesburg, South Africa), Kleinberg, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler
ABSENT: Beecham ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Wei Wang, 3054 Price Court, spoke regarding Winter Lodge.
Sophia Dhrymes, 483 Hawthorne Avenue, spoke regarding Dan Larimer – Chalkmark in front of property. John Easter, 1175 Stanley Way, spoke regarding affordable
housing. Herb Borock, P. O. Box 632, spoke regarding Midtown Shopping District City parking lot.
Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding Midtown offices.
Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, spoke regarding no RDA at Edgewood.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Burch, to
approve the Minutes of April 24 and 30, 2001, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Beecham, Fazzino absent.
PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of the 2001-02 Budget and in concept approving the budget for 2002-03. Approval of
Budget Adoption Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting the Budget for Fiscal Year 2001-02 and in concept approving the budget for fiscal year 2002-03
(Attachment 1), including: 1) Exhibit A -- The City Manager's Proposed 2001-03 Budget; 2) Exhibit B -- All
changes detailed in the Amendments to the City Manager's Proposed 2001-03 Budget; 3) Exhibit C – 2001-02 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule; 4) Exhibit D -- Changes and revised
06/11/01 92-167
pages in the Table of Organization; 5) Exhibit E – Amendments to the Municipal Fee Schedule.
Vice Mayor Ojakian said the budget was characterized as having a ten percent spending increase. An important source of revenue for the budget was the transfer of Utility Funds to the General Fund. Several new programs were suggested including street
repair and resurfacing, expanding library hours, and improving the computer equipment system. The Council needed to look at policies including information from community studies,
consultant analysis, and staff work for items such as the Public Safety building, improving storm drains and sewers, better
parking projects, improving street beautification, a five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and a local bus system. News Notes from 1965 included issues that were currently being discussed by the Council. The Finance Committee held seven Budget hearings and made little changes to the Budget. Financing
was broken into two categories: General Fund and Enterprise Funds. The General Fund for the current year was $125 million. Staff salaries were increased in order to retain and recruit good employees. Approximately $14 million would be spent in the Capital Funds, an increase of approximately 12 percent in
funding. The Finance Committee approved the Municipal Fee Schedule with minor changes to fees involving youth services and
the Human Services Resources Allocation Process (HSRAP) budget. The Enterprise Fund was a large financial operation in Palo Alto in the amount of approximately $173 million. The reason for the
increase was due to the cost of commodities such as gas and electric. The Finance Committee proposed a rebate for the
Utility Users Tax (UUT). The storm drain system was kept at the current level by passing over $1 million from the General Fund. Approximately 12 staff members were added. The City Manager made
Council discretionary funds available where the Council had latitude in deciding where the funds would go. The funds were
moved into traffic calming and transportation programs including using funds on the shuttle system. An additional amount was used for HSRAP. City Manager Frank Benest said the theme of the 2001-03 Budget
focused on basics. Three years prior, the Council approved a $100 million plan over a ten-year period to eliminate the backlog of non-utility infrastructure. The problem was that
during the 10-year period, only $78 million was identified. The infrastructure plan included non-utility infrastructure such as
streets, sidewalks, libraries, community centers, cultural centers, City Hall, the Municipal Services Center, and parks and open space. A funding gap of $22 million remained. Staff was
06/11/01 92-168
faced with a major challenge to free up existing dollars for existing infrastructure as well as develop an approach for new
needs such as expanded libraries, new traffic improvements and a new Police Building. The Council directed staff to develop a strategy to address the challenge. After the storm drain election defeat, the Council held a community forum on infrastructure on October 30, 2000. At that meeting, residents
told the staff they wanted more information about infrastructure in order to help make informed decisions. Staff organized 11 community dialogues. The focus of the dialogues was to get back
to the basics. The Council priority of funding the maintenance of existing infrastructure was discussed. Eighty-eight percent
of the participants agreed with the Council priority of funding maintenance and rehabilitation of existing structure prior to funding new or expanded facilities. Fourteen percent of the participants said police were a major priority, 12 percent said fire and paramedics, 11 percent utilities, 10 percent libraries,
and 10 percent streets and sidewalks. A $22 million solution was crafted which included strategies to cap growth and services, restructure General Fund reserves, eliminate nonpriority encumbrances, and initiate an aggressive grants program. Slowing and capping the growth and services would save an additional $1
million over 10 years for $10 million. That was over and above the $1 million currently saved each year. Restructuring reserves
was $11 million. In addition, $1 million was found by eliminating certain types of activities, for a total of $22 million to fill the funding gap over 10 years. The Capital
Improvement Program for the following two years totaled $18 million. A clear majority of the participants during the
dialogues agreed that a broad, balanced CIP spread over buildings, facilities, parks, medians, open space, streets, and sidewalks was needed. Staff felt it was necessary to go back to
the public in the Fall of 2001 to talk about needed new facilities. For example, what was the community willing to pay
what were ways to fund the new capital projects, and what citizens were willing to step forward to mobilize Palo Altans to support the initiatives in conjunction with the City. The staff approach for moving forward in Fall 2001 included outreach activities, community survey to identify priorities in terms of
new infrastructure, and efforts to help form and support a new citizens group or work with existing groups to pass a tax measure in 2002. Staff evaluated new revenue sources including
development fees for community services, federal and state grants, redevelopment funding, business registry and/or business
license fee, hotel tax, and a possible parcel tax. Total revenues increased 8.3 percent, a moderate growth above inflation; the second year was 3.2 percent which was less than
06/11/01 92-169
inflation and reflected the downturn in the economy. In terms of the growth and infrastructure reserve which was key to the plan
of funding the $100 million program, an increase of 147 percent was seen. A decrease would be seen the second year. Staff proposed new services in the budget which were offset by new revenue. The revenue picture in the General Fund budget indicated the largest share, 20 percent, was from sales tax.
Property tax was approximately 9.7 percent. The City received only 10 cents on the dollar for each dollar paid by Palo Altans for property tax. The Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT) was 8.1
percent, and the UUT was 5.6 percent. The Finance Committee recommended rebating the growth in the UUT based on the growth
in rates. The largest share of expenditures, 18.4 percent, went to community services such as parks, libraries, open space, and cultural arts. Police was approximately 16 percent and Fire was approximately 13.5 percent. Administrative Services including Human Resources, Council Appointed Officers and operations, and
the technology program were 15 percent. Key to the $22 million solution was the General Fund reserve policy. Twenty-six percent of the amount was set aside for various reserves. Staff proposed going from 26 percent to 18.5 percent as a new General Fund reserve. The money was going into the infrastructure reserve.
While the current reserve in the budget stabilization reserve was $20 million, as money was moved to infrastructure during a
two-year period, the reserve grew to $23 million. In Council priorities, capital spending in infrastructure was increased to approximately $18 million, which was a dramatic increase in
capital spending. In terms of long-range financial plan, staff projected a small surplus each of the following ten years, which
meant an obvious need for new resources to fund new or expanded facilities. Another priority was joint planning of city/school facilities and services. The effort currently concentrated on
two key projects: the feasibility of some joint library services and the extension of the City shuttle services to serve the
school aged population. The City/School Liaison Committee planned to take a stronger and expanded role in jointly planning other initiatives as the City moved forward with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). The Zoning Ordinance update was critical in terms of implementing the Comprehensive Plan (Comp
Plan). Staff proposed $300,000 over the next two years for the Zoning Ordinance update and the Housing Element. Money was set aside in the budget for traffic calming, and alternative
transportation projects. The Finance Committee proposed spending an additional $130,000 for the Mayfield underpass study, the
Downtown North traffic calming trial, and the Lytton Avenue study, as well as $170,000 for the extension of the shuttle program. The Enterprise Funds included Electric, Gas, Water,
06/11/01 92-170
Wastewater, Refuse, Storm Drain, Wastewater Treatment and External Services. The Utility Department faced incredible
challenges with changing commodity markets, deregulation, and PG&E. Two new positions were proposed in the City Attorney’s Office to address the utilities issues and maintain a stable utilities program for the residents. The Council spent $3 million the current year and $1.5 million the next year to
aggressively promote energy conservation and load management. An onsite generator was purchased at the Municipal Services Center to reduce the need for rolling black outs expected in the summer
of 2001. The City proposed to issue $23.9 million in long-term debt in 2001-02 for gas and water. An increase in the Electric
Fund rate was proposed at 43 percent which increased revenues by approximately $23 million. The Gas Fund rate increase was proposed at 67 percent which increased revenues by $27.4 million. The Budget included a 20 percent water rate increase. The total improvements were $2.1 billion, and the City’s share
was approximately $90 million. In terms of water, wells, and the regional storage and distribution system study, a number of improvements were targeted to increase the reliability, which totaled approximately $22 million. An increase of 20 percent in wastewater collection was projected to offset the rising
operational cost of the wastewater system. In terms of the Public Works Utility Funds, the City was mandated to divert
approximately 50 percent of the refuse going into the landfills. The current reduction rate was 59 percent, which was unparalled among the cities in California. The Budget showed a slight
decrease in revenues and expenditures during the following two years. In terms of the Storm Drain Fund, the City looked at
subsidizing that utility by approximately $1.1 million from the General Fund in 2001-02 and approximately $1 million in the next year. An increase in revenues was seen in Wastewater to cover
higher operating costs. Expenditures increased by approximately $1.5 million. In terms of the CIP in the General Fund, a ten-
year program showed approximately $38.5 million for buildings, $19 million for parks and open space, $39 million for streets and sidewalks, and $4 million in transportation projects. To manage the CIP, the prior year a multi-department infrastructure team was formed. Two goals were emphasized: 1) focus on existing
infrastructure, and 2) realistic capital improvement program. The staffing to manage the infrastructure projects matched the funding for those projects. In the process, the team identified
and prioritized 243 existing infrastructure projects. Staff looked at health and safety, cost effectiveness, public support,
enhancement of service delivery, maintenance of existing facilities, and employee productivity. The City needed project management staff to produce the infrastructure projects. One
06/11/01 92-171
staff person could produce $1 million of capital improvements in one year. Increasing money for projects could only be produced
if there were a greater staff. Projects not in the infrastructure plan that were proposed to be funded during the following two-year cycle included Community Service lighting improvements at various facilities, traffic signal upgrades, conceptual plan for the new library program, and El Camino Tree
Planting program. Challenges existed in the accelerated and expanded infrastructure program. Bridges were not evaluated but would be evaluated in the upcoming budget cycle, which would
cause extra demand for infrastructure funding. Infrastructure inflation and project cost changes needed to be taken into
account. The infrastructure reserve was invested; out of that, the City would see interest earnings to help cover inflation. New projects posed substantial new funding and staffing needs including the new library master plan and storm drains. As part of the outreach effort, the City would discuss what the
community wanted and how it wanted to address the storm drain challenge. The Budget funded Council priorities and focused on the basics, in particular, existing infrastructure. The Council’s challenge to staff was addressed to figure out how to fund the $100 million.
