HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-09-20 City Council Agenda Packet
09/20/10
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
September 20, 2010
6:00 PM
ROLL CALL
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1. Proclamation Recognizing Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) Existing Building Award for 525 University Avenue
ATTACHMENT
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
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.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members.
2. Approval of Council Appointed Officers Committee Recommendation to
Authorize City Auditor Leave of Absence
CMR 361:10 and ATTACHMENT
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
2 09/20/10
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.
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.
ACTION ITEMS
Include: Public Hearings, Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters
3. Approval of Recruitment for Acting City Auditor
CMR 360:10 and ATTACHMENT
4. Public Hearing: From Finance Committee: Consider Changes to the
City’s Refuse Rates, Which, if Adopted, Will Be Effective October 1,
2010 and Adopt a Resolution Amending the Utility Rate Schedules R-1,
R-2, and R-3 for a Refuse Rate Increase; Adoption of Budget
Amendment Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2011 to Adopt Municipal
Fee Schedule Increases for the Palo Alto Landfill and Adjust
Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures Within the Refuse Fund; and
Direct Staff to Apply for a Permit Modification to Reduce Landfill
Operating Days From Seven to Five Days Per Week
CMR 356:10 and ATTACHMENT
PROTEST LETTERS PUBLIC COMMENT
5. Direction to Staff Regarding High Speed Rail Issues and Adoption of a
Resolution Regarding High Speed Rail
PACKET ADDENDUM ATTACHMENT
CLOSED SESSION
Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker.
6. Discuss Potential Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9(c): Initiation of Litigation in the Matter of City of Palo
Alto; Town of Atherton, a Municipal Corporation, Planning and
Conservation League, a California Nonprofit Corporation, City of Menlo
3 09/20/10
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.
Park, a Municipal Corporation, Transportation Solutions Defense and
Education Fund, a California Nonprofit Corporation, California Rail
Foundation, a California Nonprofit Corporation, and Other Similarly
Situated Entities, v. California High Speed Rail Authority, a Public
Entity
ATTACHMENT PUBLIC COMMENT
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.
1
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PROCLAMATION
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Existing Building Award
for 525 University Avenue, Palo Alto
WHEREAS, the LEED for Existing Buildings Rating System helps building owners and operators
measure operations, improvements and maintenance on a consistent scale, with the goal of maximizing
operational efficiency while minimizing environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, LEED for Existing Buildings addresses whole-building cleaning and maintenance
issues (including chemical use), recycling programs, exterior maintenance programs, and systems
upgrades; and
WHEREAS, the owners of 525 University Avenue, which is the largest office building in downtown
Palo Alto, began the process of becoming an energy efficient building in the mid 1990s with large scale
projects like light retro fits, elevator modernizations and new chillers and boilers; and
WHEREAS, the owners and building management have worked diligently to reduce building waste
by increasing their efforts to recycle, and as a result have cut the trash removal costs by 66%; and
WHEREAS, the owner’s and building management have been awarded the Green Business
Certification from the County of Santa Clara; and
WHEREAS, the building has achieved an ENERGY STARTM rating of 93, which is the 43rd
percentile above the national median, and earned 17 LEED points to the project; and
WHEREAS, the tenants of 525 University Avenue have saved over $1 million in operating expenses
as a direct result of the large-scale projects that the owners implemented; and
WHEREAS, with ongoing commitment by the owners, C.M. Capital Corporation improved
efficiency and reduced their impact on the environment. Due to their commitment the building was
awarded a LEED EB Silver award, it also became the first LEED EB Silver awarded building in Palo
Alto.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Patrick Burt, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City
Council do hereby recognize C.M. Capital Corporation for its dedication to building and operational
improvements and congratulate the owners of 525 University Avenue for the exemplary example of a
sustainable building in Palo Alto.
Presented: September 20, 2010
______________________________
Patrick Burt
Mayor of Palo Alto
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: HUMAN RESOURCES
DATE: September 20, 2010 CMR:361:10
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Approval of Council Appointed Officers Committee Recommendation to
Authorize City Auditor Leave of Absence
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council approve the Council Appointed Officers (CAO)
Committee recommendation to authorize the City Auditor to take a leave of absence from
October 18,2010 to April 17, 20ll.
DISCUSSION
On September 7th, 2010, the CAO Committee discussed and approved a request by the City
Auditor to take a leave of absence for a six-month period from October 18,2010 to April 17,
2011. Federal and State Family Medical Leave law requires the City to grant leaves of
absence for at least three and up to four months, if qualified. At this time, the Auditor meets
the eligibility requirements for at least three months protected leave. However, leaves of
absence beyond protected periods are discretionary.
City of Pal 0 Alto Merit Rule section 801 allows unpaid leaves when leave of absence is not
contrary to the best interests of the City. In this case, the City Auditor is requesting additional
leave in an unpaid status beyond the protected leave periods under the Merit Rules provision.
Because the Auditor is appointed by the Council and her contract does not address unpaid
leave, this request requires the authorization of the City Council.
With this understanding, the CAO Committee recommended approval of additional unpaid
leave for the City Auditor with a return date of April 17th, 2011 for a total absence of six
months. The Department of Human Resources has reviewed the request and concurs with the
recommendation of the committee.
CMR:361:10 Page lof2
Attachment
A: CAO Committee Meeting Minutes from 09/07/10, Item 2) Consideration of Request of
City Auditor Maternity Leave and Appointment of Acting City Auditor
. r) (C·~· DEPARTMENTHEAD:.~ ___ ~~'~.~~~~./~ .. ·~~~~~~ .. =·==~, ________ ___
Russell Carlsen
Director of Hmnan Resources
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:~_-r:-+-.L.<.-'--~'f-~jIC-___ _
CMR:361:10
Jame
City
Page2of2
ATI'ACHMENT A
CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL APPOINTED OFFICERS
COMMITTEE
Special Meeting
September 07, 2010
The Council Appointed Officers Committee of the CIty of Palo Alto met on
this date In the Council Conference Room at 6:04 p.m.
Present: Espinosa, Klein, Price, Scharff
Absent:
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mark Petersen-Perez, Palo Alto spoke regarding First Amendment Rights of
speech.
Herb .Borock, Palo Alto spoke regarding Brown Act issues with the CAO
Committee.
ACTION ITEMS
1. Review Proposals from Executive Search Firms Related to the City
Attorney Recruitment.
Director of Human Resources, Russ Carlsen spoke regarding the outreach
done and the proposals received from executive search firms related to the
City Attorney recruitment. He stated that there were eight responses
received.
Chair Klein said the Committee had a great deal of weIght to choose a path.
When they chose the City Manager the committee narrowed down the
consultant applicants. The full Council then voted on the City Manager.
They had Jess involvement In the City Auditor recruItment. He said those
were two different procedures.
Mark Petersen-Perez said the City Attorney should do more than protect the
City against litigation. But he should also protect the people.
09/07/10
I
i
i
J
i
I
!
City Manager, James Keene spoke regarding things that the CAO Committee
should look at when reviewing and selecting the firm to conduct the search.
Mr. Carlsen agreed that the reputation of the recruiter is critical.
Mr. Keene spoke about the public's perception and thoughts about who the
Council would hire as the recruiter. .
Council Member Scharff asked if there was anyone that should be eliminated
from the list of applicants based on reputation. He also asked about their
strengths and weaknesses.
Mr. Carlsen said they have had positive experiences with several of the
recruiters. Of the organizations that have the most experience, it's a
profession, they know how far to reach out to get applicants. He stated he
had concerns, there are a couple of firms that he has not worked with and so
doesn't know about them, and they should all be fairly close in their costs.
He stated the City can negotiate the costs especially in the area of the
brochures and stuff.
Council Member Scharff asked if the principal person representing the firms
are available for the next step.
Mr. Carlsen advised that they have spoken with them and they have
Indicated that would be available to continue in the process/ especially over
the next several weeks.
CounCil Member Scharff asked for clarification on whether the principal
person of the firm would be conducting the recruitment personally.
Chair Klein stated that he felt the person who is conducting the search/
whether it 15 the principal person or someone else, they should also be
present at the intervIew.
Mr. Carlsen stated that would be what they expected.
Chair Klein stated he had two suggestions, one would be to discuss the eight
firms that applied and the other ,would be to do a ballot similar to the way
Board and CommiSSion applicants are voted on.
Council Member Scharff asked whether they would vote on the firm to do It/
or several to interview.
2 09/07/10
i
J
J
i !
j
Chair Klein stated his suggestion Is to vote for three to Interview. They
would then give these to Council to interview.
Council Member Scharff stated he would like to meet the applicants and then
suggest to Council on who to recommend.
Chair Klein stated that Interviews would be conducted at the Council level.
Council Member Scharff stated he wants to interview a selection of them.
Chair Klein stated that it would then be a two interview process. The CAD
committee needs to whittle It down to a smaller group for Council to
Interview. .
Council Member Scharff asked staff if they would have three or four firms to
recommend.
Chair Klein stated he feels awkward about doing It that way, as there should
be a separation of powers, and this should independent of staff's desires for
a firm.
Mr. Carlsen said he did have reservations regarding several of the
applicants. He stated at some point he would like let Council know about his
concerns with several of the firms.
Council Member Espinosa stated that If staff has serious reservations about
the firms then the Committee and Council should be made aware of them.
Mr. Carlsen stated that JuriStaff does not have a lot of experience In the
public sector.
Mr. Keene said he was not famIliar with one of the firms. He had dealt with
some non public secto( recruiters in a public sector position and It had been
problematic. He said the Committee should consider what the Council was
looking for.
Chair Klein said a lawyer that had practiced CA Municipal law should be what
they are looking for.
City Clerk, Donna Grider read the results of the ballot:
Council Member Scharff: Avery Associates, Ralph Anderson &
AsSOCiates, Bob Murray & Associates
3 09/07/10
Coundl Member Price: Bob Murray &. Associates, Ralph Anderson &.
Associates
Chair Klein: Avery Associates, Bob Murray & Associates, Ralph
Anderson & Associates
Vice Mayor Espinosa: Avery ASSOCiates, Ralph Anderson & Associates,
Bob Murray & Associates
Ms. Grider announced that the three firms for Council to interview would be
Avery Assodates, Bob Murray & Associates, Ralph Anderson &. Associates.
Mr. Keene confirmed that they were going to schedule Interviews before the
full Council at a Council Meeting.
Chair Klein said they should look at the September 13th and September 20th
as pOSSibilities.
Mr. Carlsen stated that his suggestion is for September 20th•
Chair Klein stated the date would be dependent upon the Council agenda for
that night.
Mr. Keene asked how long the interviews might take.
Chair Klein stated he felt it would last 60-90 minutes, giving each candidate
20 minutes for their interview.
Mr. Carlsen suggested a speCial meeting in the Council conference room.
Chair Klein agreed and suggested 6:00 p.m.
Mr. carlsen said that would be best to allow a solid conversation
Chair Klein said they would need to vote in a public meeting because it
wasn't a personnel matter.
Council Member Price asked if It was appropriate to ask major Questions·
toward the candidates at this time.
Mr. Carlsen said he could check with the Attorney's Office.
4 09/07/10
Council Member Price questioned the number of hours proposed by Avery.
She had a concern about the number of hours compared to.the other
applicants.
Mr. Carlsen said often they ask for additional services, so It was up to the
Council to determine the number of hours.
Council Member Price stated if you translate the hours into weeks, it was a
large amount of hours.
Council Member Espinosa asked if there is a lesson learned here about
reaching out to finms to get the best applying for these.
Mr. Carlsen stated that staff did a broader search for firms, Including a
national site. He felt that we did a better outreach. He stated that some
firms simply don't apply for one reason or another.
Council Member Price stated she believes the economy plays into why firms
apply or don't apply.
2. Consideration of Request of City Auditor Maternity Leave and
Appointment of Acting City Auditor.
City Auditor, Lynda Brouchoud stated she was here to discuss her request
for leave of absence and her request to bring In an Acting City Auditor while
she Is on leave.
Chair Klein confirmed his understanding that the City's policy was for a total
of 6 months, and not 6 months prenatal and 6 months postpartum.
Ms. Brouchoud read the City's Merit System Rules on maternity leave,
stating they read "Non-disability prenatal and/or postpartum leave Is
available under this provision, but such hilave shall not begin more than 6
months prenatal nor extend more than 6 months postpartum."
Chair Klein asked for clariflcation on whether it was 3 months prenatal and 3
months postnatal.
Ms. Brouchoud stated she believes that it reads 6 months before and 5
months afterwards.
Chair Klein asked for clarification on the agreement that she would take a
total of 6 months leave, within the 12 month period.
5 09/07/10
City Manager, James Keene asked whether It could be a year.
Chair Klein stated his interpretation was different.
Council Member Price asked for clarification on how it relates to the Family
Medical Leave Act.
Council Member Scharff stated that was a separate Issue.
Chair Klein stated that he believes that that states 6 months also.
Assistant Director of Human Resources, Sandra Blanch said there were
various rules that overlap. The City Auditor read the City Merit Rules
provision .which shall not begin no more than 6 months prenatal, nor extend
more than 6 months postpartum. She noted that that has not been the
practice.
Chair Klein stated that he and Ms. Brouchoud had spoken and had agreed
that It would be a total of 6 months.
Ms. Brouchoud stated that there is the non-disability and the disability part
that speaks to 4 months. She stated she was not looking to go on disability.
Mr. Keene stated that the way he read it, It cannot begin more than 6
months before, nor extend more than 6 months after. It Isn't specific about
the amount of time.
Ms. Brouchoud stated that if the concern was that it was more than 6
months than she could delete 3 weeks off of it on the end.
Chair Klein stated that was consistent with his Interpretation based on the
meeting with Ms. Brouchoud.
Council Member Price recommended deferring action on this until there Is a
clear interpretatIon of the language.
Ms. Blanch stated that Ms. Brouchoud's request Is for 6 months postpartum.
Chair Klein stated there has to be a decision made due to the need to get an
acting auditor prior to Ms. Brouchoud's leave in October.
Council Member Price stated that if there can be clarification within 2-3 days,
that she felt they could make a better decision.
·6 09/07/10
Mr. Keene asked if there is more Information available that HR might have.
Ms. Blanch stated that there is also the Family Medical Leave (FMLA) which
states 3 months.
Chair Klein noted that the City's rules provided more time than FMLA
Ms. Blanch agreed.
Chair Klein asked Ms. Brouchoud to clarify the amount of time she was
requesting.
Ms. Brouchoud stated she would, like the 6 months afterward, but that she
would like to take some time before to prepare.
Chair Klein agreed.
Ms. Blanch confirmed that her request was for 3 weeks prior to the expected
bl rth date.
Council Member Price asked if staff had a clear Interpretation of the rules.
MS. Blanch stated It was an unusual request to take 6 months postpartum,
however, the understanding of the merit rules states that is possible. Past
practice has been to allow time off prenatal, and then work with the
employee postpartum.
Chair Klein stated he did not agree. He asked If the employee left 1 month
prenatal, would the rules then allow her to take an additional 6 months
postpartum.
Ms. Blanch stated yes per the merit rules, however this is not a typical
request.
Chair Klein stated that rules need to be reviewed.
Vice Mayor Espinosa asked for clarification that our rules currently allow an
employee to take 5 months prenatal and 6 months postnatal.
MS. Blanch answered yes.
Council Member Espinosa reconfirmed that that is currently allowed.
7 09/07/10
I
I
I
I
j
,
Mr. Keene asked for clarification that there are rules that state there Is a
certain amount of time that an employee can take prenatal and postnatall
that some has been past practice, or the fact that Council has the discretIon
to decide.
Council Member Scharff asked who writes and interprets the Merit Rules.
Ms. Blanch stated they are drafted with HR and legal staff. They are then
reviewed by the bargaining units before going to Council for approval.
Council Member Scharff asked if there was any formal written Interpretation
as to whether it was 5 or 12 months total.
Ms. Blanch stated not in writingl only in the Merit Rules.
Council Member Espinosa stated normally it is 6 months.
Council Member Scharff stated he felt 12 months was a long time.
Ms. Blanch stated that the rules also apply to Public Safety personnel.
Chair Klein stated this is non-disability.
Council Member Price asked for confirmation what the rules state and does
Ms. Brouchoud/s request fall within the rules. She felt the rules needed to be
clarified so that every case isn't brought before Council.
MS. Blanch confirmed that what Council Member Price was looking for was
clarification on the Federal{ Statel as compared to our Merit System Rules.
Mr. Keene stated that staff needs to provide the Council with our pOlicy
parameters and practice so they can make an informed decision.
Ms. Brouchoud stated that to assist with the decision tonlghtl she would
agree to begin her leave on October 181 2010, and lasting for 6 months.
Council Member Price stated that she did not want Ms. Brouchoud to change
her plans tonight due to the confusion regarding the policy. Howeverl if she
felt comfortable wIth her statement that was ok.
Mr. Carlsen stated that the rules allow it and there is a provision to grant
thIs request. He stated that it is usually not done that waYI and staff works
with the employee to have them return soonerl or at least part-time as soori
as possible.
8 09/07/10
Chair Klein stated that he heard Ms. Blanch state it was one year.
Mr. Carlsen stated that the clear answer Is that there is a provision to grant
Ms. Brouchoud's request,
Chair Klein stated that Ms. Brouchoud is here because she does not report to
the City Manager, and so there are no rules in that sense, only the Federal
and State rules. Those rules grant less leave time.
Mr, Carlsen asked for clarIfication if the Merit Rules apply to all employees.
Ms. Blanch stated she believed they did.
Council Member Price asked if there was language within Ms. Brouchoud's
contract that covered this.
Ms. Brouchoud states that she follows the Management and Professional
Compensation Pian and the Merit Rules, similar to other employees. She
recommended that her leave begin on October 18, 2010, and end 6 months
after that date so that the COmmIttee could move forward with a decision.
She stated that her primary concern was to make sure the Council has
adequate time to hire an acting auditor before her leave begins. She wants
to insure thather office Is fUlly prepared for her leave.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Price to accept her leave beginning on October 18, 2010 and ending 6
months later.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Chair Klein confirmed that her maternity leave would be without salary,
except for from vacation leave, etc.
CouncU Member Scharff asked if the CAO Committee can have Staff look into
this and if necessary change the rules. He felt 1 year was a long time.
Mr. Keene stated Staff would look into this, respond with a memo and if
necessary agendize it at a later date. He asked for clarification that if there
was a need to change,her leave date due to unanticipated circumstances
was that possible.
Chair Klein answered yes.
9 09/07/10
Mr. Carlsen stated that she has the option to use her leave balances during
this, however, she is choosing to take her leave without pay.
Ms. Brouchoud stated that the leave is unpaid, no salary, but she can take
her accumulated leave time.
Ms. Brouchoud stated that the Auditor's Office had several reports that were
either in the works or close to completion, and if there was not someone
there to coordinate this, Council may not receive the reports.
Council Member Espinosa asked how she would structure the department If
there was not an Acting City Auditor.
Ms. Brouchoud stated the Auditors Office does not have a deputy position,
and that at the time she was hired there was no one in charge. This caused
some problems as Staff did not have someone to oversee their work. She
stated that was another option and there are probably more. Her preference
Is to get someone in to oversee the office.
Council Member Espinosa asked if there IS the potential to have the interim
or acting come from within the department.
Ms. Brouchoud stated that would be taking a Senior Auditor up two steps
and it is her recommendation to bring someone in who was either a Deputy
City Auditor or in a similar position.
Chair Klein asked it Ms. Brouchoud had someone In mind for the position.
Ms. Brouchoud stated that there is someone she could refer to the
Committee.
MOTION: Council Member Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by
Chair Klein to hire a temporary person.
Council Member Scharff stated the referral Is good, however thought should
be given to the referral.
Chair Klein stated he agreed with that. He said Staff should check with a
variety of people and should not hire a recruiter for this.
Council Member Espinosa asked if there was a way to have a truncated
announcement or someplace to list this so that it is open to more applicants.
He stated he wanted to Insure that If there was someone who Is Interested
they would get the notification.
10 09/07/10
Ms. 8rouchoud stated there is an association for auditors and there are a
couple of places to advertise.
Council Member Scharff stated that due to the time frame this needed to
move quickly.
Mr. Keene suggested that there might be agencies that have Interested
people who have public service background that might be interested in a
temporary position. There might be agencies that have Auditors, Deputy
City Auditors or retirees that might be Interested.
Council Member Price stated that Staff should look at all options.
Chair Klein wanted to Insure that Staff could get this online within the week
and set the deadline of September 24, or October 1, 2010.
Council Member Price stated that it would make it easy if they accepted Ms.
Srouchoud's recommendation.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
3. 2010 -2011 Compensation for City Manager, City Clerk and City
Auditor.
Chair Klein stated he put this on the agenda and that there should be no
change in their compensation and It should follow the SEIU contract. Due to
the City Attomey retirfng that position Is not being Included in this.
