Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-06-17 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting June 17, 1996 1. Interviews for Utilities Advisory Commission..........79-251 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................79-252 1. Proposed Policy and Procedure Regarding Utilities Records Requests and Privacy Protection for Personal Customer Information -- Referral to Policy and Services Committee and Utilities Advisory Commission.........................79-253 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of the 1996-98 Budget and Approval of Budget Adoption Ordinance.............................79-253 23. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........79-283 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. to an Adjourned City Council Meeting on Monday, June 24, 1996.........79-283 06/17/96 79-250 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met in a Special Meeting on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:15 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Interviews for Utilities Advisory Commission ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:59 p.m. 06/17/96 79-251 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Jim McGee and Judy Jewell were the new Deputy Fire Chiefs in the Fire Department. Teclu Tesfazghi, 3695 LaDonna Avenue, spoke regarding Haben (PRIDE) and a request for a proclamation. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding honesty in government. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding the Civic League. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke regarding the Architectural Review Board=s Conflict of Interest on 300 Pasteur Drive (96-ARB-47) and 398 Arboretum Drive (96-ARB-63). Betty Land, 824 Sycamore, spoke regarding a two-story addition in close proximity to her home. Elizabeth Zimmermann, 5201 Great America Parkway, Santa Clara, spoke regarding Santa Clara Valley Manufacturing Group=s (SCVMG) Environmental Report. Sarah Tyree, City employee, 1671 Woodland Avenue, East Palo Alto, spoke regarding 2 percent at 55. Angelo Lombardo, City employee, 231 Alturas Avenue, Sunnyvale, spoke regarding 2 percent at 55. Brandon Burke, City employee, spoke regarding the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). Maria Elena Cortez, Field Representative, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 715, spoke regarding an agency shop and 2 percent at 55. Margaret Ash, 3901 El Camino Real, spoke regarding homelessness. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Huber, to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. Refer 06/17/96 79-252 1. Proposed Policy and Procedure Regarding Utilities Records Requests and Privacy Protection for Personal Customer Information -- Referral to Policy and Services Committee and Utilities Advisory Commission MOTION PASSED 9-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of the 1996-98 Budget and Approval of Budget Adoption Ordinance, including: 1) Exhibit A--The City Manager=s 1996-98 Proposed Budget - General Government Funds (Volume 1) and Utility and Internal Service funds (Volume II), including the Appropriations Limitation Compliance Calculation; 2) Exhibit B--All Changes detailed in the ΑAmendments to the City Manager=s 1996-98 Proposed Budget≅; 3) Exhibit C--Municipal Fee Schedule with Proposed 1996-97 Amendments; 4) Exhibit D--Revised page in the Table of Organization; and 5) Exhibit E--The Planning Division Work Program. Mayor Wheeler said the entire Council recognized that there was no job that the Council would do during the year that was more important than the decisions that would be made regarding the Budget. The Council would adopt the Budget for 1996-98 that evening, and the Budget was the embodiment of all of the programs and policies, and the personnel requirements that the Council intended to fill within the next two years. Council Member Kniss said the City not only had sufficient funds for its budget but also had money to improve the infrastructure. She said the budget was approximately $85 million in the General Fund and also $24 million in the overall fund which included the Utilities. The City offered an enormous amount of services to the community which was something that few other communities did. For that reason, people were willing to pay unconscionable amounts of money to live in Palo Alto. She acknowledged the efforts of staff and the Finance Committee members. She said the budget came to the Council from the City Manager and the financial staff; however, the Council made the final decisions. She explained the budget process. The most direct sources of revenue into the General Fund were sales tax at about $17 million and property taxes at about $8 million, including the documentary transfer tax, which constituted about 31 percent of the revenues under the General Fund. She acknowledged that residents contributed to other revenue sources such as a community service classes, fines, and fees, but two thirds of the budget came from nonresidential sources such as transient occupancy tax, rents, equity transfers from the Enterprise Funds, federal grants, and a variety of things including fire service from Stanford University. The City paid approximately 06/17/96 79-253 $450 per person per year toward the services that made Palo Alto such a special place to live. She reviewed what the community received from the budget: six branch libraries, eight fire stations, a renowned Children=s Theatre that provided over 160 performance classes and workshops for family audiences, and an acclaimed Community Theatre for adult performances, concerts, and classes. The City had the lowest utility rate in the surrounding area, and it supported the public school system by providing educational and athletic programs, maintaining athletic fields, and $5 million in funding through a joint effort not to develop schools sites. The City provided approximately $1 million in human services that ranged from child care to adolescent counseling services to homeless prevention to programs for senior citizens. Those services were in addition to a $1 million Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) budget that also provided for mental health, housing, and transportation services. The City had a Junior Museum and Zoo that had a great deal of volunteer support and also had 4,200 acres or one third of the City=s total 26 miles for open space, 34 parks, nature trails, and interpretive centers. The City recently opened a Teen Center for teen services and had many other recreational activities for the youth and adults. There were child care facilities, an animal services facility, a Cultural Center, and police services. The City had restored marshland and had provided funding for signage and street furniture. The City also had an energy program and enhanced funding for its trees. There were 90,000 jobs in Palo Alto, 26,000 housing units, a golf course, 4 community centers, 2 swimming pools, 45 tennis courts, 30 miles of bicycle lanes, and 1.65 million library books loaned each year. Palo Alto was the kind of community that people wanted to live in. She reviewed the Finance Committee recommendations. One issue that might elicit some response from members of the community was that the City would establish a program that discounted fees by 20 percent on designated City-run activities costing $5.00 or more for eligible, low-income residents and that it would be on a one-year trial basis. She emphasized there was a recommendation for consideration of ordinances that related to the Downtown Health and Safety Enhancement Program which dealt with Downtown activity on the sidewalk and with other activities that involved the health and safety of the Downtown area. She explained that the Finance Committee voted 2:1 to freeze the Water Equity Transfer at its 1995-96 level and not have an increase in water rates for the current fiscal year and potentially increase the rates by 9 percent in 1997-98 and provide a full equity transfer at the $2 million plus amount. MOTION: Council Member Kniss for the Finance Committee moved approval of the 1996-98 Budget and Approval of Budget Adoption Ordinance, including: 1) Exhibit A--The City Manager=s 1996-98 Proposed Budget - General Government Funds (Volume 1) and Utility and Internal Service funds (Volume II), including the Appropriations Limitation Compliance Calculation; 2) Exhibit B--All 06/17/96 79-254 Changes detailed in the ΑAmendments to the City Manager=s 1996-98 Proposed Budget≅; 3) Exhibit C--Municipal Fee Schedule with Proposed 1996-97 Amendments; 4) Exhibit D--Revised page in the Table of Organization; and 5) Exhibit E--The Planning Division Work Program. Finance Committee recommends to the City Council to direct staff to further review seven possible alternatives to the Options for Long-Term Funding of General Fund Programs at the Cubberley Community Center, Augmented Street and Sidewalk, Citywide Child care Coordination, and Lease and Covenant not to Develop Vacant Schools with the Palo Alto Unified School District (CMR:195:96). Options include: 1)Increase the UUT tax to compensate for declining revenues; 2)Extend the UUT to interstate and international phone calls; 3)Create an assessment district for sidewalk installation and repairs; 4) Use funding from the proposed lighting and landscape assessment to fund Cubberley landscape maintenance; 9) Increase the rent paid by Child Care providers; 10) Subsidize the Cubberley operations from the General Fund; and 12) Direct the City Manager to explore the potential of opening discussions with the Palo Alto Unified School District to determine whether there is any potential for mutually agreeing to open the lease for renegotiation on the portion relating to the Covenant Not to Develop. Finance Committee recommends to the City Council to direct staff to work with tenants to educate them regarding their rights related to substandard living conditions using Human Services as a resource at no cost in 1996-97. Finance Committee recommends to the City Council to approve the Calaveras Reserve policy described in CMR:214:96 and reduce the Electric Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve by $15.9 million and transfer that amount to the Electric Fund Calaveras Reserve effective Fiscal Year 96-97. Finance Committee recommends to the City Council to approve the new Demand Side Management (DSM) policy as described in CMR:209:96, to shift the goal for DSM programs from reducing rates or displacing supply resources to a goal of achieving customer satisfaction and retention while fostering the community=s environmental values. Finance Committee recommends to the City Council that a program be established which would discount fees, by 20 percent, on designated City-run activities costing $5.00 or more, for eligible, low-income residents, based on the Utility Department=s rates for low-income individuals. The program would be established on a one-year trial basis; thereby evaluating the potential future need for the program. Additionally, when a participant was accompanied by an attendant who was required due to a disability, only a single fee will be charged for City-sponsored activities. 