HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-03-11 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting March 11, 2002
1. Study Session on Water Issues...............................405
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m...................405
1A. (Old Item No. 2) Approval of the City Manager’s Appointment of Leslie Loomis as the Director of Human Resources.........406
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................406
1. Results of the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Expansion Site Feasibility Study and Recommendations to
Proceed to Conceptual Design................................407
APPROVAL OF MINUTES..............................................412
3. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and ABC Services in the Amount of $136,850 for Cleaning and Video Inspection of Sanitary Sewer Pipelines (IFB 137634).......................412
4. Amendment No. 1 Between the City of Palo Alto and Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc., in the Amount of
$258,485 for Conceptual Design Services for the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Expansion Project (CIP Project 10204)..............................................412
5. Request for Authorization to Increase the Amount of the Existing Contract for Legal Services with the Law Firm of Duncan, Weinberg, Genzer & Pembroke, P.C. (Item to be pulled at the request of staff).............................412
6. The Finance Committee recommends that the City Council
approve the 2001-02 Adjusted Budget - Midyear Amendments and Capital Improvement Program Status......................413
7. Vice Mayor Mossar and Council Members Beecham and Kleinberg regarding Electronic Availability of City Council Packet Material....................................................425
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m..................425
03/11/02 404
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:05 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton, Ojakian ABSENT: Mossar
SPECIAL MEETING
1. Study Session on Water Issues Director of Utilities John Ulrich provided an update on the risks Palo Alto faced in the event of a large earthquake and what was being done locally and regionally to reduce those
risks. Palo Alto currently received 100 percent of its supply from San Francisco, the owner and operator of the regional water system. Since San Francisco had not undertaken needed repairs and upgrades to the regional system, Palo Alto, and other customers, could be without water for 20 to 60 days in the event
of a serious earthquake. Therefore Palo Alto has undertaken a multi-pronged approach to address the risks, including: 1) Supporting the efforts of the Bay Area Water Users Association, to: a) adopt and implement the capital
improvement plan for the regional system, b) pursue regional governance of the regional system, and c) develop
a crisis management plan since the improvements to the regional system will take 10 to 15 years to complete; 2) Promoting state legislation to require improvements in the
regional water system; and 3) Implementing a capital improvement plan for the local water
distribution system, including rehabilitation of existing wells, building three new wells, and building an underground reservoir at El Camino Park.
Following the presentation, the City Council Members asked a
number of questions regarding options for alternative water supplies, costs of the proposed improvements, steps in the public outreach program, and potential impacts of the state
legislation. Staff would keep the City Council and the Utilities Advisory Commission informed of water developments during the
upcoming months. No action required.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
03/11/02 405
Regular Meeting
March 11, 2002 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton, Ojakian
ABSENT: Mossar MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Lytle, to move Item No. 2 forward ahead of Item No. 1 to become Item No. 1A. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Mossar absent
1A. (Old Item No. 2) Approval of the City Manager’s Appointment of Leslie Loomis as the Director of Human Resources City Manager Frank Benest introduced Leslie Loomis, the new Human Resources Director, who replaced Jay Rounds, who retired
after serving the City for 32 years. Ms. Loomis had served as the Human Resources Director of the City of San Carlos for 14
years before accepting the position with the City. Leslie Loomis said she was excited to accept the position and
eager to begin her duties as the third Human Resources Director for the City of Palo Alto.
MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Lytle, to
approve the City Manager’s Appointment of Leslie Loomis as the
Director of Human Resources. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Mossar absent.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Jean Wilcox, 4005 Sutherland, spoke regarding advertisements
posted for a gun show.
Sophia Dhrymes, 483 Hawthorne Avenue, spoke regarding her Mom’s birthday on 3-11-07.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding the media center.
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
03/11/02 406
1. Results of the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Expansion Site Feasibility Study and Recommendations to
Proceed to Conceptual Design Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison introduced the team members who had worked on the Master Library Plan for all library facilities. They presented the library site feasibility
study and requested the approval of the Council to move ahead with Scheme 3/4.
