Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2010-01-25 City Council Agenda Packet
1 01/25/10 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. A binder containing supporting materials is available in the Council Chambers on the Friday preceding the meeting. Special Meeting Council Chambers January 25, 2010 7:00 PM ROLL CALL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the right to limit the duration or Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. STUDY SESSIONS 1. Potential Discussion Topics – Legislative Update Study Session ATTACHMENT 2. Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report for Fiscal Year 2009 – Annual Report on City Government Performance ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT 9:00 p.m. or as soon as possible thereafter SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 3. Presentation from League of California Cities Peninsula Division Representative CITY MANAGER COMMENTS APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 04, 2010 CONSENT CALENDAR Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members. 4. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Changam Naidu Upon His Retirement ATTACHMENT 2 01/25/10 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 5. Parks and Recreation Commission and Palo Alto Historical Association Recommendation to City Council to Adopt a Resolution Naming a Parcel of Land in the Vicinity of High Street, University Avenue, and Hamilton Avenue as Anna Zschokke Plaza CMR 109:10 & ATTACHMENT 6. Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Approving the Utilities’ Legislative Policy Guidelines for 2010 CMR 114:10 & ATTACHMENT 7. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation for Approval of Federal Appropriations Requests and Approval of the City’s 2010 Federal and State Legislative Program CMR 121:10 & ATTACHMENT 8. Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Establishing a Salinity Reduction Policy for Recycled Water CMR 111:10 & ATTACHMENT 9. Approval of an Agreement with the Palo Alto Unified School District of Santa Clara County Concerning the Public Use, Brokering and Maintenance of District-Owned Athletic Fields, Tennis Courts and Basketball Courts Jointly Used by School Students and the General Public CMR 123:10 & ATTACHMENT 10. Approval of a Cooperative Agreement with the Family Resources Foundation in Palo Alto for the Continued Funding Support of Program Staff and the Successful Attainment of Program Goals CMR 112:10 & ATTACHMENT 11. Finance Committee Recommendation to Accept Maze & Associates’ Audit of the City of Palo Alto’s Financial Statements as of June 30, 2009 and Management Letter ATTACHMENT 3 01/25/10 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes per speaker. ACTION ITEMS Include: Public Hearings, Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Reports of Officials, and Council Matters 12. Monthly Update on City Activities Related to High Speed Rail Project and Authorization to Expend up to $88,000 from the Council Contingency Account for the Proposed Resources Plan for FY 2010 CMR 122:10 & ATTACHMENT 13. Finance Committee Recommendation to Adopt an Ordinance Authorizing the Closing of the Budget for the 2009 Fiscal Year; Approval of 2009 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and Approval of a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) to Reinstate a $809,000 Transfer from the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) to the Technology Fund in Fiscal Year 2010 (Continued by Council Motion on December 14, 2009) CMR 120:10 & ATTACHMENT COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services, or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact 650-329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. CITY OF PALO ALTO Memorandum TO: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE DATE: JANUARY 25, 2010 SUBJECT: Potential Discussion Topics -Legislative Update Study Session 1. Discussion with League of California Cities Legislative Director on effective State advocacy efforts and other State legislative issues 2. Proposed 2010 Federal and State Legislative Program 3. Proposed 2011 Federal appropriations requests 4. Other legislative topics of interest KELLY MCADOO MORARIU Assistant to the City Manager Page 1 of 1 City of Palo Alto Office of the City Auditor December 14, 2009 Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California City of Palo Alto Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report FY 2009 This is the City Auditor’s eighth annual Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report for the City of Palo Alto covering the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009 (FY 2009). The report is intended to be informational. It provides data about the costs, quality, quantity, and timeliness of City services. It includes a variety of comparisons to other cities, and the results of a citizen survey. Our goal is to provide the City Council, staff, and the public with an independent, impartial assessment of past performance to strengthen public accountability, improve government efficiency and effectiveness, and support future decision making. OVERALL SATISFACTION (pages 2-3 and pages 18-19) The seventh annual Citizen Survey, administered in conjunction with this report, reveals high ratings for City services. 80% rated the overall quality of City services good or excellent. During the last 5 years of the survey, 80 to 88% of respondents have rated the overall quality of City services good or excellent. When asked to rate the value of services for taxes paid to the City of Palo Alto, 58% rated the value of services as good or excellent, a rating similar to other surveyed jurisdictions. This year, 53% of respondents reported they were pleased with the overall direction of the City (compared to 63% last year). Over the last five years of the survey, ratings of satisfaction with the overall direction of the City alternate with higher and lower ratings. 58% of respondents reported having contact with a City employee in the last 12 months, and 79% rated that contact good or excellent (compared to 73% last year). In comparison to responses from other jurisdictions, Palo Alto ranks in the 98th percentile for educational opportunities, 98th percentile as a place to work, 93rd percentile as a place to live, in the 89th percentile as a place to raise children and 92nd percentile in overall quality of life. On the other hand, Palo Alto ranked in the 11th percentile for availability of affordable quality housing, 19th percentile for the variety of housing options, and 23rd percentile for availability of quality child care. This year, Palo Alto ranked in the top 5 for overall image or reputation, educational opportunities, place to work, and for the number of residents reporting that they recycled in their home, and the number of residents reporting they visited the City of Palo Alto website. This year’s survey included a “Key Driver Analysis” to identify service areas that appear to influence overall ratings of satisfaction. Based on this analysis, “Public Information” and “Street Tree Maintenance” were the two areas most strongly correlated with ratings of overall service quality. It should be noted that the survey results partly overlapped with the September 2009 California Avenue street tree cutting of 63 trees, resulting in public concern over the City’s street tree cutting processes. 72% of Palo Alto residents rated street Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 tree maintenance as good or excellent (an increase from 68% the prior year). Overall satisfaction with the City’s public information services declined 8 percentage points, from 76% rating satisfaction as good or excellent last year, to 68% this year. The City Manager indicates that this decline might also be a reaction to the lack of public outreach around the California Avenue street tree incident and is indicative of a larger issue relating to resources necessary to effectively engage and communicate with the community. OVERALL SPENDING, STAFFING, AND ACCOMPLISHMENT OF COUNCIL PRIORITIES (pages 9-20) General Fund spending increased from $118 to $140.8 million (or 19%) over the last 5 years; Palo Alto’s estimated population increased 5.0% and inflation was about 12% over the same period. In FY 2009, total Citywide authorized staffing, including temporary and hourly positions, was 1,150 full-time equivalent employees (FTE), a 3% decrease from five years ago. On a per capita basis, FY 2009 net General Fund costs of $1,597 included: $367 for police services $218 for community services $212 for fire and emergency medical services $155 for public works $128 for administrative and strategic support services $92 for library services $74 for planning, building, code enforcement $245 in operating transfers out (including $186 in transfers for capital projects) $106 for non-departmental expenses The General Fund has invested $89.5 million in capital projects for the last 5 years. As a result, the Infrastructure Reserve decreased from $25.2 million in FY 2005 to $7.0 million in FY 2009. Capital spending last year totaled $52.0 million, including $15.8 million in the general governmental funds and $36.2 million in the enterprise funds. The City Council established three top priority areas for calendar year 2009: Environmental Protection, Civic Engagement for the Common Good, and Economic Health of the City. COMMUNITY SERVICES (pages 21-30) Spending on community services increased 11% over the last five years to $21.1 million while staffing decreased 7%. In FY 2009, volunteers donated more than 16,000 hours for open space restorative/resource management projects. Enrollment in classes was down 16% from 20,903 in FY 2005 to 17,608 in FY 2009. Online class registrations continue to increase, with 45% of registrations online last year compared to 40% five years ago. Attendance at Children’s Theater performances decreased from 19,811 to 14,786, however in 2009 the Department reformatted its programming and methods for calculating participants. In FY 2009, parks maintenance spending totaled about $4.4 million or approximately $16,940 per acre maintained. About 24% of maintenance spending was contracted out. Golf Course expenses exceeded revenue by about $326,000 in FY 2009. ii SUMMARY Residents give favorable ratings for Palo Alto’s recreation, parks, and natural environment. 87% of residents rate Palo Alto’s preservation of wildlife and native plants as good or excellent; 82% rate the preservation of natural areas such as open space as good or excellent. 80% of residents rate the quality of recreation centers/facilities as good or excellent; 85% rate the quality of recreation programs/classes as good or excellent; 85% rate the range/variety of classes good or excellent; 87% rate their neighborhood park good or excellent; and 92% rate the quality of city parks good or excellent. In comparison to other jurisdictions, Palo Alto’s survey responses ranked in the 90th percentile for recreation programs and classes, 94th percentile for quality of parks, 95th percentile for services to seniors, and 94th percentile for preservation of natural areas. FIRE (pages 31-36) The Fire Department provides Palo Alto and Stanford residents and businesses with emergency response, environmental and safety services. Fire Department expenditures of $23.4 million were 23% more than five years ago. In FY 2009, 49% of costs were covered by revenue. In FY 2009, the Department responded to an average of 21 calls per day. The average response time for fire calls was 5:37 minutes, and the average response time for medical/rescue calls was 5:37 minutes. In FY 2009, there were more than 4,500 medical/rescue incidents, and only 239 fire incidents (including 20 residential structure fires). In FY 2009, the Department performed 31% fewer fire inspections and 19% more hazardous materials inspections (including 56% of annual inspections of the 509 facilities permitted for hazardous materials) than it did five years ago. Palo Alto is the only city in Santa Clara County that provides primary ambulance services. The Department has 113 line personnel certified as emergency medical technicians (EMTs) and 36 of these are also certified paramedics. In FY 2009, the Department provided 3,331 ambulance transports, an increase of 21% from five years ago. Residents give high marks to the quality of Fire Department service: 95% of residents rated fire services good or excellent, and 91% rated ambulance/emergency medical services good or excellent. In FY 2009, the Department provided 329 fire safety, bike safety, and disaster preparedness presentations to more than 3,400 residents. 62% of survey respondents rated Palo Alto’s emergency preparedness as good or excellent and 81% felt very or somewhat safe from environmental hazards. LIBRARY (pages 37-41) In November 2008, voters approved a $76 million bond measure (Measure N) to fund improvements for the Mitchell Park, Downtown, and Main libraries and the Mitchell Park Community Center. In addition, the City allocated $4 million in infrastructure funds to renovate the College Terrace Library. As a result, four library buildings are in the initial stages of major facility improvement. Operating expenditures for Palo Alto’s five library facilities rose 22% over the last five years to $6.2 million. Total circulation increased 27% to over 1.6 million in FY 2009. More than 90% of first time checkouts were completed on the Library’s self-check machines, compared to 67% four years ago, when the measure was first tracked. Over the last 5 years, the number of reference questions declined 43%, while the number of internet sessions increased 27% and the number of online database sessions increased 183%; the total number of cardholders increased 6% to 54,878. Volunteers donated more than 5,900 hours of service to the libraries in FY 2009 –a 21% decrease from five years ago. iii Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 34% of survey respondents reported they used the library or its services more than 12 times last year, 79% rated the quality of library services good or excellent, 75% rated the quality of neighborhood branch libraries good or excellent, and 73% rated the variety of library materials as good or excellent. PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT (pages 43-48) Planning and Community Environment expenditures totaled $9.9 million in FY 2009. This was offset by revenue of $5.0 million. A total of 189 planning applications were completed in FY 2009 – 42% fewer than five years ago. The average time to complete planning applications was 10.7 weeks. 55% of surveyed residents rated the overall quality of new development in Palo Alto as good or excellent; 54% rated economic development good or excellent, and 50% rated code enforcement services good or excellent. Over the last 5 years, the number of new code enforcement cases increased 15% from 473 to 545. In FY 2009, 94% of cases were resolved within 120 days. The Department issued a total of 2,543 building permits in FY 2009, 17% less than 5 years ago. 75% of building permits were issued over the counter. For those permits that were not issued over the counter, the average for first response to plan checks was 31 days (compared to 23 days last year), and the average to issue a building permit was 63 days (compared to 80 days last year). According to the Department, 98% of building permit inspection requests were responded to within one working day. During the last 12 months, 7% of survey respondents applied for a permit at the City’s Development Center. Of these respondents, 59% rated the ease of the planning approval process as poor, 50% rated the time required to review and issue permits as poor, 49% rated the ease of overall application process as poor. Results for inspection timeliness were better with 52% rating this area as good or excellent. The Department reports it is reviewing its process to identify improvements. City Shuttle boardings decreased 19% since five years, from about 169,000 in FY 2005 to about 136,500 in FY 2009. 41% of survey respondents said they use alternative commute modes to commute, 55% consider the amount of public parking good or excellent. POLICE (pages 49-56) Police Department spending of $28.3 million was 25% more than five years ago. The Department handled more than 53,000 calls for service in FY 2009, or about 146 calls per day. Over the last 5 years, the average response times for emergency calls improved from 5:01 minutes to 4:43 minutes. During this time, the number of juvenile arrests decreased 10% from 256 to 230, and the number of total arrests increased 22% from 2,134 to 2,612. The total number of traffic collisions declined by 27% over the five year period, however the number of bicycle/pedestrian collisions increased by 11%. There were 37 alcohol related collisions, and 192 DUI arrests in FY 2009. Police Department statistics show 64 reported crimes per 1,000 residents, with 44 reported crimes per officer last year. FBI statistics show that Palo Alto has fewer violent crimes per thousand residents than many local jurisdictions. 95% of surveyed residents felt very or somewhat safe in their neighborhood during the day and 91% in Palo Alto’s downtown during the day. Feelings of safety decreased at night with 78% feeling very or somewhat safe in their neighborhood after dark and iv SUMMARY 65% feeling very or somewhat safe in downtown after dark. 84% of surveyed residents rated police services good or excellent. The Police Department reports it received 124 commendations and 14 complaints last year (three complaints were sustained). PUBLIC WORKS (pages 57-66) The Public Works Department provides services through the General Fund for streets, trees, structures and facilities, and engineering services. Operating expenditures in these areas totaled $12.9 million in FY 2009. Capital spending for these activities included $4.3 million for streets (up from $3.3 million in FY 2005), and $1.6 million for sidewalks. In FY 2009, the Department replaced or permanently repaired nearly 57,000 square feet of sidewalks, and completed 21 ADA ramps. In this year’s survey, 42% rated street repair as good or excellent, and 53% rated sidewalk maintenance as good or excellent. The Department is also responsible for refuse collection and disposal ($33.5 million in FY 2009 operating expense), storm drainage ($1.6 million in FY 2009), wastewater treatment ($16.4 million, of which 63% is reimbursed by other jurisdictions), and maintenance and replacement for the city fleet ($4.1 million). These services are provided through enterprise and internal service funds. Over the last five years tons of waste landfilled increased 12%; tons of materials recycled decreased 1%, and tons of household hazardous materials collected decreased 25%. This year, 89% of surveyed residents rated the quality of garbage collection as good or excellent (placing Palo Alto in the 83rd percentile), 90% rated recycling services good or excellent, and 86% rated the City’s composting process and pickup services good or excellent. 73% of residents rated storm drainage good or excellent. UTILITIES (pages 67-75) In FY 2009, operating expense for the electric utility totaled $112.4 million, including $82.3 million in electricity purchase costs (101% more than five years ago). The average monthly residential bill has increased 33% over the five year period. Average residential electric usage per capita decreased 5% from five years ago. By the end of FY 2009, nearly 20% of Palo Alto customers had enrolled in the voluntary Palo Alto Green energy program – supporting 100% renewable energy. 83% of surveyed residents rated electric utility services good or excellent. Operating expense for the gas utility totaled $33.4 million, including $25.1 million in gas purchases (34% more than five years ago). The average monthly residential bill has increased 87% over the five year period. Average residential natural gas usage per capita declined 14% from five years ago. The number of service disruptions increased from 31 to 46 over the five year period. 81% of surveyed residents rated gas utility services good or excellent. Operating expense for the water utility totaled $19.4 million, including $8.4 million in water purchases (26% more than five years ago). The average residential water bill has increased 27% over the five year period. Average residential water usage per capita is down 9% from five years ago. 81% of surveyed residents rate water quality as good or excellent. Operating expense for wastewater collection totaled $11 million in FY 2009. The average residential sewer bill has increased 22% over the last five years. 81% of residents rated sewer services good or excellent. There were 210 sewage overflows in 2009. v Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 vi In 1996, the City launched the fiber optic utility and built a 40.6 mile dark fiber backbone throughout the City with the goal of delivering broadband services to all premises, with customers connected via fiber optic “service connections.” New customers pay the construction fees required to connect to the fiber optic backbone. Fiber optic operating revenue totaled $3.3 million in FY 2009 and had 47 customer accounts 178 service connections. STRATEGIC AND SUPPORT SERVICES (pages 77-81) This category includes the Administrative Services and Human Resources departments, and the offices of the City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Auditor, and the City Council, and includes performance information related to these departments. By reviewing the entire report, readers will gain a better understanding of the mission and work of each of the City’s departments. The background section includes a community profile, discussion of service efforts and accomplishments reporting, and information about the preparation of this report. Chapter 1 provides a summary of overall City spending and staffing over the last five years. Chapters 2 through 9 present the mission statements, description of services, background information, workload, performance measures, and survey results for the various City services. The full results of the National Citizen SurveyTM are also attached. Additional copies of this report are available from the Auditor’s Office and are posted on the web at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/aud/service_efforts_and_accomplishments.asp. We thank the many departments and staff that contributed to this report. This report would not be possible without their support. Respectfully submitted, Lynda Flores Brouchoud City Auditor Performance Audit Intern: Rochelle Sazegari Audit staff and assistance: Edwin Young, Ian Hagerman, Lisa Wehara, and Patricia Hilaire TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND 1 Introduction 1 Community Profile 1 Scope and Methodology 4 Acknowledgements 8 CHAPTER 1 – OVERALL SPENDING, STAFFING & ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF COUNCIL PRIORITIES 9 Per Capita Spending 10 Authorized Staffing 11 Capital Spending 13 Resident Perceptions & Key Accomplishments of Council Priorities 14 Environmental Protection 15 Civic Engagement for the Common Good 18 Economic Health of the City 20 CHAPTER 2 – COMMUNITY SERVICES 21 Spending 22 Department –Wide Classes 23 Arts & Sciences Division 24 Open Space and Parks Division 26 Recreation and Golf Services Division 28 Cubberley Community Center and Human Services Division 30 CHAPTER 3 – FIRE 31 Fire Spending 32 Fire Staffing and Calls for Service 33 Fire Suppression 34 Emergency Medical Services 35 Hazardous Materials and Fire Safety 36 CHAPTER 4 – LIBRARY 37 Library Spending 38 Library Staffing 39 Library Collection and Circulation 40 Library Services 41 CHAPTER 5 – PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT 43 Spending 44 Current Planning and Code Enforcement 45 Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 Advance Planning Economic Development 46 Building Permits and Inspection 47 Transportation Planning 48 CHAPTER 6 – POLICE 49 Police Spending 50 Calls for Service 51 Crime 52 Perceptions of Safety 53 Police Staffing, Equipment, and Training 54 Traffic and Parking Control 55 Animal Services 56 CHAPTER 7 – PUBLIC WORKS 57 Streets 58 Sidewalks 59 Trees 60 City Facilities, Engineering, and Private Development 61 Storm Drains 62 Wastewater Treatment & Wastewater Environmental Compliance 63 Refuse 64 City Fleet and Equipment 65 Zero Waste <NEW> 66 CHAPTER 8 – UTILITIES 67 Electricity 68 Gas 70 Water 72 Wastewater Collection 74 Fiber Optic Utility 75 CHAPTER 9 – STRATEGIC AND SUPPORT SERVICES 77 Spending and Staffing 78 Administrative Services 79 Human Resources 80 City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Auditor 81 NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEYTM City of Palo Alto Summary Report 2009 Attachment 1 City of Palo Alto Report of Results 2009 Attachment 2 BACKGROUND INTRODUCTION This is the eighth annual report on the City of Palo Alto’s Service Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA). The purpose of the report is to Provide consistent, reliable information on the performance of City services, Broadly assess trends in government efficiency and effectiveness, and Improve City accountability to the public. The report contains summary information on spending and staffing, workload, and performance results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009 (FY 2009). It also includes the results of a resident survey rating the quality of City services. The report provides two types of comparisons: Five-year historical trends for fiscal years 2005 through 2009 Selected comparisons to other cities. There are many ways to look at services and performance. This report looks at services on a department-by-department basis. All City departments are included in our review. Chapter 1 provides a summary of overall spending and staffing over the last five years, as well as an overall description of the City’s accomplishments in meeting the City Council’s annual priorities. Chapters 2 through 9 present the mission statements, description of services, background information, workload, performance measures, and survey results for: Community Services Fire Library Planning and Community Environment Police Public Works Utilities Legislative and Support Services COMMUNITY PROFILE Incorporated in 1894, Palo Alto is a largely built-out community of over 64,000 residents. The city covers about 26 square miles, stretching from the edges of San Francisco Bay to the ridges of the San Francisco peninsula. Located mid-way between San Francisco and San Jose, Palo Alto is in the heart of the Silicon Valley. Stanford University, adjacent to Palo Alto and one of the top-rated institutions of higher education in the nation, has produced much of the talent that founded successful high-tech companies in Palo Alto and Silicon Valley. DEMOGRAPHICS Palo Alto is a highly educated community. According to the U.S. Census Bureau 2006-2008 American Community Survey, of residents aged 25 years and over: 78% had a bachelor’s degree or higher 48% had a graduate or professional degree. In 2009, Forbes named Palo Alto third in the top ten list of “America’s Most Educated Small Towns,” and first in California. 65% of Palo Alto’s population is in the labor force and the average travel time to work is estimated at 21 minutes. In 2008, the median household income was $126,740, while the average was $168,800. The breakdown of estimated household income consisted of: - 1 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 2 - 2008 Household Income Percent $49,999 or less 21% $50,000 to $149,999 37% $150,000 or more 42% Total 100% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006-2008 American Community Survey According to census statistics, 68% of Palo Alto residents were white, and 25% were of Asian descent: Race-ethnicity Population Percent One race 61,555 97% White 43,230 68% Asian 15,765 25% Black or African American 1,108 2% American Indian and Alaska Native 104 0% Other 1,348 2% Two or more races 1,815 3% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 3,758 6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006-2008 American Community Survey Over the last three years, from 2006-2008, the median age of Palo Alto residents was 42 years. The following table shows population by age: Age Population Percent Under 5 years 3,828 6% 18 years and over 48,517 77% 65 years and over 10,300 16% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006-2008 American Community Survey The majority of residents own their homes, but a large number of dwellings are renter occupied: Housing occupancy Number Percent Owner occupied 15,485 58% Renter occupied 10,043 37% Vacant 1,432 5% Total 26,960 100% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006-2008 American Community Survey OVERALL COMMUNITY QUALITY Residents give high ratings to Palo Alto’s quality of life. When asked to rate the overall quality of life in Palo Alto, 42% of residents said “excellent”, 50% said “good”, 7% said “fair”, and 0% said “poor.” In comparison to other jurisdictions1, Palo Alto ranked in the 98th percentile as a place to work, 92nd percentile for overall quality of life, and in the 93rd percentile as a place to live. These high ratings are consistent with prior surveys. Community quality ratings Percent rating Palo Alto good or excellent National ranking Palo Alto as a place to work 87% 98%tile Palo Alto as a place to live 90% 93%ile Overall quality of life 93% 92%ile Palo Alto as a place to raise children 91% 89%ile Neighborhood as a place to live 90% 93%ile Palo Alto as a place to retire 64% 62%ile Services to seniors 82% 95%ile Services to youth 75% 89%ile Services to low-income 59% 97%ile Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 2009 (Palo Alto) Palo Alto ranked in the 91st percentile as a place to raise children, 95th percentile for services to seniors, and 89th percentile for services to youth. Ratings for services to low-income increased from 46% to 59%, placing Palo Alto in the 97th percentile among other surveyed jurisdictions. Palo Alto “as a place to retire” ranked lower, in the 62nd percentile, although still above the benchmark comparisons. 87% of residents plan to remain in Palo Alto for the next five years and 90% of residents would likely recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks. According to the National Research Center, intentions to stay and willingness to make recommendations, provide evidence that the City of Palo Alto provides services and amenities that work. 1 Based on survey results from over 500 jurisdictions collected by the National Research Center, Inc. (see Attachment 1) BACKGROUND SENSE OF COMMUNITY Residents continue to give very favorable ratings to Palo Alto’s community and reputation. 92% of residents rated Palo Alto’s overall image/reputation as good or excellent, placing Palo Alto in the 99th percentile compared to other jurisdictions asking a similar question. Most residents (71%) rated Palo Alto’s “sense of community” as good or excellent. Most residents (78%) also felt that the Palo Alto community was open and accepting towards people of diverse backgrounds. These results placed Palo Alto in the 79th and 94th percentiles, respectively, compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. Community characteristics Percent rating Palo Alto good or excellent National ranking Overall image/reputation of Palo Alto 92% 99%ile Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 78% 94%ile Sense of community 71% 79%ile Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 2009 (Palo Alto) The survey also asked residents to assess their involvement and interactions with neighbors. 93% of residents reported helping a friend or neighbor within the last 12 months, and 72% of residents talked or visited with their neighbors at least once a month. Community characteristics Percent participation Benchmark Comparison Provided help to a friend or neighbor within last 12 months 93% Similar Talk or visit with your immediate neighbors at least once a month 72% Similar Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 2009 (Palo Alto) COMMUNITY AMENITIES In comparisons to other jurisdictions, Palo Alto residents give high ratings to educational opportunities, ranking in the 98th percentile compared to other jurisdictions. Although 51% of residents rated Palo Alto’s employment opportunities as good or excellent, a decrease from 61% the prior year, this places Palo Alto in the 91st percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. On the other hand, Palo Alto ranks in the 11th percentile when rating availability of affordable quality housing and the 23rd percentile in availability of affordable quality child care. Community amenities Percent rating Palo Alto good or excellent National ranking Educational opportunities 91% 98%ile Employment opportunities 51% 91%ile Overall quality of business and service establishments 73% 84%ile Traffic flow on major streets 46% 64%ile Availability of preventive health services 67% 86%ile Availability of affordable quality health care 63% 85%ile Availability of affordable quality child care 32% 23%ile Variety of housing options 39% 19%ile Availability of affordable quality housing 17% 11%ile Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 2009 (Palo Alto) In 2009, the rate of population growth in Palo Alto was viewed as “too fast” by 54% of survey respondents. 43% said population growth was the “right amount”. KEY DRIVER ANALYSIS The National Research Center analyzed responses from Palo Alto’s annual National Citizen SurveyTM to provide an analysis of “Key Drivers”, or areas that tend to influence how residents rate overall services. According to the report, local government core services – like fire protection- land at the top of the list when residents are asked about the most important local government services. However, Key Driver Analysis reveals service areas that influence residents’ overall ratings for quality of government services. Examining services that have the greatest likelihood of influencing residents’ opinions about overall service quality, may help government better focus its efforts. - 3 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 4 - Based on this year’s Palo Alto’s survey results, “Public Information” and “Street Tree Maintenance” were the two areas most strongly correlated with ratings of overall service quality. It should be noted that the survey results partly overlapped with the September 2009 California Avenue street tree cutting of 63 trees, resulting in a surge of public response and concern over the City’s street tree cutting processes. Although the National Research Center did not have benchmark data available for street tree maintenance overall ratings in this area appear to be favorable among most respondents. 72% of Palo Alto residents rated street tree maintenance as good or excellent (an increase from 68% the prior year), 21% as fair, and 7% as poor. Overall satisfaction with the City’s public information services declined 8 percentage points, from 76% rating satisfaction as good or excellent last year, to 68% this year. The City Manager indicates that this decline might also be a reaction to the lack of public outreach around the California Avenue street tree incident and is indicative of a larger issue relating to resources necessary to effectively engage and communicate with the community. According to the City Manager, over the past five years, staffing for public communications functions has decreased from 2 full time positions in the City Manager’s Office and 1 full time position in the Utilities Department, to 1 full time position that is now shared between the City Manager’s Office and the Utilities Department. This decrease has caused the remaining staff person to be spread thinly, thereby increasing the time necessary to advance more strategic communications initiatives like the City’s social networking strategy and consistent citywide branding and messaging. PALO ALTO CITY GOVERNMENT Palo Alto residents elect 9 members to the City Council. Council Members serve staggered 4-year terms. The Council also appoints a number of boards and commissions. Each January, the City Council appoints a new mayor and vice-mayor and then adopts priorities for the calendar year. The City Council’s top 3 priorities for 2009 included: Environmental Protection Civic Engagement for the Common Good Economic Health Palo Alto is a charter city, operating under a council/manager form of government. The City Council appoints the City Manager, City Attorney, City Auditor, and City Clerk. Following is the City of Palo Alto organizational chart. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY The City Auditor’s Office prepared this report in accordance with the City Auditor’s FY 2010 Work Plan. The scope of our review covered information and results for the City’s departments for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2008 and ending June 30, 2009 (FY 2009). City Auditor City Attorney City ManagerCity Clerk CityCouncil Palo AltoResidents Utilities Department Police Department Public Works Department LibraryDepartment Planning &Community Environment FireDepartment Human ResourcesDepartment AdministrativeServicesDepartment Community ServicesDepartment BACKGROUND We conducted this work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. These standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. The City Auditor’s Office compiled, examined, and reviewed sources of departmental data in order to provide reasonable assurance that the data we compiled is accurate, however we did not conduct detailed testing of that data. Our staff reviewed the data for reasonableness, accuracy, and consistency, based on our knowledge and information from comparable sources and prior years’ reports. Our reviews are not intended to provide absolute assurance that all data elements provided by management are free from error. Rather, we intend to provide reasonable assurance that the data present a picture of the efforts and accomplishments of the City departments and programs. When possible, we have included in the report a brief explanation of internal or external factors that may have affected the performance results. However, while the report may offer insights on service results, this insight is for informational purposes and does not thoroughly analyze the causes of negative or positive performance. Some results or performance changes can be explained simply. For others, more detailed analysis by City departments or performance audits may be necessary to provide reliable explanation for results. This report can help focus research on the most significant areas of interest or concern. SERVICE EFFORTS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORTING In 1994, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued Concepts Statement No. 2, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting. The statement broadly described “why external reporting of SEA measures is essential to assist users both in assessing accountability and in making informed decisions to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of governmental operations.” According to the statement, the objective of SEA reporting is to provide more complete information about a governmental entity’s performance than can be provided by the traditional financial statements and schedules, and to assist users in assessing the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of services provided. In 2003, GASB issued a special report on Reporting Performance Information: Suggested Criteria for Effective Communication that describes sixteen criteria state and local governments can use when preparing external reports on performance information.2 Using the GASB criteria, the Association of Government Accountants (AGA) initiated a Certificate of Excellence in Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting project in 2003, in which Palo Alto was a charter participant. Our last report received the Association’s distinguished Gold Award and in 2009, the Association named Palo Alto as the first city to receive the Circle of Excellence Award for producing high quality Service Efforts and Accomplishments reports. In 2008, GASB issued Concept Statement No. 5, which amended Concept Statement No. 2 to reflect changes since the original statement was issued in 1994. During 2009, GASB has been developing “Suggested Guidelines for Voluntary Reporting of SEA Performance Information.”3 The guidelines are intended to provide a common framework for the effective external communication of SEA performance information to assist users and governments. Other organizations including the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) and International City/County Management Association (ICMA) have long been advocates of performance measurement in the public sector. For example, the ICMA Performance Measurement Program provides local government benchmarking information for a variety of public services. The City of Palo Alto has reported various performance indicators for a number of years. In particular, the City’s budget document includes “benchmark” measures.4 Benchmarks include input, output, efficiency, and effectiveness measures. This report builds on existing systems and measurement efforts. The City’s operating budget document incorporates benchmarking measures included in this Service Efforts and Accomplishments report. Similarly, where we included budget benchmarking measures in this document, they are noted with the symbol ““. This year, we also added a symbol to indicate areas in the 2 A summary of the GASB special report on reporting performance information is online at http://www.seagov.org/sea_gasb_project/criteria_summary.pdf 3 The proposed guidelines have not been finalized as of the writing of this report. Additional information is on-line http://www.gasb.org/project_pages/sea.html 4 In FY 2005, new “benchmarking” measures replaced the “impact” measures that were formerly in the budget document. The benchmarks were developed by staff and reviewed by the City Council as part of the annual budget process. - 5 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 6 - report that are related to the City Council’s Top 3 Priorities for 2009. They are noted with the symbol” .“ SELECTION OF INDICATORS We limited the number and scope of workload and performance measures in this report to items where information was available, meaningful in the context of the City’s performance, and items we thought would be of general interest to the public. This report is not intended to be a complete set of performance measures for all users. From the outset of this project, we decided to use existing data sources to the extent possible. We reviewed existing benchmarking measures from the City’s adopted budget documents5, performance measures from other jurisdictions, and benchmarking information from the ICMA6 and other professional organizations. We used audited information from the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs).7 We cited departmental mission statements and performance targets8 that are taken from the City’s annual operating budget where they are subject to public scrutiny and City Council approval as part of the annual budget process. We held numerous discussions with City staff to determine what information was available and reliable, and best summarized the services they provide. Wherever possible we have included five years of data. Generally speaking, it takes at least three data points to show a trend. Although Palo Alto’s size precludes us from significantly disaggregating data (such as into districts), where program data was available, we disaggregated the information. For example, we have disaggregated performance information about some services based on age of participant, location of service, or other relevant factors. 5 The budget is on-line at www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/asd/budget.asp. The operating budget includes additional performance information. 6 International City/County Management Association (ICMA), Comparative Performance Measurement FY 2005 Data Report. This report summarizes data from 87 jurisdictions, including several from California. 7 The CAFR is on-line at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/asd/financial_reporting.asp. 8 The operating budget may include additional performance targets for the budget benchmarking measures that are noted in this document with the symbol “ .“ Indicators that are in alignment with the City’s Climate Protection Plan9, Zero Waste Plan10 and/or sustainability goals are noted in the tables with an “S”. Consistency of information is important to us. However, we occasionally add or delete some information that was included in a previous report. Performance measures and survey information that have changed since the last report are noted in the tables as <NEW> or <REVISED>. We will continue to use City Council, public, and staff feedback to ensure that the information items we include in this report are meaningful and useful. We welcome your input. Please contact us with suggestions at city.auditor@cityofpaloalto.org. THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEYTM The National Citizen SurveyTM is a collaborative effort between the National Research Center, Inc. (NRC), and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA).11 Respondents in each jurisdiction are selected at random. Participation is encouraged with multiple mailings and self-addressed, postage-paid envelopes. Results are statistically re-weighted, if necessary, to reflect the proper demographic composition of the entire community. Surveys were mailed to a total of 1,200 Palo Alto households in August and September 2009. Completed surveys were received from 424 residents, for a response rate of 37%. Typical response rates obtained on citizen surveys range from 25% to 40%. 9 More information about the City’s plan to protect the environment and other sustainability efforts is online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/environment. 10 More information about the City’s Zero Waste Plan is online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pwd/recycle/zero_waste_program.asp. 11 The full report of Palo Alto’s survey results can be found in Attachments 1-2. The full text of previous survey results can be found in the appendices of our previous reports online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/aud/service_efforts_and_accomplishments.asp. BACKGROUND It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a “level of confidence” (or margin of error). The 95% confidence level for this survey of 1,200 residents is generally no greater than plus or minus 5 percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample. The scale on which respondents are asked to record their opinions about service and community quality is “excellent”, “good”, “fair”, and “poor”. Unless stated otherwise, the survey data included in this report displays the responses only from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item – “don’t know” answers have been removed. This report contains comparisons of survey data from prior years. Differences from the prior year can be considered “statistically significant” if they are greater than six percentage points. The NRC has collected citizen survey data from more than 500 jurisdictions in the United States. Inter-jurisdictional comparisons are available when similar questions are asked in at least five other jurisdictions. When comparisons are available, results are noted as being “above” the benchmark, “below” the benchmark, or “similar to” the benchmark. NRC provided our office with additional data on the percentile ranking for comparable questions. In 2006, the ICMA and NRC announced “Voice of the People” awards for surveys conducted in the prior year. To win, a jurisdiction’s National Citizen Survey rating for service quality must be one of the top three among all eligible jurisdictions and in the top 10% of over 500 jurisdictions in the NRC database of citizen surveys. Since the beginning of the award program, Palo Alto has won: 2005 – 5 categories: Emergency medical, Fire, Garbage collection, Park, and Police services 2006 – 4 categories: Emergency medical, Fire, Garbage collection, and Recreation services 2007 – 5 categories: Emergency medical, Fire, Garbage collection, Park, and Recreation services 2008 – 1 category: Garbage collection. POPULATION Where applicable, we have used the most recent estimates of Palo Alto resident population from the California Department of Finance, as shown in the following table.12 Year Population FY 2005 61,464 FY 2006 62,108 FY 2007 62,267 FY 2008 63,098 FY 2009 64,484 Percent change over last 5 years:+5.0% We used population figures from sources other than the Department of Finance for some comparisons to other jurisdictions, but only in cases where comparative data was available only on that basis. Some departments13 serve expanded service areas. For example, the Fire Department serves Palo Alto, Stanford, and Los Altos Hills (seasonally). The Regional Water Quality Control Plant serves Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford, and East Palo Alto. INFLATION Financial data has not been adjusted for inflation. In order to account for inflation, readers should keep in mind that the San Francisco Area Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers has increased by 13% over the 5 years of financial data that is included in this report. The index increased as follows: 12 The Department of Finance periodically revises prior year estimates. Where applicable we used their revised population estimates to recalculate certain indicators in this report. 