MOTION: Chair Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Council Member
Scharff to make no changes in compensation, to follow the SEIU contract for
the City Auditor, City Clerk, and City Manager.
Mark Petersen-Perez spoke regarding his employee performance reviews and
how he used that In their compensation.
Council Member Espinosa spoke about how pay is usually tied to
performance, and that the evaluations of our Council Appointed Officers
spoke for themselves. He appreciates the hard work that they put In daily
and he knows how hard they work. He stated his is sorry that due to the
economy they cannot offer raises to them or to the rest of the City Staff.
Council Member Scharff stated he agreed with Vice Mayor Espinosa and that
he also felt they did a great job.
11 09/07/10
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
ADJOURNMENT; The meeting adjournedet 7:11 p.m.
12 09/07/10
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: HUMAN RESOURCES
DATE: September 20, 2010 CMR:360:10
REPORT TYPE: ACTION ITEM
SUBJECT: Approval of Recruitment for Acting City Auditor
RECOMMENDA nON
Council Appointed Officers Committee (CAO Committee) recommends that City Council
direct staff to conduct an outreach to identify candidates for Acting City Auditor.
DISCUSSION
On September 7, 20 I 0, the CAO Committee recommended that staff conduct a "swift and
efficient" outreach to identify someone who can serve as acting City Auditor during the six
month period when the current City Auditor will be on leave from October 18, 20 I 0 to April
17,2011.
During this time period of the requested .leave, the City Auditor's Offlce has a number of
reports to issue, including the City's Fiscal Year 2010 audited financial statements and the
Fiscal Year 2010 Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report. Given the workload
demands, the CAO Committee recommends appointing an Acting City Auditor to
temporarily assume the same duties and responsibilities during the City Auditor's leave of
absence. The salary for this Acting City Auditor will be paid from salary savings.
Postings for the Acting City Auditor position, with a deadline of October I, 20 I 0, will
commence immediately after City Council has approved this recommendation
Attachment
A: CAO Committee Meeting Minutes from 09/07!.I 0, Item 2) Consideration of Request of
City Auditor Maternity Leave and Appointment of Acting City Auditor
0r DEPARTMENTHEAD: _____ ~~\:2~.~-~\::~e~~~.~ .. ~~~~==~---------
Russell Carlsen
Director of Human Resources
CITY MANAGER APPROV AL: __ '7"'7=-.."-'->'-'--,F--J"f"---:I"'-'--____ _
Ci
CMR:360.10 Page lof 1
AITACHMENT A
CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL APPOINTED OFFICERS
COMMITTEE
Special Meeting
September 07, 2010
The Council Appointed Officers Committee of the City of Palo Alto met on
this date In the Council Conference Room at 6:04 p.m.
Present: Espinosa, Klein, Price, Scharff
Absent:
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mark Petersen-Perez, Palo Alto spoke regarding First Amendnient Rights of
speech.
Herb .Borock, Palo Alto spoke regarding Brown Act issues with the CAO
Committee.
ACTION ITEMS
1. Review Proposals from Executive Search Firms Relatecl to the City
Attorney Recruitment.
Director of Human Resources, Russ Carlsen spoke regarding the outreach
clone and the proposals received from executive search firms related to the
City Attorney recruitment. He stated that there were eight responses
received.
Chair Klein said the Committee had a great deal of weight to choose a path.
When they chose the City Manager the committee narrowed clown the
consultant applicants. The full Council then voted on the City Manager.
They had less involvement In the City Auditor recruitment. He said those
were two different procedures.
Mark Petersen-Perez saicl the CJl:y Attorney should do more than protect the
City against litigation. But he shoulcl also protect the people.
09/07/10
!
i
j
j
City Manager, James Keene spoke regarding things that the CAO Committee
should look at when reviewing and selecting the firm to conduct the search.
Mr. Carlsen agreed that the reputation of the recruiter is critical.
Mr. Keene spoke about the public's perceptIon and thoughts about who the
Council would hire as the recruiter.
Co uncI! Member Scharff asked if there was anyone that should be eliminated
from the list of applicants based on reputation. He also asked about their
strengths and weaknesses.
Mr. Carlsen said they have had positive experiences with several of the
recruiters. Of the organizations that have the most experience, it's a
profession, they know how far to reach out to get applicants. He stated he
had concerns, there are a couple of firms that he has not worked with and so
doesn't know about them, and they should all be fairly close in their costs.
He stated the City can negotiate the costs especially in the area of the
brochures and stuff.
Council Member Scharff asked if the prIncipal person representing the firms
are available for the next step.
Mr. Carlsen advised that they. have spoken with them and they have
Indicated that would be available to continue in the process, especially over
the next several weeks.
Council Member Scharff asked for clarification on whether the principal
person of the firm would be conducting the recruitment personally.
Chair Klein stated that he felt the person who is conducting the search,
whether it Is the principal person or someone else, they should also be
present at the interview.
Mr. Carlsen stated that would be what they expected.
Chair Klein stated he had two suggestions, one would be to discuss the eight
firms that applied and the other ,would be to do a ballot similar to the way
Board and CommiSSion applicants are voted on.
Council Member Scharff asked whether they would vote on the firm to do It,
or several to interview.
2 09/07/10
j
I
i
Chair Klein stated his suggestion Is to vote for three to Interview. They
would then give these to Council to Interview.
Council Member Scharff stated he would like to meet the applicants and then
suggest to Council on who to recommend.
Chair Klein stated that Interviews would be conducted at the Council level.
Council Member Scharff stated he wants to interview a selection of them.
ChaIr Klein stated that it would then be a two interview process. The CAD
committee needs to whittle It down to a smaller group for Council to
interview. .
Council Member Scharff asked staff if they would have three or four firms to
recommend.
ChaIr Klein stated he feels awkward about doing It that way, as there should
be a separation of powers, and this should independent of staff's desires for
a firm.
Mr. Carlsen said he did have reservations regarding several of the
applicants. He stated at some point he would like let Coundl know about his
concerns with several of the firms.
Council Member Espinosa stated that If staff has serious reservations about
the firms then the Committee and Council should be made aware of them.
Mr. Carlsen stated that JuriStaff does not have a lot of experience in the
public sector.
Mr. Keene said he was not familiar with one of the firms. He had dealt with
some non public sector recruiters in a public sector position and It had been
problematic. He said the Committee should consider what the Counci! was
looking for.
Chair Klein said a lawyer that had practiced CA Municipal law should be what
they are looking for.
City Clerk, Donna Grider read the results of the ballot:
Council Member Scharff: Avery Associates, Ralph Anderson &
Associates, Bob Murray & Associates
3 09/07/10
Council Member Price: Bob Murray &. Associates, Ralph Anderson &.
Associates
Chair Klein: Avery Associates, Bob Murray &. Associates, Ralph
Anderson &. Associates
Vice Mayor Espinosa: Avery Associates, Ralph Anderson &. Associates,
Bob Murray &. Associates
Ms. Grider announced that the three firms for Council to interview would be
Avery Associates, Bob Murray &. Associates, Ralph Anderson &. Associates.
Mr. Keene confirmed that they were going to schedule Interviews before the
full Council at a Council Meeting.
Chair Klein said they Should look at the September 13th and September 20th
as possibilities.
Mr. Carlsen stated that his suggestion Is for September 20th•
Chair Klein stated the date would be dependent upon the Council agenda for
that nig ht.
Mr. Keene asked how long the interviews might take.
Chair Klein stated he felt it would last 50-90 minutes, giving each candidate
20 minutes for their interview.
Mr. Carlsen suggested a special meeting In the Council conference room.
Chair Klein agreed and suggested 6:00 p.m.
Mr. carlsen said that would be best to allow a solid conversation
Chair Klein said they would need to vote in a public meeting because it
wasn't a personnel matter.
Council Member Price asked if It was appropriate to ask major questions·
toward the candidates at this time.
Mr. Carlsen said he could check with the Attomey's Office.
4 09/07/10
Council Member Price questioned the number of hours proposed by Avery.
She had a concern about the number of hours compared tothe other
applicants.
Mr. Carlsen said often they ask for addittonal services, so It was up to the
Council to determine the number of hours.
Council Member Price stated if you translate the hours into weeks, it was a
large amount of hours.
Council Member Espinosa asked if there is a lesson learned here about
reaching out to firms to get the best applying for these.
Mr. Carlsen stated that staff did a broader search for firms, Including a
national site. He felt that we did a better outreach. He stated that some
firms simply don't apply for one reason Or another.
Council Member Price stated she believes the economy plays into why firms
apply or don't apply.
2. Consideration of Request of City Auditor Maternity Leave and
Appointment of Acting City Auditor.
City Auditor, Lynda Brouchoud stated she was here to discuss her request
for leave of absence and her request to bring In an Acting City Auditor while
she Is on leave.
Chair Klein confirmed his understanding that the City's policy was for a total
of 6 months, and not 6 months prenatal and 6 months postpartum.
Ms. Brouchoud read the City's Merit System Rules on maternity leave,
stating they read "Non-disability prenatal and/or postpartum leave Is
available under this provision, but such leave shall not begin more than 6
months prenatal nor extend more than 6 months postpartum:'
Chair Klein asked for clarification on whether it was 3 months prenatal and 3
months postnatal.
Ms. Brouchoud stated she believes that it reads 6 months before and 6
months afterwards.
Chair Klein asked for clarification on the agreement that she would take a
total of 6 months leave, within the 12 month period.
5 09/07/10
City Manager, James Keene asked whether it could be a year.
Chair Klein stated his interpretation was different.
Council Member Price asked for clarification on how It relates to the Family
Medical Leave Act.
Council Member Scharff stated that was a separate Issue.
Chair Klein stated that he believes that that states 6 months also.
Assistant DIrector of Human Resources, Sandra Blanch said there were
various rules that overlap. The City Auditor read the City Merit Rules
provision which shall not begin no more than 6 months prenatal, nor extend
more than 6 months postpartum. She noted that that has not been the
practice.
Chair Klein stated that he and Ms. Brouchoud had spoken and had agreed
that It would be a total of 6 months.
Ms. Brouchoud stated that there Is the non-disability and the disability part
that speaks to 4 months. She stated she was not looking to go on disability.
Mr. Keene stated that the way he read it, It c:annot begin more than 6
months before, nor extend more than 6 months after. It Isn't specific about
the amount of time.
Ms. Brouchoud stated that if the concern was that it was more than 6
months than she could delete 3 weeks off of it on the end.
Chair Klein stated that was consistent with his Interpretation based on the
meeting with Ms. Brouchoud.
Council Member Price recommended defenrlng action on this until there Is a
clear interpretation of the language.
Ms. Blanch stated that Ms. Brouchoud's request Is for 6 months postpartum.
Chair Klein stated there has to be a decision made due to the need to get an
acting auditor prior to Ms. Brouchoud's leave in October.
Council Member Price stated that if there can be clarification within 2-3 days,
that she felt they could make a better decision.
·6 09/07/10
Mr. Keene asked if there is more Information available that HR might have.
Ms. Blanch stated that there is also the Family Medical Leave (FMLA) which
states 3 months.
Chair Klein noted that the City's rules provided more time than FMLA
Ms. Blanch agreed.
Chair Klein asked Ms. Brouchoud to clartfy the amount of time she was
requesting.
Ms. Brouchoud stated she would, like the 6 months afterward, but that she
would like to take some time before to prepare.
Chair Klein agreed.
Ms. Blanch confirmed that her request was for 3 weeks prior to the expected
blrthdate.
Councfl Member Price asked if staff had a clear Interpretation of the rules.
Ms. Blanch stated It was an unusual request to take 6 months postpartum,
however, the understanding of the merIt rules states that is possible. Past
practice has been to allow time off prenatal, and then work with the
employee postpartum.
Chair Kle1n stated he did not agree. He asked if the employee left 1 month
prenatal, would the rules then allow her to take an additional 6 months
postpartum.
Ms. Blanch stated yes per the merit rules, however this is not a typical
request.
Chair Klein stated that rules need to be reviewed.
Vice Mayor Espinosa asked for clarification that our rules currently allow an
employee to take 5 months prenatal and 5 months postnatal.
MS. Blanch answered yes.
Council Member Espinosa reconfirmed that that is currently allowed.
7 09/07/10
I
1
I
Mr. Keene asked for clarification that there are rules that state there Is a
certain amount of time that an employee can take prenatal and postnatall
that some has been past practice, or the fact that Council has the discretion
to decide.
Council Member Scharff asked who writes and interprets the Merit Rules.
Ms. Blanch stated they are drafted with HR and legal staff. They are then
reviewed by the bargaining units before going to Council for approval.
Council Member Scharff asked if there was any formal written Interpretation
as to whether it was 5 or 12 months total.
Ms. Blanch stated not in writingl only in the "'lerit Rules.
Council Member Espinosa stated normally it is 6 months.
Council Member Scharff stated he felt 12 months was a long time.
Ms. Blanch stated that the rules also apply to Public Safety personnel.
Chair Klein stated this is non-disability.
Council Member Price asked for confirmation what the rules state and does
Ms. Brouchoud/s request fall within the rules. She felt the rules needed to be
clarified so that every case isn't brought before Council.
MS. Blanch conflrmed that what Council Member Price was looking for was
c1arlflcatlon on the Federall State, as compared to our Merit System Rules.
Mr. Keene stated that staff needs to provide the Council with our policy
parameters and practice 50 they can make an Informed decision.
Ms. Brouchoud stated that to assist with the decision tonightl she would
agree to begin her leave on October 181 2010, and lasting for 6 months,
Council Member Price stated that she did not want Ms. Brouchoud to change
her plans tonight due to the confusion regarding the policy. Howeverl if she
felt comfortable with her statement that was ok.
Mr. Carlsen stated that the rules allow it and there is a provision to grant
this request. He stated that it is usually not done that waYI and staff works
with the employee to have them return soonerl or at least part-time as soori
as possible.
B 09/07/10
Chair Klein stated that he heard Ms. Blanch state it was one year.
Mr. Carlsen stated that the clear answer Is that there Is a provision to grant
Ms. Brouchoud's request.
Chair Klein stated that Ms. Brouchoud Is here because she does not report to
the City Manager, and so there are no rules in that sense, only the Federal
and State rules. Those rules grant less leave time.
Mr. Carlsen asked for clarIfication If the Merit Rules apply to all employees.
Ms. Blanch stated she belJeved they did.
Council Member Price asked if there was language within Ms. Brouchoud's
contract that covered this.
Ms. Brouchoud states that she follows the Management and Professional
Compensation Plan and tile Merit Rules, similar to other employees. Sne
recommended that her leave begin on October lS, 2010, and end 6 months
after that date so that the COmmittee could move forward with a decision.
She stated that her primary concern was to make sure the Council has
adequate time to hire an acting auditor before her leave begins. She wants
to insure thather office Is fUlly prepared for her leave.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Price to accept her leave beginnIng on October lS, 2010 and ending 6
months later.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Chair Klein confirmed that her maternity leave would be without salary,
except for from vacation leave, etc.
CouncH Member Scharff asked if the CAO Committee can have Staff look into
this and if necessary change the rules. He felt 1 year was a long time.
Mr. Keene stated Staff would look into this, respond with a memo and if
necessary agendize it at a later date. He asked for clarification that if there
was a need to change,her leave date due to unanticipated circumstances
was that possible.
Chair Klein answered yes.
9 09/07/10
Mr. Carlsen stated that she has the option to use her leave balances during
this, however, she is choosing to take her leave without pay.
Ms. Brouchoud stated that the leave Is unpaid, no salary, but shi? can take
her accumulated leave time.
Ms. Brouchoud stated that the Auditor's Office had several reports that were
either In the works or close to completion, and if there was not someone
there to coordinate this, Council may not receive the reports.
Council Member Espinosa asked how she would structure the department If
there was not an Acting City Auditor.
Ms. Brouchoud stated the AudItor's Office does not have a deputy position,
and that at the time she was hired there was no one In charge. This caused
some problems as Staff did not have someone to oversee their work. She
stated that was another option and there are probably more. Her preference
Is to get someone in to oversee the office.
Council Member Espinosa asked If there Is the potential to have the interim
or acting come from within the department.
Ms. Brouchoud stated that would be taking a Senior Auditor up two steps
and it is her recommendation to bring someone in who was either a Deputy
City Auditor or In a similar position.
Chair Klein asked if Ms. Brouchoud had someone In mind for the position.
Ms. Brauchoud stated that there is someone she could refer to the
Committee.
MOTION: Council Member Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by
Chair Klein to hire a temporary person.
Council Member Scharff stated the referral Is good, however thought should
be given to the referral.
Chair Klein stated he agreed with that. He said Staff should check with a
variety of people and should not hire a recruiter for this.
Council Member Espinosa asked if there was a way to have a truncated
announcement or someplace to list this so that it is open to more applicants.
He stated he wanted to Insure that If there was someone who Is Interested
they would get the notification.
10 09/07/10
Ms. Brouchoud stated there is an association for auditors and there are a
couple of places to advertise.
Council Member Scharff stated that due to the time frame this needed to
move Ciulckly.
Mr. Keene suggested that there might be agencies that have Interested
people who have public service background that might be interested In a
temporary position. There might be agenCies that have Auditors; Deputy
City Auditors or retirees that might be Interested.
Council Member Price stated that Staff should look at all options.
Chair Klein wanted to Insure that Staff could get this online within the week
and set the deadline of September 24, or October 1, 2010.
Council Member Price stated that it would make it easy if they accepted Ms.
Brouchoud's recommendation.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
3. 2010 -2011 Compensation for City Manager, City Clerk and City
Auditor.
Chair Klein stated he put this on the agenda and that there should be no
change in their compensation and It should follow the SeIU contract. Due to
the City Attomey retiring that position Is not being Included in this.
MOTION: Chair Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Council Member
Scharff to make no changes in compensation, to follow the SEIU contract for
the City Auditor, City Clerk, and City Manager.
Mark Petersen-Perez spoke regarding his employee performance reviews and
how he used that in their compensation.
Council Member Espinosa spoke about how pay is usually tied to
performance, and that the evaluations of our Council Appointed Officers
spoke for themselves. He appreciates the hard work that they put In daily
and he knows how hard they work. He stated his is sorry that due to the
economy they cannot offer raises to them or to the rest of the Qty Staff.
Council Member Scharff stated he agreed with Vice Mayor Espinosa and that
he also felt they did a great job.
11 09/07/10
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
ADJOURNMENT; The meeting adjourned at 7:11 p.m.
12 09/07/10
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 4
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 CMR:356:10
REPORT TYPE: ACTION
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: From Finance Committee: Adopt a Resolution
Amending the Utility Rate Schedules R-l, R-2, and R-3 for a Refuse
Rate Increase; Adopt Budget Amendment Ordinance for Fiscal Year
2011 to Adopt Municipal Fee Schedule Increases for the Palo Alto
Landf'Il1 and Adjust Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures Within the
Refuse Fund; and Authorize Staff to loan the Refuse Fund up to
$840,000 from the General Fund
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Adopt the Resolution Amending the Utility Rate Schedules R-l, R-2, and R-3 for a Refuse
Rate Increase (Attachment A);
2. Adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2011 to adopt Municipal Fee
Schedule Increases for the Palo Alto Landfill and Adjust Budgeted Revenues and
Expenditures Within the Refuse Fund (Attachment B); and
3. Authorize Staff to loan the Refuse Fund up to $840,000 from the General Fund.
BACKGROUND
At the May 27, 2010 Finance Committee meeting, staff provided an update of information
originally presented on April 6, 2010 (CMR:195:1O) on the status of the Refuse Fund and the
need for a rate increase. On June 15,2010, staff returned to Finance Committee (CMR:281:10)
with an update on the Refuse Fund, a comparison of Palo Alto's refuse rates with those of other
jurisdictions, further analysis of the impacts of Zero Waste services and the economy on revenue,
and proposed reductions in expenses in the Refuse Fund. At the July 6, 2010 Finance Committee
meeting (CMR:301:1O), staffprovided additional information on Palo Alto's solid waste system
and services, rate and revenue modeling, and options to bring the Refuse Fund to cost recovery
through a combination of additional revenue sources, rate increases, and expense reductions. Oil
July 20, 2010 staff presented a recommended scenario to the Finance Committee to close the FY
2011 budget shortfall that includes a proposed interim rate increase of 6 percent for residential
and 9 percent for commercial customers, coupled with expense reductions. (See CMR:313:1O,
Attachment C).
CMR:356:10 Page 1 of8
DISCUSSION
Over the past fiscal year, Public Works identified a potential shortfall in the Refuse Fund balance
and mandated reserves if corrective actions were not taken. A comprehensive discussion of
issues was described in CMR:301:1O to the Finance Committee on July 6,2010. The shortfall of
revenues is associated primarily with the reduction in commercial customer services from the
success of the implementation of compostables (food waste) collection services, and the
economic downturn, which CalRecycle, formerly known as the California Integrated Waste
Management Board, recently documented (Attachment D).