Deputy Director of Community Services Richard James said the project had been extraordinary. When the team received the
project, they created a project site committee whose responsibility was to provide guidance for the architect and to formulate a recommendation. Group 4 Architecture Research and Planning was chosen from 17 competing firms nationwide. Architectural Resources Group was a company whose expertise was
in historic buildings and had reviewed the Mitchell Park site and concluded that the library was not eligible for the California Registry of Historical Buildings. That was based on the fact that Mitchell Park had been remodeled numerous times and the historic significance had been lost. A number of public
meetings were held and the information gathered was given to the site committee who extrapolated from it the recommendation
presented to Council that evening. Phillips Swagger Associates developed the building spatial program using the information from the New Library Plan and the focus groups to decide on what
programs belonged in the two facilities.
Dawn Merkes, Group 4 Architecture, said the building program was for a 55,000-square-foot library program, which would be a full service library for Mitchell Park and the residents of Palo
Alto. The program for the community center was for 16,800 square feet. By proposing a joint use facility, the building
program was reduced by approximately 2,500 square feet. The space that was taken out of the building recommendation for the program was one multipurpose room, joining the computer technology labs, and shared staff spaces.
Wayne Gehrke, Group 4 Architecture, explained the five options his firm had considered. The first option was to expand the existing library because the program called for a building that
was four or five times larger than the current building. The second option was to build in the area of the community center
and the library. The third option was to build on the southern part of the existing site where the parking lot was. The fourth option was to build on the edge of the park. The fifth option was to divide the community center and library into two sites with the library at the south and the community center at the
03/11/02 407
north. The criteria was developed by the Site Committee and as they worked through the most important items, they were
augmented by other ideas gathered from the community and boards and commissions. The process was narrowed down to two options, which were to: 1) build on the southern portion of the site, and 2) locate the community center and library at the edge of the park. The concern for option four was that the public did not
like the idea of buildings being erected in the park. Option four was modified to have an L-shaped building on the existing site with the community center in one wing and the library in
the other wing. The other option that held a lot of merit was to build on the southern portion of the site. Both options required
moving the existing two tennis courts to an area within the park near other tennis courts. The two best options met the problematic requirement to build both the community center and the library that the community had waited so long for. Both options worked well for joint use facilities and economized on
the amount of space required. The proposal would improve the traffic flow from Middlefield Road by eliminating one of the two traffic lights. The proposal would also present opportunities for sustainability by erecting a green building and site. Both options would save most of the existing trees and the
construction costs were comparable. The library would still be operational during construction.
Ms. Harrison said the range of cost had been estimated at $100 to $110 million for all the projects, It was not known at the
present time what the community level of support would be for those facilities and the dollar amount. Staffing studies would
be scrutinized because the current staffing level would be inadequate for the future branches and hours. The Children’s Library was still in conceptual design and that would be
presented to Council on April 15, 2002. The projected date for phasing the capital and staffing components for the citywide
library and community facilities plan was April 22, 2002. On the April 22, 2002 agenda, staff would ask for Council’s direction as to which City facilities to include on the second community survey. June 14, 2002 was the deadline for submitting the application for State library grant money for Mitchell Park.
The conceptual design for Main and Mitchell Libraries would be placed on the agenda for June 2002. In June 2002, staff asked the Council to make a decision on the City facilities to include
in the November 2002 bond measure.
Mayor Ojakian asked whether there were any representatives from the various library committees or the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) present.
03/11/02 408
Ms. Harrison said members of various library committees were urged to attend but they were very low key and she acknowledged
that they had been supportive. Richard Beckwith, Chair, Parks and Recreation Commission, he participated in a site committee and his committee had reviewed Schemes 3 and 4/3 and recommended their approval.
Council Member Burch commended staff on the work they had done. He suggested that the amount of parking be minimized in an
effort to encourage alternate transportation. He noted there was a shuttle stop in front of the proposed facility. He asked
if an alternate composition would be considered for the roof and if that was an additional amount required, then perhaps the City could get someone to donate the materials. He suggested that every effort be made to make the building a green building. He would support the Scheme 4/3 option.
MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Burch, to
approve the staff recommendation that the City Council select Scheme 4/3, the Edge of Park option, as recommended by the Mitchell Park Project Site Committee (Site Committee), and
instruct staff to proceed into conceptual designs for an expanded Mitchell Park Library and Community Center and complete
environmental documentation, as specified in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for the selected option prior to Council making a decision on which projects will be placed on
the November 2002 ballot for public funding.
Council Member Kleinberg said she was the liaison to the LAC and had enjoyed working with the commission. She thought the Scheme 4/3 option was the most appropriate option for land use.
