Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2011-01-18 City Council Agenda Packet
This Agenda/Notice is Posted in Accordance with Government Code Section 549.2(A) or Section 54956 01/18/2011 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON TH IS AG ENDA SUBMITTED TO TH E CITY COUN CIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AV AILABLE FOR P UBLIC I NSPECTION IN TH E 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 Thursday preceding the meeting. Special Meeting Council Chambers January 18, 2011 6:00 PM ROLL CALL CLOSED SESSION Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. THE FOLLOWING CLOSED SESSION WILL BE HELD WITH THE CITY LABOR NEGOTIATORS. 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Pamela Antil, Dennis Burns, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Sandra Blanch, Marcie Scott, Roger Bloom, Darrell Murray) Employee Organization: International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1319 Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a) 7:30 PM or as soon as possible thereafter STUDY SESSION 2. City of Palo Alto Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report FY 2010 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. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 08, 2010 2 01/18/2011 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON TH IS AG ENDA SUBMITTED TO TH E CITY COUN CIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AV AILABLE FOR P UBLIC I NSPECTION IN TH E CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. November 22, 2010 December 06, 2010 CONSENT CALENDAR Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members. 3. Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinanc e for the Fiscal Y ear 2011 in the Amount of $57,761 t o Allocate Funds to Capital Improvement Project PG-09002 for the Replanting of Tre es at Eleanor Pardee Park ID#1279 Public Comment 4. Approval of an Exchange Agreement and Quit Claim Deed for the Exchange of a 1,525 Square Foot Portion of Public Street Right-Of-Way Land Along San Antonio Road for a 28,098 Square Foot Privately Owned Parcel of Land Located Under the San Antonio Road Overpass to Secure and Maintain a Public Access Road to the Former Mayfield Mall Site at 200 San Antonio Road ID#1268 5. Recommendation that the City Council Refer the Percent for Art Policy and Procedure to the Policy and Services Committee for Recommendation to the City Council ID#1267 6. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Exploration of Consolidated and/or Shared Services and Assets Between the Cities of Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Mountain View and Los Altos ID#1314 7. Approval of a Contract with MV Transportation in the Amount of $480,744 to Provide Community Shuttle Service for the Crosstown Shuttle Route for up to Three Years and Amendment to the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Agreement to Terminate Provision of Crosstown Shuttle Route Service ID#1312 3 01/18/2011 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON TH IS AG ENDA SUBMITTED TO TH E CITY COUN CIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AV AILABLE FOR P UBLIC I NSPECTION IN TH E CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. ACTION ITEM Include: Public Hearings, Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters 8. Adoption of the Energy Risk Management Policy CMR:101:11 & ATTACHMENTS 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. Re p o r t f r o m t h e C i t y A u d i t o r City of Palo Alto Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report for Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Report on City Government Performance JANUARY 2011 SUMMARY City of Palo Alto Office of the City Auditor January 5, 2011 Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California City of Palo Alto Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report FY 2010 This is the City Auditor’s ninth annual Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report for the City of Palo Alto covering the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010 (FY 2010). The report is intended to be informational. It provides data about the costs, quality, quantity, and timeliness of City services. It includes comparisons to other cities, and the results of a citizen survey. Our goal is to provide the City Council, staff, and the public with information on past performance to strengthen public accountability, improve government efficiency and effectiveness, and support future decision making. OVERALL SATISFACTION The annual Citizen Survey, administered in conjunction with this report, reveals high ratings for City services. 80% rated the overall quality of City services “good” or “excellent.” When asked to rate the value of services for taxes paid to the City of Palo Alto, 62% rated the value of services as “good” or “excellent,” which places Palo Alto in the 84th percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. This year, 57% of respondents reported they were pleased with the overall direction of the City (compared to 53% last year). Over the last five years, 53% to 63% of respondents rated the overall direction of the City “good” or “excellent.” 56% of respondents reported having contact with a City employee in fiscal year 2010, and 77% rated the overall impression of the City employee as “good” or “excellent” (compared to 79% last year). In comparison to responses from other jurisdictions, Palo Alto ranks in the 96th percentile for educational opportunities, 98th percentile as a place to work, 91st percentile as a place to live, 86th percentile as a place to raise children and 93rd percentile in overall quality of life. On the other hand, Palo Alto ranked in the 6th percentile for availability of affordable quality housing, 9th percentile for the variety of housing options, and 13th percentile for availability of affordable quality child care. This year, Palo Alto ranked within the top five of surveyed jurisdictions as a place to work, for the number of residents reporting that they recycled in their home, and for the number of residents reporting they visited the City of Palo Alto website. The key drivers in this year’s survey, or areas that tended to influence how residents rated overall service quality, were: “public information services,” “land use, planning and zoning,” “police services,” “preservation of natural areas,” and “sidewalk maintenance.” Overall satisfaction with the City’s public information services declined 1 percentage point, from 68% rating satisfaction as “good” or “excellent” in FY 2009, to 67% in FY 2010. i Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 OVERALL SPENDING, STAFFING, KEY RESIDENT PERCEPTIONS & COUNCIL PRIORITIES (pages 9-14) General Fund spending increased from $127.3 to $146.6 million (or 15%) from five years ago; Palo Alto’s estimated population increased 5.3% and inflation was about 9% over the same period. In FY 2010, total Citywide authorized staffing, including temporary and hourly positions, was 1,151 full-time equivalent employees (FTE). On a per capita basis, FY 2010 net General Fund costs of $1,645 included: $366 for police services $262 for fire and emergency medical services $222 in operating transfers out (including $151 in transfers for capital projects) $202 for community services $158 for administrative and strategic support services $148 for public works $134 for non-departmental expenses $93 for library services $60 for planning, building, code enforcement The General Fund has invested $89.4 million in capital projects over the last five years. The Infrastructure Reserve decreased from $20.7 million in FY 2006 to $8.6 million in FY 2010. Capital spending last year totaled $50.9 million, including $21.2 million in the general governmental funds and $29.7 million in the enterprise funds. The City Council established five top priority areas for calendar year 2010: City Finances, Land Use and Transportation, Emergency Preparedness, Environmental Sustainability and Community Collaboration for Youth Well Being. In most priority areas, Palo Alto continues to receive high rankings compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. In the areas of economic development, environmental sustainability and services to youth the City was above the national average, and the City received similar ratings to other surveyed jurisdictions for emergency preparedness. However, the City’s rankings related to land use are below the national average. Survey respondents were asked to rate their support for future fiscal measures to help keep revenues in line with expenditures. 85% of survey respondents “strongly” or “somewhat” supported pursuing a new revenue source for specific projects such as capital projects, roads, and recreation. Only 41% of survey respondents “strongly” or “somewhat” supported further reductions of City services and programs. COMMUNITY SERVICES (pages 15-24) Community Services Department spending increased 5% over the last five years to $20.5 million. In FY 2010, volunteers donated more than 16,000 hours for open space restorative/resource management projects. Enrollment in camps and classes was down 12% from 19,623 in FY 2006 to 17,366 in FY 2010. Online class registrations continue to increase, with 55% of registrations online last year compared to 41% five years ago. The number of registrants at the Children’s Theater classes, camps, and workshops increased 141% from five years ago, which the Department attributes to offering year round arts-based education and a new program to teach theatre classes in Palo Alto Unified School District schools. In FY 2010, parks maintenance spending ii SUMMARY totaled about $4.1 million or approximately $15,413 per acre maintained. About 21% of maintenance spending was contracted out. The Golf Course generated net revenue of approximately $76,100 in FY 2010. Residents give favorable ratings for Palo Alto’s recreation, parks, and natural environment. 85% of residents rate Palo Alto’s preservation of wildlife and native plants as “good” or “excellent,” and 78% rate the preservation of natural areas such as open space as “good” or “excellent.” 81% of residents rate the quality of recreation centers/facilities as “good” or “excellent”; 82% rate the quality of recreation programs/classes as “good” or “excellent”; 88% rate their neighborhood park “good” or “excellent”; and 90% rate the quality of City parks “good” or “excellent.” In comparison to responses from other jurisdictions, Palo Alto ranks in the 78th percentile for recreation programs and classes, 88th percentile for quality of parks, 90th percentile for services to seniors, and 92nd percentile for preservation of natural areas. FIRE (pages 25-30) The Fire Department provides Palo Alto and Stanford residents and businesses with emergency response, environmental and safety services. Fire Department expenditures of $27.7 million were 37% more than five years ago, and 39% of costs were offset by revenue. In FY 2010, the Department responded to an average of 20 calls per day. The average response time was 7:05 minutes for fire calls, and the average response time was 5:29 minutes for medical/rescue calls. In FY 2010, there were more than 4,400 medical/rescue incidents, and 182 fire incidents (including 11 residential structure fires). In FY 2010, the Department performed 70% more fire inspections and 48% less hazardous materials inspections than it did five years ago. Palo Alto is the only city in Santa Clara County that provides primary ambulance services. The Department has 109 line personnel certified as emergency medical technicians (EMTs), 34 of whom are also certified paramedics. In FY 2010, the Department provided 2,991 ambulance transports, an increase of 30% from five years ago. Residents give high marks to the quality of Fire Department services. 93% of residents rated fire services “good” or “excellent,” and 94% rated ambulance/emergency medical services “good” or “excellent.” In FY 2010, the Department provided 219 fire safety, bike safety, and disaster preparedness presentations to more than 3,000 residents. 59% of survey respondents rated Palo Alto’s emergency preparedness as “good” or “excellent” and 83% felt “very” or “somewhat” safe from environmental hazards. LIBRARY (pages 31-36) In November 2008, voters approved a $76 million bond measure (Measure N) to fund improvements for the Mitchell Park, Downtown, and Main libraries and the Mitchell Park Community Center. In addition, the City allocated $4 million in infrastructure funds to renovate the College Terrace Library. Two libraries (Downtown and College Terrace) were closed for renovation for a portion of the year and Mitchell Park library has been relocated to the Cubberley Community Center while a new library and community center are under construction. Operating expenditures for Palo Alto’s five library facilities rose 13% from five years ago to $6.4 million. Total circulation increased 27% to over 1.6 million in FY 2010. Approximately 90% of checkouts were completed on the Library’s self-check machines, compared to 67% five years ago. Over the last five years, the number of reference questions declined 21%; the number of internet sessions decreased 14%; the number of online database sessions increased 258%; and the total number of iii Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 cardholders decreased 7% to 51,969. Volunteers donated more than 5,500 hours of service to the libraries in FY 2010, a 5% decrease from five years ago. 31% of survey respondents reported they used the libraries or their services more than 12 times in FY 2010, 82% rated the quality of library services “good” or “excellent,” 75% rated the quality of neighborhood branch libraries “good” or “excellent,” and 75% rated the variety of library materials as “good” or “excellent.” PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT (pages 37-42) Planning and Community Environment expenditures totaled $9.4 million in FY 2010 which was offset by revenue of $5.5 million. A total of 226 planning applications were completed in FY 2010 – 45% fewer than five years ago. The average time to complete planning applications was 12.5 weeks. 53% of surveyed residents rated the overall quality of new development in Palo Alto as “good” or “excellent”; 49% rated economic development services “good” or “excellent,” and 53% rated code enforcement services “good” or “excellent.” From five years ago, the number of new code enforcement cases increased 62% from 421 to 680. In FY 2010, 88% of cases were resolved within 120 days. The Department issued a total of 2,847 building permits in FY 2010, 8% less than five years ago. 75% of building permits were issued over the counter. For those permits that were not issued over the counter, the average time for first response to plan checks was 30 days (compared to 31 days last year), and the average time to issue a building permit was 44 days (compared to 63 days last year). According to the Department, 99% of building inspection requests were responded to within one working day. During FY 2010, 8% of survey respondents applied for a permit at the City’s Development Center. Of these respondents 36% rated the ease of the planning approval process as “good” or “excellent,” 33% rated the time required to review and issue permits as “good” or “excellent,” and 34% rated the ease of the overall application process as “good” or “excellent.” Results for inspection timeliness were better with 61% rating this area as “good” or “excellent.” City Shuttle boardings decreased 21% since five years ago (from about 175,471 in FY 2006 to about 137,825 in FY 2010). Survey respondents said they used alternative commute modes on average about two days per week. 60% of survey respondents consider the amount of public parking “good” or “excellent.” POLICE (pages 43-50) Police Department spending of $28.8 million was 18% more than five years ago. The Department handled more than 55,800 calls for service in FY 2010, or about 153 calls per day. From five years ago, the average response times for emergency calls increased slightly from 4:41 minutes to 4:44 minutes. During this time, the number of juvenile arrests decreased 8% from 241 to 222, and the number of total arrests decreased 3% from 2,530 to 2,451. The total number of traffic collisions declined by 22% from five years ago, and the number of bicycle/pedestrian collisions decreased by 28%. There were 29 alcohol related collisions and 181 DUI arrests in FY 2010. Police Department statistics show 59 reported crimes per 1,000 residents or 42 reported crimes per officer during FY 2010. FBI statistics show that Palo Alto has fewer violent crimes per thousand residents than many local jurisdictions. 96% of surveyed residents felt “very” or “somewhat” safe in their neighborhood during the day and 94% in Palo Alto’s downtown iv SUMMARY area during the day. Feelings of safety decreased at night with 83% feeling “very” or “somewhat” safe in their neighborhood after dark and 70% feeling “very” or “somewhat” safe in Palo Alto’s downtown area after dark. 87% of surveyed residents rated police services “good” or “excellent.” The Police Department reports it received 156 commendations and 11 complaints last year (three complaints were sustained). PUBLIC WORKS (pages 51-60) The Public Works Department provides services through the General Fund for streets, trees, structures and facilities, and engineering services. Operating expenditures in these areas totaled $12.5 million in FY 2010. Capital spending for these activities included $3.9 million for streets (up from $2.4 million in FY 2006), and $1.9 million for sidewalks. In FY 2010, the Department replaced or permanently repaired more than 54,000 square feet of sidewalk, and completed 22 ADA ramps. In this year’s survey, 43% rated street repair as “good” or “excellent,” and 51% rated sidewalk maintenance as “good” or “excellent.” The Department is also responsible for refuse collection, disposal, and recycling collection ($30.9 million in FY 2010 operating expense), storm drainage ($2.7 million in FY 2010), wastewater treatment ($18.1 million, of which 62% is reimbursed by other jurisdictions), and maintenance and replacement for the City fleet and equipment ($4.0 million). These services are provided through enterprise and internal service funds. From five years ago, tons of waste landfilled decreased 17%, tons of materials recycled decreased 13%, and tons of household hazardous materials collected decreased 24%. This year, 88% of surveyed residents rated the quality of garbage collection as “good” or “excellent,” 90% rated recycling services “good” or “excellent,” and 83% rated the City’s composting process and pickup services “good” or “excellent.” 73% of residents rated storm drainage “good” or “excellent.” In 2009, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for the first time reported on the condition of Palo Alto’s streets and roads. The MTC’s 2009 report on the pavement condition of Bay Area jurisdictions indicates that Palo Alto streets are considered “good,” scoring higher than Cupertino, Milpitas, Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, but lower than Santa Clara, Redwood City, Mountain View and Sunnyvale. UTILITIES (pages 61-70) In FY 2010, operating expense for the electric utility totaled $101.4 million, including $68.7 million in electricity purchase costs (23% more than five years ago). The average monthly residential bill has increased 32% over the five year period. Average residential electric usage per capita decreased 4% from five years ago. By the end of FY 2010, about 22% of Palo Alto customers had enrolled in the voluntary Palo Alto Green energy program supporting 100% renewable energy. 79% of surveyed residents rated electric utility services “good” or “excellent.” Operating expense for the gas utility totaled $32.6 million, including $22.5 million in gas purchases (5% more than five years ago). The average monthly residential gas bill has increased 43% over the five year period. Average residential natural gas usage per capita declined 6% from five years ago. The number of service disruptions increased from 19 to 58 over the five year period. 80% of surveyed residents rated gas utility services “good” or “excellent.” v Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 vi Operating expense for the water utility totaled $20.5 million, including $5.3 million in water purchases (17% less than five years ago). The average residential water bill has increased 33% over the five year period. Average residential water usage per capita was down 12% from five years ago. 84% of surveyed residents rated water quality as “good” or “excellent.” Operating expense for wastewater collection totaled $10.9 million in FY 2010. The average residential sewer bill has increased 13%, from five years ago. 82% of residents rated sewer services “good” or “excellent.” There were 348 sewage overflows in FY 2010, up from 210 in FY 2009. In 1996, the City launched the fiber optic utility and built a 40.6 mile dark fiber backbone throughout the City with the goal of delivering broadband services to all premises, with customers connected via fiber optic “service connections.” New customers pay the fees required to connect to the fiber optic backbone. Fiber optic operating revenue totaled $3.1 million in FY 2010 and had 47 customer accounts and 196 service connections. STRATEGIC AND SUPPORT SERVICES (pages 71-75) This category includes the Administrative Services and Human Resources departments, and the offices of the City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Auditor, and the City Council, and includes performance information related to these departments. By reviewing the entire report, readers will gain a better understanding of the mission and work of each of the City’s departments. The background section includes a community profile, discussion of service efforts and accomplishments reporting, and information about the preparation of this report. Chapter 1 provides a summary of overall City spending and staffing over the last five years. Chapters 2 through 9 present the mission statements, description of services, background information, workload, performance measures, and survey results for the various City departments and services. The full results of the National Citizen SurveyTM are available in Attachments 1 and 2 of this report. Additional copies of this report are available from the Auditor’s Office and are posted on the web at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/aud/service_efforts_and_accomplishments.asp. We thank the City staff that contributed to this report. This report would not be possible without their support. Respectfully submitted, Michael Edmonds Acting City Auditor Audit staff and assistance: Ian Hagerman, Houman Boussina, Mimi Nguyen, Lisa Wehara, and Patricia Hilaire Performance Audit Intern: Davina The Management Discussion and Analysis 2010 was a challenging but successful year. The City ended the year stronger than it began and better positioned for the future and the next rounds of successive challenges that will come. The fiscal difficulties that have buffeted local governments since the financial crisis of 2008 required strong action by the City, which closed a $6.3 million General Fund budget gap at mid-year, essentially through temporary cost cutting measures, and balanced the FY 2011 General Fund Budget with permanent adjustments of $7.3 million, eliminating that structural deficit. Labor tensions eased somewhat from the year earlier when SEIU adopted a new agreement incorporating the terms that had been imposed on the union the year before. Staff morale, down as to be expected in a time of cutbacks, concessions, and higher output demands began a recovery. The City Council set priorities and expectations on delivering on promises for the year and the staff responded. The City progressed as promised and struck an effective balance between reaction and making tough near term decisions, while remaining focused on the long term fiscal health and quality of life in the City. Most decisions made considered long term impacts and sustainability. Additionally, the City made more efforts to engage and inform the community, holding numerous town meetings on the budget, repairing damaged relations with the community and image of the City around the “California Avenue trees problem” through a creative outreach and tree planting program, and promoted greater transparency and proactive communications between City Hall and residents through enhanced social networking and other communication vehicles. High Speed Rail emerged as a major issue and the City rapidly assumed a leadership position within the region and the State, assertively representing the views of the community and adding staff and legislative assistance as needed to be proactive. Despite these efforts, ongoing challenges face the City. Elimination of 60 FTE’s in the General Fund over the past two years cut costs but strain staff capacity and may constrain service provision in coming years. Additionally, significant staff turnover due to retirement of the baby boomers, partly accelerated by shifting some benefit costs to employees, has thinned staffing and required placing employees with less experience in various key positions around the City. While this has positive benefits with new energy and perspectives, it also brings some loss of history, institutional knowledge, and requires attention to training and development. Adequate investment in infrastructure is another challenge. The City has established a citizen’s panel, the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee, to review city needs and make funding recommendations to the City Council in the next year. Rising pension and health care costs will continue to force the City to look at cutting costs and new ways of doing business, including more analysis of regionalizing and sharing some services with other jurisdictions. vii viii Uncertainty in the national economy will also put pressure on the City going forward and the dismal straits of the State government and its large ongoing budget deficit has potentially severe but as yet unknown implications for local governments. Fortunately, the elected leadership of the City is strong, cohesive, and decisive and committed to solving problems and thinking creatively. And the social and economic assets of Palo Alto combine to put the City in a comparatively strong position in tackling the challenges facing local governments in California in the years ahead. James Keene City Manager TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND 1 Introduction 1 Community Profile 1 Scope and Methodology 4 Acknowledgements 8 CHAPTER 1 – OVERALL SPENDING, STAFFING, KEY RESIDENT PERCEPTIONS & COUNCIL PRIORITIES 9 Overall Spending 9 Per Capita Spending 10 Authorized Staffing 11 Capital Spending 13 Key Resident Perceptions & Council Priorities 14 CHAPTER 2 – COMMUNITY SERVICES 15 Spending 16 Department –Wide Classes 17 Arts & Sciences Division 18 Open Space and Parks Division 20 Recreation and Golf Services Division 22 Cubberley Community Center and Human Services Division 24 CHAPTER 3 – FIRE 25 Fire Spending 26 Fire Staffing and Calls for Service 27 Fire Suppression 28 Emergency Medical Services 29 Hazardous Materials and Fire Safety 30 CHAPTER 4 – LIBRARY 31 Library Spending 32 Library Staffing 33 Library Collection and Circulation 34 Library Services 35 CHAPTER 5 – PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT 37 Spending 38 Current Planning and Code Enforcement 39 Advance Planning Economic Development 40 Building Permits and Inspection 41 Transportation Planning 42 Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 CHAPTER 6 – POLICE 43 Police Spending 44 Calls for Service 45 Crime 46 Perceptions of Safety 47 Police Staffing, Equipment, and Training 48 Traffic and Parking Control 49 Animal Services 50 CHAPTER 7 – PUBLIC WORKS 51 Streets 52 Sidewalks 53 Trees 54 City Facilities, Engineering, and Private Development 55 Storm Drains 56 Wastewater Treatment & Wastewater Environmental Compliance 57 Refuse 58 Zero Waste 59 City Fleet and Equipment 60 CHAPTER 8 – UTILITIES 61 Electricity 62 Gas 64 Water 66 Wastewater Collection 68 Fiber Optic Utility 69 CHAPTER 9 – STRATEGIC AND SUPPORT SERVICES 71 Spending and Staffing 72 Administrative Services 73 Human Resources 74 City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Auditor 75 NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEYTM City of Palo Alto National Citizen Survey Report 2010 Attachment 1 City of Palo Alto National Citizen Survey Benchmark Report 2010 Attachment 2 BACKGROUND INTRODUCTION This is the ninth annual report on the City of Palo Alto’s Service Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA). The purpose of the report is to: Provide consistent information on the performance of City services. Broadly assess trends in government efficiency and effectiveness. Improve City accountability to the public. The report contains summary information on spending and staffing, workload, and performance results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010 (FY 2010). The report provides two types of comparisons: Five-year historical trends for fiscal years 2006 through 2010 Selected comparisons to other cities It also includes the results of a resident survey rating the quality of City services. There are many ways to look at services and performance. This report looks at services on a department-by-department basis. All City departments are included in our review. Chapter 1 provides a summary of overall spending and staffing over the last five years, as well as a description of the City’s accomplishments in meeting the City Council’s annual priorities as well a discussion on key resident perceptions and City Council’s priorities. Chapters 2 through 9 present the mission statements, description of services, background information, performance measures, and survey results for: Community Services Fire Library Planning and Community Environment Police Public Works Utilities Strategic and Support Services COMMUNITY PROFILE Incorporated in 1894, Palo Alto is a largely built-out community of about 65,400 residents. The City covers about 26 square miles, stretching from the edge of the San Francisco Bay to the ridges of the San Francisco peninsula. Located mid-way between San Francisco and San Jose, Palo Alto is in the heart of the Silicon Valley. Stanford University, adjacent to Palo Alto and one of the top-rated institutions of higher education in the nation, has produced much of the talent that founded successful high-tech companies in Palo Alto and Silicon Valley. DEMOGRAPHICS Palo Alto is a highly educated community. According to the U.S. Census Bureau 2006-2008 American Community Survey, of residents aged 25 years and over: 78% had a bachelor’s degree or higher. 