06/17/96 79-255 Finance Committee recommends to the City Council consideration of ordinances relating to the Downtown Health and Safety Enhancement Program including: 1) Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Alcoholic Beverages to Add Section 9.04.030 Prohibiting Possession of Open Containers of Alcoholic Beverages Within or Adjacent to Businesses Licensed for Retail Package Off-Site Sale of Alcoholic Beverages; 2) Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Obstructing Streets and Sidewalks to Add Section 9.48.025 Prohibiting Sitting or Lying Upon the Public Sidewalk on University Avenue Between High Street and Waverley Street; and 3) Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Chapter 9.44 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Distribution of Handbills, Advertising, and Samples on Public and Private Properties and Enacting a New Chapter 9.44 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Prohibiting Solicitation of Employment, Business, or Contributions Within Public Parking Lots. Finance Committee recommends to the City Council to freeze the Water Equity Transfer at the 1995-96 level of $1,622,000, and have no increase in water rates in 1996-97, and further to potentially increase rates by 9 percent in 1997-98 and provide a full equity transfer at $2,187,000. Mayor Wheeler thanked the members of the Finance Committee for their efforts. City Manager June Fleming said since the Finance Committee had completed its deliberations and the staff was in the process of putting together the document for the Council, she had been asked a number of questions from various people either by telephone, mail, or personal contact. Those inquiries were refreshing and it sent a large signal to the community and the Council that the public was still active in their concern and was willing to be involved in a constructive manner. The inquiries indicated the public understood the budget format and process and the decisions the Council would make. She believed the questions should be answered. The document sent to the Council by the Finance Committee was the result of a lot of thoughtful work by the staff. She emphasized the information provided that evening was to assist the Council in the process and was not to lobby for any particular issue. She wanted to respond to the following issues: positions requested, low-income reduced fee proposal, Outreach Program for the Children=s Theatre, water rates, infrastructure, City/School cooperative programs, Tree Program, Downtown Enforcement Service Program, and support for the Mayor=s Palo Alto Together Program. She clarified that included in the recommended budget was a request for 9.5 new positions for the General Fund and a 1.0 new position in the Utility Fund. A requested conversion of 2.0 temporary positions to 06/17/96 79-256 permanent positions was also included. The result was 9.5 positions in the General Fund, 3.6 positions of which were funded by Utilities, one in the Utility Fund and 2.0 conversions from temporary to permanent. The majority of requests for positions had been referenced in previous reports that had been sent to the Council during the year. For example, when staff discussed assuming the responsibility for maintaining the bus shelters and the successful graffiti program, staff indicated those two services would probably be combined into one program for the current budget and that was why position requests were before the Council. The programs were ongoing, and the staffing had been aggressively monitored to assure that ongoing regular work was done by regular staff, so the positions met the criteria to be made permanent. The parking examiner was another example of a service the City must provide and could not be eliminated so the temporary position needed to be made permanent. Similarly, when the staff responded to the audit of the Purchasing Division on monitoring of contracts, it determined that the Division was extremely understaffed. The Council was being asked to approve those cost recovery positions to adequately staff that operation. She was certain the aggregate number surprised the Council, but there were no surprises upon reflection. She recalled that Council Member Fazzino had asked whether the City had grown and how the positions requested related to that growth. The City had grown but that growth meant more than expansion in size. The City had grown in the type of services that it provided. For example, several years previously the City would not have needed to ask for staffing for a graffiti program. The City=s organization had grown, and the City had the benefit of the City Auditor on staff who gave an unbiased evaluation of operations. Those recommendations were unbiased and always gave the ideal situation under which the City should work. However, with respect to the Purchasing operation, the recommendations made by the City Auditor helped staff become aware of the situation and the City needed to move in the direction recommended by the City Auditor. The City had grown to the point of providing some minor staffing for a Teen Center. If the definition of growth were broad, then the City had grown and the needs had changed. Council Member Fazzino also asked what was different about City operations that made positions necessary. The differences were healthy and what Palo Alto needed and what Palo Alto residents requested such as the Tree Protection Ordinance, attention to infrastructure, movement on the computer front, expansion of services, and bus shelter maintenance. Council Member Fazzino asked whether there were positions that were not brought to the Council that were requested in the Budget. She explained there were about 12 to 14 positions requested by staff that she did not support and did not bring to the Council. Council Member Fazzino also asked whether the positions had been previously discussed. In most instances, staff had inferred that it would be returning to the Council with a request for approval of positions, but staff did not officially ask for the positions previously. She explained the low-income reduced fee proposal began as a request for reduced services for the 06/17/96 79-257 disabled and had ended up as a staff recommendation to address low-income fee modifications. She strongly urged the Council not to put the staff in a position of determining disabilities. She did not have confidence in a professionally issued card that certified a person as disabled since such a process did not meet the intent because a disabled person might be able to pay for the services better than a person who was not disabled. The spirit of what staff had heard from the Council was to assist people who needed assistance which probably classified addressing people who did not have the financial resources to avail them to services they needed. Staff had made a recommendation that was somewhat different. One element left out of the fee proposal discussions was that staff understood the Council=s intent and philosophy and had tried to be compassionate and understanding of people who had disabilities and a need for the City=s programs and had tried to make programs available and had directed the people to other organizations that addressed both the needs of adults and youth. She supported the staff recommendation before the Council. There needed to be a balance and that balance fell on the side of dealing with income rather than disability. She found the Outreach Program for the Children=s Theatre to be an interesting experience that gave her the opportunity to meet with some very serious supporters of the Children=s Theatre Program. After the Finance Committee review and after the Council meeting when the funding for the program was raised, a series of discussions were held. She met with the Director of the Children=s Theatre Pat Briggs and Assistant Director Michael Litfin and then met with the parents who supported the program. She apologized that the philosophy that half the schools would be recipients of the program one year and the other half of the schools would be recipients the next year had not been followed and that that policy would be corrected. She shared that Ms. Briggs and Mr. Litfin wanted everything for every child but they understood the City could not do that. Staff made some priority decisions when it brought the Budget to the Council, and there was no