13 Additional information about the City’s departments can be found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/default.asp. - 7 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 8 - Date Index June 2005 201.2 June 2006 209.1 June 2007 216.1 June 2008 225.2 June 2009 225.7 Percent change over last 5 years:+12% ROUNDING For readability, most numbers in this report are rounded. In some cases, tables or graphs may not add to 100% or to the exact total because of rounding. In most cases the calculated “percent change over the last 5 years” is based on the percentage change in the underlying numbers, not the rounded numbers. However, where the data is expressed in percentages, the change over 5 years is the difference between the first and last year. COMPARISONS TO OTHER CITIES Where possible we included comparisons to nearby California cities. The choice of the cities that we use for our comparisons may vary depending on whether data is easily available. Regardless of which cities are included, comparisons to other cities should be used carefully. We tried to include “apples to apples” comparisons, but differences in costing methodologies and program design may account for unexplained variances between cities. For example, the California State Controller’s Office gathers and publishes comparative financial information from all California cities.14 We used this information where possible, but noted that cities provide different levels of service and categorize expenditures in different ways. 14 California State Controller, Cities Annual Report Fiscal Year 2006-07 (http://www.sco.ca.gov/Files-ARD-Local/LocRep/cities_reports_0607cities.pdf). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report could not have been prepared without the cooperation and assistance of City management and staff from every City department. Our thanks to all of them for their help. We also want to thank the City Council and community members who reviewed last year’s report and provided thoughtful comments. We would also like to acknowledge our debt to the City of Portland Auditor’s Office that pioneered local government accountability for performance through its “City of Portland Service Efforts and Accomplishments” report – now in its 19th year of publication. CHAPTER 1 – OVERALL SPENDING, STAFFING & ACCOMPLISHMENT OF COUNCIL PRIORITIES OVERALL SPENDING Palo Alto, like other cities, uses various funds to track specific activities. The General Fund tracks all general revenues and governmental functions including parks, fire, police, libraries, planning, public works, and support services. These services are supported by general City revenues and program fees. Enterprise Funds are used to account for the City’s utilities (including water, electricity, gas, wastewater collection and treatment, refuse, and storm drains) and are generally supported by charges paid by users based on the amount of service they use. The pie chart to the right shows where a General Fund dollar goes. The table below shows more detail. In FY 2009, the City’s General Fund expenditures and other uses of funds totaled nearly $141 million. This included $15.8 million in transfers to other funds (including $13.6 million for capital projects and $1.1 million for debt service). Total General Fund uses declined from $142.4 million last year to $140.8 million in FY 2009. Over the last five years, General Fund uses of funds increased 19% (some expenses were transferred to other funds), higher than inflation (12% over the same five-year period). Where does a General Fund dollar go? Source: FY 2009 expenditure data Operating Transfers Out 11% Non-Departmental 5% Public Works 9% Police 20% Planning and Community Environment 7% Library 4% Fire 17% Community Services 15% Administrative Departments 12% General Fund operating expenditures and other uses of funds (in millions) Administrative Departments1 Community Services Fire Library Planning and Community Environment Police Public Works Non- Departmental2 Operating Transfers Out3 TOTAL5 Enterprise Fund operating expenses FY 2005 $15.2 $19.1 $19.1 $5.1 $9.1 $22.5 $11.0 $8.6 $8.2 $118.04 $162.6 FY 2006 $15.3 $19.5 $20.2 $5.7 $9.2 $24.4 $11.3 $13.6 $8.0 $127.1 $183.7 FY 2007 $15.9 $20.1 $21.6 $5.9 $9.4 $25.9 $12.4 $8.5 $12.7 $132.4 $190.3 FY 2008 $17.4 $21.2 $24.0 $6.8 $9.7 $29.4 $12.9 $7.4 $13.6 $142.4 $215.8 FY 2009 $16.4 $21.1 $23.4 $6.2 $9.9 $28.3 $12.9 $6.8 $15.8 $140.8 $229.0 Change over last 5 years: +8% +11% +23% +22% +9% +26% +17% -20% +92% +19% +41% 1 Includes the City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Council, City Auditor, Administrative Services Department, and Human Resources Department. 2 Includes payments to the Palo Alto Unified School District as part of the Cubberley lease and covenant not to develop ($6.55 million in FY 2009). 3 Includes transfers from the General Fund to the Capital Projects Fund, to the Retiree Health Fund, and debt service funds. 4 Does not include FY 2005 transfer of the Infrastructure Reserve ($35.9 million) from the General Fund to the Capital Fund. 5 Expenditures shown in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports include appropriations, encumbrances, and other adjustments to the budgetary basis. - 9 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 10 - PER CAPITA SPENDING There are at least two ways to look at per capita spending: annual spending (shown below) and net cost (shown on the right). As shown below, in FY 2009, General Fund operating expenditures and other uses of funds totaled $2,184 per Palo Alto resident, including operating transfers to fund the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). However, as shown on the right, General Fund departments generate revenues or are reimbursed for some of their activities by other jurisdictions and/or the enterprise funds. As a result, we estimate the net General Fund cost per resident in FY 2009 was about $1,597. Enterprise Fund operating expenses totaled $3,552 per capita. Palo Alto’s enterprise funds include Electric, Gas, Water, Wastewater Collection, Wastewater Treatment, Refuse, Storm Drainage, Fiber Optic, and External Services. Enterprise funds generally work like a business and charge fees to cover the cost of services. Net General Fund Cost Per Resident: 2 FY 2009 Estimated per capita General Fund spending and other uses of funds2 Per capita2 Admin. Depts. Community Services Fire3 Library Planning and Community Environment Police Public Works Non- Depart- mental Operating Transfers Out TOTAL Capital outlay Enterprise Fund Operating Expenditures NET PER CAPITA SPENDING FY 2005 $247 $311 $310 $83 $148 $366 $179 $140 $134 $1,917 $346 $2,637 $1,390 FY 2006 $245 $313 $324 $91 $147 $392 $182 $219 $128 $2,040 $212 $2,943 $1,371 FY 2007 $255 $322 $345 $94 $150 $414 $199 $136 $203 $2,118 $279 $3,039 $1,518 FY 2008 $274 $335 $378 $108 $153 $464 $204 $117 $204 $2,237 $341 $3,405 $1,616 FY 2009 $254 $328 $363 $97 $153 $438 $200 $106 $245 $2,184 $245 $3,552 $1,597 Change over last 5 years: +3% +5% +17% +16% +4% +20% +12% -24% +83% +14% -29% +34% +15% 1 Net cost is defined as total program cost less the revenues/reimbursements generated by the specific activities. 2 Where applicable, prior year per capita costs have been recalculated based on revised population estimates from the California Department of Finance. 3 Not adjusted for Fire department’s expanded service area. 4 Includes $6.5 million paid to the Palo Alto Unified School District $245 in operating transfers out (including $186 in transfers for capital projects) $106 for non-departmental expenses4 $92 for library services $74 for planning, building, code enforcement $155 for public works $128 for administrative and strategic support services $218 for community services $212 for fire and emergency medical services1 On a per capita basis, FY 2009 net General Fund costs1 of $1,597 included: $367 for police services Chapter 1 - OVERALL - 11 - AUTHORIZED STAFFING City staffing is measured in full-time equivalent staff, or FTE. In FY 2009, there were a total of 1,150 authorized FTE citywide – including 727 authorized FTE in General Fund departments, and 423 authorized FTE in other funds.1 115 authorized positions were vacant as of June 30, 2009. Over the last five years, total FTE (including authorized temporary and hourly positions) has decreased. General Fund FTE decreased by 4%, including 36 regular FTE eliminated3 and 15 regular FTE moved to other funds.3 Authorized staffing in other funds decreased by 2%, including the 15 regular FTE moved from the General Fund.4 Total Full-time Equivalent Staff (includes authorized temporary staffing) Source: City operating budgets 1 Includes authorized temporary and hourly positions and allocated departmental administration. 2 Includes the Technology Fund, Capital Fund, Special Revenue, and Internal Service Funds. 3 Net General Fund regular position changes since June 30, 2005 included 1 FTE eliminated in FY 2005, 16 FTE eliminated in FY 2006, 3 FTE added in FY 2007, 2 FTE eliminated in FY 2008, and 20 FTE eliminated in FY 2009. 4 Regular positions moved from the General Fund to other funds included 3 FTE moved to other funds in FY 2005, and 6 FTE moved to other funds in FY 2006, none in FY 2007, 2 in FY 2008, and 9 in FY 2009. Total General Fund authorized staffing (FTE1) Total other authorized staffing (FTE1) Admin. Depts. Community Services Fire Library Planning and Community Environment Police Public Works Subtotal Refuse Fund Storm Drainage Fund Wastewater Treatment Fund Electric, Gas, Water, and Wastewater Other2 Subtotal TOTAL (FTE1) FY 2005 108 158 129 56 61 173 75 759 35 10 69 241 75 430 1,189 FY 2006 98 146 126 57 53 169 69 718 35 10 69 241 78 432 1,150 FY 2007 100 148 128 57 55 168 68 725 35 10 69 243 78 435 1,160 FY 2008 108 147 128 56 54 169 71 733 35 10 69 244 78 436 1,168 FY 2009 102 146 128 57 54 170 71 727 35 10 70 235 74 423 1,150 Change over last 5 years: -6% -8% -1% +3% -11% -2% -6% -4% +1% +4% -1% -3% -2% -2% -3% Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 12 - AUTHORIZED STAFFING (cont.) As shown in the graph to the right, Palo Alto had more employees per 1,000 residents than several other local jurisdictions. However staffing comparisons between cities are problematic – no other city in California offers a full complement of utility services like Palo Alto, and Palo Alto employees provide some services to other jurisdictions that are reimbursed by those jurisdictions (e.g. fire, dispatch, water treatment, and animal control). Citywide regular authorized staffing decreased 2% over the past five years from 1,094 to 1,076 FTE. Authorized temporary and hourly staffing decreased from 96 FTE to 74 FTE citywide. Of total staffing, about 7% is temporary or hourly. While general fund salaries and wages increased from $57.3 million last year to $59.6 million in FY 2009, general fund overtime expenditures and employee benefits declined from this same period. Over the last five years, General Fund salaries and wages (not including overtime) increased 14%. Over the same period, employee benefit expenses increased 19% – from $23.7 million (45% of salaries and wages) to $28.3 million (48% of salaries and wages).3 Employees Per 1,000 Residents Source: Citiies’ Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and Operating Budgets Regular authorized staffing citywide (FTE) Authorized temporary staffing citywide (FTE) Total authorized staffing citywide (FTE) Total authorized staffing per 1,000 residents General fund salaries and wages (in millions) General fund overtime General fund employee benefits Employee benefits rate Employee costs as a percent of total general fund expenditures FY 2005 1,094 96 1,189 19.3 $52.3 $ 3.6 $ 23.7 45% 68% FY 2006 1,074 76 1,150 18.4 $53.2 $ 3.4 $ 26.4 49% 64% FY 2007 1,080 80 1,160 18.5 $53.9 $ 4.0 $ 26.1 48% 65% FY 2008 1,077 91 1,168 18.4 $57.3 $ 4.2 $ 29.8 52% 64% FY 2009 1,076 74 1,150 19.4 $59.6 $ 3.7 $ 28.3 48% 65% Change over last 5 years: -2% -23% -3% +1% +14% +2% +19% +3% -3% PALO ALTO Berkeley Santa Clara Mountain View Redwood City San Mateo Sunnyvale San Jose 20.010.00.0 16.7 15.3 8.7 8.0 7.5 7.3 7.1 6.9 1 Does not include overtime 2 “Employee benefits rate” is General Fund benefit costs as a percentage of General Fund salaries and wages, not including overtime. 3 For more information on projected salary and benefits costs see the City of Palo Alto Long Range Financial Forecast at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/asd/financial_reporting.asp Chapter 1 - OVERALL - 13 - CAPITAL SPENDING The City’s Infrastructure Reserve (IR) was created as a mechanism to accumulate funding for an Infrastructure Rehabilitation Program to repair and renovate existing City infrastructure. The City’s current infrastructure backlog totaled $153 million in FY 2009. Total identified infrastructure needs through 2028 are estimated at $302 million. The IR is partially funded by annual commitments from the City’s General and Enterprise Funds. With the implementation of GASB Statement 34 in FY 2002, the City records all capital assets in the citywide financial statements.2 Capital assets are valued at historical cost, net of accumulated depreciation. This includes buildings and structures, vehicles and equipment, roadways, and utility distribution systems. As of June 30, 2009, net general capital assets totaled $364.3 million (14% more than 5 years ago). As shown in the graph on the right, capital outlay by governmental funds1 has increased over ten years ago. The General Fund invested $89.5 million in capital projects over the last 5 years, spending down reserves set aside to fund infrastructure rehabilitation. The Infrastructure Reserve fell to $7.0 million (compared to $25.2 million 5 years ago). The enterprise funds invested $36.2 million in capital projects in FY 2009, for a total of $144.3 million over the last 5 years. As of June 30, 2009, net Enterprise Fund capital assets totaled $426.1 million. Capital Outlay – Government Funds (in millions) 1 Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports General governmental funds (in millions) Enterprise funds (in millions) Infrastructure Reserve (in thousands) Net general capital assets Capital outlay (governmental funds) Depreciation Net Enterprise Fund capital assets Capital expense Depreciation FY 2005 $25.2 $318.5 $21.3 $9.5 $346.9 $22.8 $11.7 FY 2006 $20.7 $324.8 $13.2 $12.3 $360.9 $20.3 $11.8 FY 2007 $15.8 $335.7 $17.5 $11.0 $383.8 $28.9 $12.7 FY 2008 $17.9 $351.9 $21.6 $11.2 $416.6 $36.1 $12.7 FY 2009 $7.0 $364.3 $15.8 $9.6 $426.1 $36.2 $13.6 Change over last 5 years: -72% 14% -26% +1% +23% +59% +17% 1 Includes capital expenditures in the General Fund, Capital Projects and Special Revenue funds. Does not include capital expense associated with Utility or other enterprise funds. 2 The City’s financial statements are on-line at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/asd/financial_reporting.asp. $30 $40 $20 $10 $0 FY2009 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2004 FY 2003 FY 2002 FY 2001 FY 2000 Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 14 - RESIDENT PERCEPTIONS & KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF COUNCIL PRIORITIES Each January, the City Council holds a retreat and identifies top priorities for the calendar year. The City Council established three top priority areas for 2009: 1) Environmental Protection 2) Civic Engagement for the Common Good 3) Economic Health of the City CITY REPORTS IN AREAS OF 2009 COUNCIL PRIORITIES The City has developed two primary reporting methods for City Council priorities: Operating and Capital Budgets1 After Council establishes its priorities, departments identify specific activities for implementation within the Operating and Capital Budgets. It is important to note the timing difference between the establishment of the priorities each January, and the budget cycle that occurs on a fiscal-year basis. However, the 2009 priorities contained similarities from the prior year, and allowed for some continuity in reporting and implementation plans.2 Continuous reporting of key implementation strategies through a new Palo Alto See-It website In July 2009, the City Council approved a new website called “Palo Alto See-It” to provide a framework for tracking continuous progress on the 2009 Council priorities. Creation of the Palo Alto See-It website provides an accessible and visual tool for the Council, community, and staff to identify, assess, and communicate performance in the priority areas. The website visually depicts each of the three priority areas, along with 18 key strategies and 83 actions to achieve progress in each area. The website utilizes a color-coded indicator to assess performance on each of the actions contributing to the key strategies. An example of the website showing the area of Environmental Protection is shown in the exhibit to the right. The website indicates the City met its target in 12 of the 18 identified key strategies, 3 areas are tracked for informational purposes and do not have a target. The remaining 3 key strategies - Climate Protection, Green Purchasing, and Enhancing Government through Volunteerism - showed moderate progress. Palo Alto’s See-ItTM Website to Assess Progress in Implementing the 2009 Top Three Council Priorities: Example of Environmental Protection Source: Palo Alto See-It Website (http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.com) 1 Adopted Operating Budget: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=16681 2 2008 Council Priorities were: Library Building/Public Safety Building, Environmental Protection, Civic Engagement, and Economic Health Related to 2009 Top 3 City Council Priorities Chapter 1 - OVERALL - 15 - (cont.) The 2009 National Citizen SurveyTM results and City progress in these areas indicate the following: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION In 2009, the Mayor’s State of the City address included a vision to have “Regional Cooperation for Local Self-Reliance.” The Mayor’s vision focused on a regional approach for utilizing community resources, beginning with making locally grown produce widely available, and then converting waste into renewable energy products. According to this year’s survey results, 70% of respondents rated the availability of locally grown produce as good or excellent. 99% of residents reported that they recycled paper, cans or bottles from their home, placing Palo Alto in the 99th percentile for the frequency of residents recycling in their homes. Palo Alto residents rated overall environmental sustainability efforts favorably in comparison to other surveyed jurisdictions. 84% of surveyed residents rated the overall quality of Palo Alto’s natural environment as excellent or good. 82% rated the preservation of natural areas as excellent or good, placing Palo Alto in the 94th percentile among jurisdictions with similar survey questions. Ratings for overall air quality were lower, but still above the benchmark comparison. Resident Responses on Palo Alto’s Environment: Percent Rating Areas as Good or Excellent Source: National Citizen Survey™ 2009 (Palo Alto) Citizen Survey Percent recycled paper, cans or bottles at least once in past 12 months Percent rating ease of bus travel as good or excellent Percent rating ease of rail travel as good or excellent Percent rating ease of car travel as good or excellent Percent rating ease of walking as good or excellent Percent rating ease of bicycling as good or excellent FY 2005 82% 44% 69% 61% 86% 79% FY 2006 84% 44% 60% 60% 87% 78% FY 2007 87% 37% 55% 65% 88% 84% FY 2008 99% 34% 52% 60% 86% 78% FY 2009 99% 36% 63% 65% 82% 78% Change over last 5 years: +17% -8% -6% +3% -4% -1% Preservation of wildlife/native plants <NEW> Cleanliness of Palo Alto Overall quality of the natural environment Water and energy preservation <NEW> Preservation of natural areas Air Quality Availability of locally grown produce 100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0% 87% 85% 84% 83% 82% 73% 70% Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 16 - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (cont.) The City of Palo Alto has developed a variety of programs and plans designed to protect the environment. Three of the primary program focuses are as follows: Climate Protection Plan Ten Year Energy Efficiency Plan Zero Waste Operational Plan (ZWOP) to reduce waste through programs, policies, and changes in the new waste hauling contract Climate Protection Plan In December 2007, the City Council approved the Climate Protection Plan, and established emission reduction goals (from 2005 baseline levels) of: 5% of municipal emissions, by December 2009 5% of municipal and community emissions, by 2012 15% of municipal and community emissions by 2020. In order to develop a strategy to achieve the 5% reduction in municipal emissions by December 2009, staff formed a Climate Protection Team with representatives from each department. The team developed departmental and Citywide actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In April 2009, staff reported their progress to the City Council, which requested that staff continue to monitor greenhouse gas emissions on a departmental basis and enhance the transparency of the City’s greenhouse gas emissions monitoring program by posting the results online. According to City staff, greenhouse gas emissions from City operations are expected to decline from the 2005 baseline by approximately 11% in 2009.1 1 Performance data was not yet available to assess reductions against 2005 baseline emissions data. Reduction in CO2 Emissions by Source (in metric tons)1 Source: Utility Department and City Sustainability Data Chapter 1 - OVERALL - 17 - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (cont.) Ten Year Energy Efficiency Plan The City Council approved a Ten Year Energy Efficiency (EE) Plan on April 2007. This plan was developed to meet the City’s Climate Protection policy as well as to support the Long Term Energy Acquisition Plan and the Gas Utility Long Term Plan. The Ten Year EE Plan also complied with state legislation mandating that energy efficiency be the first priority in seeking utility supply and that utilities develop/update a 10-year energy efficiency plan on a three-year cycle. According to the Ten Year EE Plan, annual electric and gas savings targets are established for fiscal years 2008 through 2017. According to the Utilities Department, the City exceeded savings goals for electric, gas, and water consumption. The Utilities Department attributed some of the reductions to the new solar water heating program and an enhanced emphasis on business natural gas and process energy usage at larger facilities. The Utilities Department has also offered its customers PaloAltoGreen, a renewable energy program. Since launching the program five years ago, the Department reports that annual sales of renewable energy have consistently increased, with a customer participation rate of over 20%, the highest rate in the nation. Zero Waste Operational Plan In 2005, the City adopted a Zero Waste Strategic Plan with a goal to reach zero waste to landfills by 2021 through the development of policies and incentives. In FY 2009, the City Council approved the Plastic Bag Ordinance to eliminate single use plastic checkout bags at large grocery stores. Palo Alto was the first city in Santa Clara County to adopt such an ordinance and the Santa Clara County Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission has adopted a model for cities to consider similar ordinances. The Plastic Bag Ordinance is designed to reduce the use of plastic bags which lead to litter and wildlife impacts in natural ecosystems, including creeks, San Francisco Bay, and the ocean. The ultimate goal is for shoppers to convert to reusable bags. According to City staff, reusable bag use increased from 9% in the first quarter of 2008 to 18% in the first quarter of 2009. Savings Goals and Achievements as a Percentage of Total Utility Consumption Annual Savings Goal Annual Savings Achievement Electric Natural Gas Water 0.0% 1.0% Source: Utilities Department Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 18 - CIVIC ENGAGEMENT FOR THE COMMON GOOD Civic engagement can mean different things to different people. According to the National Research Center, “The extent to which local government provides opportunities to become informed and engaged and the extent to which residents take these opportunities is an indicator of the connection between government and the populace.” Civic Engagement for the Common Good connects civic engagement with the concept of shared social, economic, and physical assets to benefit the community. As shown in the exhibit to the right, Palo Alto residents rated a variety of civic engagement activities and opportunities. Residents rated opportunities to volunteer and participate in social events and community matters more favorably, in comparison to other surveyed jurisdictions. 83% of residents reported opportunities to volunteer as good or excellent, 79% reported opportunities to participate in social events and activities as good or excellent, and 76% reported opportunities to participate in community matters as good or excellent. Residents continued to visit the City’s website, increasing from 52% in 2005 to 75% in 2009. Ratings for the quality of State and County government services declined significantly, although ratings for the Federal government increased. These ratings may be related to the economic recession that began in December 2007 and has contributed to significant budget deficits at the State and local government levels. In 2009, the Federal Government passed an economic stimulus package called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Participation Ratings/Percent Rating Area Good or Excellent Source: 2009 National Citizen Survey™ (Palo Alto) Citizen Survey Overall quality and value of services Percent rating overall image or reputation of Palo Alto good or excellent Percent rating value of services for the City taxes they pay as good or excellent Percent rating City services good or excellent Percent rating State Government services good or excellent Percent rating County Government services good or excellent Percent rating Federal Government services good or excellent FY 2005 - 70% 88% 32% - 32% FY 2006 91% 74% 87% 38% - 32% FY 2007 93% 67% 86% 44% - 33% FY 2008 92% 64% 85% 34% 54% 33% FY 2009 92% 58% 80% 23% 42% 41% Change over last 5 years: - -12% -8% -9% - +9% Chapter 1 - OVERALL - 19 - CIVIC ENGAGEMENT FOR THE COMMON GOOD (cont.) Although Palo Alto residents rated several of the civic engagement areas favorably, the responses also show opportunities for improvement in areas of public trust. When asked to rate the job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement, 56% of residents rated this as good or excellent. Ratings for the overall direction that Palo Alto is taking declined significantly from 63% to 53%. This is consistent with the pattern of alternating hi and low ratings over the last several years. In FY 2009, to promote civic engagement, the City Council approved Palo Alto’s Open City Hall, a website forum for residents to vote and comment on upcoming City Council agenda items. In addition, the City also formed a variety of committees with resident involvement such as the Website Committee and the Compost Blue Ribbon Taskforce. Resident ratings in the areas of City employees’ knowledge, responsiveness, courtesy, and overall impression recovered from last year’s decrease. Last year’s report noted three unique occurrences during FY 2008 that may have contributed to the decrease in these areas - the recovery in the ratings for FY 2009 confirms the declines were temporary. 2009 Palo Alto Resident Survey: Job Palo Alto Does at Welcoming Citizen Involvement Source: 2009 National Citizen Survey™ (Palo Alto) Citizen Survey Public trust Public involvement Impression of contact with Palo Alto employees Percent rating overall direction of the City as good or excellent Percent rating the City's job at welcoming citizen involvement as good or excellent Percent rating the City's job at listening to citizens as good or excellent Percent who watched a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting on TV Percent who volunteered time to some group or activity in Palo Alto Percent having contact with a City employee in the last 12 months Good or excellent impression of knowledge Good or excellent impression of responsiveness Good or excellent impression of courtesy Overall impression good or excellent FY 2005 54% 59% 50% 29% 52% 56% 84% 77% 83% 80% FY 2006 62% 73% 59% 31% 53% 54% 83% 78% 83% 80% FY 2007 57% 68% 52% 26% 52% 57% 85% 80% 84% 79% FY 2008 63% 57% 53% 26% 51% 54% 75% 73% 78% 73% FY 2009 53% 56% 51% 28% 56% 58% 84% 78% 84% 79% Change over last 5 years: -1% -3% +1% -1% +4% +2% 0% +1% +1% -1% Good 41% Fair 32% Excellent 15% Poor 12% Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 20 - ECONOMIC HEALTH OF THE CITY In the midst of a prolonged national economic recession that began in December 2007, the City’s economic health is a critical concern. Overall General Fund revenues decreased from $149.1 million in FY 2008 to $146.1 million in FY 2009. Revenues from sales tax, transient occupancy tax, and other taxes and fines declined. Although property tax revenue and other charges for services increased, these increases were not enough to offset the decline in other revenue sources. Resident ratings appear to reflect the economic concerns. The percent of residents rating retail growth as “too slow” increased from 28% in 2008 to 34% in 2009, a rating similar to other surveyed jurisdictions. The percent of residents rating job growth as “too slow” also increased from 48% in 2008 to 65% in 2009. However, as shown on page 3 of this report, 51% of surveyed residents rated Palo Alto’s employment opportunities as good or excellent, a rating well above other surveyed jurisdictions. 46% of surveyed residents rated the City’s promotion of business growth and economic development as good or excellent, and 17% rated it as poor. Despite the recession, most surveyed residents (64%) feel the City’s fiscal condition will continue to provide valuable services. About 35% of survey respondents were paying housing costs of 30% or more of their monthly household income, defined as “housing cost stress.” This is an increase from 31% last year, but is still similar to other surveyed jurisdictions. If residents are experiencing housing cost stress, they have less disposable income to spend in other areas. Primary Sources of General Fund Revenue FY 2009 Source: FY 2009 Revenue Data Citizen Survey Economic Indicators Percent rating downtown shopping, dining and entertainment experience good or excellent <NEW> Percent rating overall shopping opportunities good or excellent Percent rating overall quality of business establishments good or excellent Percent rating economic development good or excellent Percent rating promotion of business growth & economic development good or excellent <NEW> Percent rating infrastructure investment good or excellent <NEW> Percent respondents experiencing Housing Cost Stress Percent rating job growth as too slow Percent rating retail growth as too slow FY 2005 - 75% - 55% - - - 63% 25% FY 2006 - 80% - 61% - - - 49% 26% FY 2007 - 79% - 62% - - - 38% 29% FY 2008 - 71% 77% 63% - - 31% 48% 28% FY 2009 74% 70% 73% 54% 46% 56% 35% 65% 34% Change over last 5 years: - -5% - -1% - - - 2% 9% Operating Transfers-In (12%) Other Revenue (4%) Permits and Licenses (3%) Charges to Other Funds (8%) Charges for Services (14%) Other Taxes and Fines (4%) Utility Users Tax (7%) Transient Occupancy Tax (5%) Sales Tax (14%) Encumbrance/ Reappropriation (3%) Property Tax (17%) Rental Income (9%) CHAPTER 2 - COMMUNITY SERVICES The mission of the Community Services Department (CSD) is to engage individuals and families in creating a strong and healthy community through parks, recreation, social services, arts and sciences. The Department operates under four divisions: Arts and Sciences provides visual and performing arts, music and dance, and science programs to adults and youth while responding to increased demand for family programs such as the Junior Museum and Zoo, the Children’s Theatre, and interpretive programs. Open Space and Parks is responsible for the conservation and maintenance of more than 4,000 acres of urban and open space parkland and provides ecology and natural history interpretive programs for youth and adults through campfires, special interest nature programs, and guided walks. Recreation and Golf Services provides a diverse range of programs and activities for the community, and focuses on creating a culture of fitness and healthy living by encouraging individuals and families to participate in creative and fun activities. Cubberley Community Center and Human Services hosts community artists, dance groups, children centers, Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Adult Education, Foothill College, and many non-profit groups. On its 35-acre campus, the center provides a full array of facilities including fields, tennis courts, a track, gymnasiums, an auditorium, a theatre, and classrooms which are available for public rental. The Human Services function provides assistance to people in need, including grants to non-profit organizations and entry level work experience for the homeless. What is the source of Community Services funding? Where does a Community Service dollar go? General Fund (52%) Other (Less than 1%) Source: FY 2009 revenue and expenditure data Fees (5%) Classes and Camps (10%) Golf (15%)Grants and Donations (3%) Rentals (3%) Cubberley Leases & Rentals (12%) Cubberley and Human Services Arts and Sciences (22%)(17%) Open Space and Parks (31%) Recreation and Golf Services (30%) -21- Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 SPENDING Total Community Services spending increased by approximately 11% in the last five years. The Department’s prior year reorganization resulted in an increase of 47% in Arts and Sciences expenditures for FY 2009 due to the transfer of the Science and Interpretive program expenditures into the Arts and Sciences Division. Community Services staffing decreased by 7% over the last five years from 158 to 147 full-time equivalents (FTEs). In FY 2009, temporary or hourly staffing accounted for about 34% of the Department’s total staffing. Total authorized staffing decreased 12% over the previous five years from 2.6 to 2.3 FTE per thousand residents. Palo Alto’s expenditures per capita for parks, recreation, and community centers are the second highest compared with seven other nearby cities. It should be noted that each jurisdiction offers different levels of service and budgets for those services accordingly. Palo Alto data includes expenditures related to nearly 4,000 acres of open space, municipal golf course, human services programs, Cubberley Community Center, and unique services such as the Art Center, the Children’s Theatre, and the Junior Museum and Zoo. Comparison for Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Operating Expenditures Per Capita: FY 2007 Source: California State Controller, Cities Annual Report Fiscal Year 06-07 Operating expenditures (in millions) Arts and Sciences1 Open Space and Parks Recreation and Golf Services Cubberley Community Center & Human Services Total Operating Expense Operating Expenditures Per Capita Total Revenues (in millions) 2 Total FTEs Temporary Percent of Total Who Are Temporary Authorized staffing per 1,000 population FY 2005 $3.2 $6.8 $6.1 $3.0 $19.1 $312 $8.6 158 49 31% 2.6 FY 2006 $3.2 $6.1 $6.7 $3.5 $19.5 $312 $9.0 146 48 33% 2.3 FY 2007 $3.1 $6.3 $7.0 $3.4 $19.8 $317 $9.3 148 49 33% 2.4 FY 2008 $4.4 $6.8 $6.4 $3.7 $21.2 $335 $9.8 147 49 34% 2.3 FY 2009 $4.7 $6.6 $6.4 $3.5 $21.1 $328 $10.5 147 49 34% 2.3 Change over last 5 years: +47% -3% +4% +16% +11% +5% +23% -7% 0% +3 -12% 1 Operating costs were combined to match the Department’s reorganization in FY 2008. Youth Sciences expense data could not be segregated from Recreation expenses and are excluded from Arts and Sciences costs for FY 2005 through FY 2007. 2 Revenues include rental revenue generated at the Cubberley Community Center that is passed through to the Palo Alto Unified School District per the City’s agreement with the school district. - 22 - Chapter 2 – COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT-WIDE CLASSES Through its divisions, Community Services offers classes to the public on a variety of topics including recreation and sports, arts and culture, nature and the outdoors. Classes for children include aquatics, sports, digital art, animation, music, and dance. Other classes are targeted specifically for adults, senior citizens and pre-schoolers. In FY 2009, 160 camp sessions were offered for kids. Over the last five years, the number of camps offered increased by 3% and total enrollment in camps decreased by 9%. The number of kids’ classes (excluding camps) offered increased by 14%, but enrollment in kid’s classes decreased by 12%. Enrollment in adult classes decreased by 25%; the number of classes offered for adults decreased by 4%. In FY 2009, class registrations online, increased 5% compared to five years earlier. In FY 2009, 85% of residents rated the range and variety of classes good or excellent. Palo Alto ranked in the 90th percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. Enrollment in Community Services Classes (Residents vs. Non-Residents) FY 2009 Source: Community Services Department Total number of classes/camps offered1 Total enrollment1 Citizen Survey Camp sessions Kids (excluding camps) Adults Pre- school Total Camps Kids (excluding camps) Adults Pre-school Total Percent of class registrations online Percent of class registrants who are non- residents Percent rating the range/variety of classes good or excellent FY 2005 156 276 362 171 965 6,601 4,862 5,676 3,764 20,903 40% 16% 84% FY 2006 153 235 294 160 842 5,906 4,604 5,485 3,628 19,623 41% 15% 86% FY 2007 145 206 318 137 806 5,843 4,376 4,936 3,278 18,433 42% 13% 82% FY 2008 151 253 327 143 874 5883 4,824 4,974 87% Residents Non-Residents 13% 3,337 19,018 43% 15% 87% FY 2009 160 315 349 161 985 6,010 4,272 4,288 3,038 17,608 45% 13% 85% Change over last 5 years: +3% +14% -4% -6% +2% -9% -12% -25% -19% -16% +5% -3% +1% 1 Data shown is in format available from Community Services registration system. Types of classes offered include arts, sports, nature and outdoors, and recreation. Budget benchmarking measure - 23 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 ARTS AND SCIENCES DIVISION ARTS The Arts section provides a broad range of arts-related enrichment programs including the Palo Alto Art Center, Children’s Theatre, Lucie Stern Community Theatre, Art in Public Places, music and dance programs, and concerts. Community Theatre attendance at performances increased from last year, but was 7% lower than five years ago. There were 159 performances at the Community Theatre in FY 2009, 8% less than in FY 2005. The number of participants in Children’s Theater has decreased by 66% over the last five years. In 2009 the Children’s Theater reformatted its programming and methods for calculating participants, which the Department partly attributes to the decline. The Art Center had about 15,800 exhibition visitors and presented 41 concerts in FY 2009. Total attendance decreased 24% from about 76,000 in FY 2005 to about 58,000 in FY 2009. According to the Department the decline in visitors may be attributed to decreases in publicity and ability to consistently track attendance. The Department also noted the variety of exhibits appeals to different audiences and can affect attendance. Outside funding for visual arts programs was 4% less than it was in FY 2005. In FY 2009, 79% of residents rated art programs and theater as good or excellent. Enrollment in Art Classes, Camps, and Workshops: FY 2005 to FY2009 Source: Community Services Department Community Theater Children’s Theater4 Art Center Number of performances Attendance at performances Music & Dance Class Enrollees Attendance at performances Participants in performances and programs Theater class, camp and workshop registrants Exhibition visitors Concerts1 Total attendance (users) Enrollment in art classes, camps, and workshops (adults and children)2 Outside funding for visual arts programs Attendance at Project LOOK! tours and family days3 FY 2005 172 50,111 1424 22,734 1,592 581 19,307 53 76,264 3,559 $275,909 6,722 FY 2006 183 55,204 1416 22,788 1,670 597 19,448 59 73,305 4,137 $284,838 6,191 FY 2007 171 45,571 1195 23,117 1,845 472 16,191 43 70,387 3,956 $345,822 6,855 FY 2008 166 45,676 982 19,811 1,107 407 17,198 42 69,255 3,913 $398,052 6,900 FY 2009 159 46,609 964 14,786 534 334 15,830 41 58,194 3,712 $264,580 8,353 Change over last 5 years: -8% -7% -32% -35% -66% -43% -18% -23% -24% +4% -4% +24% 1 All of the concerts are part of the Community Theatre program though some are performed at the Art Center. 2 Enrollment shown here is also reflected in totals on "Classes" page. 3 Project LOOK! Offers docent-led tours of exhibitions at the Palo Alto Art Center to K-12th grade school groups. Tours are followed by a hands-on activity at the Project LOOK! Studio, including art tours to East Palo Alto and Palo Alto. 4 Volunteer hours in FY 2009 totaled 4,352 hours. - 24 - Chapter 2 – COMMUNITY SERVICES ARTS AND SCIENCES DIVISION (cont.) YOUTH SCIENCES The Arts and Sciences Division provides science programs to adults and youth while responding to increased demand for family programs. Through public and non-profit partnerships, the division will continue to work with the community to develop support and advocacy for its programs and facilities. Arts and Sciences will continue to administer and manage the Junior Museum and Zoo. Founded in 1934, the Junior Museum was the first children’s museum west of the Mississippi, and continues to be a local leader in children’s science education since its inception. Palo Alto was in the 98th percentile for educational opportunities and ranked 5th compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. The Zoo opened in 1969. The Junior Museum and Zoo provides summer camps, outreach programs, and exhibits for area children. 79% of the residents rated youth services as good or excellent, placing Palo Alto in the 89th percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. Junior Museum Enrollment and Outreach Participants: FY 2005 to FY 2009 Source: Community Services Department Junior Museum and Zoo Interpretive Sciences Citizen Survey Enrollment in Junior Museum classes and camps1, 2 Estimated number of outreach participants3 Number of Arastradero, Baylands, & Foothill outreach programs for school-age children Enrollment in open space interpretive classes4 Percent rating services to youth good or excellent Percent rating educational opportunities FY 2005 1,934 3,388 48 1,188 68% - FY 2006 1,832 2,414 48 1,280 70% 93% FY 2007 1,805 2,532 63 1,226 73% 94% FY 2008 2,0894 2,7224 855 2,6894 73% 93% FY 2009 2,054 3,300 1785 2,615 75% 91% Change over last 5 years: +6% -3% + 271% +120% +7% - 1 Enrollment shown here is also reflected in totals on “Classes” page. 2 Classes and camps are paid for by parents who selectively enroll their children. 3 Outreach includes interpretive programs. These are programs paid for by the schools, whether they are taught at the schools or at the Junior Museum and Zoo. The number of outreach participants decreased in FY 2006 because the City lost its grant funding for outreach to East Palo Alto schools. 4 FY 2008 increase includes 651 visitors at special request programs. 5 FY 2008 increase includes Foothills Ohlone programs and FY 2009 increase staff attributes to a contract entered into with two more schools (Hoover and Duveneck) for outreach science classes. Budget benchmarking measure - 25 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 Foothills Park Attendance FY 2005 – FY 2009 Source: Community Services Department OPEN SPACE AND PARKS DIVISION OPEN SPACE The City has 3,744 acres1 of open space that it maintains, consisting of Foothills Park, Baylands Nature Preserve (including Byxbee Park), Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, and Esther Clark Nature Preserve. In FY 2009 this amounted to about 60 acres per 1,000 residents. Palo Alto was in the 94th percentile for open space preservation and ranked 7th compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. Open space acreage per 1,000 residents decreased during the last five years from 62.0 to 60.02 acres per 1,000 residents because of an increase in population. Similarly, total urban parks and open space acreage declined from 64.1 to 62.3 acres per 1,000 residents. This was true even though the City added 13 acres to the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve with the acquisition of the Bressler property. Average open space is 535 acres per park ranger. Palo Alto ranked in the 85th percentile for the quality of the overall natural environment and in the 94th percentile for preservation of natural areas compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. This year, the survey included a new question to assess preservation of wildlife and plants. 87% of residents rated preservation of wildlife and ative plants good or excellent. n Citizen Survey Visitors at Foothills Park Volunteer hours for restorative/resource management projects2 Number of native plants in restoration projects Number of Rangers Percent rating preservation of wildlife and native plants good or excellent <NEW> Percent rating quality of overall natural environment good or excellent Percent rating preservation of natural areas such as open space good or excellent Percent rating availability of paths or walking trails good or excellent FY 2005 121,574 15,847 12,418 - - - - FY 2006 127,457 10,738 15,516 7 - - - - FY 2007 140,437 11,380 14,023 7 - - - - FY 2008 135,001 13,572 13,893 7 - 85% 78% 74% FY 2009 135,110 16,169 11,934 7 87% 84% 82% 75% Change over last 5 years: +11 % +2% -4% - - - - - 1 Does not include the 268 acres of developed parks and land maintained by the Parks section or the Recreation and Golf Division . Neither does this include 2,200 acres of Montebello Open Space Preserve and 200 acres of Los Trancos Open Space Preserve that are operated by the Mid-Peninsula Open Space District. 2 Includes collaborative partnerships with non-profit groups. Staff attributes the increase in volunteer hours primarily to the Baylands Nature Preserve through Save the Bay (non-profit partner) activities and the use of court-referred (community service hours) volunteers. Budget benchmarking measure - 26 - Chapter 2 – COMMUNITY SERVICES OPEN SPACE AND PARKS DIVISION (cont.) PARKS AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE Parks section maintains approximately 269 acres of land including: Urban/neighborhood parks (157 acres or 59% of total) 1 City facilities (26 acres or 10%) School athletic fields (43 acres or 16%) Utility sites (11 acres or 4%) Median strips (27 acres or 10%) Business Districts and parking lots (5 acres or 2%). In FY 2009, maintenance spending on the above acres totaled about $4.4 million, or approximately $16,940 per acre. The City also added the Sterling Canal and Homer tunnel area to the maintenance program. These new landscaped areas increased the percentage of contracted maintenance from 22% in FY 2008 to 24% in FY 2009. The Department attributes the decline in athletic field usage primarily to closures for field maintenance and a fee structure change during FY 2009 from a flat rate to an hourly usage rate. Volunteer hours increased over the last 5 years through the Adopt-a-Park programs. 