On July 20,2010 Public Works' proposal to address the FY 2011 refuse budget was approved by
the Finance Committee, with one modification, by a three to one vote. Specifically, the Finance
Committee recommended that the landfill closure CIP in the amount of $600,000 not be deferred
and that staff request the State to allow for the use of the funds required for landfill closure. In
case the State denies the request the General Fund would lend the Refuse Fund the $600,000 plus
interest set at the City's investment portfolio rate ofretum. Attachment C provides the complete
report, CMR:313:1O, including the proposed Refuse Fund rate schedules R-l, R-2, and R-3.
The following table summarizes the proposed budget changes for FY 2011, including all expense
reductions and revenue increases as detailed in CMR:313:10. The table reflects modifications to
the proposed budget changes in CMR:313:1O, including the Finance Committee's
recommendation to proceed with CIP RF-llOOI Landfill Closure in the amount of $600,000
during FY 2011. As a result, this item has been removed from the table. Also, a correction has
been made to reflect the deferral of reimbursement for CIP RF-10003 Drying Beds, Material
Storage and Transfer Area in the amount of $375,000 as noted below.
Total Fund Revenues per FY 2011 Proposed Budget $29,895,824
Changes: One-time Ongoing
$5 for minican/6 percent increase for other residential 500,000
9 percent increase for commercial 1,700,000
Rent payment from Utilities for the use of former Los
Altos Treatment Plant site(l) 240,000 60,000
Loan from General Fund -LA TP 240,000
Landfill gate fee increases 230,000
Landfill soil fee 250,000
Landfill gas revenue from RWQCP 350,000
730,000 2,840,000 3,570,000
Total Fund Revenues-Amended $33,465,824
CMR:356:1O Page 2 of8
Total Fund Expenditures per FY 2011 Proposed Budget
Changes:
Decrease in estimate for Green Waste contract
Restore 0.1 FTE Engineering Tech ill (0.9 FTE allocated
to CIP sidewalk repair and replacementi2)
Defer CIP RF -10003 Drying Beds, Material Storage and
Transfer Area(3)
Decrease in landfill operations
Decrease in Zero Waste Coordinator position
Decrease in Zero Waste outreach
One-time Ongoing
(800,000) (797,178)
(375,000)
(122,624)
(300,000)
10,883
(250,000i4):
$36,889,554
(1,597,624) (1,036,295) (2,633,919).
Total Fund Expenditures-Amended $34,255,635
I Cbange in Net Assets ($789,811)<') I
(1) $240,000 in rent payments have been recorded at year-end FY 2010.
(2) Restored at FY 2011 budget adoption.
(3) The deferral ofCIP RF-10003 (Drying Beds, Material Storage, and Transfer Area) will result
in one-time net savings of only $375,000, not $750,000. The reason is that the project is
funded 50% by the Wastewater Collection Fund, and the interfund transfer of revenue has
been moved from FY 2011 to FY 2012 revenues since the project is deferred.
(4) Originally attributed to reduced landfill hours.
(5) $600,000 will be paid from Landfill closure/postclosure reserve or from a loan from the
General Fund.
In summary, while the change in net assets for the Refuse Fund shows $789,811 deficit due to
accounting practices, $600,000 of that deficit is due to the CIP project to convert Phase II A&B
of the landfill for park use and the payment of that cost will be taken out of the landfill
closure/postclosure reserve, or as a loan from the General Fund. The net impact to the rate
stabilization reserve is projected to be $189,111 as a result.
Additionally, in conjunction with $2.6 million in expense reductions, staff proposes an interim
nine percent rate increase for commercial customers and a six percent increase for all residential
customers except the 20 gallon mini can service level. Historically, the 20 gallon minican rate
has been set well below cost recovery in order to incentivize diversion. The mini can service rate
would inC(rease from $15.00 to $20.00 per month, to begin to bring this artificially low rate into
alignment with the rates for other residential service levels. The increase of the minican rate will
generate approximately $130,000 over the next year. The total rate increase for residential and
commercial customers will generate an estimated additional $2.2 million dollars ($1.7 million
CMR:356: 10 Page 3 of 8
from commercial customers and $500,000 from residential customers). The following two tables
list a sample of rates for 20 gallon and 32 gallon residential service, based on a survey conducted
annually by Public Works of the solid waste rates of neighboring communities.
20 Gallon Sin~le Family Rates, By City
Jurisdiction FY2010Rate FY2011 Rate
San Jose $25.90 same
Los Altos Hills $24.20 same
Palo Alto $15.00 $20.00 proposed
Campbell $15.00 same
Santa Clara $12.65 $13.28
Mountain View $11.95 $12.90
32 Gallon Single Family Rates, By City
Jurisdiction FY2010Rate FY2011 Rate
Los Altos Hills $33.77 same
Palo Alto $31.00 $32.86 proposed
San Jose $27.50; $31.50 w/yard same
trimmings cart
Sunnyvale $26.70 $28.70
Campbell $19.58 same
Santa Clara $18.00 $18.90
Mountain View $17.55 $18.95
Staff is proposing an interim rate increase effective October 1, 2010, to be in effect not more
than 24 months. If approved by Council, this proposed rate increase would take effect on
October 1,2010 and provide the needed revenue to help close the Refuse Fund's budget shortfall
for FY 2011 while a cost of service study is conducted an analysis of the Refuse rate structure
completed. The Refuse Fund cost of service study is underway, and on schedule to be completed
by late fall 2010, with new rate structures targeted for Council discussion in January 2011. The
study will produce both a cost of service model to calculate future allocations of expenses to use
in rate setting, and a new proposed rate structure for the Refuse Fund. One of the anticipated
results of the cost of service study is a rate structure that no longer relies solely on rates based on
garbage service levels. Additionally, the new rate structure could include fees tied directly to
services, such as street sweeping, re<;:ycling, household hazardous waste collection, etc. Finally,
the rate structure will provide for a better funded Rate Stabilization Reserve. Staff anticipates
bringing a full evaluation of the fund and proposals for changes to the rate structure to stabilize
revenue as part of the FY 2012 budget process.
Additionally, since 2006, solid waste rates are subject to the notice and protest hearing procedure
of Proposition 218, which requires written notice to be provided to all those subject to any
proposed new or increased fee. Notices were sent to all property owners and utility customers on
August 4, 2010. A public hearing on the new or increased fees must be held not less than 45
CMR:356;10 Page 4 of8
days after mailing the written notice. The September 20, 2010 Council date is the earliest
opportunity to conduct the rate hearing.
Hard to Serve Rate
Included in the rate schedule is a fee for Hard to Serve areas in the city. A 'Hard to Serve' area
is one that has limited access, such as on private streets with restricted access or alleys. In
addition, physical conditions, such as narrow roadways, make the use of standard collection
vehicles unsafe or create the potential for damage to property and equipment. Servicing single
and multi-family residences in these areas requires specialized collection trucks, which results in
higher operational costs for the additional equipment, labor, and maintenance. The 'Hard to
Serve' rate for FY 2011 is $14.42 per month and potentially affects 700 residents.
Hard to Serve areas in Palo Alto have created service challenges for many years. In the past, the
cost of providing this special service to a limited number of customers was allocated across the
entire customer base. During the last procurement process for new collection services, the
Request for Proposals specifically required the proposers to provide a rate for collection from
'Hard to Serve' customers. The rate allocates appropriately the actual cost of providing the
service to the specific customers receiving it, in alignment with Proposition 218. Council
approved the 'Hard to Serve' Refuse fund rate as part of the GreenWaste solid waste hauling
contract, and FY 2010 rate schedule, which became effective July 1,2009.
Since the Hard to Serve rate was a new charge to some residents, in response to customer
concerns, staff delayed implementation of the rate last fiscal year and conducted additional
notification and outreach to the potentially affected customers throughout November and
December 2009. However, the City was still obligated contractually to pay GreenWaste for the
special services, and has been doing so since the beginning of the contract, approximately
$120,000 in FY 2010.
Potentially affected residents were sent two letters describing the rate and options to reduce their
bill. The outreach to the 'Hard to Serve' customers was tailored to several types of customers
(private street, alleyway, or steep terrain), and encouraged them to switch to a smaller garbage
cart to offset the 'Hard to Serve' rate. Since the most commonly used service level is the 32
gallon, many customers still have the option of reducing to a minican. Additionally, City and
GreenWaste staff has met with any interested customers and home owners associations to review
their individual situations to attempt to provide alternatives to the rate.
.... Hard to Serve . Number of Ways<tQ Offset ,
Ar~~ .... C~stomerS .. .". '.,:.' ,
, .. ... :BilIIncr¢~se· .
Hilly terrain 70 Most customers can downsize to smaller
can
Private streets with restricted 213 Most customers can downsize to smaller
access can
Alleyways and other streets with 417 Place cart curbside (front of house),
limited access subscribe to side yard servIce, or
downsize to smaller can
The above chart shows the break-out of Hard to Serve customers, by service area, and shows
how a customer would be able to reduce the overall impact of the addition of the Hard to Serve
CMR:356:10 Page 5 of8
, '
rate to their bill. Due to the operational constraints of collecting solid waste from the hilly
terrain and private streets, downsizing to a smaller can is the way residents in these two areas can
offset the increase in their bill. Because the homes of alleyway customers face streets where a
regular collection truck drives by, they have several different options to reduce their bill,
including placing their can at the street which will avoid the additional rate all together, or
subscribing to back/side yard service for $3.35 per month, as proposed.
The City has identified 700 Hard to Serve customers potentially subject to the rate. Currently,
due to the outreach to the affected customers, 240 customers have selected other options. The
remaining 460 of the identified Hard to Serve customers, out of over 21,000 residential
customers, are subject to the additional rate, but many of them can still take advantage of other
service options.
In compliance with Proposition 218 requirements, the notification letter sent to all property
owners and utility customers identified the Hard to Serve rate, included the map of the areas to
which the Hard to Serve rate applies, and provided the City website location to view a list of all
individual addresses in Hard to Serve areas.
Palo Alto Landfill
The budget proposal presented in CMR:313:10 also includes several actions that impact the Palo
. Alto landfill. The first is an increase of fees at the landfill. While still competitive in the market,
the changes in the gate fees will generate an additional $230,000 in FY 2011.
The second element to the proposal that impacts the landfill is the initial recommendation to
defer two ClP projects to FY 2012, as described in CMR: 313:10. One of those projects is to
prepare Phases II A&B of the landfill to be opened to the public by undergrounding the above-
ground gas and leachate collection systems in these closed sections (as well as installation of
additional wells in the active Phase IIC area). The project will cost an estimated $600,000 to
implement. Based on input from the Finance Committee, Public Works staff has added this
project back into the budget for FY 2011 and will apply to the State to reduce the landfill closure
reserve, or borrow $600,000 from the General Fund.
Solid Waste System Planning Update
There are many inter-related issues being evaluated and projects underway that impact the
overall solid waste system. This section is intended to provide a list of these items and highlight
the time line for when Public Works will be returning to Council with them for discussion and
action.
Item Return to Council
Compost operation update and landfill options October 18, 2010
Future landfill rent discussion October 18, 2010
Landfill "trickling closure" issue October 18,2010
Cost of service study and Refuse Fund rate structure January 2011
Anaerobic digestion feasibility study update March 2011
CMR:356:10 Page 60f8
RESOURCE IMPACT
State regulations require the Refuse Fund to provide financial assurance for landfill closure,
maintenance and corrective action costs. Consequently, the Refuse Fund is required to maintain
a cash balance of $6.7 million to cover these costs. At June 30, 2010, the cash balance in the
Refuse Fund is $7.9 million. The recommended changes to the 2011 budget would net a draw of
$789,811 assuming the State does allow the City to draw down $600,000 from the required
funding. In order to minimize further impacts to the Refuse Fund and mitigate any cash flow
issues, the Finance Committee recommended that the General Fund lend the Refuse Fund an
additional $600,000 if the State does not allow the required funding draw down. This would
then make the net draw to the rate stabilization reserve $189,811. Based on approval of the
recommendation, the draw would then leave a cash balance in the Refuse Fund of $7.1 million.
Without the proposed amendments to the FY 2011 budget, including the rate increase, the Refuse
Fund risks falling out of compliance with the State landfill closure funding requirements since it
would use the available cash and drop below the financial assurance amount.
Staff recommends that the Refuse Fund maintain the required cash balance at all times to ensure
compliance with State landfill closure funding requirements, and that steps are taken to ensure a
minimum Rate Stabilization Reserve of 10 percent of revenues achieved to provide rate stability
in the future. A General Fund loan of $240,000 (from LATP rental income) plus interest equal
to the rate of return on the City's investment portfolio will be needed and potentially another
loan of $600,000 to ensure the Refuse Fund has adequate funds for meeting the State landfill
closure requirements and its current operating needs. In addition, midyear revisions to the
Refuse Fund may be required depending on the actual experience of the expenditures and
revenues. This could result in further reduction of budgeted expenditures or additional loans.
As a result of the proposed rate increases and budget amendments, the Refuse Fund is expected
to decrease the 2011 Adopted Budget deficit from a negative $6.5 million to a negative
$189,811. The Rate Stabilization Reserve will still be at a negative position of $5,587,812. The
deficit position is primarily due to the recognition of the landfill post closure liability as required
by accounting rules, and operating losses incurred over the past two years. It is anticipated that
the Rate Stabilization Reserve will return to a positive balance in future years under a subsequent
rate structure to be det~rmined after a cost of service study (currently in progress) is conducted
and an analysis of the refuse rate structure is completed.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Proposed changes in the use of solid waste facilities or implementation of zero waste programs
may require revisions to the Baylands Master Plan, the Zero Waste Operational Plan, and
municipal code.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An increase in rates to meet finaricial reserve needs and operating expenses is not subject to
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code
section 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations section 15273(a)(l) and
(3).
CMR:356:10 Page 7 of8
ATTACHMENT A
Not Yet Approved
ResQlution No. ---.Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
the Utility Rate Schedules R-I, R-2, and R-3 for a Refuse Rate
Increase
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the
City Council may by resolution adopt rules and regulations governing utility services and the
fees and charges therefore; and
WHeREAS, the Council has considered the need for an adjustment in refuse
collection rates' and recycling collection services to maintain .the Refuse Fund Stabilization
Reserve Fund at required levels; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIIID Sec. 6 of the California Constitution, on
September 20, 2010 the Council of the City of Palo Alto held a public hearing to consider all
protests against the proposed refuse rate fee increases; and
WHEREAS, the total number of written protests presented by the close of the
public hearing was less than fifty percent (50%) of the total number of customers subject to the
proposed refuse rate fee increases.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as
follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Utility Rate Schedule R-I (Domestic Refuse Collection) is hereby amended to read in
accordance with Sheets R-l-l and R-I-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The foregomg
l!tility Rate Schedules, as amended, shall become effective on October 1,2010 .
. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Utility Rate Schedule R-2 (Commercial Refuse Collection) is hereby amended to read in
accordance with Sheets R-2-1, R-2-2 and R-2-3, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The
foregoing Utility Rate Schedules, as amended, shall become effective on October 1, 2010.
SECTION 3. 'Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Utility Rate Schedule R-3 (Commercial Refuse Collection) is hereby amended to read in
accordance with Sheets R-3-1, R-3-2, R-3-3, R-3-4 and R-3-5 attached hereto and incorporated
herein. The foregoing Utility Rate Schedules, as amended, shall become effective on October 1,
2010.
SECTION 4: The rates contained in the attached Rate Schedules shall be in
,j effect for 24 months from the effective date, or until the City Council adopts a new rate structure,
whichever is sooner. If the City Council does not adopt a new refuse rate structQre within 24
months, the refuse rates contained in the attached Rate Schedules will revert back to the rates in
effect on July 20,2010.
1
100915jb0130626
Not Yet Approved
SECTION 5. The Council finds that the revenue derived from the authorized
adjustments of the refuse collection rates shall be used only for the purposes ~et forth in Article
VII, Section 2, of the Charter of the Ci~yfPalo Alto.
SECTION 6. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not.
constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources
Code section 21080, subdivision (b)(8). '
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Director of Public Works
Director of Administrative
Services
100915 jb 0130626
Mayor
APPROVED:
City Manager
2
ATTACHMENT B
ORDINANCE ,NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2011 TO
ADOPT MUNICIPAL FEE SCHEDULE INCREASES FOR THE
PALO ALTO LANDFILL, AND ADJUST BUDGETED REVENUES
AND EXPENDITURES WITHIN THE REFUSE FUND
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as
follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto finds
and determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III
of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 28,
2010 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2011, including a Table
of Organization describing the staffing for each department and
a Municipal Fee Schedule; and
B. The Refuse Fund adopted budget
reflects total expenditures exceeding
$7,004,613; and
for fiscal year
total revenues
2011
by
C. State regulations for landfill closure and corrective
action funding requirements mandate that the Refuse Fund
maintain a cash balance of $6,700,000; and
D. A combination of revenue increases and expenditure
decreases is needed to maintain an adequate cash balance in the
Refuse Fund; and
E. A nine percent rate increase for commercial customers
is expected to generate an additional $1,700,000 in revenue; and
F. A $5.00 per month rate increase for 20-gallon can
residential service, and a six percent rate increase for all
other residential customers is expected to generate an
additional $500,000 in revenue; and
G. Additional revenue increases and expenditure decreases
are needed to maintain an adequate cash balance in the Refuse
Fund as described in Exhibit A; and
H. The fiscal year 2011 Adopted Municipal Fee Schedule
requires amendment to increase certain refuse disposal fees
related to the Palo Alto landfill as reflected in Exhibit C; and
I. City Council authorization is needed to amend the fiscal
year 2011 budget as hereinafter set forth.
Page 1 of 3
SECTION 2. The General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve is
hereby decreased by the sum of Two Hundred Forty Thousand
Dollars ($240,000), as described in Exhibit A. As a result of
this change, the Budget Stabilization Reserve will decrease to
$23,667,000.
SECTION 3. The Rate Stabilization Reserve in the Refuse
Fund is hereby increased by the sum of Five Million Nine Hundred
Seventy-Four Thousand Eight Hundred Two Dollars ($5,974,802) as
described in Exhibit A. As a result of this change, the Rate
Stabilization Reserve in the Refuse Fund will increase to a
deficit of ($5,588,812).
SECTION 4. The Distribution Rate Stabilization Reserve in
the Electric Fund is hereby decreased by the sum of Forty-Five
Thousand Dollars ($45,000) as described in Exhibit A. As a
result of this change, the Distribution Rate Stabilization
Reserve in the Electric Fund will decrease to $8,986,000.
SECTION 5. The Distribution Rate Stabilization Reserve in
the Gas Fund is hereby decreased by the sum of Seven Thousand
Five Hu~dred Dollars ($7,500) as described in Exhibit A. As a
result of this change, the Distribution Rate Stabilization
Reserve in the Gas Fund will decrease to $8,866,500.
SECTION 6. The Rate Stabilization Reserve in the Water Fund
is hereby decreased by the sum of Seven Thousand Five Hundred
Dollars ($7,500) as described in Exhibit A. As a result of this
change, the Rate Stabilization Reserve in the Water Fund will
decrease to $12,298,500.
SECTION 7. The Rate Stabilization Reserve in the Wastewater
Collection Fund is hereby increased by the sum of Three Hundred
Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($375,000) as described in Exhibit
A. As a result of this change, the Rate Stabilization Reserve
ln the Wastewater Collection Fund will increase to $4,941,000.
\
SECTION 8. The Rate Stabilization Reserve in the Wastewater
Treatment Fund is hereby decreased by the sum of Three Hundred
Fifty Thousand Dollars ($350,000) as described in Exhibit A. As
a result of this change, the Rate Stabilization Reserve in the
Wastewater Treatment Fund will decrease to a deficit of
($14,843,000) .
SECTION 9. Adjustments to defer expenditures from fiscal
year 2011 to fiscal year 2012 for Capital Improvement Project
RF-10003 Drying Beds, Material Storage and Transfer Area are
made as shown in Exhibit B. The decrease in fiscal year 2011 is
reflected in the adjustments as shown in Exhibit A.
SECTION 10. The Municipal Fee Schedule is hereby amended
to reflect the changes shown in Exhibit c, which is attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Page 2 of3
SECTION 11. As specified in Section 2.2B.OBO(a) of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is
required to adopt this ordinance.
SECTION 12. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby
finds that this is not a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental
impact assessment is necessary.
SECTION 13. As provided in Section 2 ~ 04.330 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, this Ordinance shall become effective upon
adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
Sr. Asst. City Attorney City Manager
Director of Admin. Services
Page 3 of3
Exhibit A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDMENTS TO THE FY 2011 ADOPTED BUDGET
FY 2011 Category Amount Description
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
.II::IUI~I.]