program in the City that gave everything to everybody. More permanent staff would be needed for an ongoing program. The parents were extremely articulate and passionate about the program that provided a wonderful service. The recommendation did not demean that program. The program was unique to Palo Alto because Mr. Litfin and Ms. Briggs had made it happen with the help of the PTA and parents. She proposed that the City put all elementary and middle schools on a rotating every other year basis which meant there would be 13 schools. Ms. Briggs had made a proposal which she had accepted that for the current fiscal year the City should fund 7 schools and the next year the City should fund 6 schools which met that the report from the Finance Committee and funds in the Budget were not adequate. She asked that the Council add to the Budget $16,870 to allow the City to put the program on a rotating basis. In addition, she asked that the project not be micro- managed. She was confident that the Children=s Theatre staff and the parents could work out guidelines so that a rotation process 06/17/96 79-258 would be established so if one school could not take the program and another school needed to take the program, an exchange could be worked out and no school suffered. She believed the parents and the staff understood why schools did not receive the program one year or another, and the City did not need to deal with those reasons. Another part of the recommendation that came from the Finance Committee was that the three schools that did not receive the program the prior year would receive the program for the current year. She asked that the staff be relieved of that responsibility and that the additional funding be allocated. Ms. Briggs, Mr. Litfin, and the parents should be allowed to work out the guidelines to share with the schools so the program was on an even basis of half one year and half the next. The middle schools would also be part of that rotation. When she asked the parents how they felt about the proposal, their response was that they wanted it all. She believed the parents would cooperate and participate in the shared process. The outpour for the program had been tremendous, but if any other program were challenged, the outpour would be tremendous also. There was a misunderstanding that the program would be reduced, but that was not true. She wholeheartedly supported the new recommendation that she proposed to the Council that evening. She was concerned about the Finance Committee=s recommendation regarding water rates which reduced General Fund revenues by $422,000. The reduction might appear small in light of a $85 million Budget, but no amount was small. The bottom line was that the City needed every available dollar to begin to meet program needs which was the reason she did not present a budget that spent every penny. She left funds available because she knew there were programs that the Council needed to still deal with and money would be needed for either start-up costs or dollars to buy time while decisions were being made. She reminded the Council that the infrastructure improvements still needed to be done. Programs would be presented to the Council such as the Emergency Preparedness Plan which had a placeholder in the Budget but only for ongoing costs and not for start-up costs. The Family Resource Center would need to be discussed and the task force had proposed approximately $150,000 to $200,000 per year. She had discussed the issue with Council Member Kniss and options would be brought to the Council on how to address that proposal, but there were not funds in the Budget at the present time. The Library Master Plan was still being done, and there was no placeholder in the Budget for that item. The Emergency Medical Service Paramedic Plan had a small placeholder in the Budget but it was only for one-time costs. There were still issues such as Cubberley, the business district needs, and backlogs to be dealt with. The bottom line for the Water Fund was the 100-year old water system. It was thought that the City=s rates were not competitive, but the City probably had the only 100-year old water system and the infrastructure needed repair which was the driving reason for the rate increase. The City/School Cooperative Programs had been an issue that she had discussed previously. The City was moving forward, and she had received one report from the library 06/17/96 79-259 about what could be done at Gunn High School. The City was working with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) as it configured and reconfigured its sites. Staff wrote letters when it learned of the possibility that the Governor=s Budget would contain funds for innovative programs, and staff would continue to do that. The Director of Libraries Mary Jo Levy had recently sent a notice regarding a cooperative program for sharing periodical access and information. She believed the issues around the tree program and the Downtown program were clear. In connection with the Downtown program, suggestions had been provided for draft ordinances. The Council needed to discuss those ordinances and give staff direction. Staff would return with the ordinances for Council approval. Mayor Wheeler had previously spoken about a Palo Alto Together Program, and there were various pieces to that program. There would be a group painting at the Cubberley Community Center in July 1996. She asked Council=s support for August being a block party month and to suspend the fees which were $30 for neighborhoods to hold a block party. Staff had worked very hard on the program, and it was an exciting element for people in the community to come together and hold block parties. She had been asked about the Mitchell Park Wading Pool being open seven days a week, May through September. There had been a huge outcry when there was an equipment failure and the wading pool was not open. She assured the Council that there were sufficient flexible funds in the Budget to provide swimming and wading pool service through the hot period, and the City would keep the wading and swimming pools open as long as the weather required that service. She had been asked about the status of the City/School fields maintenance agreement implementation. Director of Community Services Paul Thiltgen responded that the staff had hired and the equipment had been ordered. The work started in January 1996 and the focus had been on the irrigation system, field renovation, and tennis court maintenance. Staff was working regularly with the principals to make sure the work meshed with the PAUSD=s program, and the program had been very successful. Ms. Fleming had been asked when the infrastructure program would begin. Staff received an assignment from the Finance Committee that it wanted to deal with the infrastructure in a comprehensive manner rather than in pieces. The assignment would return to the Finance Committee in September or October 1996 depending on availability of staff and the completion of the report. More detailed information could be provided by the Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services Emily Harrison. She explained the graffiti program would continue with no changes. She had been asked when the tree program would be implemented. Everything was in the Budget for the tree program that had been approved by the Council. There was a Public Works Coordinator in the Budget, and additional contract dollars had been budgeted. She had been asked what the 06/17/96 79-260 focus of the code enforcement position would be for the current fiscal year. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber explained the two positions in the code enforcement area in the Special Services Division or 1.25 full-time equivalent positions would focus on PAMC violations and approximately one 0.50 position would be on property maintenance issues, zoning, and illegal signs, etc. A 0.75 position would focus on condition monitoring, which was the issue that arose the previous year, for current and long-term projects. Ms. Fleming had been asked about the status of the permit streamlining program and whether it was in the Budget. The program was about to begin, and it was a cost recovery program so the revenue was in the Budget. She had been asked about the traffic management assignment that staff received. She said on page 427 of the Budget, there were cross-department programs. Most of those programs dealt with the Council priorities, and the traffic program was a piece of that. She reminded the Council that staff had been given an assignment to return with a prioritization of the pieces of the traffic management program. Staff would return to the Finance Committee at its second meeting in July 1996 with that information. She had been asked about the Finance Committee=s instructions to the staff regarding the Cubberley Community Center. Staff had an assignment related to Cubberley, and after Council approval, staff would proceed. She had been asked about the status of the after school outlet program, and she was pleased to announce that staff had been extremely successful in securing outside funding of $20,000 for that program, so the prior year=s program would continue. She believed the changes she requested that evening would make the Budget and the services even richer. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Report from the City Attorney dated May 29, 1996, was generated due to a previous action of the Council that directed the City Manager to review implementation of increased police presence in the Downtown. At that time, staff suggested that it would be best to review any additional regulatory options that would be necessary in that context. He hoped his comments that evening would help the Council, staff, and the public confront the issues directly and would encourage the kind of enlightened debate that hallmarked the City. He acknowledged that the issues were difficult for many people. The Council and the community had shown sincere and compassionate concern about the increased offensive, dangerous behavior in the Downtown area. Generally, that kind of behavior found its source in subsequent abuse and to a lesser extent in poverty. He believed the offensive, dangerous behavior and the public=s sensitivity to it had increased for the same reason that Palo Alto attracted a Noah=s Bagels or a Borders Book Store. People came for the money. A 06/17/96 79-261 legislative fact was that increased shopping traffic Downtown fed the street population. There were some special concerns that were unusual. People might question why it was so difficult to regulate offensive, dangerous behavior. Cities forbid drunk driving, disturbing the peace, and trespassing. In that context, the courts= role in society was in part to protect the minority from a potentially abusive majority and it had found that many extreme kinds of behavior had expressive content, i.e., the intent was to communicate ideas and needs of the person who demonstrated that behavior. Therefore, the courts had protected much of that kind of behavior such as speech under the First Amendment. In addition, the courts had stated that laws aimed at substance abuse or poverty or the related effects were unlawful because they were directed at a person=s status rather than at some volitional behavior that could be controlled. He emphasized that there were people who would attempt to confuse efforts to control behavior with efforts to eradicate people or a class of people. He had worked extensively with the Police Department and the Council to make certain that that theme was not present in the documents. However, he added as an ethical matter that if he believed as the City Attorney that the City sought to eradicate a specific group of people, he would have no choice but to withdraw from employment as the City Attorney. He offered that statement to clarify to the Council and the public the seriousness of the proposal being discussed that evening and how important it was for people to accept that that kind of discussion was not aimed at specific people or a class of people. It dealt with what the community and Council believed was offensive, dangerous behavior. There were three forms of ordinances before the Council that evening. The first ordinance addressed alcohol abuse which he believed to be one of the root causes of that kind of behavior. The first form of ordinance would forbid open containers on liquor store premises or parking lots. The second form of ordinance would forbid sitting or lying upon or obstructing sidewalks in certain key areas of the Downtown during certain hours. Essentially that kind of sidewalk blockage could create an obstruction to the free-flow of people through the Downtown and could create a safety hazard. He added that the sitting or lying ordinances were identical to the ordinance that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld in a recent Seattle, Washington, case. An ordinance had also been offered that would forbid soliciting in City-owned parking lots. There was a sense that in parking lots there was a double hazard, e.g., vehicles moving and people feeling quite vulnerable as they got in and out of their cars. He believed it was within the Council=s present authority to ban solicitation in parking lots. He wanted to distinguish a separate assignment by the Council to the City Manager and the City Attorney to review the Aggressive Panhandling Task Force=s recommendations and return with a staff recommendation. He had previously asked the Council to allow the staff to delay that effort because a similar issue was presently pending in the Ninth Circuit Court in a case that involved the City 06/17/96 79-262 of Berkeley. From his standpoint as the City Attorney, it would be a risky proposition to try and foresee what the Ninth Circuit Court might determine as the law rather than wait a few months when a decision was reached on the Berkeley case. He wanted to distinguish the Aggressive Panhandling issues from the matters that the Council had assigned to him. Mayor Wheeler asked the Council to focus its questions on issues that would contribute to the public dialogue and asked members of the public who had already heard his/her remarks made by a previous speaker to simply signify that he/she agreed with the preceding speaker=s comments. She explained the Council would discuss the Budget items on an exception basis, i.e., the main motion from the Finance Committee. She asked Council Members to indicate whether he/she wanted to change any of the recommendations brought forward by the Finance Committee or to consider the City Manager=s two proposed amendments. Council Member Andersen asked whether the Ordinance regarding sidewalk blockage was limited only to the Downtown area until 9:00 p.m. and what the rationale was for the Ordinance. Mr. Calonne said the scope of the Ordinance which was High Street to Waverley Street from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. was a policy decision for the Council based on its assessment of the concerns. The ordinance forms were presented for Council review. The Council might hear other evidence that indicated it should be something different. Council Member Andersen asked whether the open container proposal would be effective throughout the entire community or in front of areas where alcohol was sold. Mr. Calonne said the City could not regulate open containers throughout the community. The Ordinance would only apply to in front of retail outlets and retail outlets would be required to post signs to that effect. Council Member Andersen asked whether the proposed ordinance would apply if a person purchased alcohol at location such as Town & Country Village and drank the alcohol at the rear of the parking lot. Mr. Calonne said that area in the Ordinance needed clarification and could be strengthened if the Council believed it would be useful. The Ordinance referred to areas immediately adjacent to the licensed premises. Council Member Schneider clarified that solicitation in public parking lots dealt only with public parking lot, not private parking lots. 06/17/96 79-263 Mr. Calonne replied there were other remedies for private parking lots. Council Member Simitian clarified that there was an indication that the Children=s Theatre staff would be working with the community and would have the discretion to decide which schools in a given year should benefit from the program. There was also a reference to the fact that both middle schools would become part of the rotational system. He asked whether the Children=s Theatre staff could conclude, after working with the community, that it wanted to include both middle schools every year. Ms. Fleming said that would work if a school or schools dropped out of the program and the middle schools could be accommodated within the number that could be done each year. The proposal would not guarantee that every middle school could participate in the program every year. Council Member Simitian clarified that if the Children=s Theatre staff and the school community chose to include the two middle schools every year, that flexibility would be available. Ms. Fleming said that group could make that decision with the understanding of the seven/six philosophy. Council Member Fazzino asked whether it was possible to extend the area covered in the Ordinance regarding sitting and lying on the sidewalk to include University Avenue to Cowper Street given the amount of activity to Cowper Street. Mr. Calonne said it was legitimately within the Council=s authority to extend the boundaries if the Council believed the activity warranted that extension. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the hours selected for the Ordinance to be in effect could be extended beyond the time suggested. Mr. Calonne said the staff report provided ordinance forms and staff had intended to review localized findings. It was conceivable that as a local concern later hours would be more appropriate. The 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. was Seattle=s specific time frame. Council Member McCown clarified the Council would not discuss detailed amendments to the three potential ordinances because the ordinances were not before the Council for action that evening. The Council=s action that evening was to direct the City Attorney to bring some form of an ordinance either back to the Council or to one of the Standing Committees. 06/17/96 79-264 Mr. Calonne said that was correct. He encouraged the Council to ask for any other information or alternatives. Council Member McCown wanted the public to understand that the Council would not have a detailed discussion regarding the context of the ordinances that evening. Ms. Fleming said the Police Chief Durkin had indicated to her that 11:00 p.m. would be consistent with the increased staffing in the area. Council Member Schneider asked whether the sidewalk obstruction would apply during the May Fete Parade when there were hundreds of people and children sitting on the sidewalks. Mr. Calonne said no. There was an exemption in the Ordinance for persons participating in or attending a parade festival performance, rally, or similar event. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open. Joe Baldwin, 280 Waverley Street, said on April 8, 1996, the Council approved $19,500 to add more Downtown police starting April 13, 1996, Αfor a period of 60 days at which time the results will be evaluated.