92% of residents responding to the survey rate city parks good or excellent, and 87% rate their neighborhood park good or excellent. 94% report they visited a neighborhood or City park in the last 12 months. Palo Alto parks rank in the 94th percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. Athletic Field Usage: FY 2005 to FY 2009 Source: Community Services Department Maintenance Expenditures (in millions) 2 Citizen Survey Parks and landscape maintenance (in millions) Athletic fields in City parks4 (in millions) Athletic fields on school district sites3, 4 (in millions) Total maintenance cost per acre Total hours of Number of permits issued for special events Volunteer hours for neighbor- hood parks athletic field usage4 Number of participants in community gardening program5 Percent rating City parks as good or excellent Percent rating their neighborhood park good or excellent FY 2005 $2.7 $0.6 $0.5 $14,572 65,748 14 60 244 91% 89% FY 2006 $2.5 $0.6 $0.6 $14,302 65,791 16 150 223 88% 87% FY 2007 $2.7 $0.6 $0.7 $15,042 70,769 22 150 231 91% 89% FY 2008 $2.9 $0.6 $0.7 $15,931 63,212 22 180 233 89% 86% FY 2009 $3.0 $0.7 $0.7 $16,940 45,762 35 212 238 92% 87% Change over last 5 years: +11% +16% +40% +16% -30% +150% +253% -2% +1% -2% 1 Does not include 3,744 acres of open space discussed on the previous page. 2 Includes budgeted operating expenditures. Does not include cost plan charges or capital costs. 3 PAUSD reimburses the City for 50 percent of maintenance costs on these school district sites. 4 Special use permits are issued for special events in parks, fun runs, tournaments, festivals, etc. 5 Community Services coordinates 3 community gardens. Decrease in number of participants resulted from closure of a 4th community garden. - 27 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 RECREATION AND GOLF SERVICES DIVISION RECREATION Recreation services produce a large number of the classes offered by the Department. Besides summer camps, Recreation services include aquatics programs, facility rentals (through which members of the community may rent meeting room and event space, the swimming pool or gym space for parties and events, field and picnic sites) and a variety of youth and teen programs. In addition to class offerings for adults, Recreation services coordinates seasonal adult sports leagues and sponsors special events each year such as the May Fete Parade and the Chili Cook-Off. Recreation services works collaboratively with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) to provide middle school athletics in conjunction with the PAUSD’s summer school program. Enrollment in dance, recreation and therapeutic classes decreased from five years ago. The lower ranking may have resulted from public review of plans for a potential new Mitchell Park Community Center building. The bond measure campaign (Measure N) heightened awareness of the constraints and inadequacies of the current facility. Lack of classroom space and dance studios were cited as particular customer needs in the campaign surveys. However, aquatics increased 19%, summer camps decreased 9%, middle school sports classes increased 12%, and private tennis lessons increased 71% over the same period. Compared to other jurisdictions, Palo Alto ranked in the 90th percentile nationally for its recreational programs and classes, but only in the 75th percentile for recreation centers and facilities compared to other jurisdictions. Trends in Enrollment for Largest Recreational Classes: FY 2005 to FY 2009 Dance Recreation Summer Camps En r o l l m e n t 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Source: Community Services Department 1 Enrollment in Recreation Classes Citizen Survey Percent rating Percent rating Dance Recreation Aquatics Middle school sports Therapeutic Private tennis lessons recreation centers/ facilities recreation programs/classes Summer Camps good or excellent good or excellent FY 2005 1,531 5,055 223 1,242 216 259 6,601 78% 87% FY 2006 1,326 5,681 199 1,247 175 234 5,906 80% 85% FY 2007 1,195 5,304 225 1,391 228 274 5,843 82% 90% FY 2008 1,129 4,712 182 1,396 203 346 5,883 77% 87% FY 2009 1,075 3,750 266 1,393 153 444 6,010 80% 85% Change over last 5 years: -30% -26% +19% +12% -29% +71% -9% +2% -2% 1 Enrollment shown here is also reflected in totals on "Classes" page. Classes and camps are paid for by parents who selectively enroll their children. Budget benchmarking measure - 28 - Chapter 2 – COMMUNITY SERVICES RECREATION AND GOLF SERVICES DIVISION (cont.) Rounds of Golf: GOLF COURSE FY 2005 to FY 2009 The City owns and maintains the municipal golf course, and coordinates the golf shop, driving range, and restaurant operations with separate tenants. According to the Department, the number of rounds of golf has decreased 8% to 72,170 from 78,410 five years ago. The golf course reported profits in two of the last five years and losses in three of the previous years. The loss in FY 2005 was $72,031; profit in FY 2006 was $148,154; profit in FY 2007 was $43,015; loss in FY 2008 was $23,487; loss in FY 2009 was $326,010. Source: Community Services Department Golf course operating expenditures1 Golf course revenue Golf course debt service Net revenue/ (cost) Number of rounds of golf (in millions) (in millions) (in millions) (in millions) FY 2005 78,410 $2.9 $2.4 $0.6 ($0.1) FY 2006 76,000 $3.0 $2.3 $0.6 $0.1 FY 2007 76,241 $3.1 $2.5 $0.6 $0.0 FY 2008 74,630 $3.2 $2.2 $0.7 $0.0 FY 2009 72,170 $3.0 $2.4 $0.5 ($0.3) Change over 1 -8% +4% 0% -17% -200% last 5 years: 1 Includes allocated charges and overhead. - 29 - +4% Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 30 - CUBBERLEY COMMUNITY CENTER AND HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION Cubberley Community Center rents space for community meetings, seminars, social events, dances, theater performances, and athletic events. In FY 2009, rental revenue increased 17% to about $959,000 although total hours rented increased slightly from the previous year, it declined 10% to 34,874 hours from FY 2005. The Cubberley Community Center also leases former classroom space to artists and Foothill College on a long-term basis. In FY 2009, there were 37 leaseholders and lease revenue increased 9% to about $1.4 million. The Human Services section provides connections to resources for families and grants to local non-profits. Human Services grants to local non-profits totaled almost $1.1 million in FY 2009, about 16% less than in FY 2005. Compared to other surveyed jurisdictions, Palo Alto ranked in the 95th percentile for services to seniors. Residents give high ratings to senior services (82% rate services good or excellent). Residents give lower marks when rating access to affordable quality child care (only 32% good or excellent). Cubberley Community Center Use: FY 2009 Source: Community Services Department Cubberley Community Center Human Services Citizen Survey Hours rented Hourly rental revenue (in millions) Number of lease- holders Lease revenue (in millions) Human Services’ grants to local non- profits (in millions) Percent rating access to affordable quality child care good or excellent Percent rating senior services good or excellent FY 2005 38,624 $0.8 35 $1.3 $1.3 25% 78% FY 2006 38,407 $0.9 38 $1.3 $1.3 34% 84% FY 2007 36,489 $0.8 39 $1.4 $1.2 26% 80% 81% FY 2008 32,288 $0.9 39 $1.5 $1.2 28% FY 2009 34,874 $0.9 37 $1.4 $1.1 82% 32% Change over last 5 years: -10% +17% +6% +9% -16% +7% Budget benchmarking measure CHAPTER 3 – FIRE The mission of the Fire Department is to protect life, property and the environment from the perils of fire, hazardous materials, and other disasters through rapid emergency response, proactive code enforcement, modern fire prevention methods, and progressive public safety education for the community. The Department has four major functional areas: Emergency response – emergency readiness and medical, fire suppression, and hazardous materials response Environmental and safety management – fire and hazardous materials code research, development and enforcement; fire cause investigations; public education; and disaster preparedness Training and personnel management Records and information management The Department serves the resident population of Palo Alto and Stanford with a combined population of 77,799. Fire Department revenue in FY 2009 totaled $11.4 million (or 49% of costs), including about $7.1 million for services to Stanford and the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC), $2.1 million for paramedic services, $0.6 million in plan check fees, $0.3 million in hazardous materials permits, and $1.2 million in other revenues and reimbursements. What is the source of Fire Department funding? Where does a Fire Department dollar go? Source: FY 2009 revenue and expenditure data Records and Information 4% Training and Personnel Management 10% Environmental and Safety 10% Emergency Response 76% General Fund Paramedic fees 9% Stanford and SLAC 30% Other (Hazardous materials permits, plan check fees, etc.) 9% 52% - 31 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 FIRE SPENDING Over the last five years: Total Fire Department spending increased from $19.1 million to $23.4 million, or 23% in the last five years. Total expenditures per resident served increased from $254 to $301. Revenue and reimbursements increased 28% (from $8.9 million to $11.4 million). In FY 2009, 49% of costs were covered by revenues. The chart on the right shows that Palo Alto’s net Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) expenditures per capita are in the mid range compared to several other local jurisdictions. However, the California State Controller does not include calculations for Stanford. The Department won the national Voice of the People Awards for the high ratings residents gave to fire and emergency medical services in 2005, 2006, and 2007. In the most recent citizen survey, 95% of residents rated fire services as good or excellent, and 80% rated fire prevention and education as good or excellent. Comparison Net Fire and EMS Expenditures Per Capita: FY 20072 Source: California State Controller, Cities Annual Report Fiscal Year 06 -07 Operating expenditures (in millions) Citizen Survey Emergency response Environmental and fire safety Training and personnel management Records and information TOTAL Resident population of area served1 Expenditures per resident served1 Revenue (in millions) Percent rating fire services good or excellent Percent rating fire prevention and education good or excellent FY 2005 $14.5 $1.9 $1.8 $0.9 $19.1 74,869 $254 $8.9 94% 82% FY 2006 $15.0 $2.1 $2.1 $0.9 $20.2 75,604 $267 $9.4 95% 84% FY 2007 $16.2 $2.2 $2.2 $1.0 $21.6 75,835 $284 $9.9 98% 86% FY 2008 $17.8 $2.6 $2.5 $1.1 $24.0 76,682 $313 $9.7 96% 87% FY 2009 $17.7 $2.3 $2.4 $1.0 $23.4 77,799 $301 $11.4 95% 80% Change over ast 5 years: l +22% +23% +31% +15% +23% +4% +18% +28% +1 -2% 1 Based on number of residents in the Fire Department’s expanded service area (Palo Alto and Stanford). Prior year population revised per California Department of Finance estimates. 2 Figures are net of functional revenues and may not reconcile to total spending due to differences in the way the information was compiled. Note that cities categorize their expenditures in different ways. Budget benchmarking measure - 32 - Chapter 3 - FIRE FIRE STAFFING AND CALLS FOR SERVICE During FY 2009, the Fire Department handled 7,549 calls for service (an average of 21 calls per day) including: 239 fire calls 4,509 medical/rescue calls 1,065 false alarms 328 service calls 165 hazardous condition calls The Palo Alto Fire Department has a total of 8 fire stations including Stanford. Average on duty staffing is 31 during the day, and 29 at night. The Department has 113 line personnel certified as emergency medical technicians (EMTs) and 36 of these are also certified paramedics. Palo Alto has more fire stations per capital than most other local jurisdictions. As shown in the chart on the right, the number of residents served per fire station is lower than many other local jurisdictions. Palo Alto and Stanford Population Served Per Fire Station: FY 2009 Source: Cities, California Department of Finance, U.S. Census Bureau Palo Alto calculation excludes Station 7 (dedicated to SLAC) and Station 8 (seasonal). Calls for service Staffing Fire Medical/ rescue False alarms Service calls Hazardous condition Other TOTAL Average number of calls per day Total authorized staffing (FTE) Staffing per 1,000 residents served1 Average on-duty staffing Annual training hours per firefighter Overtime as a percent of regular salaries Resident population served per fire station1,2 FY 2005 224 3,633 1,300 358 211 688 6,414 18 129 1.72 31 day/29 night 312 23% 12,478 FY 2006 211 3,780 1,184 399 203 1,120 6,897 19 127 1.67 31 day/29 night 288 18% 12,601 FY 2007 221 3,951 1,276 362 199 1,227 7,236 20 128 1.68 31 day/29 night 235 21% 12,639 FY 2008 192 4,552 1,119 401 169 1,290 7,723 21 128 1.67 31 day/29 night 246 18% 12,780 FY 2009 239 4,509 1,065 328 165 1,243 7,549 21 127 1.65 31 day/29 night 223 16% 12,967 Change over ast 5 years: l +7% +24% -18% -8% -22% +81%+18% +18% -1% -4% - -29% +7% +4% Budget benchmarking measure 1 Based on number of residents in the Fire Department’s expanded service area (Palo Alto and Stanford). 2 Calculation is based on 6 fire stations, and does not include Station 7 (dedicated to the SLAC complex) or Station 8 (Foothills Park, open seasonally). - 33 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 FIRE SUPRESSION There were 239 fire incidents and no fire deaths in FY 2009. This included 20 residential structure fires, a decrease of 66% from five years earlier and a decrease of 53% from FY 2008. Over the last five years, the number of fire incidents has increased by 7%. Average response times vary from year to year. In FY 2009, the Fire Department responded to 91% of fire emergencies within 8 minutes (the goal is 90%). The average response time for fire calls was 5:37 minutes. The response time increased by 9% from five years earlier, but decreased by 17% from FY 2008. The standard Fire Department response to a working structure fire is 18 personnel. According to the Fire Department, 63% of fires were confined to the room or area of origin. This is less than the Department’s goal of 90% and a decrease from the prior year. Number of Calls for Service by Fire Station: FY 2009 Source: Palo Alto Fire Department data Number of fire incidents Average response time for fire calls Percent responses to fire emergencies within 8 minutes1 Percent of fires confined to the room or area of origin2 Number of residential structure fires Number of fire deaths Fire response vehicles3 FY 2005 224 5:09 minutes 91% 73% 58 0 25 FY 2006 211 5:28 minutes 91% 63% 62 1 25 FY 2007 221 5:48 minutes 87% 70% 68 2 25 FY 2008 192 6:48 minutes 79% 79% 43 0 25 FY 2009 239 5:37 minutes 91% 63% 20 0 25 Change over last 5 years: +7% +9% +1% -10% -66% - - 1 Response time is from receipt of 911-call to arrival on scene; does not include cancelled in route, not completed incidents, or mutual aid calls. 2 The Fire Department defines containment of structure fires as those incidents in which fire is suppressed and does not spread beyond the involved area upon firefighter arrival. 3 Includes ambulances, fire apparatus, hazard materials, and mutual aid vehicles. - 34 - Chapter 3 - FIRE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES The Department responded to 4,509 medical/rescue incidents in FY 2009. As shown in the chart on the right, medical/rescue calls represented 60% of the Fire Department calls for service in FY 2009. The average response time for medical/rescue calls was 5:37 minutes in FY 2009. The Department responded to: 91% of emergency medical requests for service within 8 minutes (the Department’s goal is 90%) 99% of paramedic calls for service within 12 minutes (the Department’s goal is 90%) Palo Alto is the only city in Santa Clara County that provides primary ambulance transport services. The Fire Department operates two ambulances and seven engine companies that provide Advance Life Support (ALS) capability. In FY 2009, average on-duty paramedic staffing increased to 10 during the day and 8 at night. In FY 2006, the Department implemented a Basic Life Support (BLS) transport program. Of the 3,331 EMS transports in FY 2009, 2,939 were ALS and 392 were BLS transports. 91% of survey respondents rated ambulance/emergency medical service as good or excellent. In FY 2009, the City Auditor’s Office issued an Audit of Ambulance Billing and Revenue Collections containing 17 recommendations. City staff implemented 11 of the 17 recommendations, resulting in improved contractor oversight and performance. Although FY 2009 revenue increased $100,000, the Department estimates that case receipts for ambulance billing increased $550,000, reflecting improved collections of prior years accounts. Fire Department Calls for Service: FY 2009 Source: Palo Alto Fire Department Citizen Survey Medical/ rescue incidents Average response time for medical/rescue calls1 First response to emergency medical requests for service within 8 minutes1 Ambulance response to paramedic calls for service within 12 minutes1, 2 Average on-duty paramedic staffing Number of Ambulance transports Ambulance Revenue (in millions) Percent rating ambulance/ emergency medical services good or excellent3 FY 2005 3,633 5:28 minutes 95% 98% 8 day/6 night 2,744 $1.5 95% FY 2006 3,780 5:13 minutes 94% 99% 8 day/6 night 2,296 $1.7 94% FY 2007 3,951 5:17 minutes 92% 97% 8 day/6 night 2,527 $1.9 94% FY 2008 4,552 5:24 minutes 93% 99% 10 day/6 night 3,236 $2.0 95% FY 2009 4,509 5:37 minutes 91% 99% 10 day/8 night 3,331 $2.1 91% Change over last 5 years: +24% +3% -4% +1% - +21% +46% -4% Service calls Hazardous condition 2% Other 16% 4% False alarms 14% Medical/ rescue 60% Fire 3% 1 Response time is from receipt of 911-call to arrival on scene; does not include cancelled in route, not completed incidents, or mutual aid calls. 2 Includes non-City ambulance responses. 3 Based on revised National Citizen Survey data. - 35 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 36 - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND FIRE SAFETY In FY 2009, the Hazardous Materials Response Team (Rescue 2) responded to 17 hazardous materials incidents. Over the past five years, the number of facilities permitted for hazardous materials increased from 503 to 509 facilities. In FY 2009, the Department performed 19% more hazardous materials inspections (including 56% of annual inspections of the 509 facilities permitted for hazardous materials) and 31% less fire inspections than 5 years ago. According to the Fire Department, the hiring of additional contract fire inspectors in FY 2008 has freed hazardous materials inspectors to conduct hazardous materials inspections. According to the Department, 329 fire safety, bike safety, and disaster preparedness presentations reached a total of 3433 residents during FY 2009. The 2009 National Citizen Survey included questions related to environmental hazards and emergency preparedness. 81% of the residents responding to the survey reported they felt very or somewhat safe from environmental hazards. 62% rated emergency preparedness services as good or excellent. 2009 Palo Alto Resident Survey: Ratings for emergency preparedness services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations Source: National Citizen Survey ™ 2009 (Palo Alto) Hazardous Materials Citizen Survey Number of hazardous materials incidents2 Number of facilities permitted for hazardous materials Number of hazardous materials inspections Percent of annual hazardous materials and underground storage inspections performed Number of fire inspections Number of plan reviews1 Fire safety, bike safety, and disaster preparedness presentations Percent of residents feeling very or somewhat safe from environmental hazards Percent rating emergency preparedness good or excellent FY 2005 19 503 241 48% 1,488 982 219 - - FY 2006 20 497 243 49% 899 983 281 - - FY 2007 9 501 268 53% 1,021 928 240 - - FY 2008 18 503 406 81% 1,277 906 242 80% 71% FY 2009 17 509 286 56% 1,028 841 329 81% 62% Change over ast 5 years: l -11% +1% +19% +8% -31% -14% +50 - - Excellent 19% Good 43% Fair 32% Poor6% 1 Does not include over-the-counter building permit reviews. 2 Hazardous materials incidents include flammable gas or liquid, chemical release, chemical release reaction or toxic condition, or chemical spill or release. Budget benchmarking measure CHAPTER 4 – LIBRARY The mission of the Library is to enable people to explore library resources to enrich their lives with knowledge, information and enjoyment. The Department has two major activities: Collection and Technical Services – to acquire and develop quality collections, manage databases, and provide technology that enhances the community’s access to library resources Public Services – to provide access to library materials, information and learning opportunities through services and programs In November 2008, voters approved a $76 million bond measure (Measure N) to fund improvements for the Mitchell Park, Downtown, and Main libraries and the Mitchell Park Community Center. In addition, the City allocated $4 million in infrastructure funds to renovate the College Terrace Library. As a result, four library buildings are in the initial stages of major facility improvement. By the end of FY 2009, the College Terrace Library was preparing to close for a year-long renovation. Designs were also underway for the renovation of the Downtown Library and the new 52,000 square foot Mitchell Park Library and Community Center. In FY 2008, the Office of the City Auditor issued an audit report on the Library’s operations in advance of the November 2008 bond measure for facilities improvements. The audit included 32 recommendations for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of Library operations. By the end of FY 2009, the Library had implemented 28 recommendations with 4 in process. What is the source of Library funding? Where does a Library dollar go? Source: FY 2009 revenue and expenditure data Collection and Technical Services 31% State Revenue Less than 1% Other Revenue 1% Over the Counter Donations Less than 1% Fines and Fees 3% General Fund 95% Public Services 69% -37- Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 LIBRARY SPENDING In FY 2009, Palo Alto had five libraries: Main (open 62 hours per week) Mitchell Park (open 58 hours per week) Children’s (open 48 hours per week) Downtown (open 35 hours per week) College Terrace (open 35 hours per week) Palo Alto has more libraries than surrounding communities and more than other communities of its size. In comparison, Redwood City has 4 libraries, Mountain View has 1, Menlo Park has 2, and Sunnyvale has 1. Palo Alto library expenditures per capita were less than those of Berkeley FY 2009, but more than those of other area cities. In FY 2009, Library spending totaled $6.2 million, a decrease of 9% since last year, and an increase of 22% over the last five years.2 79% of residents rate library services good or excellent; this places Palo Alto in the 43rd percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. 75% rate the quality of neighborhood branch libraries good or excellent. The rating changes may be related to the library bond campaign and resulting public awareness of library shortcomings. Comparison Library Expenditure Per Capita1: FY 2008 Source: California Library Statistics 2009, (Fiscal Year 07-08) Operating Expenditures (in millions) Citizen Survey Public Services Collections and Technical Services TOTAL Library expenditures per capita Percent rating quality of public library services good or excellent Percent rating quality of neighborhood branch libraries good or excellent FY 2005 $2.9 $2.2 $5.1 $83 80% 78% FY 2006 $4.0 $1.6 $5.7 $91 78% 73% FY 2007 $4.2 $1.6 $5.8 $92 81% 75% FY 2008 $4.9 $1.9 $6.82 $108 76% 71% FY 2009 $4.3 $1.9 $6.2 $97 79% 75% Change over last 5 years: +48% -13% +22% +16% -1% -3% 1 Jurisdictions offer differing levels of service and budget for those services differently. 2 The Department advises that a large portion of the budget increase from FY 2007 to FY 2008 was due in part to a public-private partnership to increase the collection and the completion of prior year deferred purchases. Budget benchmarking measure - 38 - Chapter 4 - LIBRARY LIBRARY STAFFING Total authorized Library staffing in FY 2009 was 57 FTE, an increase of 3% from FY 2005 levels. Temporary and hourly staff accounts for approximately 24% of the Library’s total staff. In FY 2009, 13 of 57 FTE staff were temporary or hourly. Volunteers donated approximately 5,953 hours to the libraries in FY 2009. This was a 21% decrease over the last five years and was a slight decrease from FY 2009. Palo Alto libraries were open a total of 11,822 hours in FY 2009. This was a 5% increase from FY 2008 and a 5% increase from five years earlier. The standard schedule was a combined 238 hours of service per week. As shown in the graph on the right, Palo Alto libraries were open more hours than most other local jurisdictions in FY 2008. This is because the City has multiple branches. Total Hours Open Annually: FY 2008 Source: California Library Statistics 2009, (Fiscal Year 07-08) Authorized Staffing (FTE) Regular Temporary/ hourly TOTAL Number of residents per library staff FTE Volunteer hours Total hours open annually1 FTE per 1,000 hours open2 FY 2005 44 12 56 1,097 7,537 11,268 4.94 FY 2006 44 13 57 1,095 5,838 10,488 5.41 FY 2007 44 13 57 1,099 5,865 9,386 6.06 FY 2008 44 13 57 1,112 5,988 11,281 5.00 FY 2009 44 13 57 1,127 5,953 11,822 4.84 Change over last 5 years: -1% +15% +3% +3% -21% +5% -2% 1 Decrease in hours in FY 2006 and FY 2007 due to closure of Children’s Library from December 2005 to September 2007 for renovations. 2 The increase in FTE per 1,000 hours in FY 2006 and FY 2007 was primarily due to the closure of Children’s Library from December 2005 to September 2007. Budget benchmarking measure - 39 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 LIBRARY COLLECTION AND CIRCULATION The total number of items in the Library’s collection has increased by 17,549 or approximately 7% over the last five years. The number of titles in the collection has increased by about 6%; the number of book volumes has increased by about 4%. Circulation increased 27% over the last five years. In FY 2009, non- resident circulation accounted for approximately 19% of the Library’s total circulation. This is 1% lower than it was five years ago. 90% of first time checkouts are completed on self check machines. 73% of survey respondents rate the variety of library materials as good or excellent. Of all the libraries, Mitchell Park had the highest circulation in FY 2009, with 622,334 items circulating. Main had the second highest circulation at 505,757. Children’s Library, which reopened in September 2007 after an extensive renovation, had a circulation of 321,950 in FY 2009. Circulation for College Terrace was 99,974 and Downtown was 76,104. An additional 7,836 check outs were made from the Library’s digital book service. Circulation Per Capita: FY 2008 Source: California Library Statistics 2009, (Fiscal Year 07-08) Citizen Survey Total number of titles in collection Total number of items in collection Number of book volumes Number of media items Items held per capita <REVISED> Total circulation 1 Percent non- resident circulation Circulation per capita Number of items placed on hold2 Number of first time checkouts completed on self-check machines Average number of checkouts per item Percent of first time checkouts completed on self check machines <NEW> Percent rating variety of library materials good or excellent FY 2005 164,280 264,511 236,575 27,928 4.30 1,282,888 20% 20.84 125,883 306,519 4.85 - 75% FY 2006 163,045 260,468 232,602 27,866 4.18 1,280,547 20% 20.56 181,765 456,364 4.92 67% 71% FY 2007 167,008 270,755 240,098 30,657 4.33 1,414,509 21% 22.62 208,719 902,303 5.22 88% 75% FY 2008 169,690 274,410 241,323 33,087 4.33 1,542,116 20% 24.34 200,470 1,003,516 5.62 89% 67% FY 2009 174,043 282,060 246,554 35,506 4.37 1,633,955 19% 25.34 218,073 1,078,637 5.79 90% 73% Change over last 5 years: +6% +7% +4% +27% +14% +27% -1% +22% +73% +252% +19% - -2% 1 In FY 2006 the loan period on all items except DVDs was increased from three to four weeks. 2 Starting on July 1, 2007, the Library began charging a fee for expired holds, items placed on hold which are not picked up. According to Library staff, this caused the reduction in the number of items placed on hold. Budget benchmarking measure - 40 - Chapter 4 - LIBRARY LIBRARY SERVICES The total number of library cardholders increased 6% from 52,001 to 54,878 over the last five years, and the percent of Palo Alto residents who are cardholders increased from 59% to 62%. Total library visits increased over the same time frame. 34% of survey respondents reported they used libraries or their services more than 12 times during the last year; this places Palo Alto in the 88th percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. The total number of items delivered to homebound decreased by 10%, and the total number of reference questions received by librarians decreased to 46,419, or 43% over the five-year period. However, online database sessions and internet sessions have increased by 183% and 27%, respectively, over the last five years. This reflects an ongoing shift in how the public retrieves information from libraries. Also, in May 2008, the Library implemented a power search feature on its database webpage. The new feature resulted in a significant increase in database usage in FY 2009. The number of programs offered increased from 519 to 558, or 8%; the total attendance at such programs increased by about 17%. Programs include planned events for the public that promote reading, support school readiness and education, and encourage life long learning. Many programs are sponsored by the Friends of the Palo Alto Library. Population Served Per FTE: FY 2008 Source: California Library Statistics 2009, (Fiscal Year 07-08) Citizen Survey Total number of cardholders Percent of Palo Alto residents who are cardholders Library visits Total items delivered to homebound borrowers Total number of reference questions Total number of online database sessions Number of Internet sessions Number of laptop checkouts Number of programs1 Total program attendance 1 Percent who used libraries or their services more than 12 times during the last year FY 2005 52,001 59% 873,594 2,217 80,842 39,357 113,980 1,748 519 31,141 25% FY 2006 55,909 61% 885,565 1,627 69,880 42,094 155,558 9,693 564 30,739 32% FY 2007 53,099 57% 862,081 1,582 57,255 52,020 149,280 11,725 580 30,221 33% FY 2008 53,740 62% 881,520 2,705 48,339 49,148 137,261 12,017 669 37,955 31% FY 2009 54,878 62% 875,847 2,005 46,419 111,228 145,143 12,290 558 36,582 34% Change over last 5 years +6% +3% 0%- -10% -43% +183% +27% +603% +8% +17% +9% 1 School programs were reduced due to staffing cutbacks in January 2009. Budget benchmarking measure - 41 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 42 - This Page Intentionally Left Blank CHAPTER 5 – PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT The mission of the Planning and Community Environment Department is to provide the City Council and community with creative guidance on, and effective implementation of, land use development, planning, transportation, housing and environmental policies, plans and programs that maintain and enhance the City as a safe, vital and attractive community. The Department has three major divisions: Planning and Transportation – To provide professional leadership in planning for Palo Alto’s future by recommending and effectively implementing land use, transportation, environmental, housing and community design policies and programs that preserve and improve Palo Alto as a vital and highly desirable place to live, work and visit. Building – To review construction projects and improvements for compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances in a professional and efficient manner; and to ensure that all developments subject to the development review process achieve the specified quality and design. The Division also coordinates code enforcement and American with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance activities. Economic Development – To provide information and data on the local economy and business community that will assist the City Council in decision-making; indentify initiatives that will increase City revenues and economic health; and facilitate communication and working relationships within the business community. What is the source of Planning and Community Environment funding? Where does a Planning and Community Environment dollar go? Source: FY 2009 revenue and expenditure data Building Planning and Transportation Economic Development 37% 59% 4% 51% 49% Revenue and Reimbursements General Fund -43- Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 SPENDING Spending increased from about $9.1 million to $9.9 million over the last 5 years, or approximately 8.7%. The Department’s revenue varied year to year, but overall increased from $4.2 to $5 million, or 20%, over the same period. In addition, the revenue decreased from $5.8 million in FY 2008 to $5 million in FY 2009, or 14%. Authorized staffing for the Department decreased from 61 to 54 FTE, or 11% over the last five years. According to the Department, this was the result of a decrease in hourly staffing and one full-time position. The graph on the right uses California State Controller’s data to show Palo Alto’s per capita spending for Planning, Building Inspection, and Code Enforcement as compared to other jurisdictions. Data in the graph on the right and table below differ because the City of Palo Alto and the Controller's Office compile data differently. Palo Alto's expenditures per capita appear higher than those of surrounding jurisdictions, but it should be noted that different cities budget expenditures in different ways. For example, Palo Alto includes a transportation division, shuttle services and rent for the Development Center in its costs. Comparison Planning, Building Inspection and Code Enforcement Expenditures Per Capita: FY 2007 Source: California State Controller, Cities Annual Report Fiscal Year 2006- 07 Operating Expenditures (in millions) Planning and Transportation1 Building Economic Development2 TOTAL Expenditures per capita Revenue (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) FY 2005 $6.0 $3.1 - $9.1 $148 $4.2 61 FY 2006 $5.9 $3.3 $0.2 $9.4 $151 $5.6 533 FY 2007 $5.6 $3.7 $0.1 $9.4 $150 $6.6 55 FY 2008 $5.5 $3.9 $0.2 $9.6 $152 $5.8 54 FY 2009 $5.9 $3.6 $0.4 $9.9 $153 $5.0 54 Change over last 5 years: -2.6% -17% - 8.7% 3% 20% -11% 1 The Planning and Transportation Divisions merged in Spring 2006. 2 Economic Development moved from the City Manager’s Office to the Planning and Community Environment Department in FY 2007. 3 The Department reduced temporary staffing; the City also adopted a new method for calculating temporary staffing. 4 The Department also has one position in Refuse Fund and one position in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund. - 44 - Chapter 5 – PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CURRENT PLANNING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT A total of 189 planning applications were completed in FY 2009, 42% fewer than in FY 2005. The average time in weeks to complete applications decreased from 11.1 weeks in FY 2005 to 10.7 weeks in FY 2009 (a 4% decrease). The target is 10.6 weeks. The Department completed 130 Architectural Review applications, an increase of 20% from five years earlier. The Department notes that the method for counting code enforcement cases changed in FY 2008 and therefore, the number of new cases and re-inspections increased. 50% of residents surveyed rated code enforcement services good or excellent. This places Palo Alto in the 67th percentile compared to other jurisdictions. 25% consider run-down buildings, weed lots, or junk vehicles to be a major or moderate problem, a small increase from the 21% who thought so five years ago. In FY 2009, the Department implemented the City’s new Green Building Ordinance. The goal was to build a new generation of efficient buildings in Palo Alto that are environmentally responsible and healthy. The Department processed 264 permits under the new ordinance, with 27% of those having mandatory requirements and 63% voluntary. Ordinance implementation influenced $8.3M and 98,275 square feet of “green” construction. The Department reports that at least 54 LEED registered projects are in process to be certified of which 15 projects are being verified by the city. The numbers have tripled since the program’s inception. Completed Planning Applications: FY 2009 Source: Planning and Community Environment Department Code Enforcement Planning applications completed Architectural Review Board applications completed Average weeks to complete staff- level applications Citizen Survey Percent rating quality of code enforcement good or Citizen Survey Percent who consider run down buildings, weed lots, or junk vehicles a major or moderate problem Number new cases Number of re-inspections Percent of cases resolved within 120 days of date received FY 2005 327 108 11.1 weeks 56% 21% 473 796 91% FY 2006 390 115 13.6 weeks 61% 16% 421 667 94% FY 2007 299 100 13.4 weeks 59% 17% 369 639 76% FY 2008 257 107 12.7 weeks 59% 23% 6841 9811 93% FY 2009 189 130 10.7 weeks 50% 25% 545 1,065 94% Change over last 5 years: -42% +20% -4% -6% +4% +15% +34% +3% 1 The Department advises that the method for counting new code enforcement cases and re-inspections changed in FY 2008. Inspections or cases with multiple components that in the past were counted as a single inspection or case are now counted as multiples. This is the reason for the increase in the numbers compared to FY 2007. For this reason, FY 2009 data is not on a comparable basis to prior years’ data Budget benchmarking measure, Related to City Council’s Top 3 Priorities for 2009 - 45 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 ADVANCE PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Based on data from the Association of Bay Area Governments, Palo Alto's jobs/housing ratio is projected to be 2.9 in 2010, higher than five nearby jurisdictions. However, this is lower than previous figures in 2008 (3.8 ratio) and 2005 (3.2 ratio). The number of residential units increased from 27,522 to 28,291 or 3% over the last five years. The average home price in 2008 was more than $1.7 million – up 31% over 2005. Only 17% of survey respondents rated the availability of affordable quality housing as good or excellent, placing Palo Alto in the 11% percentile compared to other jurisdictions. The number of business outreach contacts has dropped by 46% in the last five years. 2 47% of residents responding to the survey rated the quality of land use, planning and zoning as good or excellent. 55%rated the overall quality of new development in Palo Alto as good or excellent. 54% rated economic development services good or excellent. Jobs/Housing Ratio Projected for: Calendar Year 2010 Source: Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Projections 2009 Advance Planning Economic Development Number of residential units Average price – single family home in Palo Alto1 Estimated new jobs resulting from projects approved during year Number of new housing units approved Cumulative number of below market rate (BMR) units Number of business outreach contacts Citizen Survey Percent rating economic development good or excellent Citizen Survey Percent rating quality of land use, planning, and zoning in Palo Alto as good or excellent Citizen Survey Percent rating overall quality of new development in Palo Alto as good or excellent FY 2005 27,522 $1,339,274 -197 81 322 48 55% 46% 56% FY 2006 27,767 $1,538,318 -345 371 322 362 61% 50% 62% FY 2007 27,763 $1,516,037 0 517 381 24 62% 49% 57% FY 2008 27,938 $1,872,855 +193 103 395 42 63% 47% 57% FY 2009 28,291 $1,759,870 -58 36 395 26 54% 47% 55% Change over last 5 years: +3% +31% +71% -56% +23% -46% -1% 1% -1% 1 Average home price is on a calendar year basis (e.g. FY 2009 data is for calendar year 2008). Source is http://rereport.com/index.html. 2 In FY 2006, staffing for business outreach was reduced from 2 to 1 FTE. In previous years, the number of outreach contacts was higher because Executive Staff and City Council members were also involved in business outreach. Budget benchmarking measure - 46 - Chapter 5 – PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT BUILDING PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS Compared to five years ago, the number of building applications increased 9% to 3,496 applications in FY 2009. Building permits issued in FY 2009 were 17% lower at 2,543. During that same period, the valuation of construction for issued permits decreased from about $215 million to about $172 million, or 20%. Building permit revenue increased from $3.2 to $3.6 million, or 13%. Staff completed 17,945 inspections in FY 2009, an increase of 47% from FY 2005. According to the Department, 98% of inspection requests were responded to within one working day or within the timeframe of the customer's request. The average number of days for first response to plan checks increased to 31 days compared to 24 days in FY 2005. Compared to 5 years ago, the average number of days to issue a building permit has decreased from 94 to 63 days, excluding permits issued over the counter. This year’s survey included questions to ascertain resident satisfaction with the permit process. During the past 12 months, 7% of respondents applied for a permit from the City’s Development Center. Of these respondents, 59% rated the ease of the planning approval process as poor, 50% rated the time required to review and issue permits as poor, and 49% rated the ease of the overall application process as poor. 22% rated the overall customer service as poor and 50% rated it as fair. Results for inspection timeliness were better with 52% rating this area as good or excellent. The Department is reviewing its processes to identify service delivery improvements. Building Permit Revenues: FY 2000 through FY 2009 Source: Planning and Community Environment Department Building permit applications City’s average Cost per permit application Building permits issued Percent of building permits issued over the counter Valuation of construction for issued permits (in millions) Building permit revenue (in millions) Average number of days for first response to plan checks1 Average number of days to issue building permits1 Number of inspections completed City’s average cost per inspection Percent of inspection requests for permitted work responded to within one working day2 FY 2005 3,219 - 3,081 69% $214.9 $3.2 24 days 94 days 12,186 - 91% FY 2006 3,296 $662 3,081 78% $276.9 $4.4 28 days 98 days 11,585 $139 94% FY 2007 3,236 $736 3,136 76% $298.7 $4.6 27 days 102 days 14,822 $127 99% FY 2008 3,253 $784 3,046 53% $358.9 $4.2 23 days 80 days 22,8203 $944 98% FY 2009 3,496 $584 2,543 75% $172.1 $3.6 31 days 63 days 17,945 $105 98% Change over last 5 years: +9% - -17% +6% -20% +13% +29% -33% +47% - +7% 1 Average number of days does not include over the counter plan checks or building permits. 2 In some cases, a customer requests a specific day or time as opposed to within one working day; this percentage indicates how often the Department met the one working day deadline or, when applicable, the customer's specific request. The Department’s target was 90%. 3 According to the Department, the increase in the number of inspections in FY 2008 is due to a change in the method for counting inspections. Under the new method, each type of inspection included in a residential inspection is now counted as an individual inspection whereas in the past the residential inspection would have counted as one. 4 The Department advises that the decrease in the City’s average cost per inspection in FY 2008 is due to the new method for counting inspections, which resulted in a higher number of inspections and therefore, a lower cost per inspection. - 47 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 48 - TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 82% of residents responding to this year’s survey rated the ease of walking as good or excellent, and 79% rated the ease of bicycle travel as good or excellent. 46% of respondents rated traffic flow on major streets as good or excellent. The City has 97 intersections with signals; 35 of the intersections have signals coordinated during commute time. The City operates a free shuttle. In FY 2009, the Department reports there were 136,511 shuttle boardings. The City and the school district encourage alternatives to driving to school by teaching age-appropriate road safety skills to students in kindergarten through 6th grade. In FY 2009, staff provided scheduling, administrative support, training and follow-up parent education materials for: 71 pedestrian safety presentations to 2,599 students in kindergarten through 2nd grade A three lesson bicycle/traffic safety curriculum for all 793 3rd graders A refresher bicycle/traffic safety lesson for all 880 5th graders 9 assemblies for 798 6th graders in three middle schools 2009 Palo Alto Resident Survey: Percent rating the ease of the following forms of transportation in Palo Alto as “good” or “excellent” Source: National Citizen Survey TM 2009 (Palo Alto) Citizen Survey Number of monitored intersections with an unacceptable level of service during evening peak Number of intersections with 10 or more accidents 1 City Shuttle boardings City’s cost per shuttle boarding Caltrain average weekday boardings Average number of employees participating in the City commute program Percent who rate traffic flow on major streets good or excellent2 Percent of days per week commuters used alternative commute modes3 Percent who consider the amount of public parking good or excellent FY 2005 2 of 21 11 169,048 $1.92 3,264 117 - - 56% FY 2006 2 of 21 7 175,471 $1.91 3,882 104 - - 58% FY 2007 2 of 21 13 168,710 $2.00 4,132 105 - - 65% FY 2008 3 of 21 1 178,505 $1.97 4,589 114 38% 40% 52% FY 2009 2 of 21 0 136,511 $2.61 4,863 124 46% 41% 55% Change over last 5 years: - -11 -19% +36% +49% +6% - - -1% 1 Accidents within 200 feet of intersection. 2 This question replaced “Percent who consider traffic congestion to be a major or moderate problem in Palo Alto.” Responses to that question were 58% (FY 2005), 60% (FY 2006), and 55% (FY 2007). 3 Alternative commute modes include carpooling, public transportation, walking, bicycling, and working at home. Budget benchmarking measure CHAPTER 6 – POLICE The mission of the Police Department is to proudly serve and protect the public with respect and integrity. The Department has seven major service areas: Field services – police response, critical incident resolution, regional assistance response, and police services for special events Technical services – 911 dispatch services for police, fire, utilities public works and Stanford, and police information management Investigations and crime prevention services – police investigations, property evidence, youth services, and community policing Traffic Services – traffic enforcement, complaint resolution, and school safety Parking services – parking enforcement, parking citations and adjudication, and abandoned vehicle abatement Police personnel services – police hiring retention, personnel records, training, and volunteer programs Animal services – animal control, pet recovery/adoption services, animal care, animal health and welfare, and regional animal service What is the source of Police Department funding? Where does a Police Department dollar go? 83% Revenue & Reimbursements 17% General Fund Parking Services 4% Police Personnel Selection 3% Traffic Services 7% Investigations and Crime Prevention Services 13% Technical Services 18% Animal Services 6% Field Services 49% Source: FY 2009 revenue and expenditure data -49- Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 POLICE SPENDING Total Police Department spending increased from $22.5 to $28.3 million, or 25%, in the last 5 years. This includes animal services and 911-dispatch services provided to other jurisdictions. Over the same five year period, total revenue and reimbursements increased from $4.5 to $4.8 million or 5%. A comparison of police expenditures during FY 2007 (the most recent data available from State Controller) shows Palo Alto spends more per capita than most other local jurisdictions. It should be noted that every jurisdiction has different levels of service and categorizes expenditures in different ways. For example, Cupertino contracts with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office for police services, and Sunnyvale’s Department of Public Safety provides both police and fire services. Similar to last year, 84% of residents rated police services good or excellent – placing Palo Alto in the 71st percentile compared with other surveyed jurisdictions. Comparison Police Net Expenditures Per Capita1: FY 2007 Source: California State Controller, Cities Annual Report Fiscal Year 06 -07 Operating Expenditures (in millions) Citizen Survey Field services Technical services Investigations and crime prevention Traffic services Parking services Police personnel services Animal services TOTAL Total spending per resident Total revenue Percent rating OVERALL police services good or excellent FY 2005 $9.8 $4.8 $3.2 $1.5 $1.1 $0.8 $1.4 $22.5 $366 $4.5 87% FY 2006 $10.9 $5.4 $3.1 $1.5 $1.1 $0.9 $1.5 $24.4 $393 $4.8 87% FY 2007 $11.4 $6.2 $3.2 $1.7 $1.0 $1.0 $1.5 $25.9 $414 $5.0 91% FY 2008 $13.9 $6.7 $3.4 $1.7 $0.9 $1.1 $1.7 $29.4 $464 $5.7 84% FY 2009 $13.8 $5.0 $3.7 $1.9 $1.1 $1.0 $1.7 $28.3 $438 $4.8 84% Change over last 5 years: +42% +6% +17% +20% +4% +29% +20% +25% +20% +5% -3% 1 Operating expenditures comparisons do not include animal control. Palo Alto figures include dispatch and some animal services expenditures. Budget benchmarking measure - 50 - Chapter 6 - POLICE CALLS FOR SERVICE The Police Department handled over 53,000 calls for service during FY 2009, or about 146 calls per day. 35% of the Citizen Survey respondents reported contact with the Police Department. 