48% had a graduate or professional degree. In 2009, Forbes named Palo Alto third in the top ten list of “America’s Most Educated Small Towns,” and first in California. 65% of Palo Alto’s population is in the labor force and the average travel time to work is estimated at 21 minutes. In 2008, the median household income was $126,740, while the average was $168,800. - 1 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 - 2 - The breakdown of estimated household income consisted of: 2008 Household Income Percent $49,999 or less 21% $50,000 to $149,999 37% $150,000 or more 42% Total 100% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006-2008 American Community Survey According to census statistics, 68% of Palo Alto residents were white, and 25% were of Asian descent: Race-ethnicity Population Percent One race 61,555 97% White 43,230 68% Asian 15,765 25% Black or African American 1,108 2% American Indian and Alaska Native 104 0% Other 1,348 2% Two or more races 1,815 3% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 3,758 6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006-2008 American Community Survey Over the last three years, from 2006-2008, the median age of Palo Alto residents was 42 years. The following table shows population by age: Age Population Percent Under 5 years 3,828 6% 18 years and over 48,517 77% 65 years and over 10,300 16% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006-2008 American Community Survey The majority of residents own their homes, but a large number of dwellings are renter occupied: Housing occupancy Number Percent Owner occupied 15,485 58% Renter occupied 10,043 37% Vacant 1,432 5% Total 26,960 100% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006-2008 American Community Survey OVERALL COMMUNITY QUALITY Residents give high ratings to Palo Alto’s quality of life. When asked to rate the overall quality of life in Palo Alto, 45% of residents said “excellent,” 48% said “good,” 6% said “fair,” and 0% said “poor.” In comparison to other jurisdictions1, Palo Alto ranked in the 98th percentile as a place to work, 93rd percentile for overall quality of life, and in the 91st percentile as a place to live. These high ratings are consistent with prior surveys. Community quality ratings Percent rating Palo Alto “good” or “excellent” National ranking Palo Alto as a place to work 87% 98%tile Palo Alto as a place to live 95% 91%tile Overall quality of life 93% 93%tile Palo Alto as a place to raise children 93% 86%tile Neighborhood as a place to live 91% 89%tile Palo Alto as a place to retire 65% 63%tile Services to seniors 79% 90%tile Services to youth 70% 79%tile Services to low-income 49% 63%tile Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 2010 (Palo Alto) Palo Alto ranked in the 86th percentile as a place to raise children, 90th percentile for services to seniors, 63rd percentile as a place to retire and 1 Based on survey results from over 500 jurisdictions collected by the National Research Center, Inc. (see Attachment 1) BACKGROUND 79th percentile for services to youth. Ratings for services to low-income residents decreased from 59% last year to 49%, placing Palo Alto in the 63rd percentile, similar to the other surveyed jurisdictions. 83% of residents plan to remain in Palo Alto for the next five years and 90% of residents would likely recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks. According to the National Research Center, intentions to stay and willingness to make recommendations provide evidence that the City of Palo Alto provides services and amenities that work. SENSE OF COMMUNITY Residents continue to give very favorable ratings to Palo Alto’s community and reputation. 90% of residents rated Palo Alto’s overall image/reputation as “good” or “excellent,” placing Palo Alto in the 95th percentile compared to other jurisdictions. Most residents (71%) rated Palo Alto’s “sense of community” as “good” or “excellent.” Most residents (79%) also felt that the Palo Alto community was open and accepting towards people of diverse backgrounds. These results placed Palo Alto in the 72nd and 91st percentiles respectively, compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. Community characteristics Percent rating Palo Alto good or excellent National ranking Overall image/reputation of Palo Alto 90% 95%tile Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 79% 91%tile Sense of community 71% 72%tile Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 2010 (Palo Alto) The survey also asked residents to assess their involvement and interactions with neighbors. 92% of residents reported helping a friend or neighbor within the last 12 months, and 42% of residents talked or visited with their neighbors at least several times a week. Community characteristics Percent participation Benchmark Comparison Provided help to a friend or neighbor within last 12 months 92% Similar Talk or visit with your immediate neighbors at least several times per week 42% Much Less Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 2010 (Palo Alto) COMMUNITY AMENITIES In comparison to other jurisdictions, Palo Alto residents give high ratings to educational opportunities, ranking in the 96th percentile. 52% of residents rated Palo Alto’s employment opportunities as “good” or “excellent,” relatively unchanged from last year. This places Palo Alto in the 92nd percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. On the other hand, Palo Alto ranks in the 6th percentile when rating availability of affordable quality housing and the 13th percentile in availability of affordable quality child care. Community amenities Percent rating Palo Alto “good” or “excellent” National ranking Educational opportunities 90% 96%tile Employment opportunities 52% 92%tile Overall quality of business and service establishments 75% 79%tile Traffic flow on major streets 47% 56%tile Availability of preventive health services 67% 82%tile Availability of affordable quality health care 62% 83%tile Availability of affordable quality child care 25% 13%tile Variety of housing options 37% 9%tile Availability of affordable quality housing 15% 6%tile Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 2010 (Palo Alto) In 2010, the rate of population growth in Palo Alto was viewed as “too fast” by 49% of survey respondents. 48% said population growth was the “right amount.” - 3 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 - 4 - KEY DRIVER ANALYSIS The National Research Center conducted a Key Driver Analysis based on responses from Palo Alto’s annual National Citizen SurveyTM. Service areas that tend to influence residents’ perceptions of the City’s quality of services. The service areas that were identified included: public information services; land use; planning and zoning; police services; preservation of natural areas; and sidewalk maintenance. By focusing its efforts on improving the identified Key Driver services, the City may enhance its rating of overall service quality. Based on this year’s results, the City of Palo Alto was above the benchmark on public information services, land use, planning and zoning, police services, and preservation of natural areas. On the other hand, the City was below the benchmark in the area of sidewalk maintenance. Overall satisfaction with the City’s public information services remained stable at 67% this year, above the benchmark comparison. PALO ALTO CITY GOVERNMENT Palo Alto residents elect 9 members to the City Council. Council Members serve staggered 4-year terms. In November 2010, Palo Alto voters approved a change to even year election cycles, which extended the term of each current City Council member by one year. The Council also appoints a number of boards and commissions. Each January, the City Council appoints a new Mayor and Vice-Mayor and then adopts priorities for the calendar year. The City Council’s top 5 priorities for 2010 included: City Finances Land Use and Transportation Emergency Preparedness Environmental Sustainability Community Collaboration for Youth Well Being Palo Alto is a charter city, operating under a council/manager form of government. The City Council appoints the City Manager, City Attorney, City Auditor, and City Clerk. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY The City Auditor’s Office prepared this report in accordance with the City Auditor’s FY 2011 Work Plan. The scope of our review covered information and results for the City’s departments for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2009 and ending June 30, 2010 (FY 2010). We conducted this work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. These standards require that we plan and perform our work to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a CityAuditorCity Attorney CityManagerCity Clerk City Council Palo Alto Residents UtilitiesDepartment PoliceDepartment Public WorksDepartment Library Department Planning & Community Environment Fire Department HumanResources Department AdministrativeServices Department CommunityServices Department BACKGROUND reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our objectives. The City Auditor’s Office compiled, examined, and reviewed sources of departmental data on a sample basis in order to provide reasonable assurance that the data we compiled is accurate, however we did not conduct detailed testing of that data. We reviewed the data for reasonableness and consistency. We questioned or researched data that needed additional explanation. We did not, however, audit the reliability of all data. Our review was not intended to provide absolute assurance that all data elements provided by management are free from error. Rather, we intend to provide reasonable assurance that the data present a picture of the efforts and accomplishments of the City departments and programs. Prior year data may differ from previous SEA reports in some instances due to corrections or changes reported by City departments or other agencies. When possible, we have included in the report a brief explanation of internal or external factors that may have affected the performance results. However, while the report may offer insights on service results, it is for informational purposes and does not thoroughly analyze the causes of negative or positive performance. Some results or performance changes can be explained simply. For others, more detailed analysis by City departments or performance audits may be necessary to provide reliable explanation of the results. This report can help focus research on the most significant areas of interest or concern. SERVICE EFFORTS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORTING In 1994, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued Concepts Statement No. 2, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting. The statement broadly described “why external reporting of SEA measures is essential to assist users both in assessing accountability and in making informed decisions to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of governmental operations.” According to the statement, the objective of SEA reporting is to provide more complete information about a governmental entity’s performance than can be provided by the traditional financial statements and schedules, and to assist users in assessing the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of services provided. In 2003, GASB issued a special report on Reporting Performance Information: Suggested Criteria for Effective Communication that describes sixteen criteria state and local governments can use when preparing external reports on performance information.2 Using the GASB criteria, the Association of Government Accountants (AGA) initiated a Certificate of Excellence in Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting project in 2003, in which Palo Alto was a charter participant. The AGA awarded Palo Alto their Gold Award for the FY 2009 SEA Report and their Certificate of Excellence in Citizen Centric Reporting for Palo Alto’s first Citizen Centric Report. Palo Alto also became the first inductee into AGA’s Circle of Excellence in 2009, recognizing the City’s continued excellence in SEA reporting. These awards are AGA’s highest report distinctions making Palo Alto one of the top cities nationally for transparency and accountability in performance reports. In 2008, GASB issued Concept Statement No. 5, which amended Concept Statement No. 2 to reflect changes since the original statement was issued in 1994. In 2010, GASB issued “Suggested Guidelines for Voluntary Reporting of Service Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA) Performance Information.” The guidelines are intended to provide a common framework for the effective external communication of SEA performance information to assist users and governments. Other organizations including the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) have long been advocates of performance measurement in the public sector. For example, the ICMA Performance Measurement Program provides local government benchmarking information for a variety of public services. The City of Palo Alto has reported various performance indicators for a number of years. In particular, the City’s budget document includes “benchmarking” measures which are developed by staff and reviewed by the City Council as part of the annual budget process. Benchmarks include input, output, efficiency, and effectiveness measures. The SEA report includes some of these benchmarking measures, which are noted with the symbol “,” along with their current fiscal year targets. 2 A summary of the GASB special report on reporting performance information is online at http://www.seagov.org/sea_gasb_project/criteria_summary.pdf - 5 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 - 6 - SELECTION OF INDICATORS We limited the number and scope of workload and performance measures in this report to items where information was available, meaningful in the context of the City’s performance, and items we thought would be of general interest to the public. This report is not intended to be a complete set of performance measures for all users. From the outset of this project, we decided to use existing data sources to the extent possible. We reviewed existing benchmarking measures from the City’s adopted budget documents,3 performance measures and other financial reports from other jurisdictions and other professional organizations. We used audited information from the City’s CAFR.4 We cited departmental mission statements and performance targets5 that are taken from the City’s annual operating budget where they are subject to public scrutiny and City Council approval as part of the annual budget process. We held numerous discussions with City staff to determine what information was available and reliable, and best summarized the services they provide. Wherever possible we have included five years of data. Generally speaking, it takes at least three data points to show a trend. Although Palo Alto’s size precludes us from significantly disaggregating data (such as into districts), where program data was available, we disaggregated the information. For example, we have disaggregated performance information about some services based on age of participant, location of service, or other relevant factors. Indicators that are in alignment with the City’s Climate Protection Plan,6 Zero Waste Plan7 and/or sustainability goals are noted in the tables with an “S.” 3 The budget is on-line at www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/asd/budget.asp. The operating budget includes additional performance information. 4 The CAFR is on-line at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/asd/financial_reporting.asp. 5 The operating budget may include additional performance targets for the budget benchmarking measures that are noted in this document with the symbol “.” 6 More information about the City’s plan to protect the environment and other sustainability efforts is online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/environment. 7 More information about the City’s Zero Waste Plan is online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pwd/recycle/zero_waste_program.asp. Consistency of information is important to us. However, we occasionally add or delete some information that was included in a previous report. Performance measures and survey information that have changed since the last report are noted in the tables as <NEW> or <REVISED>. We will continue to use City Council, public, and staff feedback to ensure that the information items we include in this report are meaningful and useful. We welcome your input. Please contact us with suggestions at city.auditor@cityofpaloalto.org. THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEYTM The National Citizen SurveyTM is a collaborative effort between the National Research Center, Inc. (NRC), and ICMA.8 Respondents in each jurisdiction are selected at random. Participation is encouraged with multiple mailings and self-addressed, postage-paid envelopes. Results are statistically re-weighted, if necessary, to reflect the proper demographic composition of the entire community. Surveys were mailed to a total of 1,800 Palo Alto households in August and September 2010. Completed surveys were received from 624 residents, for a response rate of 36%. Typical response rates obtained on citizen surveys range from 25% to 40%. It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a “level of confidence” and accompanying “confidence interval” (or margin of error). A traditional level of confidence, and the one used here, is 95%. The 95% confidence interval can be any size and quantifies the sampling error or imprecision of the survey results because some residents' opinions are relied on to estimate all residents' opinions. The confidence interval for the City of Palo Alto survey is no greater than plus or minus four percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample (624 completed surveys). 8 The full report of Palo Alto’s survey results can be found in Attachments 1 and 2. The full text of previous survey results can be found in the appendices of our previous reports online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/aud/service_efforts_and_accomplishments.asp. BACKGROUND The scale on which respondents are asked to record their opinions about service and community quality is “excellent,” “good,” “fair,” and “poor.” Unless stated otherwise, the survey data included in this report displays the responses only from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item – “don’t know” answers have been removed. This report contains comparisons of survey data from prior years. Differences from the prior year can be considered “statistically significant” if they are greater than six percentage points. The NRC has collected citizen survey data from more than 500 jurisdictions in the United States. Inter-jurisdictional comparisons are available when similar questions are asked in at least five other jurisdictions. When comparisons are available, results are noted as being “above,” “below,” and “similar” to the benchmark. In instances where ratings are considerably higher or lower than the benchmark, these ratings have been further demarcated by the attribute of “much,” (for example, “much above, much below, much less, and much more”). For questions related to resident behavior, circumstance or to a local problem, the comparison to the benchmark is designated as “more,” “similar” or “less.” In 2006, the ICMA and NRC announced “Voice of the People” awards for surveys conducted in the prior year. To win, a jurisdiction’s National Citizen Survey rating for service quality must be one of the top three among all eligible jurisdictions and in the top 10% of over 500 jurisdictions in the NRC database of citizen surveys. Since the beginning of the award program, Palo Alto has won: 2005 – 5 categories: Emergency medical, Fire, Garbage collection, Park, and Police services 2006 – 4 categories: Emergency medical, Fire, Garbage collection, and Recreation services 2007 – 5 categories: Emergency medical, Fire, Garbage collection, Park, and Recreation services 2008 – 1 category: Garbage collection services 2009 – 1 category: Garbage collection services POPULATION Where applicable, we have used the most recent estimates of Palo Alto resident population from the California Department of Finance, as shown in the following table.9 Year Population FY 2006 62,096 FY 2007 62,245 FY 2008 63,080 FY 2009 64,480 FY2010 65,408 Percent change over last 5 years:+5.3% We used population figures from sources other than the Department of Finance for some comparisons to other jurisdictions, but only in cases where comparative data was available only on that basis. Some departments10 serve expanded service areas. For example, the Fire Department serves Palo Alto, Stanford, and Los Altos Hills (seasonally). The Regional Water Quality Control Plant serves Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford, and East Palo Alto. INFLATION Financial data has not been adjusted for inflation. In order to account for inflation, readers should keep in mind that the San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers has increased by 9% over the 5 years included in this report. 9 The Department of Finance periodically revises prior year estimates. Where applicable we used their revised population estimates to recalculate certain indicators in this report. 10 Additional information about the City’s departments can be found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/default.asp. - 7 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 - 8 - The index increased as follows: Date Index June 2006 209.1 June 2007 216.1 June 2008 225.2 June 2009 225.7 June 2010 228.1 Percent change over last 5 years:+9% Source: United States Department of Labor ROUNDING AND PERCENT CHANGE For readability, most numbers in this report are rounded. In some cases, tables or graphs may not add to 100% or to the exact total because of rounding. In most cases the calculated “percent change over the last five years” is based on the percentage change in the underlying numbers, not the rounded numbers and reflects the percentage change between the current fiscal year and the fiscal year from five years prior. Where the data is expressed in percentages, the change over five years is the difference between the first and last fiscal year. COMPARISONS TO OTHER CITIES Where possible we included comparisons to nearby California cities. The choice of the cities that we use for our comparisons may vary depending on whether data is easily available. Regardless of which cities are included, comparisons to other cities should be used carefully. We tried to include “apples to apples” comparisons, but differences in costing methodologies and program design may account for unexplained variances between cities. For example, the California State Controller’s Office gathers and publishes comparative financial information from all California cities.11 We used this information where possible, but noted that cities provide different levels of service and categorize expenditures in different ways. 11 California State Controller, Cities Annual Report Fiscal Year 2007-08 (http://www.sco.ca.gov/Files-ARD-Local/LocRep/cities0708revised.pdf). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report could not have been prepared without the cooperation and assistance of City management and staff from every City department. Our thanks to all of them for their help. We also want to thank the City Council and community members who reviewed last year’s report and provided thoughtful comments. We would also like to acknowledge our debt to the City of Portland Auditor’s Office that pioneered local government accountability for performance through its “City of Portland Service Efforts and Accomplishments” report – now in its 20th year of publication. CHAPTER 1 – OVERALL SPENDING, STAFFING, KEY RESIDENT PERCEPTIONS & COUNCIL PRIORITIES OVERALL SPENDING Palo Alto, like other cities, uses various funds to track specific activities. The General Fund tracks all general revenues and governmental functions including parks, fire, police, libraries, planning, public works, and support services. These services are supported by general City revenues and program fees. Enterprise funds are used to account for the City’s utilities (including water, electricity, gas, wastewater collection and treatment, refuse, and storm drains) and are generally supported by charges paid by users based on the amount of service used. The pie chart to the right shows how General Fund dollars are spent. The table below shows more detail. In FY 2010, the City’s General Fund expenditures and operating transfers totaled nearly $147 million. This included $14.5 million in transfers to other funds (including $9.9 million for capital projects and $1.0 million for debt service). Total General Fund operating expenditures and operating transfers increased from $140.8 million last year to $146.6 million in FY 2010. Over the last five years, total General Fund operating expenditures and operating transfers increased 15%, higher than inflation (9% over the same five-year period). How are General Fund dollars spent? Source: FY 2010 expenditure data General Fund operating expenditures and operating transfers (in millions) Administrative Departments1 Community Services Fire Library Planning and Community Environment Police Public Works Non- Departmental2 Operating Transfers Out3 TOTAL4 Enterprise fund’s operating expenses FY 2006 $15.3 $19.5 $20.2 $5.7 $9.4 $24.4 $11.3 $13.6 $8.0 $127.3 $183.7 FY 2007 $15.9 $19.8 $21.6 $5.8 $9.4 $25.9 $12.4 $8.5 $12.7 $132.0 $190.3 FY 2008 $17.4 $21.2 $24.0 $6.8 $9.6 $29.4 $12.9 $7.4 $13.6 $141.7 $215.8 FY 2009 $16.4 $21.1 $23.4 $6.2 $9.9 $28.3 $12.9 $6.8 $15.8 $140.8 $229.0 FY 2010 $18.1 $20.5 $27.7 $6.4 $9.4 $28.8 $12.5 $8.7 $14.5 $146.6 $218.6 Change over last 5 years: +18% +5% +37% +13% 0% +18% +10% -36% +83% +15% +19% 1 Includes the City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Council, City Auditor, Administrative Services Department, and Human Resources Department. 2 Includes payments to the Palo Alto Unified School District as part of the Cubberley lease and covenant not to develop ($6.6 million in FY 2010). 3 Includes transfers from the General Fund to the Capital Projects Fund, to the Retiree Health Fund, and debt service funds. 4 Expenditures shown in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports include appropriations, encumbrances, and other adjustments to the budgetary basis. - 9 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 - 10 - 1BPER CAPITA SPENDING There are at least two ways to look at per capita spending: annual spending (shown below) and net costP 1 P (shown on the right). As shown below, in FY 2010, General Fund operating expenditures and other uses of funds totaled $2,241 per Palo Alto resident, including operating transfers to fund the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). However, as shown on the right, General Fund departments generate revenues or are reimbursed for some of their activities by other jurisdictions and/or the enterprise funds. As a result, we estimate the net General Fund cost per resident in FY 2010 was about $1,645. Enterprise fund’s operating expenses totaled $3,342 per capita. Palo Alto’s enterprise funds include Electric, Gas, Water, Wastewater Collection, Wastewater Treatment, Refuse, Storm Drainage, Fiber Optic, and External Services. Enterprise funds generally operate like a business and charge fees to cover the cost of services. Net General Fund Cost Per Resident:P 1,2 FY 2010 Estimated per capita General Fund spending and other uses of fundsP 2 Per capitaP 2 Admin. Depts. Community Services FireP 3 Library Planning and Community Environment Police Public Works Non- Depart- mental Operating Transfers Out TOTAL Capital outlay Enterprise fund’s Operating Expenditures NET PER CAPITA SPENDING FY 2006 $246 $314 $325 $91 $151 $393 $182 $220 $128 $2,050 $213 $2,959 $1,371 FY 2007 $256 $319 $346 $93 $150 $416 $200 $137 $205 $2,121 $281 $3,057 $1,518 FY 2008 $275 $337 $380 $108 $153 $466 $205 $117 $204 $2,246 $343 $3,421 $1,616 FY 2009 $254 $328 $363 $97 $153 $438 $200 $106 $245 $2,184 $245 $3,552 $1,597 FY 2010 $276 $313 $424 $98 $144 $441 $190 $134 $222 $2,241 $324 $3,342 $1,645 Change over last 5 years: +12% 0% +31% +7% -3% +12% +4% -39% +73% +10% +52% +13% +20% P 1 PNet cost is defined as total program cost less the revenues/reimbursements generated by the specific activities. P 2 PWhere applicable, prior year per capita costs have been recalculated based on revised population estimates from the California Department of Finance. P 3 PNot adjusted for Fire Department’s expanded service area. P 4 PIncludes $6.6 million paid to the Palo Alto Unified School District On a per capita basis, FY 2010 net General Fund costsP 1 P of $1,645 included: $366 for police services $262 for fire and emergency medical services $222 in operating transfers out (including $151 in transfers for capital projects) $202 for community services $158 for administrative and strategic support services $148 for public works $134 for non-departmental expensesP 4 $93 for library services $60 for planning, building, code enforcement Chapter 1 – OVERALL - 11 - 2BAUTHORIZED STAFFING City staffing was measured in full-time equivalent staff, or FTE. In FY 2010, there were a total of 1,151 authorized FTE citywide – including 705 authorized FTE in General Fund departments, and 446 authorized FTE in other funds.P 1 P 153 authorized FTE were vacant as of June 30, 2010. Over the last five years, total General Fund FTE (including authorized temporary and hourly positions) has decreased by 2% while total overall staffing in other funds has increased 3% over the same period. Total Full-time Equivalent Staff (includes authorized temporary staffing) Source: City operating budgets P1 PIncludes authorized temporary and hourly positions and allocated departmental administration. P2 P Includes the Technology Fund, Capital Fund, Special Revenue, and Internal Service Funds. Total General Fund authorized staffing (FTEP 1 P) Total other authorized staffing (FTEP 1 P) Admin. Depts. Community Services Fire Library Planning and Community Environment Police Public Works Subtotal Refuse Fund Storm Drainage Fund Wastewater Treatment Fund Electric, Gas, Water, and Wastewater OtherP 2 Subtotal TOTAL (FTEP 1 P) FY 2006 98 146 126 57 53 169 69 718 35 10 69 241 78 432 1,150 FY 2007 100 148 128 57 55 168 68 725 35 10 69 243 78 435 1,160 FY 2008 108 147 128 56 54 169 71 733 35 10 69 244 78 436 1,168 FY 2009 102 146 128 57 54 170 71 727 35 10 70 235 74 423 1,150 FY 2010 95 146 127 55 50 167 65 705 38 10 70 252 77 446 1,151 Change over last 5 years: -3% 0% 0% -3% -6% -1% -5% -2% +8% 0% +1% +4% 0% +3% 0% Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 - 12 - 3BAUTHORIZED STAFFING (cont.) As shown in the graph to the right, Palo Alto had more employees per 1,000 residents than several other local jurisdictions. However, differences in service delivery may make staffing comparisons between cities problematic – for example, Palo Alto offers a full complement of utility services and Palo Alto employees provide some services to other jurisdictions that are reimbursed by those jurisdictions (e.g., fire, dispatch, water treatment, and animal control). Citywide regular authorized staffing decreased 2% over the past five years from 1,074 to 1,055 FTE. Authorized temporary staffing increased from 76 FTE to 95 FTE citywide. Of total staffing, about 8% is temporary or hourly. While General Fund salaries and wages decreased from $59.6 million last year to $56.6 million in FY 2010, General Fund overtime expenditures and employee benefits increased during this same period. Over the last five years, General Fund salaries and wages (not including overtime) increased 7%. Over the same period, employee benefit expenses increased 17%, from $26.4 million (49% of salaries and wages) to $30.9 million (55% of salaries and wages).P 3 Employees Per 1,000 Residents Source: Cities’ Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and Operating Budgets Regular authorized staffing citywide (FTE) Authorized temporary staffing citywide (FTE) Total authorized staffing citywide (FTE) Total authorized staffing per 1,000 residents General Fund salaries and wagesP 1 (in millions) General Fund overtime General Fund employee benefits Employee benefits rateP 2 Employee costs as a percent of total General Fund expenditures FY 2006 1,074 76 1,150 18.5 $53.2 $3.4 $26.4 49% 64% FY 2007 1,080 80 1,160 18.6 $53.9 $4.0 $26.1 48% 65% FY 2008 1,077 91 1,168 18.5 $57.3 $4.2 $29.8 52% 64% FY 2009 1,076 74 1,150 17.8 $59.6 $3.7 $28.3 48% 65% FY 2010 1,055 95 1,151 17.6 $56.6 $4.5 $30.9 55% 63% Change over last 5 years: -2% +26% 0% -4% +7% +35% +17% +6% -1% P1 PDoes not include overtime P2 P“Employee benefits rate” is General Fund benefit costs as a percentage of General Fund salaries and wages, not including overtime. P3 P For more information on projected salary and benefits costs see the City of Palo Alto Long Range Financial Forecast at HTUhttp://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/asd/financial_reporting.aspUTH Chapter 1 – OVERALL - 13 - 4BCAPITAL SPENDING The City’s Infrastructure Reserve (IR) was created as a mechanism to accumulate funding for an Infrastructure Rehabilitation Program to repair and renovate existing City infrastructure. According to the FY 2011 Adopted Capital Budget, the City’s current infrastructure backlog totaled $153 million in FY 2010. Total identified infrastructure needs through 2028 are estimated at $302 million. The IR is partially funded by annual commitments from the City’s General and enterprise funds. With the implementation of GASB Statement 34 in FY 2002, the City records all capital assets in the citywide financial statements.P 2 P Capital assets are valued at historical cost, net of accumulated depreciation. This includes buildings and structures, vehicles and equipment, roadways, and utility distribution systems. As of June 30, 2010, net capital assets totaled $376 million (16% more than 5 years ago). As shown in the graph on the right, capital outlay by governmental fundsP 1 P has increased over ten years ago. The General Fund invested $89.4 million in capital projects over the last 5 years. The Infrastructure Reserve fell to $8.6 million (compared to $20.7 million 5 years ago). The enterprise funds invested $29.7 million in capital projects in FY 2010, for a total of $150.5 million over the last 5 years. As of June 30, 2010, net enterprise funds capital assets totaled $450.3 million. Capital Outlay – Government Funds (in millions)P 1 Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports General governmental funds (in millions) Enterprise funds (in millions) Infrastructure Reserve (in thousands) Net capital assets Capital outlay (governmental funds) Depreciation Net Enterprise Funds capital assets Capital expense Depreciation FY 2006 $20.7 $324.8 $13.2 $12.3 $360.9 $20.3 $11.8 FY 2007 $15.8 $335.7 $17.5 $11.0 $383.8 $28.9 $12.7 FY 2008 $17.9 $351.9 $21.6 $11.2 $416.6 $36.1 $12.7 FY 2009 $7.0 $364.3 $15.8 $9.6 $426.1 $36.2 $13.6 FY 2010 $8.6 $376.0 $21.2 $14.4 $450.3 $29.7 $15.3 Change over last 5 years: -58% +16% +60% +17% +25% +47% +29% P 1 PIncludes capital expenditures in the General Fund, Capital Projects and Special Revenue funds. Does not include capital expense associated with Utility or other funds. P 2 PThe City’s financial statements are on-line at HTUhttp://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/asd/financial_reporting.aspUTH. Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 - 14 - 5BKEY RESIDENT PERCEPTIONS AND COUNCIL PRIORITIES As seen in the chart on the right, Palo Alto received high ratings for several key resident measures. Nationally, Palo Alto ranked in the 93P rd P percentile for overall quality of life, 72P nd P percentile for sense of community and 91P st P percentile for openness and acceptance toward diverse backgrounds. In 2010, the Mayor’s State of the City address outlined five intertwined issues as the most important challenges facing the City: City Finances Land Use and Transportation Emergency Preparation Community Collaboration for Youth Well Being Environmental Sustainability In most priority areas, Palo Alto continues to receive high rankings compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. In the areas of economic development, environmental sustainability and services to youth the City was above the national average, and the City received similar ratings to other surveyed jurisdictions for emergency preparedness. However, the City’s rankings related to land use are below the national average. Survey respondents were asked to rate their support for future fiscal measures to help keep revenues in line with expenditures. 85% of survey respondents “strongly” or “somewhat” supported pursuing a new revenue source for specific projects such as capital projects, roads, and recreation. Only 41% of survey respondents “strongly” or “somewhat” supported further reductions of City services and programs. 2010 Palo Alto Resident Survey: Key Resident Ratings Over Time (Percent rating “good” or “excellent”) Source: 2010 National Citizen Survey™ (Palo Alto) Citizen Survey City Finances Land Use and Transportation Emergency Preparedness Environmental Sustainability Youth Well-being Percent rating economic development services “good” or “excellent” Percent rating infrastructure investment “good” or “excellent” Percent rating overall quality of new development in Palo Alto “good” or “excellent” Percent rating emergency preparedness services “good” or “excellent” Percent rating overall quality of natural environment “good” or “excellent” Percent rating preservation of natural areas “good” or “excellent” Percent rating services to youth “good” or “excellent” FY 2006 61% - 62% - - - 70% FY 2007 62% - 57% - - - 73% FY 2008 63% - 57% 71% 85% 78% 73% FY 2009 54% 56% 55% 62% 84% 82% 75% FY 2010 49% 54% 53% 59% 84% 78% 70% Change over last 5 years: -12% - -9% - - - 0% CHAPTER 2 - COMMUNITY SERVICES The mission of the Community Services Department is to engage individuals and families in creating a strong and healthy community through parks, recreation, social services, arts and sciences. In FY 2010, the Department operated with four divisions: Arts and Sciences provides visual and performing arts, music and dance, and science programs to adults and youth while responding to increased demand for family programs such as the Junior Museum and Zoo, the Children’s Theatre, and interpretive programs. Open Space and Parks is responsible for the conservation and maintenance of more than 4,000 acres of urban and open space parkland and provides ecology and natural history interpretive programs for youth and adults through campfires, special interest nature programs, and guided walks. Recreation and Golf Services provides a diverse range of programs and activities for the community, and focuses on creating a culture of fitness and healthy living by encouraging individuals and families to participate in creative and fun activities. Cubberley Community Center and Human Services hosts community artists, dance groups, children centers, Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Adult Education, Foothill College, and many non-profit groups. On its 35-acre campus, the center provides a full array of facilities including fields, tennis courts, a track, gymnasiums, an auditorium, a theatre, and classrooms which are available for public rental. Human Services provides assistance to people in need, including grants to non-profit organizations and comprehensive information about resources for the entire community. However, in FY 2011 the Department will reorganize into three divisions: Arts & Sciences; Open Space, Parks, & Golf; and Recreation and Cubberley Community Center. What is the source of Community Services funding? How are Community Service dollars spent? Source: FY 2010 revenue and expenditure data - 15 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 SPENDING Total Community Services Department spending increased by approximately 5% in the last five years. The Department’s reorganization in FY 2008 has resulted in an increase of 54% in Arts and Sciences expenditures in the last five years due to the transfer of the Science and Interpretive program expenditures into the Arts and Sciences Division. Total Community Services Department staffing of 146 full-time equivalents (FTE) has generally not changed over the last five years, although the number of temporary employees has increased 8% over this period. In FY 2010, temporary or hourly staffing accounted for about 36% of the Department’s total staffing. Total authorized staffing per thousand residents decreased 5% over the previous five years. Palo Alto’s expenditures per capita for parks, recreation, and community centers were the second highest compared with seven other nearby cities in FY 2008. It should be noted that each jurisdiction offers different levels of service and budgets for those services accordingly. Palo Alto data includes expenditures related to nearly 4,000 acres of open space, human services programs, Cubberley Community Center, and unique services such as the Art Center, the Children’s Theatre, and the Junior Museum and Zoo. Comparison for Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Operating Expenditures Per Capita: FY 2008 Source: California State Controller, Cities Annual Report Fiscal Year 07-08 Operating expenditures (in millions) Arts and Sciences1 Open Space and Parks Recreation and Golf Services Cubberley Community Center & Human Services Total Operating Expense Operating Expenditures Per Capita Total Revenues (in millions) 2 Total FTEs Temporary Percent of Temporary FTEs Authorized staffing per 1,000 population FY 2006 $3.2 $6.1 $6.7 $3.5 $19.5 $314 $9.0 146 48 33% 2.3 FY 2007 $3.1 $6.3 $7.0 $3.4 $19.8 $319 $9.3 148 49 33% 2.4 FY 2008 $4.4 $6.8 $6.4 $3.7 $21.2 $337 $9.8 147 49 34% 2.3 FY 2009 $4.7 $6.6 $6.4 $3.5 $21.1 $328 $10.5 146 49 34% 2.3 FY 2010 $4.9 $6.2 $6.1 $3.2 $20.5 $313 $9.8 146 52 36% 2.2 Change over last 5 years: +54% +2% -8% -8% +5% 0% +8% 0% +8% +3% -5% 1 Operating costs were combined to match the Department’s reorganization in FY 2008. Youth Sciences expense data could not be segregated from Recreation expenses and are excluded from Arts and Sciences costs for FY 2006 through FY 2007. 2 Revenues include rental revenue generated at the Cubberley Community Center that is passed through to the Palo Alto Unified School District per the City’s agreement with the school district. - 16 - Chapter 2 – COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT-WIDE CLASSES Through its divisions, Community Services offers classes to the public on a variety of topics including recreation and sports, arts and culture, nature and the outdoors. Classes for children include aquatics, sports, digital art, animation, music, and dance. Other classes are targeted specifically for adults, senior citizens and pre-schoolers. In FY 2010, 162 camp sessions were offered for kids. Over the last five years, the number of camps offered increased by 6% and total enrollment in camps increased by 1%. The number of kids classes (excluding camps) offered increased by 31%, but enrollment in kids classes decreased by 5%. Enrollment in adult classes decreased by 24% and the number of classes offered for adults increased by 11%. In FY 2010, the percent of class registrations completed online increased 14% compared to five years earlier. Enrollment in Community Services Classes (Residents vs. Non-Residents) FY 2010 Source: Community Services Department Total number of classes/camps offered1 Total enrollment1 Camp sessions Kids (excluding camps) Adults Pre- school Total (Target: 865) Camps Kids (excluding camps) Adults Pre-school Total Percent of class registrations online (Target: 45%) Percent of class registrants who are non- residents FY 2006 153 235 294 160 842 5,906 4,604 5,485 3,628 19,623 41% 15% FY 2007 145 206 318 137 806 5,843 4,376 4,936 3,278 18,433 42% 13% FY 2008 151 253 327 143 874 5,883 4,824 4,974 3,337 19,018 43% 15% FY 2009 160 315 349 161 985 6,010 4,272 4,288 3,038 17,608 45% 13% FY 2010 162 308 325 153 948 5,974 4,373 4,190 2,829 17,366 55% 14% Change over last 5 years: +6% +31% +11% -4% +13% +1% -5% -24% -22% -12% +14% -1% 1 Data shown is in format available from Community Services registration system. Types of classes offered include arts, sports, nature and outdoors, and recreation. Budget benchmarking measure. Targets shown are for FY 2010. - 17 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 ARTS AND SCIENCES DIVISION ARTS The Arts and Sciences Division provides a broad range of arts-related enrichment programs including the Palo Alto Art Center, Children’s Theatre, Lucie Stern Community Theatre, Art in Public Places, music and dance programs, and concerts. There were 174 performances at the Community Theatre in FY 2010, 5% less than in FY 2006. The number of registrants at the Children’s Theatre classes, camps, and workshops has increased 141% from five years ago, which the Department attributes to offering year round arts-based education and a new program to teach theater classes in Palo Alto Unified School District schools. The Art Center had about 17,200 exhibition visitors and presented 41 concerts in FY 2010. Total attendance decreased 18% from about 73,300 in FY 2006 to about 60,400 in FY 2010. According to the Department, the decline in visitors may be attributed to decreases in publicity and ability to consistently track attendance. The Department also noted the variety of exhibits appeals to different audiences and can affect attendance. Outside funding for visual arts programs was 23% less than it was in FY 2006. In FY 2010, 75% of residents rated art programs and theater as “good” or “excellent.” Enrollment in Art Classes, Camps, and Workshops: FY 2006 to FY 2010 Source: Community Services Department Community Theater Children’s Theater Art Center1 Number of performances Attendance at performances Music & Dance Class Enrollees Attendance at performances (Target: 21,000) Participants in performances and programs (Target: 1,200) Theater class, camp and workshop registrants (Target: 400) Exhibition visitors Concerts2 Total attendance (users) (Target: 70,000) Enrollment in art classes, camps, and workshops (adults and children) Outside funding for visual arts programs Attendance at Project LOOK! tours and family days3 (Target: 7,000) FY 2006 183 55,204 1,416 22,788 1,670 597 19,448 59 73,305 4,137 $284,838 6,191 FY 2007 171 45,571 1,195 23,117 1,845 472 16,191 43 70,387 3,956 $345,822 6,855 FY 2008 166 45,676 982 19,811 1,107 407 17,198 42 69,255 3,913 $398,052 6,900 FY 2009 159 46,609 964 14,786 5345 334 15,830 41 58,194 3,712 $264,580 8,353 FY 2010 174 44,221 980 24,983 555 1,4364 17,244 41 60,375 3,304 $219,000 8,618 Change over last 5 years: -5% -20% -31% +10% -67% 141% -11% -31% -18% -20% -23% +39% 1 Volunteer hours in FY 2010 totaled 4,060 hours. 2 All of the concerts are part of the Community Theatre program, though some are performed at the Art Center. 3 Project LOOK! Offers docent-led tours of exhibitions at the Palo Alto Art Center to K-12th grade school groups. Tours are followed by a hands-on activity at the Project LOOK! Studio, including art tours to students from East Palo Alto and Palo Alto. 4 The Department attributes this increase to a new program where the Children’s Theatre is under contract to bring theatre performances to local schools. 5 The Department partly attributes this decline to reformatting its programming and methods for calculating Children’s Theater participants. Budget benchmarking measure. Targets shown are for FY 2010. - 18 - Chapter 2 – COMMUNITY SERVICES ARTS AND SCIENCES DIVISION (cont.) YOUTH SCIENCES The Arts and Sciences Division provides science programs to adults and youth while responding to increased demand for family programs. Through public and non-profit partnerships, the division will continue to work with the community to develop support and advocacy for its programs and facilities. 70% of the residents rated youth services as “good” or “excellent,” placing Palo Alto in the 79th percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. Arts and Sciences will continue to administer and manage the Junior Museum and Zoo. Founded in 1934, the Junior Museum was the first children’s museum west of the Mississippi, and continues to be a local leader in children’s science education. The Zoo opened in 1969. The Junior Museum and Zoo provides summer camps, outreach programs, and exhibits for area children. According to the Department, the Division has increased resources for nature interpretive programs and activities with a focus on generating revenue. The number of outreach programs and enrollment in open space interpretive classes has increased from five years ago. Junior Museum Enrollment and Outreach Participants: FY 2006 to FY 2010 Source: Community Services Department Junior Museum and Zoo Interpretive Sciences Citizen Survey Enrollment in Junior Museum classes and camps1, 2 Estimated number of outreach participants2 Number of Arastradero, Baylands, & Foothill outreach programs for school-age children Enrollment in open space interpretive classes Percent rating services to youth “good” or “excellent” FY 2006 1,832 2,414 48 1,280 70% FY 2007 1,805 2,532 63 1,226 73% FY 2008 2,0893 2,7223 854 2,6893 73% FY 2009 2,054 3,300 1784 2,615 75% FY 2010 2,4335 6,9715 208 3,978 70% Change over last 5 years: +33% +189% + 333% +211% 0% 1 Classes and camps are paid for by parents who enroll their children. Enrollment shown here is also reflected in totals on "Department-wide Classes" page 2 Outreach includes interpretive programs. These are programs paid for by the schools, whether they are taught at the schools or at the Junior Museum and Zoo. 3 FY 2008 increase includes 651 visitors at special request programs. 4 FY 2008 increase includes Foothills Ohlone programs and FY 2009 increase staff attributes to a contract entered into with two more schools (Hoover and Duveneck) for outreach science classes. 5 FY 2010 increase staff attributes to additional contracts to teach science in the PAUSD and grant funding to teach science in Ravenswood School District (East Palo Alto). - 19 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 OPEN SPACE AND PARKS DIVISION OPEN SPACE The City has 3,744 acres1 of open space that it maintains, consisting of Foothills Park, Baylands Nature Preserve (including Byxbee Park), Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, and Esther Clark Nature Preserve. In FY 2010, there were about 57 acres of open space per 1,000 residents. Palo Alto was in the 92nd percentile for open space preservation and ranked 12th nationally compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. Average open space is 535 acres per park ranger. Palo Alto also ranked in the 80th percentile for the quality of the overall natural environment compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. Beginning in FY 2009, the survey included a new question to assess preservation of wildlife and plants. 