Council Member Burch added that the Scheme 4/3 option would
allow for the enjoyment of the surrounding landscaping. Council Member Morton also complimented staff on the work they had done. Unlike Council Member Burch, he wanted to see as much parking as possible because it was part of the community he used
and Middlefield Road was not parking friendly. It would be difficult for seniors using public transportation because the facility was set back too far from the sidewalk. He encouraged
the use of joint internal space because the public rooms could also be used for recreational activities.
Council Member Kishimoto suggested that there should be ample space for bikes. She favored Scheme 3 because it was closer to Middlefield Road and allowed for more park space. She asked whether moving the facility closer to Middlefield Road had been
03/11/02 409
considered because it would have avoided moving the tennis courts, which would have meant a savings in expenses.
Mr. Gehrke said there had been a lot of discussion about the tennis courts, and he felt confident that staff would find an answer to where they should be moved. One of the items that residents wanted was for the facility to be congruent and
visually pleasing. Ms. Merkes said the constraining part of the site was the
existing redwood trees.
Mayor Ojakian reminded Council Members that there was a motion on the floor. Council Member Kishimoto asked how much would be saved if the tennis courts were not moved. The community would look to the
Council to save dollars wherever possible. She also had a concern about the long-term operating and staffing costs. Council Member Freeman her colleagues should keep in mind was that the City still had an opportunity to get as much as a $20
million grant. She asked whether a Parks and Recreation Commissioner could explain why it was decided to recommend
Scheme 3 rather than Scheme 4/3. Commissioner Beckwith replied that the Parks and Recreation
Commission (PARC) recommended Scheme 3 because of the setback, which was one major concern that was brought forth in
discussions. Pedestrians and persons using the Middlefield Shuttle would have a shorter walk to the lobby in Scheme 3.
Council Member Burch wanted to know the distance in Scheme 3.
Ms. Merkes replied 60 feet. Council Member Freeman asked how large the green space was between the library and Middlefield Road.
Mr. Gehrke replied it was approximately 150 feet by 100 feet’. The space was large enough to be used for park amenities or to create a special garden, but they were not yet at that level of
detail.
Mayor Ojakian said that would be one of the areas that staff would return to Council with recommendations.
03/11/02 410
Mr. Gehrke said there was a lot that was yet to be completed but the plan was to continue the discussion with the City’s boards
and commissions. Council Member Lytle said her concern was access to the library by seniors from Middlefield Road. The space between Middlefield Road and the new facility was large enough for active recreation
use since space of that size was at a shortage in the City. She also was concerned about the need to relocate the tennis courts and intruding into the park. She had reservations about Scheme
4 and whether they could be overcome with the motion on the floor.
Council Member Burch said there was no indication that a park was on the present site. He felt strongly that something should be there so that it would reflect that a park was on that site.
Council Member Kleinberg said in reviewing Schemes 3 and 4/3, one of the issues about the layout and the combination of the community center and the library was the issue of noise and the fact that if there was a library it would be desirable to have the community center separate from the library.
Council Member Morton supported the conceptual design but the
entire project was about 20 percent too large in terms of staffing and costs. He recommended financial trimming when the issue returned to Council.
Mayor Ojakian asked if within the $40 million did it include
building outfitting as well as building structure. Ms. Harrison said that was correct.
Mayor Ojakian said that figure seemed to be similar to what
adjacent cities were spending. In the draft plan, the Needs Assessment had proven to be helpful in terms of making it clear that the City had done a good job in maintaining the existing buildings. However, renovation would be as expensive as new construction because of the outdated mechanical and electrical
systems. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to have Group 4 review the open space between the
library and Middlefield Road and provide some options for use
with the pros and cons illustrated. Council Member Kleinberg accepted the incorporation and asked for not only practical uses but also pros and cons and alternatives.
03/11/02 411
MOTION PASSED 7-1, Kishimoto “no”, Mossar absent.
Council Member Kishimoto supported the project moving forward but her dissenting vote was because of her preference for Scheme 3. Council Member Lytle said she preferred Scheme 3 but felt there
was little support for that option and appreciated the maker and seconder allowing the motion to include direction to follow up and look for ways to combine active uses in the space to save
the efficiency of City parks.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Morton, to approve the Minutes of January 22 and 28, 2002, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Mossar absent. CONSENT CALENDAR Item No. 5 was removed at the request of staff.
MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to
approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 and 4. ADMINISTRATIVE
3. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and ABC Services in the Amount of $136,850 for Cleaning and Video Inspection of
Sanitary Sewer Pipelines (IFB 137634)
4. Amendment No. 1 Between the City of Palo Alto and Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc., in the Amount of $258,485 for Conceptual Design Services for the Mitchell
Park Library and Community Center Expansion Project (CIP Project 10204)
5. Request for Authorization to Increase the Amount of the Existing Contract for Legal Services with the Law Firm of Duncan, Weinberg, Genzer & Pembroke, P.C. (Item to be
pulled at the request of staff)
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Mossar absent.
RECESS: 8:27 p.m. to 8:35 p.m.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
03/11/02 412
6. The Finance Committee recommends that the City Council approve the 2001-02 Adjusted Budget - Midyear Amendments
and Capital Improvement Program Status Chairperson Burch said when the item went before the Finance Committee, they addressed a budget shortfall that had increased from $6.3 to $8.2 million. City Manager Frank Benest had asked
staff to explore different ways to meet that budget shortfall. Public Art Commissioner Patrice Langevin stated that members of the
Public Art Commission (PAC) had spoken at several meetings to recommend that cuts would not be made to the PAC budget. She
explained that 10 percent of their budget went to maintenance of collected artwork. They needed a cash reserve to purchase artwork as it became available. She recommended that Council restore the proposed $15,000 cut to the PAC budget.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, opposed the transfers from the Utility Fund to the General Fund. He asked for clarification of the $2.2 million Utility Users Tax (UUT). He believed the $1 million General Fund money used for the Storm Drain Fund expenses should be included in the General Fund. He understood that it was used in
the form of a loan to be repaid by the Storm Drain Fund. He suggested that Council should find out about the $20,000 cut for
boards and commissions. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said the City’s Budget Stabilization
Reserve of over $22 million was historically used to offset downturns in the economy and the current downturn would be brief.
He suggested that Council use the reserve funds and replenish it when the economy improved instead of cutting any operations.
Council Member Burch asked the Director of Administrative Services to respond to the matters raised about the storm drains and the
UUT. Director of Administrative Services Carl Yeats said the storm drain was not considered a loan based on direction from the City’s external auditors. It was considered a transfer and it was treated
as such. The UUT reduction was related to where the rebate went and the reduction in overall consumption of the utilities. He said there was no assurance of the recession being brief and it would
not be wise to use reserve funds. MOTION: Council Member Freeman moved, seconded by Lytle, to accept the Finance Committee recommendations as follows: 1. Adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance which includes:
03/11/02 413
a) The proposed midyear adjustments to the 2001-02 Budget for the General Fund, Enterprise Funds,
Special Revenue Funds, Internal Service Funds, Debt Service Fund, and Capital Improvement Fund; b) All of the changes detailed in the 2001-02 CIP Midyear Adjustments; c) The amendments to the 2001-02 CIP Adopted Municipal
Fee Schedule; and d) Ending the Utility Users Tax (UUT) rebate effective April 1, 2002.
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2001-02 to Adjust Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures in Accordance with the Recommendations in the Midyear Report and Rescinding Ordinance No. 4710
2. Utility Rate Schedule Resolution to amend electric and gas rates, aggregating rates paid by the City into a lower cost class Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Adopting New Utility Rate Schedules E-18 and G-6 of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Rates and Charges Pertaining
to Municipal Electric Service and Municipal Gas Service Further, to add the following changes: 1) Restore $4,900 to
the Junior Museum and Zoo budget; 2) Restore $11,000 to use for enhancing the needy middle school athletics; 3) Restore
$9,000 to the shuttle; 4) Restore $12,000 to athletic field maintenance; and 5) Restore $20,000 to City tennis courts.
Council Member Freeman agreed with Mr. Borock regarding Tier 1 budget cuts. She attended the December Finance Committee Meeting
and Tier 1 cuts would work in every way and not affect community services. She thought the $56,000 in changes that she wanted to restore directly affected the community, although it had been clarified that the $11,000 for the middle school athletics was actually the use of space that had not been used in the past few
years. The Council had tried to fund the shuttle, and there was an opportunity to take the $9000 and use it to enhance the City’s shuttle system.