≅ On May 30, 1996, two weeks before the brief trial period ended, staff and the Finance Committee recommended adding $217,500 to the Police Department=s Budget citing 74 arrests in 45 days, at an annual rate of 600 compared to the 80 arrests made Downtown in 1995. Three conclusions might be drawn: 1) a crime wave had broken out in the Downtown; 2) law enforcement had done nothing the previous year; or 3) numbers were being provided to support a large budget request. He reviewed data from the Palo Alto Weekly=s Community Pulse, which was the only police detail available to the public, for the seven weeks before and after the Downtown detail started on April 13, 1996. The data deserved closer study. Larger crowds in the Downtown might justify added police presence but not at a cost of $200,000. Most citizens supported evenhanded enforcement of existing laws; and the vast majority found anti-social behavior repugnant, but many citizens deplored demonizing any person because of his/her appearance, economic status, or physical or mental disability or condition. The true worth of a community was best seen in the care it gave its most vulnerable, at risk members. He asked the Council not to spend any more time or money on the sitting on the sidewalk ordinance. Richard Weiner, 171 Bryant Street, had read about the Council=s consideration of a regulation to prohibit people from sitting or lying on the sidewalk and had also read that the City had spent less than $60,000 the previous year on services for the homeless. There was nothing in the current budget earmarked for the homeless 06/17/96 79-265 and, he asked how much money would be spent for homeless services. The proposal to prohibit sitting and lying on the sidewalks was dehumanizing. Every community should regulate people=s behavior to some degree, but the regulations were a reflection of the community=s values and tolerance of social diversity. Homeless people were a product of inequitable government social policies; and unless something was done to address the needs of the homeless on a local level, the City would be forced to establish increasing draconian social policies to try and get rid of homeless people. He urged the Council to drop the unnecessary regulations and commit the resources necessary to create a safety net for the homeless. Purusha Obluda, 31570 Page Mill Road, said there were no meaningful data to judge whether there was something serious going on in the Downtown. The merchants were probably tired of seeing panhandlers in the area, and many people wished there were no panhandlers in the Downtown. He questioned whether it was sensible to enact an ordinance that was likely to be unconstitutional and that would prevent the poorest people from sitting down on the sidewalk. He asked whether it was sensible to spend $217,000 on added police presence in the Downtown and only increase the amount spent on the homeless from $40,000 to $58,000. Other ways should be found to deal with the issues, e.g., decent public toilets, more temporary shelters, or hiring the homeless to clean the streets. Most of the problems in the Downtown were due to sale tables for merchants or sidewalk cafes. He urged the Council to attend the meetings of the Homelessness Task Force. Paul Gilbert, 785 Barron Avenue, believed the proposed ordinances would be subject to challenge. The open container ordinance was subject to selective enforcement and the sitting and lying upon the sidewalk suggested the ordinance would be enforced against a particular group of people in a particular area. He understood there had been a request for a rehearing on the Seattle case and that the court had asked for additional information from both sides. The Berkeley case was also still open. It would be imprudent to move forward with a new ordinance while those cases were still open. The most compelling reason for not doing the ordinances was that the ordinances would not make any difference. He referred to the City Attorney=s comments regarding Αoffensive and dangerous behavior≅ and said any behavior subject to action was probably illegal under current ordinances and to write an ordinance to cover additional behavior without violating civil liberties was a difficult task. Daniel Daye, Homeless, said it was better for the homeless to panhandle for money and jobs than to break into people=s homes. The ordinances would make it rough for the homeless to survive. The homeless had no choice. The faces of the homeless might change, but homeless people would not go away because the problems still existed. Homeless people needed to be treated with respect. 06/17/96 79-266 Human Relations Commissioner Wynn Hausser, 451 W. Meadow Drive, said in the beginning, the Human Relations Commission=s (HRC) goal with the fee reduction proposal was to increase access to City programs and to assess barriers for the citizens. The HRC felt staff=s proposal changed the original intent and did not adequately address those barriers. The HRC understood the concerns and constraints, but it wanted something that would address those problems. The HRC requested a fee reduction be established at 50 percent instead of 20 percent. The HRC felt there needed to be a significant reduction in order to reduce the barrier so that programs were accessible, and 50 percent was a more realistic percentage in terms of providing that access. The HRC had expressed concern that the low-income threshold was too low, and staff indicted that it also had concerns about where the level would be set. The HRC proposed a 50 percent of the median income in Santa Clara County. The issue of people with disabilities originally started as a proposal from the Disability Awareness Task Force (DATF), so the HRC was surprised when there was no mention of people with disabilities. The HRC=s intent was not for staff to determine people=s disabilities, and the HRC=s proposal gave the criteria by which people would be recognized as having disabilities. The criteria had recently been revised to be a letter from a physician or licensed psychologist. Staff would only have to review the letter and issue a discount card. Because of the increased costs, the HRC felt there needed to be a different threshold than only low income, and the HRC had established a 100 percent of the median income as a cap. It was a pilot program, and data would be collected to determine how many people used the program. Adjustments could be made after the trial period. The HRC did not believe there was data available that indicated the cost would be $5,000 because the rates would not be reduced for people who were already using the services. New people would be brought into the program. Concern had been expressed about setting aside people with disabilities as a special status group of citizens, and he reminded the Council the senior citizens were a group of citizens in the community who had a special status in terms of fees and were not means tested at all. Publicity would be important in order for the pilot program to work and also tracking so that adjustments could be made, e.g., for the lowest income members of the community, a 50 percent reduction might not be enough. Jim Snodgrass, 943 Stanford Avenue, supported the HRC=s recommendations for the fee reduction proposal. Madeleine Bergemann, 340 Wilton Avenue, Vice Chair of Disability Awareness Task Force, said the DATF=s statement of purpose was to enhance the quality of life in Palo Alto for people with disabilities. Palo Alto had a duty toward its disabled citizens, and the citizens wanted to participate in recreational programs 06/17/96 79-267 which helped maintain mental and physical health. Some disabled people earned between $650 and $800 per month to provide for all their living and medical costs, and $60 was a lot of money. Palo Alto was a rich City, and $5,000 or the 20 percent rate was very small. Even at the 50 percent, it would only be $12,000. A cap could be put in place if many people used the programs. DATF had worked hard so the administration would not be a burden to staff. She hoped the Council would adjust the program to meet the needs of the disabled. Tanya Cantrell, 861 Sharon Court, was one of the original architects of the HRC/DATF proposal that was presented to the City Manager. The key objective of the HRC/DATF proposal was to help assure full participation and contributions by residents with disabilities in activities that fell within the ages of the Community Services Department. To achieve that objective, the proposal addressed two barriers: 1) Residents with disabilities had less monies to spend on recreational activities than other residents because a portion of their income went toward dealing with that disability. With limited discretionary money, residents with disabilities were less likely to participate in the community programs. 