Mayor Eakins announced that Robert K. Otnes would speak out of
order to his Oral Communications item, which he had listed together with his request to speak to Item No. 1.
Robert K. Otnes, 2160 Middlefield Road, spoke regarding bookstores that closed in Palo Alto and asked for Council
support for Palo Alto bookstores. Mayor Eakins asked Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison to have
Economic Resources Planning Manager Susan Arpan contact Mr. Otnes regarding the City’s policies on small businesses.
Tina Kass, Library Advisory Commission, 1730 Cowper Street, said in March 1999, the Council appointed a Library Advisory Commission (LAC) and charged the group to review recommendations for library services and make recommendations to the Council for
services. On May 22, 2000, the LAC submitted to the Council a complete set of recommendations for improved services and facilities. On August 1, 2000, the Council approved the
recommendations in concept and added $200,000 to the Library’s operating budget for service improvements. At that time, the
Council was assured by the City Manager that he could fund Phase I of the plan put together by the Library staff. Phase I was to enable the Library to immediately begin to enhance collections
06/11/01 92-172
and services and to prepare for improvements in the capital facilities. Since that time, some Phase I activities were
accomplished. A study of operational staffing requirements was under way. Some improvements were made to speed up availability of new materials to the public, and a program and building analysis for Children’s Library, Mitchell Park Library, and Main Library were almost completed. Added to the Library staff were
3.75 full time employees (FTE) to support existing services and not to improve services. The following components of Phase I had not been accomplished: no improvement in Terman Park Library
services, no upgrading of collections at any of the libraries, no additional hours at Mitchell Park or Terman Park libraries.
The LAC was aware of the funding issues. The Council had heard from citizens for over five years regarding library needs. Karen Kang, Co-President of Libraries Now, 535 Patricia Lane, stated Libraries Now was a broad based citizen’s group whose
singular mission was to see that the Library Master Plan was achieved in the most aggressive timetable possible. The LAC Plan retained all six of the libraries with expansion plans for the Main, Children’s and Mitchell Park libraries. The CIP budget provided no funding for implementation of the Library Master
Plan even though it was approved by the Council the prior year. Staff justified not including library improvements in the CIP
budget because it prioritized existing infrastructure over new infrastructure. Library buildings such as Children’s and Mitchell Park were in a sad state of disrepair and could not
merely be patched. Rebuilding libraries should not be characterized as a secondary need because new construction was
involved. Libraries were basic infrastructure, and after years of neglect needed to be overhauled. Libraries Now embarked on an accelerated six-month plan that included: 1) conducting a
community survey in the next few months to understand the depth of support for libraries in concept and in spending; 2)
educating the community on the survey results, current library deficiencies, and the vision for improved libraries; and 3) prepare during the six-month period to mount a successful library bond measure with the City. Both the Council and City Manager said they wanted the community and City to work
together. Palo Altans loved their libraries and would support them with time and dollars. The City needed to do its part by advancing the Library Master Plan implementation during the
current year, which was full funding and completion of both conceptual designs and construction drawings for the three core
libraries. The libraries needed and deserved modernization at the current time.
06/11/01 92-173
Karen White, Co-President of Libraries Now, 146 Walter Hays Drive, thanked the Mayor and Council Members who had met with
Libraries Now during the prior week. Palo Altans were passionate about their libraries. The Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) recognized that and assured the residents that libraries were “treasured and enhanced to serve current and future generations.” During the prior year, the Council approved in
concept the Library Plan which called for renovation and expansion to correct serious deficiencies in Children’s, Main, and Mitchell Park libraries. The Council directed staff to
prepare a multi-year plan to implement and finance the key components of the Library Plan. The proposed budget consisted of
only $200,000, or one-half of the funds needed for conceptual designs and expense projections. Funds were budgeted for a heating system at Mitchell Park, seismic work at College Terrace, and automated library services which were “band aids” and did nothing to advance the Council’s approved Library Plan
that called for 70,000 square feet of new space. Expensive mechanical and Information Technology (IT) system repairs should not be made to buildings that would be fully renovated within the next few years. The budget stalled until 2003 further design work for the Children’s Library and neglected to fund design
work, construction drawings or construction work at the Mitchell Park and Main libraries. Substantial funds were set aside for
street, sidewalk, and City Hall improvements, but not for the aging, inadequate libraries. Renovated library buildings were a part of the City infrastructure that Palo Altans needed and that
the Council had approved to move forward. The City’s action plan was its funding plan. Libraries Now asked for place holders,
commonly used in Municipal Budgets, totaling $3 million for each of the next five fiscal years for Children’s, Main, and Mitchell Park renovations. The Council’s decisive at the current meeting
would sustain Libraries Now momentum toward making renovated libraries a reality.
Shelby Valentine, President of Friends of the Palo Alto Library, 3116 Stelling Drive, urged the Council not to approve the CIP portion of the budget because it lacked adequate financial commitment to implement the LAC’s new Library Plan. The Friends’
Board of Directors and City Council went on record and voted unanimously in favor of the new Library Plan. The Council directed staff to bring back a plan and financial data in order
to begin implementation of the Plan’s Phase I. The CIP had the City spend $200,000 in a single year with the Friends spending
fully half that amount but without a plan, clear message, or timetable for seeing any concrete results. The investment seemed unwise for the Friends and the City, given that the joint
06/11/01 92-174
public/private partnership feasibility study for Children’s Library languished. The CIP did not provide the financial
placeholder for getting the job done. Time was of the essence. People who suggested soliciting private support and donations were premature, misguided, and failed to recognize that fundraising was an ongoing process. Tools needed included leadership with adequate money budgeted to demonstrate the
City’s commitment to implement the Library Plan. For site planning purposes, comprehensive lists of all library deficiencies was a basic requirement for the architects involved
with the three core libraries: Children’s, Main, and Mitchell Park. A fundamental element in the process was to articulate the
deficiencies within the essential community service. The Board of the Friends voted to endorse the mission of Libraries Now, and all the Friends’ Board members signed on as founding members of Libraries Now.
Amy Green, Vice President of the Friends of the Palo Alto Library, 1481 Pitman Avenue, said the proposed capital budget was not adequate to implement the Library Plan endorsed by the Council. Young families shared the Friends dismay that there were no monies included in the five-year budget for construction
of an expanded Children’s Library despite the fact that a feasibility study spearheaded by the Friends was completed more
than a year prior. The heavily used facility was 61 years old, overcrowded, and in urgent need of repair. The Friends contributed thousands of dollars toward a feasibility study but
the question was whether private donors would be able to finance a multi-million dollar project. Private contributions would only
materialize if there were a concrete plan and schedule that showed fiscal commitment on the part of the City and momentum to implement all the key elements of the Library Plan. She urged
the Council to advance the schedule and funding to complete design and construction of the Children’s Library.
Mabel Herring, 410 Sheridan Avenue, said she visited the libraries almost daily. Reading was a basic tool in living a good life. Her and other senior’s priorities were to frequent libraries in order to read magazines and newspapers and to check
out books. Seniors depended on the libraries because seniors were on fixed incomes and could not afford to buy books and magazines. Many people walked to libraries and wanted to see the
needed improvements made while they were still able to walk to the library. Her understanding was that over the years, caring
Palo Altans formed a focus group and thoroughly researched and compiled the need to upgrade and modernize the libraries. She
06/11/01 92-175
hoped the library issue was a cause most worthy of the Council’s attention, consideration, and rapid solution.