85% of residents rated preservation of wildlife and native plants “good” or “excellent.” Volunteer hours for restorative/resource management projects has increased 55% from five years ago, which the Department attributes to a strategic initiative to recruit, train, and retain volunteers to address the City Council Priority of environmental ustainability. s Foothills Park Attendance FY 2006 – FY 2010 Source: Community Services Department Citizen Survey Visitors at Foothills Park (Target: 140,000) Volunteer hours for restorative/resource management projects2 (Target: 14,500) Number of native plants in restoration projects (Target: 14,000) Number of Rangers (Target: 7) Percent rating preservation of wildlife and native plants “good” or “excellent” Percent rating quality of overall natural environment “good” or “excellent” Percent rating preservation of natural areas such as open space “good” or “excellent” (Target: 82%) Percent rating availability of paths and walking trails “good” or “excellent” (Target: 80%) FY 2006 127,457 10,738 15,516 7 - - - - FY 2007 140,437 11,380 14,023 7 - - - - FY 2008 135,001 13,572 13,893 7 - 85% 78% 74% FY 2009 135,110 16,169 11,934 7 87% 84% 82% 75% FY 2010 149,298 16,655 11,303 7 85% 84% 78% 75% Change over last 5 years: +17 % +55% -27% 0% - - - - 1 Does not include the 269 acres of developed parks and land maintained by the Parks section or the Recreation and Golf Division. Neither does this include 2,200 acres of Montebello Open Space Preserve and 200 acres of Los Trancos Open Space Preserve that are operated by the Mid-Peninsula Open Space District. 2 Includes collaborative partnerships with non-profit groups. Staff attributes the increase in volunteer hours primarily to the Baylands Nature Preserve through Save the Bay (non-profit partner) activities and the use of court-referred (community service hours) volunteers. Budget benchmarking measure. Targets shown are for FY 2010. - 20 - Chapter 2 – COMMUNITY SERVICES OPEN SPACE AND PARKS DIVISION (cont.) PARKS AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE Open Space and Parks Division maintains approximately 269 acres of land including: Urban/neighborhood parks (157 acres) 1 City facilities (26 acres) School athletic fields (43 acres) Utility sites (11 acres) Median strips (27 acres) Business Districts and parking lots (5 acres) As shown in the graph on the right, volunteer hours for neighborhood parks has increased 73% from five years ago. In FY 2010, maintenance spending on the above acres totaled about $4.1 million, or approximately $15,413 per acre. The Department contracted out approximately 21% of its park maintenance expenditures in FY 2010, an 8% decrease from five years ago. 90% of residents responding to the survey rate City parks “good” or “excellent,” and 88% rate their neighborhood park “good” or “excellent.” 94% of survey respondents reported they visited a neighborhood or City park in the last 12 months, which ranks in the 92nd percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. Volunteer Hours for Neighborhood Parks: FY 2006 to FY 2010 Source: Community Services Department Maintenance Expenditures (in millions) 2 Citizen Survey Parks and landscape maintenance (in millions) Athletic fields in City parks4 (in millions) Athletic fields on school district sites3, 4 (in millions) Total maintenance cost per acre Total hours of Number of permits issued for special events athletic field usage Volunteer hours for neighbor- hood parks Number of participants in community gardening program Percent rating City parks as “good” or “excellent” Percent rating their neighborhood park “good” or “excellent” FY 2006 $2.5 $0.6 $0.6 $14,302 65,791 16 150 223 87% 87% FY 2007 $2.7 $0.6 $0.7 $15,042 70,769 22 150 231 91% 89% FY 2008 $2.9 $0.6 $0.7 $15,931 63,212 22 180 233 89% 86% FY 2009 $3.0 $0.7 $0.7 $16,940 45,762 35 212 238 92% 87% FY 2010 $3.0 $0.5 $0.6 $15,413 41,705 12 260 238 90% 88% Change over last 5 years: +22% -16% -7% +8% -37% -25% +73% +7% +3% +1% 1 Does not include 3,744 acres of open space discussed on the previous page. 2 Includes budgeted operating expenditures. Does not include cost plan charges or capital costs. 3 Palo Alto Unified School District partially reimburses the City for maintenance costs on these school district sites. 4 Special use permits are issued for special events in parks, fun runs, tournaments, festivals, etc. - 21 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 RECREATION AND GOLF SERVICES DIVISION RECREATION The Department offers a large number of recreation programs. Besides summer camps, recreation programs include aquatics, facility rentals (through which members of the community may rent meeting room and event space, the swimming pool or gym space for parties and events, field and picnic sites) and a variety of youth and teen programs. In addition to class offerings for adults, the Department coordinates seasonal adult sports leagues and sponsors special events each year such as the May Fete Parade and the Chili Cook-Off. The Department also works collaboratively with the PAUSD to provide middle school athletics in conjunction with the PAUSD’s summer school program. Enrollment in dance and recreation classes decreased from five years ago. However, aquatics classes increased 30%, summer camps increased 1%, middle school sports classes increased 5%, and private tennis lessons increased 97% over the same period. Compared to other jurisdictions, Palo Alto ranked in the 78th percentile nationally for its recreational programs and classes and in the 71st percentile for recreation centers and facilities compared to other jurisdictions. Trends in Enrollment for Large Recreational Classes: FY 2006 to FY 2010 Source: Community Services Department Enrollment in Recreation Programs1 Citizen Survey Dance Recreation Aquatics Middle school sports Therapeutic Private tennis lessons Summer Camps Percent rating recreation centers/ facilities “good” or “excellent” Percent rating recreation programs/classes “good” or “excellent” (Target: 90%) FY 2006 1,326 5,681 199 1,247 175 234 5,906 81% 85% FY 2007 1,195 5,304 225 1,391 228 274 5,843 82% 90% FY 2008 1,129 4,712 182 1,396 203 346 5,883 77% 87% FY 2009 1,075 3,750 266 1,393 153 444 6,010 80% 85% FY 2010 972 3,726 259 1,309 180 460 5,974 81% 82% Change over last 5 years: -27% -34% +30% +5% +3% +97% +1% 0% -3% 1 Enrollment shown here is also reflected in totals on "Department-wide Classes" page. Classes and camps are paid for by parents who selectively enroll their children. Budget benchmarking measure. Targets shown are for FY 2010. - 22 - Chapter 2 – COMMUNITY SERVICES RECREATION AND GOLF SERVICES DIVISION (cont.) GOLF COURSE The golf facility consists of a 18-hole championship length course, lighted driving range, full service restaurant and bar, fully stocked golf shop, practice putting green area, and bunker and golf carts with canopy tops. The Department coordinates the golf shop, driving range, and restaurant operations with separate tenants. According to the Department, the number of rounds of golf has decreased 8% to 69,791 from 76,000 five years ago. The golf course reported profits in three of the last five years and losses in two of the last five years. The profit in FY 2006 was $148,154; profit in FY 2007 was $43,015; loss in FY 2008 was $23,487; loss in FY 2009 was $326,010; profit in FY 2010 was $76,146. Rounds of Golf: FY 2006 to FY 2010 Source: Community Services Department Number of rounds of golf (Target: 76,092) Golf course revenue (in millions) Golf course operating expenditures1 (in millions) (Target: $2.3) Golf course debt service (in millions) Net revenue/ (cost) (in thousands) FY 2006 76,000 $3.0 $2.3 $0.6 $148.2 FY 2007 76,241 $3.1 $2.5 $0.6 $43.0 FY 2008 74,630 $3.2 $2.2 $0.7 ($23.5) FY 2009 72,170 $3.0 $2.4 $0.7 ($326.0) FY 2010 69,791 $3.0 $2.3 $0.6 $76.1 Change over last 5 years:1 -8% 0% 0% 0% -49% 1 Includes allocated charges and overhead. Budget benchmarking measure. Targets shown are for FY 2010. - 23 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 - 24 - CUBBERLEY COMMUNITY CENTER AND HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION Cubberley Community Center rents space for community meetings, seminars, social events, dances, theater performances, and athletic events. In FY 2010, rental revenue decreased from the year prior to about $928,000. Total hours rented increased slightly from the previous year, but declined 8% to approximately 35,300 hours from FY 2006. In FY 2010, the Cubberley Community Center’s auditorium was converted to house the temporary Mitchell Park Library which the Department attributes for the decrease in rental revenue. The Cubberley Community Center also leases former classroom space to artists and Foothill College. In FY 2010, there were 41 leaseholders and lease revenue increased 23% from five years ago to about $1.6 million. The Human Services section provides information on resources for families and grants to local non-profits. Human Services grants to local non-profits totaled approximately than $1.1 million in FY 2010, about 11% less than in FY 2006. Compared to other surveyed jurisdictions, Palo Alto ranked in the 90th percentile for services to seniors. Residents gave lower marks when rating access to affordable quality child care, and Palo Alto ranked in the 13th percentile. Cubberley Community Center Use: FY 2010 Source: Community Services Department Cubberley Community Center Human Services Citizen Survey Hours rented (Target: 33,000) Hourly rental revenue (in millions) (Target: $0.9) Number of lease- holders Lease revenue (in millions) Human Services’ grants to local non- profits (in millions) (Target: $1.1) Percent rating access to affordable quality child care “good” or “excellent” Percent rating senior services “good” or “excellent” (Target: 83%) FY 2006 38,407 $0.9 38 $1.3 $1.3 35% 84% FY 2007 36,489 $0.8 39 $1.4 $1.3 26% 79% FY 2008 32,288 $0.9 39 $1.5 $1.2 28% 81% FY 2009 34,874 $1.0 37 $1.4 $1.2 32% 82% FY 2010 35,268 $0.9 41 $1.6 $1.1 25% 79% Change over last 5 years: -8% +5% +8% +23% -11% -10% +5% Budget benchmarking measure. Targets shown are for FY 2010. CHAPTER 3 – FIRE The mission of the Fire Department is to protect life, property and the environment from the perils of fire, hazardous materials, and other disasters through rapid emergency response, proactive code enforcement, modern fire prevention methods, and progressive public safety education for the community. The Department has four major functional areas: Emergency response – emergency readiness and medical, fire suppression, and hazardous materials response. Environmental and safety management – fire and hazardous materials code research, development and enforcement; fire cause investigations; public education; and disaster preparedness. Training and personnel management. Records and information management. The Department serves the resident population of Palo Alto and Stanford with a combined population of nearly 79,000. Fire Department revenue in FY 2010 totaled $10.7 million (or 39% of costs), including about $6.9 million for services to Stanford and the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC), $2.2 million for paramedic services, $0.4 million in plan check fees, $0.4 million in hazardous materials permits, and $0.7 million in other revenues and reimbursements. What is the source of Fire Department funding? How are Fire Department dollars spent? Source: FY 2010 revenue and expenditure data - 25 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 FIRE SPENDING Over the last five years: Total Fire Department spending increased from $20.2 million to $27.7 million, or 37% in the last five years. Total expenditures per resident served increased from $267 to $352. Revenue and reimbursements increased 14% (from $9.4 million to $10.7 million); 39% of costs were covered by revenues, in FY 2010. The chart on the right shows that Palo Alto’s net Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) expenditures per capita are in the middle of the range compared to several other local jurisdictions. However, the California State Controller does not include calculations for Stanford. In the most recent citizen survey, 93% of residents rated fire services as “good” or “excellent,” and 79% rated fire prevention and education as “good” or “excellent.” Comparison Net Fire and EMS Expenditures Per Capita: FY 20082 Source: California State Controller, Cities Annual Report Fiscal Year 2007-08 Operating expenditures (in millions) Citizen Survey Emergency response Environmental and fire safety Training and personnel management Records and information TOTAL Resident population of area served1 Expenditures per resident served1 Revenue (in millions) Percent rating fire services “good” or “excellent” (Target: 90%) Percent rating fire prevention and education “good” or “excellent” (Target: 85%) FY 2006 $15.0 $2.1 $2.1 $0.9 $20.2 75,411 $267 $9.4 95% 84% FY 2007 $16.2 $2.2 $2.2 $1.0 $21.6 75,560 $285 $9.9 98% 86% FY 2008 $17.9 $2.6 $2.5 $1.1 $24.0 76,395 $314 $9.7 96% 87% FY 2009 $17.7 $2.3 $2.4 $1.0 $23.4 77,795 $301 $11.4 95% 80% FY 2010 $21.0 $2.8 $2.9 $1.1 $27.7 78,723 $352 $10.7 93% 79% Change over ast 5 years: l +39% +29% +40% +21% +37% +4% +32% +14% -2% -5% 1 Based on number of residents in the Fire Department’s expanded service area (Palo Alto and Stanford). Prior year population revised per California Department of Finance estimates. 2 Expenditures are net of functional revenues and may not reconcile to total spending due to differences in the way the information was compiled. Note that cities categorize their expenditures in different ways. Budget benchmarking measure. Targets shown are for FY 2010. - 26 - Chapter 3 - FIRE FIRE STAFFING AND CALLS FOR SERVICE During FY 2010, the Fire Department handled 7,468 calls for service (an average of 20 calls per day) including: 182 fire calls 4,432 medical/rescue calls 1,013 false alarms 444 service calls 151 hazardous condition calls The Palo Alto Fire Department has a total of 8 fire stations including Stanford. As shown in the chart on the right, the number of residents served per fire station is lower than many other local jurisdictions. Average on duty staffing is 31 during the day, and 29 at night. In FY 2010, the Department had 109 line personnel certified as emergency medical technicians (EMTs) and 34 of these were also certified paramedics. In addition, 3 FTE from the Department’s Basic Life Support (BLS) transport program provided EMT services. Palo Alto and Stanford Population Served Per Fire Station: FY 2010 Source: Cities, California Department of Finance, U.S. Census Bureau Palo Alto calculation excludes Station 7 (dedicated to SLAC) and Station 8 (seasonal). Calls for service Staffing Fire (Target: 250) Medical/ rescue (Target: 3,800) False alarms Service calls Hazardous condition (Target: 200) Other TOTAL (Target: 7,000) Average number of calls per day Total authorized staffing (FTE) Staffing per 1,000 residents served1 Average on-duty staffing Annual training hours per firefighter Overtime as a percent of regular salaries Resident population served per fire station1,2 FY 2006 211 3,780 1,184 399 203 1,120 6,897 19 126 1.68 31 day/29 night 288 18% 12,569 FY 2007 221 3,951 1,276 362 199 1,227 7,236 20 128 1.69 31 day/29 night 235 21% 12,593 FY 2008 192 4,552 1,119 401 169 1,290 7,723 21 128 1.68 31 day/29 night 246 18% 12,733 FY 2009 239 4,509 1,065 328 165 1,243 7,549 21 128 1.64 31 day/29 night 223 16% 12,966 FY 2010 182 4,432 1,013 444 151 1,246 7,468 20 127 1.61 31 day/29 night 213 26% 13,121 Change over ast 5 years: l -14% +17% -14% +11% -26% +11%+8% +8% +0% -4% - -26% +8% +4% 1 Based on number of residents in the Fire Department’s expanded service area (Palo Alto and Stanford). 2 Calculation is based on 6 fire stations, and does not include Station 7 (dedicated to the SLAC complex) or Station 8 (Foothills Park, open seasonally). Budget benchmarking measure. Targets shown are for FY 2010. - 27 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 FIRE SUPPRESSION There were 182 fire incidents and no fire deaths in FY 2010. This included 11 residential structure fires, a decrease of 82% from five years earlier and a decrease of 45% from FY 2009. Over the last five years, the number of fire incidents has decreased by 14%. Average response times vary from year to year. In FY 2010, the Fire Department responded to 90% of fire emergencies within 8 minutes (the goal is 90%). The average response time for fire calls was 7:05 minutes. The response time increased by 30% from five years earlier, and increased 7% from FY 2009. The standard Fire Department response to a working structure fire is 18 personnel. According to the Fire Department, 56% of fires were confined to the room or area of origin. This is less than the Department’s goal of 90% and a decrease from the prior year. Number of Calls for Service by Fire Station: FY 2010 Source: Palo Alto Fire Department data Number of fire incidents (Target: 250) Average response time for fire calls (Target: 6:00 minutes) Percent responses to fire emergencies within 8 minutes1 (Target: 90%) Percent of fires confined to the room or area of origin2 (Target: 90%) Number of residential structure fires Number of fire deaths Fire response vehicles3 FY 2006 211 5:28 minutes 91% 63% 62 1 25 FY 2007 221 5:48 minutes 87% 70% 68 2 25 FY 2008 192 6:48 minutes 79% 79% 43 0 25 FY 2009 239 6:39 minutes 78% 63% 20 0 25 FY 2010 182 7:05 minutes 90% 56% 11 0 29 Change over last 5 years: -14% +30% -1% -7% -82% -100% +16% 1 Response time is from receipt of 911-call to arrival on scene; does not include cancelled in route, not completed incidents, or mutual aid calls. 2 The Fire Department defines containment of structure fires as those incidents in which fire is suppressed and does not spread beyond the involved area upon firefighter arrival. 3 Includes ambulances, fire apparatus, hazard materials, and mutual aid vehicles. Budget benchmarking measure. Targets shown are for FY 2010. - 28 - Chapter 3 - FIRE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES The Department responded to 4,432 medical/rescue incidents in FY 2010. As shown in the chart on the right, medical/rescue calls represented 59% of the Fire Department calls for service in FY 2010. The average response time for medical/rescue calls was 5:29 minutes in FY 2010. The Department responded to: 93% of emergency medical requests for service within 8 minutes. 99% of paramedic calls for service within 12 minutes. Palo Alto is the only city in Santa Clara County that provides primary ambulance transport services. The Fire Department operates two ambulances and seven engine companies that provide Advance Life Support (ALS) capability. In FY 2010, average on-duty paramedic staffing remained at 10 during the day and 8 at night. In FY 2006, the Department implemented a Basic Life Support (BLS) transport program. Of the 2,991 EMS transports in FY 2010, 2,366 were ALS and 625 were BLS transports. 94% of survey respondents rated ambulance/emergency medical service as “good” or “excellent.” Fire Department Calls for Service: FY 2010 Source: Palo Alto Fire Department Citizen Survey Medical/ rescue incidents (Target: 3,800) Average response time for medical/rescue calls1 (Target: 6:00) First response to emergency medical requests for service within 8 minutes1 (Target: 90%) Ambulance response to paramedic calls for service within 12 minutes1, 2 (Target: 90%) Average on-duty paramedic staffing Number of Ambulance transports <REVISED>4 Ambulance Revenue (in millions) Percent rating ambulance/ emergency medical services “good” or “excellent”3 FY 2006 3,780 5:13 minutes 94% 99% 8 day/6 night 2,296 $1.7 94% FY 2007 3,951 5:17 minutes 92% 97% 8 day/6 night 2,527 $1.9 94% FY 2008 4,552 5:24 minutes 93% 99% 10 day/6 night 3,236 $2.0 95% FY 2009 4,509 5:37 minutes 91% 99% 10 day/8 night 3,331 $2.1 91% FY 2010 4,432 5:29 minutes 93% 99% 10 day/8 night 2,9914 $2.2 94% Change over last 5 years: +17% +5% -1% 0% - +30% +31% 0% 1 Response time is from receipt of 911-call to arrival on scene; does not include cancelled in route, not completed incidents, or mutual aid calls. 2 Includes non-City ambulance responses. 3 Based on revised National Citizen Survey data. 4 For 2010, the Department reported the number of ambulance transports from its ADPI Billing System. In prior years, the information provided was from the Department’s Computer Aided Dispatch system. Budget benchmarking measure. Targets shown are for FY 2010. - 29 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 - 30 - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND FIRE SAFETY In FY 2010, the Hazardous Materials Response Team (Rescue 2) responded to 26 hazardous materials incidents. Over the past five years, the number of hazardous materials incidents decreased from 45 to 26, and the number of facilities permitted for hazardous materials increased from 497 to 510. In FY 2010, the Department reports a decline in hazardous materials facility inspections, but conducted 70% more fire inspections than 5 years ago. According to the Fire Department, the decline in hazardous materials facility inspections is due to staff shortages, and the elimination of the Hazardous Materials Specialist position. The number of hazardous materials incidents decreased 42% from 5 years ago. According to the Department, 219 fire safety, bike safety, and disaster preparedness presentations reached a total of 3,032 residents during FY 2010. The 2010 National Citizen Survey included questions related to environmental hazards and emergency preparedness. 83% of the residents responding to the survey reported they felt “very” or “somewhat” safe from environmental hazards. 59% rated emergency preparedness services as “good” or “excellent.” 2010 Palo Alto Resident Survey: Ratings for emergency preparedness services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations Source: National Citizen Survey ™ 2010 (Palo Alto) Hazardous Materials Citizen Survey Number of hazardous materials incidents2 <REVISED> Number of facilities permitted for hazardous materials Number of permitted hazardous materials facilities inspected3 <REVISED> Percent of permitted hazardous materials facilities inspected3 <REVISED> Number of fire inspections Number of plan reviews1 (Target: 900) Fire safety, bike safety, and disaster preparedness presentations (Target: 250) Percent of residents feeling “very” or “somewhat” safe from environmental hazards Percent rating emergency preparedness “good” or “excellent” FY 2006 45 497 243 49% 899 983 281 - - FY 2007 39 501 268 53% 1,021 928 240 - - FY 2008 45 503 406 81% 1,277 906 242 80% 71% FY 2009 40 509 286 56% 1,028 841 329 81% 62% FY 2010 26 510 126 25% 1,526 851 219 83% 59% Change over ast 5 years: l -42% +3% -48% -24% +70% -13% -22% - - 1 Does not include over-the-counter building permit reviews. 2 Hazardous materials incidents include spills or leaks of combustible/flammable gas or liquid, chemical spills or releases, chemical reactions, and toxic conditions. 3 In FY 2010 the method for calculating the number of inspections was changed to avoid overcounting. Prior year numbers were not calculated in this manner, so the reported numbers for those years are higher than would be indicated using the revised method. Budget benchmarking measure. Targets shown are for FY 2010. CHAPTER 4 – LIBRARY The mission of the Library is to enable people to explore library resources to enrich their lives with knowledge, information and enjoyment. The Department has two major service areas: Collection and Technical Services – to acquire and develop quality collections, manage databases, and provide technology that enhances the community’s access to library resources. Public Services – to provide access to library materials, information and learning opportunities through services and programs. In November 2008, voters approved a $76 million bond measure (Measure N) to fund improvements for the Mitchell Park, Downtown, and Main libraries and the Mitchell Park Community Center. In addition, the City allocated $4 million in infrastructure funds to renovate the College Terrace Library. As a result, two libraries (Downtown and College Terrace) were closed for renovation for a portion of the year and one library (Mitchell Park) has been relocated to the Cubberley Community Center while a new library and community center are under construction. What is the source of Library funding? State, Local and Other Revenue (2%) General Fund (95%) Fines and Fees (3%) How are Library dollars spent? Source: FY 2010 revenue and expenditure data - 31 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 LIBRARY SPENDING In FY 2010, Palo Alto had five libraries: Main (open 62 hours per week) Mitchell Park (open 62 hours per week) Children’s (open 48 hours per week) Downtown (closed for renovation in April 2010) College Terrace (closed for renovation in July 2009 and reopened in November 2010) Palo Alto has more libraries than surrounding communities. In comparison, Redwood City has 4 libraries, Mountain View has 1, Menlo Park has 2, and Sunnyvale has 1. Palo Alto library expenditures per capita were less than those of Berkeley and Burlingame in FY 2009, but more than those of other area cities. In FY 2010, Library spending totaled $6.4 million, a increase of 3% since last year, and an increase of 13% over the last five years.2 82% of residents rate library services “good” or “excellent,” placing Palo Alto in the 52nd percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. 75% rate the quality of neighborhood branch libraries “good” or “excellent.” Comparison Library Expenditure Per Capita1: FY 2009 Source: California Library Statistics 2010, (Fiscal Year 08-09) Operating Expenditures (in millions) Citizen Survey Public Services Collections and Technical Services TOTAL Library expenditures per capita Percent rating quality of public library services “good” or “excellent” (Target: 78%) Percent rating quality of neighborhood branch libraries “good” or “excellent” FY 2006 $4.0 $1.6 $5.7 $91 78% 73% FY 2007 $4.2 $1.6 $5.8 $93 81% 75% FY 2008 $4.9 $1.9 $6.82 $108 76% 71% FY 2009 $4.3 $1.9 $6.2 $97 79% 75% FY 2010 $4.5 $1.9 $6.4 $98 82% 75% Change over last 5 years: +11% +16% +13% +7% +4% +2% 1 Jurisdictions offer differing levels of service and budget for those services differently. 