2) Adults and children with disabilities did not always feel welcome at programs. Children with disabilities often grew up somewhat isolated from other children. Disabilities as one of the criteria was an invitation to participate and contribute. She pointed out that one of the motivating factors for producing the pamphlet, Getting Around Palo Alto, in 1986 was to get people outside. The pamphlet was a guide to some of the services in the City. She reiterated that in the original proposal, staff=s only role was to issue a discount card; verification was limited to physicians, psychologists, and other professionals. The program proposal was modeled after the one currently used at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Debbie Duncan, 1061 Cathcart Way, Stanford, chair of the parent volunteers who had organized outreach plays at the neighborhood schools. She had spoken with hundreds of residents during the previous weeks about the strength and value of the Children=s Theatre Outreach Program. People in Palo Alto felt passionately about the program. It was a neighborhood offering that was about more than drama. Being in an outreach show was about getting along with other people and being part of a team whose goal was not to defeat anyone else only to put on a great show for the community. The program built self esteem and self confidence. She was distressed to learn that day that there had been a major problem in the forwarding system of letters from the City Manager=s Office to the City Clerk=s Office. Unfortunately, her letter and dozens of other letters in support of the Outreach Program were not included in the Council=s packet. The letters encouraged the Council to vote to extend the funds for outreach plays to all schools that requested one. The Outreach Program did a good job creating bonds 06/17/96 79-268 between children and adults. Parent volunteers put in approximately 350 volunteer hours at each school each year. The parents knew how to sell tickets and publicize the plays, but the experts at the Children=s Theatre were needed to direct plays, design sets, or make costumes. For the current year, eight elementary schools and both middle schools received a play. There were three other elementary schools that were interested, but the permanent staff at the Children=s Theatre needed to hire temporary hourly staff in order to meet the needs of all the neighborhood schools. The Outreach Program worked well and fit the Comprehensive Plan by using the schools to deliver family, social, and other services. In the Comprehensive Plan, the City wanted to encourage the use of local neighborhood schools as community gathering places which the Outreach Program did. The program needed to be extended in order to have the greatest positive impact on the children and families in the community. The Council had an opportunity that evening to make a small investment in the lives of Palo Alto children which would pay off immensely in the long term. Mayor Wheeler assured Ms. Duncan that the Council had received many letters, voice mails, and personal telephone calls, and the Council was well aware of the depth of feeling in the community on the issue. Council Member Fazzino said he had received over 20 letters and 30 telephone calls on the issue. He assured Ms. Duncan that the public had communicated very effectively with the Council on the issue. Council Member Kniss recalled two issues that involved Stanford and Palo Alto residents: the utility users tax (UUT), and the number of enrollees who were in the Palo Alto school system. At one point, there was discussion about whether Stanford University would be willing to make a donation if there were any short fall. Ms. Fleming said the PAUSD boundaries were not contiguous with City of Palo Alto boundaries. The City provided the same service to PAUSD students as it did for the residents. The City was not reimbursed by Stanford for those services. At one time, the City discussed with Stanford about assisting in the operation of College Terrace because it was so close to Stanford. Funding was provided for a short time period, but it was later withdrawn. The City had not approached Stanford for any assistance in providing programs that benefitted those PAUSD students who lived on the Stanford campus. Council Member Kniss clarified approximately 10 to 12 percent of the students came from Los Altos Hills or Stanford University. 06/17/96 79-269 Ms. Fleming said that figure was probably correct. The PAUSD=s boundaries included a small portion of Portola Valley, Stanford University, and Los Altos Hills. Jane Marcus, 1820 Channing Avenue, said the Outreach Program was important to the children in the community who had not found a niche, especially in team sports. She had seen disabled children at the Children=s Theatre participating in the Outreach Program. The Outreach Program took place at the schools, and it was for the children who did not live within walking or biking distance of the Children=s Theatre or whose parents worked during the day. The Outreach Program was for all the children of Palo Alto. The children experienced teamwork and gained in self-esteem. The Budget showed $300,000 would be spent to pave the courtyard outside the Children=s Theatre and $175,000 would be spent for graffiti removal. She said the $60,000 that the Children=s Theatre had estimated would be required to provide outreach at all the schools that requested the program was an investment in children. RECESS: 9:35 P.M. - 9:50 P.M. Jenni Marks, 689 Wildwood Lane, said the Children=s Theatre had made a big contribution to the lives of the students who participated in the Outreach Program. The students hoped the Council would support the Outreach Program. Eleanor Owicki, 956 North California Avenue, could not imagine her life without the Children=s Theatre Outreach Program. Kim Namazian, 3356 Middlefield Road, was present that evening in support of the Children=s Theatre Outreach Program. Anna Naimark, 930 Lathrop Place, Stanford, was present that evening in support of the Children=s Theatre Outreach Program. Jennifer Duncan Stone, 1061 Cathcart Way, Stanford, was present that evening in support of the Children=s Theatre Outreach Program. Ritika Khilnani, 888 Loma Verde Avenue, was present that evening in support of the Children=s Theatre Outreach Program. Shirley Eaton, representing the Greenmeadow Community Association, 373 Shasta Drive, said the Greenmeadow residents appreciated having Cubberley Community Center as a neighbor and highly valued the variety of programs and events offered there, the open space of the playing fields, and were happy to have the diversity of activities there. The residents suggested steps to offset the City=s revenue shortfalls (letter on file in the City Clerk=s Office). The taxpayers, voters, and community members wanted the Cubberley Community Center to remain substantially the same. 06/17/96 79-270 Council Member Rosenbaum said when the Finance Committee had its hearing on the subject, many speakers had the impression that the amount of the rent did not matter since all rents were passed through to the PAUSD. He understood that was not always the case and asked for clarification regarding that issue. Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services Emily Harrison said that was correct. There was the pass-through revenue requirement that was part of the lease and covenant not to develop, but there was a revenue stream that exceeded that requirement. The amount increased through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) each year and would be available for programming or other uses at Cubberley. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified at the time the process started, there was a fixed sum due the PAUSD and that amount was increased each year by the CIP. If the City received more revenue than the fixed sum, the City kept the overage; but if there were less money, the City had a shortfall and the money had to come from other sources. Ms. Harrison said that was correct. The challenge was that some of the long-term tenants were on a subsidized rent schedule which did not increase by the CIP. In addition, the hourly rents were somewhat sensitive to the market. The Finance Committee minutes reflected that it was challenging to keep the revenue stream at the level of the PAUSD requirement. Council Member Kniss clarified it would take a dramatic increase in the rents before the City would realize an overage. Ms. Harrison said that was correct. There were a number of tenants who believed the City should consider rent reductions. Council Member Kniss said when the tax was passed, the Council indicated that emphasis on the arts and culture would be maintained which was reflected in the rental rate and status. Ms. Harrison said that was correct. Kate Julian, 1025 Paradise Way, said she was a recent graduate of Gunn High School and felt the Downtown recommendations before the Council that evening raised fundamental questions about the community and its values. Palo Alto had always considered itself progressive. The proposals seemed to be about appearances, and the Council should deal with the problems and not identities and look for solutions which were inclusive and long lasting rather than exclusive, political, and short-lived. By spending $217,000 on the one-year Downtown health and safety enhancement program, the entire amount for the 150 homeless people would be spent at one time with no anticipated permanent results. She noted that none of the materials regarding the issue mentioned youth. She asked that the 06/17/96 79-271 problem be solved within the community rather than excluding others. Julia Cohen, 340 Ely Place, said she was a recent graduate of Gunn High School and did not believe that the situation Downtown reflected any kind of disintegration of the City. There were homeless people in the City, and the proposals would not change that situation but would simply change the appearance of certain areas in the Downtown. She preferred the citizens= taxes be spent on allocating more money for food and housing programs that were already present within the community. She believed proactive, positive work was a better way of dealing with the issue and a better use of taxes. Hilary Lyon, 235 Walter Hays Drive, said the Children=s Theatre and the Outreach Program were assets unique to Palo Alto and exemplified the City=s commitment to youth. If the program went on a rotational basis every other year at the various school sites, the very essence of the program could be in jeopardy. She asked the Council to fund the program so that it could be made available on a consistent basis each year to each of the PTAs that demonstrated a commensurate and appropriate level of commitment. She explained the Outreach Program was not just a play but a vehicle for conveying values and lifelong skills, and it trained