Alex Edelstein, 355 Santa Rita Avenue, said some of his fondest childhood memories were of the many pleasant hours he spent browsing and hanging out at the City’s libraries. Learning that necessary resources to sustain the physical infrastructure and
quality of service he grew up with was a disappointment. The circulation had risen 67 percent since the 1980s, but staff changed little. It was essential that the five-year capital plan
take into consideration the basic work necessary to maintain and preserve the libraries physical plant. Attention needed to be
paid to the increased utilization of the libraries and the corresponding decline in staffing services per circulation. The Council should fully fund the conceptual plans which currently did not appear to have enough funding to be completed. The Council was encouraged to earmark funds for construction
drawings, an act that would facilitate passage of a bond message. During the next six months, Libraries Now expected to work to conduct a survey, education campaign, and work on a bond measure. Libraries Now did not want to carry the entire load and felt the City budget needed to bear some of the cost. The
Council was urged to allocate a sizable portion of the fiscal resources to the libraries.
Gretchen Emmons, 169 Walter Hays Drive, said she was fortunate to volunteer at the Downtown Library several times each week.
The Downtown Library currently had a magnificent display of the hopes of the Library Plan. She wanted to see new libraries,
expanded facilities, rooms for teens, and other things that were in the focus groups.
Pat Emslie, 968 Dennis Drive, said she was concerned that the Palo Alto library system had not kept pace with the facilities
and services found in other Bay Area communities. The libraries were deficient by comparison. The Council and staff prepared a draft budget that provided the resources to address the City’s basic infrastructure needs. That showed the vision and leadership necessary to insure that Palo Alto remained a City
with a high quality of life. The needs of the outdated library system were an important part of the basic infrastructure needs of the community. Libraries provided access to critical
information as well as a cultural touchstone that gave the community its heart and soul. Palo Alto should not fall behind
the progress of its neighbors. Other cities were committed to building aging library facilities. Palo Alto’s quality
06/11/01 92-176
facilities and services supported the premium residents paid to live in the City.
Hillary Freeman, 627 Channing Avenue, said her family spent countless hours in the Children’s Library searching stacks for the right books. Because of the lack of space, books were often shelved so tight that adults had to help the children extract
the books. Some books were stacked on the top of shelves above the reach of some children because there was no room at the end of the shelf. Libraries deserved immediate financial support as
recommended in the Library Plan.
Robert K. Otnes, 2160 Middlefield Road, said more residents of Palo Alto used libraries in the surrounding cities than visa-versa. For example, people were forced to use other libraries because of the lack of facilities. The $200,000 in the budget sounded like another way of tabling the project. To do something
meaningful, sufficient money had to be put into the system to get studies done and plans made. David Siegel, 2733 Ramona Street, Little League Manager, Umpire, and Board Member, said Little League Baseball supplied the
City’s youth with a wonderful opportunity to learn and play baseball. Palo Alto had one of the few Little Leagues in the
country that owned its own field, namely Middlefield Park. Outside of the use of some city fields, Little League asked little of the City of Palo Alto. During games at Hoover Park,
there was not time to have a child run to the Safeway Store or other Midtown merchant to use restroom facilities. Other options
were less than optimal, such as neighbors on Gaspar Court or the nearby church. Major and minor league games that were longer than two hours were too long to be played at a field without
adequate facilities. Little League provided a needed service for the City’s youth and needed to adequately serve the players and
families who watched the games. Neighbors and local retailers should not be expected to fill the void. Hoover Park was more than a neighborhood park where people went for short periods of time. The Park was used by many Palo Alto residents for baseball games and other sports. Such usage required the construction of
adequate rest facilities. Mike Strong, 444 San Antonio Road, #3-B, said the Little League
players enjoyed the Hoover Park with the exception of restrooms. There was tremendous support for construction of restrooms at
Hoover Park.
06/11/01 92-177
Bruce Robinson, 4020 Campana Drive, requested the Council consider funding the construction of bathrooms at Hoover Park.
Due to the large volume of use by youth sports groups and the general public, restrooms were desperately needed. The problems posed by not having restrooms at Hoover Park were obvious, and the consequences of people using the bushes, shrubs, trees, and lawns at Hoover Park to relieve themselves posed serious
environmental and health concerns. A large number of Palo Alto citizens would benefit from the Council’s decision to fund the construction of restrooms in Hoover Park.
Charles Scott, 3136 Genevieve Court, said if there were no funds
allocated for Greer Park, he would like to see money directed toward the completion of the park. At the current time, land at the corner of West Bayshore Road and Amarillo Avenue was used as a contractor storage facility and was an unsightly use of a dedicated parkland. There had not been any funding toward the
completion of Greer Park in more than ten years. Jean Scott, 3136 Genevieve Court, said the last time money was put up for Greer Park was in 1990. She wanted to see some of the money in the budget used to finish Greer Park. The use of the
park as a corporation yard was unconsciousable.
Daniel Garber, 220 Byron Street, said four years prior the Palo Alto Junior Museum provided programs to two of Palo Alto’s Elementary Schools and, at the current time, provided services
to seven schools. The membership more than tripled. By survey, the Museum was the most visited “kid facility” in the City the
prior year. The City was asked to spend Friends of the Junior Museum’s money to hire more educators and make temporary educators permanent. The offer was resisted. During the prior
year, over $400,000 was raised to extend programs at the Museum. The City had its priorities, and the Museum had its priorities.
The Museum would move forward as quickly as it could with its own feasibility study. The Museum asked the Council to give support. Alex Emslie, Palo Alto High School Freshman, 968 Dennis Drive,
said he had first hand experience with the Palo Alto libraries, and they were not up to date with the current standards. Students needed good public libraries to study and work because
school libraries were not open after 4:00 p.m. and were closed on weekends. That left students little time to study or work
outside the normal school day. Libraries provided needed activities for teens, such as classes and music. The libraries should offer educational and entertaining videos for people to
06/11/01 92-178
view. Libraries were a must for young people to learn and live. The Council could make Palo Alto’s libraries up to date with
other cities in the area. Herb Borock, P. O. Box 632, said he agreed with Mr. and Mrs. Scott about Greer Park and the illegal use of dedicated parkland. The City Manager recommended the General Fund
subsidize the Storm Drain Fund. The prior policy should be continued that any monies from the General Fund should be loans to the Storm Drain Fund to be repaid by a fee structure that the
voters were willing to support. A letter was at places regarding a CIP program for park trails which referenced creation of
regional trail connections to Foothills Park and claims that it was categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). His letter included the City Attorney’s testimony at a prior Council meeting where environmental review would be needed for such a trail connection. The sentence should
be deleted from the CIP or change the environmental review section on the project. The Council had a proposal to rebate $2.2 million of UUT that the City expected to receive because of higher rates. For each dollar increase in rates, a five-cent utility tax would result, and out of the $1.05, five cents would
be rebated. That was adopted as a general tax with the impartial analysis written by former City Attorney Diane Northway for
Measure B in 1987. The analysis said, “all proceeds from this tax will be placed in the City’s General Fund for general government purposes of the City.” The argument in favor of
Measure B said “the funds raised would become part of the General Fund usable for any lawful purpose. The Council heard
about libraries, Greer Park, and traffic calming which were direct benefits to 100 percent of the people. The $2.2 million share for each resident was a fraction of what the parcel tax
was for the schools. Adding the amount of money for the shares of the change in equity transfer and rent from utilities, that
would end up being a fraction of the amount of the parcel tax. The people of Palo Alto would rather spend money for the kinds of things the Council heard about at the current meeting. The largest companies whose five percent on top of the dollar would be more money, were the ones who complained.
Tom Wyman, Library Advisory Commissioner, 546 Washington Avenue, said the City budgeted $750,000 during the following five years
to improve lighting in areas including the Community Center and Cubberley. That expenditure was fully understandable given the
safety considerations and the need for lighting. People could not understand why money was not budgeted during the 2001-06 period to expand and seismically retrofit the Children’s Library
06/11/01 92-179
which was over 60 years old. The issue was one of safety and liability and needed to be given priority attention. The
infrastructure budget called for $406,000 to be spent for design work on Children’s Library in 2003-04; however, no funds were included for construction. During the 2004-06 period, $1.5 million was allocated for design and construction work on the College Terrace Library. The LAC supported that work and the
need to move ahead. Compelling safety considerations as well as space limitations at the Children’s Library required that design and construction work be undertaken as soon as practicable to
seismically and upgrade that facility. The LAC agreed with the urgent need to move ahead with work on the Children’s Library
but a specific timetable was not addressed. His suggestion was to take the $406,000 for Children’s Library design, scheduled in the 2003-04 budget and move it forward to the 2001-02 budget year; then include $2.5 million for the 2002-03 budget year. Safety concerns justified spending $.75 million for additional
outdoor lighting. Safety and liability concerns fully justified seismically upgrading Children’s Library without delay. A priority commitment should be made by the Council. Susie Hodges, PAUSD Executive Director of Youth Community
Services (YCS), 25 Churchill Avenue, thanked the Council for the past support of the YCS and thanked the Finance Committee for
recommending the YCS be added to the HSRAP budget for the 2001-02 year. The Council was asked to approve the recommendation. The funds would be used to support YCS’s after school community
service clubs that met weekly at the middle and high schools in Palo Alto and support the summer service camp. The YCS asked for
$12,360 to support the ongoing work with 120 students, a teacher, and a YCS staff member.