Revenue $500,000 6% rate increase for residential customers
Revenue 1,700,0009% rate increase for commercial customers
Revenue 60,000 Rent payment from Utilities Dept.for use of former Los
Altos Treatment Plant site
Revenue 240,000 Loan from General Fund
Revenue 230,000 Landfill gate fee increases
Revenue 250,000 Landfill soil fee
Revenue 350,000 Landfill gas revenue from Wastewater Treatment Fund for
RWQCP usage of landfill gas
Revenue Cbanges 3,330,000
Salary and Benefits $(122,624) Freeze 1.0 FTE Zero Waste Coordinator for one year
Salary and Benefits s (250,000) Salary and benefits savings-landfill operations
Non-salary (1,597,178) Decrease estimate for GreenWaste hauling contract
Non-salary (375,000) Defer CIP RF-10003 Drying Beds,Material Storage and
Transfer Area (ClP RF-10003 totaling $750,000 has
$375,000 in funding from the Wastewater Collection Fund;
for SAP fmancial entries,a reversal ofthe transfer between
funds will be reflected)
Non-salary (300,000) Decrease in Zero Waste outreach
Use Changes (2,644,802)
Net Changes To (From)Reserves s 5,974,802
Fund Balancing Entries
5,974,802 Change in Fund Balance
Total Refuse Fund s 5,974,802
1'31 ••••..-rt -~1'4li\!!Rl!J
Allocated Charges $45,000 Rent payment from Utilities Dept.for use of former Los
Altos Treatment Plant site I"
Use Changes 45,000
Net Changes To (From) Reserves $(45,000)
Fund Balancing Entries
(45,000) Change in Fund Balance-Distribution
Total Electric Fund $(45,000)
Exhibit A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDMENTS TO THE FY 2011 ADOPTED BUDGET
"FY 2011 Category Amount Description
rH.I 'j',.'
Allocated Charges $7,500 Rent payment from Utilities Dept. for use of former Los
Altos Treatment Plant site
Use Changes 7,500
Net Changes To (From) Reserves $(7,500)
Fund Balancing Entries
(7,500) Change in Fund Balance- Distribution
Total Gas Fund $(7,500)
".".••....•-~"",',~Zi~.. ,',',"'.r' ..;".:,f""',:"..\
Allocated Charges $7,500 Rent payment from Utilities Dept. for use of former Los
Altos Treatment Plant site
Use Changes 7,500
Net Changes To (From) Reserves $(7,500)
Fund Balancing Entries
$(7,500) Change in Fund Balance
Total Water Fund $(7,500)
~,.lI..-• •~."""
Non-salary $(375,000) Defer reimbursement to Refuse Fund for CIP RF-I0003
Drying Beds,Material Storage and Transfer Area (project
deferred to FY 2012)
Use Changes (375,000)
Net Changes To (From) Reserves $375,000
Fund Balancing Entries
$375,000 Change in Fund Balance
Total Wastewater Collection Fund $375,000
Paqe 2 of 3
Exhibit A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDMENTS TO THE FY 2011 ADOPTED BUDGET
FY 2011 Category Amount Description
...~I];.\'~i:,::,;">'I
$ 350,000 Landfill gas charges to the Refuse Fund for RWQCP usage
of landfill gas
Use Changes 350,000
Net Changes To (From) Reserves $(350,000)
Fund Balancing Entries
(350,000) Change in Fund Balance
Total Wastewater Treatment Fund $(350,000)
GENERAL FUND
J~[.l~t:!IJ~.J••1Ir1,~::r,;
Non-salary $ 240,000 Loan to Refuse Fund
Use Changes 240,000
Net Changes To (From) Reserves $(240,000)
Fund Balancing Entries
(240,000)Budget Stabilization Reserve
Total General Fund $(240,000)
PagEl 3 of 3
CIP DRYING BEDS, MATERIAL STORAGE AND TRANSFER
AREA (RF-I0003)•
Description:This project includes designing and implementing two
bunker storage-transfer systems for dry and wet materials. The project
will also evaluate potential non-park land sites for these activities. The
dry system will be used to store inert solids and leaves from municipal
operation construction projects and street sweeping. The wet system
will be used for storm drain and sanitary sewer debris from Vac-con
trucks.
Justification:This project will be developed in anticipation of the
landfill closure in 2012.
Supplemental Information:Feasibility of processing other wet
construction materials and allowing contractors to use the systems will
be considered during the design phase.
Refuse and Wastewater Collection Funds will share equally the
construction costs.
PRIOR YEARS
PYBudget $125,000
PYActuals as of 12/31/2009 $39,087
CIPFACTS:I-
• Continuing
• Project Status:Construction
• Timeline:FY2010-2012
• Overall Project Completion:0%
• Percent Spent:31.27%
• Managing Department:Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan:Policy N-37
• Potential Board/Commission Review:ARB
1--
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental:Possible exemption.
• Design Elements:This project may be subject
to ARB review.
• Operating:None
• Telecommunications:None
Source of Funds:
$375,00
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs $750,000
Other
Total Budget Request $750,000
Refuse Fund with the following reimbursements: Wastewater Collection Fund($375,000)
Revenues:
Capital Budget FY 2011
$750,000
$750,000
$375,000
City of Palo Alto 245
Refuse Disposal Area
Classification of Vehicles
Passenger Car or Station Wagon
Other Two-Axle Vehicle or Trailer
Load less than 0.5 cubic ard
Load 1 cubic ard
Load 1cubic yard or more
Three or More Axle Vehicles
$15.00 (Less than one SUSPENDED-SUSPENDED-
cubic yard)$25.00 (less than $25.00 (less than one
one cubic yard)cubic yard)
(minimum charge) (minimum charge)(minimum charge)
$25.00/cy (one cubic SUSPENDED-SUSPENDED-
yard or more) $25.00/cubic yard $25.00/cubic yard (1
(1 cubic yard or cubic yard or more)
more
SUSPENDED-SUSPENDED-
$15.00 $15.00 $15.00
SUSPENDED-SUSPENDED-
$25.00 $25.00 $25.00
$25.00 each cubic SUSPENDED-SUSPENDED-
yard plus $10.00 for $25.00 each cubic $25.00 each cubic
fractions greater than yard plus $15.00 yard plus $15.00 for
0.5 cubic yard for fractions fractions greater than
greater than 0.5 0.5 cubic yard
cubic ard
Load less than 1 cubic ard
Load 1cubic yard or more
SUSPENDED-
$35.00 $30.00
SUSPENDED-
$35.00$30.00
$30.00 each cubic
yard plus $15.00 for
fractions greater than
0.5 cubic yard
$30.00/cubic yard
plus $15.00 for
fractions greater than
0.5 cubic yard
SUSPENDED-
$35.00 each cubic
yard plus $18.00
for fractions
greater than 0.5
cubic yard
SUSPENDED-
$35.00 each cubic
yard plus $18.00 for
fractions greater than
0.5 cubic yard
Materials
Compostable Materials (per landfill
acceptance 'list)
City of Palo Alto
$25.00/cubic yard
(non-residents ani
allowed to bring
compostable
materials)
2011 Adopted Municipal Fee Schedule 21-1
Some options presented could impact landfill rent. Any future need for rent for the landfill site
would be at the direction of the City Council. Staff proposes to bring the issue to the full
Council in September 2010 for direction.
The following options are presented in three categories:
1. Changes in expenses or revenues that do not require Council action
2. Recommended changes in expenses and revenue sources requiring Council action
3. Additional program or service changes that are not recommended by staff.
After a discussion of all three categories, staff presents a summary of the recommended elements
and how it amends and balances the FY 2011 Refuse Fund Budget.
1. OPTIONS TO ENACT IMMEDIATELY: REQUIRE NO COUNCIL ACTION
There are several actions staff has already implemented, or are in the process of implementing, to
reduce the fiscal year shortfall. The following table summarizes these elements, which will
generate $1.59 million towards the fund's shortfall.
Revenue SourcelExpense Reduction Amount One time or Ongoing
Fee for clean soil $250,000 One-time·
LA TP rent -last 3 years, and FY 2006* $420,000 One-time
LA TP rent -FY 2011 (112 ongoing) $120,000 Ongoing
Green Waste contract expense reduction $800,000 One-time
TOTAL $1.59 million
*Half of the rent belongs to the General Fund, and would be treated as a temporary loan.
Fee for clean soil. The Palo Alto Landfill is now collecting a fee to deposit clean soil at the
landfill. The soil is needed to address maintenance of landfill contours, to fill in areas, and to
cover the area as part of closure. This is soil that will be suitable as top cover for the future park
when the landfill closes. An additional $250,000 in revenue will be generated by collecting the
fee for FY 2011.
Los Alto Treatment Plant (LA TP) rent. The City purchased the site and it is owned jointly in
equal shares by the General and Refuse Funds. Public Works, through the Refuse Fund,
purchased 50 percent of the total acreage. The Utilities Department has been using the site since
FY 2005 for electric and gas fund project staging and paying a fixed rent of $120,000 per year.
Since the property is owned in equal shares, the rent proceeds are split evenly between the
General and Refuse Funds. However, rent was paid for only two of those years, 2005 and 2007.
Moving forward, Utilities will be paying the Refuse Fund $60,000 per year for rent of the site.
Staff will charge the electric and gas funds $420,000 in FY 2010 to catch up for the last three
years, and $120,000 will be paid in 2011. The total of $540,000 is proposed to be paid to the
Refuse Fund with $240,000 being a short-term loan from the General Fund. The Enterprise
Funds pay rent to the General Fund for the use of land on an annual basis for the various sites
they utilize throughout the City, therefore, this is consistent with other rent charges.
Reduction in FY 2011 budgeted expense for GreenWaste contract. The GreenWaste of Palo
Alto contract, which constitutes almost 39 percent of the Refuse Fund's budget, divides
CMR:313:10 Page 2 of 11
payments to the company into base compensation, a fixed amount paid every month, and
variable compensation for services that are dependent on subscription, such as back/side yard
collection, special events, and debris box services. This variable compensation is paid quarterly
. to Green Waste. The compensation was proposed by Green Waste, and was adopted as part of the
budget for both FY 2010 and FY 2011. Based on additional review of a full year of actual FY
2010 payments for extra services, and the detailed customer data associated with them, the
Budget Office and Public Works are adjusting the total expense of the GreenWaste contract from
$14 million to $13.2 million. The decrease in expenses is estimated at $800,000 and is directly
related to the lack of subscription by customers for construction and demolition (C&D) debris
boxes.
Timing of landfill payment. In 2007, Council established a comprehensive policy on landfill
rent (CMR 104:07). As part of that policy, Council directed the Refuse Fund to begin paying
rent to the General Fund on the closed, undeveloped areas of the landfill in addition to the active
portions and that the landfill payments be amortized over time to avoid significant rate impacts.
Under the rate smoothing schedule adopted by Council, the Refuse Fund makes annual rental
payments in the amount of $4,288,747 through FY 2012 to the General Fund for use of
approximately 100 acres. Under the current landfill rent payment schedule, the annual payments
go down to $2,094,331 inFY 2013 through FY 2020, with a final payment of $881,851 in FY
2020. Since maintaining the commercial ban at the landfill may delay its closure, Council
direction will be needed to determine what rent amount the Refuse Fund would pay for any
additional full operation years. The current policy calls for full rent ending in FY 2012.
Currently, the Refuse Fund makes monthly payments to the General Fund for the landfill rent.
To assist with the Refuse Fund cash flow, payments for the first few months ofFY 2011 will not
be made until a final decision is reached on any potential rate increase and/or loan from the
General Fund. The transfer of remaining funds for rent can take place later in the fiscal year.
2. OPTIONS RECOMMENDED: REQUIRE COUNCIL ACTION
With the implementation of the elements listed above, the remaining funding gap left is
approximately $4.8 million. Staff is presenting a combination of expense reductions, increased
landfill fees, and increased refuse rates that will address the remaining shortfall and align the
solid waste system's revenue and expenses.
Revenue SourcelExpense Reduction Amount One time or Ongoing
Reduce landfill operations to 5 days/week $250,000 On-going
Defer 2 CIP projects to 2012 $1,350,000 One-time 2011
Zero Waste Coordinator vacancy $122,624 One-time 2011
Zero Waste -outreach modification $300,000 One-time 2011
Landfill gas payment from RWQCP $350,000 On-going
Increased landfill fees $230,000 On-going
Rate Adjustment -Residential $500,000 Sunset after 24 months
Rate Adjustment -Commercial $1,700,000 Sunset after 24 months
TOTAL $4.9 million
Reduce landfill operations to 5 days per week. Currently, the Palo Alto landfill is open for
business seven days per week. By reducing landfill operations to five days per week, closing on
CMR:313:10 Page 3 of 11
the two slowest days, Sunday and Monday, the Refuse Fund can reduce expenses by $250,000.
Changes in the operation will require a modification to the State permit.
Advantages:
• Reduces expenses by $250,000 per year
• Minimizes customer impact and tonnages entering the landfill
• Maintains the commercial ban at the landfill
• CIP projects can be deferred until 2012
• Preserves a footprint for potential future dry anaerobic digestion facility
Disadvantages:
• May require additional rent for use ofland beyond 2012
• Eliminates two staff positions -layoffs
• Customers must adjust to the new schedule
Defer two elP projects until 2012. If the landfill ban on commercial material remains in place,
two CIP projects slated for FY 2011 can be deferred until FY 2012. The first project is to
prepare the LATP site as a transfer facility for city operations, which would, among other things,
house drying beds to process wet material collected as part of City operations before being
transferred and landfilled. This process currently takes place at the landfill and must be relocated
before closure. This project is estimated to cost $750,000. Per Council direction, the second
project is to prepare Phases II A&B of the landfill to be opened to the public. Postponing this
activity would save $600,000 in FY 2011, but would require Council action to implement.
Advantages:
• Allows $1,350,000 in capital costs to be deferred until 2012, reducing the expense
requirements for FY 2011, and smoothing the total Refuse Fund expenditures over a
multi-year period.
Disadvantages:
• Phases II A&B are not open to the public until at least 2012
• Currently, no funding is identified for park improvements
Zero Waste program changes. Per the Zero Waste Operational Plan, Public Works has
increased the efforts of the Zero Waste group to develop programs, services, policies and
outreach campaigns to help the city reach an interim goal of 77 percent diversion by 2012, and
virtually no waste by 2021. Over the last year, staff has made great strides towards these goals.
While official notification from CalRecycle will not be issued until later this fall, staff estimates
that the City's diversion rate to be in the low 70s percent range. With a status quo approach, the
city should be able to maintain this level of diversion with the one year deferral of programs and
staffing, totaling $422,624.
Through a one year deferral and re-prioritization of several outreach and education campaigns
and services, the budget for Zero Waste efforts can be reduced by $300,000. This will defer a
majority of the programs and campaigns designed for the year, including a campaign targeting
residents and owners of apartment buildings, a project to establish a co-op for small businesses to
purchase recycling and compostable containers, and an outreach campaign to educate the public
CMR:313: 10 Page 4 of 11
on extended producer responsibility and green purchasing. Additionally, the program has been
operating with one unfilled position for the last several months, and given the budget constraints,
staff proposes to leave the position vacant for FY 2011, for a salary and benefits savings of
approximately $122,624.
Advantages:
• Reduces expenses by $422,624
Disadvantages:
• One year deferral ofthe majority of zero waste programs and educational campaigns.
Landfill gas payment from the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RPWCP). Currently
the RWQCP uses 125 million cubic feet of gas generated by the landfill to generate energy,
primarily for the incinerators. Based on current Utilities Department's rates for natural gas, the
energy is worth $350,000 in revenue. Staff proposes to initiate an inter-fund charge for the gas.
Advantages:
• Transfers $350,000 to Refuse Fund as revenue, annually
Disadvantages:
• Transfers expenses to wastewater fund
Increase fees at the Palo Alto landfill. This revenue generator will increase all of the current
Palo Alto landfill fees, but still keep them competitive with other facilities accepting solid waste,
yard trimmings, and other materials in the mid-peninsula and south bay area. By increasing the
gate fees for all materials, even with maintaining the commercial ban, the landfill will generate
an additional $230,000 per year, while it remains open. The increase in rates does require
modifying the Municipal Fee Schedule.
Advantages:
• Generates $230,000 in additional revenue, while still maintaining competitive fees
Disadvantages:
• Increases fees for existing customers
Temporary rate increases for residential and commercial customers. In any combination of
potential expense reductions and revenue generators, a modest rate increase for residential and
commercial customers is still required to completely align revenues and expenses and eliminate
the Refuse Fund shortfall in FY 2011. As described in CMR 301:10, Public Works is embarking
on a cost of service study that will result in a new rate structure proposal for the city. However,
the results of this analysis will not be ready before midyear 2011, and will be brought to the
Finance Committee for consideration as part of the FY 2012 budget process (see Attachment A
for the timeline). Therefore, staff proposes a temporary increase in rates for residential and
commercial customers that will last no longer than 24 months, or until a new rate structure is
adopted by Council, whichever is sooner. In the event the new rate structure is not finalized
within 24 months, staff recommends that the rates revert back to the current levels. This would
CMR:3 13: 10 Page 5 ofl1
allow the short-tenn revenue increases needed to make the fund cost recovery, but not
institutionalize the increases pennanently.
The complete proposed rate schedule is included as Attaclunent B. In the residential sector,
services are not at cost recovery. This is largely due to an historic practice of Palo Alto and
other cities to subsidize recycling and yard trimming services in order to encourage zero waste
practices. More detailed analysis will take place as part of the cost of service study, but a
moderate increase to begin aligning revenues with costs is warranted, and will help close the
budget deficit. The 20 gallon, minican, rate, in particular, is a subsidized service level among the
residential rates. While reducing the rate to $15 was consistent with the City's Zero Waste goals,
and generated interest in recycling and waste reduction, it is not a sustainable rate. Staff
proposes raising the mini can rate from $15 to $20 per month. Changing this rate begins to
realign the proportionality of this service level to the others available to residential customers.
For the remaining residential customers, a 6 percent increase for FY 2011 is recommended. For
the 32 gallon customer, a 6 percent increase is $1.86 per month, from $31.00 to $32.86. The
total increase in residential rates is proposed to generate $500,000 in revenue.
Additionally, while commercial rates in general are closer to cost recovery, the majority of the
revenue shortfall for FY 2010 occurred in the commercial lines of business resulting in a large
commercial sector deficit. To assist in closing this gap, Staff is recommending a 9 percent
increase for commercial customers to generate an additional $1,700,000 per year. For a common
customer level, a 3 cubic yard bin serviced twice per week, the current monthly rate is $798.00.
This will increase to $869.82 if the rate proposal is adopted.
Finally, the proposed rate structure reduces rates for commercial source separated debris boxes to
make ~hese rates more competitive with private haulers. Based on the City'S municipal code,
source separated recyclables in the commercial sector are allowed to be collected by any hauling
company. Because the City'S rates for debris boxes have been historically more expensive than
other private haulers, GreenWaste and the City have been losing business to them. This change
in source separated debris box rates makes the City's rates more competitive on the open market.
Advantages:
• Generates a significant amount of revenue to reduce the FY 2011 deficit
• Is not permanent; in effect no longer than 24 months
Disadvantages:
• Enacts a rate increase on the City'S customers
• Does not assist with long tenn goal of re-establishing mimmum Rate Stabilization
Reserve level of 10 percent of revenue
Finally, as mentioned at the July 6, 2010 Finance Committee meeting (CMR 301:10), staff is in
the process of finalizing a new rate and revenue forecasting model for the Refuse Fund. This
model uses a combination of many variables to predict future revenue including industry
standard service level migration estimates, actual trends in customer service levels and tonnage
generation, and economic growth factors. The model allows sensitivity analysis on up to 100
variables, and as the City continues to use the model year to year, it will become more robust
with the inclusion of act';lal data and trends from the new programs and services.
CMR:313:10 Page 6 of 11
For FY 2011, without the rate increase, residential revenue is modeled to remain essentially flat,
based on historical trends of new residential customers and the past widespread migration to the
lower service levels. Commercial customer revenue is forecasted to grow approximately 3.5
percent without a rate increase, which is consistent with estimates for growth in sales tax
revenue, as included in the City's Long Range Financial Forecast and budgeted in the General
Fund.
3. OPTIONS NOT RECOMMENDED
Staff also evaluated other options to generate either additional revenue. or cut expenses to the
Refuse Fund, including closing the composting operation, the recycling center, and the entire
landfill itself. Ultimately, due to policy direction, a consideration of the convenience to
residents, and the avoidance of service reductions, Public Works is not recommending these
options be implemented.
Revenue SourcelExpense Reduction Amount One time or Ongoing
Reduce street sweeping -residential $250,000 Ongoing
Close compost facility $150,000 Ongoing
Lift commercial ban at landfill $500,000 Ongoing
Close recycling center $300,000 Ongoing
TOTAL $1.2 million
Reduce street sweeping to biweekly service for residential streets. The proposal would
reduce street sweeping in the residential areas of the City from every week to biweekly.