Council Member Lytle said she had seconded the motion because she
did not support the budget the previous year since it did not increase the spending devoted to reflect the changing demographics in the younger population. She would not support cuts in the senior population. Before cuts were made to senior and youth services she believed it would be advisable to have Council direction. She was
03/11/02 414
in support of the motion and was in favor of returning the Art Commission 25 percent funding and wanted to ask the maker of the
motion if she wanted to incorporate that as a friendly amendment. Council Member Freeman asked Mr. Benest if that would increase the total to $71,000 from $56,000 and wanted to know if that request at $71,000 could still be accommodated.
Mr. Benest said staff did not recommend the changes but if Council directed that change then it would be accommodated.
Mayor Ojakian asked where would the money come from.
Mr. Benest answered that it would come from reserves. Council Member Freeman would accept the amendment and for Council to keep in mind that there were millions of dollars in reserve and
this was for $71,000. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDED to restore the Public Art Commission budget amount of
$15,000. Council Member Morton asked Council to vote against the
reinstatements because it misrepresented the facts. The budget was reviewed at the Finance Committee level and with staff. Staff was given a clear directive to look at cuts that did not impact
programs. He reiterated Council Member Burch’s statement that the country was still in uncertain financial times. The Council owed
it to staff to accept their proposal and not micromanage it back into a line by line discussion. There was a fourth quarter revenue and another year to go through. Many of the savings for the current
year $8 million adjustment were one-time only items. He encouraged the Council to support the Finance Committee original proposal
except the mid-year adjustments as staff had recommended and not reinstate any of the items. Council Member Beecham had a few questions for staff and wanted to know whether there was any perspective on the next year’s budget.
Mr. Yeats replied that the process had already begun and the current projection was a $7.2 million shortfall based on the
previously adopted budget. Many of the adjustments made on the current year’s budgets were one-time adjustments.
Council Member Beecham said that the State had a severe budget problem and it had not begun to address that. He asked if Mr. Yeats had any thoughts on what might happen to the City budget based on the current economy.
03/11/02 415
Mr. Yeats said although Governor Davis had said the State would not consider taking away the Vehicle License Fee (VLF), he believed the
VLF was still in doubt. If the State moved to remove it, the City would lose approximately $2 million in revenue. He believed there was some discussion about taking away growth in Education Revenue Augmentation Funds (ERAF), although he did not think it would go far because cities had crusaded a long time to get some of that
money back. Palo Alto had lost over $20 million in revenue due to the ERAF money that had gone to the State. Typically, when the State had a budget crisis, the budget was adopted late. Usually
staff saw trailer bills that came up as part of the budget and found out later the impacts on the City.
Council Member Beecham wanted to know how much the City would lose depending on what happened at the State level. Mr. Yeats said the State would probably stop at taking the VLF, but
hidden in the legislature to accept the budget would be something to impact the City whether it was grant funding or a mandate that was unfunded. There was a law that said the State could not pass unfunded mandates.
Council Member Beecham asked how much of that $8 million was an ongoing reduction in operating costs or an ongoing increase in
revenues. Mr. Yeats replied that ongoing reductions were few and most of
those were looked at in terms of staff reduction and frozen staff positions, which would not be permanent. Revenue generating ideas
that had been discussed were increasing paramedic billing fees to a certain level and outsourcing paramedic billing.
Council Member Beecham asked whether the revenue increases were $1 million for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and $1.5
million in the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) savings. Mr. Yeats replied that was correct. Council Member Beecham asked about the money taken from the Refuse
Fund and wanted to know whether that was a one-time occurrence. Mr. Yeats said that could be repeated, but there was a long-term
cost that was future money the City was thinking of using when the City exhausted revenue from landfill rents.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDED to separate the motions so that the staff recommendation and six changes would be voted on separately.
03/11/02 416
Mayor Ojakian asked the City Attorney whether that was possible.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne replied yes, because they were both Budget Amendment Ordinances (BAOs). Council Member Burch asked the Director of Community Services to explain some of the budget cut items that had been discussed.
Director of Community Services Paul Thiltgen said the cuts would not affect programs, if they were a one-time only budget
adjustment.
Council Member Freeman clarified that the $11,000 restoration for the middle school athletic program could be returned to the program. Mayor Ojakian said that was so noted.
Council Member Burch said the Junior Museum and Zoo was raised as a $4,900 item. Mr. Thiltgen said the $4,900 was for materials and supplies for
repairs and replacement of landscape material in the zoo area.
Council Member Kleinberg asked about the $11,000 for the middle school athletic field repair.