72% rated the quality of their contact as good or excellent. Over the last five years: The percent of emergency calls dispatched with 60 seconds remained the same at 94%. Emergency calls are generally “life threatening” or high danger crimes in progress. The average response time for emergency calls improved by 18 seconds – from 5:01 minutes to 4:43 minutes (the target is 6:00 minutes). The percent of responses within 6 minutes improved from 71% to 81%. Response time is measured from receipt of the 911 call to arrival on-scene. The average response time for urgent calls improved by 45 seconds – from 7:50 minutes to 7:05 minutes (the target is 10:00 minutes) – with 89% of responses within 10 minutes. Urgent calls are generally non-life threatening, or less dangerous property crimes that are in progress or just occurred. The average response time for non-emergency calls was 24:07 minutes – 98% of responses within 45 minutes (the target is 45:00 minutes2). Non-emergency calls are generally routine or report-type calls that can be handled as time permits. Calls For Service: FY 2009 Source: Police Department Citizen Survey Total Police Department calls for service False alarms Percent emergency calls dispatched within 60 seconds of receipt of call Average emergency response (minutes) Average urgent response (minutes) Average non- emergency response (minutes) Percent emergency calls response within 6 minutes Percent urgent calls response within 10 minutes Percent non- emergency calls response within 45 minutes2 Percent reported having contact with the Police Dept 1 Percent rating quality of their contact good or excellent FY 2005 52,233 2,385 94% 5:01 7:50 18:15 71% 78% 96% 36% 78% FY 2006 57,017 2,419 88% 4:41 7:39 20:36 78% 78% 95% - - FY 2007 60,079 2,610 96% 5:08 7:24 19:26 73% 79% 98% 33% 81% FY 2008 58,742 2,539 96% 4:32 7:02 24:06 81% 88% 98% 34% 73% FY 2009 53,275 2,501 94% 4:43 7:05 24:07 81% 89% 98% 35% 72% Change over last 5 years: +2% +5% 0% -6% -10% +32% +10% +11% +3% -1% -6% Crime calls 17% Fire assist 9% Directed patrol 4% Service 6% Vehicle stops 21% Phone messages- Officer follow-up 5% Miscellaneous 20% False calls 6% Alarms 5% Accidents 4%Noise 3% Budget benchmarking measure 1 Survey question not conducted in FY 2006. 2 In FY 2007 the Department changed the target from 60 minutes to 45 minutes. Numbers for FY 2005 and FY 2006 reflect the target of 60 minutes. - 51 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 CRIME The Police Department categorizes crime as Part 1 and Part 2. Compared to FY 2005 the number of reported Part 1 crimes dropped by 24% and the number of Part 2 crimes increased by 1% in FY 2009. Although Palo Alto is a relatively quiet, affluent community of about 64,000, it has a daytime population estimated at over 125,000, a regional shopping center, and a downtown with an active nightlife. Police Department statistics show 64 reported crimes per 1,000 residents, with 44 reported crimes per officer last year. FBI statistics show that Palo Alto has more property crimes per 1,000 residents, but fewer violent crimes per thousand, than most other local jurisdictions. In the most recent Citizen Survey, 11% of households reported being the victim of a crime in the last 12 months (38th percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions). Of those households, 80% said they reported the crime. Palo Alto ranked in the 63rd percentile, above the benchmark, compared to other surveyed jurisdictions for reporting crimes. Violent and Property Crimes per 1,000 Residents:3 Calendar Year 2008 Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program (www.fbi.gov/ucr.htm) Citizen Survey Reported crimes Arrests Clearance rates for part 1 crimes1 Part 11 crimes reported Part 22 crimes reported6 Reported crimes per 1,000 residents6 Reported crimes per officer5,6 Percent households reported being victim of crime in last 12 months Percent households that were victim of a crime who reported the crime Juvenile arrests Total arrests4 Homicide cases cleared/ closed Rape cases cleared/ closed Robbery cases cleared/ closed Theft cases cleared/ closed FY 2005 2,466 2,214 76 50 10% 64% 256 2,134 100% 78% 46% 14% FY 2006 2,520 2,643 83 56 12% 59% 241 2,530 None reported 67% 68% 14% FY 2007 1,855 2,815 75 50 9% 61% 244 3,059 None reported 100% 42% 18% FY 2008 1,843 2,750 72 49 10% 73% 257 3,253 100% 100% 104%7 21% FY 2009 1,880 2,235 64 44 11% 80% 230 2,612 100% 60% 38% 20% Change over last 5 years: -24% +1% -16% +12% +1 +16% -10% +22% 0% -18% -8% +6% 1 Part 1 crimes include assault, burglary, homicide, rape, robbery, larceny/theft, vehicle theft, and arson. 2 Part 2 crimes include assaults or attempted assaults where a weapon is not used or where serious injuries did not occur; forgery and counterfeiting; fraud; embezzlement; buying, receiving, and possessing stolen property; vandalism; weapons offenses; prostitution and other vice crimes; sex offenses other than rape; drug offenses; gambling; offenses against family and children; drunk driving; liquor laws; drunk in public; disorderly conduct; and vagrancy. 3 Does not include arson or larceny/theft under $400. 4 Total arrests does not include drunk in public where suspects are taken to the sobering station, or traffic warrant arrests. 5 Based on authorized sworn staffing. 6 Police Department revised its calculations for Part 2 crimes and revised prior years accordingly for consistency. 7 Some robberies from the previous year were cleared in this fiscal year. - 52 - Chapter 6 - POLICE PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY When evaluating safety in the community: 82% of residents felt “very” or “somewhat safe” from violent crimes in Palo Alto, and 66% felt safe from property crime. This placed Palo Alto in the 64th percentile for violent crimes and in the 62nd percentile for property crimes compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. In their neighborhood during the day, 95% of residents felt “very” or “somewhat safe”. After dark, 78% of residents felt “very” or “somewhat safe” in their neighborhoods. In comparison to other surveyed jurisdictions, Palo Alto ranked in the 78th percentile among other surveyed jurisdictions for ratings of neighborhood safety during the day, and in the 60th percentile among other surveyed jurisdictions for neighborhood safety after dark. 91% of residents felt “very” or “somewhat safe” in Palo Alto’s downtown during the day, and 65% felt safe after dark. The Palo Alto ratings were respectively in the 66th percentile and 56th percentile for safety downtown compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. Rating how safe you feel: Percent of Surveyed Residents Feeling “Very” or “Somewhat” Safe Source: National Citizen Survey™ 2009 (Palo Alto) Citizen Survey: Percent of surveyed residents feeling very or somewhat safe Citizen Survey From violent crime From property crime In your neighborhood during the day In your neighborhood after dark In Palo Alto’s downtown area during the day In Palo Alto’s downtown area after dark Percent rating crime prevention good or excellent FY 2005 87% 76% 98% 84% 96% 69% 85% FY 2006 75% 62% 94% 79% 91% 69% 77% FY 2007 86% 75% 98% 85% 94% 74% 83% FY 2008 85% 74% 95% 78% 96% 65% 74% FY 2009 82% 66%1 95% 78% 91% 65% 73% Change over last 5 years: -5% -10% -3% -6% -5% -4% -12% 1 According to the Police Department, the decrease in the perception of safety for property crime may be attributed to outreach efforts regarding property crimes. Budget benchmarking measure - 53 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 POLICE STAFFING, EQUIPMENT, AND TRAINING Authorized departmental staffing decreased from 173 to 170 full time equivalents (FTE) over the last five years, or 2%. The number of police officers has remained unchanged at 93. An average of 8 officers is on patrol at all times. With 2.63 sworn and civilian FTE per 1,000 residents, Palo Alto’s total staffing is higher than other local jurisdictions, but it includes full dispatch services and animal services provided to other jurisdictions. The ratio of police officers declined 4% over the last 5 years to 1.44 officers per 1,000 residents. According to the Department, training hours per officer increased 3% over the last 5 years. The Department reports it received 124 commendations and 14 complaints during FY 2009; 3 of the complaints were sustained. The City’s Wellness Program for sworn personnel has shown a dramatic shift in the general health of the participating officers. Over the course of the four-year program, participants have seen a 46% reduction in high cancer risk, a 75% reduction in high blood pressure, a 30% reduction in high stress, and an 80% reduction in smoking. Sworn and Civilian Full-Time Equivalent Positions Per 1,000 Residents: Calendar Year 2008 Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program (www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm) Authorized staffing (FTE) Authorized staffing per 1,000 residents Number of police officers Police officers per 1,000 residents Average number of officers on patrol1 Number of patrol vehicles Number of motorcycles Training hours per officer2 Overtime as a percent of regular salaries Number of citizen commendations received Number of citizen complaints filed FY 2005 173 2.82 93 1.51 8 30 10 137 12% - - FY 2006 169 2.72 93 1.49 8 30 9 153 13% 144 7 (0 sustained) FY 2007 168 2.68 93 1.49 8 30 9 142 16% 121 11 (1 sustained) FY 2008 169 2.66 93 1.47 8 30 9 135 17% 141 20 (1 sustained) FY 2009 170 2.63 93 1.44 8 30 9 141 14% 124 14 (3 sustained) Change over last 5 years: -2% -7% 0% -4% 0% 0% -10% +3% +2 - - 1 Does not include traffic motor officers 2 Does not include academy - 54 - Chapter 6 - POLICE TRAFFIC AND PARKING CONTROL Over the past five years, the total number of: Traffic collisions decreased by 27% and the total number of bicycle/pedestrian collisions increased by 11%; Alcohol related collisions increased by 16% and the number of DUI (driving under the influence) arrests increased by 73%. In FY 2009, police personnel made more than 14,100 traffic stops, and issued more than 5,700 traffic citations and nearly 50,000 parking citations. The percent of surveyed residents rating traffic enforcement as good or excellent decreased from 63% to 61% over the last five years. The rating places Palo Alto in the 45th percentile among other surveyed jurisdictions. The number of traffic collisions per 1,000 residents decreased 30% over the past 5 years (from 23 to 16 per 1,000 residents), and the percent of traffic collisions with injury increased 7% (from 29% to 36%) over the 5 year period. Also, in May 2009, the Department participated in Santa Clara County’s Click It or Ticket Campaign to ensure vehicle occupant safety through the use of safety belts. The Department reported that officers issued 272 seat belt violations during the campaign and achieved 86% compliance. Comparison data for calendar year 2007 shows that Palo Alto had more collisions per 1,000 residents than most other local jurisdictions. Palo Alto has a large non-resident daytime population. In addition, Palo Alto documents minor damage collisions to a much larger extent than other jurisdictions. Collisions per 1,000 Residents: Calendar Year 2007 Source: California Highway Patrol 2007 Annual Report of Fatal and Injury Motor Vehicles Traffic Collision, and California Department of Finance Citizen Survey Traffic collisions Bicycle/ pedestrian collisions Alcohol related collisions Total injury collisions Traffic collisions per 1000 residents Percent of traffic collisions with injury Number of DUI arrests Number of traffic stops Traffic citations issued Parking citations Percent rating traffic enforcement good or excellent FY 2005 1,419 97 32 407 23 29% 111 8,822 5,671 52,235 63% FY 2006 1,287 113 43 396 21 31% 247 11,827 7,687 56,502 63% FY 2007 1,257 103 31 2911 20 23% 257 15,563 6,232 57,222 71% FY 2008 1,122 84 42 324 18 29% 343 19,177 6,326 50,706 64% FY 2009 1,040 108 37 371 16 36% 192 14,152 5,766 49,996 61% Change over last 5 years: -27% +11% +16% -9% -30% +7% +73% +60% +2% -4% -2% 1 The Police Department revised previously reported number. Budget benchmarking measure - 55 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 56 - ANIMAL SERVICES Palo Alto provides regional animal control services to the cities of Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Mountain View. The Palo Alto Police Department reports it is the only agency in Santa Clara County with an animal shelter and spay and neuter clinic. Animal Services provides pet recovery and adoption services, animal care, animal health and welfare (including spay and neuter clinics and vaccinations), and other services at the Animal Shelter on East Bayshore Road. In FY 2009, Animal Services responded to 90% of Palo Alto live animal calls within 45 minutes. The Department successfully returned to their owners 70% of dogs and 11% of cats received by the shelter during FY 2009. Also, as the primary animal resource for the community, Animal Services developed an emergency response plan to provide shelter for the animals in the event of a disaster. 78% of survey respondents rated animal control services as good or excellent, placing Palo Alto in the 97th percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. Animal Services: FY 2005 - FY 2009 Source: Police Department (in millions) Citizen Survey Animal Services expenditures Animal Services revenue Number of Palo Alto animal services calls Number of regional animal services calls Percent Palo Alto live animal calls for service response within 45 minutes Number of sheltered animals Percent dogs received by shelter returned to owner Percent cats received by shelter returned to owner Percent rating animal control services good or excellent FY 2005 $1.4 $0.9 3,0061 1,604 91% 3,514 77% 12% 79% FY 2006 $1.5 $0.9 2,861 1,944 89% 3,839 78% 9% 78% FY 2007 $1.5 $1.0 2,990 1,773 88% 3,578 82% 18% 78% FY 2008 $1.7 $1.2 3,059 1,666 91% 3,532 75% 17% 78% FY 2009 $1.7 $1.0 2,873 1,690 90% 3,422 70% 11% 78% Change over last 5 years: +20% +7% -4% +5% -1% -3% -7% -1% -1% 1 The Police Department revised previously reported number. Budget benchmarking measure CHAPTER 7 – PUBLIC WORKS The mission of the Department of Public Works is to provide efficient, cost effective and environmentally sensitive construction, maintenance, and management of Palo Alto streets, sidewalks, parking lots, buildings and other public facilities; to provide appropriate maintenance, replacement and utility line clearing of City trees; to ensure timely support to other City departments in the area of engineering services and to provide review and inspection services to the development community in the City right of way. The Department is responsible for the following services that are provided through the General Fund: Streets – to develop and maintain the structural integrity and ride quality of streets to maximize the effective life of the pavement and traffic control clarity of streets and to facilitate the safe and orderly flow of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians Trees – to manage a sustainable urban forest by selecting appropriate species and providing timely maintenance and replacement of City trees as well as providing utility line clearing for front and rear easements Structures and Grounds – to build, maintain, renovate, and operate City-owned and leased structures, parking lots, grounds, parks and open space to achieve maximum life expectancy of the facilities Engineering – to construct, renovate, and maintain City-owned infrastructure through the City’s Capital Improvement Program; to ensure safety, comfort, and maximum life expectancy and value of City structures, facilities, and streets; to provide engineering support to City Departments and private development through the expeditious review and inspection of projects to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and conformance with approved plans and specifications The Department is responsible for the following services that are provided through enterprise and internal service funds (non-General Fund): Refuse collection and disposal Storm drainage Wastewater treatment including the Regional Water Quality Control Plant Vehicle replacement and maintenance (includes equipment) What is the source of Public Works funding? Where does a Public Works General Fund operating dollar go? Source: FY 2009 revenue and expenditure data Streets 19% Trees 17% Facility Management 46% Engineering 18% Revenue and General Fund 81% Reimbursements 19% - 57 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 STREETS The City is responsible for maintaining 463 lane miles of streets. In addition, Santa Clara County is responsible for 26 lane miles, and the State of California is responsible for maintaining 24 lane miles within Palo Alto's borders. 42% of survey respondents rate street repair good or excellent. This places Palo Alto in the 45th percentile and gives it a ranking similar to other surveyed jurisdictions. In FY 2009, 3,727 potholes were repaired, with 80% of those repairs within 15 days of notification. Costs for the annual street maintenance project fluctuate based upon the type of process used. Public Works uses three techniques (crack seal, slurry seal, and cape seal) to maintain streets. Crack, slurry, and cape seal use asphalt or other materials to fill cracks and seal street surfaces to prevent further deterioration. Public Works uses three techniques for resurfacing streets (asphalt overlay, repair and replace concrete, and reconstruction of concrete streets). Total reconstruction of concrete streets is the most costly technique and crack sealing is the least costly. The base budget for street maintenance was approximately $2.2 million in both FY 2008 and FY 2009. The Department reports that staff has actively sought and succeeded in obtaining grant funding which increased the capital project budget by approximately $1.9 million in FY 2008 and $1.0 million in FY 2009. Comparison of Resident Survey Ratings on Quality of Street Repair Good or Excellent Source: Jurisdictions with available National Citizen Survey™ results 2007 to 2009 Authorized Staffing (FTE) Citizen Survey Operating expenditures (in millions) Capital projects spending (in millions) General fund Capital projects fund Total lane miles maintained Lane miles resurfaced Percent of lane miles resurfaced Number of potholes repaired Percent of potholes repaired within 15 days of notification Number of signs repaired or replaced Percent rating street repair good or excellent FY 2005 $2.2 $3.3 15 2 463 20 4% 3,221 76% 1,6201 48% FY 2006 $2.1 $2.4 13 2 463 20 4% 2,311 95% 1,754 47% FY 2007 $2.0 $5.2 13 2 463 32 7% 1,188 82% 1,475 47% FY 2008 $2.5 $3.8 13 2 463 27 6% 1,977 78% 1,289 47% FY 2009 $2.4 $4.3 13 2 463 23 5% 3,727 80% 1,292 42% Change over last 5 years: +13% +28% -11% -6% 0% +15% +1% +16% +4% -20% -6% 1 Estimated. Budget benchmarking measure data shown here may differ from budget document due to timing differences. - 58 - Chapter 7- PUBLIC WORKS SIDEWALKS In FY 2009, about 57,000 square feet of sidewalks were replaced or permanently repaired and 21 new ADA1 ramps were completed. In the past five years, this totaled more than 550,000 square feet of sidewalk replaced or permanently repaired and 230 ADA ramps completed. The Department reports that 86% of temporary repairs were completed within 15 days of initial inspection. 53% of survey respondents rate sidewalk maintenance good or excellent. This places Palo Alto in the 51st percentile and gives it a ranking similar to other surveyed jurisdictions. Historically, the City has covered all costs related to sidewalk replacement, regardless of the cause. The City’s 2007-2009 Adopted Capital Budget revised the policy. Property owners will be responsible for the cost of sidewalk replacement if the damage to the sidewalk was not caused by tree roots. Sidewalk Expenditures: FY 2000 - FY 2009 Source: Public Works Department Authorized Staffing (FTE) Citizen Survey Operating expenditures (in millions)2, 3 Capital projects spending (in millions) General Fund3 Capital projects fund Number of square feet of sidewalks Square feet of sidewalk replaced or permanently repaired4 Number ADA ramps completed1 Percent of temporary repairs completed within 15 days of initial inspection Percent rating sidewalk maintenance good or excellent FY 2005 $0.6 $1.9 4 2 6,679,200 132,430 46 76% 51% FY 2006 - $2.5 0 8 6,679,200 126,574 66 87% 52% FY 2007 - $2.5 0 7 6,679,200 94,620 70 98% 56% FY 2008 - $2.2 0 7 6,679,200 83,827 27 88% 53% FY 2009 - $1.6 0 7 6,679,200 56,909 21 86% 53% Change over last 5 years: - -15% 0% +255% 0% -57% -54% +10% +2% 1 ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requires that accessibility to buildings and facilities be provided to individuals with disabilities. 2 Excludes costs in Engineering Division. 3 In FY 2006, operating expenditures for sidewalks and associated staff were transferred to the Capital Projects Fund. 4 Includes both in-house and contracted work. - 59 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 TREES Public Works maintains all City-owned trees, including street trees, all trees in the parks, and trees in City facilities. This includes planting new trees, trimming/ pruning existing trees, removing dead/diseased trees, fertilizing and pest control, line clearing around electrical wires, 24/7 emergency response, and providing Certified Arborist advice to residents regarding care of City trees. Managers in the tree group also oversee several tree-related contracts including stump removal, electrical line clearing, and annual tree maintenance contracts. In FY 2009, City-maintained trees totaled 35,255. In FY 2009 a total of 250 trees were planted by the City and Canopy (a non-profit organization). The number of services provided (excluding trees trimmed for utility line clearing) or removed in FY 2009 was 6,618, or 39% higher than it was in FY 2005. 72% of survey respondents rated street tree maintenance good or excellent, down 10% from 82% in FY 2005, but up 4% from the prior year. 2009 Palo Alto Resident Survey: Quality Rating of Street Tree Maintenance Source: National Citizen Survey™ 2009 (Palo Alto) Citizen Survey Operating expenditures (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) (general fund) Total number of City-maintained trees1 Number of trees planted1 Number of tree related services provided2 <REVISED> Percent of urban forest pruned Percent of total tree lines cleared Number of tree- related electrical service disruptions Percent rating street tree maintenance good or excellent FY 2005 $1.9 14 35,096 164 4,775 14% 26% 5 82% FY 2006 $2.2 14 34,841 263 3,4223 10% 21% 13 72% FY 2007 $2.3 14 34,556 164 3,409 10% 30% 15 67% FY 2008 $2.5 14 35,322 188 6,579 18% 27% 9 68% FY 2009 $2.2 14 35,255 250 6,618 18% 33% 5 72% Change over last 5 years: +17% 0% 0% +52% +39% +4% +7% 0% -10% Excellent (22%) Poor (7%) Fair (21%) Good (50%) 1 Includes trees planted by Canopy; data source is Department of Public Works workload statistics. 2 Excludes trees trimmed to clear power lines. 3 Estimated. Budget benchmarking measure data shown here may differ from budget document due to timing differences. - 60 - Chapter 7- PUBLIC WORKS CITY FACILITIES, ENGINEERING AND PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT Public Works builds, renovates and maintains City-owned and leased structures, parking lots, grounds, parks and open space. The Department also provides citywide capital improvement program (CIP) support including design, engineering, contract management, and project management. The Facilities Management Division staff handled an estimated 2,547 service calls in FY 2009 related to building mechanics, carpentry, electrical, locks and painting. This figure does not include preventive maintenance or custodial service calls. Maintaining and improving infrastructure continues to be a City priority. In response to the City Auditor’s infrastructure report issued in March 2008, the City is developing a comprehensive plan for addressing the general fund infrastructure backlog estimated at $302 million in the FY 2010 and 2011 Adopted Capital Budget. Number of Private Development Permit Applications FY 2000 through FY 2009 Source: Public Works Department City Facilities Engineering Private Development City facilities operating expenditures (in millions) City facilities authorized staffing (FTE) City facilities capital expenditures (in millions) Capital projects authorized staffing (FTE) Total square feet of facilities maintained1 Maintenance cost per square foot Custodial cost per square foot Engineering operating expenditures (in millions) Engineering authorized staffing (FTE) Number of private development permits issued2 Number of permits per FTE FY 2005 $4.5 24 $7.0 8 1,402,225 $1.38 $1.12 $1.9 14 276 92 FY 2006 $4.9 23 $6.1 8 1,402,225 $1.52 $1.18 $2.1 15 284 95 FY 2007 $5.3 23 $7.2 8 1,613,392 $1.38 $1.04 $2.3 14 215 72 FY 2008 $5.5 23 $7.4 8 1,616,171 $1.52 $1.12 $2.5 15 338 1123 FY 2009 $5.9 25 $10.5 9 1,616,171 $1.62 $1.19 $2.3 15 304 1013 Change over last 5 years: +32% +2% +51% +14% +15% +17% +6% +21% +10% +10% +10% 1 The increase in square footage was due to the addition of the following sites during FY 2007. Arastradero Gateway Facility, Stanford Playing Fields, Hoover Park Restroom, Homer Tunnel, and Log J (Cowper/Webster Garage). The increase in FY 2008 was primarily due to an addition at the Children’s Library. 2 Includes permits for: street work, encroachment, and certificate of compliance. 3 The Department advises that prior year numbers were estimates. FY 2008 and 2009 numbers are actuals. Budget benchmarking measure data shown here may differ from budget document due to timing differences. - 61 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 STORM DRAINS The purpose of the City’s storm drain system is to provide adequate drainage, reduce the risk of flooding, and enhance water quality. Storm drain expenses are paid from the Storm Drain Enterprise Fund. The average monthly residential bill is $10.95 to operate and maintain the storm drainage system. Capital expenditures have increased over the last two years primarily due to the $7 million San Francisquito Creek storm water pump station project. The project is expected to improve drainage in the northeast section of Palo Alto. Industrial site compliance with storm water regulations has decreased as the Department conducts more inspections at restaurants, which the Department reports have lower compliance rates. The Department states inspectors are finding, addressing, and correcting situations which, if left uncorrected, could lead to storm water contamination. In FY 2009, the Department reported it cleaned and inspected 100% of catch basins and cleaned 107,233 feet of storm drain pipelines. In FY 2009, 73% of residents surveyed rated storm drainage good or excellent. Palo Alto is in the 89th percentile among other surveyed jurisdictions. 2009 Palo Alto Resident Survey: Quality Ratings of Storm Drainage Source: National Citizen Survey™ 2009 (Palo Alto) Revenues, expenses, transfers and reserves (in millions) Citizen Survey Total operating revenue Total operating expense Capital expense1 Transfer from General Fund to Storm Drain Fund Reserve balance Average monthly residential bill Authorized staffing (FTE) Feet of storm drain pipelines cleaned Calls for assistance with storm drains2 Percent of industrial sites in compliance with storm water regulations S Percent rating the quality of storm drainage good or excellent FY 2005 $2.5 $2.5 $0.1 $0.5 $0.6 $4.25 10 316,024 50 89% 60% FY 2006 $5.2 $2.1 $0.3 $0.5 $3.1 $10.00 10 128,643 24 83%3 60% FY 2007 $5.2 $2.0 $1.5 $0.0 $4.5 $10.20 10 287,957 4 71% 60% FY 2008 $5.5 $2.5 $3.6 $0.0 $3.3 $10.55 10 157,337 80 65% 71% FY 2009 $5.5 $1.6 $5.3 $0.0 $1.2 $10.95 10 107,223 44 66% 73% Change over last 5 years: +122% -37% +3,8423% -100% +111% +158% -4% -66% -12% -23% +13% Fair 21% Poor 6% Excellent 19% Good 54% 1 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. Does not include overhead. 2 Estimated 3 Environmental Compliance staff advises that the decrease since FY 2006 was due to a revised State definition of “compliance.” Staff also advises that food service facilities account for a larger share of the total inspections than in the past and they tend to have lower compliance rates. Budget benchmarking measure data shown here may differ from budget document due to timing differences. S Sustainability indicator - 62 - Chapter 7- PUBLIC WORKS WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND WASTEWATER ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE The Wastewater Treatment Fund is an enterprise fund operated by the Public Works Department. Its purpose is two-fold: to maintain and monitor the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) and to ensure compliance with regulations protecting the San Francisco Bay and environment. Also, 63% of operating expenses are reimbursed by other jurisdictions. In addition to treating Palo Alto’s wastewater, the RWQCP treats wastewater from five other areas: Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford and East Palo Alto. Capital expenditures have increased over the last two years as Public Works constructed the $16 million recycled water pipeline project. The pipeline was completed in June 2009 and delivers recycled water to the nearby jurisdiction of Mountain View. Operating Cost per Million Gallon Processed: FY 2005 - FY 2009 Source: Public Works Department Wastewater Treatment Fund Regional Water Quality Control Plant Wastewater Environmental Compliance Total operating revenue (in millions) Total operating expense (in millions) Percent of operating expenses reimbursed by other jurisdictions Capital expense (in millions)1 Reserve balance (in millions) Authorized Staffing (FTE) Millions of gallons processed2 Operating cost per million gallons processed3 Fish toxicity test (percent survival) S Millions of gallons of recycled water Authorized staffing FTE delivered <NEW> Number of inspections performed Percent of industrial discharge tests in compliance S FY 2005 $15.9 $16.1 63% $1.5 $12.6 54 8,497 $1,892 100% 82 14 191 99% FY 2006 $18.8 $16.9 63% $2.2 $13.6 55 8,972 $1,881 100% 103 14 192 99% FY 2007 $17.0 $16.3 64% $1.8 $13.8 55 8,853 $1,838 100% 130 14 114 99% FY 2008 $22.9 $18.1 64% $10.9 $11.1 55 8,510 $2,127 100% 138 14 111 99% FY 2009 $28.4 $16.4 63% $9.2 $12.9 54 7,958 $2,056 100% 97 14 103 99% Change over last 5 years: +78% +2% 0% +503% +2% 0% -6% +9% 0% +18% -4% -46% 0% 1 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. Does not include overhead. 2 Includes gallons processed for all cities served by Palo Alto’s Wastewater Treatment Plant. 3 Prior year numbers have been revised due to differences in the way the information was compiled. Budget benchmarking measure data shown here may differ from budget document due to timing differences. S Sustainability indicator - 63 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 REFUSE REFUSE The City coordinates refuse services for Palo Alto residents and businesses. This includes the collection, hauling, processing, recycling and disposal of waste materials. The City funds these activities through the Refuse Enterprise Fund. Effective July 1, 2009 the City has a new garbage and recycling contractor, GreenWaste of Palo Alto. The City coordinates refuse services for Palo Alto residents and businesses. This includes the collection, hauling, processing, recycling and disposal of waste materials. The City funds these activities through the Refuse Enterprise Fund. Effective July 1, 2009 the City has a new garbage and recycling contractor, GreenWaste of Palo Alto. Operating expenses for refuse services have increased from $23.4 to $29.1 million, or approximately 24% over the last five years. According to the Department, expenses have increased primarily due to garbage hauler contractual costs. As a result, reserve balances have declined over the last 5 years. Operating expenses for refuse services have increased from $23.4 to $29.1 million, or approximately 24% over the last five years. According to the Department, expenses have increased primarily due to garbage hauler contractual costs. As a result, reserve balances have declined over the last 5 years. Compared to FY 2005, the total tons of waste landfilled in FY 2009 was higher, although it did decrease in the intervening years. The landfill is expected to reach capacity in 2011 and close around 2012. Accounting rules require the recordings of liability for estimated landfill closure and post-closure care costs. The Refuse reserve balance decreased in FY 2009 to fund this liability and is expected to have a negative ending balance in FY 2010. The Department anticipates the rate stabilization reserve will return to a positive balance as the liability is reduced over time. Compared to FY 2005, the total tons of waste landfilled in FY 2009 was higher, although it did decrease in the intervening years. The landfill is expected to reach capacity in 2011 and close around 2012. Accounting rules require the recordings of liability for estimated landfill closure and post-closure care costs. The Refuse reserve balance decreased in FY 2009 to fund this liability and is expected to have a negative ending balance in FY 2010. The Department anticipates the rate stabilization reserve will return to a positive balance as the liability is reduced over time. Total Tons of Waste Landfilled FY 2000 – FY 2009 Source: Public Works Department Refuse Fund (in millions) Citizen Survey Operating revenue Operating expense Capital expense1 Reserve balance Authorized staffing (FTE) Total tons of waste landfilled3, S Average monthly residential bill Percent of all sweeping routes completed (residential and commercial) 2 <NEW> Percent rating garbage collection good or excellent Percent rating City’s composting process and pickup services good or excellent <NEW> FY 2005 $23.4 $24.5 $0.3 $7.2 35 60,777 $19.80 - 92% - FY 2006 $24.8 $26.4 $0.1 $4.7 35 59,276 $21.38 88% 92% - FY 2007 $25.6 $25.1 $0.0 $5.9 35 59,938 $21.38 93% 91% - FY 2008 $28.8 $28.6 $0.0 $6.3 35 61,866 $24.16 90% 92% - FY 2009 $29.1 $33.5 $0.7 $0.8 35 68,228 $31.00 92% 89% 86% Change over last 5 years: +24% +37% +142% -89% +1% +12% +57% - -3% - 1 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. Does not include overhead. 2 Most streets are swept weekly; business districts are swept three times a week. 3 Does not include materials disposed of by self-haul customers, going to other landfills. Budget benchmarking measure data shown here may differ from budget document due to timing differences. S Sustainability indicator, Related to 2009 Top 3 City Council Priorities - 64 - Chapter 7- PUBLIC WORKS CITY FLEET AND EQUIPMENT The City accounts for its fleet and equipment in the Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund. The Fund provides for the maintenance and replacement of vehicles and equipment. The Department reports that the City's fleet includes 308 passenger and emergency response vehicles, 132 heavy equipment items (construction equipment such as loaders, backhoes, and motor graders), and 255 additional pieces of other equipment (turf equipment, trailers, asphalt rollers, etc.). Vehicle operations and maintenance costs totaled about $4.0 million in FY 2009. The median age of passenger vehicles has increased to 8 years. The maintenance cost per passenger vehicle increased to $2,123. The City Auditor’s Office plans to issue a report on the results of its audit of City fleet in FY 2010. Total Miles Traveled (Passenger Vehicles) FY 2001 – FY 2009 Source: Public Works Department Operating and maintenance expenditures (vehicles and equipment) Authorized staffing (FTE) Current value of fleet and equipment (in millions) Number of alternative fuel vehicles Percent of fleet fuel consumption that is alternative fuels Total miles traveled (passenger vehicles) Median mileage of passenger vehicles Median age of passenger vehicles Maintenance cost per passenger vehicle Percent of scheduled preventive maintenance performed within five business days of original schedule FY 2005 $3.0 16 $10.9 73 16% 1,731,910 38,897 6.5 $1,790 96% FY 2006 $3.2 16 $11.9 74 19% 1,674,427 41,153 6.8 $1,781 95% FY 2007 $3.3 16 $11.9 79 20% 1,849,600 41,920 6.8 $1,886 86% FY 2008 $3.7 16 $10.8 80 25% 1,650,743 42,573 7.4 $1,620 74% FY 2009 $4.1 16 $10.0 75 25% 1,615,771 44,784 8.0 $2,123 94% Change over last 5 years: +36% +2% -8% +3% +9% -7% +15% +23% +19% -2% 1 The Public Works Department defines “passenger vehicles” as automobiles and light trucks (less than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight). 2 Includes all maintenance costs except for fuel and accident repairs. Includes 30 police patrol cars. S Sustainability indicator - 65 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 66 - ZERO WASTE <NEW> In 2005, the City adopted a Zero Waste Strategic Plan with a goal to reach zero waste to landfills by 2021 through the development of policies and incentives. In 2007, the City developed a Zero Waste Operational Plan to incorporate and promote practices that involve conserving resources, minimizing material consumption, reusing material through reassigning their function, maximizing recycling, and focusing on construction and demolition debris (C&D) recycling. In 2007, the State (Senate Bill 1016) changed the way communities track the success of recycling programs from diversion rates to reducing disposal rates. The City’s target is to stay below 8.0 pounds per person per day – the City’s per capita disposal rate was 5.9 pounds per day in FY 2009. During FY 2009, the City increased the amount of C&D diverted from landfills by nearly 60%. Over the last 5 years, the amount of recycled materials decreased 1% and household hazardous materials collected reduced by 25%. During FY 2009, the City Council adopted ordinances to reduce the use of two products: Single use plastic bags at large grocery stores (effective September 2009) Expanded polystyrene take-out containers from restaurants (to become effective April 2010) Prior to implementation, the City conducted a comprehensive outreach campaign to encourage the use of reusable bags. The Department reported an increase in the use of reusable bags at grocery stores from 9% to 19%. Palo Alto ranked in the 99th percentile among surveyed jurisdictions for recycling used paper, cans, or bottles from the home. Palo Alto ranked in the 83rd percentile for garbage collection among other surveyed jurisdictions. Total Tons of Materials Recycled FY 2000 – FY 2009 Source: Public Works Department Citizen Survey Tons of materials recycled1 S Tons of household hazardous materials collected S Tons of C & D diverted S <NEW> Percent of customers using reusable bags at grocery stores S <NEW> Per capita disposal rate S (Target is 8.0 pounds per day) <NEW> Percent rating recycling services good or excellent Percent of residents who recycled more than 12 times during the year FY 2005 50,311 324 - - - 92% 92% FY 2006 56,013 309 - - - 91% 90% FY 2007 56,837 320 - - - 93% 92% FY 2008 52,196 315 6,656 9% 6.0 90% 94% FY 2009 49,911 243 10,508 19% 5.9 90% 92% Change over last 5 years: -1% -25% - - - -2% 0% 1 Does not include materials disposed of by self-haul customers, going to other landfills. S Sustainability indicator, Related to 2009 Top 3 City Council Priorities CHAPTER 8 – UTILITIES The mission of the Utilities Department is to provide valued utility services to customers and dependable returns to the City. The Department is responsible for the following utility services:1 Electric – Founded in 1900, the electric utility purchases and delivers over 975,000 megawatt hours per year to more than 29,000 customers. Gas – Founded in 1917, the gas utility purchases and delivers over 32 million therms to over 23,000 customers. Water – Founded in 1896, the water system purchases and distributes more than 5 million cubic feet per year to over 19,900 customers. Wastewater collection – Founded in 1898, the wastewater collection utility maintains more than 200 miles of sanitary sewer lines, annually transporting over 8 billion gallons of sewage and wastewater to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. Fiber optic services – Launched in 1996, the fiber utility offers “dark” fiber optic network service to Palo Alto businesses and institutions through 40.6 miles of “dark” fiber. Utilities Department Expenditures (by Fund) Source: 2009 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Electric Fund (63%) Fiber Optic Fund (1%) Water Fund (11%) Wastewater Collection Fund (6%)Gas Fund (19%) 1The Public Works Department (see Chapter 7) is responsible for refuse, storm drainage, and waste water treatment. - 67 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 ELECTRICITY Electric utility operating expense totaled $112.4 million in FY 2009, or 65% more than 5 years ago, including electricity purchases of $82.3 million, or 101% more than 5 years ago. Although Palo Alto’s average residential electric bill has increased by 33% over five years (from $51.98 to $69.38 per month), it is far lower than comparable Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) rates as shown in the graph on the right. In 2009, 83% of respondents to the Citizen Survey rated electric utility services good or excellent. History of Average Monthly Electric Bills: (650 kwh/month) Source: Utilities Department Revenues, expenses, and unrestricted reserves(in millions) Citizen Survey Operating revenue Operating expense Capital expense1 Equity transfers Electric Fund reserves Electricity purchases (in millions) Average purchase cost per MWH Energy conservation/ efficiency program expense (in millions) Average monthly residential bill (650 KWH/month) Authorized staffing (FTE) Percent rating electric utility good or excellent Percent rating street lighting good or excellent FY 2005 $88.7 $68.1 $7.3 $8.2 $148.0 $41.0 $41.25 $1.5 $51.98 117 68%2,3 63% FY 2006 $119.4 $83.1 $7.2 $8.5 $161.3 $55.6 $48.62 $1.2 $57.93 119 88% 66% FY 2007 $102.5 $89.6 $10.5 $8.7 $156.4 $62.5 $64.97 $1.3 $57.93 114 86% 61% FY 2008 $103.8 $99.0 $10.2 $9.0 $145.3 $71.1 $76.84 $1.3 $60.83 111 85% 64% FY 2009 $119.3 $112.4 $5.2 $9.3 $129.4 $82.3 $83.34 $1.7 $69.38 107 83% 64% Change over last 5 years: +34% +65% -28% +13% -13% +101% +102% +13% +33% -9% +15% +1% 1 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services; does not include overhead. 2 Prior to FY 2006, ratings were based on electric and gas services together. 3 In FY 2005, satisfaction with electric and gas services dropped dramatically. In our opinion, three major events may have contributed to the 20-point decline in ratings: (1) gas rates increased 15 percent and electric rates increased 11.5 percent, (2) it was revealed that several employees in the Utilities Department were disciplined due to irregularities, and (3) the City agreed to a settlement with Enron Corporation. Satisfaction rates recovered in FY 2006. MWH megawatt hours KWH kilowatt hours Budget benchmarking measure - 68 - Chapter 8 - UTILITIES ELECTRICITY (cont.) Residential electricity consumption decreased by 1% over the last 5 years (adjusted for population growth, per capita residential electricity usage decreased by 5%), while commercial consumption increased by 5% over the same period. In fiscal year 2009, Palo Alto obtained power from several renewable resources, including 47% in the large hydro category, 19% in the qualifying renewable category, and 6.4% through voluntary subscriptions to the Palo Alto Green program. By the end of FY 2009, 19.7% of customers were enrolled in the Palo Alto Green program. Palo Alto Green is a voluntary program available to resident and business customers that offers the option of supporting 100% renewable energy from the wind at some of the lowest rates in the nation. The number of electric service interruptions and the average minutes per customer affected are highly variable from year to year. Including storm related outages, electric service interruptions over 1 minute in duration remained the same from 5 years ago, and the average minutes per customer affected decreased 3% from 5 years ago. Residential and Commercial Electric Consumption FY 2005 – FY 2009 Source: California Public Utilities Commission and Utilities Department Data Percent power content1 Number of accounts Residential MWH consumed S Commercial MWH consumed S Average residential electric usage per capita (MWH/person) S Renewable large hydro facilities S Qualifying renewables S,2 Voluntary Palo Alto Green program S Percent customers enrolled in Palo Alto Green S Electric service interruptions over 1 minute in duration Average minutes per customer affected Circuit miles under- grounded during the year FY 2005 28,556 161,440 797,132 2.62 58% 5% 2.1% 12.6% 28 65 minutes 2.0 FY 2006 28,653 161,202 804,908 2.58 61% 8% 3.2% 14.6% 39 63 minutes 1.0 FY 2007 28,684 162,405 815,721 2.59 84% 10% 4.0% 18.5% 48 48 minutes 1.0 FY 2008 29,024 162,680 814,695 2.57 53% 14% 5.0% 19.7% 41 53 minutes 1.2 FY 2009 28,527 159,899 835,784 2.48 47% 19% 6.4% 19.7% 28 63 minutes 0 Change over last 5 years: 0% -1% +5% -5% -11% +14% +4% +7% 0% -3% -100% 1 Combined CPAU and Palo Alto Green mix for the calendar year. Calendar year data is reported in the subsequent fiscal year (e.g. calendar year 2005 data is shown in FY 2006). 2 Qualifying renewable electricity include bio mass, biogas, geothermal, small hydro facilities (not large hydro), solar, and wind. In the 2009 Adopted Budget, the City Council established targets of 10% by 2010 and 20% renewable power by 2015. Budget benchmarking measure S Sustainability indicator - 69 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 GAS Gas enterprise operating expense totaled $33.4 million in FY 2009, including $25.1 million in gas purchases (compared to $18.8 million in gas purchases 5 years ago). Capital spending of $4.5 million in FY 2009 was 14% less than five years ago. The average monthly residential gas bill increased to $110.71 last year. This was 87% more than five years ago, and is more than a comparable PG&E bill as shown on the graph on the right. In 2009, 81% of respondents to the Citizen Survey rated gas utility services good or excellent History of Average Residential Gas Bills: (30 therms summer, 80 therms winter) Source: Utilities Department data (weighted average of rate changes during year) Revenues, expenses, and unrestricted reserves (in millions) Citizen Survey Operating revenue Operating expense Capital expense1 Equity transfers Gas Fund reserves Gas purchases (in millions) Average purchase cost (per therm) Average monthly residential bill (30/100 therms per month) Authorized staffing (FTE) Percent rating gas utility good or excellent FY 2005 $31.2 $26.7 $5.3 $2.8 $12.8 $18.8 $0.58 $59.24 47 68%2,3 FY 2006 $37.0 $28.3 $3.3 $2.9 $13.2 $21.4 $0.65 $69.76 47 88% FY 2007 $42.2 $30.1 $3.6 $3.0 $16.9 $22.3 $0.69 $90.97 48 85% FY 2008 $49.0 $36.6 $4.4 $3.0 $21.8 $27.2 $0.82 $102.03 46 84% FY 2009 $47.8 $33.4 $4.5 $3.1 $26.4 $25.1 $0.78 $110.71 48 81% Change over last 5 years: +53% +25% -14% +13% +105% +34% +38% +87% +2% +13 1 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services; does not include overhead. 