Sweeping in the commercial districts would remain weekly. The net savings to the City is
estimated to be $250,000 per year. This savings comes primarily from the elimination of two
positions and the need for one piece of equipment. While this is a common level of service in
the bay area, there are concerns that modifications to the current street sweeping frequency may
have impacts on stormwater quality and localized flooding potential in certain areas of the City.
Advantages:
• Cost savings of $250,000
Disadvantages:
• Reduces current level of service to City residents
• Potential negative impacts to stormwater quality
• Potential increase in localized flooding during rain season
• Eliminates two positions -layoffs
Close the composting facility. Given the City's long-term arrangement with the SMaRT
Station in Sunnyvale (as described in CMR 301:10), yard trimmings currently delivered and
processed at the Palo Alto facility can be accepted immediately at the SMaRT Station, and
transferred to Z-Best in Gilroy for processing, for the net savings of $150,000 per year. While
Public Works will require compost to finish the closure of the landfill, staff can produce and
stockpile the needed material for up to two years before closing the facility. It would take
approximately six months to produce the needed amount of compost. However, if landfill
CMR:3I3:10 Page 7 of 11
closure is more than two years after the closure of composting operation, stockpiles could not be
maintained.
Advantages:
• Cost savings of$150,000
• Use of SMaRT Station processing operation already paid for in contract
Disad vantages:
• Community's loss of local access to finished compost
• Potential need to purchase compost to complete closure of landfill if no stockpiling
• Would require staff to modify State permit
Remove the ban on commercial material at the landfill in FY 2011. If the ban accepting
commercial solid waste were lifted, the landfill would generate approximately an additional
$500,000 per year while it remains open. Staff would also explore ways to market the landfill to
attract customers to the landfill to increase the revenue even more. Ending the ban would require
Council action and hastens the closure of the landfill.
Advantages:
• Additional revenue of at least $500,000
• Completes filling the landfill quickly for closure and conversion to park
• Reduces the expense of operations in future years, beginning in 2012
Disadvantages:
• Fills space where a potential anaerobic digestion facility would be located
• Eliminates option to delay CIP projects and the subsequent savings in 2011
Close the Recycling Center. The City currently houses a drop-off recycling center at the
landfill, which must be relocated before the landfill closes. The City contracts with Green Waste
of Palo Alto to staff the recycling center, and transport and process the materials. The SMaRT
Station in Sunnyvale houses a recycling center, which accepts the same materials as Palo Alto's,
and currently is open to all Palo Alto residents as part of our long term arrangement. The City
would save approximately $300,000 per year by closing its facility. Realizing this savings would
require amending the current contract with Green Waste of Palo Alto. The hauler could suggest
additional changes to the contract if the City reopens negotiations.
Advantages:
• Cost savings of $300,000
• Use of services provided in SMaRT Station agreement
Disadvantages:
• Requires opening contract with Green Waste, which could result in their request to
renegotiate compensation
• City residents must either use curbside service or travel to Sunnyvale
• In conflict with and would require modification to City's comprehensive plan
CMR:313:1O Page 8 of II
Fill the landfill by end of FY 2011. Staff also evaluated several scenarios in which filling the
landfill was. accelerated so that closure could begin by the end of FY 2011. These options
included using clean soil to fill the landfill, or diverting curbside garbage from the SMaRT
Station to the Palo Alto landfill. Both scenarios would enable the landfill to be filled by the end
of FY 2011. These scenarios do not reduce expenses in FY 2011, but do allow significant
reductions in operational expenses, approximately $1.5 million beginning in FY 2012, as closure
begins. Additionally, filling the landfill by the end of the fiscal year impacts the potential siting
of an anaerobic digestion facility.
Filling the landfill with soil is not a viable option, primarily because it significantly affects the
City'S waste diversion, and places the City out of compliance with AB 939, which mandates 50
percent diversion. Because of the amount of soil that would be required to complete filling the
landfill, the City's tonnage landfilled would quadruple in amount and reduce the City's currently
estimated diversion from the low 70s percent range, to approximately 35 percent. The State has
the ability to fine cities up to $10,000 per day for being out of compliance with AB 939.
The other option to fill the landfill quickly, diverting from the SMaRT Station to the landfill all
of the curbside garbage currently collected, would enable the City to close the landfill by the end
of the fiscal year. This option, while filling the landfill within the year, would also impact the
City'S diversion for the year slightly. Because all of the garbage taken to the SMaRT Station is
sorted for recyclables before it is sent to the landfill (with a 20-25 percent recovery rate), the City
would see a slight dip, potentially a 5 percent drop, in diversion for the year.
A final option is to accept garbage from other communities.' The Palo Alto landfill is restricted
by its permit to accept only waste generated in Palo Alto. Additionally, the landfill permit in its
current form does not allow the transfer of material. So the City would need to work with the
State if modifications to the pennit were desired to allow material from other communities as a
means of generating additional income and filling the landfill more quickly.
Advantages:
• Fills the landfill quickly for closure and conversion to park
• Reduces the expense of operations in future years, beginning in 2012
Disadvantages:
• Fills space where a potential anaerobic digestion facility would be located
• Eliminates option to delay CIP projects and the subsequent savings in, 20 11
• Diversion is impacted for FY 2011. In the case of using soil to fill the landfill, the City
may be fined for being out of compliance with AB 939.
• Staff would need to revise the State permit and municipal code
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
In conclusion, the staff recommendation includes all of the options presented in the first two
categories described in detail above. The following table provides a summary overview of those
proposals, and how they amend the FY 2011 budget to close the deficit.
CMR:313:10 Page 9 of 11
Total Fund Revenues per ProPQsed Budget $29,895,824
Changes: One-time Ongoing
6% increase for residential 500,000
9% increase for commercial 1,700,000
Rent payment from Utilities for use of former Los
Altos Treatment Plant site 240,000 60,000
Loan from General Fund 240,000
Landfill gate fee increases 230,000
Landfill soil fee 250,000
Landfill gas revenue from RWQCP 350,000
730,000 2,840,000 3,570,000
Total Fund Revenues-Amended $33,465,824
Revised #
Total Fund Expenditures per Proposed Budget $36,889,554
Changes: One-time Ongoing
Decrease in estimate for GreenWaste contract* (800,000) (797,178)
Restore 0.1 FTE Engineering Tech III (0.9 FTE
allocated to CIP sidewalk repair and replacement 10,883
Defer CIP RF-10003 Drying Beds, Material Storage
and Transfer Area (750,000)
DeferCIP RF-11001 Landfill Closure (600,000)
Decrease in landfill operations (250,000)
Freeze 1.0 FTE Zero Waste Coordinator for one year (122,624)
Decrease in Zero Waste outreach (300,000)
(2,572,624) (1,036,295) (3,608,919)
Total Fund Expenditures-Amended $33,280,635
Change in Net Assets $185,189
Revised #
*$797,178 decrease in expenses is an ongoing change that was inadvertently left out of the
adopted FY 2011 budget
NEXT STEPS
The described solution is predicated on the enactment of all proposed changes by October 1,
2010. Additional measures and potential impacts to services and rates would have to be
evaluated, if changes are implemented later in the fiscal year. This would include a potential loan
from the General Fund to assist in closing the shortfall for FY 2011.
The recommended refuse rate increase is subject to the notice and protest hearing procedures of
Proposition 218. In the event that a refuse rate increase is approved, the City will conduct the
CMR:313:10 Page 10 of 11
ATTACHMENT A
Refuse Rate Cost of Service Study and Restructuring Timeline
Date Activityl Action
August 2,2010 Notice to Proceed for Cost Service Study
October 15, 2010 Results of study due from consultant
Oct-December Staff review of consultant's study and analysis, and
2010 preparation of proposed new rate structure
January-March Information and recommendations to Finance Committee for
2011 discussion and decision
Mid-March 2011 Decision by Finance Committee
By first week of Proposition 218 notice letters sent to customers
April 2011
March-June 2011 Adjustments to SAP and GreenWaste's billing system to
include proposed changes to rate structure
End of May/early Rate Hearing by City Council
June 2011
July 1,2011 New rate structure goes into effect
Dear Sirs,
Steven Rosenberg
4073 Amaranta Ave.
Palo Alto, Ca. 94306
650-493-6311
.. CITYOF .PALO ALTO.C.A CITY CLERK'SOFF'ICE
JOAUGI6 AM,9: Sit
I am writing to protest the proposed new charges for refuse rates that will be considered at the Sept. 20,
2010 Palo Alto Council meeting. I strongly oppose any increase in residential rates other than hard to
servi~e areas. My utility account number is:
Steven Rosenberg
Robert K. Stitt
919 Amarillo Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303
August 12, 2010
City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto,~CA 94301
Phone: 650493-5900, FAX: 650493-0636
E-Mail rks3ataad@yahoo.com
CITY Of PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFIC£ -
10 AUG 17AH 10: 5.
RE: Objection to Proposed Refuse Rate Increases
Gentlemen,
I am writing this letter to object to the increase in the rates for refuse collection.
This increase would adversely affect most, those with the lowest earnings and the
retired and elderly.
Very truly yours,
Robert K. Stitt
PauAcct. #:
CITY OF PALO ALTO, CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
10 AUG 23 Aft 8:1'
CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY CLERK
250 HAMILTON AVE
PALO ALTO CA 94301
RE: PROPOSED REFUSE RATES
ACCOUNT.
2023 E BA YSHORE RD
PALO ALTO CA 94303
CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
. .
10 AUG 16 AM 9: &.,
THE PROPOSED REFUSE RATE CHANGES ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. WE WERE ASKED
TO RECYCLE TO LESSEN OUR TRASH AMOUNT AND NOW YOU ARE GOING TO
RAISE OUR RATES? PLEASE DO NOT RAISE OUR RATES.!!!!
WE ARE A SMALL BUSINESS AND IT HAS BEEN A VERY HARD FEW YEARS DUE TO
THE ECONEMY. THE INCREASE IN THE REFUSE RATE WOULD BE A TERRIBLE
BURDEN.
SINCRELY",,/C . MIT~~!j~~Ji~~~ .-----'
FRANK L. ALTICK, D.D.S. ~,rY OF PAl9 A~TO.
824 BRYANT STREET ; TY CLERK S OFFICCV'
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94301 10 AUG _.. ;.. ..: •..
PH. (650) 327-1787. FAX (650) 327-7971 9 PH 4r 2'
~ ..
;,.
' ..
. '
1010 Bryant St.
Palo .Alto, . CA 94301·.
Augu'st 7, '2010 nS2 0=t~ ~. -<-<
tn psg
m,:.1j Q . ::oJ> 'City Clerk of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton St .. '
Palo'Alto, CA 94301
~r=-U;O :c. -
RE: "'~ . _. ':S;:
Formal protest against rise in costs for garbage dispos ... ·j .~
Identifying no. City of Palo Alto Utilities account number:
As a resident of the City of Palo Alto, I OBJECT to the
projected rise in the cost of garbage disposal.
This PROTEST is made prior to the cutoff date of Sept. 20,
2010 and must be delivered to the City Council of Palo Alto.
Respectfully submitted, /\ 'r v: .,t:J~
Raymond V. Dunn .
.,
J .,
. :
1440 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
\
August 10, 2010
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: Protest against proposed refuse rate changes
'Parcel #
Dear City Clerk,
CJTY OF PAL;Q AUD.CA CITYCLE~K S OFnC£
. . -. . .
"AUG J 3 ,A" 9: 4,
This is my formal, written and signed protest to the proposed refuse rate changes, for the
above parcel number. '
Please let the city council know that the need to stop tapping already strained budgets of
property owners in Palo Alto for shortfalls that could have and should have been
anticipated. '
Residents and property owners should not be punished with increasing rates for following
the City'S guidelines in being more responsible about the amount of garbage they
produce each week.
Sincerely,
/.,~~M
Hedy McAdams
August 9, 2010
City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Carol and Harry Saal
1955 Bryant St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Account Number:
Re: Protesting Proposed Refuse Rate Hikes
To: City Clerk/City Manager/City Council
CITY OF PALO ALTO G CITY CLERK 'SOFFfCEA
fOAUG"PHft: 0 j
I am submitting a formal protest regarding the upcoming rate hikes. It is not the
amount of the increase but the fact that you just raised rates and cut service last year
and you are again proposing hiking the rates. In addition, you are not facing up to
your budgetary responsibilities and forcing the citizens of Palo Alto to do your work for
you. This sounds very reminiscent of the dysfunctionality at the State level.
Do the job you were hired and elected to do.
Sincerely,
Carol Saal
,
August 9, 2010
City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
RE: .Proposed Refuse Rate Changes
Dear City Clerk,
OITY OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE . .
ID'AUGt! AM 8t 21
Please accept this letter as a formal protest to the proposed refuse rate changes as described in a letter from the
City dated July 29,2010.
I realize that the City must recover its operating costs for such service, however the rate increase to the users of
the mini-can120 gal. cart is unacceptable and not in line with the City's goal of encouraging users to reduce their
solid waste stream. The increase is 33.33% over the present rate versus a 6.0% increase in all other categories.
This is not the way to encourage a reduction in the amount of material that eventually ends up in the landfills.
As a result of this change, a mini-can user will pay $1.00 per gallon of waste versus 0.75 cents per gallon before
the rate increase. The rate for other carts will pay just over $1.00 per pound.
In fact, I rarely if ever, fill my 20' gallon cart on a weekly basis. even though I live in an average size (1600 sq.
foot) house with two people. I would much prefer to have my cart emptied on "as needed" basis rather than
every week.
Might it be possible to put the service on "hold" as I do with my newspaper when I am away? This approach
should not be a big technical problem at all. .
Thanks for listening.
R~
Gary Ruppel
(650) 494-0530 df\ \ .~\( Pm T es
\>~ ~'-(~)lQ
City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
CITY Of PALO ALTO.CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
10 SEP 15 AH 9: " Wei -shun Wang
3359 Bryant St.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
9112/2010
RE: Proposed Refuse Rate Increases and "Hard to Service" Charge
To: City Clerk, City of Palo Alto
In response to the CityofPalo Alto's July 29, 2010 Notice of Proposed Refuse Rate Changes, I
write to protest the proposed rate changes for refuse collection services and the imposition of a
"hard to serve" fee on certain areas that the City claims must be served with "special
equipment." My City of Palo Alto Utilities account number is My address is 3359
Bryant St. Palo Alto, CA94306. My Assessor's Parcel Number is l32-22-057.
Sincerely,
Wei-shun Wang
· cwt '0 ZOID
() JU L .~ltY04J~9ldific~AJ d -i0h 1I If. -J-: r L.-. .
'L i. ~ rt) 11' C e ~O Au6~~~ l! wJ,U-~ L4' l./JI./YJ;?/d
f O~'10 ct 3?"Iv .~ ~ ~
)-~ -CC{/Y1J ;l 0 ~ . .Mv1:L, .. ~ ~ VL-
~~rnwS-e,.~~
-U (lR~~? ~ JL :3 % "~ (rry
~ ~ ~ -f~ (Ld;e,
j~!leM:lu~k~
. .4 ,(lCUVYL£ err (lR.c.UAA:LA f fIX urvt fiy ~
Lj. x 32 cp1 c<JYli:auN/\.-d 0lJ ~, .:»u-u ~
.:;;t:/LL CU./J fi;yyt.uu) . ~ liJu /1U) j I-cJcUJQ
(
u/ra ltJ~+
(J '7 0 eh a 11 nJ /)} Au-€
PttW {ij!h (It JLf:JO /
City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, Ca. 94301
Subject: Proposed refuse rate changes.
I formally protest the proposed refuse rate changes.
Instead of a rate increase I have two suggestions.
9Aug2010 CITY elF PALO ALT
CITY CLERK'S oFW,clA
, . ..'
10 AUG fJ 'PH 12* ....
One, introduce a smaller mini-can (for example, 10 gal capacity). This smaller
receptacle would suffice for many households.
Two, allow for pickup every other week, instead of every week. My household
could easily live with pickup every two weeks.
The adoption of either or both of these strategies should allow for refuse rates to
remain static, .. or actually be reduced.
;;$:, '"' ........ A c. ~ I l.\iA.)V\
Tom Neier
Account No.: ~
790 Christine Drive
Palo Alto·, Ca. 94303
CITY OF PALO ALTO CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
l£~! A~ltJ1t 'ok /nC¥t4ft
,It. ~.u,..14iJ ~ ~ ~~~~/·
/tllu -I· ,,.1-tJ!. 41.;"'+ tit
1". p'«'t'/ "{we (;/ltt/;" Jt,.~~
.. Illllu .. · .
, .
,eJ.'~1
August 15, 2010
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn: City Clerk
Re: Account #
CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK;SOF'FtCE
10 AUG 24 AM 9:4'
In accordance with your Notice of Proposed Refuse Rate Changes, dated July 29,2010, I hereby
submit a formal written protest against the proposed refuse rate changes to be imposed on the
residents effective October 1, 2010.
Since~IY' -I ~
o:53:evore
2291 Cowper Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
JOHN PAUL HANNA·
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
DAVID M. VAN ATTA
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
WILLIAM R. GARRETT
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
August 5,2010
City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
HANNA & VAN ATTA
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
525 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 600
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94301-1921
www.hanvan.com
Re: City of Palo Alto Utilities -Account No. _
51 Crescent Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear City Clerk:
CITY OF PALOAthT,L ~. CA CITY CLERK·S·· .. •. . .. leE
10 AUG -9 PH It: 31
TELEPHONE
(650) 321-5700
FACSIMILE
(650) 321-5639
Email: jhanna@hanvan.com
Please accept my protest against the proposed increase in refuse rates.
I would like to be able to protest charges for electricity, water and gas, but haven't been
given the opportunity to do that. (Our utility bill runs between $1,200-$1,400 per month,
which seems excessive.)
Best regards,
JPH:sm
T:\WPWIN60\LETTERS\JPH\City of Palo ALto[08 05 IOJ.doc
JOHN PAUL HANNA
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
DAVID M. VAN ATTA
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
WILLIAM R. GARRETT
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORA nON
August 5, 2010
City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
250 Hamilton A venue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
HANNA & VAN ATTA
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
525 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 600
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94301-1921
www.hanvan.com
Re: City of Palo Alto Utilities -Account No
51 Crescent Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear City Clerk:
CITY OF PALO ALTO VA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
'0 AUG -9 PH It: 3t
TELEPHONE
(650) 321-5700
FACSIMILE
(650) 321-5639
Email: jhanna@hanvan.com
Please accept my protest against the proposed increase in refuse rates.
I would like to be able to protest charges for electricity, water and gas, but haven't been
given the opportunity to do that. (Our utility bill runs between $1,200-$1,400 per month,
which seems excessive.)
IPH:sm
T:\WPWIN60\LETIERS\JPH\City of Palo ALto[08 05 IO).doc
City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
CITY OF PALO ALTO,CA ClTY CLERK'S OfFI·CE
: . .
10 SEP 13 AM II: 01
Michael Sims
931 Curlew Lane
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Sept. 9,2010
RE: Proposed Refuse Rate Increases and "Hard to Service" Charge
To: City Clerk, City of Palo Alto
I would like to take this opportunity to formally protest the proposed increase in my garbage
fees, be designating my street as "hard to serve" (Reference: City of Palo Alto's July 29,2010
Notice of Proposed Refuse Rate Changes). In my opinion this street is not hard to serve, and in
fact the previous garbage company had no problems serving our street with standard equipment.
In addition, we have Palo Alto Fire Department engines and large delivery and moving trucks
using our streets all the time. It seems to me the decision was based on the fact that the Vantage
community is a private community with streets maintained by the HOA, not on any real
assessment of the streets.
The $15 per month increase is excessive and unfair.
My City of Palo Alto Utilities account number is , and my address is 931 Curlew
Ln., Palo Alto. .
s~~relV
~S:m:
('
P A Utilities
City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
250 Hamilton
Palo Alto. CA 94301
Subject: Protest rate increase
Ref: Notice of proposed refuse rate increase
Utility account number: ~
1466 Dana Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301
CITY OF PALO ALTO, CA
CHY CLERK'S OFFICE
10 AUG 17 AM 10: 57
DO NOT increase the refuse rate. I suggest that you require that all those in favor of a
refuse rate increase -state so in writing. My guess is you wouldn't get 10 letters. Why
assume there is consensus when the burden is always on the assumption of acceptance of
a negative proposal and never, vice versa?
You make it difficult -if not impossible -for objections to be accurately voiced. Most
people miss the notice, fail to respond in time, don't include the 'right info' or don't want
to fight city hall (trouble & inconvenience).
Continual rate increases are arrogant and add to the detachment between the city and
those that pay the bills. Shame on you, again.