Mr. Thiltgen clarified that the $11,000 for the middle school athletics was originally designated for facilities rentals because
the City paid Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) for use of school facilities. There were several programs that used school facilities including aquatics and basketball. The $11,000 had been
set aside for the middle school athletic use of facilities. The contract was rewritten that year to include the rental fee, which
accounted for the $11,000 in the current budget. Whether the $11,000 could supplement the middle school athletic program was unclear at that time without going back and looking at the entire budget.
Council Member Kleinberg asked about the tennis court refinishing. Mr. Thiltgen said the cycle for resurfacing tennis court was 5 to 7
years, and there were plans to resurface the tennis courts in the fall.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the tennis courts needed to be resurfaced at that time. Mr. Thiltgen said no.
03/11/02 417
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether it was feasible for the City to take back the $9,000 that was set aside for special event
shuttles and put it into regular shuttle service. Director of Planning and Community Environment Stephen Emslie replied that the City could evaluate ways to expand hours on either end. The $9,000 was a result of the shorter winter event.
Council Member Kleinberg was concerned about issues in the budget, which affected youth, seniors, and frozen positions in the Fire and
Police Departments, which she considered essential workers. She stated that hardly anything was being cut and most of the money was
being deferred to another year, which would prove to be problematic as it had in previous year. She was not very optimistic about the current economy. Council Member Kishimoto asked Mr. Yeats if the change in the
utility rate schedule resolution was a permanent addition to the budget. Mr. Benest said staff presented ideas on productivity improvements and staff did not cost out those savings.
Mr. Yeats added that the ongoing numbers seemed small but
adjustment and service fees totaled approximately $278,000, entrepreneurial efforts totaled approximately $220,000, revenue recovery through audits totaled approximately $150,000, and most of
those would be ongoing. In terms of an $8 million gap, it appeared small.
Council Member Kishimoto said the cut for the PAC should be smaller and not cut entirely.
Mayor Ojakian wanted to know when would be a good time to bring the
bus shelter ad campaign back to Council. Mr. Benest said his interest was in not spending any more staff time on the current budget adjustment. He wanted to focus his efforts on the next years’ budget and on the work Council had
directed for staff to do. He suggested including the discussion about the bus shelter ad campaign into the revised budget for 2002/03.
Mayor Ojakian wanted to know if he needed to do that in the form of
a motion because a couple of Council Members did not get a chance to vote on that issue, and he was hopeful that the full Council would have opportunity to vote on it. He agreed with Council Member Kleinberg’s observation about budget deferrals. He urged
03/11/02 418
Council Members to go into the League of California Cities website to view the analysis of the State’s budget.
Mr. Benest invited the Council to travel to Sacramento in early April for a legislative budget rally with the State legislators. Council Member Freeman hoped that Council had learned from that
exercise that clarification at the line item level was necessary and the fiduciary responsibility of the Council. She asked Mr. Benest to clarify if they were at Tier 1.
Mr. Benest said that budget adjustment preserved all essential
services to the community and the commitment to infrastructure maintenance. Council Member Freeman agreed with Council Member Kleinberg that it seemed superficial in some of the reductions. There would need to
be cuts that were more difficult if it went to Tier 2 or above. She was willing to make those decisions if that time came. At the present time, the line items to be restored to the budget for the community totaled $71,000.
Council Member Beecham supported the main motion but nothing in the adjustments addressed the City’s ongoing operating costs. He said
at that point it was more useful for staff to focus on the upcoming year’s budget.
Council Member Kleinberg appreciated that two Council Members were absent when Council voted on the bus shelter ad campaign, but it
was important when Council took a vote that the vote was adhered to. She was interested in how that would return to the Council. She hoped that what was decided that evening had some finality to
it, because that was what the community expected from the Council.
Mayor Ojakian thought there was some procedure in place that would allow them to do that. Mr. Calonne said the Mayor was free to bring that up in the next year’s budget discussion and that was consistent with Council’s
rules. Council Member Morton was eager to complete the process but wanted
to add that to his knowledge Palo Alto was the first city on the Peninsula that dealt with the deficit. The current budget had been
lowered by $8 million. Mayor Ojakian said budget matters were serious and that was why he allowed time for additional discussion from Council Members.
03/11/02 419
Council Member Lytle said there was sufficient support for the motion to pass. She asked whether there would be any point in
continuing the discussion unless the motion failed. Council Member Freeman thought it would be easier to vote in the reverse order by reviewing each of the amendments and then voting on the main motion.