2 Prior to FY 2006, ratings were based on electric and gas services together. 3 In FY 2005, satisfaction with gas and electric services dropped dramatically. In our opinion, three major events may have contributed to the 20-point decline in ratings: (1) gas rates increased 15 percent and electric rates increased 11.5 percent, (2) it was revealed that several employees in the Utilities Department were disciplined due to irregularities, and (3) the City agreed to a settlement with Enron Corporation. Budget benchmarking measure - 70 - Chapter 8 - UTILITIES GAS (cont.) Residents consumed 11% less natural gas in FY 2009 than 5 years ago, and businesses consumed 1% less. According to staff, gas usage is seasonal and weather dependent. During FY 2009, 207 miles of pipeline were surveyed for leaks, and 6.7 miles of gas mains were replaced. The number of service disruptions and customers affected has increased since FY 2005. In FY 2009, there were 46 service disruptions affecting 766 customers. In FY 2009, the Department responded to 95% of gas leaks within 30 minutes, and completed 95% of mainline repairs within 4 hours. Residential and Commercial Gas Consumption FY 2005 – FY 2009 Source: Utilities Department Customer accounts Residential therms consumed S Commercial/ therms consumed S Average residential natural gas usage per capita (therms/person) S Number of service disruptions Total customers affected Percent gas mainline repairs within 4 hours1 Percent response to gas leaks within 30 minutes Miles of gas main Miles of pipeline surveyed for leaks Miles of gas main replaced during year FY 2005 23,301 12,299,158 19,765,077 200 31 639 97% 98% 207 207 2.8 FY 2006 23,353 11,745,883 19,766,876 188 19 211 100% 90% 207 207 2.8 FY 2007 23,357 11,759,842 19,581,761 188 18 307 90% 95% 207 207 2.3 FY 2008 23,502 11,969,151 20,216,975 189 18 105 95% 95% 207 207 5.7 FY 2009 23,090 11,003,088 19,579,877 171 46 766 95% 95% 207 207 6.7 Change over last 5 years: -1% -11% -1% -14% +48% +20% -2% -3% 0% 0% +138% 1 Utilities Strategic Plan performance objective S Sustainability indicator Budget benchmarking measure - 71 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 WATER The City of Palo Alto Utilities Department constructs, maintains, and operates the water delivery system2. About 85% of the water Palo Alto purchases from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) originates from high Sierra snowmelt. This water, stored in Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite National Park, is of such high quality that it is exempt from federal and state filtration requirements. The other 15% of SFPUC water comes from rainfall and runoff stored in the Calaveras and San Antonio Reservoirs located in Alameda and Santa Clara counties, and supplemented by groundwater in Sunol. The SFPUC treats and filters these local water sources prior to delivery to its consumers. Over the last 5 years, Operating expense increased 29%, including a 26% increase in the cost of water purchases. Capital spending increased from $4.6 million to $4.9 million. The average residential water bill increased 27% to $68.79 per month. As shown in the graph on the right, Palo Alto’s average residential water bill has moved higher than the other jurisdictions surveyed. History of Average Residential Water Bills: (14 ccf/month) Source: Utilities Department Note: Cities may allocate costs differently and may have different levels of capital investment Revenues, expenses, and unrestricted reserves (in millions) Operating revenue Operating expense Capital expense1 Equity transfers Water Fund reserves Water purchases (millions) Average purchase cost (per CCF) Average residential water bill Authorized staffing (FTE) Total Water in CCF sold (millions) FY 2005 $21.0 $15.0 $4.6 $2.4 $22.2 $6.7 $1.17 $54.12 41 5.3 FY 2006 $20.8 $15.3 $4.7 $2.4 $19.2 $6.5 $1.13 $54.12 41 5.3 FY 2007 $23.5 $16.3 $3.9 $2.5 $21.3 $7.8 $1.32 $58.17 45 5.5 FY 2008 $26.5 $18.3 $3.4 $2.6 $26.4 $8.4 $1.41 $64.21 46 5.5 FY 2009 $27.1 $19.4 $4.9 $2.7 $26.6 $8.4 $1.46 $68.79 48 5.4 Change over last 5 years: +29% +29% +6% +13% +20% +26% +24% +27% +17% +1% 1 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. Does not include overhead. 2 Effective July 1, 2009, the Department executed a new 25-year Water Supply Agreement with San Francisco. CCF - hundred cubic feet Budget benchmarking measure - 72 - Chapter 8 - UTILITIES WATER (cont.) Residential water consumption is down 4% from five years ago. On a per capita basis, residents are using 9% less water than five years ago. Commercial water consumption increased 7% from five years ago. Water consumption, like that of natural gas, is highly weather dependent. Palo Alto’s Water Utility revenues are based entirely on consumption rates plus a fixed monthly customer charge. The number of service disruptions varies from year to year. Due to a problem with the outage notification system, the total number of service disruptions was not tracked. Since July 2008, a different tracking system has been implemented. In the 2009 Citizen Survey, 81% of respondents rated water quality as good or excellent. Palo Alto was in the 93rd percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. According to the Department, water quality improved due to more frequent water main flushing. Residential and Commercial Water Consumption: FY 2005 – FY 2009 Source: Utilities Department Water consumption Citizen Survey Customer accounts Residential water consumption (CCF) S Commercial water consumption (CCF) 2,S Average residential water usage per capita (CCF) S Number of service disruptions Total customers affected Percent water main repairs responded to within 1 hours <REVISED> Miles of water mains Estimated miles of water mains replaced Water quality compliance with all required Calif. Department of Health and EPA testingS Percent rating water good or excellent FY 2005 19,605 2,686,507 2,644,817 44 10 193 100%1 226 3 100% 80% FY 2006 19,645 2,647,758 2,561,145 42 11 160 100%1 219 0 100% 80% FY 2007 19,726 2,807,477 2,673,126 45 27 783 97%1 219 3 100% 79% FY 2008 19,942 2,746,980 2,779,664 43 17 374 97% 219 3 100% 87% FY 2009 19,422 2,566,962 2,828,163 40 19 230 95% 219 3 100% 81% Change over last 5 years: -1% -4% +7% -9% +90% +19% -5% -3% 0% 0% +1% 1 The 4 hour performance measure for responding to water main breaks was changed in FY 2008 to response within 1 hour will be 95% or greater. 2 Includes commercial, public, and City facilities. 3 Water monitoring system not operational during FY 2008. Budget benchmarking measure S Sustainability indicator - 73 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 WASTEWATER COLLECTION The Department cleaned or treated 91 miles of the city’s 202 miles of sewer lines in FY 2009. There were 210 sewage overflows in calendar year 2009. The Department responded to 100% of sewage spills and line blockages within 2 hours. In the 2009 Citizen Survey, 81% of respondents rated sewer services good or excellent. This placed Palo Alto in the 89th percentile compared to other jurisdictions. Over the past 5 years, Operating expense increased 24%. Capital spending decreased to $2.9 million in FY 2009. The average residential bill increased from $19.25 to $23.48, or 22%. As shown on the right, Palo Alto’s residential bill is mid-range of other cities. History of Average Wastewater Bills: FY 2005 – FY 2009 Source: Utilities Department Note: Cities may allocate costs differently and may have different levels of capital investment Revenues, expenses, and unrestricted reserves (in millions) Citizen Survey Operating revenue Operating expense Capital expense1 Wastewater Collection Fund reserves Average residential sewage bill Authorized staffing (FTE) Customer accounts Miles of sewer lines Miles of mains cleaned/ treated Estimated miles of sewer lines replaced Number of sewage overflows (calendar year)2 Percent sewage spills and line blockage responses within 2 hours Percent rating quality of sewer services good or excellent FY 2005 $12.0 $8.9 $3.8 $13.5 $19.25 24 21,763 202 115 5 - 99% 82% FY 2006 $13.8 $10.8 $2.4 $14.5 $21.85 23 21,784 202 89 0 310 99% 83% FY 2007 $14.8 $10.0 $7.7 $12.4 $23.48 25 21,789 202 140 7 152 99% 82% FY 2008 $15.1 $11.7 $3.6 $13.8 $23.48 28 21,970 202 80 2 174 99% 81% FY 2009 $14.5 $11.0 $2.9 $14.1 $23.48 25 22,210 207 91 2 210 100% 81% Change over last 5 years: +20% +24% -25% +5% +22% +4% +2% +2% -21% -60% - +1% -1% 1 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. Does not include overhead. 2 In 2007, the State Water Resources Control Board changed the tracking and reporting requirements for sewer overflows. Under the new requirements, the Department must report all sewage overflows. Budget benchmarking measure - 74 - Chapter 8 - UTILITIES FIBER OPTIC UTILITIY In 1996, a 40.6 mile dark1 fiber backbone was built throughout the City with the goal of delivering broadband services to all premises, with customers connected via fiber optic “service connections.” New customers pay the construction fees required to connect to the fiber optic backbone. Staff issued a Request For Proposals in 2006 to identity firms willing to build out the system while leveraging existing City assets. After 3 years of negotiations with a consortium of firms, the City terminated this process due to the lack of necessary funding. With the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, federal stimulus funding is being sought to achieve the City’s goal. Should the City receive no funding, an alternative plan is being developed to build out a fiber network using existing City resources. A wireless component is being considered as the City extends the fiber network. Over the past 5 years, Operating revenue increased by 142%, and operating expense increased by 41%. The number of service connections grew 53%. Fiber Optics Number of Service Connections: FY 2005 – FY 2009 Source: Utilities Department Revenues, expenses, and unrestricted fund balance (in millions) Operating revenue Operating expense2 Capital expense2 Fund balance2 Number of customer accounts Number of service connections Backbone fiber miles Authorized staffing (FTE) FY 2005 $1.4 $1.0 $0.3 - 39 116 - 5 FY 2006 $1.6 $0.8 $0.2 $1.0 42 139 - 5 FY 2007 $2.2 $0.7 $0.1 $2.7 49 161 40.6 3 FY 2008 $3.1 $0.4 $0.1 $5.0 41 173 40.6 0.7 FY 2009 $3.3 $1.4 $0.3 $6.4 47 178 40.6 6 Change over last 5 years: +142% +41% -26% - +21% +53% - +11% 1 Dark fiber is optical data cabling connecting facilities or accessing service providers. Customers using dark fiber provide their own electronic equipment to “light” the fiber. 2 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, contract services, and allocated charges; does not include overhead. 3 The Fiber Utility was a sub-fund within the Electric Fund. The original fiber backbone was funded with a $2 million loan from the Electric Fund; the loan balance was reimbursed in full in FY2009. - 75 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 76 - This Page Intentionally Left Blank CHAPTER 9 – STRATEGIC AND SUPPORT SERVICES Strategic and support services include: Administrative Services Department – provides financial support services, property management, money management, financial analysis and reporting, purchasing, and information technology services. Human Resources – provides staff support services, including recruitment, employee and labor relations, employee development, and risk management; administers employee compensation and benefits. City Manager – provides leadership to the organization in the implementation of City Council policies and the provision of quality services to the community. The Office also coordinates City Council relations, community and intergovernmental relations, and the City’s Sustainability initiatives. City Attorney – provides legal representation, consultation and advice, and litigation and dispute resolution services. City Clerk – provides public information, Council support, administers elections, preserves the legislative history of the City, and provides oversight of administrative citation hearings. City Auditor – coordinates performance audits and reviews of City departments, programs, and services; revenue audits; and the annual external financial audit. City Council - The City Council is the legislative and governing body of the City of Palo Alto. The City Council is composed of the Mayor and eight other Council members. What is the source of Strategic and Support Services funding? Where does a Strategic and Support Services dollar go? Source: FY 2009 revenue and expenditure data General Fund 50% Revenue and Reimbursements 50% City Clerk (7%) City Manager (12%) City Auditor (5%) City Attorney (15%) City Council (2%) Administrative Human Resources Services (16%) (43%) -77- Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 SPENDING AND STAFFING Palo Alto’s strategic, management and support expenditures (about 12%) were 3rd highest of 9 local jurisdictions. It should be noted that jurisdictions offer different levels of service and classify expenditures in different ways. Administrative Services Department expenditures were about $7.0 million in FY 2009. The Department had a total of 94 FTE. Human Resources Department expenditures were approximately $2.7 million in FY 2009. The Department had a total of 16 FTE. City Manager’s Office expenditures were about $2.0 million in FY 2009. The Office had a total of 12 FTE. City Attorney’s Office expenditures, including outside legal fees, were about $2.5 million in FY 2009. The Attorney’s Office had 12 FTE. City Clerk’s Office expenditures were about $1.1 million in FY 2009. The Clerk’s Office had 8 FTE. City Auditor’s Office expenditures were about $0.8 million in FY 2009. The Auditor’s Office had 4 FTE. Strategic, Management and Support Expenditures as a Percent of Total Operating Expenditures Source: State of California Cities Report Cities Annual Report FY 2006-07 Operating Expenditures (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Administrative Services Human Resources City Manager City Attorney City Clerk1 City Auditor City Council Administrative Services2 Human Resources City Manager City Attorney City Clerk City Auditor FY 2005 $6.7 $2.5 $1.7 $2.6 $0.8 $0.8 $0.1 103 15 11 14 6 4 FY 2006 $6.6 $2.5 $1.6 $2.6 $1.0 $0.9 $0.1 98 15 9 12 6 4 FY 2007 $7.0 $2.6 $1.9 $2.5 $0.9 $0.9 $0.2 99 16 9 12 7 4 FY 2008 $7.3 $2.7 $2.3 $2.7 $1.3 $0.9 $0.2 101 16 12 12 7 4 FY 2009 $7.0 $2.7 $2.0 $2.5 $1.1 $0.8 $0.3 94 16 12 12 7 4 Change over last 5 years: +4% +10% +13% -5% +45% +4% +113% -8% +6% +6% -18% +19% -1% 1 In FY 2007, the City Clerk’s Office absorbed the Administrative Citation Hearings function from the Police Department. According to the Department, FY 2008 operating expenditures increased due to increases in public hearing advertising, board and commission recruitment, election costs, and ethics training. 2 Includes Administrative Services Department staff charged to other funds. -78- Chapter 9 – STRATEGIC AND SUPPORT SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES The mission of the Administrative Services Department (ASD) is to provide proactive administrative and technical support to City departments and decision makers, and to safeguard and facilitate the optimal use of City resources. ASD encompasses a variety of services that might well be separate departments in a larger city. The Department monitors the City’s cash and investments. According to the Department, the City’s rate of return was 4.42% in FY 2009. The City’s General Fund maintained its AAA rating, the highest credit rating possible, from Standard & Poor’s. In addition, Standard & Poor’s upgraded the City’s 2002 Utility Revenue bonds from AA- to AAA and granted the City’s 2009 Water Revenue Bonds a AAA rating. As shown in the chart on the right, the number of purchasing documents processed (through purchase orders and contracts) over the last 5 years is declining with the increased use of purchasing cards for smaller transaction amounts. According to staff, the increase in purchasing card transactions for lower-priced goods helps staff to focus more time on purchase orders and contracts involving higher dollar values and services. Information Technology operating and maintenance expenditures as a percent of total operating expenditures increased to 5.56% in FY 2009. According to the Department, they are in the process of updating the Information Technology Strategic Plan and are developing a Request for Proposals to solicit consulting services for this project. Decrease in Purchasing Documents Process with Increased Use of Purchasing Cards Source: Administrative Services Department Purchasing Information Cash and investments (in millions) Rate of return on investments General Fund reserves1 (in millions) Number of accounts payable checks issued Percent invoices paid within 30 days Number of purchasing documents processed Dollar value goods and services purchased (in millions) Number computer work- stations Requests for computer help desk services resolved within 5 days IT operating and maintenance expenditures as a percent of General Fund operating expenditures2 Citizen Survey Percent who visited the City’s website3 FY 2005 $367.3 4.24% $24.5 16,813 80% 3,268 $70.2 1000 89% 4.0% FY 2006 $376.2 4.21% $26.3 15,069 80% 2,847 $61.3 1000 87% 3.9% FY 2007 $402.6 4.35% $31.0 14,802 80% 2,692 $107.5 1000 87% 3.3% FY 2008 $375.7 4.45% $31.3 14,480 83% 2,549 $117.2 1000 88% 4.9% 78% FY 2009 $353.4 4.42% $33.1 14,436 83% 2,577 $132.0 1005 87% 5.8% 75% Change over last 5 years: -4% +4% +35% -14% +3% -21% +88% +1% -2% +2% - 0 _ 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 FY 2009FY 2008FY 2007FY 2006 FY 2005FY 2004 14,000 12,00 Number of PurchasingCard Transactions Number of PurchasingDocuments Processed 1 Total unreserved/designated fund balances 2 Adjusted to exclude IT services provided to the Utilities Department 3 New survey question in FY 2008 Budget benchmarking measure -79- Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 HUMAN RESOURCES The mission of the Human Resources (HR) department is to recruit, develop and retain a diverse, well-qualified, and professional workforce that reflects the high standards of the community we serve and to provide a high level of support to City departments.1 The ratio of HR staff to total City staff is 1 to 67. The department coordinated more than 8,700 hours of employee training in FY 2009. The estimated incurred cost for workers’ compensation claims declined last year; however, it should be noted that early estimates of current claim costs often continue to grow as claims develop. In FY 2009, 1,795 calendar days were lost to work-related illness or injury. According to the department, the number of workers’ compensation claims and the number of calendar days lost to work-related illness or injury have decreased because of aggressive implementation of the City’s safety programs; coordinated management of the claims process between the City and its third party administrator; and an effective modified duty program. Worker’s Compensation Estimated Incurred Cost (in $000’s) Source: Human Resources Department Ratio HR staff to total authorized staffing (FTE) Number of new hires processed3 Percent of first year turnover4 Percent of grievances settled before arbitration Citywide training hours provided Worker’s Compensation Estimated Incurred Cost 2 (in millions) Days lost to work- related illness or injury5 FY 2005 1 to 79 128 0% 67% 9,537 $1.8 2,836 FY 2006 1 to 75 125 3% 100% 8,052 $3.1 2,592 FY 2007 1 to 74 138 7% 100% 7,121 $1.9 1,676 FY 2008 1 to 73 157 9% 100% 9,054 $2.1 1,458 FY 2009 1 to 67 130 8% 100% 8,710 $1.3 1,795 Change over last 5 years: -15% 2% 8% 33% -9% -30% -37% 4,000 2,000 3,000 0 1,000 FY 2007FY 2008 FY 2009FY 2005 FY 2006FY 2004FY 2003FY 2001FY 2002FY 2000 1 Information about Citywide staffing levels is shown on page 11 of this report. 2 Early estimates of current claim costs grow as claims develop. Prior year estimates are revised to reflect current estimated costs for claims incurred during that fiscal year. 3 Includes transfers and internal promotions (excludes seasonal and hourly staff). 4 Numbers for budget benchmarking measure reported in the City’s FY 2010 and 2011 Adopted Operating Budget reflect estimates for FY 2009. 5 Due to a change in federal reporting requirements, the number of days lost to work-related illness or injury is now based on calendar days, not work days. Budget benchmarking measure -80- Chapter 9 – STRATEGIC AND SUPPORT SERVICES CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY CLERK, CITY AUDITOR The mission of the City Manager’s Office is to provide leadership to the organization in the implementation of City Council policies and the provision of quality services to the community. The City Manager’s Office coordinated preparation of 373 staff reports during FY 2009. The City Manager’s Office also coordinates public information services. The mission of the City Attorney’s Office is to serve Palo Alto and its policy makers by providing legal representation of the highest quality. The current ratio of staff attorneys to regular full-time equivalent employees is 1 to 179. The mission of the City Clerk’s Office is to foster community awareness and civic involvement by providing timely and accurate records of the activities of City Policy makers. In FY 2009, the average time to finalize City Council minutes decreased from 6 to 4 weeks. The mission of the City Auditor’s Office is to promote honest, efficient, effective, and fully accountable City Government. The Office conducts performance audits, revenue audits and monitoring, and coordinates the annual external audit of the City’s financial statements. In addition to $84,762 in revenue audit recoveries, the Office identified other savings resulting in a total economic benefit of over $766,000 in FY 2009. Council Appointed Officers Source: Operating budget City Manager City Attorney City Clerk City Auditor Number of staff reports issued Citizen Survey Percent rating public information services good or excellent Citizen Survey Percent rating opportunities to learn about City services through social networking sites good or excellent <NEW> Number of claims handled Number of work requests processed Ratio staff attorneys to total employees (FTE) Average time to finalize City Council minutes Audit recommendations implemented <NEW> Revenue audit recoveries FY 2005 369 74% 144 1,635 1 to 170 4 weeks 28% $232,895 FY 2006 336 72% 107 2,123 1 to 172 4 weeks 54% $917,597 FY 2007 341 73% 149 2,511 1 to 193 4 weeks 5% $78,770 FY 2008 372 76% 160 2,957 1 to 195 6 weeks1 55% $149,810 FY 2009 373 68% 60% 126 3,230 1 to 179 4 weeks 45% $84,762 Change over last 5 years: +1% -6% - -13% +98% +5% - +17% -64% Budget benchmarking measure 1 According to the Department, staffing changes contributed to the increase in average time to finalize City Council minutes in FY 2008. -81- Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 -82- This Page Intentionally Left Blank January 25, 2010 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Geographic Subgroup Comparisons for the Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report for Fiscal Year 2009 In December 2009, the Auditor’s Office issued the Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report for Fiscal Year 2009. Attached is supplemental information containing additional geographic subgroup comparisons for each of the survey questions contained in the 2009 National Citizen SurveyTM. The comparisons are delineated by zip code; the attached map shows the zip code locations. The survey company shaded statistically different responses in grey. Since there can be a variety of reasons for the differences in survey responses, we are providing this data for informational and discussion purposes only. Following is a list of the statistically different survey responses. Survey Question Zip Code Ratings of “good” or “excellent” 94301 and 94304 94303 94306 Palo Alto as a place to work 91% 90% 76% Palo Alto as a place to retire 75% 65% 57% Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 57% 59% 41% Amount of public parking 66% 52% 48% Availability of affordable quality health care 78% 57% 52% Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 90% 85% 75% Ambulance or emergency medical services 85% 91% 98% Street cleaning 81% 72% 64% Land use, planning ,and zoning 53% 53% 34% The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 65% 50% 43% Water and energy preservation 76% 75% 63% Infrastructure investment (e.g. buildings, streets) 46% 55% 34% Resident behavior: Ratings of participation at least once in the past 12 months) Used Palo Alto libraries or their services 69% 87% 87% Used Palo Alto recreation centers 56% 73% 62% Participated in a recreation program or activity 43% 59% 44% Visited a neighborhood park or City park 87% 96% 96% Ridden a local bus within Palo Alto 24% 37% 20% Other Ratings Population growth seen as “too fast” 37% 63% 58% Percent feeling “very” or “somewhat” safe in Palo Alto’s downtown after dark 73% 54% 66% Would recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 96% 84% 88% To what extent do you agree or disagree the City’s fiscal condition will continue to provide valuable services? (Percent “somewhat” or “strongly” agree) 36% 53% 39% CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR Respectfully submitted, Lynda Flores Brouchoud City Auditor Attachments: National Citizen Survey Report of Geographic Subgroup Comparisons Zip Code Map 3005 30th Street 777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 500 Boulder, CO 80301 Washington, DC 20002 ww.n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 www.icma.org • 202-289-ICMA The National Citizen Survey™ CC II TT YY OO FF PP AA LL OO AA LL TT OO ,, CC AA 22000099 RReeppoorrtt ooff GGeeooggrraapphhiicc SSuubbggrroouupp CCoommppaarriissoonnss City of Palo Alto | 2009 The National Citizen Survey™ Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . CC oo nn tt ee nn tt ss Survey Background.............................................................................................................1 About The National Citizen Survey™ ........................................................................................1 Understanding the Results..................................................................................................2 “Don’t Know” Responses .........................................................................................................2 Understanding the Tables.........................................................................................................2 Comparisons ......................................................................................................................3 City of Palo Alto | 2009 The National Citizen Survey™ 1 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . SS uu rr vv ee yy BB aa cc kkgg rr oo uu nn dd AA BB OOUUTT TT HH EE NN AATT IIOONNAA LL CCII TTII ZZEENN SSUURRVVEEYY™™ The National Citizen Survey™ (The NCS™) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality survey methods and comparable results across The National Citizen Survey™ jurisdictions. Participating households are selected at random and the household member who responds is selected without bias. Multiple mailings give each household more than one chance to participate with self-addressed and postage paid envelopes. Results are statistically weighted to reflect the proper demographic composition of the entire community. The National Citizen Survey™ customized for this jurisdiction was developed in close cooperation with local jurisdiction staff. The City of Palo Alto staff selected items from a menu of questions about services and community problems; they defined the jurisdiction boundaries NRC used for sampling; and they provided the appropriate letterhead and signatures for mailings. City of Palo Alto staff also determined local interest in a variety of add-on options to The National Citizen Survey™ Basic Service. City of Palo Alto | 2009 The National Citizen Survey™ 2 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . UU nn dd ee rr ss tt aa nn dd ii nn gg tt hh ee RR ee ss uu ll tt ss ““DD OONN’’TT KK NN OOWW ”” RREE SS PPOONNSSEESS On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer “don’t know.” The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the body of the report. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. UUNNDDEERRSSTT AA NN DD IINNGG TT HH EE TTAABBLLEESS In this report, comparisons between geographic subgroups are shown1. For most of the questions, we have shown only one number for each question. We have summarized responses to show only the proportion of respondents giving a certain answer; for example, the percent of respondents who rated the quality of life as “excellent” or “good”, or the percent of respondents who felt the rate of growth was “about right.” ANOVA and chi-square tests of significance were applied to these comparisons of survey questions by geographic subgroups. A “p-value” of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences observed between subgroups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed are “real.” Where differences were statistically significant, they are marked in grey. The 95 percent confidence level for this survey is generally no greater than plus or minus five percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample. For each Zip Code category (94301 combined with 94304, 94303 or 94306), the margin of error rises to approximately + or - 9% since sample sizes were approximately 109 for Zip Codes 94301 and 94304, 127 for Zip Code 94303 2 and 117 for Zip Code 94306. 1 The comparisons of survey results by geographic subareas included in this report are displayed for only those responses that could be linked to one of the city’s zip codes. Therefore, there can be differences between the overall ratings (found in the main report of results, found under separate cover) and the ratings for subgroup comparisons. City of Palo Alto | 2009 The National Citizen Survey™ 3 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . CC oo mm pp aa rr ii ss oo nn ss Cells shaded grey indicate statistically significant differences between subgroups. Question 1: Quality of Life (Percent "excellent" or "good") Zip Code Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Palo Alto: 94301 and 94304 94303 94306 Palo Alto as a place to live 95% 94% 93% Your neighborhood as a place to live 91% 87% 91% Palo Alto as a place to raise children 89% 95% 87% Palo Alto as a place to work 91% 90% 76% Palo Alto as a place to retire 75% 65% 57% The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 95% 93% 89% Question 2: Community Characteristics (Percent "excellent" or "good") Zip Code Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: 94301 and 94304 94303 94306 Sense of community 69% 77% 63% Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds 74% 79% 74% Overall appearance of Palo Alto 82% 86% 77% Cleanliness of Palo Alto 84% 88% 78% Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 57% 59% 41% Variety of housing options 37% 47% 32% Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 76% 75% 68% Shopping opportunities 71% 75% 64% Opportunities to attend cultural activities 71% 78% 69% Recreational opportunities 80% 81% 76% Employment opportunities 56% 48% 42% Educational opportunities 90% 91% 93% Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 82% 82% 73% Opportunities to volunteer 84% 86% 76% Opportunities to participate in community matters 74% 79% 74% Ease of car travel in Palo Alto 64% 66% 65% City of Palo Alto | 2009 The National Citizen Survey™ 4 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Question 2: Community Characteristics (Percent "excellent" or "good") Zip Code Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: 94301 and 94304 94303 94306 Ease of bus travel in Palo Alto 33% 35% 41% Ease of rail travel in Palo Alto 70% 59% 56% Ease of bicycle travel in Palo Alto 84% 79% 78% Ease of walking in Palo Alto 88% 82% 78% Availability of paths and walking trails 75% 74% 75% Traffic flow on major streets 45% 43% 45% Amount of public parking 66% 52% 48% Availability of affordable quality housing 15% 19% 17% Availability of affordable quality child care 27% 39% 28% Availability of affordable quality health care 78% 57% 52% Availability of preventive health services 73% 70% 58% Air quality 74% 73% 71% Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 90% 85% 75% Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 95% 92% 88% Availability of locally grown produce 73% 67% 71% Opportunities to learn about City services through social networking Web sites such as: Twitter, Facebook and MySpace 49% 62% 66% Question 3: Growth (Percent "too fast") Zip Code Please rate the speed of growth in the following categories in Palo Alto over the past 2 years: 94301 and 94304 94303 94306 Population growth 37% 63% 58% Retail growth (stores, restaurants, etc.) 10% 17% 12% Jobs growth 5% 6% 3% Question 4: Code Enforcement (Percent at least a "minor" problem) Zip Code 94301 and 94304 94303 94306 To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles a problem in Palo Alto? 74% 78% 82% City of Palo Alto | 2009 The National Citizen Survey™ 5 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Question 5: Community Safety (Percent "very" or "somewhat" safe) Zip Code Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel from the following in Palo Alto: 94301 and 94304 94303 94306 Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 83% 77% 85% Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) 72% 61% 62% Environmental hazards, including toxic waste 87% 76% 78% Question 6: Personal Safety (Percent "very" or "somewhat" safe) Zip Code Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: 94301 and 94304 94303 94306 In your neighborhood during the day 96% 94% 96% In your neighborhood after dark 79% 72% 81% In Palo Alto's downtown area during the day 95% 89% 91% In Palo Alto's downtown area after dark 73% 54% 66% Questions 7 and 8: Crime Victimization and Reporting (Percent "yes") Zip Code 94301 and 94304 94303 94306 During the past twelve months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? 12% 11% 12% If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? 96% 80% 70% Question 9: Resident Behaviors (Percent at least once in past 12 months) Zip Code In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated in the following activities in Palo Alto? 94301 and 94304 94303 94306 Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 69% 87% 87% Used Palo Alto recreation centers 56% 73% 62% Participated in a recreation program or activity 43% 59% 44% Visited a neighborhood park or City park 87% 96% 96% Ridden a local bus within Palo Alto 24% 37% 20% Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 27% 30% 27% Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting on cable television 24% 35% 25% Visited the City of Palo Alto Web site (at www.cityofpaloalto.org) 66% 78% 72% City of Palo Alto | 2009 The National Citizen Survey™ 6 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Question 9: Resident Behaviors (Percent at least once in past 12 months) Zip Code In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated in the following activities in Palo Alto? 94301 and 94304 94303 94306 Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home 99% 99% 98% Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Palo Alto 53% 63% 50% Participated in a club or civic group in Palo Alto 32% 39% 30% Provided help to a friend or neighbor 92% 94% 92% Used the City's Web site to conduct business or pay bills 24% 32% 21% Read a Palo Alto Newspaper 94% 98% 94% Question 10: Neighborliness (Percent at least once per month) Zip Code 94301 and 94304 94303 94306 About how often, if at all, do you talk to or visit with your immediate neighbors (people who live in the 10 or 20 households that are closest to you)? 84% 83% 80% Question 11: Service Quality (Percent "excellent" or "good") Zip Code Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: 94301 and 94304 94303 94306 Police services 82% 87% 84% Fire services 91% 93% 99% Ambulance or emergency medical services 85% 91% 98% Crime prevention 65% 76% 79% Fire prevention and education 73% 80% 86% Traffic enforcement 56% 57% 65% Street repair 36% 47% 40% Street cleaning 81% 72% 64% Street lighting 59% 68% 61% Sidewalk maintenance 46% 53% 46% Traffic signal timing 54% 57% 52% Bus or transit services 38% 49% 48% City of Palo Alto | 2009 The National Citizen Survey™ 7 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Question 11: Service Quality (Percent "excellent" or "good") Zip Code Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: 94301 and 94304 94303 94306 Garbage collection 89% 86% 85% Recycling 87% 89% 88% Storm drainage 67% 73% 73% Drinking water 75% 83% 83% Sewer services 75% 86% 77% City parks 92% 90% 93% Recreation programs or classes 82% 85% 86% Recreation centers or facilities 77% 78% 78% Land use, planning and zoning 53% 53% 34% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) 48% 56% 42% Animal control 76% 78% 78% Economic development 57% 53% 47% Services to seniors 85% 84% 75% Services to youth 72% 76% 73% Services to low-income people 67% 63% 51% Public library services 75% 84% 77% Public information services 63% 70% 68% Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 61% 62% 64% Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 77% 82% 86% Neighborhood branch libraries 72% 78% 74% Variety of library materials 69% 78% 71% Your neighborhood park 82% 88% 91% Street tree maintenance 70% 73% 71% Electric utility 87% 82% 78% Gas utility 85% 82% 77% City's Web site 51% 61% 53% Art programs and theater 80% 80% 77% City of Palo Alto | 2009 The National Citizen Survey™ 8 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Question 12: Government Services Overall (Percent "excellent" or "good") Zip Code Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? 94301 and 94304 94303 94306 The City of Palo Alto 86% 79% 74% The Federal Government 41% 36% 42% The State Government 21% 24% 24% Santa Clara County Government 40% 39% 41% Question 13: Contact with City Employees (Percent "yes") Zip Code 94301 and 94304 94303 94306 Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Palo Alto within the last 12 months (including police, receptionists, planners or any others)? 52% 59% 64% Question 14: City Employees (Percent "excellent" or "good") Zip Code What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City of Palo Alto in your most recent contact? 94301 and 94304 94303 94306 Knowledge 90% 84% 78% Responsiveness 85% 76% 72% Courtesy 91% 79% 80% Overall impression 84% 77% 73% Question 15: Government Performance (Percent "excellent" or "good") Zip Code Please rate the following categories of Palo Alto government performance: 94301 and 94304 94303 94306 The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 62% 55% 58% The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 65% 50% 43% The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 63% 54% 48% The job Palo Alto government does at listening to citizens 56% 47% 44% City of Palo Alto | 2009 The National Citizen Survey™ 9 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Question 16: Recommendation and Longevity (Percent "somewhat" or "very" likely) Zip Code Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: 94301 and 94304 94303 94306 Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 96% 84% 88% Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 83% 90% 82% Question 17: Impact of the Economy (Percent "somewhat" or "very" positive) Zip Code 94301 and 94304 94303 94306 What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: 8% 17% 12% Question 18a: Policy Question 1 (Percent "yes") Zip Code 94301 and 94304 94303 94306 During the past 12 months, did you or anyone in your household have contact with the Palo Alto Police Department? 35% 35% 39% Question 18b: Policy Question 2 (Percent "excellent" or "good") Zip Code 94301 and 94304 94303 94306 If yes, how do you rate the quality of your contact with the Palo Alto Police Department? 67% 76% 70% Question 18c: Policy Question 3(Percent "excellent" or "good") Zip Code Please rate the City of Palo Alto on each of the following: 94301 and 94304 94303 94306 Preservation of wildlife and native plants 91% 84% 87% Water and energy preservation 91% 82% 76% City's composting process and pickup services 85% 86% 88% Infrastructure Investment (e.g., buildings, streets) 58% 63% 44% Downtown shopping, dining and entertainment experience 77% 77% 68% Promoting business growth and economic development 50% 43% 42% City of Palo Alto | 2009 The National Citizen Survey™ 10 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Question 18d: Policy Question 4 (Percent "yes") Zip Code 94301 and 94304 94303 94306 In the past 12 months, did you or anyone from your household apply for a permit(s) from the City's Development Center? 6% 9% 7% Question 18e: Policy Question 5 (Percent "excellent" or "good") Zip Code If yes, how would you rate each of the following? 94301 and 94304 94303 94306 Ease of the planning approval process 0% 31% 24% Time required to review and issue the permit(s) 16% 38% 17% Inspection timeliness 52% 58% 39% Overall customer service 33% 18% 39% Ease of the overall application process 0% 17% 26% Question 18f: Policy Question 6 (Percent "somewhat" or "strongly" agree) Zip Code 94301 and 94304 94303 94306 To what extent do you agree or disagree that the City's current fiscal condition will continue to provide valuable services? 58% 69% 65% 94304 94304 94304 94306 94303 94301 P a ge Mi l l Road A r a s t r a d e r o R o a d El Ca m i n o R e a l San Antonio Avenue C h a r l e s t o n R o a d Orego n E xpres s w ay Mid dlefield Road Univ e r s i t y Avenue Al m a Stre et Foothill Expre s s w a y Lo s T r a n c o s R o a d E a s t B a y s h o r e W e s t B a y s h o r e Fa b i a n Sand H i l l R o a d Embarca d e r o R o a d This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS T his document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0' 4655' City of Palo Alto Zip Codes CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R PORAT E D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1 894 T he City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2010 City of Palo Alto jthayer, 2010-01-15 15:17:41 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\jthayer.mdb) RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO CHANGAM NAIDU UPON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Changam Naidu has served the City of Palo Alto from October 23, 1989 to January 29, 2010 as a Water Quality Control Laboratory Technician, Chemist, and Lab Manager; and WHEREAS, Changam Naidu has enhanced the quality of life and protected the public health of citizens of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, East Palo Alto Sanitary District, and Stanford University by performing thousands of analytical laboratory tests at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant; and WHEREAS, Changam Naidu, in his 20 years of service to Palo Alto has supported protection of water quality of the Palo Alto Baylands, San Francisco Bay, and Palo Alto drinking water through excellent quality assurance and quality control work at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant laboratory; and WHEREAS, Changam Naidu has demonstrated diligence, attention to detail, thoroughness, sincerity, leadership, organization, and strong productivity both individually and through teamwork; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto desires to recognize the meritorious service of Changam Naidu. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby commends the outstanding public service of Changam Naidu and records its appreciation as well as the appreciation of the citizens of the service area served by the Regional Water Quality Control Plant for the service and contribution rendered during his 20 years of employment with the City of Palo Alto. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: January 25, 2010 ATTEST: APPROVED: ____________________ __________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________ ___________________ City Attorney City Manager TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE DATE: JANUARY 25, 2009 CMR: 121:10 SUBJECT: Approval of Federal Appropriations Requests and Policy and Services Committee Recommendation for Approval of the City's 2010 Federal and State Legislative Program RECOMMENDATION First, staff and the Policy and Services Committee recommend that the Council approve the 2010 State and Federal legislative program. Second, staff recommends that the Council approve the Federal appropriations requests. COMMITTEE REVIEW AND DISCUSSION On December 17, 2009, the Policy & Services Committee reviewed a draft of the City's Legislative Action Manual and the proposed 2010 State and Federal legislative program. The staff report and minutes from that meeting are included with this report as Attachments A and B. The Committee recommended approval of the proposed 2010 Federal and State Legislative Priorities with a few minor changes as highlighted on Attachment C. The key changes were to add the issues of High Speed Rail and Smart Grid under the Federal issues of interest to the City. Additionally, staff added language under the guiding principles to reflect the Committee's discussion about Constitutional reforms at the State level. The Committee also reviewed the Legislative Action Manual and approved this in concept. However, there are still some modifications that need to be made. As such, staff will continue to work with the Committee on this manual before bringing it to the full Council for approval. The other element of the legislative program being presented to Council for approval is the proposed list of Federal appropriations requests (Attachment D). This list was not ready in time to present to the Committee. However, staff intends to discuss this list and the proposed prioritization of the projects as part of the study session scheduled for January 25. At that study session, a representative from the City's Federal legislative advocacy firm will be available to discuss the projects and the prioritization recommended by staff. Typically, it is recommended that the City submit 1 project per Federal appropriations bill and no more than 3-4 projects total CMR:121:10 Page 1 of2 for funding consideration annually. Based on that recommendation, staff is proposing to submit the top 3 projects on Attachment D as the City'S request this year. These projects are the San Francisquito Creek lP A project, the Foothills Evacuation Route Vegetation Treatment/Clearing, and the Highway 101 Bicycle/Pedestrian Overpass. Attachment D does not list other Council priority projects such as the Public Safety Building or the Broadband project because these projects are not eligible for the available appropriations funding. However, staff continues to work to identify other mechanisms for securing Federal funding for these projects and will update the Council as these efforts proceed. RESOURCE IMPACT There are no resource impacts associated with the recommendations in this report. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This discussion will help the Council further refine policy goals around the City's regional, State and Federal legislative programs. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This report is not a project requiring review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Staff report from December 17, 2009 Policy & Services Meeting Attachment B: Excerpt from December 17,2009 Policy & Services Meeting Minutes Attachment C: Proposed 2010 Federal and State Legislative Priorities Attachment D: Proposed List of Federal Appropriations Requests PREPARED BY: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR: 121:10 KELL Y MCADOO MORARlU Assistant to the City Manager Page 2 of2 Attachment A City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL ATTN: POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE DATE: DECEMBER 17, 2009 CMR: 467:09 SUBJECT: Recommendation for Council Approval of the City's 2010 Federal and Stat~ Legislative Program and Overall Program Structure RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Policy and Services Committee review and recommend approval of the 2010 State and Federal legislative program and overall program structure to the Council. DISCUSSION On May 12 and July 15, 2009, staff presented a draft of the City'S Legislative Action Program Manual (Attachment A) to the Policy & Services Committee for review and recommendation to Council. Excerpts from the minutes of both meetings are included as Attachments B and C. These meetings resulted in revisions to the City's Legislative Action Program Manual as well as changes to the City's overall guiding principles for legislative advocacy. As the City has . reevaluated its annual legislative program, one component is the integration of Policy & Services Committee and Council input on the City'S annual State and Federal legislative priorities. The program structure will continue to evolve over the coming year/years as the City improves upon its existing legislative involvement. One area that still needs additional work is the creation of specific process .flow charts describing: 1) the process for reacting to legislation; 2) the process for sponsoring legislation; and 3) the process for pursuing funding. The experiences from this year will serve as the foundation for how these processes will work moving forward. At this point, staff recommends that .the Committee recommend the approval of the Legislative Action Program Manual with the understanding that this will continue to be improved upon over time. The other action for this evening's meeting is the adoption of the 2010 Federal and State legislative priorities and areas of focus. Attachment D outlines the overall guiding principles and potential priorities for the upcoming year. Staff is seeking input on these proposed priorities and also for the Committee to identify any additional priorities or areas of focus that should be added to the list. CMR:467:09 Page 1 of2 4r If the Committee approves this program, staff will bring it to the Council on either 'January 11 or January 25 in conjunction with the Utilities Department legislative program. The Utilities Department vets its legislative program through the Utilities Advisory Committee and then takes this program for Council to adoption. Staff is also working to bring a senior staff person from the League of California Cities to that meeting so the full Council can have a discussion about how the City can most effectively advocate for its interests in Sacramento. The other aspect on which staff continues to work is the development of the Federal appropriations funding requests. Staff anticipates finalizing this project list and including it as part of the package that would return to Council in January for input and adoption. Staff would then work with our Federal legislative advocacy firm to submit these requests to the City'S Congressional delegation. RESOURCE IMPACT There are no resource impacts associated with the recommendations in this report. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This discussion will help the Council further 'refine policy goals around the City'S regional, State and Federal legislative programs. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This report is not a proj ect requiring review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft Legislative Program Action Manual Attachment B: Excerpt from May 12,2009 Policy & Services Meeting Minutes Attachment C: Excerpt from July 15, 2009 Policy & Services Meeting Minutes Attachment D: Proposed 2010 Federal and State Legislative Priorities PREPARED BY: KELLY MORARIU Assistant to the City Manager CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR:467:09 Page 2 of2 Attachment A Legislative Action Program Manual Policy Statement The objective of the City of Palo Alto legislative action program is to keep the City Council, community and staff fully advised of proposed legislation with a potential impact upon the City. It is the City's general policy to take timely and effective action in support of or opposition to proposed legislation affecting Palo Alto at the County, State, Federal levels. In addition the City, where appropriate, wiII take the initiative to seek introduction of new legislation beneficial to Palo Alto and other local government entities. City Council Priorities The groundwork for the City's legislative strategy is the Council's priorities. • Economic Health of the City of Palo Alto • Civic Engagement for the Common Good • Environmental Protection Overall Guiding Principles • Protect local revenue sources and prevent unfunded mandates a. Oppose Federal or State legislation, policies and budgets that have negative impacts on services, revenues and costs. Ensure that legislation, policies and budgets do not detract from Palo Alto's ability to draw on local revenue sources. • Protect and increase local government discretion but in balance. with City values and priorities 1L-Ensure that legislation, policies and budgets retain or increase, but generally don't .... -----( Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 1 ,d~~~~a~el. __ ~h~. _~!D.~,:,~t _ .of _ !o_~~l __ d.!~~~etj()!1 __ h~I.4_ .by _~~.~ _ q~ .. ~t:I~ _l'!<?t~~t __ 1~.,?~I _ d.~~!s~()n .... ----( Deleted: never .--.-J making. Oppose legislation, policies and budgets that reduce the authority and/or ability of local government to determine how best to effectively operate local programs, services and activities. The City retains the right to exceed State goals, standards or targets. • Protect and increase funding for specific programs and services a. Support County, State and Federal funding for local service by maximizing existing funding levels and seeking new and alternative funding for programs. Promote increases in the allocation of funds to cities and flexibility in distribution. __ . ___ _ • Proactively advocate on behalf of the City ,,-,--··-(Formatted: Bullets and NumberinL) a. Identify key legislative areas to monitor annually. Take a proactive role in working with Federal and State legislators to draft and sponsor legislation around key City priorities. 2009 Legislative Priorities I. Support the Public Works Department and State Assemblymember Ira Ruskin's Office in proposing legislation for new composting technology. 2. Seek funding through the Federal appropriations process for High Speed Broadband Network (Fiber to the Premises), Citywide Emergency Vehicle Preemption, Palo Alto Art Center Building, Clara Drive Storm Drain Improvements and the San Francisquito Creek Flood Damage Reduction Project. 3. Seek grant funding through State and Federal departments, given the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, based upon the priority project list adopted by Council earlier this year. 4. Advocate with State and Federal representatives for the City's stimulus grant applications as well as the City's regular Federal appropriations requests. 5. Maintain and support the Utilities Department Legislative Program, which preserves and enhances local flexibility in the control and oversight of matters impacting utility programs and rates for City customers. Contents Internal Coordination of the Legislative Action Program p.4 The Role of the City Council p.4 The Role of the City Manager's Office p. 5 The Role of the Departments p.5 Guidelines for Evaluating Legislation p. 6 Legislative Advocacy p. 7 Lobbying Methods p. 8 Guidelines for Letter Writing p. 10 Procedure for City Council meetings with other Elected Representatives p. 14 Federal Legislative Timeline p. 14 California State Senate Legislative Timeline2009 p. 15 City Council Timeline p. 15 2 Basic Steps in the City's Legislative Action Program Proposed Legislation 1 4* 2 City Council j 1 City Manager's Office 5 Departments and Divisions Placeholder for Process Flow Chalts: I) Reacting to legislation 2) Sponsoring legislation 3) Pursuing funding 6 4* 3 Internal Coordination of the Legislative Action Program 3 Legislative Body The basic steps in the City's legislative action program are illustrated in the accompanying diagram (above). . 1. Legislation is brought to the City's attention by several means: the League of California Cities, the National League of Cities, Council Members, City staff, citizens, professional or governmental newsletters, legislators, the legislative tracking service, etc. 2. The City Manager's Office reviews the proposed legislation (the bill text) and, if warranted, requests assistance from one or more departments. Departments are urged to take the initiative to identify legislation of importance to the City and not wait for the City Manager's Office to ask for their involvement. 3. The Department evaluates the bill for its impact upon Palo Alto, recommends a position and potential action, and drafts a statement or letter for use by the City Manager's Office, as appropriate. 4. At this juncture, action can proceed in either of two ways: a. If the Council has previously adopted a policy directly relevant to the legislation, the City Manager's Office proceeds to prepare a letter for the Mayor's signature. b. If the Council policy relative to the legislation does not exist, or if the issue is politically controversial, or if there is significant local interest in the issue, the proposed legislation is referred to Council. (See Legislative Advocacy) 5. The Council will consider the information provided in a staff report, determine its position on the legislation and provide direction to staff. -< .... ';" 6. The City Manager's Office coordinates the lobbying activities according to Council direction through this policy and procedure manual. 7. The Council will connect with the various legislatiye bodies in several ways throughout +------{ Formatted: Bullets and Numbering the year: a. Joint meetings with elected representatives b. Visits to Sacramento and Washington DC c. _ Direct contact with elected represei1tatives by phone or letter on key issue~ The Role of the Council The City Council has ultimate responsibility for determining the position the City shall take on legislative issues. Council positions llPpJicable to legislation accumulate over the years and require periodic reevaluation to assure they are still relevant to the City's needs and interests. The Council generally takes positions only on issues that are of relevance to the City of Palo Alto. The Council's specific responsibilities include: • Conduct an annual review and update of legislative priorities at both the State and Federal levels • Meet annuallv with the City's federal lobbvist to establish federal legislative priorities· ---~rm.!tted: Bullets and Numb;"in~J and strategies. given current trends in Washington • Establish legislative priorities, taking into account the Council priorities adopted each year • Consider legislative issues brought to the Council's attention by staff, citizens, organizations and others and determine what, if any, position the City should take 4 • Determine Council positions on resolutions proposed for adoption by the League of California Cities and the National League of Cities • Suggest areas for staff action concerning legislation • Assume an active advocacy role with legislators on behalf of the City. This may include travel [0 Washington. DC and/or to Sacramento. Any such travel will be consistent with current City policies/procedures on travel. The Role of the City Manager's Office The City Manager's Office is the central coordinator of the City's legislative program. The responsibilities and activities of the office include the following: • Ensure the consistency of legislative policy throughout the City .• Serve as a clearinghouse and record keeper for all legislative activity occurring with the City • Coordinate contacts and communications with legislators and staff • Coordinate the evaluation of proposed legislation that may affect the City • Disseminate information on legislation of interest to departments and division within the City • Encourage suggestions from other departments concerning subjects for legislative action • Provide feedback to departments on progress of legislation of interest • Keep Council informed on the status of the City'S legislative action program • Recommend priorities for legislative action, in order to avoid diminishing the effectiveness of the City'S lobbying activities • Plan, coordinate, and facilitate lobbying activities by Council Members and City staff. • Maintain legislative files (bill texts, correspondence, records of lobbying activity, background information, Council policies) • Serve as liaison to the League of California Cities, National League of Cities, and other organizations and jurisdictions concerning legislative activities • Coordinate the annual review of legislative positions and preparation of the City's legislative platform The Role of Departments The participation of various departments within the City is essential to the success of the Legislative Action Program. The program requires departments to take responsibility for identifying, evaluating and monitoring legislation that relates to their functional areas. The program must be cooperative and interactive. Effective lobbying and testimony depends on factual data concerning the impacts and implications of proposed legislation upon the City's operations, services, and finances. The responsibilities of the departments include the following: • Inform the Manager's Office of legislative issues of importance to the City • Designate a key contact within the department or division who will be responsible for coordinating the evaluation of legislation and monitoring those legislative issues of direct significance to the department. Continue to monitor bills as they progress through the Legislature or Congress 5 -.-, .. ~~ • Establish a system within the department for assuring that requests for legislation evaluation are responded to promptly • Draft letters and provide analysis oflegislation as requested by City Manager's Office • Maintain a legislative file with the department to assure consistency of policy recommendations • Establish mechanisms within the department for accessing direct information on legislation, e.g. computer networks, newsletters, etc • Network with other cities, agencies, professional organizations, etc. to gain background information and broader perspective on legislative issues • Suggest organizations, individuals, publications, and other legislators who may be allies in lobbying the City's position on certain legislation • Become acquainted with the League of California Cities staff person with responsibility for issues related to the department • Understand and adhere to the City'S Legislative Advocacy Policy. Consult the Manager's Office ifthere are questions. • Annually, provide to the Manager's Office the department's recommendations for the ensuing year's legislative platform. This shall include: 1) a review of existing positions, 2) statements of underlying policies and principles, and 3) priorities related to specific legislative issues. Guidelines for Evaluating Legislation Several resources are available to departments that can enable them to identify proposed legislation and track its progress. The League of California Cities and National League of Cities publications contain information on Congressional legislation. Departments can also subscribe to legislative announcements through professional associations as well as State and Congressional websites. Bills often are amended several times in the course traveled between introduction and final approval. Analyses and letters expressing the City's position should always be based on the latest version. When reviewing the bill text, do not rely solely on the Legislative Counsel's Digest; read the entire bill. The bill-will contain the new or amended language proposed for the California Code. If the department wishes to compare the proposed language with the actual language of existing law, and does not have the relevant code (Government Code, Vehicle Code, Election Code, Revenue and Taxation Code, etc.) in the department, contact the City Attorney's Office with questions. If the bill is later amended, language that is deleted will be lined out and new proposed language will be shown in italics. Proper timing is vital in the legislative process. The City's views on a bill are of value only if they reach a legislator or committee before they vote on a bill. Departments should provide the City Manager's Office with information on bills of importance to the City as soon as they are aware of them. A Citywide perspective Often, proposed legislation will have the potential for affecting more than one department. Not always will the impact be the same. While the proposal may be beneficial from the perspective 6 • • 0 _00:'" .: _ ~' .. - of one department, it may have negative impacts for another department. It is essential that these differences be reconciled and a common citywide position is determined. The City Manager's Office will work with Departments to reconcile differences. Stating the City's position Departments should be aware of policies and programs contained in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan which relate to their area of responsibility. The City Manager's Office can verify if the League of California Cities or National League of Cities has taken a position on a bill. The most effective arguments in lobbying a bill are those which contain hard data about the effects on the City's operations and services. If the bill has potential significant effects for the City, it is well worth the time spent to assemble the examples and cost figures. The best criticism is that which contains suggestions for improvement. Ifthere is little likelihood of defeating a bill the City opposes, indicate what could be changed to make it more palatable. Legislators and their staffs are more receptive to communications which offer concrete ideas. If the department recommendation is to support, oppose, or amend a bill, it is important to draft the body of a letter that the City Manager's Office can use in writing to the legislators. The Manager's Office will put the letter in final form and send it to the appropriate committees, legislators, etc. A copy of the finalized letter will be routed to the evaluating department for its records. Legislative Advocacy The Council is the official voice of the City of Palo Alto. The final authority for determining the position that shall be taken by the City on proposed legislation rests with the Council. The process outlined below would likelv be followed only for key and controversial topics. In many instances, du~ to timing or the nature of the issue, the Mayor may sign a letter supporting or opposing legislation on behalf of the City. This position would need to be generally consistent with the City's overall guiding legislative principles or the annually adopted priorities. Process: (Taken from CMR: 315:02) 1. Two Councilmembers draft a Council Colleagues Memorandum to refer a ballot measure or legislative issue to the Policy and Services Committee for review. 2. Staff generates an informational report for the Policy and Services Committee summarizing the ballot measure or legislative issue. This report will include an analysis of City policy as it relates to the item, if applicable. It will also indicate if the League of California Cities has taken a position on the issue. 3. The item is agendized for the Policy and Services Committee meeting. 4. The Policy and Services Committee reviews and discusses the ballot measure or legislative issue at the meeting. LJ'()li~y ~.~. ~~r.v!c.~s. C;;.ol11~.itt.e~ 111~"l~~er.~. v()t~ .()~ .t~~ .P!OJl~~!~!o.n~ .. ~~/()r !~gi~.I~!!ye. !~s.u~ ~/. that the Committee determines are consistent with the City's interests. ". Llfthe vote is unanimous, the matter is forwarded to the Council as consent calendar item. 7 Deleted: <#>When evaluating ballot ,: measures or legislative issues, " Councilmembers should'determine if the ! issues are consistent with the current ! adopted legislative priorities and the : following guidelines, including, but not , limited to:'II <#>Protect local revenues'll <#>Protectlincreases local government discretion'll <#>Protectslincreases funding for specific programs or services\! <#>Supports key programmatic goals'j <#>Prevents unfunded mandates' <#>Is consistent with existing City policy~ <#>Has a direct impact upon the City1i Formatted: Bullets and Numbering ~.' ~"" '.' LIf a timeliness issue exists, the item will referred to Council without minutes, and a one page executive summary will be provided. Ifno timeliness issue exists, the item will be referred with minutes in the usual manner. Signature on communication regarding legislation. Letters and other communications expressing the City'S position on legislation will customarily bear the signature of the Mayor, particularly when the legislation relates to areas of Comprehensive Plan policies and programs, other Council adopted policies, issues of Council interest, and fiscal matters. If the legislation's principal impact is on the City'S operating procedures, the communication may be signed by the City Manager. In these instances, it may increase the effectiveness of the communication to have it co-signed by the head of the department most directly affected. In order to keep the Council and others informed of all City communications on legislation, copies of the letters will be are distributed in the Council agenda packet. Independent lobbying by City personnel. City employees are not to lobby in the name of the City of Palo Alto unless the activity has been approved by the department head and City Manager has been informed in advance of the activity. City advisory commissions and committees. City employees who are staff or liaison to Council- appointed advisory commissions and committees should encourage the bodies to bring to the attention of the Council proposed legislation upon which they recommend the Council take a position. The Palo Alto Municipal Code (Section 2.22.060(f)) authorizes the Human Relations Commission to adopt independent positions on legislation, provided the City Council has not taken an official position with respect to the legislation. All legislative letters sent by the HRC and its task forces shall be copied for the City Council. Lobbying Methods Listed here are a number of ways to inform and persuade legislators and others ofthe City's position on proposed legislation. Departmental participation in the planning and implementation of many of these activities is desirable and important. Departments should let the City Manager's Office know of their interest and suggestions for lobbying bills they have evaluated. Letters to • The authors of proposed legislation • The City's elected representatives in the State Legislature and Congress • The Chair and members of legislative committees • The Governor or President 8 If the letter is being sent within three working days of the scheduled committee hearing of floor vote, the letter will be faxed or emailed. All records offaxes, mailings, e-mail, will be maintained by the City Manager's Office. Telephone calls • Phone calls are useful for discussing with legislative staff the content and implications of a bill and for suggesting amendments or language clarification. However, many committees' rules prevent them from counting phone calls as a legitimate expression of a City's position on a bill. Pro and con positions are recorded only if they are received in M~ . Meetings with Palo Alto's elected representatives either in the district or in Sacramento and Washington. • It is the Council's practice to invite legislators representing Palo Alto to an annual meeting to discuss all issues of importance to the City during that legislative session. • Councilmembers are encouraged to attend legislative days set by the National League of Cities and League of California Cities. Resolutions • The Council is sometimes asked to adopt a resolution expressing its position on a bill. Resolutions are frequently sought by organizations as an indication of widespread support for a position, but they are less effective than letters when communicating directly with a legislator. Testimony • Testifying in person at a legislative committee hearing provides an opportunity to present the City's position and respond to questions. The City Manager, the Mayor, a Councilmember, or the staff person with particular expertise in the subject assumes the responsibility. Editorial support from newspapers serving Palo Alto community • Staff member must seek approval from Manager's Office before submitting editorials in newspapers. Press Conferences • Press conferences are called by the Mayor and Councilmembers and are staged in a location relevant to the issues being lobbied. Any press conference should be coordinated with the City Manager's Office. 9 Coalitions with other iurisdictions • These alliances are not limited to governmental bodies, but extend to all segments of the broader community that can similarly be affected by the legislation, e.g. business, nonprofit organization, environmental groups, etc. Registered lobbyists are retained by the City when their specific skills and expertise are required. Guidelines for Letter writing • Concentrate on the letter content, rather than format. The City Manager's Office will produce the final letter, addressing it to the proper legislators or committees and securing the appropriate signature. The process can be expedited if the originating department provides the draft of the letter electronically. • At the very start of the letter, indicate the bill number or title that is the subject of the letter. • A short concise letter is generally more effective than a lengthy treatise. (Several short letters will carry more weight than one long letter; if there are many good arguments for supporting or opposing a bill, provide them all to the Manager's Office but in a form where they can be selectively used in several communications.) • Provide specific examples of the impact of the legislation upon Palo Alto, e.g. estimated cost or savings, effect upon taxpayers and residents, relationship to the City's policies, programs, charter, etc. • Think of examples that may be particularly newsworthy. • Relate, when feasible, to the effect the proposed legislation may have upon the legislator'S constituents. • If advice is needed on what aspects of the legislation can most successfully be lobbied, or what kind of information is most needed by the legislators, it is useful to talk to the staff of the League of Cali fomi a Cities, of the Legislature's Committees, or of the individual legislators. The Manager's Office can provide contact names and phone numbers. ATTACHED: Exhibit 1: Sample Federal Letter Exhibit 2: Sample State Letter Procedure for City Council meetings with other elected representatives Typically, the Council meets annuallv with its County, State and Federal representatives. These meetings are an impOitant component of building legislative relationships and to share issues of i!:!mortance to Palo Alto. These meetings should be scheduled at the appropl'iate times during the respective legislative calendars. • At direction of Council, the other Elected Representative, or the City Manager, staffwilJ schedule a meeting with the representative • The City Manager will seek agenda items from the Mayor and Council 10 • Stafffrom the City Manager's Office will obtain agenda items from Departments and staff in the representative~s office • Agenda for the meeting and-1U)otentiallist of topics will be published by City Clerk Federal Legislative Timeline February: Appropriation applications due to Congressional offices March: National League of Cities Conference City meetings with Congressional Representative ApriI/May/June: Tour of project areas with Congressional staff Letters of support from Mayor and Council June to September: Track appropriations requests California State Legislative Timeline 2009 Jan. 1 Statutes take effect Jan. 5 Legislature reconvenes Jan. 10 Budget must be submitted by Governor Jan. 30 Last day to submit bill requests to the Office of Legislative Counsel Feb. 27 Last day for bills to be introduced Apr. 2 Spring Recess begins at end of this day's session Apr. 13 Legislature reconvenes from Spring Recess May 1 Last day for policy committees to hear and report to Fiscal Committees fiscal bills introduced in their house May 15 Last day for policy committees to hear and report to the Floor non-fiscal bills introduced in their house May 22 Last day for policy committees to meet prior to June date May 29 Lastday for fiscal committees to hear and report to the Floor bills introduced in their house (J.R. 61 (a)(5». Last day for fiscal committees to meet prior to June 8 (J.R. 61 (a)(6». June 1 - 5 Floor Session only. No committee may meet for any purpose June 5 Last day for bills to be passed out of the house of origin June 8 Committee meetings may resume June 15 Budget must be passed by midnight July 10 Last day for policy committees to meet and report bills July 17 Summer Recess begins at the end of this day's session, provided Budget has been enacted Aug. 17 Legislature reconvenes from Summer Recess Aug. 28 Last day for fiscal committees to meet and report bills to the Floor Aug. 31 -Sept. 11 Floor Session only. No committees, other than conference committees and Rules Committee, may meet for any purpose Sept. 4 Last day to amend bills on the Floor Sept. 11 Last day for each house to pass bills Interim Study Recess begins at end of this day's session 11 Oct. 11 Last day for Governor to sign or veto bills passed by the Legislature on or before Sept. 11 and in the Governor's possession after Sept. 11 City Council Timeline Councilmembers and staff are encouraged to attend Federal and State legislative days as scheduled throughout the year. Below is a timeline for Council review of the legislative program. - November/ Policy & Services Committee reviews past year's legislative action J2ecember __ program January February March June September Staff Report or Study Session reviewing Legislative Program and Manual along with Utilities Legislative Priorities after Council Retreat Review of Federal Appropriations Submittals through staff report Council trip to Washington D.C. Staff Report Update on status of Appropriations Staff Report Update on status of Legislative Program 12 Exhibit 1: Sample Federal Letter April 27, 2009 The Honorable Anna Eshoo Member of Congress 205 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Re: City of Palo Alto -Transportation Reauthorization Priorities Dear Congresswoman Eshoo: On behalf of the City of Palo Alto, I would like to thank you for your assistance in helping us meet the transportation needs of our community. It is my understanding that Congress is in . the initial stages of considering legislation to reauthorize the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of the 21 51 Century (SAFETEA-LU). To this end, I write in full support of the City of Palo Alto's top two priorities for the transportation reauthorization bill: (1) the Charleston Corridor Safety Improvement Project and (2) Highway 101 Pedestrian and Bicycle Overcrossing/Undercrossing. ~ Charleston Corridor Safety Improvement Project Charleston Road is a four-lane undivided arterial roadway which carries 15,000 vehicles daily. The corridor serves eleven schools and numerous residential neighborhoods as well as major employment centers including the Stanford Research Park and San Antonio IBayshore area. The City Council authorized staff to prepare a corridor plan in 2003, approved initiation of a striping trial of the improvements in 2006 and authorized staff to seek funding for the implementation of the permanent traffic safety and streetscape improvements in 2008. The project will: • Maintain existing travel time on the corridor to minimize diversion to other residential streets; reduce accidents on the corridor; • Improve conditions for pedestrian and bicycle travel; • Improve the quality of life on the corridor; and • Enhance visual amenities along the corridor. Specifically, federal funding will be used to design and construct the permanent traffic safety and streetscape improvements along the 1.3 mile segment of Charleston Road between Fabian A venue and EI Camino Real (State Highway 82) in Palo Alto. The project includes both small and large scale improvements such as curb ramps, curb and gutter, sidewalks and asphalt overlay within the public right-of-way to provide safety, and aesthetic improvements. The improvements will primarily focus on enhancing conditions for pedestrian and bicycle travel given the high volume of school commute traffic in the area, as well as traffic calming to make the corridor more livable for residents and reduce impacts on the environment caused by congestion. 13 The Charleston Corridor Safety Improvement Project is estimated to cost $5,711,000. A breakdown of the financing plan for the project is outlined below: -City Traffic Impact Fees $700,000 -City Capital Improvement Program $400,000 -State TDA Article 3 Funds $200,000 -Federal contribution (77%) $4,411,000 ~ Highway 101 Pedestrian and Bicycle Overcrossing/Undercrossing Project Currently, the only year-round alternative to a new grade separated bicycle/pedestrian crossing of Highway 101 is the existing San Antonio Road interchange at Highway 101. This is a very high speed overcrossing that is not suitable for pedestrian and bicycle travel. Only the most expert bicyclists would consider using it; average cyclists, families, children would not. The Highway 101 Pedestrian and Bicycle Overcrossing/Undercrossing project will provide a safe, reliable pedestrian and bicycle overpass/underpass to the frontage roads east and west of the freeway. The project is identified in the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 2035 plan list of countywide priority bicycle projects and will provide a connection to the San Francisco Bay Trail as well as access to regional employment and recreation areas. Specifically, the federal funds will be used to conduct a feasibility study, conceptual design, and environmental study for the construction of a new pedestrian/bicycle .grade separated crossing of Highway 101 in Palo Alto to provide connectivity from residential and commercial areas in south Palo Alto to the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, Shoreline and East Bayshore business parks, and the regional Bay Trail network of 240 bike trails along the San Francisco Bay shoreline. The project will be located in Palo Alto in the Highway 101 corridor north of the San Antonio Road interchange. The Highway 101 Pedestrian and Bicycle Overcrossing/Undercrossing project is estimated to cost $6,048,000. A breakdown of the financing plan for the project is outlined below: -City General Fund & VT A Bicycle Expenditure Program $1,200,000 -FederalContribution (80%) $4,848,000 The City has engaged in a public participation process by creating a stakeholder working group for Charleston Corridor Safety Improvement Project. This group includes members of the local neighborhood associations, school representatives, and other stakeholders. If the City acquires federal funding for the project, shiff will continue to work with the working group. Additionally, staff will hold several public meetings to provide an opportunity for comment. Furthermore, the City Council's Architectural Review Board, an advisory committee, will review the project. With respect to the Highway 101 Pedestrian and Bicycle Overcrossing/Undercrossing Project, this is a priority for City's Parks and Recreation Commission and a subcommittee is working with the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee to ensure stakeholder input. The Commission will discuss this project at future meetings 14 .~" .". which require public notice. Finally, the City Council will approve any scope of service or contract for these projects. The public will have an opportunity to provide comment at each of these public meetings. Again, thank you for your continued support of our community. We look forward to working with you and your staff as the transportation reauthorization bill moves through the legislative process. Sincerely, Peter Drekmeier Mayor c. Palo Alto City Councilmembers Jim Keene, City Manager 15 Exhibit 2: Sample State Letter February 26, 2009 Honorable Joe Simitian 11th District State Capitol, Room 2080 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Senator Simitian: The City of Palo Alto strongly supports Senate Bill 346 by Senator Kehoe which would restrict the u~e of copper and other toxic materials in vehicle brake pads. Copper is toxic to phytoplankton, the base of the aquatic food chain, and has been shown to adversely impact salmon sensory organs, potentially compromising their ability to return to spawning streams and avoid predators. Palo Alto and other local governments are required by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits to control copper discharges to creeks, estuaries and the ocean. Brake pads are the largest single source of copper to waterways and have been estimated to contribute as much as 35% of the copper reaching San Francisco Bay. Local governments are not able to effectively control brake dust and legislative action is the only viable alternative. Palo Alto staff initiated the Brake Pad Partnership, a collaborative group of government staff, brake pad manufacturers and environmentalists, to work out a solution to the brake pad issue. The problem has been s.tudied, quantified, and the participants all now agree that an orderly phase-out of copper is in everyone's best interest. Brake pad manufacturers support legislative requirements' because, without them, less responsible manufacturers could continue to sell high copper brake pads in California. Environmentalists are supporting a legislative approach because of impacts of copper on ecosystems, and because the bill would also ~ddress lead and asbestos, which still appear in brake pads, sold by less responsible manufacturers. We anticipate that Senate Bill 346 will come before your Environmental Quality Committee and encourage your support and leadership. Controlling this key source of copper is of critical importance and represents the culmination of hard work by Palo Alto staff and others. Phil Bobel our Manager of Environmental Compliance within the City's Public Works Department would like to meet with you. It would be our preference to meet with you in Palo Alto. He will be in touch with your office to schedule a meeting. Thank you for your energetic leadership on so many important environmental issues such as this bill. Sincerely, Peter Drekmeier Mayor c. Palo Alto Councilmembers James Keene, City Manager 16 . Attachment B POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE Regular Meeting May 12, 2009 The Policy & Services Committee of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 7:03 p.m. Present: Barton, Espinosa (Chair), Kishimoto, Yeh 1. Oral Communications None 2. Recommendation for Council Approval of the City's Legislative Action Program Manual Assistant to the City Manager, Kelly Morariu, presented information on the City's Legislative Action Program Manual. She Cited five important goals for the evening: 1) Review of the suggested Federal and State Advocacy Objectives. 2) Defining Council's role in the legislative process. 3) Getting comments from the Committee on the Legislative Action Manual. . 4) Review of the Priority Development process for the legislative program. S) Overall guiding principles presented to the Council on a. revisit toward any additional changes, followed by a write-up on the Federal Appropriation requests. She stated the City's legislative strategy was comprised of three levels which included Federal, State and Regional. Council's roles and goals were cited as protecting the City's interests as well as advancement of City interests. Staff noted the importance of the City's active role in the legislature. She discussed the primary goal in the Federal legislative efforts as involved with fund securement for City projects through the appropriations process. At the State level, the focus was on issue advocacy in the State legislature. She posed the question as to whether these were the only roles the City should play in advocacy or whether additional roles should be considered. 05112/09 P&S:l The Legislation Action Manual outlines Council's historical role in the process which included: 1) Establishment of legislative priorities. 2) Position-taking in Sacramento and Washington, DC regarding legislative issues. 3) Assumption of an advocacy role with the legislators at the Federal and State levels. Ms. Morariu stated that areas that needed further discussion include the future roles of the Council in the legislative process. Recreation Supervisor, Khashayar Alaee, spoke on the current Legislative Action Manual that outlines the internal coordination of the Legislative Action Program, defined the role.s for Council, departments and Staff and provided clarity on the specific responsibilities. He stated the manual also provided guidelines for evaluating legislation, lobbying methods and letter-writing activities, with an outline on the Federal, State and City legislative timelines and process. Staff's goal was around the overall guiding principles from the previous year with priorities generated by Council and Staff to be brought forth on an annual basis. He noted discussion would occur with Policy and Services with a referral to Council for adoption prior to opening of the Federal Legislative year. He summarized the guiding principles adopted by the Council in December 2009 as: 1) Protection of local revenue sources. 2) Protection and increase of local government discretion. 3) Protection and increase of funding for specific programs and services. He noted recent activities in Appropriations and the Stimulus Package, continued work done by Congresswoman Eschoo and the submission of Federal Appropriations materials. He spoke on a handout regarding Palo Alto's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act projects. He stressed the daily changes made to the country's Stimulus Package and noted to date the receipt of funding for four projects for direct Federal Allocations in Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Department of Energy and Efficiency and the Department of Justice. Council Member Kishimoto asked if these were above and beyond what had previously expected in grant funding. Mr. Alaee stated this was above and beyond any prior allocations. He outlined the potential list of projects brought to Council, who had approved this list, and also included Staff's analysis of the legislation in order to identify continued 05/12/09 P&S:2 opportunities. Five projects were identified as worth pursuit which included projects in: 1) The Department of Commerce for Fiber to the Home. 2) The Utilities Department and Environmental Protection Agency for Clean water and the Water Saver Volume Loan Fund. 3) The Police Department and the Department of Justice for community- oriented police services grants. 4) A second pursuit by the Utilities Department through the Clean Water Saver Volume Loan Fund for the recycled water project at Stanford Research Park. 5) The Fire Department and Homeland Security for assistance and grants in firefighting programs and to assist with new fire station construction. He stated Staff had all but completed their analysis and applications for available grant opportunities, but would continue to receive and distribute the information regarding ongoing changes in the Stimulus Program. He noted the creation of the website www.cityofpaloalto.org/recovery with daily and weekly updates. Chair Espinosa stated cities do a good job at the local level but activity at the Federal level was usually in pursuit of additional funding. He stressed looking at the role Staff and Council might take in the future to increase their funding goal pursuits. He stated there was also a Request for Proposal (RFP) out there for a Federal lobbying group. The City released the RFP in reconsideration of the lobbying group in Washington, DC. He stress.ed this was a time for the City and the Council to step back and look at what necessary goals were in DC. At the State level, there were also concerns for the City and it is necessary for the City to be more vocal regarding interest. Organizations at the Regional level also have impact and the City has activity on several boards. However, the City could be more active with other organizations. Council Member Barton agreed with the above-mentioned general pOints but specifically noted the need for Federal and State lobbyists. Hesuggested looking at comparable cities in order to pair up and increase the City's lobbying efforts. He stressed the need for ongoing efforts in looking at what more Staff and Council can do in terms of ramping-up lobbying efforts. He stated Council and Staff had a lot to do on a daily basis, but also stressed the value of having Council members in Sacramento and Washington for lobbying on issues. Council Member Kishimoto was appreciative of the direction and comments made thus far. She noted a recent gap in the high-speed rail area and the need for a lobbyist on this issue. She stressed the importance of lobbying as well in the environmental and Fiber to the Home arenas at the State and Federal levels. 05112/09 P&S:3 Council Member Yeh asked for clarification on the grant amounts from the Department of Justice for what appeared to be a one-police-officer position. He asked if there were other pieces to this. Ms. Morariu stated staff would follow-up on this. Council Member Yeh clarified that information would be available online on the Recovery website for public transparency. He asked if the annual meetings with legislators could be built into the Legislative Action Program Manual. He cited instances where it would be helpful to have a Council member and a lobbyist present for important issues and perspectives. He asked if issue advocacy could be added as a role on the Federal lobbying level due to various issues that did not necessarily deal solely with funding. Council Member Kishimoto reinforced the need for both lobbyist and Council presence on key issues in order to provide a broad perspective. This dealt with their discussions on the Overall Guiding Principles. However, she suggested reference as to how this affected Council priorities. Council Member Yeh suggested work on how to rephrase the reference to the Guiding Principles in order to take into account the balance of the Regional and local work and any conflict with Council priorities. Council Member Barton agreed with the importance of dollar acquisition at the Federal level. Chair Espinosa suggested inclusion of the language from the Request for Proposal (RFP) since this would more fully cover proposed goals at the Federal level. . Ms. Morariu asked if he had any particular wording in mind. Chair Espinosa suggested calling all three, the Federal, State and Regional. Council Member Kishimoto stated one example of the Regional concerns as SB- 375 and its implementation over the next several years. Chair Espinosa suggested laying out in the document what the process would look like if there was a controversial issue and how this would be dealt with orga nizationa lIy. . Ms. Morariu asked if there was further specific language from the RFP or scope of services that should be included. 05/12/09 P&S:4 Chair Espinosa suggested pulling out the analysis and goal setting language to flesh out the higher level work that needed to be done. Council Member Kishimoto suggested thinking proactively in order to get an understanding of the major legislative items at the Federal level and what is on the horizon that the City needed to follow. Ch~ir Espinosa asked if a lobbyist was something that the Committee would likely recommend or would Councilor Staff consider hiring a lobbyist on the State level. He stressed a process was needed around this in order to delineate how Staff looked at filling this need on a full-time contracted basis or in some other form. Council Member Barton stated hiring a lobbyist was not the most functional approach on an issue-by-issue basis. He stated things moved so fast legislatively that it was important to keep a lobbyist on board full-time. Chair Espinosa asked if a full-time employed lobbyist made sense. Council Member Barton suggested experimenting with a full-time lobbyist and the costs of this. He stated a lobbyist was not hired specifically to work for Palo Alto, but was hired more for what existed in their lobbying portfolio to which their work would be beneficial to the City. Ms. Morariu stated the City had a State lobbyist in the past and this was discontinued. Mr. Alaee stated the lobbyist was discontinued as part of a Budget cut after the dot.com bust in 2001. Ms. Morariu stated she had discussed this issue with the City Manager, based on Council's prior discussion. His experience was that a Federal lobbyist was the more effective choice versus a general State lobbyist. State lobbyists were typically hired on an issue by issue basis. Council Member Barton stressed another reason to experiment with the State lobbyist option was for further leveraging on issues in view of the City Manager's past experiences. Council Member Yeh stated Utilities had a lobbyist who was not technically on- contract with the City, but was available for pro bono work. He maintained an in-depth focus on the Utilities' issues to date. He noted this level of specificity was beneficial for the City in regard to utility issues. 