2 The Department advises that a large portion of the budget increase from FY 2007 to FY 2008 was due in part to a public-private partnership to increase the collection and the completion of prior year deferred purchases. Budget benchmarking measure. Target shown is for FY 2010. - 32 - Chapter 4 - LIBRARY LIBRARY STAFFING Total authorized Library staffing in FY 2010 was 55 FTE, a decrease of 3% from FY 2006 levels. Temporary and hourly staff accounts for approximately 23% of the Library’s total staff. In FY 2010, 13 of 55 FTE staff were temporary or hourly. Volunteers donated approximately 5,564 hours to the libraries in FY 2010. This was a 5% decrease over the last five years and was a 7% decrease from FY 2009. Building projects had an impact on library service hours in FY 2010. Palo Alto libraries were open a total of 9,904 hours in FY 2010. This was a 16% decrease from FY 2009 and a 6% decrease from five years earlier. As shown in the graph on the right, Palo Alto libraries were open more hours than most other local jurisdictions in FY 2009. Total Hours Open Annually: FY 2009 Source: California Library Statistics 2010, (Fiscal Year 08-09) Authorized Staffing (FTE) Regular Temporary/ hourly TOTAL Number of residents per library staff FTE Volunteer hours Total hours open annually (Target: 10,062) FTE per 1,000 hours open FY 2006 44 13 57 1,093 5,838 10,488 5.41 FY 2007 44 13 57 1,097 5,865 9,386 6.06 FY 2008 44 13 56 1,112 5,988 11,281 5.00 FY 2009 44 13 57 1,127 5,953 11,822 4.84 FY 2010 42 13 55 1,188 5,564 9,904 5.56 Change over last 5 years: -4% 0% -3% +9% -5% -6% +3% Budget benchmarking measure. Target shown is for FY 2010. - 33 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 LIBRARY COLLECTION AND CIRCULATION The total number of items in the Library’s collection has increased by 24,372 or approximately 9% over the last five years. The number of titles in the collection has increased by about 8% and the number of book volumes has increased by about 6%. Circulation increased 27% over the last five years. In FY 2010, non- resident circulation accounted for approximately 18% of the Library’s total circulation. This is 2% lower than it was five years ago. 90% of first time checkouts are completed on self-check machines. 75% of survey respondents rate the variety of library materials as “good” or “excellent.” Of all the libraries, Mitchell Park had the highest circulation in FY 2010, with 619,048 items circulating. Main Library had the second highest circulation at 555,647. Children’s Library had a circulation of 365,559 in FY 2010 and Downtown Library had 71,098. An additional 10,370 check outs were made from the Library’s digital book service. Circulation Per Capita: FY 2009 Source: California Library Statistics 2010, (Fiscal Year 08-09) Citizen Survey Total number of titles in collection Total number of items in collection Number of book volumes Number of media items Number of Items in collection per capita (Target: 4.30) Total circulation (Target: 1,630,000) Percent non- resident circulation Circulation per capita (Target: 25.2) Number of items placed on hold Number of checkouts completed on self-check machines Average number of checkouts per item Percent of checkouts completed on self check machines (Target: 91%) Percent rating variety of library materials “good” or “excellent” (Target: 70%) FY 2006 163,045 260,468 232,602 27,866 3.73 1,280,547 20% 20.56 181,765 456,364 4.92 - 71% FY 2007 167,008 270,755 240,098 30,657 3.84 1,414,509 21% 22.62 208,719 902,303 5.22 88% 75% FY 2008 169,690 274,410 241,323 33,087 3.81 1,542,116 20% 24.34 200,470 1,003,516 5.62 89% 67% FY 2009 174,043 282,060 246,554 35,506 4.37 1,633,955 19% 25.34 218,073 1,078,637 5.79 90% 73% FY 2010 176,001 284,840 247,273 37,567 4.35 1,624,785 18% 24.84 216,719 1,067,105 5.70 90% 75% Change over last 5 years: +8% +9% +6% +35% +17% +27% -2% +21% +19% +63% +16% - +4 Budget benchmarking measure. Targets shown are for FY 2010. - 34 - Chapter 4 - LIBRARY LIBRARY SERVICES The total number of library cardholders decreased 7% from 55,909 to 51,969 over the last five years, and the percent of Palo Alto residents who are cardholders decreased from 61% to 60%. Total library visits decreased over the same timeframe. 31% of survey respondents reported they used libraries or their services more than 12 times during the last year; this places Palo Alto in the 67th percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. The total number of items delivered to homebound users increased by 6%, and the total number of reference questions received by librarians decreased to 55,322, or 21% over the five-year period. However, online database sessions have increased by 258% over the last five years. This reflects an ongoing shift in how the public obtains information from libraries. The number of programs offered decreased from 564 to 485, or 14%, although the total attendance at such programs increased by about 15%. Programs include planned events for the public that promote reading, support school readiness and education, and encourage life long learning. Many programs are sponsored by the Friends of the Palo Alto Library. Population Served Per FTE: FY 2009 Source: California Library Statistics 2010, (Fiscal Year 08-09) Citizen Survey Total number of cardholders Percent of Palo Alto residents who are cardholders (Target: 61%) Library visits Total items delivered to homebound borrowers Total number of reference questions Total number of online database sessions Number of Internet sessions Number of laptop checkouts Number of programs1 (Target: 430) Total program attendance1 (Target: 30,100) Percent who used libraries or their services more than 12 times during the last year (Target: 32%) FY 2006 55,909 61% 885,565 1,627 69,880 42,094 155,558 9,693 564 30,739 32% FY 2007 53,099 57% 862,081 1,582 57,255 52,020 149,280 11,725 580 30,221 33% FY 2008 53,740 62% 881,520 2,705 48,339 49,148 137,261 12,017 669 37,955 31% FY 2009 54,878 62% 875,847 2,005 46,419 111,228 145,143 12,290 558 36,582 34% FY 2010 51,969 60% 851,037 1,718 55,322 150,895 134,053 9,720 485 35,455 31% Change over last 5 years -7% -1% -4% +6% -21% +258% -14% 0% -14% +15% -1% 1 School programs were reduced due to staffing cutbacks in January 2009. Budget benchmarking measure. Targets shown are for FY 2010. - 35 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 - 36 - This Page Intentionally Left Blank CHAPTER 5 – PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT The mission of the Planning and Community Environment Department is to provide the City Council and community with creative guidance on, and effective implementation of, land use development, planning, transportation, housing, environmental policies, and plans and programs that maintain and enhance the City as a safe, vital, and attractive community. The Department has three major divisions: Planning and Transportation – To provide professional leadership in planning for Palo Alto’s future by recommending and effectively implementing land use, transportation, environmental, housing and community design policies and programs that preserve and improve Palo Alto as a vital and highly desirable place to live, work, and visit. Building – To review construction projects and improvements for compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances in a professional and efficient manner; and to ensure that all developments subject to the development review process achieve the requisite quality of design. The Division also coordinates code enforcement and American with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance activities. Economic Development – To provide information and data on the local economy and business community that will assist the City Council in decision-making; identify initiatives that will increase City revenues and economic health; and facilitate communication and working relationships within the business community. The Department notes the following new initiatives in FY 2010: Development Center Restructuring Effort Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Urban Forest Master Plan Living in Vehicles Ordinance Rail Corridor Study El Camino Real Design Guidelines Policies for Environmental Review of Historic Structures What is the source of Planning and Community Environment funding? How are Planning and Community Environment dollars spent? Source: FY 2010 revenue and expenditure data - 37 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 SPENDING Spending decreased about 5% from approximately $9.9 million in FY 2009 to $9.4 million in FY 2010. The Department’s revenue varied year to year, but overall decreased from $5.6 to $5.5 million, or 3%, over the last 5 years. Revenue increased from $5.0 million in FY 2009 to $5.5 million in FY 2010, or about 10%. Authorized staffing for the Department decreased from 53 to 50 FTE, or 6% over the last five years. The graph on the right uses California State Controller’s data to show Palo Alto’s per capita spending for Planning, Building Inspection, and Code Enforcement as compared to other jurisdictions. Data in the graph on the right and table below differ because the City of Palo Alto and the Controller's Office compile data differently. Palo Alto's expenditures per capita appear higher than those of surrounding jurisdictions, but it should be noted that different cities budget expenditures in different ways. For example, Palo Alto includes a transportation division, shuttle services, and rent for the Development Center in its costs. Comparison Planning, Building Inspection and Code Enforcement Expenditures Per Capita: FY 2008 Source: California State Controller, Cities Annual Report Fiscal Year 2007-08 Operating Expenditures (in millions) Planning and Transportation Building Economic Development1 TOTAL Expenditures per capita Revenue (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) FY 2006 $5.9 $3.3 $0.2 $9.4 $151 $5.6 53 FY 2007 $5.6 $3.7 $0.1 $9.4 $150 $6.6 55 FY 2008 $5.5 $3.9 $0.2 $9.6 $153 $5.8 54 FY 2009 $5.9 $3.6 $0.4 $9.9 $153 $5.0 54 FY 2010 $5.8 $3.1 $0.5 $9.4 $144 $5.5 50 Change over last 5 years: -1% -5% 91% 0% -5% -3% -6% 1 Economic Development moved from the City Manager’s Office to the Planning and Community Environment Department in FY 2007. - 38 - Chapter 5 – PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CURRENT PLANNING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT A total of 226 planning applications were completed in FY 2010, 45% fewer than in FY 2006. The average time to complete applications decreased from 13.6 weeks in FY 2006 to 12.5 weeks in FY 2010 (an 8% decrease). The target is 11.6 weeks. The Department completed 130 Architectural Review applications, an increase of 11% from five years earlier. The Department notes FY 2010 code enforcement cases and re-inspections went up due to special projects, the economy, and issues with property maintenance. 53% of residents surveyed rated code enforcement services good or excellent. This places Palo Alto in the 73rd percentile compared to other jurisdictions. 22% consider run-down buildings, weed lots, or junk vehicles to be a major or moderate problem, a 6% increase from the 16% who thought so five years ago. In FY 2009, the Department established a new Green Building Program under the City’s Green Building Ordinance to build a new generation of efficient buildings in Palo Alto that are environmentally responsible and healthy. In FY 2010, the Department processed 556 permits under the new ordinance. Although 18% of the 556 permits had mandatory requirements, 82% were voluntary. The Green Building Ordinance has influenced $81 million of project valuation and 774,482 square feet of “green” construction. The Department reports that over 150 projects are under construction or have been completed under the program as certified by either Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), Build It Green (BIG), or the City. Completed Planning Applications: FY 2010 Source: Planning and Community Environment Department Code Enforcement Planning applications completed Architectural Review Board applications completed Average weeks to complete staff-level applications (Target: 11.6 weeks) Citizen Survey Percent rating quality of code enforcement “good” or “excellent” Citizen Survey Percent who consider run down buildings, weed lots, or junk vehicles a “major” or “moderate” problem Number new cases Number of re-inspections Percent of cases resolved within 120 days of date received FY 2006 408 117 13.6 weeks 61% 16% 421 667 94% FY 2007 299 100 13.4 weeks 59% 17% 369 639 76% FY 2008 257 107 12.7 weeks 59% 23% 6841 9811 93% FY 2009 273 130 10.7 weeks 50% 25% 545 1,065 94% FY 2010 226 130 12.5 weeks 53% 22% 680 1,156 88% Change over last 5 years: -45% +11% -8% -8% +6% +62% +73% -6% 1 The Department advises that the method for counting new code enforcement cases and re-inspections changed in FY 2008. Inspections or cases with multiple components that in the past were counted as a single inspection or case are now counted as multiple inspections or cases. This is the reason for the increase in the numbers compared to FY 2007. For this reason, FY 2009 and FY 2010 data are not on a comparable basis to prior years’ data Budget benchmarking measure. Target shown is for FY 2010. - 39 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 ADVANCE PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Based on data from the Association of Bay Area Governments, Palo Alto's jobs/household ratio is projected to be 2.7 in 2015, higher than five nearby jurisdictions. However, this is lower than the projected 2010 job/household ratio of 2.9. The number of residential units increased from 27,767 to 28,445 or 2% over the last five years. The average home price in FY 2010 was just over about $1.5 million – 2% less than in FY 2006. Only 15% of survey respondents rated the availability of affordable quality housing as “good” or “excellent,” placing Palo Alto in the 6% percentile compared to other jurisdictions. 49% of residents responding to the survey rated the quality of land use, planning and zoning as “good” or “excellent.” 53% rated the overall quality of new development in Palo Alto as “good” or “excellent.” 49% rated economic development services “good” or “excellent.” Jobs/Household Ratio Projected for: Calendar Year 2015 Source: Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Projections 2009 Advance Planning Economic Development Number of residential units Average price – single family home in Palo Alto1 Estimated new jobs resulting from projects approved during year Number of new housing units approved Cumulative number of below market rate (BMR) units Number of business outreach contacts Citizen Survey Percent rating economic development services “good” or “excellent” Citizen Survey Percent rating quality of land use, planning, and zoning in Palo Alto as “good” or “excellent” Citizen Survey Percent rating overall quality of new development in Palo Alto as “good” or “excellent” FY 2006 27,767 $1,538,318 -345 371 322 362 61% 50% 62% FY 2007 27,763 $1,516,037 0 517 381 24 62% 49% 57% FY 2008 27,938 $1,872,855 +193 103 395 42 63% 47% 57% FY 2009 28,291 $1,759,870 -58 36 395 26 54% 47% 55% FY 2010 28,445 $1,514,900 +662 86 434 -3 49% 49% 53% Change over last 5 years: +2% -2% -4 -77% +35% - -12% -1% -9% 1 Average home price is on a calendar year basis (e.g., FY 2010 data is for calendar year 2009). Source is http://rereport.com/index.html. 2 In FY 2006, staffing for business outreach was reduced from 2 to 1 FTE. In previous years, the number of outreach contacts was higher because Executive Staff and City Council members were also involved in business outreach. 3 Data for FY 2010 was not available. 4 A valid comparison between FY 2010 and FY 2006 data in terms of percent change is not possible. - 40 - Chapter 5 – PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT BUILDING PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS Compared to FY 2006, the number of building applications increased 2% to 3,351 applications in FY 2010. Building permits issued in FY 2010 were 8% lower than five years ago at 2,847. During that same period, the valuation of construction for issued permits decreased 31% from $277 million to $191 million. Building permit revenue decreased 11% from $4.4 five years ago to $4.0 million. Staff completed 15,194 inspections in FY 2010, an increase of 31% from FY 2006. According to the Department, 99% of inspection requests were responded to within one working day or within the timeframe of the customer's request.2 The average number of days for first response to plan checks increased to 30 days compared to 28 days in FY 2006. Compared to 5 years ago, the average number of days to issue a building permit has decreased from 98 to 44 days, excluding permits issued over the counter. 8% of survey respondents applied for a permit from the City’s Development Center and rated their experiences related to the process as follows: 36% rated the ease of the planning approval process “good” or “excellent.” 33% rated the time required to review and issue permits “good” or “excellent.” 34% rated the ease of the overall application process “good” or “excellent.” 56% rated the overall customer service “good” or “excellent.” 61% rated inspection timeliness “good” or “excellent.” Building Permit Revenues: FY 2000 through FY 2010 Source: Planning and Community Environment Department Building permit applications City’s average Cost per permit application Building permits issued (Target: 3,000) Percent of building permits issued over the counter Valuation of construction for issued permits (in millions) Building permit revenue (in millions) Average number of days for first response to plan checks1 Average number of days to issue building permits1 Number of inspections completed (Target: 22,500) City’s average cost per inspection Percent of inspection requests for permitted work responded to within one working day2 (Target: 90%+) FY 2006 3,296 $662 3,081 78% $277.0 $4.4 28 days 98 days 11,585 $139 94% FY 2007 3,236 $736 3,136 76% $298.7 $4.6 27 days 102 days 14,822 $127 99% FY 2008 3,253 $784 3,046 53% $358.9 $4.2 23 days 80 days 22,8203 $944 98% FY 2009 3,496 $584 2,543 75% $172.1 $3.6 31 days 63 days 17,945 $105 98% FY 2010 3,351 $576 2,847 75% $191.2 $4.0 30 days 44 days 15,194 $116 99% Change over last 5 years: +2% -13% -8% -3% -31% -11% +7% -55% +31% -17% +5% 1 Average number of days does not include over the counter plan checks or building permits. 2 In some cases, a customer requests a specific day or time as opposed to within one working day; this percentage indicates how often the Department met the one working day deadline or, when applicable, the customer's specific request. The Department’s target was 90%. 3 According to the Department, the increase in the number of inspections in FY 2008 is due to a change in the method for counting inspections. Under the new method, each type of inspection included in a residential inspection is now counted as an individual inspection whereas in the past the residential inspection would have counted as one. 4 The Department advises that the decrease in the City’s average cost per inspection in FY 2008 is due to the new method for counting inspections, which resulted in a higher number of inspections and therefore, a lower cost per inspection. Budget benchmarking measure. Targets shown are for FY 2010. - 41 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 - 42 - TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 85% of residents responding to this year’s survey rated the ease of walking as “good” or “excellent,” and 81% rated the ease of bicycle travel as “good” or “excellent.” 47% of respondents rated traffic flow on major streets as “good” or “excellent.” The City and the school district encourage alternatives to driving to school by teaching age-appropriate bicycle road safety skills to students in kindergarten through 6th grade. In FY 2010, staff provided scheduling, administrative support, training and follow-up parent education materials for: 67 pedestrian safety presentations to 2,514 students in kindergarten through 2nd grade. A three lesson bicycle/traffic safety curriculum for all 862 3rd graders. A refresher bicycle/traffic safety lesson for 840 5th graders in each of 12 elementary schools. 9 assemblies for 859 6th graders in three middle schools. The Department reports that in FY 2011, the City plans to implement a new Safe Routes to School program to inform and encourage the use of alternative routes. In addition, the City operates a free shuttle. In FY 2010, the Department reports there were 137,825 shuttle boardings. 2010 Palo Alto Resident Survey: Percent rating the ease of the following forms of transportation in Palo Alto as “good” or “excellent” Source: National Citizen Survey TM 2010 (Palo Alto) Citizen Survey Number of monitored intersections with an unacceptable level of service during evening peak Number of intersections with 10 or more accidents2 City Shuttle boardings (Target: 127,400) City’s cost per shuttle boarding (Target: $2.76) Caltrain average weekday boardings Average number of employees participating in the City commute program (Target: 135) Percent who rate traffic flow on major streets “good” or “excellent”3 Percent of days per week commuters used alternative commute modes4 Percent who consider the amount of public parking “good” or “excellent” FY 2006 2 of 21 7 175,471 $1.91 3,882 104 - - 58% FY 2007 2 of 21 13 168,710 $2.00 4,132 105 - - 65% FY 2008 3 of 21 1 178,505 $1.97 4,589 114 38% 40% 52% FY 2009 2 of 21 0 136,511 $2.61 4,863 124 46% 41% 55% FY 2010 1 of 8 1 0 137,825 $2.65 4,796 117 47% 39% 60% Change over last 5 years: - -100% -21% +39% +24% +13% - - +2% 1 The Department did not collect this data in FY 2010. The reported figure reflects data collected on 8 intersections in October 2010 (FY 2011). 2 Accidents within 200 feet of intersection. 3 This question replaced “Percent who consider traffic congestion to be a major or moderate problem in Palo Alto.” Responses to that question were 60% (FY 2006), and 55% (FY 2007). 4 Alternative commute modes include carpooling, public transportation, walking, bicycling, and working at home. Budget benchmarking measure. Targets shown are for FY 2010. Chapter 6 - POLICE CHAPTER 6 – POLICE The mission of the Police Department is to proudly serve and protect the public with respect and integrity. The Department has seven major service areas: Field services – police response, critical incident resolution, regional assistance response, and police services for special events Technical services – 911 dispatch services for police, fire, utilities public works and Stanford, and police information management Investigations and crime prevention services – police investigations, property evidence, youth services, and community policing Traffic Services – traffic enforcement, complaint resolution, and school safety Parking services – parking enforcement, parking citations and adjudication, and abandoned vehicle abatement Police personnel services – police hiring retention, personnel records, training, and volunteer programs Animal services – animal control, pet recovery/adoption services, animal care, animal health and welfare, and regional animal service What is the source of Police Department funding? How are Police Department dollars spent? Source: FY 2010 revenue and expenditure data - 43 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 POLICE SPENDING Total Police Department spending increased from $24.4 to $28.8 million, or 18%, in the last 5 years. This includes animal services and 911-dispatch services provided to other jurisdictions. Over the same five year period, total revenue and reimbursements increased from $4.8 to $5.0 million or 4%. A comparison of police expenditures during FY 2008 (the most recent data available from State Controller) shows Palo Alto spends more per capita than most other local jurisdictions. It should be noted that every jurisdiction has different levels of service and categorizes expenditures in different ways. For example, Cupertino contracts with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office for police services, and Sunnyvale’s Department of Public Safety provides both police and fire services. In the most recent Citizen Survey, 87% of residents rated police services “good” or “excellent” – placing Palo Alto in the 84th percentile compared with other surveyed jurisdictions. Comparison Police Net Expenditures Per Capita1: FY 2008 Source: California State Controller, Cities Annual Report Fiscal Year 07-08 Operating Expenditures (in millions) Citizen Survey Field services Technical services Investigations and crime prevention Traffic services Parking services Police personnel services Animal services TOTAL Total spending per resident Total revenue Percent rating overall police services “good” or “excellent” (Target: 90%) FY 2006 $10.9 $5.4 $3.1 $1.5 $1.1 $0.9 $1.5 $24.4 $393 $4.8 87% FY 2007 $11.4 $6.2 $3.2 $1.7 $1.0 $1.0 $1.5 $25.9 $416 $5.0 91% FY 2008 $14.0 $6.7 $3.4 $1.7 $0.9 $1.1 $1.7 $29.4 $466 $5.0 84% FY 2009 $13.8 $5.0 $3.7 $1.9 $1.1 $1.0 $1.7 $28.3 $438 $4.8 84% FY 2010 $13.1 $6.6 $3.4 $2.0 $1.1 $1.0 $1.7 $28.8 $441 $5.0 87% Change over last 5 years: +21% +22% +7% +34% -5% +13% +13% +18% +12% +4% 0% 1 Operating expenditures comparisons do not include animal control. Palo Alto figures include dispatch and some animal services expenditures. Budget benchmarking measure. Target shown is for FY 2010. - 44 - Chapter 6 - POLICE CALLS FOR SERVICE The Police Department handled nearly 56,000 calls for service during FY 2010, or about 153 calls per day. 32% of the Citizen Survey respondents reported contact with the Police Department. 78% rated the quality of their contact as “good” or “excellent.” Over the last five years: The percent of emergency calls dispatched with 60 seconds increased from 88% to 95%. Emergency calls are generally “life threatening” or “high danger” crimes in progress. The average response time for emergency calls increased slightly – from 4:41 minutes to 4:44 minutes (the target is 6:00 minutes). The percent of responses within 6 minutes remained the same at 78%. Response time is measured from receipt of the 911 call to arrival on- scene. The average response time for urgent calls improved by 46 seconds – from 7:39 minutes to 6:53 minutes (the target is 10:00 minutes) – with 83% of responses within 10 minutes. Urgent calls are generally non-life threatening, or less dangerous property crimes that are in progress or just occurred. The average response time for non-emergency calls was 18:32 minutes – 92% of responses within 45 minutes (the target is 45:00 minutes). Non-emergency calls are generally routine or report-type calls that can be handled as time permits. Calls For Service: FY 2010 Source: Police Department Citizen Survey Total Police Department calls for service False alarms Percent emergency calls dispatched within 60 seconds of receipt of call Average emergency response (minutes) (Target: 6:00) Average urgent response (minutes) (Target: 10:00) Average non- emergency response (minutes) (Target: 45:00) Percent emergency calls response within 6 minutes (Target: 90%) Percent urgent calls response within 10 minutes Percent non- emergency calls response within 45 minutes Percent reported having contact with the Police Dept Percent rating quality of their contact “good” or “excellent” FY 2006 57,017 2,419 88% 4:41 7:39 20:36 78% 78% 95%2 -3 -3 FY 2007 60,079 2,610 96% 5:08 7:24 19:161 73% 79% 91%1 33% 81% FY 2008 58,742 2,539 96% 4:32 7:02 19:091 81% 80%1 92%1 34% 73% FY 2009 53,275 2,501 94% 4:43 7:05 18:351 81% 82%1 92%1 35% 72% FY 2010 55,860 2,491 95% 4:44 6:53 18:32 78% 83% 92% 32% 78% Change over last 5 years: -2% +3% +7% +1% -10% -10% 0% +5% -2% - - 1 The Department revised FY 2007 through 2009 values due to prior calculation errors. 2 In FY 2007 the Department changed the target from 60 minutes to 45 minutes. The FY 2006 percentage reflects the target of 60 minutes. 