Christine Rogers, 3395 Stockton Place, said YCS was a fun program for students. Service projects included the Ecumenical
Hunger Program, a trash pickup, a graffiti paint out, and a Half Moon Bay restoration project. Ben Beitler, 1829 Channing Avenue, said YCS was a way for students to get involved with the community. YCS helped the
schools and was a way for students to learn what was important in the community. YCS was a rewarding after school activity.
Eric Hager, 3160 Maddux Drive, said the proposed establishment of a paid residential scheme in neighborhoods near Downtown was
offensive to residents because it created an exclusive area in Palo Alto of streets that were maintained by the taxes of all Palo Alto citizens but in which parking access would be
06/11/01 92-180
restricted to those who paid for the privilege of long-term parking. The scheme was offensive to Downtown businesses because
it further exacerbated the parking problem for employees of Downtown businesses, specifically retail employees. Parking for employees was a problem. The City originally said the fees would not cover the cost of running the program which meant the City had to pay money out of the General Fund to administer the
parking scheme. That money could have gone to a bathroom at Greer and Hoover Parks as well as to the libraries. The Council was urged to not establish a paid permit parking scheme in
residential areas.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said Palo Alto libraries had one of the largest circulations in the country: over 1.1 million items per year. That was an average of more than 175 items per person. Palo Alto had six libraries because people wanted them, used them, and needed them. In 1978-79, in the aftermath of
Proposition 13, the Council and staff looked desperately for ways to cut the budget and cut spending. Cost for maintenance and repair of libraries was significantly reduced. The Council should establish a $3 million fund for capital improvements for the libraries. Sidewalk repairs did not have to be repaired,
which would give $1.5 million, and $1.5 million would come from implementing a business license tax. The libraries deserved to
be funded. Peter Anderson, 2330 Tasso Street, said some of his best
memories of growing up were from Little League. Half of his son’s games were played at Middlefield Park and half at Hoover
Park. Lack of restroom facilities was a real problem at Hoover Park. The Council was urged to put restrooms in at Hoover Park to make it a more pleasant experience.
Sally Nordlund, Friends of the Palo Alto Children’s Theatre, 764
Garland Drive, thanked staff for coming up with creative solutions to address the Children’s Theatre’s needs for lighting and sound. The new systems would help to perpetuate the Theatre for another generation of Palo Alto children. The Friends asked the Council to keep in mind its request for an Assistant to the
Technical Supervisor. The position would provide better supervision and instruction for the current level of children at the Theatre.
Dawn Burroughs, Friends of the Palo Alto Children’s Theatre, 795
Gailen Avenue, thanked staff for recommending funding for the design phase of the lighting and sound for the Children’s Theatre. The Council was asked to support the recommendation.
06/11/01 92-181
Moshe Kreitzer, 455 E. Charleston Road, said the lunch program for seniors at Stevenson House was supplied by Avenidas at the
Senior Center in Palo Alto. The Senior Center was difficult for most seniors to get to because of parking and buses. Meals were supplied at Stevenson House, which he wanted to see continued because seniors liked to eat together with friends and neighbors. The Council was asked to keep the lunch program
going. Valerie Glassford, Vice President, La Comida, La 3241 Greer
Road, said as basic as Palo Alto’s infrastructure was, the responsibility of the City to address the nutrition needs of the
South Palo Alto elderly population was important. La Comida’s program gave those people the opportunity to get a hot, nutritious lunch five days per week. In addition, the program provided the opportunity for elderly people to socialize. For $14,000, the City could match the County of Santa Clara’s
funding to ensure the program continued. Adding the $14,000 to the HSRAP base amount for the La Comida’s program was important. JoAnn Revis, President of the Board of Directors of Stephenson House, 4015 Scripps Avenue, said there was a need for $14,000 to
continue the La Comida lunch program at Stephenson House in the following year. One year prior, Stephenson House committed to
the establishment of a lunchtime meal program for seniors at the Stephenson House. That was in response to City interest in expanding services for seniors in South Palo Alto. The City,
County, Rotary, and Stephenson House made commitments to make the program a reality. Stephenson House kept its commitment,
which meant that staff picked up meals from Avenidas each day and delivered meals to the Cubberley site on Wednesdays. Volunteers were found to serve the meals on an ongoing basis.
The program made a noontime daily meal available to the low-income residents and other seniors in the area. La Comida was
concerned about bringing low cost services to older and frail seniors who needed neighborhood services to maintain their independence. La Comida would be distressed to think that a program urged by the Council to start would be discontinued. The Council was asked to fund the City’s share of the program.
David Kabakov, President, La Comida, 1333 Forest Avenue, requested additional funding for the program at Stephenson
House. The program served over 4,500 noontime meals during the prior year, in addition to the 38,000 meals served at the Senior
Center. La Comida started its 30th year in 2001, and there was a definite need for the services in Palo Alto. La Comida’s total budget was approximately $221,00. The program at Stephenson
06/11/01 92-182
House was started the prior year at the request of the Palo Alto Human Services Department. La Comida was asked to provide meals
at Stephenson House for seniors in the South Palo Alto area because there were many seniors unable to get to the Downtown location. The County of San Mateo gave La Comida an additional $14,000 to continue the program at Stephenson House provided that the City would add $14,000 to the contract. The County
established guidelines to add new nutrition programs to their contract which stated that any city adding a new program was expected to provide 50 percent of the cost. The South Palo Alto
program would cost $28,000 for the following year. The Council was urged to support the program and allocate the additional
funding. Ellen Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, said people in Palo Alto loved their libraries. The Budget made it clear that the libraries would not improve noticeably anytime soon. During the
prior years, the library budget did not keep pace with inflation and, consequently, collections, services, and facilities suffered. The City raised people’s expectations and then dashed their hopes. In the early 1990s, approximately 1,000 people were involved in developing the Comprehensive Plan in Palo Alto. A
key element was improving, upgrading, and enhancing the libraries. Five years prior, the City initiated the idea of
focus groups. People were asked to involve themselves at looking at libraries and dreaming their dreams for libraries. The Council created the LAC and approved the Library Plan. People
expected follow through. Residents would not accept putting libraries on hold. The Council was urged to consider people’s
priorities and put the libraries back on the fast track. Sandra Hirsh, 226 Creekside Drive, said Palo Alto’s libraries
were vital to the community, providing a place for children to develop a lifelong love of learning and for people to pursue
their recreational business and general interests. With the widespread adoption of the Internet, libraries had the opportunity to provide new and redefined services to meet the informational and recreational needs of the community. Palo Alto libraries were poised for change with the new vision for library
service articulated in the Library Plan. Her family members were avid library patrons but were disappointed by the age and poor condition of the library facilities. The Council was urged to
find a way to fund the Library Plan.
Mark Sabin, 4274 Wilkie Way, said stressing infrastructure was important. Because of the passionate feelings about services in the community, there was a tendency to put aside and defer
06/11/01 92-183
maintenance of the infrastructure in the City. The Council was aware that things in the City needed to be taken care of. As a
businessperson in the community, he felt strongly that the infrastructure needed to be dealt with. The Council should not try to put the bulk of the weight on the business community. RECESS: 9:35 P.M. TO 9:48 P.M.
Mr. Benest said, as the City Manager and Palo Alto parent, he applauded the library supporters who spoke. The City wanted to
join in common cause with library advocates. The prior year, he recommended an increase in the base budget of $200,000 for
staffing at the library. That recommendation was approved by the Finance Committee and Council. The base budget was maintained during the current year. While looking at capping services throughout the entire City, he asked about the two top priorities of the Library Division. One was the book budget, and
$92,000 was added to the books and materials budget. The other priority was taking the long-time, 15-20 year temporary
positions and making those permanent positions. For the first two years, the additional cost was $65,000. In terms of capital improvements, $7 million of improvements to library buildings in
the ten-year program were included. During the following two years of the CIP, approximately $550,000 was included for
improved technology, $200,000 for Mitchell Park improvements, and $400,000 for conceptual design for Main and Mitchell Park libraries. Also included was moving forward with the preliminary
design for the Children’s Library. The conceptual plans needed to be completed to know whether existing buildings would be
added on to or whether existing buildings needed to be torn down and rebuilt. The Council and staff supported the new Library Plan. The Plan was $50 million for building expansions and
capital improvements. In addition, $1.5 million to $3 million per year in new operational costs was required. Given the
$100,000 million in deferred maintenance of existing infrastructure, staff knew that new tax revenues were needed to support the new Library Plan. The Library Plan was not put on hold. Staff completed or nearly completed new square footage requirements for expanded libraries at Mitchell Park, Main, and
Children’s as called for in the new Library Plan, evaluated staffing requirements on the new Library Plan, and looked at site planning for an expanded Main Library and Art Center
complex and the expanded Mitchell Park Library and Community Center. Staff evaluated new sources of revenue from some type of
tax measure in the next year. Much work was done in evaluating the transient occupancy tax increase, the business tax increase, development impact fees, redevelopment funding, and a potential
06/11/01 92-184
parcel tax. Staff was committed to work with citizen groups to pass tax measures for funding the new Library Plan. Staff
believed the first thing that needed to be done was to complete the conceptual plan. Council Member Wheeler said a timetable was built into the budget. The Main Library was due in the fall followed by
Mitchell Park Library during the Christmas holidays. She asked whether the material included in the feasibility studies would be of sufficient detail as to financial information to allow the
Council to go to an election or whether more refined studies were needed.