·:~U::(/t~
lrack and Retta Koch
\ .... /14(1(1 Dana Ave .:~--,
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
cnv Of PALO AUD,CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE;
10 AUG 26 AM 10: 45
Re: Proposed Refuse Rate Changes
1469 Dana Avenue
Palo Alto; Calif. 94301
August 22, 2010
The City of Palo Alto has a strong environmental record and vigorously promotes
recycling and minimizing its waste stream. As property owners and, we hope, good
citizens, we make every effort to comply; we compost and recycle all that we can, and
rarely fill even our mini 20-gallon refuse cart.
Thus, we fail to understand why the proposed rate increases for refuse collection clearly
penalize those who generate the least refuse. For the users of the mini-cans, the rate
increase is a whopping 33 1/3 percent, while all other once-a-week customers will have
an increase of just 6 percent-less than one-flfth of the rate increase for 20 gallons. (We
didn't do the math for multiple pickups, but it looks comparable.) Even in actual dollars,
not until a customer is generating 96 gallons a week would he or she pay more than the
$5.00 increase imposed on those generating only 20 gallons a week.
We strongly object to the message this sends about the city's environmental commitment
and to the discriminatory nature of the percentage of rate increase.
Yours, ~w~~
Dennis H. Smith
~tffitA.~
Ellen F. Smi;;
p.s. Speaking of reducing waste, we received two copies of this notice, one addressed to
Dennis Smith
Ellen Smith
1469 Dana Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
and one to
Smith Dennis H and Ellen F Trustee
1469 DanaAv
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Can't such records be combined?
BrianMa
518DIi~~"
Palo Alto, CA 94306
CITY Of PALOALTO,CA CtT¥CLERt{tS·OfFlCi.
'0 AUG" -AM tt'"
August 12,2010
I am writing to protest the nroposed increase in garbage collection rates. My
utility account number is ___ ~ ~ J ~ • .md my parcel number is 13 7-37 -009. The proposed
"hard-to-serve" service charge is akin to extortion, as affected residents have no recourse
to avoid it. In fact, the rate for mini-can service plus the service charge will be higher
than the rate for standard can service (which will be exempt from the new charge), which
basically forces affected residents to upgrade to standard can service. I fail to see the
logic behind this pricing, other than it forces residents to pay more for additional garbage
capacity that they may not need. v
Please do not let Green Waste impose such a high service charge; their contract
with the·city is large enough that they should not need to single out certain residents with
punitive service charges.
Sincerely,
~~ Ifiw
BrianMa
f-,,1 in ZhCA.;12
5.:2-( DlZlSCOL.L PLACE
pc,{vAI-tO, LA q4-s o b
A ~~c'c# '.
\0 c;-ty of P<t[o A [-to U"tilities
S I nC.0f<? it
/~1 ... 7 V;~?p/~
Lh ~f\ j , Iv[ 1''1
CITY OF R . .CITY ClE~b9 ALTO. CA
, n S OFFICE
10 AUG 27 " .. . P"'2:2,
City Clerk
CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
10 S[P 13 AH II: 05
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Chang Kuang
3729 Egret Ln
Palo Alto, CA 94303
09/09/2010
RE: Proposed Refuse Rate Increases and "Hard to Service" Charge
To: City Clerk, City of Palo Alto
In response to the City of Palo Alto's July 29, 2010 Notice of Proposed
Refuse Rate Changes, I write to protest the proposed rate changes for
refuse collection services and the imposition of a "hard to serve" fee on
certain areas that the City claims must be served with "special equipment."
My City of Palo Alto Utilities account number is _________ My address is
3729 Egret Ln, Palo Alto, CA 94303. My Assessor's Parcel Number is 127-
68-034.
Sincerely, C)
Chang Kuang
.. ,-
CITY Qf PA L 0 AOLFTFO,'Cc;. CITY CLERK'S· . to
City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
10 SEP 15 At19:"
Wei-shun Wang
3733 Egret Ln
Palo Alto, CA 94303
9/9/2010
RE: Proposed Refuse Rate Increases and "Hard to Service" Charge
To: City Clerk, City of Palo Alto
In response to the City of Palo Alto's July 29, 2010 Notice of Proposed Refuse Rate Changes, I
write to protest the proposed rate changes for refuse collection services and the imposition of a
"hard to serve" fee on certain areas that the City claims must be served with "special
equipment." My City of Palo Alto Utilities account number is ~ My address is 3733
Egret LN. Palo Alto, CA94303.My Assessor's Parcel Number is 127-68-032.
Sincerely,
Wei-shun Wang
September 9, 2010
City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
CITY Of PALO ALTO, CA CrTY CLERK'SOF'FICE
10 SEP -9 PH f: 2'
Ajay & Anu Rajput
3736 Egret Lane
Palo Alto, CA 94383
RE: Proposed Refuse Rate Increases and "Hard to Service" Charge
To: City Clerk, City of Palo Alto
In response to the City of Palo Alto's July 29, 2010 Notice of Proposed Refuse
Rate Changes, I write to protest the proposed rate changes for refuse collection
services and the imposition of a "hard to serve" fee on certain areas that the .
City claims must be served with "soecial equipment." My City of Palo Alto
Utilities account number is My address is 3736 Egret Lane, Palo Alto,
CA 94303.
Sincerely,
4,. t AJay RaJPu
Attn: Donna Grider
City Clerk, City of Palo Alto
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear City Council Members,
CITY OF PALO CITY CLERK'SAOLFTO.CA . . ...• FICf
to AUG 27 PHIZ: 28
I am writing to protest the increase for garbage service on "hard to service" streets. As a .
resident of Ellsworth Place, which is designated a private street, home owners are
responsible for the maintenance costs of our street. This saves the city money, as they do
not pay to maintain our street, even though all home owners pay the same percentage of
property taxes as Palo Alto residents who do not live on private streets.
It is with this argument that I protest the additional fees of $14.42 per month ($173.04 per
calendar year) for garbage collection to be charged to those of us on private and hard to
service streets. If the garbage company needs more revenue to cover the costs of picking
up our garbage, then the City should subsidize the costs as they already save money by not
maintaining our private streets.
Sincerely,
Address: __ l_'_l_E_I_' 5;_' vu_vl_I_h._P_i_A_c.c_, _P_A_l_O_~_\_~---=-)_C_vi __ cr_I...(_3()_G~ _____ _
Utility Account Number: _~ __________ _
Attn: Donna Grider
City Clerk, City of Palo Alto
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear City Council Members,
CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFF'IC~
f 0 AUG 24 AM 9:~'
I am writing to protest the increase for garbage service on "hard to service" streets. As a
resident of Ellsworth Place, which is designated a private street, home owners are
responsible for the maintenance costs of our street. This saves the city money, as they do
not pay to maintain our street, even though all home owners pay the same percentage of
property taxes as Palo Alto residents who do not live on private streets.
It is with this argument that I protest the additional fees of $14.42 per month ($173.04 per
calendar year) for garbage collection to be charged to those of us on private and hard to
service streets. If the garbage company needs more revenue to cover the costs of picking
up our garbage, then the City should subsidize the costs as they already save money by not
maintaining our private streets.
Sincerely,
Name; S hr If e y L. J? CJLC(.e ((~ Date: __ ~f--!2._Z-f/_I_U ___ _
Address: 1-!<ir J=-f{s uJortk Pia Ce Pet {" /t-fh C1t-9t(3tJb
Utility Account Number: _
Attn: Donna Grider
City Clerk, City of Palo Alto
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
August 21 , 2010
Dear City Council Members,
CITY OF PALO AlTn .
CITY CLE'RK"S OFFihlA
'0 AUG.Z4 AH 9: it!»
I am writing to protest the increase for garbage service on "hard to service" streets. As a
resident of Ellsworth Place, which is designated a private street, home owners are
responsible for the maintenance costs of our street. This saves the city money, as they do
not pay to maintain our street, even though all home owners pay the same percentage of
property taxes·as Palo Alto residents who do not live on private streets.
It is with this argument that I protest the additional fees for garbage charged to those of us
on private and hard to service streets. If the garbage company needs more revenue to
cover the costs of picking up our garbage, then the City should subsidize the costs as they
already save money by not maintaining our private streets.
If Green Waste is granted the right to charge us an additional fee of $14.42 month, which
totals $173.04 per calendar year, I will keep myself out of the Palo Alto Green Renewable
Energy Program. I had signed up for this program earlier this year, but have opted out of it
in protest to the unfair garbage fee hike to those of us on private streets. This is my way of
shifting the personal cost from one place to another, to cover the" increase in garbage
collection.
. It is unfair to gouge those of us on private and hard to service streets for garbage collection,
when the city of Palo Alto saves money by not maintaining our streets! It is the city of Palo
Alto who should subsidize the fees for garbage collection on private streets, not the
residents.
Sincerely,
Kristen Van Fleet
Home Owner:
724 Ellsworth Place
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Utility Account #
Attn: Donna Grider
City Clerk, City of Palo Alto
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear City Council Members,
CITY OF PALO ALIO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
:t 0 SEP -9 PH 2: Sr-tr
I am writing to protest the increase for garbage service on "hard to service" streets. As a
resident of Ellsworth Place, which is deSignated a private street, home owners are
responsible for the maintenance costs of our street. This saves the city money, as they do
not pay to maintain our street, even though all home owners pay the same percentage of
property taxes as Palo Alto residents who do not live on private streets.
It is with this argument that I protest the additional fees of $14.42 per month ($173.04 per
calendar year) for garbage collection to be charged to those of us on private and hard to
service streets. If the garbage company needs more revenue to cover the costs of picking
up our garbage, then the City should subsidize the costs as they already save money by not
maintaining our private streets.
Sincerely,
Name:
Utility Account Number: _' ___________ _
August 9,2010
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Refuse Collection Rate Increase
Dear Members of the City Council:
CITY OF PALO ALTO,CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
H) AUG 13 AH 9: 81
Utility bill number: #
On August 4,2010 my husband and I received notice of the proposed refuse collection rate
increase. We have four questions and comments for the Council's consideration.
1. What is the reason for proposing a rate increase of over 30 percent to your
customers, who only use mini-cans? Comment: It would seem that if anything, people
contributing so little to the landfill should not be penalized for their conservation efforts.
2. What is the rationale for an increase in excess of over 9 percent for people who
only use one 32-gallon can, and only a 6 percent rate increase for those who use six 32-
gallon cans? Comment: It would seem that there is an inequity in the proposed rate increase.
3. Is the rate increase only for the actual cost of refuse collection, yard trimmings,
recyclables collection, or is the increased revenue going to off-set some other city shortfall?
Comment: The material you provided was deficient in numbers for the actual cost and
expenditures of this service. There was more paper wasted on "hard-to-serve" locations than
on actual financial data. Please provide documentation as to the costs and expenses for this
service.
4. Is August typically the time that discussions on rate increases occur? Comment: It
is hard to believe that during the height of the summer vacation season is the best time to
maximize public comments. Even thoughyou are giving people until September 20 to
comment, one has to wonder ifmany will act upon mail, which is not a bill and received
during vacation.
We consider the proposed rate increase, as presented, inequitable-penalizing those with
the least amount of refuse. Your materials do not document the need for a rate increase-a
cost vs expense sheet.
Sin~~~~~&---
Steve and Nancy Suddjian
, \[ U~ E 10 S \' {J10 \.,LO.-L'\
9110/2010
To City Council;
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
CITY OF PALO ALTO, CA
CITY CLERK'S OFFtcE
IOSEP 13 AM' I :()S
I am formally protesting the refuse increase proposed charges. In this economy you need
to find other ways to cut costs, including personnel at the city.
Account # __ ~v
575 Everett Ave
Signed lUn 50\,
Kenneth Hake
City Council,
City of Palo Alto, CA
CITY Of PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
10 AUG 24 AM 9: 4'
City of Palo Alto Utilities account number:
Dear Sir/Madam:
James Sperry and Eleanor Lin
'\" 3722 Feather Lane
Palo Alto, CA, 94303
Re: Proposed Refuse Rate changes -letter of July 29,2010 from City of Palo Alto
In accordance with the above notification from the City of Palo Alto, please consider this letter as my
formal protest to the rate increases.
Sincerely,
~9f~~;Z:'
James Sperry and Eleanor Lin
City· of Palo Alto
Public Works Department
Operations.Division
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
August 14,2010
CITY OF PALO ALTO.CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
...
to AUG I 7 AHIO:5'
I hereby protest the unconscionable increase in my Refuse Collection fee from $15 per month
to $20 per month. The increase is 33 113 % !!!! All of the other residential increases
are only 6 %.
I object to you punishing us Minican users who are trying to get to Palo Alto's stated goal of
ZERO WASTE. We are able to get all of our garbage into a Minican (20 gallons) because we
have been so careful to recycle.
Please revise the proposed rate increase for us Minican users.
Thank you,
Jutlt-Av:? ~£
Judith F. Creek
4ge,'F~AveIlUe"
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Palo Alto Utilities Account Number
ClTV OFPAL1) ALTO.CA ClTYCL.ERK'S ,OFFICE
564 G . A U)AUG' '1 AHIOi 51 eorgla ve.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
August 11, 2010
City of Palo Alto
Public Works Dept.
PO Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Dept. Officials,'/
This letter is in response to your proposed refuse rate changes.
would like to voice my opposition in raising the rates. I am retired and,
on a fixed income, which is strapped to the limit at present. Any
increase in my utility bill would be viewed as a hardship.
My suggestion for lowering your department's cost would be to have
the street cleaning less frequently.
Thank you for your clarity one this matter,
Susan Cashion
(address above)
CITY PALO ALTO
RECEIVED,
AUG 1 2 2010
PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING
August 20, 2010
City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 9430i
CITY OF 'PALO ALTp. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
10 AUG 25 AM g: 51
I wish to submit my protest for the proposed City of Palo Alto Refuse Rate
Changes.
After doing our part to reduce the amount of garbage we generate from our
home, and now using a 20 gal cart, you are proposing to raise our monthly refuse
rate by 33% from $15 to $20.
No other proposed refuse rate increase is this large. It is unacceptable to increase
rates this much for those who have done the most to reduce the amount of
household garbage they generate.
If we had continued to generate enough garbage weekly to need a 32 gal garbage
cart, the proposed rate increase would only be 6% from $31.00 to $32.86. Even
those residential customers generating far larger amounts of garbage each week
and needing pick up of six 32 gal cans three times each week are only getting a 6%
increase. All of the other proposed refuse rate increases appear to be no more
than 6% for that matter.
A 33% rate increase from $15 to $20 is unacceptable for the 20 gal cart weekly
pick up residential customer. Our rates should not be going up at a higher
percentage than all of the other proposed refuse rate increases.
11I1~w
R. Victor Varney ~.
551 Ha.leStreet
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Parcel # 003-05-021
CITY Of PALOALJO.CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
". '-: . ,
10 SEP 13 AM II: 0"
City Clerk of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
To Whom It May Concern:
September 1 0, 2010
I am writing to protest the proposed changes to the City of Palo Alto's refuse
collection rates. I currently receive service with the mini-can for $15 a month.
You are proposing to increase that rate to $20 per month, a whopping 33-113 percent!
Frankly I feel you wish to penalize my household for being terrific recyclers.
My mini-can only goes to the curb once or rarely twice a month, a service I don't feel
should cost me $20. I know I am also paying for recycling, but that can also does not go
to the curb every week. Sometimes it goes every other week and often even less
frequently.
As I said previously, I am writing to protest your proposed increase in refuse rates to
begin on bills dated October 1,2010.
Yours sincerely, () 17
J'lt\./«-,0(,V{~/~'{..k'~ yc.:)60t/LQ.j,--
Mary Ann03aker
940 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650-326-6976
Deborah Williams
1625 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
August 23, 2010
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Palo Alto City Clerk:
CITY OF PALO ALTO,CA CITY CLERK'S OFFiCE
10 AUG 26 AH 10:"'3
I am a resident of our city, and I am writing to protest the nroposed refuse rate changes.
My city of Palo Alto Utilities account number is:-
Deborah A. Williams
\
CITY Of PALO ALTOf CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
10 SEPI5 AM 9: I' .
City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Seong-Wook Joo
3708 Heron Way
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Sep. 11,2010
RE: Proposed Refuse Rate Increases and "Hard to Service" Charge
To: City Clerk, City of Palo Alto
In response to the City of Palo Alto's July 29,2010 Notice of Proposed Refuse Rate Changes, I
am writing to protest the proposed rate changes for refuse collection services and the imposition
of a "hard to serve" fee on certain areas that the City claims must be served with "special
equipment. "
In particular, the increase in the proposed rate is greatest for·the smallest (20 gal) can. This gives
me the impression that the City is discouraging the production of less garbage. Also the Notice
implies that there were residents who have been infoni1ed of the option of converting to curbside
service but I have never been informed of such an option.
My City of Palo Alto Utilities account number is
My Assessor's Parcel Number is 127-68-062.
Sincerely,
.. ·hWcnt1<-It'o
Seong-Wook Joo
My address is 3708 Heron Way.
From: Qing Gao
3711 Heron Way
Palo Alto, CA 94303
To: City Clerk
City of Palo Alto·
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
September 9, 2010
RE: Proposed Refuse Rate Increases and "Hard to Service" Charge
To: City Clerk, City of Palo Alto
CITY OF PALO AI.JO.CA CITY CLERK'S OfFICE
10 SEP 13 AM U: Ott
In response to the City of Palo Alto's July 29,2010 Notice of Proposed Refuse Ra!e Changes, I write to
protest the proposed rate changes for refuse collection services and the imposition of,a "hard to serve"
fee on certain areas that the City claims must be served with "special equipment."
Sincerely,
r9i0 67t4fV
QingGao
City of Palo Alto Utilities account number:
Assessor's Parcel Number: 12l-bg--052
\
September 9 , 2010
Trinhthi Tran
3721 Heron Way
Palo Alto, CA 94303
CITY Of PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
10 SEPI3AH >tl:Olf
Re: Proposed Refuse Rate Increases and "Hard to Service" Charge
To: City Clerk, City of Palo Alto
In response to the City of Palo Alto's July 29, 2010 Notice of
Proposed Refuse Rate Changes, I write to protest the proposed rate
changes for refuse collection services and the imposition of a "hard
to serve" fee on certain areas that the City claims must be served
with "special equipment."
My City of Palo Alto Utilities account number is _
My address is :
3721 Heron Way. .'alo Alto, CA 94303
Sincerely,
Thank you.
Trinhthi Tran
August 24,2010
To Whom It May Concern:
CITY OF PALO ALTO, CA CITY CLERK'S OFFiCE
. . . .~.
to SEP -I PH 3:2&
Weare protesting the rate increase on refuse. We do not think it is fair to raise the rates
just because the Council members can not agree on cutting some jobs or taking a
decrease in salaries. We do not wish for anyone to loss their jobs. Other cities are
making their employees take a salary cut. The city just can't pass on their problems to
the residents of Palo Alto. Everyone has to help in some way. We believe they should
take care of it like everyone else and not make us pay for their problem. We also believe
that this will become a pattern. If they do not want to cut jobs or take decease in salary
just raise the rates on something for the residents. That is not fair to the residents of Palo
Alto either because we have to make adjustment too. Wouldn't it be nice ifthe residents
of Palo Alto could not pay a bill they could pass it on to someone else to take care of.
This is unfair to everyone in Palo Alto. They should look into some other way to solve
this problem instead of passing it on to the residents.
Jack & Gail Eny
3020 Higgins Place
Palo Alto, Ca. '94303-4009
'~, ,lAte -r-~ 11-. 0~ ~-r
~~ -fl\t. ~ ~ ~Lfu
~lA;-1/\htv't? ~k J
~ AVN j 2/ -3 o-O~.=t
-,
ft;Jn A tiC) )
/
\,4~ peI}4~·~ ~\+~ ·t:AcQ.u4 ,
~~ \,,,~h+h,L~~~t ~~, J.~
CV ~ ~ UVY--W ~~ .IV 3''S'; 10 1v1~uL
w.J.v~ ~t\vL V~ OAL.. ~4 ~
.~ } () % ~.
fj-l'~~ 0/vv'llv -iJYfU.~Q
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, ca, 94301
~~[];J£W
I&)~{j}j'~
rPJ5'ah~ cg~94301
Re: refuse rates for 185 Island Drive
Parcel number: 003-11 ~004-00
CHY bfPAl.O.A,LHJ. ·,CA CllY CLERK'SOFFl~:E
.i:" ,
, tQ.-AUGI·1 . PH \i :$,1
~~
August 6, 2010
This letter is my formal written protest against the proposed changes to the city
refuse collection rate.
I understand that the City is facing a large deficit. This to me appears that it was due
to mismanagement of the city's budget. I would ask the Council to first deal with the
problem of escalating costs of salaries and retirement benefits of the pUblic-sector
unions.
Like California's, the Palo Alto's public sector seems dysfunctional and has gained
too much power. We read that the public sector unions extracted from the state and
cities exorbitant pensions obligations. According to the wall Street Journal of August
6,2010 the retirement funds of California now have a staggering debt of$500
billions.