Mayor Ojakian clarified that the vote would be on the main motion because that was the recommendation of the Finance Committee.
Council Member Lytle said she would probably support the main
motion if amendments could be made to it because she was uncomfortable voting for the main motion without knowing what the subsequent results were. MOTION SEPARATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF VOTING
MOTION: Council Member Freeman moved, seconded by Lytle, that the
Finance Committee recommends that the City Council approve the
2001-02 Adjusted Budget - Midyear Amendments and Capital Improvement Program Status as follows: 1. Adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance which includes:
a) The proposed midyear adjustments to the 2001-02 Budget for the General Fund, Enterprise Funds,
Special Revenue Funds, Internal Service Funds, Debt Service Fund, and Capital Improvement Fund; b) All of the changes detailed in the 2001-02 CIP
Midyear Adjustments; c) The amendments to the 2001-02 CIP Adopted Municipal
Fee Schedule; and d) Ending the Utility Users Tax (UUT) rebate effective April 1, 2002.
Ordinance 4737 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2001-02 to Adjust Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures in Accordance with the Recommendations in the Midyear Report and Rescinding Ordinance No. 4710
2. Utility Rate Schedule Resolution to amend electric and gas rates, aggregating rates paid by the City into a lower cost class
Resolution 8132 entitled “Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Adopting New Utility Rate Schedules E-18 and G-6 of the City of Palo Alto
03/11/02 420
Utilities Rates and Charges Pertaining to Municipal Electric Service and Municipal Gas Service”
MOTION PASSED 7-1, Lytle “no,” Mossar absent. Council Member Freeman wanted on the record that she voted for the action because it took into consideration an $8 million
reduction, which she thought was magnanimous of the staff to find. She stated that in the next few votes totaled $71,000.
Mr. Calonne clarified to vote on the amendments was a vote for the main motion, which had just passed and the additional
amendments. Mayor Ojakian clarified that Mr. Calonne’s comments meant that what was already voted on and approved was staff’s recommendations and any additional line items would add
additional money back into the budget. Mr. Calonne said the amendments could not stand alone, so a vote on any of the amendments was in effect a vote for the main motion and the amendments.
Council Member Morton said if there would not be any
conversation on any of the individual amendments, then he would withdraw his substitute motion, otherwise he wanted to introduce a substitute motion to vote on the amendments as a package.
Council Member Kleinberg did not understand Mr. Calonne’s
recommendation. She needed clarification regarding whether a vote for the main motion was also a vote for the amendments.
Mr. Calonne said Council had already approved the underlying budget.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether a vote had something inherent to do with the underlying budget. Mr. Calonne said there was no way for the vote to make sense
without it being associated with the package of changes. Council Member Kleinberg clarified even if the vote was “no.”
Mr. Calonne said a vote on the amendments did not change the
vote on the main motion. Council Member Lytle stated the voting structure was awkward and she believed it would have been better to take the amendments
03/11/02 421
first and the outcome would have been reflective of the opinions of the Council.
Council Member Beecham said he did not have any trouble with the procedure and believed neither would the public. MOTION: Council Member Freeman moved, seconded by Lytle, to
reinstate the $15,000 Public Art Commission to the 2001/2002 budget. MOTION FAILED 3-5 Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle, Ojakian
“yes,” Mossar absent.
MOTION: Council Member Freeman moved, seconded by Lytle, to
reinstate the $4,900 Junior Museum and Zoo to the 2001/2002 budget. MOTION FAILED 4-4 Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle, Ojakian “yes,” Mossar absent. MOTION: Council Member Freeman moved, seconded by Lytle, to
reinstate the $11,000 middle school athletics to the 2001/2002
budget. MOTION FAILED 4-4 Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle “yes,” Mossar absent. MOTION: Council Member Freeman moved, seconded by Lytle, to reinstate the $9,000 shuttle to the 2001/2002 budget.
MOTION FAILED 4-4 Beecham, Freeman, Kishimoto, Lytle, “yes,”
Mossar absent.
MOTION: Council Member Freeman moved, seconded by Lytle, to
reinstate the $12,000 athletic field maintenance to the 2001/2002 budget. MOTION FAILED 4-4 Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg Lytle “yes,”
Mossar absent.
MOTION: Council Member Freeman moved, seconded by Lytle, to
reinstate the $20,000 City tennis courts to the 2001/2002
budget. MOTION FAILED 3-5 Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle “yes,” Mossar absent.