Mr. Benest said the conceptual plans provided cost estimates which would be a basis to go to a tax measure. Assistant Director of Public Works Engineering Kent Steffens
said conceptual plans would develop cost estimates for the Library Master Plan. A range of options would be developed, and staff would return to the Council for decisions. Staff did not have to get all the way through the construction documents phase and have a complete design prior to going for a bond measure.
Council Member Wheeler asked about funding for the conceptual
plan. Mr. Benest said the City had the funding to get through the
conceptual planning phase. A tax measure in the spring would pay for construction drawing and construction.
Council Member Wheeler asked whether it was conceivably possible, if the Council felt it did not have enough information
from the feasibility plans, to do something similar to what the City did with the Downtown parking structures, such as loan the
CIP General Fund monies that would be repaid by a successful bond measure. Mr. Benest said the Council was able to go into the Infrastructure Reserve for needed money.
Council Member Wheeler said a question was raised regarding the utility of going forward with plans that were already budgeted
for things such as library automation. Her thought was that the Council only went forward with items that made sense.
06/11/01 92-185
Administrative Services Director Carl Yeats said any proposed technology improvements were able to be migrated to any
facility. Mr. Benest said staff held off doing things at Children’s Library because staff was hopeful that it would get federal money.
Council Member Lytle asked how the City’s conceptual plan tied into a spring timeline.
Community Services Director Paul Thiltgen said the conceptual
design work would get done by late spring. Some of the work for both the Mitchell Park and Main libraries would not be completed until December. The conceptual plan would not be started until the feasibility study was finished.
Council Member Lytle said when the Council directed Phase I implementation the prior year, her understanding was that the highest priorities would be pulled and accelerated. Implementation meant doing conceptual, preliminary, and construction drawings in order to build something. She asked how
the Council could get into sync with the Library Plan, and how the Council could respond if there was not staff available and
no timeframe. Mr. Benest said construction drawings could not be done without
preliminary design, and a preliminary design could not be done without a conceptual plan. The conceptual plan could not be done
if square footage was not identified. Staff was given the direction to fix the $100,000 million problem, which was where staff put its effort. In addition, staff made major efforts to
move the Library Plan forward.
Council Member Lytle asked what would be done if the Friends of the Library were successful in the spring. Mr. Benest said money would be needed for the preliminary design work and construction drawings. Three libraries would not be
able to be reconstructed at the same time. The work would be phased.
Council Member Lytle asked whether there was a way to accelerate the entire development of plans.
Mr. Benest said the conceptual plan could not be done until work was done in the fall.
06/11/01 92-186
Council Member Lytle asked whether the timeline for getting the work done could be condensed.
Mr. Benest said given that the projects would be phased, the Council could decide to move forward as soon as the preliminary design work was approved.
Council Member Fazzino asked what the resistance was on the part of the City to fund the restrooms at Hoover Park.
Mr. Benest said staff had no problem regarding any policy about constructing restrooms on parks, especially those with active
sports programs, but his understanding was that had not been the City’s policy. In the out years of the Infrastructure Plan, $1 million was included for restroom renovation but not for new restroom construction. The cost for a park restroom was approximately $200,000. If the Council decided to put a restroom
in a park, integrating the restroom construction with other improvements made sense from a cost efficiency point of view. Hoover Park had been renovated in various ways. Additional renovations were scheduled for 2008. Other parks were due for renovation prior to 2008.
Council Member Fazzino clarified that pending 2008, staff would
be able to put temporary facilities at Hoover Park. Mr. Benest said that was correct. Some Little League programs or
other sports groups put in portable facilities. Staff could work with those groups to see which ones would be interested in
participating in obtaining portable facilities. Vice Mayor Ojakian said because the Library Plan was ambitious
in terms of the number of square footage to be added, a survey should be done.
Mr. Benest said several surveys were done when tax measures were considered. Staff was committed to do a citizen survey to look at libraries and other new, expanded infrastructure needs.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether the survey could be focused only on libraries.
Mr. Benest said yes.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether the City had funds to pay for the survey.
06/11/01 92-187
Mr. Benest said yes.
Vice Mayor Ojakian clarified the survey could be done parallel with doing some of the other preliminary feasibility study information. Mr. Benest said yes. Staff was in the process, anticipating the
Council’s approval of the $22 million solution, of beginning to figure out how to have a meaningful discussion with people about new infrastructure and priorities. Staff needed to be focused
and committed.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether there was an approach that was considered more appropriate or a best practice way of doing the survey with the City in conjunction with citizens. Mr. Benest said before a campaign started for the City, it was
appropriate for the City to pay for it. A citizen’s group did their own polling and had their own consultants. Council Member Kleinberg asked about the seismic safety of the Junior Museum.
Public Works Director Glenn Roberts said monies were funded in
the past for seismic upgrades and retrofits of the Junior Museum and Children’s Library. A conscious decision was made on both facilities to defer construction pending decisions on what would
become of the ultimate facility. The Children’s Library required removal of the roof, replacement of structural members of the
top of the facility and reinstallation of the roof. The decision was made at the Junior Museum to not proceed with seismic retrofit given there were plans for a new facility. There was no
imminent collapse or life safety issues with either facility.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the information on seismic safety current. Mr. Roberts said yes.
Council Member Burch asked whether a tax campaign got in the way of another campaign that would be connected to a public safety building.
Mr. Benest said the cost of the Police building needed to be
reduced. The City could not afford a $50 million building, given the other needs. Staff would return to the Council with a program that would cut the cost of the Police building in half.
06/11/01 92-188
Council Member Burch asked whether the plan was to continue to campaign for money for the Police building.
Mr. Benest said staff had to figure out a way of freeing up existing resources for that building. There were more quality of life type of facilities that would resonate with the voters. Staff looked at the cultural facilities, including libraries,
for possible tax measures. Staff currently loaned $1 million per year to the Storm Drain Fund. Solving that problem would give flexibility.
Council Member Mossar said there were many infrastructure needs.
She asked how the Council could move forward in a way that dealt with the infrastructure needs. Mr. Benest said the City should take immense pride in partnership with the community. The next challenge was going to
the community to ask what projects needed to be worked on. Council Member Mossar asked whether it was Mr. Benest’s recollection that when the Council adopted the concept of the Library Master Plan, that the Council made that Plan more
important than the other infrastructure needs.
Mr. Yeats said when the Infrastructure Management Program (IMP) was adopted in 1998, a list of new needs totaling $320 million were included. At that time, prioritization of the top new needs
included the Library Master Plan, the Public Safety building, and traffic calming.
Council Member Mossar clarified the list was generated and prioritized by staff. Her recollection was the Council never
adopted the list as official policy.
Mr. Yeats said the Plan was adopted by the Council, and the new needs were listed in the Plan. Vice Mayor Ojakian said the report was a staff report dated December 1, 1998, that listed priorities.
Council Member Mossar said subsequent to the December 1, 1998, date, the Council made some significant policy shifts. The
conversations in 1998 were different from the conversations the Council began having since Mr. Benest became City Manager. She
was unsure that everyone agreed on the policy that was set on priorities.
06/11/01 92-189
Mr. Yeats said as part of the long-range financial plan, staff went to the Finance Committee with the intent of going out with
the same survey mentioned by Mr. Benest to reaffirm the prioritizations that were set by Council. Council Member Mossar said that was a conversation that the Finance Committee had.
Mr. Benest said the Storm Drain election suggested that it be thought through, and it could not be a City-driven initiative.
His recommendations to the Council were clear that the City focus on solving the existing infrastructure with existing
revenue because the City had no credibility talking about new items when other items were ignored. Council Member Kleinberg said Mr. Moss suggested some of the money be funded through using street repair money.
Mr. Benest said the City tried to get its infrastructure back to a level so that ongoing yearly maintenance kept the program at a decent level. Staff looked at a ten-year cycle for sidewalks. The Council could decide there were more important things to do.
Council Member Kleinberg clarified if the cycle was deferred
once by three years, it would be a more expensive proposition. Mr. Benest said the basic problem was staffing.
Mr. Roberts said prior to the start of the IMP, the City spent
$650,000 per year in sidewalk repair; of that, $400,000 per year came from UUT and $250,000 came from the City’s General Fund. There was an implied commitment in the original UUT to maintain
that level of effort. The $650,000 base needed to be carefully considered and maintained. The increased amount of sidewalk
repair went from an additional $700,000 to almost $1 million per year over the following few years. That amount of money was a policy choice that the Council previously made in implementing the IMP. The policy choice could be revisited. If the Council chose to revisit that, the Council needed to consider that
staff’s estimate to stay current, approximately $900,000 needed to be spent each year. The concept of the IMP was that the City had a 10-year period of time in which the City would get caught
up and backlog would be removed. The IMP was structured to remove the backlog by 2008-09. The Council could make the policy
choice to defer that for three years. Additional liability and risk would be incurred.