In time of poor economic growth, when most of us are faced with decreased salaries
or layoff, it is not the time to increase taxes (direct or indirect). The obvious way to
balance the budget would be to cut staff and to stop the escalating salaries and
benefits.
I do not want to bear the burden of the council's inability to act with fiscal
responsibility and prudence.
I am therefore protesting against the proposed refuse rates' increases and asking
the Council to address the real problem of escalating costs from the public sector.
s~~
Laure Mazzra, md \
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: 4174 King Arthur Court
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Utilities Account Number:
August 8th, 2010
Dear Sir or Madam,
GREGORY KOVACS
3605 N. 14th Street
Arlington, VA 22201
USA
Phone: (703) 243-1123
Email: kovacs@cis.stanford.edu
CITY Of PALO A .. CITY CLERK· ·s OLJ'O.CA •. . tFICE
10 AUG I Z AH 8=30
I am writing in response to the "Notice of Proposed Refuse Rate Changes," dated
July 29, 2010. First, let me dispel any potential misconceptions that while I am not
presently occupying my Palo Alto home while here in the DC area (serving in a federal
government position). If anything, paying all of that property tax and fees while receiving
few of the benefits makes me even more interested in such matters.
Fundamentally, . I am protesting the proposed fee increase because the City
apparently considers refuse collection fees as a means to recoup costs of services that are
received in a very unequal manner by those who pay those fees. Specifically, I point to
the language in your letter,
"Refuse Utility collection rates are imposed in order that the City may recover its costs of
collection, processing, recycling, composting and disposing of materials as well as the
cost for providing weekly street sweeping, monthly hazardous waste collection programs,
and extensive waste diversion services."
Why should these fees cover more than collection and handling of refuse and recycling
items? Street sweeping rarely occurs in our cul de sac. Why shouldn't those who
produce/dispose of hazardous waste pay for this? Why should refuse collection fees
offset "waste diversion services?"
August 5, 2010
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Sir/Madam:
CITY OF PALO,ALH1,' CEA CITY CLERK'S OfF C ~
10 AUG -9 PH lttiO
I am the property owner of 3861 La:..Ilmu:a.Ammvc, Palo Alto, utility account number
[ am writing to protest the unfair and inordinately high increase in my waste
collection rates proposed for September. One or two years ago, in response to yet
another increase in rates, I opted for the mini can service at my home. I diligentlyrecycie
and try to limit my household waste as much as possible. Generally, I have one bag of
garbage per week. The proposed rate increase of 33% for mini can subscribers is
outrageous, especially in light of the average 6% increases given to those who produce
more waste.
I do not understand the rationale and justification for such a huge disparity in increases.
Further, I believe it establishes a disincentive for people to produce less household waste.
Increases ~ rates should be approximately equivalent for all rather than disproportionate.
Sincerely,
~ ~luA 77, i:Pu1MlL-
Elizabeth L. Grover
August 112010
City of Palo Alto. Account number ~--
132.Lois Lane,Palo Alto,Ca~ 94303
·"
f>lTY O"F RALO.A\..lDtCA ~bITyeLERK'S OfF"Ci
It1AOOI6 AM 9t It~
We would like to protest the proposed rate increases for the refuse collection.We
feel that at a time when everyone is being asked to cut back it is not appropriate for
refuse rates to be raised.
Sincerely
~~ . . Margaret Pia~:.1fU(..irc~
~i~nca
·CS~
,f/ C'-1 ~J. -'I ?cdo a&, CITy OF PAtO ALT
CITY CLERK'S ()F~clA d'SO II~~ U<-L,
'? aLo aib (Sc; 9' 'Sf 3 () I
{ltJUtk?70 r (I ~Le X~
33 g-s eX~, XcJ-a-L
PtlL-b a~;;-C/t 9q303
~/CA-('A_-P.r /1~.....-C·L-t./'u,'
10SEP 13 AM II: 06
~~~~~--I~ c7~=-~~-&
~.(,1~d -;:ti ,_,.~-I--(.9t/1<--<-'~ (1,1..-/
~~1?_,
{lt~ 'f-. {! {UUlJ. ~~~
September 9, 2010
City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
CITY OF PALO All
CITY ClERK'SOr?t'c'tA
rOSEP 13 AM 11:04
RE: Proposed Refuse Rate Increases and "Hard to Service" Charge
To: City Clerk, City of Palo Alto
In response to the City of Palo Alto's July 29,2010 Notice of Proposed Refuse Rate Changes,
I write to protest the proposed rate changes for refuse collection services and the imposition of
a "hard to serve" fee on certain areas that the City claims must be served with "special
equipment."
My City of Palo Alto Utilities account number is _ ~_~~./V. My address is:935 Mallard Lane,
Palo Alto, CA 94303. My Assessor's Parcel Number is 127-68-003.
Sincerely,
Kok Hoong Chan
935 Mallard Lane
Palo Alto, CA 94303
August 31, 2010
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Refuse Hike Rates.
To the City Council:
GlTYQF PALO ALTO,CA
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
, 0 SEP -7 AHfO:Ol
I hereby object to the proposed raise in the refuse rates as projected. I, personally,
contribute a small amount from my household and find the rate increases prohibitive.
~:~~y, \f((.~e~
1380 Martin Ave.
Palo Alto 94301
Account #7
Inge Infante
1110 Middlefield Road
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Acct. #.
Parcel #120-06-0375
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
August 24,2010
Re.: Refuse Rate Change
I am protesting the proposed rate change for refuse collection.
:.:. .~ ...
I have a 20 gal. refuse can, which is never full. In fact, since I follow your wonderful
recycling program, I have only one small bag of refuse, which fills the can to 1/3 of
capacity. I find that the present rate is too much, an increased rate would be way too
much. A collection schedule of every other week would be a welcome adjustment that I
could live with.
I understand that the recycling program is so successful that there is not enough garbage
to satisfY requirements. What will happen when the stated goal of zero refuse is
achieved? Will we pay even more for having even less garbage? Has anyone thought this
through?
I feel that the customer should not pay for the poor planning of the city's refuse service.
Please reconsider the price increase.
Inge Infante
1 I ~'-' I)
/r0iJ,0 .... Le. ~. ,
· .; .~.; .. ~:;
Protest of Refuse Rate Increases
I wish to protest the proposed refuse rate increases. They aIJ{flmifF' AtIflQf<Oti be
applied inconsistently. I urge the City Council to reject them wnen they are considered in
September. Certain proposed rate increases are especially excessive and inappropriate.
The 33% increase in mini-cans from $15 to $20 is completely unjustified and grossly
excessive. In contrast the struidard 32 gallon can rate would be increased less than 6%.
For decades it has been formal city policy to encourage recycling and reduce trash
volumes. This has been very successful, already extending the life of the dump by more
than 12 years. We have reduced our trash volume and increased recycling so much that
we rarely even fill the mini-can. Our·reward for being responsible and reducing trash
volume would be a 33% rate increase. This is obnoxious and must be reduced to an
increase of less than the 6% for regular sized cans.
~other unreasonable proposed charge is $14.42/month in "hard to service areas",
mainly private streets in newer developments. PASCO was able to service these areas
with narrow streets for many years at no added cost. Why is Greeen Waste unable to
provide equivalent service? In addition the identification of "hard to service areas" is
inconsistent. For example, some public streets in Barron Park are less than 17' wide,
narrower than any of the private streets in places like Arbor Real (Hyatt Rickey'S site) yet
they are not shown as "hard to service". The problem seems to be Green Waste, not
simply street width.
Please register our formal complaint per our Utility account:
Yours sincerely,
(Zrlwr~
Robert Moss
4010 Orme St.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
-Q
:x. c: CD
N ~
;ra
:E
6 ...
C)
C»
o!2 =4-1 -<-< n~ r-1Tl~ ::til>
;:J;'-
uS°
oJ> ."Cf ~o on "'l>
August 23, 2010
e/TYOF A
CITy CLE~KL PsAo· LTD. CA . . ·FFleE
'·0 AUG 27 'D", 12· .... rn .:23 RE: Notice of Proposed Refuse Rate Changes
Dear City of Palo Alto,
This is not a protest of the rate change, but rather a comment on how the rates are
proposed to change.
I think that the rates for smaller amount of garbage (20 gallon mini-can) should go up
significantly less, on a percentage basis, than rates for larger amount of garbage. In the
proposed increase the mini·can goes from $15 to $20 per month-a 33% increase.
Whereas the largest amount of trash carts you list on the table goes from $192 to
$203.52-and increase of only 6%.
Our family is moving from one 32-gallon can to a mini can, trying to follow the many
urgings of the city to use less and recycle more. By raising the mini-can rates as you have
proposed you go against your stated values.
S~~erely, [)
-'T'h-~. ,~. ~. " ~/~ -------i ..? Rayme rna
1280 Pine Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
August 21, 2010
To Whom it May Concern,
CITY OF PALO ALTO, CA CITY CLERK'S OfFICE
10 AUG 25 AM 9: 52
We are officially protesting the recently suggested rate
increases for the garbage service.
John and Valerie Wookey
1420 Pitman Ave.
Palo Alto, Ca 94301
3351 Saint Michael Court
Palo Alto, CA 94306
To Whom It May Concern,
CITY Of PALO ALTO.CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
10 AUG 23 PH It: 0 I
I am writing to object to the proposed refuse rate change for Palo Alto. We currently use the 20
gallon residential pickup service. The current rate is $15.00. The proposed rate is $20. This is
a 33% increase. This far exceeds what is reasonable especially given today's economic times.
Please reconsider the rate changes.
Regards,
~/.
I" ----~ ,; -~
IJ
Aug 29,2010
Palo Alto City Clerk
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Protest to increase in refuse rates
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
CITY OF PALO '
CITY CLERK'S iV?''cFEA
10 Sf? -, PH 2:07
This is my formal protest to the proposed increase in refuse collection rates for
residential customers. I especially object to the 33% increase, from $15 to $20, for
residential customers who use the Mini-can. This is the category that you most
want to encourage residents to be in. It makes good common sense to keep this
rate at $15 as an incentive for people to create less waste.
Other rates are proposed to increase by 6% --I find any of the residential increases
to be objectionable as residents seem to be doing a great job of cooperating with the
city's plan to reduce waste. Having a 33% hike for the category who produces the
least waste is completely out of line with good policy.
Regards,
~~~
Susan C Neville
Acct # ~ ___ _
235 Seale Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
August 7, 2010
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
To Whom It May Concern:
ClIy OF PALO
CITY CLERK'S ~'1ftbiA
10 AUG I BAH!: So
I protest the proposed refuse rate increases in your letter dated July 29,2010.
!J~~-'---
City (sf Palo Alto Utilities Account Number:
4374 Silva Ct.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
ATTN: City Clerk
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: City of Palo Alto Utility Account Number ~
Dear City Council Members:
C. lTY OF PALO. A Ll'O· . C.A CITY CLERr.t·S· h ..•. . n uFFI'CE August 11, 2010 '0 AUG , 3 AH ':5,
',31 Tevis Place
I am writing to protest the proposed increases in refuse collection rates as detailed in
your letter of July 29, mandated by Proposition 218. Whereas voluminous tables are
provided describing what the rate increases will be, there is no information whatsoever
about why the rate increases are needed or justified.
I recognize that the City of Palo Alto, like many other communities and counties, is
facing serious budget shortfalls. I am also more than willing to pay taxes and fees as
necessary to run an efficient and effective city government. Your letter falls far short of
explaining how these rate increases meet these criteria.
It may be that you plan to offer more detail at the meeting scheduled for September 20,
the deadline for any protest, but this leaves no time for useful discussion or
consideration. This situation reminds me of the way the City of San Jose handled its rate
increases for its contract with Norcal Waste Systems -lots of numbers and hot air but
little in the way of substantive explanation of what was really behind the increases.
In this day of growing distrust for governmental management and processes, your letter·
has done little to instill confidence and provide an open business-like explanation of why
these refuse rate increases are needed. For these reasons I must file this protest against
the proposed rate increases.
Should you be able to provide a more compelling reason in the future, I would be happy
to reconsider your proposal.
Sincerely,
Thomas C. Rindfleisch
31 Tevis Place
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Herbert & Alice Fischgrund
City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
·750 Torreya Court
Palo Alto, California 94303
June 5, 2010
I protest against the proposed charges for refuse collection as listed in the "Notice
of Proposed Refuse Rate Changes" in the letter from the City of Palo Alto dated
July 29" 2010.
I protest because the proposed rate structure unfairly penalizes those who have
been most diligent in responding to the City's requests to reduce refuse. The
proposed rate structure raises the fee for a 20 gallon mini-can by 33% while
increasing only 6%for those less diligent. This is inconsistent with the Zero Waste
policy the city adopted several years ago.
I protest because the City has been encouraging residents to reduce their refuse by
separating recyclables and compostable yard waste from the refuse stream. The
City also has been offering classes on food waste compo sting which I took and
have been following for a number of years. My backyard compost bin results in
our filling our 20 gallon can less than half full most of the time.
The City gives rebates to encourage installation of solar electric systems even
though this decreases the revenue of the City's electric utility. Similarly, rebates
are given for water conservation measures. The city should likewise continue to
encourage trash reduction. Any penalty resulting from the Kirby Canyon contract
should be assessed on an equal percentage among all customers. Better yet would
be to apply some creativity. Find a way to eliminate the penalty by renegotiating
the contract or selling the unused capacity to another entity needing it.
mid
Herbert Fischgrund ,
Utility Account No. oJ'
City Council,
City of Palo Alto, CA
. .f:' '.::i '. Of
CITY (IF PALO ALTO,CA CITY CLERK"S OFFICE
1'0 AUG 26 AM to: 45
City of Palo Alto Utilities account number: .
Dear Sir/Madam:
Bingxin Ou
1125 Tuolumne Ln
Palo Alto, CA, 94303
Re: Proposed Refuse Rate changes -letter of July 29, 2010 from City of Palo Alto
In accordance with the above notification from the City of Palo Alto, please consider this letter as my
formal protest to the rate increases.
Sincerely,
8(~t~ ~
~sf ]4)ib
r\ :~(Jft1-~
,j / s~ 9 if
.",,?;<1.':7·1"-.e:~1/\AJI
f---f>.
('.: ... e-'1,,~ .. 4,A.:...~dZ..~~,-
./ \./ /J
_ ~£.A;..._""J:."'-R .. k.21
{
I
."'LY'6·· <2.-<.A"'C.'1
, /
/:'
;Z:..i .. " ·e:~.~ ./}.{ . ..tl!~£.L_
-o .. • .... w
g
VI
CIt o.
Schul arratt
832 Waverley St.'
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto Utilities # .. ______ -=-
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto CA 94301
To Whom It May Concern:
CITY Of PALO ALTO, CA
CITY CLERK'S OFflCE
10 SEP -1 ,PH 2: 01
Per the notice that was sent on July 29,2010, we are writing to protest proposed rate increase~ to
the City's refuse collection services.
Sincerely,
¢tt C13~J{O
City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
259 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
August 21, 2010
Dear City Clerk:
I would like to submit a formal written protest concerning the proposed increase in
refuse rate charges as outlined in the city's letter to me dated July 29,2010.
My utility bill has been getting larger while my income has been shrinking due to the
economy. I am considering leaving the green energy program because of the high
, cost of utilities -does the city really want me to do that?
No justification for the proposed increase is given in the letter I received. It seems
to me that $15 should be enough to cover the cost of picking up one mini-can a
week, plus my recycling bin and yard trimming bin about once a month.
My address is 2782 Waverley Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 and my parcel number is
132-13-016-00. .
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Frances M. Adams
CITY Of PALO ALTO.CA CITYCLERK'S OFFiCE
10 SEP -7 AM 10: 01
City of Palo Alto
E.R. & N.M. Oblander
". 3130 Waverley Street
. Palo Alto, CA 94306-2901
24 August 24,2010
RE: Refuse Collection
Notice of proposed refuse rate changes.
CHY OF PALO ALTO
CITY CLtRWS O~F;C~A
"0 AUG 27 PH 12: 21
Reference the above; we vehemently protest the increases proposed in your letter of29 July 2010. We go
to great pains and effort to reduce our refuse to the absolute minimum. We sort and recycle as much as is
humanly possible. The end result is generally a half of a very small plastic garbage bag per week (half of a
10 gallon size bag). The collections people come by and one simply reaches into the can and picks the
small bag out with his gloved hand and flips it into the collections truck hopper.
For being conscientious and honest citizens we will be penalized for our efforts at reducing land fill. The
information (or is it propaganda) that we receive in your communications only informs us on what we must
pay for this service. But to date we have never received information on what it costs the city to dispose of
this pitiful small amount of refuse. We are not in the slightest adverse to recycling. As a matter of fact we
did recycle for years before the City ultimately "discovered" this wonderful method of disposing of
vegetative and paper refuse. RECYCLE. Our recyclables are meticulously sorted as well.
Now we know that the increase in rates may, to you, seem extraordinarily modest for the vast majority of
residents, but for two very senior citizens who have lived and worked here for over 50 years and who are
on a retirement income based on the criteria set in 1957, we frequently fmd ourselves with too much month
left at the end of our retirement .check. Just remember not every retiree in the City receives a $100.000
retirement.
.~ ~blander ~~ ----
/
September 1,2010
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
CITY OF PALO A . CITy CLERK'S OLF-ro. CA FICE:
IO-SEP -7 AH 10: oe
We are formally protesting the proposed rate increases on refuse collection
rates.
Account number __
614 Wellsbury Way
Palo Alto, CA 94306
August 13, 2010
City of Palo Alto
Refuse Collection
Re:act#, ____ _
810 Wintergreen Wy
Palo Alto 94303
Dear Sirs:
CdrT\ °lL~~9s ~~Pt;lEA ~
10 AUG 17 ,AM 10: 5'
I received your notice of proposed rate changes. I
have a mini-can which is usually % full.
I protest such a huge jump in fee. I read in the PA
Weekly re the contract problems and think you should
re-visit! correct the contracts so they make sense. I
also protest having to pay for recycling in the near
future. I have lived at this address since 1964 and
participated in recycling from the start -before city
collections I set up a cardboard box collection in my
yard and took some of my neighbors recycle items to
the various drop sites. We Palo Altans have beer-
very active in learning and practicing conservation
and recycling and now green energy. It doesn't make
sense to turn around and charge for pick up of recycle
materials. That would send a bad message to the
population when more folks are realizing that the
global warming/conserve information is valid and
must be acted on.
Sincerely, Dawn Wilcox RN, retired Block Coordinator
C~ .. ~WWel-
TO: City of Palo Alto Utilities
FRorvl: Frank Kwong and Caly Chiu
CITY Qf PALq/~O·.LTll.··'·CCA CITY CLERK',j lFr:£
10 AUG i6 -AM " .. Ii
RE: Protests against the proposed refuse rate increase
DATE: 8/7/2010
Utilities account no. ~ ~ ~_~ ~~ ~
Street Address: 837 Wintergreen Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Parcel no. 086-18-003-00
This is the formal written protest against the proposed refuse rate increase as
per your notice dated 7/19/2010.
Thanks.
Frank Kwong and Caly Chiu
8/7/10
TO: City Council
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: September 20, 2010
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Memorandum
5
September 20,2010
DEPARTMENT: CITYMANAGER
SUBJECT: Packet Addendum for Agenda Items # 5 and # 6 -High Speed Rail (HSR)
The following documents are provided for Council review relative to discussions and policy
directives made at the September 15, 2010 HSR Committee meeting:
1) The modified "No Confidence in the CHSRA" draft resolution approved by the HSR
Committee on September 15;
2) The memorandum outlining HSR Committee policy direction relative to the SAAR;
3) The draft City of Palo Alto response letter to the FRA outlining HSR Committee
opposition to a phased approach to HSR construction and operation as considered in
the CHSRA's most recent FRA funding application;
4) The Hatch Mott McDonald (HMM) draft SAAR peer review report;
5) The City of Palo Alto response letter to the Bay Area to Central Valley Revised Final
Program EIR.
Please note, staff has been asked to request the City Council to review in advance the City of
Palo Alto September 1, 2010 response letter to the Bay Area to Central Valley Revised Final
Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This letter directly relates to Agenda Item # 6
(Closed Session on HSR litigation).
6
'--~W,~~ ar. JAMES KEENE S r City Manager ,
v"/"S
Deputy CIty Manager
raise the ire of the owners of the properties taken, both problems it would like to
delay as long as possible. Low ball cost estimates are unacceptable.
3) Business Plan: There isn't one. Not a meaningful one. Various state officials-the
-Auditor, the Legislative analyst-have pointed this out, quite pointedly. The "pl~"
calls for $15 billion of private financing which is nowhere in sight. The "plan,"
rather amazingly, also calls for $5 billion from local governments. Not acceptable.