children in the importance of such things as discipline, teamwork, mutual respect, responsibility, and communication. Those skills would not be learned in spordiac occurrences. PTAs had built an investment in organization, momentum, and incentive for their children. Outreach was a direct relationship between the City and its youth. It provided the opportunity for any child to seek the training. Children gained skills, perspective, and self-confidence which they made available in their classrooms and other activities. PTAs at all the City=s schools recognized the benefits of the program and wanted to make it available to their children. The program was a proven success; and leadership and vision were secure in the hands of the capable staff, parent volunteers were trained and dedicated, the children were eager and looked forward to participating each year, and it enjoyed the common good will of the community. The effectiveness of the program was built on continuity year to year. She asked the Council to continue that momentum and support each PTA that could demonstrate the necessary criteria. Greg Kerber, 2506 Birch Street, said the HRC recommendation met the need of affording access to low-income residents in Palo Alto. A higher fee reduction would be a major step in the right direction, and 50 percent would help a considerable number of low-income residents who did not have access to City services or programs. The staff report was inadequate, and the percentage reduction was too small and did not address the problem. The subsidies alleged to in the report were not subsidies in most of the programs. Most 06/17/96 79-272 of the subsidies dealt primarily with youth and senior citizens, and the exceptions were extremely limited in terms of the application to low-income adults between the ages of 18 and 55. The City=s statistics indicated there were between 2,000 and 2,500 low-income residents which meant the income threshold was $16,000 per year or lower. Many people did not have any discretionary income. Senior citizens received considerable discounts, and there was no income test for them. However, the most stringent income test would be applied for low-income residents to qualify. The cost of the program was small which the City could afford. Julia Sen, 556 Vista, said ΑFood Not Bombs≅ and the Stanford Homeless Action Coalition (SHAC) opposed the proposed ordinance to ban sitting and lying on sidewalks in Palo Alto. The ordinance was another attempt to criminalize poor and homeless people. It was impossible to separate behavior and people, especially when poor and homeless people had no where else to behave other than in the public space. SHAC did not support truly dangerous or offensive behavior by anyone; however, the only offensive element to sitting or lying on the sidewalk was that society left some people no other option. While the Ordinance temporarily offered a cosmetic solution to a long-standing deeper problem, it did nothing to address the reasons why people were there in the first place. The Council should not beautify the City at the expense of poor and homeless people. SHAC urged the Council to consider the Ordinance carefully. Yoriko Kishimoto, 251 Embarcadero Road, endorsed the Children=s Theatre. Part of the Palo Alto experience was the luxury of children being able to walk and bicycle to rehearsals and performances whether at the Children=s Theatre or at one of outreach schools. She understood a Council top priority was traffic and traffic safety. She asked how that top priority was being reflected in the $85 million Budget. Citizens had been asking the City for five years to help keep the streets safe from speeding, oversized trucks, and red light running. There had been terrific police support, but police support was only 20 percent of the solution. She understood other programs such as the residential arterial and the truck study would be presented in two weeks, and it was frustrating that those issues had been scheduled two weeks after approval of the two-year Budget. She was afraid the programs and the funding would be examined differently than if they were before the Council that evening. She asked the Council to put a higher estimate into the budget for Fiscal Year 1997-98 and to consider traffic safety issues as a high priority. Ken Russell, 159 Melville, said University Avenue should be considered public space or the Town Square. He was disturbed that human beings were being robbed of their dignity to sit where they wanted. It sounded as if the merchants did not want homeless people to mar the view of the shop. It was a subjective opinion to 06/17/96 79-273 say what was offensive behavior. He encouraged the Council to find a solution that honored the dignity of homeless people and did not use reaction based fear. Pam Branden, Executive Director of the Peninsula Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired, 668 Salvatierra Street, Stanford, hoped the Council would grant the funding for the rehabilitation services for residents of Palo Alto who were blind or visually impaired. She thanked the staff, HRC, and the Finance Committee for their support of the program. Margaret Ash, 3901 El Camino Real, said the Children=s Theatre program helped her daughter=s confidence and self-esteem. She felt the proposal about preventing people from sitting or sleeping on the streets was a lie. It was dangerous to base laws on lies. Lola Clewis, Director, Bayshore Community Resource Center, Inc., 2277 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, urged the Council to reconsider the Bayshore Community Resource Center=s funding request. The Bayshore Community Resource Center, Inc. (the Center) currently provided human services to Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, and it wanted to expand those services to the residents of Palo Alto. The Center was a local nonprofit community-based organization that provided a variety of human services. Local vendors were used for the services, so some of the monies would return to the City. The Center had a homeless prevention program and could also provide temporary lodging which would begin to address some of the issues brought to the Council=s attention that evening by the residents. Susan Frank, Executive Director, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, congratulated the Finance Committee and staff on the Budget. The Chamber was interested in supporting improvements to Cubberley and asked to be involved in the discussions about the funding mechanisms for Cubberley, i.e., the UUT extension, which the Chamber opposed in 1993 and the Finance Committee rejected. The Chamber supported the continued Police Department funding. The increased presence in the Downtown had had a positive impact in dealing with all dangerous behavior, including customers of Downtown businesses who broke the law. The funding did not target a particular population. The Chamber encouraged the Council to direct the staff to look into the ordinances that had been explored by the City Attorney=s Office, and the debate regarding the merits of the ordinances could follow and it would become clear that the ordinances dealt with all types of behavior, not only those that were exhibited by panhandlers or the homeless. Palo Alto was a community that cared and had made a commitment to build Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) housing in Downtown and to the Another Way Campaign. The Chamber had made a commitment to provide and support services for the homeless. The Chamber wanted to be involved in discussions regarding rest rooms in the Downtown, particularly a 06/17/96 79-274 program modeled after the successful programs in Europe. The Chamber looked forward to being part of the discussions about infrastructure and long-term commitments to capital improvements during the year. Carol Scholz, 4150 Wilmar Drive, representing the PTA at Hoover Elementary School, spoke regarding support of an annual program available to all of the elementary schools that could put together the resources required to support the Children=s Theatre Outreach Program. More information, enthusiasm, and support would be generated for subsequent programs if the program were done yearly. She encouraged the Council to provide the funding necessary to provide a continuous program yearly. Jeanie Forte, 280 College Avenue, appreciated the spirit in which the City Manager=s compromise proposal was offered, but any partial funding solution with the idea of rotation was a problem. Continuity on a particular school campus for three or four years meant that the program had a chance to build both participation and audience. In previous years, not every school wanted or could support having an outreach play on the campus. For the current year, all the schools wanted an outreach play on the campus which was an incredible opportunity to promote something that had a tremendous positive effect, a proven track record, and would reach thousands of young people in the City. She urged the Council to support and provide sufficient funds for all the requested outreach plays for the current year. There was funding flexibility for the current year which might not be available next year. Utilities Advisory Commissioner Paul Grimsrud said although the electric and gas rates were lower than surrounding cities, the water rates were higher than many of the surrounding cities. The water utility had not been the healthiest utility over the previous years, but the transfer to the General Fund for the water utility on a percentage of total revenues was higher than the other utilities. The capital improvements were funded annually from the rate payers. In addition, it was added into the equity base that was calculated into the transfer to the General Fund. As capital improvements increased, the transfer to the General Fund would become higher. Before rate increases were made, adjustments should be made to the transfer formula to the General Fund. He supported the Finance Committee recommendation as opposed to the staff recommendation of a 6 percent increase. He felt the water utility needed to be stabilized and the transfer calculation reviewed. Council Member Kniss was uncertain whether Mr. Grimsud=s comments were brought forward at the Finance Committee meeting, so she appreciated his comments that evening. 