06/11/01 92-190
Mr. Benest asked about the effort to catch up to the IMP if the Council chose to forego the extra level during the three-year
period. Council Member Kleinberg said the decision to have an accelerated 10-year program was a conscious decision.
Mr. Roberts said yes. The policy decision was made consistent with all the elements of the IMP. The entire program was structured around a 10-year window of catch up and ongoing
maintenance.
Council Member Kleinberg asked about the proposal with respect to the change in what the Council had approved for the CIP with respect to the Children’s Library portion of the Plan. Mr. Benest said the preliminary design for the Children’s
Library would be done within the following nine months. Vice Mayor Ojakian said in terms of the Library Master Plan, he imagined a good funding source might be a parcel tax versus funding some of the other projects through different mechanisms.
The Library Master Plan included a significant amount of money to be added to the operating costs. He asked whether the better
mechanism might be a parcel tax. Mr. Benest said the parcel tax would be the best way to deal
with the issue. The City would be in big trouble if it had the capital but not the operating costs.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked for an explanation of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASBY) 34.
Mr. Yeats said GASBY 34 reporting model made cities report fixed
assets in financial statements. The City had to inventory all the assets and create a system. The City had to say that in its system, there was a 10-year replacement cycle and therefore based on the total dollar amount, the City spent “x” amount per year to replace the system. That would occur with all the
infrastructure, including technology. If the City did not manage the infrastructure accordingly, that would show up in the financial statements, and the bond rating would be adjusted
correctly.
Vice Mayor Ojakian said it was fortuitous that some of his predecessors had the foresight to set up a program to deal with existing infrastructure.
06/11/01 92-191
Mr. Yeats said Palo Alto was ahead of the game because it had an IMP, began the process of setting aside funding, and created a
reserve. Vice Mayor Ojakian clarified it behooved the City to be careful in managing the IMP correctly in order to maintain the bond rating.
Mr. Yeats said that was correct.
Council Member Lytle said an item on the agenda was to rebate UUT money. She asked if the rebate were reduced, would the City
have money to transfer to sidewalks and then from sidewalks to another part of the existing infrastructure such as libraries. Mr. Yeats said the rebate was approximately $1.3 million.
Vice Mayor Ojakian clarified the money would not have to be transferred into sidewalks but rather the money would end up in the General Fund and be used for anything the Council chose. Mr. Yeats said that was correct.
Council Member Lytle suggested not to rebate but use the money
for sidewalks and then take sidewalk money from the General Fund and apply it for libraries.
Mr. Benest said some or all of the rebate could be used for the purposes described by Council Member Lytle.
Mr. Yeats said all the UUT revenues went into the General Fund.
Council Member Burch asked how providing an additional $1.5 million from sidewalks or another source would accelerate things
to get the City to move faster toward the Library Master Plan. Mr. Benest said the first phase of work needed to be completed. An additional level of funding, with or without the tax measure, would be provided to do the preliminary planning phase. Some
assurance was needed that there would be new tax revenue. Following the conceptual plan, if the Council wanted staff to move forward with the preliminary design, staff would tell the
Council what had to come off the two-year plan.
Council Member Burch asked whether the $1.5 million at the current time made any difference.
06/11/01 92-192
Mr. Benest did not believe the $1.5 made a difference. The conceptual plan had to be done and then approved by the
Architectural Review Board (ARB), Planning and Transportation Commission, and the Council. He did not see how $1.5 million at the current time accelerated the process. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether the Hoover Park restrooms and
Greer Park renovations were discussed at the Park and Recreation Commission (PARC).
Mr. Benest said no.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether it would be appropriate to have the PARC discuss those issues. Mr. Benest said yes.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked where the City would get the money to support the La Comida lunch program. Mr. Benest said the money could be taken out of the Reserve Fund balance which meant $12,000 less went to infrastructure, or the
Council could direct staff to take the money from the City Manager Contingency.
Council Member Mossar said Mr. Borock had asserted that the UUT money was to be put into the General Fund and could not be
refunded.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Sue Case said the ordinance was restricted under the Charter provision for initiatives which meant the ordinance could not be amended except by another vote
of the people. The proposal before the Council was not an amendment but merely an implementation measure of an
administrative nature that did not come within what Mr. Borock said. Mr. Borock correctly pointed out there was a rebate provision in the existing ordinance, but that was essentially if a taxpayer proved that the City made a mistake in the particular assessment for that person. That issue was different from what
the Council was currently considering. Council Member Mossar asked about the issue of environmental
review for the regional trails connections that was implicit in the budget.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said when the issue came up, the question was whether Foothills Park was interconnected to the
06/11/01 92-193
rest of the world, and the answer from staff was no. The fact was nonresident use of Foothills Park was not implicated.
Mr. Thiltgen said that was correct. Council Member Mossar said she asked the City Manager for a list of policies that would be adopted in the proposed budget. The
list included a cap on growth of services the current year and a slow growth of services in future years.
Mr. Benest said the cap was for the first two years in the current budget cycle.
Council Member Mossar said another item was a change of the City’s reserve policy that lowered reserves from 26 percent to a range of 15 to 20 percent. In the budget for 2001-03, the amount was 18.5 percent.
Mr. Benest said that was correct. Council Member Mossar clarified the use of bonding capacity for gas and water systems capital improvements would go to the
Council for final approval.
Mr. Benest said that was correct. Council Member Mossar clarified the rebate of the UUT revenue,
based on increased rates was implicit.
Mr. Benest said that was correct. Council Member Mossar clarified moving ahead with the conceptual
design for Main and Mitchell Park libraries and the preliminary design for the Children’s Library was also an implicit policy.
Mr. Benest said that was correct. The policies were being done in anticipation of a tax revenue stream that the City did not yet have.
Council Member Kleinberg said a statement was made by the spokesperson from the Children’s Theatre with respect to a need for a full-time Technical Program Assistant to supervise the
children working on the technical things. The full-time equivalent position was approximately $59,000. She asked where
the funds could be found for that position.
06/11/01 92-194
Mr. Benest said he could not recommend funding for the position. Given that the policy was to cap the growth, he could not
propose adding another position. Mr. Yeats said money had to be taken out of reserves because the position would be a continuing, ongoing expense.
Council Member Fazzino said his recollection was that former City Manager June Fleming made a commitment to the Technical Assistant position several years prior when the Council
addressed the issue of Children’s Theatre renovation as well as increased support for programs.
Mr. Benest said the prior City Manager recommended in the last year’s budget that the positions be increased by two full-time people. He did not recommend the position in the current budget. Council Member Fazzino recalled the former City Manager had a
master plan in place with the two added positions the prior year and one additional position within a year. Mr. Yeats said he did not recall the discussion on the additional position.
Mr. Benest said the Community Services Director informed him
that there was no master plan. When the Children’s Theatre staff came to the former City Manager asking for needed positions, the former City Manager agreed.
Council Member Burch asked whether, in finding the $14,200 for
La Comida for the 2001-02, the funds could be put back into the HSRAP budget the next year.
Mr. Benest said the Council could increase the base of the HSRQP funding.
Council Member Wheeler said when she ran for Council many years prior, one of her campaign pledges was to complete the construction of Greer Park. She asked what happened to the master plan for Greer Park.
Mr. Benest said completion of Greer Park was an unfounded project in the IMP. Staff did a prioritization of 243 projects,
and Greer Park did not rank with fixing existing playfields, irrigation systems, and leaky roofs. The Council could change
its program.
06/11/01 92-195
Council Member Wheeler asked whether there was a plan for the portion of Greer Park that had not been developed.
Mr. Benest said the original master plan called for tennis courts at Greer Park. At the current time, tennis courts were not the best use of the land. The issue needed to be discussed by the PARC and Council.
Council Member Wheeler would not participate in the Human Services Resources Allocation Process (HSRAP) portion of the
budget due to a conflict of interest because of her employment with Palo Alto Community Child Care.
Council Member Mossar and Vice Mayor Ojakian would not participate on the residential permit parking due to a conflict of interest because of owning a residence in the affected area. MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Mossar, that the Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the staff recommendation as follows, with the exception of Human Services Resources Allocation Process (HSRAP) and Residential Parking: 1. The Budget Adoption Ordinance (Attachment 1), which includes: a. The City Manager’s Proposed 2001-03 Budget
(Exhibit A - previously distributed). b. All changes detailed in the “Amendments to the City Manager’s Proposed 2001-03 Budget” (Exhibit
B). c. Proposed 2001-02 Municipal Fee Schedule (Exhibit
C - previously distributed). d. Revised pages to the Table of Organization (Exhibit D). e. Amendments to the Proposed 2001-02 Municipal Fee Schedule (Exhibit E)
2. Utility Rate Schedule Resolution to increase Electric
Utility Rates (Attachment 2). 3. Resolution Amending the Compensation Plan for
Classified Personnel (Service Employees’ International Union, Local 715) (Attachment 3).