3 Survey question not conducted in FY 2006. Budget benchmarking measure. Targets shown are for FY 2010. - 45 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 CRIME The Police Department categorizes crime as either Part 1 or Part 2 crimes. In FY 2010, the number of reported Part 1 crimes dropped by 28% and the number of Part 2 crimes decreased by 15%, compared to FY 2006. Although Palo Alto is a relatively quiet, affluent community of about 65,400, it has a daytime population estimated at over 110,000, a regional shopping center, and a downtown with an active nightlife. Police Department statistics show 59 reported crimes per 1,000 residents, with 42 reported crimes per officer last year. FBI statistics show that Palo Alto has more property crimes per 1,000 residents, but fewer violent crimes per thousand, than most other local jurisdictions. In the most recent Citizen Survey, 9% of households reported being the victim of a crime in the last 12 months (24th percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions). Of those households, 86% said they reported the crime. Palo Alto ranked in the 86th percentile, above the benchmark, compared to other surveyed jurisdictions for reporting crimes. Violent and Property Crimes per 1,000 Residents3: Calendar Year 2009 Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program Citizen Survey Reported crimes Arrests Clearance rates for part 1 crimes1 Part 11 crimes reported (Target: 2,000) Part 22 crimes reported Reported crimes per 1,000 residents Reported crimes per officer5 Percent households reported being victim of crime in last 12 months Percent households that were victim of a crime who reported the crime Juvenile arrests Total arrests4 Homicide cases cleared/closed (Target: 85%) Rape cases cleared/ closed (Target: 80%) Robbery cases cleared/ closed Theft cases cleared/ closed FY 2006 2,2136 2,643 78 52 12% 62% 241 2,530 None reported 67% 68% 14% FY 2007 1,855 2,815 75 50 9% 62% 244 3,059 None reported 100% 42% 18% FY 2008 1,843 2,750 73 49 10% 73% 257 3,253 100% 100% 104%7 21% FY 2009 1,880 2,235 64 44 11% 80% 230 2,612 100% 60% 38% 20% FY 2010 1,595 2,257 59 42 9% 86% 222 2,451 100% 43% 64% 22% Change over last 5 years: -28% -15% -25% -20% -3% +24% -8% -3% - -24% -4% +8% 1 Part 1 crimes include assault, burglary, homicide, rape, robbery, larceny/theft, vehicle theft, and arson. 2 Part 2 crimes include assaults or attempted assaults where a weapon is not used or where serious injuries did not occur; forgery and counterfeiting; fraud; embezzlement; buying, receiving, and possessing stolen property; vandalism; weapons offenses; prostitution and other vice crimes; sex offenses other than rape; drug offenses; gambling; offenses against family and children; drunk driving; liquor laws; drunk in public; disorderly conduct; and vagrancy. 3 Does not include arson or larceny/theft under $400. 4 Total arrests does not include drunk in public where suspects are taken to the sobering station, or traffic warrant arrests. 5 Based on authorized sworn staffing. 6 The Department revised the previously reported number. 7 Some robberies from the previous year were cleared in this fiscal year. Budget benchmarking measure. Targets shown are for FY 2010. - 46 - Chapter 6 - POLICE PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY When evaluating safety in the community, 85% of residents felt “very” or “somewhat” safe from violent crimes in Palo Alto, and 75% felt safe from property crime. This placed Palo Alto in the 75th percentile for violent crimes and in the 78th percentile for property crimes compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. In their neighborhood during the day, 96% of residents felt “very” or “somewhat” safe. After dark, 83% of residents felt “very” or “somewhat” safe in their neighborhoods. In comparison to other surveyed jurisdictions, Palo Alto ranked in the 79th percentile among other surveyed jurisdictions for ratings of neighborhood safety both during the day and after dark. 94% of residents felt “very” or “somewhat” safe in Palo Alto’s downtown during the day, and 70% felt safe after dark. The Palo Alto ratings were respectively in the 75th percentile and 65th percentile for safety downtown compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. Rating how safe you feel: Percent of Surveyed Residents Feeling “Very” or “Somewhat” Safe Source: National Citizen Survey™ 2010 (Palo Alto) Citizen Survey: Percent of surveyed residents feeling “very” or “somewhat” safe Citizen Survey From violent crime (Target: 90%) From property crime In your neighborhood during the day In your neighborhood after dark In Palo Alto’s downtown area during the day In Palo Alto’s downtown area after dark Percent rating crime prevention “good” or “excellent” FY 2006 75% 62% 94% 79% 91% 69% 77% FY 2007 86% 75% 98% 85% 94% 74% 83% FY 2008 85% 74% 95% 78% 96% 65% 74% FY 2009 82% 66% 95% 78% 91% 65% 73% FY 2010 85% 75% 96% 83% 94% 70% 79% Change over last 5 years: +10% +13% +2% +4% +3% +1% +2% Budget benchmarking measure. Target shown is for FY 2010. - 47 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 POLICE STAFFING, EQUIPMENT, AND TRAINING Authorized departmental staffing decreased from 169 to 167 full time equivalents (FTE), or 1% over the last five years. The number of police officers has decreased from 93 to 92. On average, 8 officers are on patrol at all times. With 2.55 sworn and civilian FTE per 1,000 residents, Palo Alto’s total staffing is higher than other local jurisdictions, but it includes full dispatch services and animal services provided to other jurisdictions. The ratio of police officers declined 6% over the last 5 years to 1.41 officers per 1,000 residents. According to the Department, training hours per officer increased 10% over the last 5 years. The Department reports it received 156 commendations and 11 complaints during FY 2010; 3 of the complaints were sustained. Sworn and Civilian Full-Time Equivalent Positions Per 1,000 Residents: Calendar Year 2009 Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program (www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm) Authorized staffing (FTE) Authorized staffing per 1,000 residents Number of police officers Police officers per 1,000 residents Average number of officers on patrol1 Number of patrol vehicles Number of motorcycles Training hours per officer2 (Target: 145) Overtime as a percent of regular salaries Number of citizen commendations received (Target: 150) Number of citizen complaints filed (Target: 10) FY 2006 169 2.72 93 1.50 8 30 9 153 13% 144 7 (0 sustained) FY 2007 168 2.70 93 1.49 8 30 9 142 16% 121 11 (1 sustained) FY 2008 169 2.67 93 1.47 8 30 9 135 17% 141 20 (1 sustained) FY 2009 170 2.63 93 1.44 8 30 9 141 14% 124 14 (3 sustained) FY 2010 167 2.55 92 1.41 8 30 9 168 12% 156 11 (3 sustained) Change over last 5 years: -1% -6% -1% -6% 0% 0% 0% +10% -1% +8% +57% 1 Does not include traffic motor officers 2 Does not include academy Budget benchmarking measure. Targets shown are for FY 2010. - 48 - Chapter 6 - POLICE TRAFFIC AND PARKING CONTROL Over the past five years, the total number of: Traffic collisions decreased by 22% and the total number of bicycle/pedestrian collisions decreased by 28%. Alcohol related collisions decreased by 33% and the number of DUI (driving under the influence) arrests decreased by 27%. In FY 2010, police personnel made more than 13,300 traffic stops, and issued more than 7,500 traffic citations and over 42,500 parking citations. The percent of surveyed residents rating traffic enforcement as “good” or “excellent” increased from 63% to 64% over the last five years. The rating places Palo Alto in the 45th percentile among other surveyed jurisdictions. The number of traffic collisions per 1,000 residents decreased 26% over the past 5 years (from 21 to 15 per 1,000 residents), and the percent of traffic collisions with injury increased 6% (from 31% to 37%) over the 5 year period. Comparison data for calendar year 2008 shows that Palo Alto had more collisions per 1,000 residents than most other local jurisdictions. Palo Alto has a large non-resident daytime population. Collisions per 1,000 Residents: Calendar Year 2008 Source: California Highway Patrol 2008 Annual Report of Fatal and Injury Motor Vehicle Traffic Collisions, and California Department of Finance Citizen Survey Traffic collisions Bicycle/ pedestrian collisions (Target: 100) Alcohol related collisions Total injury collisions (Target: 375) Traffic collisions per 1,000 residents Percent of traffic collisions with injury Number of DUI Arrests (Target: 250) Number of traffic stops Traffic citations issued (Target: 7,000) Parking citations (Target: 60,000) Percent rating traffic enforcement “good” or “excellent” (Target: 66%) FY 2006 1,287 113 43 396 21 31% 247 11,827 7,687 56,502 63% FY 2007 1,257 103 31 2911 20 23% 257 15,563 6,232 57,222 72% FY 2008 1,122 84 42 324 18 29% 343 19,177 6,326 50,706 64% FY 2009 1,040 108 37 371 16 36% 192 14,152 5,766 49,996 61% FY 2010 1,006 81 29 368 15 37% 181 13,344 7,520 42,591 64% Change over last 5 years: -22% -28% -33% -7% -26% +6% -27% +13% -2% -25% +1% 1 The Police Department revised previously reported number. Budget benchmarking measure. Targets shown are for FY 2010. - 49 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 - 50 - ANIMAL SERVICES Palo Alto provides regional animal control services to the cities of Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Mountain View. Animal Services provides pet recovery and adoption services, animal care, animal health and welfare (including spay and neuter clinics and vaccinations), and other services at the Animal Shelter on East Bayshore Road. In FY 2010, Animal Services responded to 90% of Palo Alto live animal calls within 45 minutes. The Department successfully returned 75% of dogs and 10% of cats received by the shelter during FY 2010 to their owners. 76% of survey respondents rated animal control services as “good” or “excellent,” placing Palo Alto in the 93rd percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. Animal Services: FY 2010 Source: Police Department (in millions) Citizen Survey Animal Services expenditures Animal Services revenue Number of Palo Alto animal services calls (Target: 3,000) Number of regional animal services calls (Target: 1,700) Percent Palo Alto live animal calls for service response within 45 minutes (Target: 93%) Number of sheltered animals (Target: 3,800) Percent dogs received by shelter returned to owner (Target: 65%) Percent cats received by shelter returned to owner (Target: 8%) Percent rating animal control services “good” or “excellent” FY 2006 $1.5 $0.9 2,861 1,944 89% 3,839 78% 9% 78% FY 2007 $1.5 $1.0 2,990 1,773 88% 3,578 82% 18% 79% FY 2008 $1.7 $1.2 3,059 1,666 91% 3,532 75% 17% 78% FY 2009 $1.7 $1.0 2,873 1,690 90% 3,422 70% 11% 78% FY 2010 $1.7 $1.4 2,692 1,602 90% 3,147 75% 10% 76% Change over last 5 years: +13% +51% -6% -18% +1% -18% -3% +1% -2% Budget benchmarking measure. Targets shown are for FY 2010. CHAPTER 7 – PUBLIC WORKS The mission of the Department of Public Works is to provide efficient, cost effective and environmentally sensitive construction, maintenance, and management of Palo Alto streets, sidewalks, parking lots, buildings and other public facilities; to provide appropriate maintenance, replacement and utility line clearing of City trees; to ensure timely support to other City departments in the area of engineering services and to provide review and inspection services to the development community in the City right of way. The Department is responsible for the following services that are provided through the General Fund: Streets – to develop and maintain the structural integrity and ride quality of streets to maximize the effective life of the pavement and traffic control clarity of streets and to facilitate the safe and orderly flow of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Trees – to manage a sustainable urban forest by selecting appropriate species and providing timely maintenance and replacement of City trees as well as providing utility line clearing for front and rear easements. Structures and Grounds – to build, maintain, renovate, and operate City-owned and leased structures, parking lots, grounds, parks and open space to achieve maximum life expectancy of the facilities. Engineering – to construct, renovate, and maintain City-owned infrastructure through the City’s Capital Improvement Program; to ensure safety, comfort, and maximum life expectancy and value of City structures, facilities, and streets; to provide engineering support to City Departments and private development through the expeditious review and inspection of projects to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and conformance with approved plans and specifications. The Department is responsible for the following services that are provided through enterprise and internal service funds (non-General Fund): Refuse collection, disposal, and recycling collection Storm drainage Wastewater treatment including the Regional Water Quality Control Plant Vehicle replacement and maintenance (includes equipment) What is the source of Public Works General Fund funding? How are Public Works General Fund operating dollars spent? Source: FY 2010 revenue and expenditure data - 51 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 STREETS The City is responsible for maintaining 470 lane miles of streets. In addition, the Department reports that Santa Clara County is responsible for maintaining 26 lane miles, and the State of California is responsible for maintaining 24 lane miles within Palo Alto's borders. In 2009, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for the first time reported on the condition of Palo Alto’s streets and roads. The MTC’s 2009 report on the pavement condition of Bay Area jurisdictions indicates that Palo Alto streets are considered “good,” scoring higher than Cupertino, Milpitas, Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, but lower than Santa Clara, Redwood City, Mountain View and Sunnyvale. 43% of survey respondents rate street repair “good” or “excellent.” This places Palo Alto in the 44th percentile, a ranking similar to other surveyed jurisdictions. In FY 2010, 3,149 potholes were repaired, with 86% of those repairs within 15 days of notification. The operating expenditures for street maintenance were approximately $2.4 million in FY 2009 and $2.5 million in FY 2010. Costs for the annual street maintenance project fluctuate based upon the type of process used. Public Works uses three techniques (crack seal, slurry seal, and cape seal) to maintain streets. Crack, slurry, and cape seal use asphalt or other materials to fill cracks and seal street surfaces to prevent further deterioration. Public Works uses three techniques for resurfacing streets (asphalt overlay, repair and replace concrete, and reconstruction of concrete streets). According to the Department, reconstruction of concrete streets is the most costly technique and crack sealing is the least costly. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC): 2009 Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Ratings Source: MTC, Pavement Condition of Bay Area Jurisdictions 2009 Authorized Staffing (FTE) Citizen Survey Operating expenditures (in millions) Capital projects spending (in millions) General fund Capital projects fund Total lane miles maintained Lane miles resurfaced Percent of lane miles resurfaced Number of potholes repaired (Target: 1,670) Percent of potholes repaired within 15 days of notification (Target: 80%) Number of signs repaired or replaced (Target: 1,620) Percent rating street repair “good” or “excellent” FY 2006 $2.1 $2.4 13 2 463 20 4% 2,311 95% 1,754 47% FY 2007 $2.0 $5.2 13 2 463 32 7% 1,188 82% 1,475 47% FY 2008 $2.5 $3.8 13 2 463 27 6% 1,977 78% 1,289 47% FY 2009 $2.4 $4.3 13 2 463 23 5% 3,727 80% 1,292 42% FY 2010 $2.5 $3.9 14 3 470 32 7% 3,149 86% 2,250 43% Change over last 5 years: +18% +66% +7% +50% 0% +62% +3% +36% -9% +28% -4% Budget benchmarking measure data shown here may differ from budget document due to timing differences. Targets shown are for FY 2010. - 52 - Chapter 7- PUBLIC WORKS SIDEWALKS In FY 2010, about 54,600 square feet of sidewalks were replaced or permanently repaired and 22 new ADA1 ramps were completed. In the past five years, more than 400,000 square feet of sidewalk were replaced or permanently repaired and 206 ADA ramps were completed. The Department reports that 78% of temporary repairs were completed within 15 days of initial inspection. 51% of survey respondents rate sidewalk maintenance “good” or “excellent.” This places Palo Alto in the 41st percentile and gives it a ranking similar to other surveyed jurisdictions. Historically, the City covered all costs related to sidewalk replacement, regardless of the cause. Currently, property owners are responsible for sidewalk replacement if the damage to the sidewalk is not caused by tree roots. Sidewalk Expenditures: FY 2001 - FY 2010 Source: Public Works Department Note: In FY 2006, operating expenditures for sidewalks and associated staff were transferred to the Capital Projects Fund. Authorized Staffing (FTE) Citizen Survey Capital projects spending (in millions) Capital projects fund Number of square feet of sidewalks Square feet of sidewalk replaced or permanently repaired2 Number ADA ramps completed1 Percent of temporary repairs completed within 15 days of initial inspection Percent rating sidewalk maintenance “good” or “excellent” FY 2006 $2.5 8 6,679,200 126,574 66 87% 53% FY 2007 $2.5 7 6,679,200 94,620 70 98% 57% FY 2008 $2.2 7 6,679,200 83,827 27 88% 53% FY 2009 $1.6 7 6,679,200 56,909 21 86% 53% FY 2010 $1.9 7 6,679,200 54,602 22 78% 51% Change over last 5 years: -23% -11% 0% -57% -67% -9% -2% (in millions) 1 ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requires that accessibility to buildings and facilities be provided to individuals with disabilities. 2 Includes both in-house and contracted work. - 53 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 TREES Public Works maintains all City-owned trees, including street trees, all trees in the parks, and trees in City facilities. This includes planting new trees, trimming/pruning existing trees, removing dead/diseased trees, fertilizing and pest control, line clearing around electrical wires, 24/7 emergency response, and providing Certified Arborist advice to residents regarding care of City trees. Managers in the tree group also oversee several tree-related contracts including stump removal, electrical line clearing, and annual tree maintenance contracts. In FY 2010, City-maintained trees totaled 35,472. In FY 2010 a total of 201 trees were planted by the City and Canopy, a non-profit organization. The number of services provided (excluding trees trimmed for utility line clearing) in FY 2010 was 6,094, or 78% higher than it was five years ago in FY 2006. 69% of survey respondents rated street tree maintenance “good” or “excellent,” down 3% from 72% in FY 2006. 2010 Palo Alto Resident Survey: Quality Rating of Street Tree Maintenance Source: National Citizen Survey™ 2010 (Palo Alto) Citizen Survey Operating expenditures (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) (General Fund) Total number of City-maintained trees1 Number of trees planted1 Number of tree related services provided2 (Target: 6,000) Percent of urban forest pruned (Target: 12%) Percent of total tree lines cleared (Target: 25%) Number of tree-related electrical service disruptions (Target: 0) Percent rating street tree maintenance “good” or “excellent” FY 2006 $2.2 14 34,841 263 3,4223 10% 21% 13 72% FY 2007 $2.3 14 34,556 164 3,409 10% 30% 15 67% FY 2008 $2.5 14 35,322 188 6,579 18% 27% 9 68% FY 2009 $2.2 14 35,255 250 6,618 18% 33% 5 72% FY 2010 $2.4 14 35,472 201 6,094 18% 27% 4 69% Change over last 5 years: +11% 0% +2% -24% +78% +8% +6% -69% -3% 1 Includes trees planted by Canopy; data source is Department of Public Works workload statistics. 2 Excludes trees trimmed to clear power lines. 3 Estimated Budget benchmarking measure data shown here may differ from budget document due to timing differences. Targets shown are for FY 2010. - 54 - Chapter 7- PUBLIC WORKS CITY FACILITIES, ENGINEERING AND PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT Public Works builds, renovates and maintains City-owned and leased structures, parking lots, grounds, parks and open space. The Department also provides citywide capital improvement program (CIP) support including design, engineering, contract management, and project management. The Facilities Management Division staff handled an estimated 2,780 service calls in FY 2010 related to building mechanics, carpentry, electrical, locks and painting. This figure does not include preventive maintenance or custodial service calls. Maintaining and improving infrastructure continues to be a City priority. In response to the City Auditor’s infrastructure report issued in March 2008, the City continues to develop and update a comprehensive plan for addressing the General Fund infrastructure backlog estimated at $302 million, as shown in the FY 2011 Adopted Capital Budget. Number of Private Development Permit Applications FY 2001 through FY 2010 Source: Public Works Department City Facilities Engineering Private Development City facilities operating expenditures (in millions) City facilities authorized staffing (FTE) City facilities capital expenditures (in millions) Capital projects authorized staffing (FTE) Total square feet of facilities maintained1 (Target: 1,616,171) Maintenance cost per square foot (Target: $1.52) Custodial cost per square foot (Target: $1.15) Engineering operating expenditures (in millions) Engineering authorized staffing (FTE) Number of private development permits issued2 (Target: 250) Number of permits per FTE (Target: 77) FY 2006 $4.9 23 $6.1 8 1,402,225 $1.52 $1.18 $2.1 15 284 953 FY 2007 $5.3 23 $7.2 8 1,613,392 $1.38 $1.04 $2.3 14 215 723 FY 2008 $5.5 23 $7.4 8 1,616,171 $1.52 $1.12 $2.5 15 338 112 FY 2009 $5.9 25 $10.5 9 1,616,171 $1.62 $1.19 $2.3 15 304 101 FY 2010 $5.8 24 $9.9 11 1,617,101 $1.75 $1.18 $1.8 10 321 107 Change over last 5 years: +18% +4% +61% +43% +15% +15% 0% -17% -33% +13% +13% 1 The net increase in square feet for FY 2010 was due to a reduction in the landfill tollbooth, increase in landfill office trailer, and elimination of the landfill employee trailer. 2 Includes permits for street work, encroachment, and certificate of compliance. 3 The Department advises that FY 2006 and 2007 numbers were estimates. Budget benchmarking measure data shown here may differ from budget document due to timing differences. Targets shown are for FY 2010. - 55 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 STORM DRAINS The purpose of the City’s storm drain system is to ensure adequate local drainage and storm water quality protection for discharge to creeks and the San Francisco Bay. Storm drain expenses are paid from the Storm Drain Enterprise Fund. The average monthly residential bill is $10.95 to operate and maintain the storm drainage system. Capital expenditures have decreased from the prior year due to completion of the $7 million San Francisquito Creek storm water pump station project. The project is expected to improve drainage in the northeast section of Palo Alto. The Environmental Compliance Division reports that industrial site compliance with storm water regulations remains high as more facilities correct earlier violations, the City’s outreach becomes even more successful, and inspectors are finding, addressing, and correcting problems. Food service facilities account for a larger share of the total inspections than in the past and tend to have lower compliance rates. However, significant efforts over the last few years have led to improvements in this area as well. In FY 2010, the Department reported it cleaned and inspected 100% of catch basins and cleaned 86,174 feet of storm drain pipelines. In FY 2010, 73% of residents surveyed rated storm drainage “good” or “excellent,” placing Palo Alto in the 87th percentile among other surveyed jurisdictions. 2010 Palo Alto Resident Survey: Quality Ratings of Storm Drainage Source: National Citizen Survey™ 2010 (Palo Alto) Revenues, expenses, transfers and reserves (in millions)Citizen Survey Total operating revenue Total operating expense Capital expense1 Transfer from General Fund to Storm Drain Fund Reserve balance Average monthly residential bill Authorized staffing (FTE) Feet of storm drain pipelines cleaned (Target: 100,000) Calls for assistance with storm drains2 Percent of industrial sites in compliance with storm water regulations S (Target: 70%) Percent rating the quality of storm drainage “good” or “excellent” FY 2006 $5.2 $2.1 $0.3 $0.54 $3.1 $10.00 10 128,643 24 83%3 60% FY 2007 $5.2 $2.0 $1.5 $0.0 $4.5 $10.20 10 287,957 4 71% 60% FY 2008 $5.5 $2.5 $3.6 $0.0 $3.3 $10.55 10 157,337 80 65% 71% FY 2009 $5.5 $1.6 $5.3 $0.0 $1.2 $10.95 10 107,223 44 66% 73% FY 2010 $5.6 $2.7 $1.6 $0.0 $2.7 $10.95 10 86,174 119 84% 73% Change over last 5 years: +9% +27% +399% -100% -13% +10% 0% -33% +396% +1% +13% 1 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. Does not include overhead. 2 Estimated 3 Environmental Compliance staff advises that the decrease since FY 2006 was due to a State redefinition of “compliance” and the inclusion of more restaurant inspections. 4 Supplemental funding from the General Fund was needed to maintain the level of service for storm drain maintenance and storm water quality protection programs. S Sustainability indicator Budget benchmarking measure data shown here may differ from budget document due to timing differences. Targets shown are for FY 2010. - 56 - Chapter 7- PUBLIC WORKS WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND WASTEWATER ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE The Public Works Department operates, maintains and monitors the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), treating all wastewater from the five partner cities in the regional service area (Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford, and East Palo Alto). In addition, it ensures compliance with regulations protecting the San Francisco Bay and the environment. The Wastewater Treatment Fund is an enterprise fund operated by the Public Works Department with approximately $18.1 million in operating expenses of which 62% is reimbursed by other jurisdictions. Capital expenditures have increased from FY 2006 and FY 2007 due to two major projects, the recycled water pipeline and the ultraviolet disinfection facility projects. The cost of the completed recycled water pipeline project was approximately $20 million. The ultraviolet disinfection facility project, still under construction, has a cost to date of approximately $8 million. Operating Cost per Million Gallon Processed: FY 2001 - FY 2010 Source: Public Works Department Wastewater Treatment Fund Regional Water Quality Control Plant Wastewater Environmental Compliance Total operating revenue (in millions) Total operating expense (in millions) Percent of operating expenses reimbursed by other jurisdictions Capital expense (in millions)1 Reserve balance (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Millions of gallons processed2 (Target: 8,510) Millions of gallons of recycled water delivered Operating cost per million gallons processed3 (Target: $2,208) Fish toxicity test (percent survival) S (Target: 95%) Authorized staffing (FTE) Number of inspections performed Percent of industrial discharge tests in compliance S (Target: 98%) FY 2006 $18.8 $16.9 63% $2.2 $13.6 55 8,972 103 $1,881 100% 14 192 99% FY 2007 $17.0 $16.3 64% $1.8 $13.8 55 8,853 130 $1,838 100% 14 114 99% FY 2008 $22.9 $18.1 64% $10.9 $11.1 55 8,510 138 $2,127 100% 14 111 99% FY 2009 $28.4 $16.4 63% $9.2 $12.9 54 7,958 97 $2,056 100% 14 103 99% FY 2010 $16.9 $18.1 62% $6.0 $11.8 55 8,184 168 $1,924 100% 14 75 99% Change over last 5 years: -10% +7% -1% +169% -13% +1% -9% +63% +2% 0% 0% -61% 0% 1 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. Does not include overhead. 