4) Relationship with the Authority: The Peninsula communities were frequently
promised--even before the election--that our voices would be heard in designing HSR
in our area. That has proven not to be the case. The attempt to use Context Sensitive
Solutions clearly has failed. Certain Authority members have made it clear that, in
effect, the railroad is coming through our community and we need to get out of the
way. This is unacceptable.
5) Impact on the Community: The alternatives the Authority clearly favors will have
major negative impacts on our community--reduction in residential and commercial
real estate values, traffic, noise, vibrations, east/west division--with little or no
benefits to us. As one of our neighboring communities put it, "'Aerial orientation'
and 'viaduct' are [the Authority's] euphemisms for constructing the equivalent of a
six-to-eight-Iane elevated freeway through the middle of our cities." This is
unacceptable.
( Action
The City Council of Palo Alto hereby declares that it has No Confidence in the California
High Speed Rail Authority or in the High Speed Rail Project as presently planned. The
City Council expects to take further action if the Authority does not immediately
establish a truly responsive and transparent relationship with affected communities and
present viable plan alternatives for the project.
The City Council continues to believe that Caltrain is the indispensible backbone of our
local and regional transit system and that it must have a permanent, dedicated source of
funding and that it should be appropriately upgraded. Palo Alto is fully cOmInitted to
collaborating with other Peninsula cities and counties to help create a dedicated funding
source for Caltrain and its needed improvements. The City will advocate publically for a
Policy Advisory Committee for the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JBP),
appoint a Council Member as a liaison, and contact all Peninsula Cities to do the same
including those municipalities with out a rail corridor. The City will advocate that the
JPB will be reconstituted to include representation of the northern Santa Clara County
cities.
1) The City will urge the Governor and the State Legislature to cease HSR fundhIg,
remove the present CHSRA Board andlor create a new governing mechanism for
HSR.
2) The City will write a letter to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for the
purpose of communicating our position of "no confidence" in the CHSRA and
defending our interest in Caltrain. The City will also write a letter to the FRA
supporting permanent Caltrain funding.
3) The City will coordinate and communicate with like-minded California cities in
order to make our positions set forth above more effective.
4) The City will provide copies of this Resolution and supporting materials to: the
Governor, our State legislators, United States Senators, Member of Congress, the
California High Speed Rail Authority, neighboring communities, and other
interested parties.
5) The City will continue to actively engage in the process of responding to the
CHSRA to defend Palo Alto's interests.
TO: City Council
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Memorandum
-5
September 20, 2010
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
DATE: September 20,2010
SUBJECT: High Speed Rail (HSR) Committee Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Report
(SAAR) Policy Recommendations
On September 15, 2010, the Palo Alto High Speed Rail (HSR) Committee made policy
recommendations concerning the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) Supplemental
Alternatives Analysis Report (SAAR). Further, the HSR Corilmittee concluded the CHSRA did
not meet its own alternatives analysis criteria for evaluating project impacts and design. The
following policy directives were approved by the HSR Committee 4-0:
• Support continued full analysis of the cut & cover alternative based on the Hatch Mott
McDonald (HMM) review of the SAAR; !
• Strongly oppose SAAR Alternatives A and B but support further consideration of an
open trench or partially covered trench alternative so long as it is not greater than 82 feet
in width, does not create noise and vibration impacts greater than what presently exists,
and does not impact the traffic capacity of Alma Street;
• Support below grade alternatives through Palo Alto that are equitable to North and South
Palo Alto and do not support SAAR Options A and B as they are not equitable to North
and South Palo Alto;
• The CHSRA should be responsible for paying for all project and project mitigation costs;
• Do not support phasing of HSR construction or operation in Palo Alto because of
consensus that the said alternative could result in potential impacts including, but not
limited to, traffic delays, a degradation of scb,ool commute safety, a decrease in real
estate property values, and an increase in emergency response times.
For additional context related to these policy directives please refer to the August 24,2010
SAAR staff report and the HMM draft SAAR peer review report as these policy directives were
primarily based off of material contained within those two documents. C
September 20,2010
Mr. Ray LaHood, Secretary
US Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
Mr. Joseph C. Szabo, Administrator
Federal Railroad Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
Mr. Peter M. Rogoff, Administrator
Federal Transit Administration
US Department of Transportation
East Building
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
Mr. Calvin L. Scovel III, Inspector
US Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey A SE
Washington, DC 205
Mr. MarkE. Y
1200 New Jersey
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. LaHood, Mr. Szabo, Mr. Rogoff, Mr. Scovel, and Mr. Yachmetz:
. 5 •
The City of Palo Alto is writing regarding the recent California High Speed Rail
Authority (CHSRA) application to the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) for $1 billion
in funding for the proposed California High Speed Rail (HSR) project segment from San
Francisco to San Jose.
1
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ............................................................ : ...................................................................... 1
2.0 Peer Review ................................................................................................................................... 2
3.0 Response to Questio~ ................................................................................................................. 9
4.0 Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 13
Table of Appendices
Appendix 1 Potential Construction Process for Trench Option ~
Appendix 2 Attachments for Comments 37 and 38 '" "'
No. Pg. SAAR Comment
Section
The construction process for each option is similar. The principal
difference between the two methods involves only the construction of a
roof on the trench structure, and placing a limited depth of backfill. On
this basis the difference between the costs is not credible. CHSRA should
provide the basis for the difference in the cost figures.
32 AppendixL There is insufficient detail provided to confirm the reasonableness of the
unit prices adopted for structures. CHSRA should provide backup
information to support the figures adopted for the comparison.
33 AppendixL General comment: All costs in Appendix are noted to be 3rd quarter
2009. The current economy and bidding climate would indicate that
these costs would still be valid for 3rd quarter 2010.
34 AppendixL The cost elements are organized and listed according to the cost model
as defined by Parsons Brinckerhoff. It is unclear in Appendix L who has
established the unit costs.
35 AppendixL It is noted that ROW costs are not included his would be normal since
ROW costs are not part of direct constru costs.
36 AppendixL The overall cost totals for Subsection 6 ;re fa d reasonable in our
opinion.
37 App. L -Cost The cost fm 3600 ft of 78.5 ~vated guideway supporting fow
Estimate tracks is estimated at $35.8 T' s equivalent to $127 jsq ft. In our
experience this unit rate is 10 80 -100%. We recommend the unit
rated for all the structure types s n be revisited. This comment
applies throughojlt the cost estimate (see Appendix 2).
38 App. L -Cost As noted ill OOnfu~ve, some 2750 ft of four "ad configuration
Estimate is on retained fill u 30' m height. We did not find a cost estimate for
this element of the rk (see Appendix 2).
Other Comments ~
39 Draft memo In ---. is noted that FRA has agreed to use 2 % instead of 1 % for
(08.16.10) HSR. the CAHSR design criteria I've seen, greater than 2% is
from the City permiss Ie in some cases although not desirable. I don't know why
Managp ...... FRA would mandate a max grade of 2% which is an operational issue as ~~ tOpposed to safety issue. FRA is generally more concerned about safety.
I wonder 'if this comment is stated in the proper context.
40 54 Summary"V' Plan, profile and sections figures (Sheet 1 through 3 of 3) for the San
and Design Francisquito Creek crossing were provided in an email. These figures
4-45 Option B, show the creek crossing options (new rail bridge and mined tunnel) for
4.3.7 Options A and B. These sections provide a very brief discussion of this
Subsection 6 -data. Similar crossing will likely occur beneath the road and creek
Palo Alto, underpasses within Subsection 6. Please revise these sections to reflect
Options these additional underpasses and include the figures referenced above
Carried in Appendix B and C.
Forward,and
AppendixB &
C
81Page
The construction process for the covered trench, which is cut and cover, and the open trench are
almost identical. The covered trench requires an additional couple of processes for the
installation of the roof slab and the placement of backfill across the roof of the structure to allow
surface restoration. In addition the covered space requires mechanical ventilation for use in the
event of an emergency incident, and space for ventilation equipment. While each of these items
has its own associated cost, what is apparent from the CHSRA analysis is that these additional
costs have been either overestimated, or the costs of the open trench have been underestimated,
as the two construction costs should be relatively consistent.
Q5. What are the estimated right of way costs?
As discussed, this question cannot be answered at this time.
Q6. Will having a station increase/decrease traffic trips in the city; will it attract regional
traffic trips into the City of Palo Alto?
Probably yes to a local traffic increase, although the overall state wide would likely decrease if
sufficient transfers from autos take place, but the stations are still ~to be a hotspot.
Q7. What impact will a High Speed Train (HST) have on CalY;ai~
Caltrain could act as a feeder service and reduce the num of auto trips from intermediate
stations on the Caltrain line. A HST could steal revenu altrain for trips where they both
stop. For some routes HST reduces predicted journey . more than half and users who are
prepared to pay a higher fare'may choose HST service over ltrain. It could also generate new
trips to San Francisco, etc. The specific impact of a HST on Caltrain is difficult to determine
without specific ridership figures. ~
Q8. Will having a station and the dollars s~t on a mid-peninsula station take away
dollars from other HSR compo~e ?
It is possible that a mid-penins uld divert resources that otherwise may have been
spent elsewhere. However, witho detailed breakdown of CHSR resources and intended uses
we cannot say definitively if this is ill case.
Q9. What are t~tion impacts associated with a HST facility?
An HST station facility ~ts a major construction undertaking. HST platforms are approximately
1,380 feet in length, or the equivalent of several city blocks. Due to its size, there are significant impacts
associated with the construction of an individual station, including noise and vibration, utility relocations
and traffic impacts resulting from diversions, lane restrictions due to construction and utility relocations,
and construction induced traffic. However, as the station will be constructed as part of a larger system,
the additional impact of the station construction itself will be negligible. It is also likely that the addition
of an HST station will spur significant development in'the station vicinity. The impacts of this
development, and the construction impacts associated with this development should also be considered.
Ultimately these impacts are short term and need to be evaluated relative to development opportunity
that may arise from the station location in any future masterplanning for the City of Palo Alto.
Ql0. Is CHSRA doing a detailed traffic analysis for HST?
lllPage
Based upon the available right of way (as shown on the plan/ profile drawings) and the
proposed right of way width for each of the options it is anticipated that the construction of the
CHSA system will result in temporary traffic impacts during construction. For aerial segments
temporary traffic lane closures will be required to enable the construction of temporary
formwork to facilitate bridge construction.
The permanent bridge structures should generally be located such that existing traffic lanes and
clearances on Alma Street are maintained. However, in segments 6A-6C, there are areas where
the width of the proposed structure exceeds the available right of way by up to as much as 36
feet. In these areas some reduction in the capacity of Alma Street will result.
For the trench option, lane closures will be required to allow the installation of the walls which
support the trench excavation. After installation of these walls, temporary panels can be
installed to permit the full operation of Alma Street at current levels of service. With either
trench option there will ne no permanent reduction in Alma Street capacity. With a cut and
cover trench option the traffic lanes can extend over the str]1cture. With an open trench, the
trench can be partly covered as necessary to maintain the capacity of Alma Street.
4.0 Summary ~
The Supplemental AA presents modifications to the proposed co=tru~ alternatives for the
Peninsula segment of the CHSRA alignment based u~ moderated meetings with
Cities and Agencies, and. on the results of more advanc n' eering analysis, which has
resulted in the 'stitching together' of the Peninsula se form two principal construction
Options-designated A and B. .
HMM has undertaken a review of the SAAR ~n behalf of the City of Palo Alto, which has
focused on the following specific issues;
• The clarity of the information rovided
• The type and extent of ea various construction alternatives and the reasonableness
of the assumptions rela s being continued to further study or rejected.
• The physical operation of shared corridor
• Technical issues with a direct pact upon project cost
• The scope, cgfY and reasonableness of the alternative cost estimates
The technical review e ort has resulted in a number of review comments which are
included in Section 2.0 IS report. However, we offer the following conclusions/ concerns
with the SAAR for the consideration of the City of Palo Alto.
• While we understand the desire to limit the number of alternatives to be studied as part
of the CHSRA EIS, the basis for the rejection of the covered trench and deep tunnel
options is not substantiated. Construction impacts cited for the rejection of both
alternatives also exist for the open trench option. The construction process for the open
and covered trench options is almost identical, as are the constructabilityjssues.
• The cross section used for the calculation of the open trench cost -which is stated to be a
shallow trench -is not consistent with the plan profile drawings, which suggest a much
13IPage
Appendix 2 Attachments for Comments 37 and 38
September 1, 2010
Roelof van Ark, Chief Executive Officer and Board of Directors
California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA)
925 L Street, Suite 1425
Sacramento, California 95814
G!)r of Palo Alto 6
Office of the City Manager
Subject: Final Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train Revised Final Program
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Dear Mr. van Ark, Board Chair Pringle and Board of Directors:
The City of Palo would like to go on record asking the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) to not
certify the above referenced Final Program EIR. The City has concluded the Authority has failed pursuant
to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to adequately respond to comments made by the City of
Palo Alto. Here are the City's detailed comments:
Standard Comment-9
This response acknowledges that the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) has expressed opposition to sharing its
right-of-way for freight activities with the high speed rail project. The City has stated that UPRR's
opposition to shared use of its right-of-way in the Caltrain corridor may be a fatal flaw in the further
development of the Caltrain alignment alternative. The CHSRA states in its response that it will be better
able to analyze the project's potential impacts on freight operations during the project-level analysis,
which is likely an accurate statement. However, the CHSRA then states that, "[tlhere is precedent for
UPRR working with proponents of commuter rail to reach mutually agreeable arrangements for passenger
rail near UPRR freight rail." CHSRA then states that, "[tlhe Authority has had productive meetings with
UPRR representatives on more than one occasion since receiving their April, 23, 2010 comment letter."
These two statel'!1ents imply that the CHSRA pelieves that further negotiations with UPRR will result in a
. mutually agreeable arrangement whereby the Caltrain alignment will be acceptable to both parties. While
this outcome is possible, it does not directly address the comments regarding the infeasibility of the
Caltrain alignment should UPRR continue to deny CHSRA access to share its right-of-way.
CHSRA should have analyzed a range of other feasible alternatives, including those outside of the Pacheco
corridor, when it determined that the use of the UPRR right-of-way might be infeasible. But instead,
CHSRA focused on just one alternative, which was to shift the proposed alignment south of San Jose in
order to move it out of the UPRR right-of-way. This shift of alignment may result in new impacts -such as
impacts on traffic, land use compatibility, aesthetics, agriculture, noise, and air quality, and the
requirement to exercise eminent domain -that are not addressed in the revised program document and
need to be addressed. We request that the CHSRA study an Altamont alignment that would serve San
Francisco to San Jose on one route, as described in comment 0009-2.
l003-31
The City's comment states that the Program EIR does not adequately address funding sources for the
project. CHSRA's response refers the reader to Comment L003-112, which addresses compatibility of
schools with high speed rail projects. This response in no way addressed the comment. CHSRA needs to
provide a detailed breakdown of funding sources, as the type of information provided to the public thus
Printed with soy-based inks on 100% recycled p.per processed without chlorine
p.o. Box 10250
PaloAito,CA 94303
650.329.2563
650.325.5025 fax
far is too general and inadequate, and does not provide the City with the ability to assess whether the
project would have access to adequate funding.
L003-32
The City's comment states that project construction costs are not adequately addressed in the Program
EIR. CHSRA's response states that the construction cost estimates are adequate, and lists examples of the
types of costs that it claims are included in the construction cost estimates. This response does not
provide the City with any information to confirm that the construction cost estimates are inclusive of all
relevant costs, as no cost breakdown has been provided. CHSRA needs to provide a detailed breakdown of
construction costs so that the City can assess whether all relevant costs have been considered, and
whether the cost figures provided are appropriate.
L003-44
CHSRA's response to comment L003-44 includes a statement that, "Caltrain would benefit from the
creation of a fully grade-separate right-of-way, allowing trains to operate more safely by eliminating at-
grade traffic and pedestrian crossings." This statement contradicts recent financial documents released by
the CHSRA, which state that grade separations may not be included in the initial construction of the
Caltrain alignment portion of the HST, and that such grade separations may need to be funded later by
each local jurisdiction and built subsequent to commencement of HST operations. This statement raises
further questions regarding traffic and safety, for if grade separations are not provided by the CHSRAat
the time of project construction, then traffic and safety impacts would increase at the locations of the
existing at-grade crossings with the increased volume oftrain trips.
L003-S1
CHSRA's response to comment LO03-S1 includes the following statement: "Grade separating [in the City
of Palo Alto] would generally be accomplisheq by either fully raising the railway over the street, or by
partially elevating the railway and partially depressing the street." The Alternatives Analysis for the City of
Palo Alto included four vertical options, including aerial viaduct, at grade, trench (covered or uncovered),
and tunnel. The only option that was not included for the City was the elevated berm. Yet this response to
comment L003-S1 seems to somehow eliminate any below grade options from consideration. The CHSRA
provides no basis for eliminating the trench and tunnel options that were considered in the Alternatives
Analysis. The CHSRA has indicated that the refinement of the vertical options would occur in a future,
project-level analysis. The response to comment L003-S1 appears to be inconsistent with the review
process.
L003-S3
The statement that, "[t]he placement of HST tracks adjacent to the UPRR right-of-way does not increase
the level of impact" is not credible. This is particularly so given the immediately previous statement that,
"analysis already considered land beneath a road or railroad right-of-way as potential farmland." In other
words, the HST tracks adjacent to the UPRR right-of-way would consume and/or impact farmland. The
relocation of the alignment to be adjacent to the UPRR right-of-way could also have greater impacts on
traffic, land use compatibility, aesthetics, noise, and air quality, and the requirement to exercise eminent
domain, as s~ated above in regard to Standard Response-9. CHSRA needs to provide a program-level
analysis of the impacts of this relocated alignment.
L003-69
The statement that, "miles of disturbance can be helpful towards explaining differences in potential
impacts between alternatives" misses the point of. the comment, which was that the severity or
significance of impacts depends on what is encountered, whether the alignment is short or long. The
sensitivity of the environment is what's important, not the miles of disturbance. A short segment of
disturbance through a portion of critical habitat for a special status species, for example, could have a
greater impact on biological resources than a longer segment of disturbance through a portion of habitat
not occupied by any special status species. Miles of disturbance is a poor surrogate for environmental
vulnerability or susceptibility to impacts.
L003-84
This response misses the point of the comment. The question is not what the minority or low-income
population is, but rather whether it is disproportionately impacted regardless of size. Threshold level
identification of environmental justice populations does not help identify the potential for
disproportionate impacts. CHSRA needs to provide information on whether minority or low income
populations would be disproportionately affected by the HST project.
L003-10S
Part of the response, starting on line 8 (flUPRR's February 23 ... /1) addresses safety issues, which are not
relevant to the comment itself, as the comment addresses the displacement of residents and businesses.
The City believes that this comment has not been adequately addressed, and requests that the CHSRA
provide information regarding the displacement of residents and businesses adequate to allow the City to
assess these impacts.
LO03-111
The existing active commuter and freight rail corridor does not currently have any aerial structures and/or
sound walls, so their addition would most definitely constitute new physical or psychological barriers.
These new features could have negative impacts on aesthetics and land use by creating physical barriers .
within established communities. CHSRA needs to analyze these potential impacts and provide adequate
information to allow the City to make an informed assessment of these impacts.
L003-113
The response in no way addresses blight. CHSRA needs to analyze the blight affects that could result from
the project's increased impacts to noise, vibration, traffic, aesthetics, air quality, land use, and property
values. CHSRA has thus far not provided sufficient information on the topic of blight to allow the City to
make an informed assessment of possible blight impacts.
L003-140
The response misses the point of the comment, which is that it is the spatial extent of the impact, (e.g.,
noise contours, the deposition of air pollutants, or visual intrusion), and not an arbitrary distance from the
centerline of each alignment alternative, that matters in determining impacts. Response to comment
L003-42 is similarly inadequate. CHSRA needs to determine the actual potential extent of impacts for each
impact category (noise, traffic, air quality, biological resources, etc.) and not use an arbitrary distance
from the alignment centerline. The radius of impacts will not be a static figu(~, and will vary along any
proposed alignment due to physical characteristics such as topography, type and intensity of
development, and existing traffic and land use patterns.
Additional Comments
The City has an additional comment based on the traffic analysis information included in the Bay Area to
Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS. The City of Palo Alto is also very concerned about the volume-
to-capacity ratio (VIe) calculated as part of the traffic analysis for the potential Palo Alto HSR station on
page 3.1-9 of the Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS. In Table 3.1-3, the CHSRA states
that in 2005 Palo Alto had a VIC ratio of 0.85 at the proposed station location. However, the chart goes on
to claim that by year 2030, either with or without HSR, the VIC ratio near that station would fall in a range
between 0.47 and 0.50.
The City of Palo Alto does not understand how such a drastic decrease in traffic could be assumed for the
said location 20 years from now and especially when all of the other potential Peninsula stations show
an increase in their V Ie ratio regardless of whether HSR is built or not. It does not appear to the CIty