06/11/01 92-196
4. Resolution Amending the Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Personnel and Council
Appointed Officers (Attachment 4). 5. City of Palo Alto General Fund Reserve Policy and Proposed Changes to the City’s Reserve Policy (Attachment 5). 2 Ordinance 4706 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting the Budget for Fiscal Year 2001-
02 and in concept of the Ordinance Approving the Budget for Fiscal Year 2002-03” Resolution 8058 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Utility Rate Schedules E-1,
E-1-G1, E-1-G2, E-1-G3, E-2, E-2-G1, E-2-G2, E-2-G3, E-4, E-4-G1, E-4-G2, E-4-G3, E-7, E-7-G1, E-7-G2, E-7-G3, E-8,
E-9, E-10, E-11, E-12, E-13, E-14, E-16, E-17 of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Rates and Charges pertaining to Electric Rates”
Resolution 8059 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Classified Personnel (SEIU) Adopted by Resolution No. 8056 to Change Certain Salaries and Classifications” Resolution 8060 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers Adopted by Resolution No. 8000, and Amended by
Resolution No. 8027 to Change Certain Salaries and Classifications” Approval of the City of Palo Alto General Fund Reserve Policy and Proposed Changes to the City’s Reserve Policy and Approval of the City of Palo Alto Debt Guidelines
The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council re Evaluation of the Shuttle Pilot Project approval of one-
time funding of $170,000 in Fiscal Year 2001-02 and $192,000 in Fiscal Year 2002-03 for the Planning Department in support of the City’s shuttle program as noted in
CMR:243:01. These amounts do not represent additional funding requests, but rather a transfer from the Council Contingency.
06/11/01 92-197
The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council re Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program approval of the
following: 1) consider increased funding beyond the annual $100,000 for spot treatment traffic calming projects; 2) consider funding options for large neighborhood traffic calming projects (and complex traffic calming projects), which were not included in the spot treatment traffic
calming budget; 3) consider funding options for the six-month trial of Downtown North Traffic Calming Project and the concurrent new Lytton Neighborhood Traffic Calming
Study. In addition, the roundabout pilots would be limited to one, the savings from which would be used for either the
shuttle service, another spot traffic calming project, or other funding to be decided at a later date. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the Capital Improvement Project budget with the
amendment that $20,000 be moved from CIP #10207, the Roundabout Demonstration Project, to CIP #10026. The Finance Committee recommends the City Council approve of Utility Users Tax (UUT) Rebate with the following
stipulations: 1) an August 1, 2001 implementation date for the refund; 2) adjustments to the UUT formula through
6/30/02; 3) limit the refund for high volume users to the first threshold of 5 percent. AMENDMENT: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Fazzino, to amend the Library CIP to have a $1 million placeholder for
Mitchell Park, Main, and Children’s Libraries in order to accommodate moving forward on a faster timeline.
Council Member Lytle suggested a $1 million placeholder for each library.
Council Member Fazzino agreed with $1 million placeholder. Mayor Eakins clarified that Council Member Fazzino did not want to use the UUT rebate but to use less aggressive sidewalk
process. Council Member Fazzino said that was correct.
Council Member Lytle said a balanced approach of financing all
the infrastructure and municipal responsibilities was needed. Delaying the infrastructure items that were most precious to the community deprioritized the items. Getting a sense of the multi-
06/11/01 92-198
year financing plan was difficult. She heard as part of the outreach program that the Council could not move forward until
it studied the total of all the infrastructure needs and funding options. Another round of community outreach was not needed to know that libraries were cherished and overdue for improvement. She wanted to see a more balanced CIP. Putting $1 million as a placeholder under each of the top priorities started making up
for the lost time in the prior year of not getting the Council’s act together. The Council needed to move forward because residents had waited long enough.
Council Member Mossar said she would not support the amendment.
At a prior year’s Finance Committee meeting, she and Council Member Lytle supported and encouraged staff to do community outreach to find out what the community wanted. Years prior, the Council established a settled policy about infrastructure plan and discussed how it would be maintained. The Council
acknowledged it had a large infrastructure backlog and promised the community the backlog would be eliminated. Vice Mayor Ojakian clarified Council Member Lytle asked for a placeholder for three libraries for a total $3 million for one
year.
Council Member Lytle said the $3 million could be put into the first year but carried over if something did not come up.
Vice Mayor Ojakian said he spent much time looking at the City’s library situation and compared it with other libraries. Palo
Alto outspent other libraries in circulation or collection. The Library Master Plan was ambitious. The Council needed to approach the Plan in a more systematic way. The Council needed
to take a stepped approach that included doing the feasibility study and survey to make sure there was a strong commitment from
the community. Putting $3 million aside sounded good, but it did not get the City to a $48 million program or an indication as to how to increase ongoing operating costs. The existing infrastructure needed to be fixed. There was money for the existing libraries. The CIP included $4 million in library
capital projects, which was a fact that should not be downgraded.
Council Member Lytle said she was in agreement with the community survey one-year prior. Her concern was that there was
not much accelerated progress during the prior year. The public saw the libraries as existing and the improvements as investing in existing infrastructure. Calling the infrastructure new was a
06/11/01 92-199
shift that people were not clear about. Showing good will with the public to gain partnership would go a long way.
Council Member Burch supported the library, but questioned whether $1.5 million made any difference in terms of the plan going forward faster. He heard the answer was “no.” The plan put forward by the City Manager made sense. He hoped the libraries
moved forward expeditiously and planned for a campaign in the spring. If he thought $1.5 million more would go, he would take it from the UUT rather than from sidewalks.
Council Member Wheeler said Council Member Burch clearly asked
about the impact of putting more dollars to the libraries as placeholders. The answer to him was that the additional dollars would not help or accelerate the situation. The measure took from another project that the Council made commitments over the prior years to accomplish. She could not support the amendment
as coming from sidewalk funds. Council Member Kleinberg said she did not want to take money from the infrastructure equation that was already done and would not support the amendment.
Mayor Eakins said there was much confusion as to what was
existing infrastructure and what was proposed new infrastructure. The Library Master Plan called for significant expansions at the three core libraries. That was new and
required another type of funding. The proposed budget kept a balance. The Council and staff did not make it clear that there
was a timeframe for getting the Council’s act together for a tax measure and for implementing the Library Master Plan. She was uncomfortable with the pressure that was deliberately put on the
Council to cast anyone who did not want to put more money up front as a non-supporter of the libraries. All the Council
Members were supporters of the libraries. She would not support the amendment. AMENDMENT FAILED 2-6, Fazzino, Lytle “yes,” Beecham absent.
Mr. Benest said it was clear that the Council had a general desire to move the process forward. If the Council desired, staff needed to do the conceptual plan first and then the
Council would have choices as to accelerating the process. If the Council passed the CIP at the current meeting, there would
be money to do the conceptual plans for two libraries plus the preliminary design on Children’s.
06/11/01 92-200
AMENDMENT: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Lytle, to
amend the Library CIP to have a $1 million placeholder for
Mitchell Park, Main, and Children’s Libraries in order to accommodate moving forward on a faster timeline, using the Utilities User Tax rebate monies as the revenue source. Council Member Burch asked whether it would be possible to hold
off with the UUT but hold it in abeyance as a possible fund. Mr. Yeats said as the rebate program was designed, staff
intended to track how much was rebated. Staff continued to track how much additional revenue was received and held that number
aside in order to return to the Council in the future. Council Member Kleinberg asked about a timeline. Mr. Benest said the conceptual plan for the Mitchell Park and
Main libraries had to be completed. Money could then be applied to accelerate the design work. Mr. Thiltgen said the Children’s Library could be done by March 2002. The other two libraries would be completed by June 2002.
Council Member Mossar said the Finance Committee discussed and
approved the rebate and asked why the Finance Committee recommended to the Council that the rebate go forward.
Vice Mayor Ojakian said utility costs had risen, and the UUT was a percentage of the utility costs. The feeling was that the
Finance Committee did not want to appear to make a windfall out of the situation. The Finance Committee came up with a rate of what normally was charged to a household, figured out the
differential, and came up with an amount to rebate the customers.
Council Member Mossar asked why did not giving the rebate and applying money to the libraries not a windfall. Council Member Kleinberg said at the time of looking at the
rebate, the Finance Committee did not see something that was an overriding community need.
Council Member Mossar suggested deferring action on the rebate and to ask staff to bring it back to the Council for further
discussion. MOTION WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECONDER
06/11/01 92-201
AMENDMENT: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Lytle, to
defer the discussion on the Utilities User Tax (UUT} rebate and Library CIP and direct staff to return to the Council prior to Council vacation in August, but not August 6, 2001. Mayor Eakins asked the Finance Committee and staff why the
rebate was in the budget and whether it was cleaner to incorporate it rather than going back to it later.
Mr. Benest said yes.
Mayor Eakins said the reason was an effort at keeping basic budgetary considerations together. If the Council wanted to take out the rebate because there were too many questions, that was within the Council’s right.
Vice Mayor Ojakian said the rebate was included in the budget because the Finance Committee tied the increase in gas and electric rates against trying to provide a limited offset. He was comfortable with allowing for further discussion.