2 Includes gallons processed for all cities served by Palo Alto’s Wastewater Treatment Plant. 3 Prior year numbers have been revised due to differences in the way the information was compiled. S Sustainability indicator Budget benchmarking measure data shown here may differ from budget document due to timing differences. Targets shown are for FY 2010. - 57 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 REFUSE The City coordinates refuse services for Palo Alto residents and businesses. This includes the collection, hauling, processing, recycling and disposal of waste materials. The City funds these activities through the Refuse Fund. Compared to FY 2006, the total tons of waste landfilled in FY 2010 are lower due to implementation of new services, such as expanded construction and demolition recycling and commercial food waste recycling, in addition to the slower economy. The Palo Alto landfill is expected to reach capacity and close in 2011. Accounting rules require the recording of a liability for estimated landfill closure and post-closure care costs. The Refuse Fund reserve balance decreased to a negative $1.4 million in FY 2010 to fund this liability. The Department anticipates the rate stabilization reserve will return to a positive balance as the liability is reduced over time. Total Tons of Waste Landfilled FY 2001 – FY 2010 Source: Public Works Department Refuse Fund (in millions) Citizen Survey Operating revenue Operating expense Capital expense1 Reserve balance Authorized staffing (FTE) Total tons of waste landfilled3, S Average monthly residential bill Percent of all sweeping routes completed (residential and commercial) 2 Percent rating garbage collection “good” or “excellent” (Target: 100%) Percent rating City’s composting process and pickup services “good” or “excellent” FY 2006 $24.8 $26.4 $0.1 $4.7 35 59,276 $21.38 88% 92% - FY 2007 $25.6 $25.1 $0.0 $5.9 35 59,938 $21.38 93% 91% - FY 2008 $28.8 $28.6 $0.0 $6.3 35 61,866 $24.16 90% 92% - FY 2009 $29.1 $33.5 $0.7 $0.8 35 68,228 $26.58 92% 89% 86% FY 2010 $28.6 $30.9 $0.2 ($1.4) 38 48,955 $31.004 88% 88% 83% Change over last 5 years: +15% +17% +69% -131% +8% -17% +45% 0% -4% - 1 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. Does not include overhead. 2 Most streets are swept weekly; some business districts are swept three times a week. 3 Does not include materials disposed of by self-haul customers, going to other landfills. 4 Default residential (1-can) service rate for FY 2010. S Sustainability indicator Budget benchmarking measure data shown here may differ from budget document due to timing differences. Target shown is for FY 2010. - 58 - Chapter 7- PUBLIC WORKS ZERO WASTE In 2005, the City adopted a Zero Waste Strategic Plan with a goal to reach zero waste to landfills by 2021 through the development of policies and incentives. In 2007, the City developed a Zero Waste Operational Plan to incorporate and promote practices that involve conserving resources, minimizing material consumption, reusing material through reassigning their function, maximizing recycling, and focusing on construction and demolition debris (C&D) recycling. In 2007, the State (Senate Bill 1016) changed the way communities track the success of recycling programs from diversion rates to reducing disposal rates. The City’s goal is to stay below 8.0 pounds per person per day – the City’s per capita disposal rate was 4.2 pounds per day in FY 2010. During FY 2010, the City diverted slightly less C&D from the landfill than in the prior year, and approximately 52% more than in FY 2008. During FY 2010, ordinances went into effect to reduce distribution of single-use plastic bags at large grocery stores and the use of polystyrene or non-recyclable plastic containers by food vendors. The Department reported that the percent of customers using reusable bags at grocery stores more than doubled in FY 2010 as compared to FY 2008. Prior to implementation, the City conducted a comprehensive outreach campaign to encourage the use of reusable bags. Palo Alto ranked in the 98th percentile among surveyed jurisdictions for recycling used paper, cans, or bottles from the home. Palo Alto ranked in the 93rd percentile for percent of residents rating recycling collection “good” or “excellent.” Total Tons of Materials Recycled FY 2001 – FY 2010 Source: Public Works Department Citizen Survey Tons of materials recycled1, S Tons of household hazardous materials collected S Tons of C&D diverted S Percent of customers using reusable bags at grocery stores S Per capita disposal rate (pounds per day) S Percent rating recycling services “good” or “excellent” Percent of residents who recycled more than 12 times during the year FY 2006 56,013 309 - - - 91% 90% FY 2007 56,837 320 - - - 93% 92% FY 2008 52,196 315 6,656 9% 6.0 90% 94% FY 2009 49,911 243 10,508 19% 5.9 90% 92% FY 2010 48,811 234 10,137 21% 4.2 90% 93% Change over last 5 years: -13% -24% - - - -1% +3% 1 Does not include materials disposed of by self-haul customers, going to other landfills. S Sustainability indicator - 59 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 - 60 - CITY FLEET AND EQUIPMENT The Public Works Department monitors the maintenance and replacement of City vehicles and equipment, while pursuing alternative fuel technologies and minimizing the pollution and carbon footprint generated from the City’s vehicle fleet. The Department reports that the City's fleet includes 296 passenger1 and emergency response vehicles, 124 heavy equipment items (construction equipment such as loaders, backhoes, and motor graders), and 242 additional pieces of other equipment (turf equipment, trailers, asphalt rollers, etc.). Within the Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund, vehicle operations and maintenance costs totaled about $4.0 million in FY 2010. The median age of passenger vehicles has increased to 8.7 years. The maintenance cost per passenger vehicle in FY 2010 decreased to $1,836 from $2,123 in FY 2009. In response to the City Auditor’s Audit of Fleet Utilization and Replacement, issued in April 2010, the Department continues to implement recommendations to increase efficiency and controls. Total Miles Traveled (Passenger Vehicles) FY 2001 – FY 2010 Source: Public Works Department Operating and maintenance expenditures (vehicles and equipment) Authorized staffing (FTE) Current value of fleet and equipment (in millions) Number of alternative fuel vehicles (Target: 84) Percent of fleet fuel consumption that is alternative fuels (Target: 25%) Total miles traveled (passenger vehicles) Median mileage of passenger vehicles Median age of passenger vehicles Maintenance cost per passenger vehicle2 Percent of scheduled preventive maintenance performed within five business days of original schedule FY 2006 $3.2 16 $11.9 74 19% 1,674,427 41,153 6.8 $1,781 95% FY 2007 $3.3 16 $11.9 79 20% 1,849,600 41,920 6.8 $1,886 86% FY 2008 $3.7 16 $10.8 80 25% 1,650,743 42,573 7.4 $1,620 74% FY 2009 $4.1 16 $10.0 75 25% 1,615,771 44,784 8.0 $2,123 94% FY 2010 $4.0 16 $11.2 74 24% 1,474,747 47,040 8.7 $1,836 93% Change over last 5 years: +26% 0% -6% 0% +5% -12% +14% +28% +3% -2% 1 The Public Works Department defines “passenger vehicles” as automobiles and light trucks (less than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight). 2 Includes all maintenance costs except for fuel and accident repairs. Includes 30 police patrol cars. Budget benchmarking measure data shown here may differ from budget document due to timing differences. Targets shown are for FY 2010. CHAPTER 8 – UTILITIES The mission of the Utilities Department is to provide valued utility services to customers and dependable returns to the City. The Department is responsible for the following utility services:1 Electric – Founded in 1900, the electric utility purchases and delivers approximately 965,000 megawatt hours per year to more than 29,000 customers. Gas – Founded in 1917, the gas utility purchases and delivers approximately 31 million therms to over 23,000 customers. Water – Founded in 1896, the water system purchases and distributes almost 5 million cubic feet per year to over 20,000 customers. Wastewater collection – Founded in 1898, the wastewater collection utility maintains more than 200 miles of sanitary sewer lines, annually transporting over 8 billion gallons of sewage and wastewater to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant.2 Fiber optic services – Launched in 1996, the fiber utility offers “dark” fiber optic network service to Palo Alto businesses and institutions through 40.6 miles of “dark” fiber. Utilities Department Expenditures (by Fund) Source: 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 1The Public Works Department (see Chapter 7) is responsible for refuse, storm drainage, and wastewater treatment. 2Over 8 billion gallons represents the total amount of sewage and wastewater from all partnering agencies; Palo Alto’s portion was 38.42% of this amount in FY 2010. - 61 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 ELECTRICITY Electric utility operating expense totaled $101.4 million in FY 2010, or 22% more than 5 years ago, including electricity purchases of $68.7 million, or 23% more than 5 years ago. Although Palo Alto’s average residential electric bill has increased by 32% over five years (from $57.93 to $76.33 per month), it is lower than the comparable Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) rates as shown in the graph on the right. In 2010, 79% of respondents to the Citizen Survey rated electric utility services “good” or “excellent.” History of Average Monthly Electric Bills: (650 kilowatt hour/month) Source: Utilities Department Revenues, expenses, and unrestricted reserves (in millions) Citizen Survey Operating revenue Operating expense Capital expense1 Equity transfers Electric Fund reserves Electricity purchases (in millions) Average purchase cost per megawatt hour (Target: $82.94) Energy conservation/ efficiency program expense (in millions) Average monthly residential bill (650 kilowatt hour/month) Authorized staffing (FTE) Percent rating electric utility “good” or “excellent” (Target: >85%) Percent rating street lighting “good” or “excellent” FY 2006 $119.4 $83.1 $7.2 $8.7 $161.3 $55.6 $48.62 $1.5 $57.93 119 88% 66% FY 2007 $102.5 $89.6 $10.5 $8.8 $156.4 $62.5 $64.97 $1.5 $57.93 114 86% 61% FY 2008 $103.8 $99.0 $10.2 $9.4 $145.3 $71.1 $76.84 $1.9 $60.83 111 85% 64% FY 2009 $119.3 $112.4 $5.3 $9.7 $129.4 $82.3 $83.34 $2.1 $69.38 107 83% 64% FY 2010 $121.9 $101.4 $7.5 $11.5 $133.4 $68.7 $69.13 $2.7 $76.33 109 79% 68% Change over last 5 years: +2% +22% +3% +32% -17% +23% +42% +73% +32% -8% -9% +2% 1 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. Budget benchmarking measure. Targets shown are for FY 2010. - 62 - Chapter 8 - UTILITIES ELECTRICITY (cont.) Residential electricity consumption increased by 1% from 5 years ago (adjusted for population growth, per capita residential electricity usage decreased by 4%), while commercial consumption decreased by less than 1% over the same period. In FY 2010, Palo Alto obtained power from several renewable resources, including 34% in the large hydro category, 17% in the qualifying renewable category, and 7% through voluntary subscriptions to the Palo Alto Green program. By the end of FY 2010, 22% of customers were enrolled in the Palo Alto Green program, an increase of 7% from 5 years ago. Palo Alto Green is a voluntary program available to resident and business customers that offers the option of supporting 100% wind-generated renewable energy at a competitive rate. The number of electric service interruptions and the average minutes per customer affected are highly variable from year to year. Including storm related outages, electric service interruptions over 1 minute in duration decreased by 49% from 5 years ago, and the average minutes per customer affected decreased 18% from 5 years ago. Electric Consumption (in megawatt hours) FY 2006 – FY 2010 Source: Utilities Department Data Percent power content1 Number of accounts Residential MWH consumed S Commercial & Other MWH consumed S Average residential electric usage per capita (MWH/person) S Renewable large hydro facilities S Qualifying renewables S,2 Voluntary Palo Alto Green program S (Target: 6%) Percent customers enrolled in Palo Alto Green S (Target: 25%) Electric service interruptions over 1 minute in duration Average minutes per customer affected (Target: <60 minutes) Circuit miles under- grounded during the year FY 2006 28,653 161,202 804,908 2.60 61% 8% 3% 15% 39 63 minutes 1.0 FY 2007 28,684 162,405 815,721 2.61 84% 10% 4% 19% 48 48 minutes 1.0 FY 2008 29,024 162,680 814,695 2.58 53% 14% 5% 20% 41 53 minutes 1.2 FY 2009 28,527 159,899 835,784 2.48 47% 19% 6% 20% 28 63 minutes 0 FY 2010 29,430 163,098 801,990 2.49 34% 17% 7% 22% 20 52 minutes 0 Change over last 5 years: +3% +1% 0% -4% -27% +9% +4% +7% -49% -18% -100% 1 Combined City of Palo Alto Utilities and Palo Alto Green mix for the calendar year. Calendar year data is reported in the subsequent fiscal year (e.g., calendar year 2005 data is shown in FY 2006). 2 Qualifying renewable electricity include bio mass, biogas, geothermal, small hydro facilities (not large hydro), solar, and wind. The City Council established a target of 33% renewable power by 2015. S Sustainability indicator Budget benchmarking measure. Targets shown are for FY 2010. - 63 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 GAS Gas enterprise operating expense totaled $32.6 million in FY 2010, including $22.5 million in gas purchases (compared to $21.4 million in gas purchases 5 years ago). Capital spending of $5.1 million in FY 2010 was 56% more than five years ago. The average monthly residential gas bill decreased to $99.42 in FY 2010. This was 43% more than five years ago but 10% lower than in FY 2009. The average monthly residential gas bill continues to be higher than the average PG&E bill as shown in the graph on the right. In 2010, 80% of survey respondents to the Citizen Survey rated gas utility services “good” or “excellent.” History of Average Residential Gas Bills: (30 therms summer, 80 therms winter) Source: Utilities Department data (weighted average of rate changes during year) Revenues, expenses, and unrestricted reserves (in millions) Citizen Survey Operating revenue Operating expense Capital expense1 Equity transfers Gas Fund reserves Gas purchases (in millions) Average purchase cost (per therm) (Target: $0.85) Average monthly residential bill (30/100 therms per month) Authorized staffing (FTE) Percent rating gas utility “good” or “excellent” (Target: >84%) FY 2006 $37.0 $28.3 $3.3 $2.9 $13.2 $21.4 $0.65 $69.76 47 88% FY 2007 $42.2 $30.1 $3.6 $3.0 $16.9 $22.3 $0.69 $90.97 48 85% FY 2008 $49.0 $36.6 $4.4 $3.2 $21.8 $27.2 $0.82 $102.03 46 84% FY 2009 $47.8 $33.4 $4.5 $3.3 $26.4 $25.1 $0.78 $110.71 48 81% FY 2010 $44.5 $32.6 $5.1 $5.4 $29.6 $22.5 $0.71 $99.42 49 80% Cha last 5 years: nge over +20% +15% +56% +85% +124% +5% +10% +43% +4% -8% $/ m o n t h 1 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. Budget benchmarking measure. Targets shown are for FY 2010. - 64 - Chapter 8 - UTILITIES GAS (cont.) Residents consumed 3% less natural gas in FY 2010 than 5 years ago, and businesses consumed 2% less. Although gas usage has been relatively constant over the past 5 years, the Department states that usage can be seasonal and weather dependent. During FY 2010, 207 miles of pipeline were surveyed for leaks, and 6 miles of gas mains were replaced. The number of service disruptions has increased by 205% from FY 2006 and 26% from FY 2009. In FY 2010, the 58 service disruptions affected 939 customers, an increase of 345% from 5 years ago and 23% from last year. In FY 2010, the Department responded to 83% of gas leaks within 30 minutes, and completed 95% of mainline repairs within 4 hours. The reporting of number of service disruptions varied considerably from past years due to an inadequate tracking system. The department recently implemented a new Geographic Information System (GIS) based program to track damages, service requests, and leaks. Gas Consumption FY 2006 – FY 2010 Source: Utilities Department Customer accounts Residential therms consumed S Commercial & Other/ therms consumed S Average residential natural gas usage per capita (therms/person) S Number of service disruptions Total customers affected Percent gas mainline repairs within 4 hours1 Percent response to gas leaks within 30 minutes Miles of gas main Miles of pipeline surveyed for leaks Miles of gas main replaced during year (Target: 5.7) FY 2006 23,353 11,745,883 19,766,876 188 19 211 100% 90% 207 207 2.8 FY 2007 23,357 11,759,842 19,581,761 188 18 307 90% 95% 207 207 2.3 FY 2008 23,502 11,969,151 20,216,975 189 18 105 95% 95% 207 207 5.7 FY 2009 23,090 11,003,088 19,579,877 171 46 766 95% 95% 207 207 6.7 FY 2010 23,724 11,394,712 19,350,424 177 58 939 95% 83% 207 207 6.0 Change over last 5 years: +2% -3% -2% -6% +205% +345% -5% -7% 0% 0% +114% Th e r m s 1 Utilities Strategic Plan performance objective Budget benchmarking measure. Target shown is for FY 2010. S Sustainability indicator - 65 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 WATER The City of Palo Alto Utilities Department constructs, maintains, and operates the water delivery system.2 About 85% of the water Palo Alto purchases from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) originates from high Sierra snowmelt. This water, stored in Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite National Park, is of such high quality that it is exempt from federal and state filtration requirements. The other 15% of SFPUC water comes from rainfall and runoff stored in the Calaveras and San Antonio reservoirs located in Alameda and Santa Clara counties, and supplemented by groundwater in Sunol. The SFPUC treats and filters these local water sources prior to delivery to its consumers. Compared to FY 2006, capital spending increased from $4.7 million to $7.1 million. Water Fund reserves increased by 49% to $28.7 million in FY 2010. From 5 years ago, the average residential water bill increased 33% to $72.01 per month and the average purchase cost of water per hundred cubic feet (CCF) increased by 46%. As shown in the graph on the right, Palo Alto’s average residential water bill is higher than other local jurisdictions. History of Average Residential Water Bills: (14 ccf/month) Source: Utilities Department Note: Palo Alto’s capital expenditures and rent are generally higher than other benchmark cities. Revenues, expenses, and unrestricted reserves (in millions) Operating revenue Operating expense Capital expense1 Equity transfers Water Fund reserves Water purchases (millions) Average purchase cost (per 100 CCF) (Target: $1.70) Average residential water bill Authorized staffing (FTE) Total Water in CCF sold (millions) FY 2006 $20.8 $15.3 $4.7 $2.4 $19.2 $6.5 $1.13 $54.12 41 5.3 FY 2007 $23.5 $16.3 $3.9 $2.5 $21.3 $7.8 $1.32 $58.17 45 5.5 FY 2008 $26.5 $18.3 $3.4 $2.7 $26.4 $8.4 $1.41 $64.21 46 5.5 FY 2009 $27.1 $19.4 $4.9 $2.8 $26.6 $8.4 $1.46 $68.79 48 5.4 FY 2010 $26.3 $20.5 $7.1 $0.1 $28.7 $5.3 $1.69 $72.01 47 5.0 Change over last 5 years: +26% +34% +50% -96% +49% -17% +46% +33% +15% -5% $/ m o n t h 1 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. 2 Effective July 1, 2009, the Department executed a new 25-year Water Supply Agreement with San Francisco. Budget benchmarking measure. Target shown is for FY 2010. CCF - hundred cubic feet - 66 - Chapter 8 - UTILITIES WATER (cont.) Residential water consumption decreased 9% from five years ago. On a per capita basis, residents are using 12% less water than five years ago. Commercial water consumption decreased 1% from five years ago. Palo Alto’s Water Utility revenues are based primarily on consumption rates plus a fixed monthly customer charge. Based on data availability, Palo Alto has one of the oldest water main infrastructure of neighboring agencies. According to the Department, Palo Alto also replaces its water utility infrastructure within the average service lives of the facilities, which is a more aggressive replacement plan than other utilities. Palo Alto’s incidence of main breaks, leaks, and outages is below average, which is further evidence of higher reliability. In the 2010 Citizen Survey, 84% of respondents rated water quality as “good” or “excellent,” which places Palo Alto in the 95th percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. Palo Alto provides a higher quality of service based on the lower number of complaints received for taste, odor, turbidity, and pressure according to a 2008 Drinking Water Program Report. Water Consumption (in hundred cubic feet) FY 2006 – FY 2010 Source: Utilities Department Water consumption Citizen Survey Customer accounts Residential water consumption (CCF) S Commercial & Other water consumption (CCF) 2,S Average residential water usage per capita (CCF) S Number of service disruptions Total customers affected Percent water main repairs responded to within 1 hour (Target: 100%) Miles of water mains Estimated miles of water mains replaced Water quality compliance with all required Calif. Department of Health and EPA testingS Percent rating water “good” or “excellent” (Target: >87%) FY 2006 19,645 2,647,758 2,561,145 42 11 160 100%1 219 0 100% 80% FY 2007 19,726 2,807,477 2,673,126 45 27 783 97%1 219 3 100% 79% FY 2008 19,942 2,746,980 2,779,664 43 17 374 97% 219 3 100% 87% FY 2009 19,422 2,566,962 2,828,163 40 19 230 95% 219 3 100% 81% FY 2010 20,134 2,415,467 2,539,818 37 25 291 100% 2143 5 100% 84% Change over last 5 years: +2% -9% -1% -12% +127% +82% 0% -2% - 0% +4% 1 The performance measure for responding to water main breaks was changed in FY 2008 to response within 4 hours to within 1 hour. 2 Includes commercial, industrial research, and City facilities. 3 Decrease due to abandonment of parallel facilities. S Sustainability indicator Budget benchmarking measure. Targets shown are for FY 2010. CCF - hundred cubic feet - 67 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 WASTEWATER COLLECTION The Department cleaned or treated 136 miles of the City’s 207 miles of sewer lines in FY 2010. There were 348 sewage overflows in calendar year 2010. The Department responded to 100% of sewage spills and line blockages within 2 hours. In the 2010 Citizen Survey, 82% of survey respondents rated sewer services “good” or “excellent.” This placed Palo Alto in the 84th percentile compared to other jurisdictions. From 5 years ago, operating revenue increased 10% and reserves increased 14%. In FY 2010, capital spending was $2.8 million, a 4% decrease from FY 2009. The average residential bill increased from $21.85 to $24.65, or 13%, from 5 years ago. As shown on the right, Palo Alto’s residential bill is mid-range of other compared cities. History of Average Wastewater Bills: FY 2006 – FY 2010 Source: Utilities Department Note: Cities may allocate costs differently and may have different levels of capital investment Revenues, expenses, and unrestricted reserves (in millions) Citizen Survey Operating revenue Operating expense Capital expense1 Wastewater Collection Fund reserves Average residential sewage bill Authorized staffing (FTE) Customer accounts Miles of sewer lines Miles of mains cleaned/ treated (Target: 101) Estimated miles of sewer lines replaced Number of sewage overflows Percent sewage spills and line blockage responses within 2 hours (Target: 95%) Percent rating quality of sewer services “good” or “excellent” (Target: >81%) FY 2006 $13.8 $10.8 $2.4 $14.5 $21.85 23 21,784 202 89 0 310 99% 83% FY 2007 $14.8 $10.0 $7.7 $12.4 $23.48 25 21,789 202 140 7 152 99% 82% FY 2008 $15.1 $11.7 $3.6 $13.8 $23.48 28 21,970 202 80 2 174 99% 81% FY 2009 $14.5 $11.0 $2.9 $14.1 $23.48 25 21,210 207 91 2 210 100% 81% FY 2010 $15.1 $10.9 $2.8 $16.6 $24.65 26 22,231 207 136 4 348 100% 82% Change over last 5 years: +10% +1% +17% +14% +13% +13% +2% +2% +53% - +13% +1% -1% $/ m o n t h 1 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. Budget benchmarking measure. Targets shown are for FY 2010. - 68 - Chapter 8 - UTILITIES FIBER OPTIC UTILITY In 1996, a 40.6 mile dark1 fiber backbone was built throughout the City with the goal of delivering broadband services to all premises, with customers connected via fiber optic “service connections.” New customers pay the fees required to connect to the fiber optic backbone. Staff continues to evaluate the utilization of Fiber Optics Fund reserves to independently proceed with a phased build-out of the existing backbone. A business plan is being developed for the Broadband System Project which includes: an assessment of potential fiber backbone extensions, a conceptual proposal for fiber-to-the-premise (FTTP) deployment, providing dark fiber service connections to Palo Alto Unified School District facilities, and coordination of the Broadband System Project business plan with the development of the Smart Grid Strategic Plan. The goal of the Broadband System Project business plan is to define practical, incremental, low-risk options to fully leverage the existing fiber backbone asset and determine if these options provide new opportunities for the City to pursue an open access FTTP operating model that would be attractive to a potential private partner willing to invest in a network in Palo Alto. From 5 years ago, operating revenue increased by 90%, and operating expense increased by 89%. The number of service connections grew 41% over the same period. Fiber Optics Number of Service Connections: FY 2006 – FY 2010 Source: Utilities Department Revenues, expenses, and unrestricted fund balance (in millions) Operating revenue Operating expense2 Capital expense2 Fund balance2 Number of customer accounts Number of service connections Backbone fiber miles Authorized staffing (FTE) FY 2006 $1.6 $0.8 $0.2 $1.0 42 139 - 5 FY 2007 $2.2 $0.7 $0.1 $2.7 49 161 40.6 3 FY 2008 $3.1 $0.4 $0.1 $5.0 41 173 40.6 0.7 FY 2009 $3.3 $1.4 $0.3 $6.4 47 178 40.6 6 FY 2010 $3.1 $1.4 $0.1 $10.2 47 196 40.6 6 Change over last 5 years: +90% +89% -45% +965% +12% +41% - +13% 1 Dark fiber is optical data cabling connecting facilities or accessing service providers. Customers using dark fiber provide their own electronic equipment to “light” the fiber. 