05/12/09 P&S:5 Chair Espinosa suggested a future discussion with the City Manager, given his level of expertise on this, might be helpful in the different approaches at the State level for funding, high-speed rail, environmental and additional issues. He stressed the importance of having the right type of structure at the State, Federal and Regional levels. He asked what this looked like at the Regional level when deciding upon organizations or the different types of representation the City needed for regional bodies. Council Member Barton stated that, on a Regional level, it would be on an issue-by-issue basis. He gave the example of high-speed rail where the issue was crafted as it progressed rather than through reliance on existing lobbying groups. He noted the lobbying work lay in trying to figure out which were Federal and/or State issues at the core level. Council Member Kishimoto noted lobbying logistics for Fiber to the Home involved the same type of work in progress. Chair Espinosa suggested their goal was to carve out how the City is already engag~d, to see where the Federal government lobbying structure is gOing, and then a conversation as well about work at the State level. He noted the importance to segment these areas out identifying the necessary steps for more transparent view of the City's lobbying goals and efforts. Council Member Yeh suggested a map of the existing Sacramento lobbyists, the DC lobbyists and then the abilityto see the existing regional organizations thus far. He also agreed it was important to link with other cities and groups toward common lobbying goals as a proactive approach. Council Member Barton stressed these groups were both reactive and proactive in their work. Chair Espinosa suggested they move on to a discussion of Council's role in the legislative process. He stressed the importance of clearly identifying Council's roles in Study Sessions, potential issues, and how Council can aid the lobbying efforts. He was also interested in seeing roles more clearly delineated as to who really takes the lead at the State and Federal levels. Ms. Morariu stated they also talked about creating, during the legislative season, a standing agenda item which could be brought to Council regarding pending legislative issues. She stressed their ongoing efforts to ensure Council's engagement and awareness of the pending issues. 05112/09 P&S:6 ~--" ,-.-'--'~~-"-. "-'.' ..-!-,:,,'~-;-' .. --"-, Chair Espinosa agreed this ongoing dialogue and visibility of needs on the lobbying front was important on many levels. Council Member Kishimoto noted the important role the League of California Cities plays as sort of a rapid response team to keep the City and Council abreast of issues. She stated the League was a great resource to the City and Council. Ms. Morariu stated the League had legislative analysts and grass-root board coordinators on legislative issues. Chair Espinosa noted the importance of talking with the City Manager about how to engage with these above-noted organizations to move forward on Palo Alto legislative issues. Council Member Kishimoto agreed, and noted the City had not yet been as proactive in this engagement arena with these leagues and groups. Council Member Yeh noted Council's role as delineated in the manual was that they do the groundwork for the City's legislative strategies in setting the Council Priorities. He saw the Council's Priorities as very proactive statement over a one-to two-year period. He was curious as to how the Comprehensive Plan can outlive Council tenures, and whether or not this should be factored into the reworking of legislative priorities or whether they remain locked into the current Council and its priorities. Council Member Barton stated the Comprehensive Plan had no engagement at the Federal Level, realistically. Mr. Alaee stated Staff's intent was to develop some Overall Guiding Principles for the legislative year beginning in December, which would come close to the Council's retreat schedule, if not actu.ally being part of this retreat. He stated that if Council's priorities had changed, the legislative priorities would be there at the retreat or at the next Council meeting in order to readjust and align priorities as they moved forward, keeping in mind the current Council's priorities for that particular year. Council Member Kishimoto stated the current wording noted the process in which a City Council member brings up an issue, which included Colleague's Memos. She stated this process takes a length of time. Ms. Morariu noted the Legislative Manual was definitely a work in progress. She stated there were certainly time sensitivities of suggested processes that were not taken into account, but noted that many of the manual guides were more 05/12/09 P&S:7 specific to longer term legislative issues as opposed to more pressing immediate issues moving through Council. Council Member Kishimoto noted many items would be coming to Council in the very first place by usual process, which did not require a bulleted placeholder in the guide towards legislation. She reiterated that if an issue is brought to CounCil, if it is an issue that is outside of the box, then Staff had the authority to send a letter in any legislative case. Mr. Alaee verified the wording that would be removed in order to more concisely define the process in Council for controversial topics. Chair Espinosa noted budget issues in which the previous City Manager had cut the lobbyist. He stated there was tension over Council members' partiCipation and the costs associated" with attending lobbying sessions in their advocacy roles. He asked if there was a way to include language that would prioritize outside funding for these trips, and if funding can be found outside the City of Palo Alto resources that would allow and pay for Council members' participation in lobbying efforts. Council Member Yeh agreed that the City underwent scrutiny in situations such as this where City funds are spent for these trips and lobbying. At the Federal, State and Regional levels, he suggested a built-in transparency around the financial aspects of Council's engagement in lobbying efforts and travel that might include recommendations to go through associations which might cover these activities. He stressed transparency over the City's budget for these lobbying activities were absolutely necessary. Chair Espinosa understood the approach towards this transparency but also noted the danger of large companies or corporations paying for these trips which may also send the wrong message to the public. He suggested wording to the point that the Council's actions and expenditures needed to be consistent with the value of the issue at hand including the tradition the City holds in monitoring this type of spending and the number of Council members who take part in the activities and travel for anyone event. Council Member Kishimoto suggested looking at how other cities handle this travel and these expenditures effectively. She also suggested Palo Alto may want to develop a strategic plan in this particular area. Chair Espinosa stated since they were coming back for one more discussion over issues at the Sacramento level, and how that looks for the City, that they might benefit hearing from an expert in the field for a sense of what the best practice looked like inthis particular arena. He stressed this would flesh things 05112/09 P&S:8 out more thoroughly on the financial and legislative side of the issue of Council's involvement and how to best handle this. He noted a model for this lobbyist activity was necessary. Council Member Barton spoke to the model for the Green Building Ordinance and suggested they could go to the state and point out this is how everyone should do it and/or the better alternative which was to be completely open about the ordinance and modeling their success for others to use. He noted. there were a number of areas where the City was on the cutting-edge of issues and could help other cities to join in. Chair Espinosa noted they were speaking about legislative agendas and moving certain legislations, and asked how his modeling suggestion and example related to this. Council Member Barton gave the example that if many cities adopted the same Green Building Ordinance or a similar version, this would be consistent with many of the City's generalized goals. He also felt, if the City were out there proactively, this put them at the head of the class on additional topics. In this case, when they arrive in Sacramento, they are known and understood as to what they stand for and are willing to fight for. Chair Espinosa noted it was key to have the City spotlight its ongoing best practices. Council Member Barton cited this as the City basically striving to always be the best role model. Council Member Kishimoto returned to her original comment about looking through the lens of asking about Federal and State legislative issues and priorities and where Council fits in. Mr. Alaee cited staff report CMR:241-09, page 11, as a place where there were several bullet pOints on procedures for the City Council and other elected representatives and their roles. He asked if these bullets needed to be fleshed out further or provided the appropriate perspective on those roles. Council Member Yeh asked if this was essentially with regard to Council members and representatives. Mr. Alaee stated it involved supervisors, representatives and any other elected representatives as well. 05/12/09 P&S:9 Council Member Barton noted one item not included in the bullets was a scheduling of these activities at the appropriate times along the legislative timeline. Chair Espinosa stated it was a great start but held issue with the fact that it focused more on process. He looked for more information on the Council's specific roles at all the levels of engagement. He noted what existed in the manual thus far was more with regard to Staff's timing with a small paragraph on the Council's role. He wished to see more language with regard to Council's role. Council Member Barton stated Council's role, in many cases, was dependent upon the larger decision of whether they have a lobbyist or no lobbyist at the State level. In choosing to have a lobbyist, those directions would be given. Chair Espinosa stated this was true as well in the conversations they would be having with the Federal lobbyists as well. He stated these conversations were well-dictated, but he stated there was also need for Council's role in order to have something that really spoke to their legislative strategy. Council Member Barton stated some might argue that these roles would vary issue-by-issue. He was not sure there was a generalized approach or process available. Chair Espino$a reiterated there was some process for the most part in order to guide CounCil, and this needed to be fleshed out further. Council Member Yeh stated there needed to be more clear delineation or diagrams in the manual with regard to potential City Councilor member interactions with the legislative body, but these were not necessarily clearly delineated in the diagram as to how this progresses. He asked if it was through the City Manager's office, and if it was, then was this the lobbying or getting in touch with the legislative bodies. He was looking for more clarity on these arrows and bullets. Ms. Morariu reiterated that he was looking for the direct link between the Council and its activities with the legislative body. Chair Espinosa stated it was a good model for Staff in talking about how they would ideally have the legislation come in. Although the reality was, this was -not really a flowchart in that legislative issues and proposals for legislation can come in from many directions. If this was meant to be a flowchart of the process for work, it needed further discussion about what is entailed in each step along the way. 05112/09 P&S:lO Ccuncil Member Bartcn stated it might wcrk best .on twc charts, .one where there is a reacticn tc the legislaticn and a seccnd where there is suppcrt, drafting crspcnscrship .of the legislaticn. Chair Espincsa ncted a third categcry that wculd include dcllars dcnated tcward that end. He asked if there were any ccncerns .or thcughts .on the Pricrity Develcpment Prccess. Ms. Mcrariu .offered, by way .of ccntext, that this was meant tc gc with the legislative schedule. Chair Espincsa agreed the calendars were helpful but suggested this was definitely an area where they need tc make sure they hear input frcm the Icbbyists in DC and Sacramentc and pcssibly checking in .on the regicnallevel as well tc really make sure the timelines were apprcpriate. Ccuncil Member Bartcn, .on Prctecting the City's Interests, was inclined tc remcve additicnal wcrding. ,Ccuncil Member Bartcn ncted this was particularly impcrtant. He stressed if the legislature passed an Ordinance, fcr example, banning pclystyrene for every City, this tock away the City's discreticn but was'ccnsistent with the City gcals. He ncted, fcr this reascn, that discreticn and gcals were twc ccmpletely different ccncepts. Mr. Alaee ncted this wcrding was nct directly frcm the League, but was drawn frcm histcrical items Staff fcund. He suggested Iccking tc the League fcr similar language. Ms. Mcrariu suggested wcrding that was ccnsistent with .other Ccuncil pricrities. Ccuncil Member Bartcn suggested the wcrding "tc retain .or increase but generally not decrease the am.ount .of Iccal discreticn." Ccuncil Member Kishimctc stated the City wanted their discreticn tc be .over any State standards. Ccuncil Member Yeh was suppcrtive .of that general apprcach. He stated wcrding alluding tc never was extremely definitive and they wanted tc be careful abcut that. Chair Espincsa asked if there were .other bullets that needed alternative wcrding. 05/12/09 P&S:ll Council Member Barton noted with regard to the Overall Guiding Principles the wording "seeking new and alternative funding" was more appropriate. Council Member Kishimoto suggested the wording "protect and increase government discretion" in balance with City values. She also suggested wording "to retain the right to exceed State standards." Chair Espinosa did not have concerns about the prior wording. However, he yvas not sure that the wording captured everything that the City does in the legislative process. Ms. Morariu suggested "proactively advocate on behalf of the City" which was more proactive wording. Chair Espinosa noted also an item that was missing with regard to advocacy, general issue areas, or as maybe taking off some of the pressure at the Federal and State level because of the work done at the Regional level. Council Member Barton suggested wording toward being proactive in the legislature in that they were not just reacting by acting or sponsoring legislation, as an example. He noted guidelines more in keeping with reacting to legislation and he sought wording of a more proactive nature. Council Member Kishimoto, on page 1 of Attachment A, outlined specifics of a proactive nature. Chair Espinosa noted the same wording could be used to capture this proactive nature in the Guiding Principles. Council Member Kishimoto stated every year's guidelines needed to define the areas worth monitoring' proactively. She noted they may not sponsor the legislation but were paying attention to high-profile issues such as high-speed rail as an example. Mr. Alaee asked if on their return meetings it would help if they brought back a list of area cities' over-riding principles in comparison. Chair Espinosa stated it was helpful to hear the best practices while working on this more proactive agenda in their guiding principles. He asked if there were any other concerns over the guiding principles and found none. He moved the meeting toward discussion of the Priority Development and Guiding Principles. He thought, in terms of the priorities, as well as the guiding principles, that it . was important to separate out the three areas they were working on since there 05/12/09 P&S:12 were very different approaches at the Federal, State and Regional levels in priority and process. Council Member Yeh requested further information regarding organizations on which Council members serve on a regular basis. He suggested a check-in point to note Council's priorities at the Regional level. He noted this would ensure the public understands of Council's ongoing roles beyond the City in other advocacy areas. Chair Espinosa stated it was important to look at area cost and benefit models as well for work done at the Regional level on up. He asked if there were any further particular directives going forward. He summarized the key pOi'nts of their discussion as: 1) Looking at the best practices and approaches at all legislative levels. 2) Best practices and area models. 3) Wording and more specific changes to the memo. Item continued to meeting on June 17, 2009. 3. Discussion for Future Meeting Schedules and Agendas. Timing was discussed for the future meetings, possible meeting dates, as well as their content and the possibility of having noted speakers provide information on effective lobbying. Next meeting scheduled for June 17, 2009 ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m. 05/12/09 P&S:13 , '-'~ -.... '-., -" ~ ?_ . ...,J.;..j,.:. Attachment C Council Member Kishimoto. asked if that applies to an Ad Hoc Committee. Mr. Baum said that the majority rule does apply to Ad Hoc Committees. Council Member Kishimoto stated that it would not be a matter of order. Mr. Baum said that it would have to be placed on the agenda should Council wish to vote on the Mayor'S Ad Hoc Committee appointments. Chair Espinosa thought that adding some wording to this affect would be helpful. Mr. Keene said that with some of the other committees there is language saying that the Committee will dissolve in six months. He asked if the Committee would like to make that more formal. Chair Espinosa said he didn't know if it would hurt to have that language in the policy. Council Member Kishimoto said the Mayor's announcement of a newly formed Ad Hoc Committee should be included in the minutes. Mr. Baum said a public announcement should be made at the conclusion of each Ad Hoc meeting. He then asked if Staff should add these revisions or if the Committee would rather go to Council as is. Chair Espinosa said that he thought they had covered everything, by establishing quarterly reports, as well as discussing the differences between Standing Committees and Ad Hoc Committees. MOTION: Council Member Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Kishimoto, that 1) the P&S Committee recommends that the City Council adopt the Ad Hoc Committee policy allowing Ad Hoc Committees to be used on a Ilmited basis to study City business in greater depth than possible in the time allotted for Council and Standing Committee meetings, and 2) Ad Hoc Committees will report to Council quarterly. MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Barton absent 3. Recommendation for Council Approval of the City's Legislative Program and Structure. P&S: 090715PS 6 Assistant to the City Manager Kelly Morariu explained that back in May 2009 the Committee gave Staff four k~y issues to follow up on. The Committee wanted to have a more in depth conversation with the City Manager about lobbying efforts in Sacramento. She stressed that this program is a work in progress. Staff is interviewing firms for the Federal lobbying effort. Once a firm is selected, the discussion can start about how to engage the Council in advocacy and what ways this can further improve the process. Staff is coming to the Committee and Council with some structure but it will continue to evolve. To define the roll of Council in the legislative process, Staff is interviewing lobbyist firms and should have one on board by August. The Council will meet with this firm in September and discuss interests around lobbying at the Federal level. One item the Committee wanted to discuss was legislative travel; language has been added to the policy saying that Council legislative travel should be consistent with existing travel policies. A discussion offering guidance on the most effective way to engage Council in travel to Washington, DC and Sacramento is pending. Another suggested role for Council is leveraging existing relationships with influential members of the community, and documenting those relationships so that they may contact legislators on our behalf. Staff also was asked to follow up on effective legislative action in Sacramento and regionally. One of the things discussed was having an expert speak to the Council. The League of California Cities Legislative Director is interested in coming to speak to the Council about how their efforts can be more effective in Sacramento, but he will not be able to come until the fall due to the budget issues Sacramento is having. There was also discussion about involvement with regional agencies. This raised three key issues: 1) what agencies should be utilized, 2) how should the Committee report back to Council on the regional agency actions, and 3) how Council Members serving on regional agencies obtain key positions. Staff was also asked to follow up regarding best practices in other cities. Most cities are reactive to legislation; there is an opportunity for Palo Alto to structure something more unique and proactive. That being said, there were some best practices that were effective, such as some agencies have a Staff person dedicated solely to legislative action. Staff is also looking at ways to bring in community stakeholders and then leverage them with trips to Sacramento or Washington to become part of the advocacy process. Another idea was building relationships with legislators on a Staff to Staff level as well as having periodic meetings between the Council and the legislators and having a legislative action team internal to the organization that can take quick action by tracking legislative action per department. Having a Federal lobbying firm seemed to be effective for cities similar to Palo Alto, P&S: 090715PS 7 whereas a state lobbying firm seemed to be not very effective. The City of Roseville for example has both a state and a Federal lobbyist. Their experience was that the Federal lobbyist was more effective but they wouldn't necessarily recommend a state lobbyist. Publicizing Palo Alto's legislative goals and priorities more effectively by having a presence on the website also seemed valuable. For example, the City of Lakewood has an interesting detail of the legislative process, providing more information for the public. She also mentioned a new Staff led effort in Santa Clara County is a regional inter-governmental relations committee that has been forming. It brings Staff members together through out the county to connect the dots from a Staff level. Lastly, as a follow up action, there were changes to the guiding principals and some language in the Legislative Action Manual. Chair Espinosa stated that the legislative policy had been put together with guidance about how Staff should operate on a detailed level and the feedback was good. He thought that now the discussion should have been about Council's role. The Council needs to know what they are doing in Washington and Sacramento. The Council needs to decide if they want to have a lobbying role and then regionally how to decide who sits on what board. Some decisions still have not been made. He asked if Staff was bringing the Committee a proposal that answered some of the questions from before and fixed some of the language regarding travel and now would like to have some of the program implemented. He asked if Staff thought there is nothing wrong in the process, so the Committee should move this forward to Council. He also asked how Staff sees having that conversation with the Council once the Washington and Sacramento teams are in place. He stated that he was still unsure what the role should· be for the Council in the legislative process Ms. Morariu said that a lot would depend on who the City partners with from a Federal perspective. This is an opportunity to strategize. She agreed that this report was the Staff piece of it, and the Council conversation is still pending. Chair Espinosa asked how Staff sees this process happening and if the Council should sign off on this piece and then move forward or wait for the entire policy to be developed. City Manager James Keene said that he wasn't sure if going to the Council with this now was needed. The policy is evolving and some quick progress will be made in the fall, once the Federal lobbyist is on board. He asked if the Committee would provide Staff with some direction now so they can come back with a more specific policy. He P&S: 090715PS 8 stated that the most important piece of the legislative policy is what role the Council has, everything else is secondary. An elected official can have more impact generally than anyone the City can hire. Even if the City hires the best lobbying firm, if they don't have a clear idea of how to leverage Council the City is wasting money. Palo Alto has a Council that is interested in developing an effective and strong legislative strategy and program, and everything else falls from that. Chair Espinosa agreed that this Council is receptive to engagement. The reason this policy carne to the P&S Committee was to provide Council with an understanding of the cost benefit and ROI for what is being done at a Federal level. The Council would be happy to go to Washington but what is the plan once they arrive, how much will it cost, and what will that look like. There is certainly no hesitation on Council Members involvement but they want to know what Staff is recom mending. Council Member Kishimoto said that she's learned a lot through High Speed Rail, she asked for clarification on Staffs recommendation for no generiC Sacramento consultant. Mr. Keene said Staff hasn't gotten that far yet. He reiterated the importance of Council involvement. Council Member Kishimoto said that her experience is being involved for a Council Member is very time consuming. She stated that on an issue by issue basis they will need to decide the priority. In order to achieve that priority, State or Federal leverage will be needed. It is a lot of work to follow year round, and then in June and July there is this crunch period. She said that it's been helpful in her experience to have volunteers to track the bills, and lobbyists in Sacramento to follow legislative action, then the City can piggy back on them. The Congressional Representatives staffs are helpful as well, so those relationships are important. Chair Espinosa said that he thought the Committee was expecting to see a recommendation for the Federal plan, as well as an outline for a regional level plan so that Staff and the Committee could discuss Council's involvement. Mr. Keene agreed that a discussion can be started, while putting the regional part aside. He said there are three core pieces for the State and Federal components. One is the Council's interest; it should be a hands-on approach rather than just delegation, even with the reporting and feedback from Council. There has to be some Staff P&S: 090715PS 9 dedication to this. He said that the most effective legislative program in his experience was when a dedicated high level person was on board rather than a contract lobbyist. The City has part of that, but how the City is going to add Staff support is key. The C'ity could have interns, or other low-cost people that can track legislative items. It wouldn't be prudent to pay an expensive firm for tracking. Lastly, there is the reactive vs. proactive portion of the policy, and Staff needs to be clear on what the Council wants. Lobbying firms will say that in order to be proactive you have to narrow the focus to a couple issues at most, otherwise no one will listen. The Committee should be clear that being proactive is the approach that should be used, but at the same an adequate mechanism for being informed reactively on things that can hurt us is important as well. He said that for the most part reactive things are going hurt other cities too. Palo Alto could piggy back on those cities since they are already involved. High Speed Rail, for example, is Palo Alto's issue; we will be concerned about reactivity with cities. The focus is on insuring we are on top of stuff. He said that any lobby firm will agree that having your Council focused and invested in a couple of critical issues will be crucial. For Washington, he recommended the City engage in a new contract with a Federal lobbyist. The return will be easy to measure. If the City spends $100,000 a year for travel, we have to be able to demonstrate that we got $100,000 worth of funding from Washington to justify it. One reason why Council travel is so important is because the legislature is moving away from ear marks so just having a representative be able to stick something in a bill on the City's behalf will be harder to do. We will have more criteria based program awards that shift authority back to agencies. The right person who gets a visit on an issue that matters can have tremendous Jnfluence. Having our well spoken Council Members there, with fact sheets in hand, to speak on the City's behalf will be effective. Chair Espinosa said the goal is to have that plan from Staff laid out with how Staff will be looking at the investment, return and objectives and what role Council' will play at each stage of development, implementation and roll out. We need to know how Council will set priorities, where is Staff going to want decision pOints, how does Council work with lobbyists, and how do we, as a group, evaluate costs. It's that layout that will lead to the identification of policies this Committee could recommend to build a structure. Council Member Kishimoto said they need to connect with the right Staff and determine where the leverage points are. She reiterated that it doesn't make sense to have someone in Sacramento all year. P&S: 090715PS 10 Council Member Yeh said that the Northern California Power Agency has an active division with an active coaching model. In laying out a concrete process, the city could look to them. They use a discipline and messaging that reflects the interest of their membership, and dedicated local staffing that are subject matter experts. Whether or not they are expert Staff, he does agree with a local staffing approach to provide the ongoing discussion between Council and Staff. He questioned whether Palo Alto has enough pull in and of itself to make a statement within agencies at the Federal level, framed within regional cooperation. He said he supported a study session to get feedback from the rest of the Council, and he would be able to speak briefly on the effort with Senator Joe Simitian about the RPS bill. Without the level of expertise of the Utilities Staff, this wouldn't have been possible. Council Member Kishimoto said that regarding the Staff issue, for High Speed Rail, Steve Emslie was working with her and the City Attorney's Office. She wasn't sure if the City Attorney's Office was involved in reviewing and drafting the bill. The City should have a person that knows the most about a subject analyze the bill, which can take a lot of time as well. Chair Espinosa said that they've had a great debate. At the last meeting they had discussed four areas. They intended to define the role of the City Council, to understand the Federal, State and regional strategy plans, to get the list together for the regional plan and lastly they wanted to take a look at other cities for best practices. He stated that he would like to move forward as he thought they were going to have that conversation at this meeting. Council Member Kishimoto suggested the Committee include that wording in the Legislative Action Manual. . Chair Espinosa wanted to know if they should bring the policy to Council even though it's not fully comprehensive as far as a full legislative plan goes. Or did they want to put it out there, since it is such good work, and then make a broader decision later. Mr. Keene said he wanted to insure Staff had clear direction. His recommendation was not to go to Council yet, as it's just a piece of what has to be done. He suggested they bundle it with some recommendations on the Federal lobbying program. If Staff could get feedback on the State piece they could put more structure into it. He stated that Palo Alto should not hire a general State lobbyist. And he does think Palo Alto should be more formally involved with the League P&S: 090715PS 11 of California Cities, Palo Alto should have someone on the Executive Board. The City Council should be known more in Sacramento and around the League of California Cities. Chair Espinosa said that he thought that's what they were going to talk about at this meeting. What the Committee requested from Staff, is specific detail about what the goal is, exactly what a strong legislative statement looks like, whether or not a State lobbyist should be hired, what the cost of that is, and what the pros and cons would be. The Committee needs Staff to create a plan around engagement with the League of California Cities. Staff should lay all of that out, and then with in that framework, discuss what they see the role of Council being on all those levels. Council Member Kishimoto stated that she felt that any appointment should be made early so that there is enough experience gained by the appointee. Chair Espinosa agreed about not going to Council at this time. He asked Mr. Keene if he had a sense now of what the Committee was asking for. Mr. Keene stated that he did understand, and asked when the next meeting is. Ms. Morariu stated that there isn't another P&S Committee meeting until September. Mr. Keene stated there is some value in coordinating the decision on the Federal lobbyist. Staff has told all the lobbying firms that basic principals would be in place, determined through a session with the Council and the P&S Committee. This will assure a tailored process right from the beginning. He said that Staff could recommend a firm to Council on August 3, 2009, but he was concerned with the outstanding policy issues taking too long. Chair Espinosa asked if his concern was because the decision on the Federal lobbyist will have already been made, or because it will take . too long for it to come back to the P&S Committee. Council Member Kishimoto said that it wouldn't come back to the P&S Committee. P&S: 090715PS 12 ,,~ ~ -; -- Chair Espinosa clarified that Mr. Keene was talking about if the engagement role would go to Councilor to P&S and then asking if that timing was off. Mr. Keene said this could get to Council by August 3, 2009 Staff would have not only awarded the contact, but had a meeting with a lobbying firm with the Council. That would inform us before coming back to the Committee. Council Member Yeh suggested that due to the legislative season September is good timing, and he would be agreeable to it. Ms. Morariu said the contract could be awarded on August 3, and then in September the lobbyist could come in. 3. Staff recommends that the P&S Committee review the purpose and scope of the P&S Committee and provide direction to Staff. Chair Espinosa said that this is a good time to discuss the role of P&S with new Council Members coming on soon. Assistant to the City Manager Kelly Morariu stated that she and the City Manager reviewed the Municipal Code and the defining parameters of the P&S (P&S) Committee. The parameters include parliamentary, administrative procedures, arid inter-governmental relations. There has also been issues that haven't always been referred to P&S, including personnel, planning and zoning, traffic and parking, public works, and community and human services. The Human Resources Commission can refer items to P&S or to the Council. Some specific issues that have come to the Committee have been regulating transportation issues, and the Zero Waste Plan. There is opportunity to broaden what issues come before P&S. Strategic issues need to be addressed, and how the community and Council wish to set the context for addressing key issues. As an example she cited the pending retirement of so many baby boomers. Council will want to position the City as an employer of choice. The Council will want to explore the goals as the City moves forward with an economic development strategy. Those were just examples of issues Staff might want to have a more in depth discussion with P&S about. Staff also wants to know if that's the way the Committee wants to have a conversation about these issues, or should it continue to be the Council referral method currently in place. P&S: 090715PS 13 Attachment D: Proposed 2010 Federal and State Legislative Priorities Policy & Services Committee Overall Guiding Principles • Protect local revenue sources and prevent unfunded mandates a. Oppose Federal or State legislation, policies and budgets that have negative impacts on services, revenues and costs. Ensure that legislation, policies and budgets do not detract from Palo Alto's ability to draw on local revenue sources. , Protect and increase local government discretion but in balance with City values and priorities • Ensure that legislation, policies and budgets retain or increase, but generally don't decrease, the amount of local discretion held by the City and protect local decision making. Oppose legislation, policies and budgets that reduce the authority and/or ability of local government to determine how best to effectively operate local programs, services and activities. The City retains the right to exceed State goals, standards or targets. • Protect and increase funding for specific programs and services a. Support County, State and Federal funding for local service by maxlmlzmg existing funding levels and seeking new and alternative funding for programs. Promote increases in the allocation of funds to cities and flexibility in distribution. • Proactively advocate on behalf of the City a. Identify key legislative areas to monitor annually. Take a proactive role in working with Federal and State legislators to draft and sponsor legislation around key City priorities. Potential 2010 Federal Legislative PrioritieslFocus Areas Legislation • Transportation Authorization: Ensure road and transit programs and projects of specific importance to the City • Climate Change and Energy Legislation: Review legislation and identify impacts for Palo Alto • Appropriations bills: Advocate for Federal funding for projects and programs in the City • National Flood Insurance Program Reauthorization: Review legislation and identify impacts of flood insurance rates for floodplain areas • Jobs bill ~ Review legislation and identify impacts for Palo Alto Regulation! Administrative Actions: On all topics, work with appropriate administrative and agency staff to revise program/grant guidelines • Broadband • Energy Efficiency Grants and Standards • Census • ARRA (stimulus) grants and guidance Potential 2010 State Legislative PrioritieslFocus Areas December 17, 2009 Page 1 of3 Attachment D: Proposed 2010 Federal and State Legislative Priorities Policy & Services Committee 1) Monitor status of League of California Cities-supported ballot measure to protect local revenue sources and lend support to the measure if it qualifies for the November 2010 ballot. 2) Track progress of ballot measures relating to pension reform and follow guidance provided by League of California Cities and take appropriate positions on measures if the measures qualify for the November 2010 ballot. 3) Follow the progress of ballot measures intended to revise various State-level budget and governance reforms and determine impacts to City of Palo Alto. Follow guidance provided by League of California Cities and take appropriate positions on measures as necessary. 4) Monitor the development of the State budget and take positions to support or oppose proposals depending on the impact to Palo Alto, particularly as they relate to the taking or borrowing of local revenues. a. Follow funding status for the Public library Fund Act (a program that provides direct state aid to California libraries for basic public library service). The program has never been fully funded at the level permitted by the legislation; ten years ago, it was at 80% of full funding; last year it was down to 12% of full funding. This year, Palo Alto is eligible to receive almost $22,000 from this program at the 12% funding level. While this program was not reduced in FY2010 from last fiscal year, there is concern it may be reduced next fiscal year. b. Follow funding status for the California Library Services Act, which provides funding to libraries that loan materials to other libraries or directly to patrons from other communities. There are two components of this Act that relate to Palo Alto -the Direct Loan program and the Interlibrary Loan program. In recent years, Palo Alto has not received funding from the Direct Loan program because our residents borrow more from other libraries than non-residents borrow from our library. However, we do receive a small amount annually from the Interlibrary Loan program because every item loaned to another library qualifies for some reimbursement. This includes items loaned through the LINK + program. The concern is that the funding for these programs may be reduced. 5) Continue to advocate for the City'S stimulus grant (ARRA) applications with State and Federal representatives 6) Maintain and support the Utilities Department Legislative Program, which preserves and enhances local flexibility in the control and oversight of matters impacting utility programs and rates for City customers. 7) High Speed Rail: Assure that funding or legislation is tied to local input regarding environmental analysis, feasibility and input from affected localities. 8) Amendments to Housing Law: Support housing element extensions; oppose attempts to mandate penalties for housing element noncompliance; and support efforts to allocate housing needs projections on a regional or sub-regional basis, rather than city by city. 9) SB 375: Assure that follow up legislation 1) allows for extensive local agency input to methodologies used to determine greenhouse gases and transportation December 17, 2009 Page 2 of3 Attachment D: Proposed 2010 Federal and State Legislative Priorities Policy & Services Committee systems; 2) supports looking at job centers as well as housing intensity; and 3) does not erode the land use control of cities. 10) Monitor Statewide plastic bag ban legislation and support if consistent with other Council goals and priorities 11) Support legislation that would allow for the imposition of local fees for emergency servIces December 17, 2009 Page 3 of3 Attachment B: Draft Excerpt from 12/17/2009 Policy & Services Minutes 4. Recommendation for Council Approval of the City's 2010 Federal and State Legislative Priorities and Overall Legislative Action Program Structure Assistant to the City Manager Kelly Morariu said the overall Legislative Program structure had been refined. Staff requested the Committee's comments on the legislative process. A few minor changes had been outlined in Attachment D. Staff had taken input from the City's Federal legislative advocacy firm, the Executive Team and other Staff Members that have been involved in the process, and put together some Federal legislative priorities which were included in the Staff Report. With the Committee's approval, Staff was planning to bring the program before Council in January in conjunction with the Utilities Department legislative program. Council Member Barton commented on the different relationships between the federal program and state program. He commented on broadband-cable-telephone-wireless issues as they related to the tax base. He questioned how competition should be addressed at the federal level. He also stated that the San Francisquito Creek issue should be addressed more specifically as part of the appropriations request. City Manager James Keene said they were guiding principles. Council Member Kishimoto said that staff should look at liberal communities and climate change. Smart Grid straddles broadband, and should be considered. Positioning Palo Alto as a model city should be mentioned. Council Member Barton suggested finding a way to build innovation in, and to leverage the brand. Mr. Keene agreed with the suggestions. He added that the Federal lobbyists made the same point in relation to competing for Federal funds. Council Member Barton suggested working with private industries to accomplish the goal. Ms. Morariu said that was something the Council would like as an overall principle. Council Member Kishimoto agreed they should add the public-private Page 1 of 4 Attachment B: Draft Excerpt from 12/17/2009 Policy & Services Minutes partnerships to the procedure. Chair Espinosa commented that progress was being made in this program. He said it's important to clarify the role the Council will play, and it's being mentioned more, but it should be thought through more than it has. Council Member Kishimoto said that guidelines for High Speed Rail have been developed and the role of the legislature is to respond quickly. Chair Espinosa said creating a flow chart would be a good idea. Community engagement should also be added. There should be triggers that instigate community involvement. He asked about the next steps for understanding what the lobbyist's work plans were. Ms. Morariu asked for suggestions on what that would look like. Mr. Keene asked for timing suggestions. He said that every year there should be a work plan with priorities defined. Chair Espinosa said the most important priority should be identified. Ms. Morariu said Council will help define that in January. Chair Espinosa said that community partners could help reach legislators with certain appropriations requests. Ms. Morariu said the Federal lobbyist had recommended a trip to Washington in early February. Chair Espinosa said it should be up to the new Council, but they will have to have the conversation quickly. It's incumbent on the lobbyists to inform staff soon about issues that are important to give them time to prepare a response for when Palo Alto visits them. Council Member Kishimoto asked if Palo Alto had a State Lobbyist. Mr. Keene said the City does not. Council Member Kishimoto suggested the City prioritize their goals with the Cities Association. High Speed Rail could be prioritized to have more of an impact. Page 2 of 4 Attachment B: Draft Excerpt from 12/17/2009 Policy & Services Minutes Council Member Barton suggested creating an organization of Cities that shared Palo Alto's view, such as a coalition of green California Cities. A small group of Cities with a relatively small amount of money can accomplish much with the nimble nature of such a group. Chair Espinosa agreed with Council Member Barton's suggestion, with the exception that they were competing with some of those cities for much of the project funds. He also discussed the process for determining when Palo Alto will connect with other organizations to join forces to leverage lobbying resources. Council Member Kishimoto said that under Guiding Principles they should add "proactive advocating on behalf of the City, taking a proactive role in working with Federal and State legislatures, League of Cities, and CPA or other partners." Council Member Yeh said another area with dollars available was the Low Carbon Cities Initiative between China and the U.S. The other Bay Area Cities participating in the program were Oakland and Berkeley. He talked about the importance of familiarizing staff with that process, without taking too much of their time. MOTION: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Council Member Barton that the Policy and Services Committee recommend approval of the 2010 State and Federal legislative Priorities with changes recommended by Staff, and the additional bullet under Overall Guiding Principles, and promoting Palo Alto's role as a leader. Chair Espinosa said the three bullets were; 1) positioning and branding ourselves as an innovation leader to lead on certain policies, 2) taking a proactive step to building a coalition of cities to leverage resources, and 3) thinking about broader community engagement. He said that, if staff understood the three bullets, the motion was fine. Council Member Kishimoto added that Smart Grid needed to be added under Federal, and asked about High Speed Rail. Mr. Keene said he wanted to define how proactive the City should be. Chair Espinosa said it would be good to call that out in a staff report. There will be an evaluation of the committee aSSignments in the following year. The State approach needs to be driven through the League; we would like to see them be decisive. Page 3 of 4 Attachment B: Draft Excerpt from 12/17/2009 Policy & Services Minutes Ms. Morariu suggested that should be called out under the role of Council in the program manual. Chair Espinosa agreed but added the principals will already have been assigned at that time. The Mayor will need to recognize the impact this will have in the overall strategy. Mr. Keene added that the overall guiding principles don't have this detail. It may be beneficial to recognize the state was broken and determine the importance of advocacy for State reform. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Page 4 of 4 Attachment C: Proposed 2010 Federal and State Legislative Priorities Overall Guiding Principles • Protect local revenue sources and prevent unfunded mandates a. Oppose Federal or State legislation, policies and budgets that have negative impacts on services, revenues and .costs. Ensure that legislation, policies and budgets do not detract from Palo Alto's ability to draw on local revenue sources. • Protect and increase local government discretion but in balance with City values and priorities a. Acknowledge the fundamental issues with the governance structure at the State·'-:- level and ensure that legislative or Constitutional refonns align with the City's values and maintain and/or enhance local discretion • Ensure that legislation, policies and budgets retain or increase, but generally don't decrease, the amount of local discretion held by the City and protect local decision making. Oppose legislation, policies and budgets that reduce the authority andlor ability of local government to detennine how best to effectively operate local programs, services and activities. The City retains the right to exceed State goals, standards or targets. • Protect and increase funding for specific programs an<;l services a. Support County, State and Federal funding for local service by maxlmlzmg existing funding levels and seeking new and alternative funding for programs. Promote increases in the allocation of funds to cities and flexibility in distribution. • Proactively advocate on behalf of the City a. Identify key legislative areas to monitor annually. Take a proactive role in working with Federal and State legislators to draft and sponsor legislation around key City priorities. Potential 2010 Federal Legislative Priorities/Focus Areas Legislation • Tnm.sportation Authorization: Ensure road and transit programs and projects of specific importance to the City • Climate Change and Energy Legislation: Review legislation and identify impacts for Palo Alto • Appropriations bills: Advocate for Federal funding for projects and programs in the City • National Flood Insurance Program Reauthorization: Review legislation and identify impacts of flood insurance rates for floodplain areas • Jobs bill-Review legislation and identify impacts for Palo Alto Regulation/Administrative Actions: On all topics, work with appropriate administrative and agency staff to revise program/grant guidelines • Broadbandltelephony issues • Energy Efficiency Grants and Standards • Census January 25, 2010 Page 1 of3 Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25", Tabs: Not at 0.75" Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Attachment C: Proposed 2010 Federal and State Legislative Priorities • ARRA (stimulus) grants and guidance • Smart Grid • High Speed Rail Potential 2010 State Legislative Priorities/Focus Areas 1) Monitor status of League of California Cities-supported ballot measure to protect local revenue sources and lend support to the measure if it qualifies for the November 2010 ballot. 2) Track progress of ballot measures relating to pension reform and follow guidance provided by League of California Cities and take appropriate positions on measures if the measures qualify for the November 2010 ballot. 3) Follow the progress of ballot measures intended to revise various State-level budget and governance reforms and determine impacts to City of Palo Alto. Follow guidance provided by League of California Cities and take appropriate positions on measures as necessary. 4) Monitor the development of the State budget and take positions to support or oppose proposals depending on the impact to Palo Alto, particularly as they relate to the taking or borrowing of local revenues. a. Follow funding status for the Public library Fund Act (a program that provides direct state aid to California libraries for basic public library service). The program has never been fully funded at the level permitted by the legislation; ten years ago, it was at 80% of full funding; last year it was down to 12% of full funding. This year, Palo Alto is eligible to receive almost $22,000 from this program at the 12% funding level. While this program was not reduced in FY2010 from last fiscal year, there is concern it may be reduced next fiscal year. b. Follow funding status for the California Library Services Act, which provides funding to libraries that loan materials to other libraries or directly to patrons from other communities. There are two components of this Act that relate to Palo Alto -the Direct Loan program and the Interlibrary Loan program. In recent years, Palo Alto has not received funding from the Direct Loan program because our residents borrow more from other libraries than non-residents borrow from our library. However, we do receive a small amount annually from the Interlibrary Loan program because every item loaned to another library qualifies for some reimbursement. This includes items loaned through the LINK + program. The concern is that the funding for these programs may be reduced. 5) Continue to advocate for the City's stimulus grant (ARRA) applications with State and Federal representatives 6) Maintain and support the Utilities Department Legislative Program, which preserves and enhances local flexibility in the control and oversight of matters impacting utility programs and rates for City customers. 7) High Speed Rail: Assure that funding or legislation is tied to local input regarding environmental analysis, feasibility and input from affected localities. January 25, 2010 Page 2 of3 -( Formatted: Bullets and Numbering) Attachment C: Proposed 2010 Federal and State Legislative Priorities 8) Amendments to Housing Law regarding Regional Housing Needs Allocation or Housing Element requirements: Support housing element extensions; oppose attempts to mandate penalties for housing element noncompliance; and support efforts to allocate housing needs projections on a regional or sub-regional basis, rather than city by city. 9) SB 375: Assure that follow up legislation I) allows for extensive local agency input to methodologies used to determine greenhouse gases and transportation systems; 2) supports looking at job centers as well as housing intensity; and 3) does not erode the land use control of cities. 10) Monitor Statewide plastic bag ban legislation and support if consistent with other Council goals and priorities II) Determine and monitor impact of new State Department of Resources, Recycling+-----f Formatted: Bullets and NUn:!~ and Recovery on City'S Solid Waste program 12) Monitor legislation proposing to increase solid waste diversion requirements for J ----l consistency with City's zero waste goals,.umu_uumuuumuuuuu_uuum_mmumm_------l'---o_e_le_ted_: _______ -' mSupport legislation that would allow for the imposition of local fees for emergency services January 25, 2010 Page 3 of3 Project Name San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority -U.s. Army Corps of Engineers General Investigation Foothills Fire Management Plan Evacuation Route Vegetation Treatment/Clearing Highway 101 Bicycle/Pedestrian Overpass Regional Trail Connections and Rehabilitation Baylands/SF Creek Conservation Plan and Baylands Salt Marsh Restoration Emergency Operations Staging Facility Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Attachment 0: City of Palo Alto 2011 Federal Appropriations Requests January 25, 2010 Total Project 2011 Federal Potential Federal Funding Project Description Cost Funding Request Source This Army Corps of Engineers Feasibility Study will protect thousands of homes and businesses, with environmental and recreational benefit. The 100-year floodplain within Palo Alto, East Palo Alto and Menlo Park also includes a major U.S. Highway, regional commuter rail and airport, U.S. Post Office, and water treatment plant S 7,463,100 S 2,000,000 Energy & Water Appropriations This project reduces the fire hazard posed by vegetation along nearly 12 miles of critical regional evacuation routes through the Palo Department of Homeland Alto foothills. S 384,520 S 384,520 Security located in the Highway 101 corridor north of the San Antonio Road interchange, project will connect bikes and pedestrians via overpass or underpass to frontage roads on east and west Transportation, Housing & sides of freeway. S 7,750,000 S 7,650,000 Urban Development Project would resurface 5.5 miles of Baylands trails, would add new multi-use trail connection between Palo Alto and Portola Valley, and would improve 2 miles of Bay to Transportation, Housing & Ridge trail. S 452,478 S 452,478 Urban Development Project would develop a comprehensive conservation plan for the Baylands Nature Preserve and restore and improve 25 acres of salt marsh, thereby improving habitat for a diverse and prolific ecosystem that includes the Federally endangered California clapper rail and the salt marsh harvest mouse. S 542,478 S 542,478 Energy & Water Appropriations Project would construct staging facility for Mobile Command Vehicle, Police SWAT vehicle, and disaster response trailer and supplies, ensuring that this equipment is easily accessible in the event of an earthquake Department of Homeland or other disaster. S 250,000 S 250,000 Security Project would expand the distribution system to serve non-potable recycled water to additional City uses and other commercial customers, thereby reducing imported water supplies by over 10%. S 31,9QO,000 _L_ ..!,~O(),OQQ... !.nergy & Water Appropriations Page 1 of 1 Staff Priority Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 Not eligible for funding this year TO: FROM: DATE: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER JANUARY 25, 2010 DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES AND PUBLIC WORKS CMR: 111:10 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Establishing a Salinity Reduction Policy for Recycled Water RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission recommend that the Council adopt a resolution approving the proposed Recycled Water Salinity Reduction Policy (Salinity Policy). BACKGROUND Recycling treated wastewater is increasing in the arid West as a response to the fact that populations are increasing and fresh water supplies are not. Palo Alto and other communities are using treated wastewater for landscape irrigation and that use is expected to grow dramatically in the future. Salts accumulate in water when it is used by people and industrial processes. To maximize the use of recycled water for irrigation on the widest variety of green plants, the recycled water's salt content (salinity) needs to be minimized. The issue of salinity of recycled water was raised by Canopy and the Stanford Real Estate office when they reviewed the recycled water project's draft environmental document. The purpose of this policy is to ensure that the City is taking all practical steps to reduce salinity in recycled water. DISCUSSION Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) is a common measure of the salinity in a water system. In general, the higher the TDS, the more soil, plant, and irrigation management will be required when using recycled water for landscape irrigation. The total amount of TDS in recycled water depends on a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, the TDS levels of the potable source water, the level of industrial/commercial inflow into the system, water softener use, and infiltration into the sewer collection system from highly saline groundwater areas. Throughout California, different recycled water retailers produce recycled water with a wide range of TDS levels (as shown in Chart I below). The City of San Diego produces recycled water with a TDS level approaching 1000 parts per million (PPM), compared to a potable source water level of approximately 500 PPM. In northern California, the South Bay Water Recycling system has a TDS level of700-750 PPM, compared to a source water concentration of approximately 300 PPM. CMR: 111:10 Page 1 of6 Chart I: TDS level comparison in potable and recycled water supplies in California i" Q. ~ II 15 i! "'" CI ~ 1200,.---------------------------, 1000+------------------------~ 800 600 400 200 o C~y of San Diego South 8ay Water recycling Redwood C~y C~y of Palo Ano ~ Recycled Water TDS level I!l Potable Source Water TDS level The Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) serves the cities of Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Mountain View, the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, the town of Los Altos Hills and Stanford University. The TDS levels in the recycled water from the RWQCP currently are in the 850 to 900 PPM range, however the TDS level of influent into the RWQCP from the partner agencies varies considerably. Considering the high quality of the potable water source for most of the RWQCP partners, the current TDS levels are higher than expected. There are several reasons for the elevated TDS levels, but the primary controllable source is infiltration into the wastewater collection system in the Baylands area where the groundwater salinity level is high. The RWQCP's partners' influent TDS levels are depicted in Chart II below and demonstrate the TDS variations between the different partners. CMR: 111:10 Page 2 of6 Chart II: RWQCP Partner TDS concentrations and Total Recycled Water TDS levels -E a. a. VI S cu til) RI ~ cu ~ 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Existing lOS Concentration: Partners and Recycled Water (Oct 2007 -Nov 2008) EPASD los Altos Mountain Palo Alto Stanford Recycled View Water Staff is recommending that a Recycled Water Salinity Reduction Policy be adopted to facilitate a focused effort to reduce TDS levels over time. The proposed Salinity Policy will provide a basis to implement activities to achieve those results. Based on the existing TDS levels and comparisons with other recycled water providers, it is apparent that there is an opportunity to further reduce the TDS levels of the recycled water from the RWQCP by working with individual RWQCP partners. Regulatory limits for TDS for landscaping do not exist because landscape requirements are driven by individual site soil conditions. However, the establishment of a quantitative goal based on elimination of infiltration will assist the R WQCP partners and the City in efforts to reduce the TDS levels to a level one would expect given the source water for the service area of the R WQCP. The Salinity Policy contains a TDS goal of 600 PPM. Staff has estimated that this level can be achieved without modifying normal human or industrial activities, but rather by controlling saline groundwater infiltration. The TDS goal of 600 PPM was derived, in part, by starting with the aggregate source water for the RWQCP partner agencies, which has a TDS of about 100 PPM. Unavoidable, normal human activities typically add about 350-400 PPM to the source water. Another 100-150 PPM was added as a buffer since it is impossible to completely stop all intrusion of saline groundwater into the wastewater collection systems, for a total of 600 PPM. CMR: 111:10 Page 3 of6 The 600 PPM TDS goal was developed based upon what should be achievable, employing best engineering practices. It is not based on the requirements of living plants for irrigation. As stated above, the variability and importance of soil conditions and individual plant types have prevented resource agencies from establishing such standards for irrigation. However, the 600 PPM TDS goal is slightly less than the 640 PPM level recommended by the Stanford Real Estate Office (REO) in their November 24, 2009 comments to the City. While staff cannot establish standards for irrigation, it appears that a 600 PPM TDS goal is consistent with recommendation of the Stanford REO, despite their different basis. When reviewed by the Utilities Advisory Commission at its December 2, 2009 meeting, the Stanford REO indicated that it supported the establishment of a 600 PPM TDS goal, while pointing out that other constituents (components of TDS such as Sodium) must also be addressed (see Attachment D). Staff will address these other constituents in the future. For now, the critical action is to establish a goal and begin to take action toward that goal. The goal can be amended in the future as more information and analysis becomes available. The R WQCP has already identified a preliminary list of efforts that can be implemented or that are in the process of implementation in support of the Salinity Policy. Notable examples include: • The City of Mountain View has just eliminated the sewer discharge of 3 saline wells in the north of Bayshore area. This action alone should reduce the TDS to 800 PPM. • The RWQCP will continue to monitor potential saltwater intrusion "hotspots" and communicate the results to the relevant RWQCP partners. • The RWQCP will develop a database to track salinity data and other investigative work • Utilities will coordinate implementation of the recently approved Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (CMR: 303:09) to manage the Palo Alto wastewater collection system and identify inflow and infiltration reduction actions. • The R WQCP will develop a groundwater management plan to coordinate salinity reduction activities with the R WQCP partners and prepare for expanded recycled water application. This groundwater management plan will be coordinated with the Santa Clara Valley Water District, which has jurisdiction over the groundwater basins in Santa Clara County. The benefits of achieving the TDS goal in the Salinity Policy include greater acceptance of the use of recycled water. Recycled water is currently blended with potable water when used on the Municipal Golf Course and at Greer Park. It is expected that reducing the salinity of the water will enable a greater fraction of recycled water to be used by these existing recycled water customers. These efforts and the efforts to expand the recycled water system to serve new customers will help the City reduce its consumption of potable water and reduce treated effluent flow to the Bay. COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed Salinity Policy was presented to the UAC at its meeting on December 2, 2009. The UAC discussed what establishing this goal and adopting this policy means since there is no enforcement provision. Staff responded that adopting the policy is a first step to addressing recycled water salinity and that additional steps may have to be taken if the policy is ineffective. The UAC also questioned what Palo Alto would have to do since it appears to have influent below the goal level. Staff added that Utilities wastewater collection system Capital CMR: 111:10 Page 4 of6 Improvement Projects (CIPs) already address repairs and replacements of the pipes and will continue to do so. The Stanford Real Estate Office provided comments on the proposed policy stating that it supported the policy, but noted that there are other constituents besides TDS that may be a concern. The UAC asked if staff plans to address these other recycled water quality components. Staff stated that additional constituents would be addressed in the environmental document for the Palo Alto Recycled Water Project and that it may propose policies for additional constituents in the future. Commissioner Waldfogel said that he was not convinced that any extra money should be spent on fixing wastewater collection system pipes since no data was presented that showed the relationship between TDS levels and potential recycled water use. He stated that the real goal is to reduce potable water usage and that staff should determine how much more recycled water would be used if TDS levels were reduced to 600 PPM. In addition, staff did not state how much money may be spent to achieve the 600 PPM goal. Staff responded that the Utilities CIP budget for its wastewater collection enterprise is very predictable and funds in addition to the already planned CIPs are not anticipated to be necessary for Palo Alto. Staff has no plans to conduct an analysis of the relationship between TDS levels and expected recycled water use. The assessment of recycled water use assumes that the recycled water will be of acceptable water quality to end users. The UAC voted to recommend that the Council adopt the proposed Salinity Policy by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Waldfogel voting no. Commissioner Arneri recused himself from the discussion and vote and Commissioner Berry was absent. The notes from the UAC meeting are provided as Attachment C. RESOURCE IMPACT The City of Palo Alto has an aggressive wastewater collection system Capital Improvement Program (CIP) which identifies and evaluates issue areas and prioritizes projects to manage available funding. By its very nature the CIP has inherent TDS reduction benefits, as demonstrated by the City's current TDS levels entering the RWQCP. Staff does not anticipate any additional CIP cost or structural changes are needed at this time to accommodate the Salinity Policy. The City will coordinate implementation of the Salinity Policy with the other RWQCP partners. It is unknown at this time what additional costs could be borne by the other RWQCP partners towards achieving this policy goal. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Continuing the exploration of expanding the use of recycled water in Palo Alto is consistent with Council policy. The Council has supported this goal through approval of the Water Integrated Resources Plan (WIRP) Guidelines in December 2003 [CMR:547:03], specifically, WIRP Guideline #3: Actively participate in development of cost-effective regional recycled water plans. Council also approved ordinance No. 5002 in May 2008 [CMR:203:08] adding Chapter CMR: 111:10 Page 5 of6 16.12 to Title 16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to require the use of recycled water for irrigation, toilet and urinal flushing and trap priming. The City's Sustainability Policy supports the development of recycled water, specifically in the policy's statement to "reduce resource use and pollution in a cost-effective manner while striving to protect and enhance the quality of the air, water, land, and other natural resources." The City'S Comprehensive Plan contains Natural Environment Goal N-4: Water resources that are prudently managed to sustain plant and animal life, support urban activities and protect public health and safety. Specifically, Program N-26 addresses the use of recycled water: Implement incentives for the use of drought-tolerant landscaping and recycled water for landscape irrigation. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Approval of the Recycled Water Salinity Reduction Policy is not a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act, because the Salinity Policy does not involve any commitment to a specific project with may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment, as contemplated by Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15378(b)(4). ATTACHMENTS A. Resolution B. Proposed Recycled Water Salinity Reduction Policy C. Excerpts -Draft Minutes from the December 2, 2009 UAC meeting D. Stanford Real Estate Office Testimony at the December 2,2009 UAC meeting PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR: 111:10 W_ NICOLAS PROCOS ~ Senior Resource Planner c1iPHIL BOBEL Environmental Compliance Manager ~ANE O. RATCHYE o Utilities Assistant Director, Resource Management Page 6 of6 NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT A Resolution No. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing a Salinity Reduction Policy for Recycled Water WHEREAS, the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) serves the Cities of Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Mountain View, the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, the Town of Los Altos Hills and Stanford University; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto currently uses tertiary treated wastewater from the RWQCP to irrigate the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, Greer Park, the Emily Renzel Marsh and portions of the Palo Alto Duck Pond; and WHEREAS, the City of Mountain View, a RWQCP partner, will begin delivering recycled water from the RWQCP to end users in Mountain View in Summer 2010; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto is investigating an expansion of the recycled water delivery system to serve predominantly irrigation customers within the Stanford Research Park; and WHEREAS, although regulatory limits for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS, a common measure of the salinity in a water system) do not exist, recycled water from the RWQCP contains higher than expected TDS levels compared to the average potable source water concentrations of the R WQCP partners; and WHEREAS, the establishment of a quantitative TDS goal based on elimination of saltwater infiltration from the Baylands will assist the RWQCP's efforts to reduce the TDS level to a level one would expect given the RWQCP partners' source water; and WHEREAS, City of Palo Alto, as managing partner of the RWQCP and in partnership with the other R WQCP partners, has developed a Recycled Water Salinity Reduction Policy to identify and pursue all cost effective measures to reduce the salinity of the recycled water over time. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The Council approves the Recycled Water Salinity Reduction Policy, attached as Exhibit A. SECTION 2. The Council authorizes City Utilities Department and RWQCP staff to coordinate implementation of the Recycled Water Salinity Policy with the RWQCP partners 1 100112 syn 6051045 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 3. The Council directs City staff to submit biannual progress reports to Council on the effort to reduce the Total Dissolved Solids levels in the RWQCP's recycled water. SECTION 4. In compliance with the CEQA, Council finds that the approval of the Salinity Reduction Policy is not a "project" under CEQA, because the Policy does not involve any commitment to a specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment, as contemplated by Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15378(b)(4). INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deputy City Attorney City Manager 2 100112 syn 6051045 ATTACHMENT B CITY OF PALO ALTO RECYCLED WATER SALINITY REDUCTION POLICY POLICY STATEMENT Recycling treated wastewater is increasing in the arid West as a response to the fact that populations are increasing and fresh water supplies are not. Palo Alto and other communities are using treated wastewater for landscape irrigation and that use is expected to grow dramatically in the future. Salts accumulate in water when it is used by people and industrial processes. To maximize the use of recycled water on the widest variety of green plants, the salt content (salinity) needs to be minimized. The purpose of this policy is to ensure that the City is taking all practical steps to reduce salinity in recycled water. Therefore, it shall be the policy of Palo Alto to prevent unnecessary additions of salt to the sewer system, with a goal of lowering the Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in the recycled water to less than 600 parts per million (PPM). Applicability of this Policy Palo Alto shall utilize this policy and its 600 PPM Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) goal to develop salinity control measures. Palo Alto owns and operates the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), which treats wastewater from Palo Alto and five other communities. The RWQCP Partners, including Palo Alto, will be asked to identify controllable salt inputs to wastewater from their communities and to implement control measures. PROCEDURES Staff estimates that the wastewater TDS can be reduced to 600 PPM without modifying normal human use or industrial activities. The major way in which salts can be reduced is by controlling the infiltration of saline groundwater which is currently entering sewer pipes through cracks and problem areas in those pipes as they cross saline areas near San Francisco Bay. Other sources of controllable salt must also be explored. The activities that will be completed to implement this policy include: 1. Determine the salinity levels for each entity whose wastewater is treated by the RWQCP. 2. Identify the sources of salinity. 3. Develop alternatives for reducing the salinity levels. 4. Identity the actions that can be implemented to meet the TDS goal. 5. Prepare Salinity Reduction Plan. 6. Monitor TDS and report to Council semi-annually on progress towards meeting the TDS goal. Note: Questions and/or clarifications of this policy should be directed to the Public Works Department. DRAFT UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION EXCERPT MINUTES OF DECEMBER 2, 2009 ATTACHMENTC ITEM 1: ACTION ITEM: Recommendation to Approve Recycled Water Salinity Reduction Policy When the item was announced, Commissioner Ameri indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion of this water related issue since he works for a water agency in the East Bay that receives water from the same supplier as Palo Alto. He explained that there was no financial conflict of interest, but since there could be a perception of a conflict, he has chosen to not participate in the discussion. He left the room for the item. Senior Resource Planner Nicolas Procos provided a presentation to the commission summarizing the written report. Environmental Compliance Manager for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), Phil Bobel, also contributed to the report and was available for questions. He briefly reminded the Commission about the Palo Alto Phase 3 project that would provide about 900 acre-feet per year to the Stanford Research Park. The recycled water quality is a concern with respect to the use of recycled water for irrigation of landscaping, especially certain salt-sensitive species such as redwoods. Palo Alto's recycled water has a higher content of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), a salinity indicator, than would be expected given the extremely low TDS in the source potable water in the service area of the RWQCP. The plant partner making the biggest contribution of salt to the plant is Mountain View. It is the only partner whose influent to the plant has a TDS of above 6'50 parts per million (PPM). Procos explained that the proposed Recycled Water Salinity Reduction Policy establishes a TDS goal for recycled water produced by the plant of 600 PPM. This goal was developed using the following assumptions: • The source water for the different agencies has very low TDS levels (-100 PPM in aggregate) • Normal, unavoidable, human activities will contribute an additional 350-400 PPM to the total TDS levels • A buffer of 100-200 PPM is needed as it is impossible to completely eliminate saline groundwater infiltration. Procos further explained that the policy does not have an enforcement mechanism, although that could be a future feature. The policy does not provide, nor is it based on, an assessment of what number represents a suitable TDS level for irrigation purposes. This issue will be addressed in the near future during the environmental review phase for the Palo Alto Recycled Water (Phase 3) Project. In addition, the policy does not establish a firm "delivery guarantee" for future recycled water users. Public comment on Item #1 : Jim Inglis, Director of Design and Construction for the Stanford Real Estate Office read prepared comments on the proposed Recycled Water Salinity Reduction Policy and provided the comments in writing: • "It is positive that the City is promoting a policy to minimize salinity in its recycled water. The proposed salinity reduction policy is an important first step, and as we support efforts by Palo Alto to take the lead and coordinate with the communities served by the Regional Water Quality Control Plant to identify salt inputs to their wastewater and to develop an implement concrete measures to control salinity. • "We realize that tonight the UAC is not addressing the specific issues associated with managing the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation. However, we want to present our concerns to the UAC, so that it is aware of the issues that may arise as the City moves forward with its recycled water program. • "The City is considering potential future use of recycled water to irrigate landscaping at the Stanford Research Park, which contains many salt-sensitive plantings and soils with poor drainage. We understand that the City intends at some point in the future to reinitiate the environmental review process for such use, and we understand that, as part of the process, the City will examine and consider the deleterious salinity impacts to plants and trees such as coastal redwoods. • "As reflected in the Recycled Water Guidelines prepared by HortScience that we have submitted to the City, we believe it is essential that potential future use of recycled water for landscape irrigation include appropriate mitigation and management measures. These measures, when they are ultimately adopted by the City, should include enforceable limits for all of the relevant constituents of concern for salinity, as identified in HortScience's Guidelines, and not just a single constituent such as total dissolved solids. There measures should also recognize that recycled water failing to meet the appropriate limits for salinity should not be used to irrigate salt-sensitive landscaping." Herb Borock, Palo Alto resident, commented that when the recycled water project has been presented by staff in the past, the price and fee schedule for the recycled water does not cover the cost of the project. Staff has compared the cost of the project to the wholesale cost of water, but it should have been compared to the retail rates, which are four times the wholesale rate. Staff should look at all costs of recycled water when establishing prices for recycled water to avoid potable water users subsidizing those who use recycled water. Commissioner Foster asked about the status of Palo Alto's recycled water project. Procos replied that the planning has been completed, including development of a cost estimate of about $33 million. Foster asked if the project will address the concerns raised about recycled water quality. Procos confirmed that the environmental document would address that issue. Commissioner Eglash asked why staff said that there would be no cost to Palo Alto to implement the policy. Procos responded that Palo Alto's wastewater collection system CIPs are doing the job well of repairing leaks, which reduces the introduction of saline groundwater into the wastewater collection system. Bobel added that the partners also understand the problem and Mountain View is moving forward to repair or modify its systems. Commissioner Eglash noted that the approach was not to set a goal at a level to meet irrigation needs, but to see what is reasonable based on source water quality and what is achievable. Procos confirmed that this was correct. Bobel added that it's very difficult to establish an acceptable level for irrigation needs since it depends on many factors such as soil types, drainage conditions, and plant materials. Eglash asked how staff plans to address the other constituents besides TDS. Bobel responded that they will be addressed in the environmental document. Commissioner Keller asked what adopting this goals means since it is not enforceable. Fong stated that it was important to establish a goal as a first step. Bobel added that enforcement may need to be added in the future, but it may not be easy as there are many contracts that govern operations of the plant and responsibilities of the plant and the partner agencies. These contracts cannot be unilaterally changed by Palo Alto. Keller asked how motivated the partners are to adopt such a policy. Bobel responded that Mountain View is motivated since it is using the recycled water now. Keller asked about the timeline for achieving the goal. Bobel said that it relates to how fast Mountain View can respond by re-directing its CIPs or spending more on the repairs or taking a longer time to complete them. Keller asked if goals would be established for other constituents. Bobel said that that plant is working on this now and installing improved monitoring to track these constituents and determine where they are coming from and the impacts of the treatment process on them. Commissioner Waldfogel stated that the overall objective of the policy is to reduce the potable water use. He wanted to see how much more recycled water could be used by achieving the goal. Procos said that this analysis has not been done, but that lower TDS will make the water more acceptable and make the exemption process in the Recycled Water Mandatory Use Ordinance less likely to be needed to protect certain landscaped areas. Waldfogel questioned whether reducing TDS would increase usage of recycled water. Bobel said that if we wait to agree on a magic number, work will never get started. Council Member Yeh stated that if there were no enforcement mechanism, why call it a policy, rather than a goal or a target. Since it is presented as a policy, he suspects that Council may ask questions about the costs, benefits and environmental impacts of implementing the policy. Bobel noted that policies are the tool that Council uses for these types of actions and that staff can use them to show Council support for programs. Assistant Director Jane Ratchye also stated that the RWQCP has successfully used this mechanism in the past on several occasions, but that they hadn't gone through the UAC and that it was possible that Council Member Yeh had not see such a policy in his tenure on the Council. Bobel confirmed that the plant has used the policy mechanism where Palo Alto first adopts a policy developed by RWQCP staff and then the policies are adopted by the other plant partners. He cited examples of using the policy mechanism to reduce mercury and pesticides, but acknowledged that it was before Yeh was on the Council and that, since they are related to wastewater, and not recycled water, the policies had not been considered by the UAC. Council Member Yeh questioned whether the goal of 600 PPM would have cost implications and whether an environmental review should be completed first. He asked if the environmental analysis that will be completed for the recycled water project will show the relationship between the amount of water used and TDS values of 400,500,600,700, etc. PPM. Bobel stated that the goal of 600 PPM was arrived at in two ways: One method was to add allowances for human activity and for the fact that one can't stop all infiltration to the TDS of the aggregate source water; the second method was to determine the outcome if Mountain View fixed the problems that have been identified. Chair Melton asked the Commission to stay focused on this policy and noted that the environmental document is not being considered at this time. He added that the Stanford Real Estate Office has indicated support for the policy and has indicated an acceptable TDS value that is in line with the goal in the policy. He indicated that he supports Palo Alto taking the lead and hopes that the other partners will follow suit. Commissioner Keller asked if the there is a Plan B if the policy doesn't work. Bobel responded that the plant will continue to assist the partners in finding problem areas that need to be fixed. Keller added that she has heard about many issues with the use of recycled water and knows that Palo Alto has been using recycled water on the Municipal Golf Course and at Greer Park. She asked if we are doing baseline studies prior to the application of recycled water. Bobel responded that there are baseline studies being done in Mountain View to monitor selected locations that will receive recycled water. This will need to be done in the Stanford Research Park as well. Procos added that the environmental document will have to address this, too. Commissioner Waldfogel commented that the goal was good, but that he has trouble since no analysis was provided about how much money may be spent to achieve the goal and how much additional potable water would be saved by achieving the goal. He also noted that the policy seems to not require Palo Alto to go anything, but it may obligate others (i.e. Mountain View) to spend millions of dollars. Commissioner Eglash added that he was concerned that some partners might be expected to reduce further and that Palo Alto should not have to do anything. He would much rather see a policy that conveys that Mountain View is the problem. Commissioner Foster asked if Palo Alto should be the first to adopt the policy, or whether Mountain View should go first. Bobel said that Palo Alto, as the operating partner of the RWQCP, always leads. This has been the practice in the past on many policies of this type. Council Member Yeh expressed concern about the lack of enforcement for the policy and wondered what has been done in the rest of the country. Bobel said that he was not aware of any such policy for TDS for any other wastewater treatment plant. Council Member Yeh also suggested that staff delay taking the policy to the Council to provide him/others some time to do outreach to Mountain View to assess its Council's willingness to also adopt such a policy. Chair Melton noted that the protocol in the past is that Palo Alto initiates and then the other plant partners follow. Commissioner Eglash asked why the goal was put on the recycled water output rather than on the plant influent. Bobel said that this is in the spirit of cooperation and not to complicate it since each partner has a slightly different water supply source mix. Commissioner Eglash stated that if staff thinks that the policy would be a useful tool to get partners to act, he is supportive of it. Commissioner Waldfogel asked if the best way to achieve the goal is to adopt this policy. He questioned whether it would be productive to show how Palo Alto is doing well, but that Mountain View is not. ACTION: Commissioner Eglash made a motion that the UAC recommend that the Council adopt the proposed Recycled Water Salinity Reduction Policy. Chair Melton seconded the motion. The motion passed (4-1) with Commissioner Waldfogel voting NO. After the item was completed, Commissioner Ameri returned to the meeting. Jim Inglis Director of Design & Construction Stanford University -Office of Real Estate Stanford University's Comments on City of Palo Alto's Proposed Recycled Water Salinity Reduction Policy • Brief introduction Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting Wednesday, December 2,2009 ATTACHMENT D • It is positive that the City is promoting a policy to minimize salinity in its recycled water. The proposed salinity reduction policy is an important first step, and we support efforts by Palo Alto to take the lead and coordinate with tl?e communities served by the Regional Water Quality Control Plant to identify salt inputs to their wastewater and to develop and implement concrete measures to control salinity. • We realize that tonight the UAC is not addressing the specific issues associated with managing the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation. However, we want to present our concerns to the UAC, so that it is aware of the issues that may arise as the City moves forward with its recycled water program. • The City is considering potential future use of recycled water to irrigate landscaping at the Stanford Research Park, which contains many salt-sensitive plantings and soils with poor drainage. We understand that the City intends at some point in the future to reinitiate the environmental review process for such use, and we understand that, as part of that process, the City will examine and consider the deleterious salinity impacts to plants and trees such as coastal redwoods. • As reflected in the Recycled Water Gtlidelines prepared by HortScience that we have submitted to the City, we believe it is essential that potential future use of recycled water for landscape irrigation include appropriate mitigation and management measures. These measures, when they are ultimately adopted by the City, should include enforceable limits for all of the relevant constituents of concern for salinity, as identified in HortScience's Guidelines, and not just a single constituent such as total dissolved solids. These measures should also recognize that recycled water failing to meet the appropriate limits for salinity should not be used to irrigate salt-sensitive landscaping. The Honorable City Council December 15, 2009 Attn: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California Maze & Associates’ Audit of the City of Palo Alto’s Financial Statements as of June 30, 2009 and Management Letter Recommendation We recommend the Finance Committee review and recommend to the City Council acceptance of the external audited financial statements and management letter. Discussion The City Charter requires the City Council (through the City Auditor) to engage an independent certified public accounting firm to conduct the annual external audit and report the results of that audit in writing to the City Council. Maze & Associates, an accountancy corporation based in Pleasant Hill, California, conducted the audit of the City’s financial statements as of June 30, 2009. The Independent Auditor’s Report (the “opinion letter”) and Single Audit Report (the audit of federal funds received by the City which includes the report on internal control over financial reporting and the OMB Circular A-133 compliance requirements supplement) are included in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009. Maze & Associates also completed the following reports for the City of Palo Alto, as attached: Memorandum on Internal Control and Required Communications for the year ended June 30, 2009 (the “management letter”) – Attachment A Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance with the Proposition 111 2008-2009 Appropriation Limit Increment (the “Gann limit letter”) – Attachment B Public Improvement Corporation Basic Component Unit Financial Statements for the year ended June 30, 2009 – Attachment C Regional Water Quality Control Plant Financial Statements for the year ended June 30, 2009 – Attachment D Cable TV Franchise Statements of Revenues and Expenditures for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007 – Attachment E Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palo Alto Basic Component Unit Financial Statements for the year ended June 30, 2009 – Attachment F Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects Financial Statements for the year ended June 30, 2009 – Attachment G Cory Biggs from Maze & Associates will be available at the December 15th Finance Committee meeting to answer questions. I would like to express appreciation to Maze & Associates, and Trudy Eikenberry and her staff in the Administrative Services Department for their hard work and cooperation during the audit. Respectfully submitted, Lynda Flores Brouchoud City Auditor CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR Attachments ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT D ATTACHMENT D ATTACHMENT D ATTACHMENT D ATTACHMENT D ATTACHMENT D ATTACHMENT D ATTACHMENT D ATTACHMENT D ATTACHMENT E ATTACHMENT E ATTACHMENT E ATTACHMENT E ATTACHMENT E ATTACHMENT E ATTACHMENT F ATTACHMENT F ATTACHMENT F ATTACHMENT F ATTACHMENT F ATTACHMENT F ATTACHMENT F ATTACHMENT F ATTACHMENT F ATTACHMENT F ATTACHMENT F ATTACHMENT G ATTACHMENT G ATTACHMENT G ATTACHMENT G ATTACHMENT G ATTACHMENT G ATTACHMENT G