03/11/02 422
Council Member Morton asked for clarification about whether the Council adopted the utility rate schedule.
Mayor Ojakian answered that was part of the main motion. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Kleinberg,
that the Council direct staff when presenting the 2002/2003
budget to the Finance Committee to provide options to include a 10 percent cut in operations of the General Fund.
Council Member Kleinberg said that would give Council an opportunity to have a better discussion about what to do if the
economy worsened. Mr. Calonne said the City Charter and ordinances clearly stated that it was the City Manager’s sole prerogative to present to the Council a budget that he recommended for the next fiscal
year. In past years that procedure was carefully guarded by the City Manager. He thought Council was impeding on a difficult area that interfered with the City Managers’ prerogative. Mr. Benest said it was obvious that Council was concerned about
what was happening in the economy at the State and National levels. It was his responsibility to consider those things in
the approach for submitting the 2001-03 budget. He wanted to recognize the Council’s concern for the state of the economy, worsening shortfalls, and positive takeaways at the State level.
He thought it was important for Council to allow the City Manager and the executive staff to come up with an approach to
address those issues within the City Manager’s prerogatives. MOTION AMENDED WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to
modify the motion to state that in addition to the City Manager’s budget recommendations in April, that the City Manager
present alternatives with a minimum of a 5 percent reduction in operating costs. Council Member Freeman made a friendly amendment to that motion for Council and City Manager to work out a formal opportunity
for Council to give guidelines to staff before staff returned to Council with a budget proposal.
Council Member Beecham said he would leave the motion as it stood, and he accepted the City Manager’s description of meeting
the requirements of his colleagues. Council Member Kleinberg clarified that the proposed budget was not supposed to return directly to the Council, it should return at the Finance Committee level.
03/11/02 423
Council Member Burch asked for a clarification about whether the April budget presentations would be to the Finance Committee or
to the Council. Mr. Benest said staff would be returning to Council in April before they got into Finance Committee deliberations. The budget would be presented to the Council so that Council could
see how the current budget related to Council priorities. Council Member Burch wanted to know if Mr. Benest was in fact
bypassing the Finance Committee.
Mr. Benest said he did not believe so because it would be a general conversation with the Council but he was always open to suggestion. Council Member Beecham said he had argued in the past that the
Finance Committee needed to be responsible for the decisions and recommendations that went back to Council on the Consent Calendar. In that case, Mr. Benest and staff were looking for direction on the next year’s budget. He thought that general discussion was appropriate for Council in the whole and then
went to the Finance Committee for details.
Council Member Morton shared the concerns of the Chairman of the Finance Committee. If decisions were going to be made at the Council level, then there was no point in putting staff and the
Finance Committee through the review. He said he would vote against the measure.
Mayor Ojakian commented that generally he might agree with comments that Council Member Morton made. He believed 2002 was
going to be an unusual year. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the 5 percent reduction to operating costs be
permanent and not one-time reductions. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 7-1, Morton “no,” Mossar absent.
Mayor Ojakian said in addition to the City Manager’s budget, alternatives would be presented with a 5 percent reduction to
operating costs.
Council Member Burch said they were permanent ongoing operating costs. Mr. Benest thanked the budget team and all employees for accepting the challenge to be engaged in the budget process and
03/11/02 424
found positive ways to reduce the budget without making any major cuts to service.
COUNCIL MATTERS 7. Vice Mayor Mossar and Council Members Beecham and Kleinberg regarding Electronic Availability of City Council Packet
Material Council Member Beecham said electronic availability of the
packet was something the Council had discussed previously. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Kleinberg, that Council specify that electronic availability be discussed in the Policy and Services Committee review of City Council packet staff report distribution.
Council Member Kishimoto supported making the packet available electronically.
Council Member Morton wanted to know the economic impact of making the packet available electronically.
Council Member Lytle said another city had actually saved money
by electronically distributing the packet. Mayor Ojakian commented that he would vote against the motion.
He wanted to make sure that Council was doing a thorough job of looking at that option. He wanted to make sure that the City’s
technology and costs were being fully utilized. Council Member Freeman supported the Colleagues Memo because
members of the public she had spoken were in support of the project.
MOTION PASSED 7-1, Ojakian “no,” Mossar absent.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
03/11/02 425
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City
Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular
office hours.
03/11/02 426