06/17/96 79-275 Council Member McCown asked whether Mr. Grimsrud had reviewed the May 30, 1996, memorandum which was the basis of the Finance Committee=s recommendation. Mr. Grimsrud said no. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Andersen wanted to discuss the proposed ordinances that evening. The City Attorney=s Office had asked for direction from the Council. Mayor Wheeler asked whether the Council wanted to discuss the Budget issues that evening. Council Member Fazzino said no. Council Member Schneider suggested the Budget discussion be continued to the June 24, 1996, City Council meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Fazzino, to adjourn the meeting to the Monday, June 24, 1996, City Council Meeting. MOTION PASSED 8-1, Andersen Αno.≅ Council Member Kniss suggested the Council either submit its questions in writing to staff or submit the questions that evening without discussion. Ms. Fleming said the questions could be submitted that evening without further discussion; but she suggested the questions be submitted in writing as soon as possible so staff would have time for response. Council Member Fazzino thanked the members of the public for providing the Council with excellent public testimony regarding some difficult issue before the Council that evening. He thanked the City Clerk=s staff for the outstanding Finance Committee minutes. Vice Mayor Huber asked the relationship, if any, between the fee reduction proposal for City facilities and the Utilities fee reduction. Council Member Rosenbaum said a report from the Human Relations Commission had a detailed income eligibility guideline chart, but there was nothing in the staff report (CMR:280:96) which spoke to the recommended income limits. He wanted information regarding that issue. 06/17/96 79-276 Mayor Wheeler said Mr. Kerber mentioned in his presentation that the City had some scholarship-type programs. She asked whether those programs would remain in place in addition to anything that was suggested by staff or approved by Council. Mr. Kerber also indicated that the programs were largely, if not exclusively, aimed toward people at either end of the age spectrum, either youth or senior citizens. He also indicated the opportunities were rare for someone from 18 to 55 years of age to take advantage of the scholarship programs. She wanted information on the current availability of assistance for people in that age span. She echoed the comments of her colleagues regarding the information that the Council had received that evening from both members of the staff and the public. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 3. Contract between the City of the Palo Alto and Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation for Cablecasting Services 4. Contracts for Computer Software Support and Hardware Maintenance Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Hewlett Packard for Software Support and Hardware Maintenance - HP Support Agreement #57007168 for PALOALTO2 Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Hewlett Packard for Software Support and Hardware Maintenance - HP Support Agreement #57006761 for PALOALTO3 Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Hewlett Packard for Software Support and Hardware Maintenance - HP Support Agreement #57006527 for PALOALTO4 Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Hewlett Packard for Software Support and Hardware Maintenance - HP Support Agreement #57007840 for PALOALTO7 Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Hewlett Packard for Software Support and Hardware Maintenance - HP Support Agreement #57007146 for PALOALTO8 Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Hewlett Packard for Software Support and Hardware Maintenance - HP Support Agreement #57007853 for PALOALTO9 06/17/96 79-277 Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Hewlett Packard for Software Support and Hardware Maintenance - HP Support Agreement #57007187 for PALOALTO9C 5. Amendment No. 9 to Contract No. 4688 with Palo Alto Sanitation Company for Refuse Collection and Recycling Services 6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Greenfield Services Corp. For Household and Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator Waste Management Program Services 7. Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. S4043199 between the City of Palo Alto and Quality Assurance Engineering, Inc. dba Consolidated Engineering Laboratories for Special Inspection, Materials Testing Services, and Construction Inspection Services 8. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Kennedy/Jenks Consultants for Minor or Emergency Consultant Services for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant 9. Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. S5051816 between the City of Palo Alto and Sure Flow, Inc. dba Roto-Rooter for the Perfor-mance of Sewer Lateral Maintenance Services to Palo Alto Residents 10. Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. S3036240 between the City of Palo Alto and Geodesy for the Performance of Geographic Information System Application Software Development Services. 11. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Graphic Data Systems Corporation for Geographical Information System Hardware and Software Maintenance Services 12. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C6075675 with Lewis and Tibbitts, Inc. for Electric Utility Trench and Substructure Installation 13. Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Foundation Health PsychCare Services, Inc. dba Occupational Health Services for Administration of Employee Assistance Plan Services 14. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and City of Los Altos Hills for Renewal of Emergency Animal Control and Care Services 15. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Mayor to Execute the Eighth Amendment to Agreement to Provide Local Law Enforcement Access to the California Identification System 06/17/96 79-278 Amendment No. 8 to Contract No. C0014413 between the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara to provide Local Law Enforcement Agency Acquisition to the California Identi-fication System 16. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Holiday Cleaners for Police Uniform Cleaning and/or Laundry Services 17. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Housing Corporation for Below Market Rate Housing Program Administrative Services 18. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Housing Corporation for 1996-97 Community Development Block Grant Funds Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Urban Ministry of Palo Alto for 1996-97 Community Development Block Grant Funds 19. Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C5072778 between the City of Palo Alto and Royston, Hanamoto, Alley & Abey for Design Consultant Services for the City of Palo Alto=s Capital Improvement Projects 20. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Zongar Johnson Construction for City Facilities and School Equipment Repair 21. Contracts for Recreation Programs and the Use of Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Facilities Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Peninsula Sports Officials Association for Scheduling of Umpires and Officials for Adult Softball and Basketball Leagues Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and John Whitlinger for Tennis Instructors Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Gymnastics West for Instructors for Gymnastics and Related Classes Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Skyhawks Sports Academy for Instructors for Sports Camps Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) for Rental of Facilities for Recre-ation Programs 22. Human Services Agreements for Fiscal Year 1996-97 Amendment No. 7 to Contract No. C0006279 between the City of Palo Alto and Adolescent Counseling Services, Inc. for Provision of Counseling Services for Adolescents 06/17/96 79-279 Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C5053182 between the City of Palo Alto and Community Association for Rehabilitation for Services for Provision of Services to the Developmentally Disabled Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C5053189 between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Community Child Care, Inc. for Provision of Subsidized Child Care and Administrative Support for Operation of the Subsidy Program Amendment No. 7 to Contract No. C0006277 between City of Palo Alto and the Peninsula Area Information and Referral Services, Inc. for Provision of Telephone Information and Referral Services and Operation of Landlord/Tenant and Community Mediation Services Amendment No. 8 to Contract No. C0001714 between the City of Palo Alto and the Senior Coordinating Council of the Palo Alto Area, Inc. for Provision of Services for Senior Adults COUNCIL MATTERS 23. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member McCown announced that the Palo Alto CalTrain Station received National Registry status in late April 1996. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. to an Adjourned City Council Meeting on Monday, June 24, 1996. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours. 06/17/96 79-280