Council Member Fazzino said he would support the motion but felt strongly about the rebate. If the Council were to change use of
the Utility Tax revenue in any way, that needed to go back to the voters. AMENDMENT PASSED 8-0, Beecham absent. AMENDMENT: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to refer the issue of Hoover Park restrooms to the Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC), and that the PARC include
public/private partnership cost sharing, and direct staff to address temporary restrooms immediately. Council Member Wheeler supported the referral and asked that the PARC look at the concept of public/private partnership sharing of potential costs. Organized sports groups that made heavy use of Hoover Park might be willing to contribute in some way toward
the financial realization of the facility. Council Member Lytle asked about the timeframe for hearing back
on Hoover Park.
Vice Mayor Ojakian said the timeframe depended on staff placing the item on an agenda.
06/11/01 92-202
Council Member Mossar said often times when items were referred to Boards and Commissions, the best possible idea that cost the
most came back to the Council. The Boards and Commissions should be encouraged to think smart, frugally, and functional. Council Member Burch wanted the situation at Hoover Park solved quickly.
AMENDMENT PASSED 8-0, Beecham absent. AMENDMENT: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Kleinberg,
to refer Greer Park improvements to the Park and Recreation
Commission (PARC). Mr. Benest said when the PARC looked at Greer Park, he wanted them to look at the total park related improvements in the 10-year plan to see where Greer Park fit in.
AMENDMENT PASSED 8-0, Beecham absent.
AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Ojakian moved, seconded by Burch, to
approve $14,200 additional funding to La Comida at Stevenson
House as part of Human Services Resources Allocation Process (HSRAP) funding.
AMENDMENT PASSED 7-0, Wheeler “not participating,” Beecham
absent.
Council Member Fazzino left the meeting at this point.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Lytle, to
add $59,000 for a full-time Technical Program Assistant for the
Children’s Theatre.
Council Member Kleinberg said there were approximately 150 young people who participated daily during the school year and approximately 250 young people in the summer at the Children’s Theatre. Many of the children did technical work backstage learning skills that were important to the entire learning and
growth experience. The technical activity required careful supervision by adults. The position was needed to provide for safe supervision of the children. In February 2000, a review of
staffing at the Children’s Theatre recommended the addition of three regular positions which were not to increase services but
maintain the current level of services. Two full-time positions were budgeted for the 2000-01, and the Technical Assistant was to be budgeted for the 2001-02 year. The former City Manager
06/11/01 92-203
recommended the third position be delayed for one year because of staff turnover and to allow the new staff to select whom
their assistant would be. There were ways to fund the Program Assistant, including finding money from the General Fund or raising the adult ticket prices by $1 which would raise a portion of the revenues. The Council should fund the full-time position for the first and second year of the budget.
Council Member Mossar asked whether the Finance Committee discussed the Program Assistant Position.
Vice Mayor Ojakian said the issue was raised by members of the
public, and the Finance Committee did not speak specifically to the issue. The Finance Committee and Council were cautious about adding permanent staff during the prior several years. Council Member Kleinberg said people asked the Finance Committee for funding, but the Committee did not have many facts.
Council Member Mossar said she needed to hear from staff on the issue and asked that staff return to the Council with further information that would enable the Council to make a clearly informed decision about adding a position to the City’s budget.
Council Member Kleinberg stated her only concern was whether the
item could return prior to the Council’s summer break. If the issue is put off for a month or two the Children’s Theatre would have missed the biggest demand for applicants.
Council Member Mossar stated she could not support the motion
and hoped her colleagues agreed that the item would be better discussed at a later time. AMENDMENT FAILED 3-4, Burch, Kleinberg, Lytle, “yes,” Beecham,
Fazzino absent.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether his colleagues agreed with Council Member Mossar’s suggestion of the item being returned at a later time, and whether staff could agendize it in a timely matter.
Ms. Harrison stated the item could be agendized prior to the Council’s summer break if staff would be given the flexibility
to agendize two major items on the same night. AMENDMENT: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Burch, to approve Human Services Resources Allocation Process (HSRAP) funding.
06/11/01 92-204
The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council re Human Services Resources Allocation Process (HSRAP) Funding approval
of the following: 1) the funding allocations, as recommended by staff and the Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) Allocations Committee (Attachment A to CMR:227:01), be included in the fiscal year 2001-02 Human Services contract budget, with the addition of funding of $15,070 for Project Sentinel, $12,360
for Youth Community Services, $8,280 for Senior Adult Legal Assistance, and $15,033 for PARCA; 2) the City Manager or his designee be authorized to execute the Human Services contracts
and any other necessary documents concerning the contracts; and 3) that staff be directed to examine the process by which
Project Sentinel was funded to determine whether or not a contract process rather than HSRAP funding be utilized for their support. AMENDMENT PASSED 6-0, Wheeler “not participating,” Beecham,
Fazzino absent. AMENDMENT: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Lytle, to approve Residential Permit Parking.
The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council that the initial start-up costs for a Residential Parking Permit program
be included in the Fiscal Year 2001-2003 Proposed Budget, with the following stipulations: 1) funding for the start-up costs be included in the 2002-03 portion of the budget; and 2) for the
initial program, enforcement range between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with short-term parking as delineated in Scenario 3 of
Attachment A of CMR:229:01; and 3) the program must be cost-recovery. AMENDMENT PASSED 5-0, Mossar, Ojakian “not participating,”
Beecham, Fazzino absent. Council Member Lytle stated she could not support the motion to approve the budget because the 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the Infrastructure Reinvestment Strategy did not address the fact that the population of children in the City
of Palo Alto had grown by 33 percent in the last decade. The City should prioritize facilities that could accommodate the growing population of children so they would appreciate improved
amenities in their communities. The City should focus on that issue quickly. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 6-1, Lytle “no,” Beecham, Fazzino
absent.
06/11/01 92-205
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian, to
approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 - 7. Council Member Kleinberg would not participate in Item No. 4 due
to a conflict of interest because her husband’s law firm represented Enron.
LEGISLATIVE
2. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.08.210 of Chapter
2.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Add the New Division of Human Services to the Department of Community Services”
3. Resolution 8061 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Calling its General Municipal Election of Council Members Requesting the Services of the Registrar of Voters, and Ordering the Consolidation of Said Election”
4. Resolution 8062 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Natural Gas Service Agreement with Enron NorthAmerica Corp.” 4A. Ordinance 4707 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2000-01 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $1,500,000 for the Acquisition of Residential Property in Accordance with
the Housing Assistance Provision of the City Manager’s Employment Agreement”
ADMINISTRATIVE
5. Request for Authorization to Increase the Amount of the Existing Contract for Legal Services with the Law Firm of McDonough, Holland & Allen from $64,500 to $105,000 6. Recommendation of the Evaluation Committee to Select Palo
Alto Housing Corporation as the Developer of the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Affordable Housing Project and Request
for Authorization of the City Manager to Negotiate a Pre-Development Agreement
06/11/01 92-206
7. Annual Adoption of the City of Palo Alto Statement of Investment Policy and Proposed Changes to the City’s
Investment Policy as described in CMR:266:01 MOTION PASSED 7-0 on Item Nos. 2, 3, and 5 - 7, Beecham, Fazzino absent. MOTION PASSED 6-0 on Item No. 4, Kleinberg “not participating,”
Beecham, Fazzino absent. Vice Mayor Ojakian stated he would like to recognize those staff
members who worked on the budget.
PUBLIC HEARING 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Assessments for California Avenue Area Parking Bonds Plan G - Fiscal Year 2001-2002
Public Works Senior Engineer Jim Harrington said there were a couple of changes that came in after the City Manager’s Report was completed and were given to the Council and included in motion.
Mayor Eakins declared the public hearing open, and hearing no requests from the public, declared the public hearing closed.
MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian, to
approve the annual assessment for the California Avenue area
parking bonds Plan G for FY 2001-02.
Resolution 8063 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Confirming Engineer's Report and Assessment Roll California Avenue Keystone Lot Parking
Project No. 86-01 (For Fiscal Year 2001-2002)”
Resolution 8064 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Confirming Engineer's Report and Assessment Roll California Avenue Parking Project No. 92-13 (For Fiscal Year 2001-2002)” MOTION PASSED 7-0, Beecham, Fazzino absent.
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
9. Resolution Determining the Calculation of the Appropriation Limit of the City of Palo Alto for Fiscal Year 2001-02
06/11/01 92-207
MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Burch, to
adopt the resolution determining the Proposition 4 (Gann)
Appropriations Limit calculation for fiscal year 2001-02.
Resolution 8065 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Determining the Calculation of the Appropriation Limit of the City of Palo Alto for Fiscal
Year 2001-02” MOTION PASSED 7-0, Beecham, Fazzino absent.
CLOSED SESSION
10. Conference with Labor Negotiator
Agency Negotiator: City Manager and his designees pursuant
to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, David Ramberg, Lynne Johnson, Brad Zook, Tom Merson)
Represented Employee Organization: Palo Alto Peace Officers’ Association (PAPOA)
Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 Item removed at the request of staff.
11. Conference with City Attorney - Existing Litigation
Subject: In re Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a
California Corporation, Debtor, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Case No.:01-30923DM
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Item removed at the request of staff. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:40 a.m.
06/11/01 92-208