2 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, contract services, and allocated charges. - 69 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 - 70 - This Page Intentionally Left Blank CHAPTER 9 – STRATEGIC AND SUPPORT SERVICES Strategic and Support Services include: Administrative Services Department – provides financial support services, property management, money management, financial analysis and reporting, purchasing, and information technology services. Human Resources – provides staff support services, including recruitment, employee and labor relations, employee development, and risk management; administers employee compensation and benefits. City Manager – provides leadership to the organization in the implementation of City Council policies and the provision of quality services to the community. The Office also coordinates City Council relations, community and intergovernmental relations, and the City’s sustainability initiatives. City Attorney – provides legal representation, consultation and advice, and litigation and dispute resolution services. City Clerk – provides public information, Council support, administers elections, and preserves the legislative history of the City. City Auditor – conducts performance audits, revenue audits and monitoring, and coordinates the annual external audit of the City’s financial statements.. City Council – The City Council is the legislative and governing body of the City of Palo Alto. The City Council is composed of the Mayor and eight other Council members. What is the source of Strategic and Support Services funding? How are Strategic and Support Services dollars spent? Source: FY 2010 revenue and expenditure data - 71 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 SPENDING AND STAFFING Palo Alto’s strategic, management and support expenditures (about 9%) were 4th highest of 9 local jurisdictions. It should be noted that jurisdictions offer different levels of service and classify expenditures in different ways. Administrative Services Department expenditures were about $7.9 million in FY 2010. The Department had a total of 93 FTE. Human Resources Department expenditures were approximately $2.7 million in FY 2010. The Department had a total of 16 FTE. City Manager’s Office expenditures were about $2.2 million in FY 2010. The Office had a total of 12 FTE. City Attorney’s Office expenditures, including outside legal fees, were about $2.6 million in FY 2010. The Attorney’s Office had 12 FTE. City Clerk’s Office expenditures were about $1.5 million in FY 2010. The Clerk’s Office had 7 FTE. City Auditor’s Office expenditures were about $1.0 million in FY 2010. The Auditor’s Office had 4 FTE. Strategic, Management and Support Expenditures as a Percent of Total Operating Expenditures Source: California State Controller, Cities Annual Report FY 2007-08 Operating Expenditures (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Administrative Services Human Resources City Manager City Attorney City Clerk City Auditor City Council Administrative Services1 Human Resources City Manager City Attorney City Clerk City Auditor FY 2006 $6.6 $2.5 $1.6 $2.6 $1.0 $0.9 $0.1 98 15 9 12 6 4 FY 2007 $7.0 $2.6 $1.9 $2.5 $0.9 $0.9 $0.2 99 16 9 12 7 4 FY 2008 $7.3 $2.7 $2.3 $2.7 $1.3 $0.9 $0.2 101 16 12 12 7 4 FY 2009 $7.0 $2.7 $2.0 $2.5 $1.1 $0.8 $0.3 94 16 12 12 7 4 FY 2010 $7.9 $2.7 $2.2 $2.6 $1.5 $1.0 $0.3 93 16 12 12 7 4 Change over last 5 years: +19% +7% +39% 0% +54% +10% +102% -5% +6% +32% -6% +19% +5% 1 Includes Administrative Services Department staff charged to other funds. - 72 - Chapter 9 – STRATEGIC AND SUPPORT SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES The mission of the Administrative Services Department (ASD) is to provide proactive administrative and technical support to City departments and decision makers, and to safeguard and facilitate the optimal use of City resources. ASD encompasses a variety of services that might well be separate departments in a larger city. The Department monitors the City’s cash and investments. According to the Department, the City’s rate of return was 3.96% in FY 2010. In FY 2010, Standard and Poor’s reaffirmed the City’s AAA credit rating, the highest credit rating possible. In addition, Standard & Poor’s assigned the City’s 2010 General Obligation Bonds an AAA rating and affirmed its AA+ rating on the City’s outstanding certificates of participation. According to the Department, the General Obligation Library Bonds were issued at a lower than anticipated rate as a result of the AAA rating. As shown in the chart on the right, the number of purchasing documents processed (through purchase orders and contracts) has declined with the increased use of purchasing cards for smaller transaction amounts. According to staff, the increase in purchasing card transactions for lower-priced goods helps staff to focus more time on purchase orders and contracts involving higher dollar values and services. Information Technology operating and maintenance expenditures as a percent of total operating expenditures decreased from the prior year to 4.9% in FY 2010. According to the Department, they are in the process of updating the Information Technology Strategic Plan. Decrease in Purchasing Documents Processed with Increased Use of Purchasing Cards Source: Administrative Services Department Purchasing Information Cash and investments (in millions) (Target: $330 million) Rate of return on investments General Fund reserves1 (in millions) Number of accounts payable checks issued (Target: 15,000) Percent invoices paid within 30 days (Target: 80%) Number of purchasing documents processed (Target: 2,700) Dollar value goods and services purchased (in millions) Number computer work- stations Requests for computer help desk services resolved within 5 days IT operating and maintenance expenditures as a percent of General Fund operating expenditures2 Citizen Survey Percent who visited the City’s website3 FY 2006 $376.2 4.21% $26.3 15,069 80% 2,847 $61.3 1000 87% 3.9% - FY 2007 $402.6 4.35% $31.0 14,802 80% 2,692 $107.5 1000 87% 3.3% - FY 2008 $375.7 4.45% $31.3 14,480 83% 2,549 $117.2 1000 88% 4.9% 78% FY 2009 $353.4 4.42% $33.1 14,436 83% 2,577 $132.0 1005 87% 5.8% 75% FY 2010 $462.4 3.96% $31.1 12,609 78% 2,314 $112.5 1005 89% 4.9% 79% Change over last 5 years: 23% -6% +18% -16% -2% -19% +84% +1% +2% +1% - 1 Total unreserved/designated fund balances 2 Adjusted to exclude Information Technology services provided to the Utilities Department 3 New survey question in FY 2008 Budget benchmarking measure. Targets shown are for FY 2010. - 73 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 HUMAN RESOURCES The mission of the Human Resources (HR) department is to recruit, develop and retain a diverse, well-qualified, and professional workforce that reflects the high standards of the community we serve and to provide a high level of support to City departments.1 The ratio of HR staff to total City staff is 1 to 70. The hours of employee training provided by the Department decreased from 8,710 in FY 2009 to 3,429 in FY 2010. The estimated incurred cost for workers’ compensation claims decreased in FY 2010; however, it should be noted that early estimates of current claim costs often continue to grow as claims develop. In FY 2010, 2,113 calendar days were lost to work-related illness or injury. Worker’s Compensation Estimated Incurred Cost (in $000’s) Source: Human Resources Department Ratio HR staff to total authorized staffing (FTE) Number of new hires processed3 (Target: 120) Percent of first year turnover (Target: 1%) Percent of grievances settled before arbitration Citywide training hours provided (Target: 2,500) Worker’s Compensation Estimated Incurred Cost 2 (in millions) Days lost to work-related illness or injury4 FY 2006 1 to 75 125 3% 100% 8,052 $3.3 2,592 FY 2007 1 to 74 138 7% 100% 7,121 $2.1 1,676 FY 2008 1 to 73 157 9% 100% 9,054 $2.4 1,458 FY 2009 1 to 72 130 8% 100% 8,710 $2.4 1,795 FY 2010 1 to 70 126 6% 100% 3,429 $1.4 2,113 Change over last 5 years: -7% +1% +3% 0% -57% -57% -18% 1 Information about Citywide staffing levels is shown on page 11 of this report. 2 Early estimates of current claim costs grow as claims develop. Prior year estimates are revised to reflect current estimated costs for claims incurred during that fiscal year. 3 Includes transfers and internal promotions (excludes seasonal and hourly staff). 4 Due to a change in federal reporting requirements, the number of days lost to work-related illness or injury is now based on calendar days, not work days. Budget benchmarking measure. Targets shown are for FY 2010. - 74 - Chapter 9 – STRATEGIC AND SUPPORT SERVICES CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY CLERK, CITY AUDITOR The mission of the City Manager’s Office is to provide leadership to the organization in the implementation of City Council policies and the provision of quality services to the community. The City Manager’s Office coordinated preparation of 378 staff reports during FY 2010. The City Manager’s Office also coordinates public information services. The mission of the City Attorney’s Office is to serve Palo Alto and its policy makers by providing legal representation of the highest quality. The current ratio of staff attorneys to regular full-time equivalent employees is 1 to 192. The mission of the City Clerk’s Office is to foster community awareness and civic involvement by providing timely and accurate records of the activities of City policy makers. In FY 2010, the average time to finalize City Council minutes was 4 weeks. The mission of the City Auditor’s Office is to promote honest, efficient, effective, and fully accountable City government. The Office conducts performance audits, revenue audits and monitoring, and coordinates the annual external audit of the City’s financial statements. In addition to $135,118 in revenue audit recoveries, the Office identified other savings resulting in a total economic benefit of $3.3 million in FY 2010. Council Appointed Officers Source: Operating budget City Manager City Attorney City Clerk City Auditor Number of staff reports issued (Target: 372) Citizen Survey Percent rating public information services “good” or “excellent” (Target: 76%) Citizen Survey Percent rating opportunities to learn about City services through social networking sites good or excellent Number of claims handled (Target: 135) Number of work requests processed (Target: 2,750) Ratio staff attorneys to total employees (FTE) Average time to finalize City Council minutes (Target: 4 weeks) Audit recommendations implemented (Target: 40%) Revenue audit recoveries (Target: $150,000) FY 2006 336 72% - 107 2,123 1 to 172 4 weeks 54% $917,597 FY 2007 341 73% - 149 2,511 1 to 193 4 weeks 5% $78,770 FY 2008 372 76% - 160 2,957 1 to 195 6 weeks1 55% $149,810 FY 2009 373 68% 60% 126 3,230 1 to 179 4 weeks 45% $84,762 FY 2010 378 67% 57% 144 3,393 1 to 192 4 weeks 34% $135,118 Change over last 5 years: +13% -5% - +35% +60% +12% 0% -20% -85% 1 According to the Department, staffing changes contributed to the increase in average time to finalize City Council minutes in FY 2008. Budget benchmarking measure. Targets shown are for FY 2010. - 75 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 - 76 - This Page Intentionally Left Blank 3005 30th Street 777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 500 Boulder, CO 80301 Washington, DC 20002 www.n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 www.icma.org • 202-289-ICMA The National Citizen Survey™ CCII TT YY OO FF PP AA LL OO AA LL TT OO ,, CC AA 22001100 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . CCoonntteenn tt ss Survey Background.............................................................................................................1 About The National Citizen Survey™ ........................................................................................1 Understanding the Results........................................................................................................3 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................5 Community Ratings............................................................................................................7 Overall Community Quality.....................................................................................................7 Community Design ..................................................................................................................9 Transportation....................................................................................................................9 Housing ...........................................................................................................................12 Land Use and Zoning.......................................................................................................14 Economic Sustainability..........................................................................................................17 Public Safety ..........................................................................................................................20 Environmental Sustainability...................................................................................................23 Recreation and Wellness........................................................................................................26 Parks and Recreation........................................................................................................26 Culture, Arts and Education..............................................................................................28 Health and Wellness ........................................................................................................30 Community Inclusiveness.......................................................................................................31 Civic Engagement...................................................................................................................33 Civic Activity....................................................................................................................33 Information and Awareness ..............................................................................................36 Social Engagement ...........................................................................................................37 Public Trust............................................................................................................................38 City of Palo Alto Employees..............................................................................................40 From Data to Action.........................................................................................................42 Resident Priorities ..................................................................................................................42 City of Palo Alto Action Chart™ ..............................................................................................43 Using Your Action Chart™ ................................................................................................45 Policy Questions ..............................................................................................................47 Appendix A: Complete Survey Frequencies......................................................................49 Frequencies Excluding “Don’t Know” Responses....................................................................49 Frequencies Including “Don’t Know” Responses.....................................................................61 Appendix B: Survey Methodology....................................................................................77 Appendix C: Survey Materials...........................................................................................87 ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 1 SSuurrvvee yy BBaacc kkggrr oouunndd AABBOOUUTT TTHHEE NNAATTIIOONNAALL CCIITTIIZZEENN SSUURRVVEEYY™™ The National Citizen Survey™ (The NCS) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The NCS was developed by NRC to provide a statistically valid survey of resident opinions about community and services provided by local government. The survey results may be used by staff, elected officials and other stakeholders for community planning and resource allocation, program improvement and policy making. FIGURE 1: THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEY™ METHODS AND GOALS The NCS focuses on a series of community characteristics and local government services, as well as issues of public trust. Resident behaviors related to civic engagement in the community also were measured in the survey. Assessment Goals Assessment Methods Survey Objectives Multi-contact mailed survey Representative sample of 1,800 households 624 surveys returned; 36% response rate 4% margin of error Data statistically weighted to reflect population Immediate Provide useful information for: Planning Resource allocation Performance measurement Program and policy evaluation Identify community strengths and weaknesses Identify service strengths and weaknesses Long-term Improved services More civic engagement Better community quality of life Stronger public trust City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 2 FIGURE 2: THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEY™ FOCUS AREAS The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across The National Citizen Survey™ jurisdictions. Participating households are selected at random and the household member who responds is selected without bias. Multiple mailings give each household more than one chance to participate with self- addressed and postage-paid envelopes. Results are statistically weighted to reflect the proper demographic composition of the entire community. A total of 624 completed surveys were obtained, providing an overall response rate of 36%. Typically, response rates obtained on citizen surveys range from 25% to 40%. The National Citizen Survey™ customized for the City of Palo Alto was developed in close cooperation with local jurisdiction staff. Palo Alto staff selected items from a menu of questions about services and community issues and provided the appropriate letterhead and signatures for mailings. City of Palo Alto staff also augmented The National Citizen Survey™ basic service through a variety of options including crosstabulation of results and several policy questions. CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTYY QQUUAALLIITTYY Quality of life Quality of neighborhood Place to live CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTYY DDEESSIIGGNN Transportation Ease of travel, transit services, street maintenance Housing Housing options, cost, affordability Land Use and Zoning New development, growth, code enforcement Economic Sustainability Employment, shopping and retail, City as a place to work PPUUBBLLIICC SSAAFFEETTYY Safety in neighborhood and downtown Crime victimization Police, fire, EMS services Emergency preparedness EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL SSUUSSTTAAIINNAABBIILLIITTYY Cleanliness Air quality Preservation of natural areas Garbage and recycling services RREECCRREEAATTIIOONN AANNDD WWEELLLLNNEESSSS Parks and Recreation Recreation opportunities, use of parks and facilities, programs and classes Culture, Arts and Education Cultural and educational opportunities, libraries, schools Health and Wellness Availability of food, health services, social services CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTYY IINNCCLLUUSSIIVVEENNEESSSS Sense of community Racial and cultural acceptance Senior, youth and low-income services CCIIVVIICC EENNGGAAGGEEMMEENNTT Civic Activity Volunteerism Civic attentiveness Voting behavior Social Engagement Neighborliness, social and religious events Information and Awareness Public information, publications, Web site PPUUBBLLIICC TTRRUUSSTT Cooperation in community Value of services Direction of community Citizen involvement Employees Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 3 UUNNDDEERRSSTTAANNDDIINNGG TTHHEE RREESSUULLTTSS As shown in Figure 2, this report is based around respondents’ opinions about eight larger categories: community quality, community design, public safety, environmental sustainability, recreation and wellness, community inclusiveness, civic engagement and public trust. Each report section begins with residents’ ratings of community characteristics and is followed by residents’ ratings of service quality. For all evaluative questions, the percent of residents rating the service or community feature as “excellent” or “good” is presented. To see the full set of responses for each question on the survey, please see Appendix A: Complete Survey Frequencies. MMaarrggiinn ooff EErrrroorr The margin of error around results for the City of Palo Alto Survey (624 completed surveys) is plus or minus four percentage points. This is a measure of the precision of your results; a larger number of completed surveys gives a smaller (more precise) margin of error, while a smaller number of surveys yields a larger margin of error. With your margin of error, you may conclude that when 60% of survey respondents report that a particular service is “excellent” or “good,” somewhere between 56-64% of all residents are likely to feel that way. CCoommppaarriinngg SSuurrvveeyy RReessuullttss Certain kinds of services tend to be thought better of by residents in many communities across the country. For example, public safety services tend to be received better than transportation services by residents of most American communities. Where possible, the better comparison is not from one service to another in the City of Palo Alto, but from City of Palo Alto services to services like them provided by other jurisdictions. IInntteerrpprreettiinngg CCoommppaarriissoonnss ttoo PPrreevviioouuss YYeeaarrss This report contains comparisons with prior years’ results. In this report, we are comparing this year’s data with existing data in the graphs. Differences between years can be considered “statistically significant” if they are greater than six percentage points. Trend data for your jurisdiction represent important comparison data and should be examined for improvements or declines. Deviations from stable trends over time, especially represent opportunities for understanding how local policies, programs or public information may have affected residents’ opinions. BBeenncchhmmaarrkk CCoommppaarriissoonnss NRC’s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in citizen surveys from approximately 500 jurisdictions whose residents evaluated local government services and gave their opinion about the quality of community life. The comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in each jurisdiction; most communities conduct surveys every year or in alternating years. NRC adds the latest results quickly upon survey completion, keeping the benchmark data fresh and relevant. The City of Palo Alto chose to have comparisons made to the entire database. A benchmark comparison (the average rating from all the comparison jurisdictions where a similar question was asked) has been provided when a similar question on the City of Palo Alto survey was included in NRC’s database and there were at least five jurisdictions in which the question was asked. For most questions compared to the entire dataset, there were more than 100 jurisdictions included in the benchmark comparison. City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 4 Where comparisons for quality ratings were available, the City of Palo Alto results were generally noted as being “above” the benchmark, “below” the benchmark or “similar” to the benchmark. For some questions – those related to resident behavior, circumstance or to a local problem – the comparison to the benchmark is designated as “more,” “similar” or “less” (for example, the percent of crime victims, residents visiting a park or residents identifying code enforcement as a problem.) In instances where ratings are considerably higher or lower than the benchmark, these ratings have been further demarcated by the attribute of “much,” (for example, “much less” or “much above”). These labels come from a statistical comparison of the City of Palo Alto's rating to the benchmark. ““DDoonn’’tt KKnnooww”” RReessppoonnsseess aanndd RRoouunnddiinngg On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer “don’t know.” The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the body of the report. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. For some questions, respondents were permitted to select more than one answer. When the total exceeds 100% in a table for a multiple response question, it is because some respondents did select more than one response. When a table for a question that only permitted a single response does not total to exactly 100%, it is due to the customary practice of percentages being rounded to the nearest whole number. For more information on understanding The NCS report, please see Appendix B: Survey Methodology. ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 5 EExxeecc uu tt iivv ee SS uummmm aarryy This report of the City of Palo Alto survey provides the opinions of a representative sample of residents about community quality of life, service delivery, civic participation and unique issues of local interest. A periodic sounding of resident opinion offers staff, elected officials and other stakeholders an opportunity to identify challenges and to plan for and evaluate improvements and to sustain services and amenities for long-term success. Most residents experienced a good quality of life in the City of Palo Alto and believed the City was a good place to live. The overall quality of life in the City of Palo Alto was rated as “excellent” or “good” by 94% of respondents. Almost all reported they plan on staying in the City of Palo Alto for the next five years. A variety of characteristics of the community was evaluated by those participating in the study. The two characteristics receiving the most favorable ratings were educational opportunities and the overall image/reputation of Palo Alto. The two characteristics receiving the least positive ratings were the availability of both affordable quality child care and housing. Ratings of community characteristics were compared to the benchmark database. Of the 30 characteristics for which comparisons were available, 24 were above the national benchmark comparison, one was similar to the national benchmark comparison and five were below. Residents in the City of Palo Alto were civically engaged. While only 27% had attended a meeting of local elected public officials or other local public meeting in the previous 12 months, 92% had provided help to a friend or neighbor. A majority had volunteered their time to some group or activity in the City of Palo Alto, which was much higher than the benchmark. In general, survey respondents demonstrated trust in local government. A majority rated the overall direction being taken by the City of Palo Alto as “good” or “excellent.” This was similar to the benchmark. Those residents who had interacted with an employee of the City of Palo Alto in the previous 12 months gave high marks to those employees. Most rated their overall impression of employees as “excellent” or “good.” On average, residents gave very favorable ratings to almost all local government services. City services rated were able to be compared to the benchmark database. Of the 31 services for which comparisons were available, 24 were above the benchmark comparison, six were similar to the benchmark comparison and one was below. City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 6 A Key Driver Analysis was conducted for the City of Palo Alto which examined the relationships between ratings of each service and ratings of the City of Palo Alto’s services overall. Those key driver services that correlated most strongly with residents’ perceptions about overall City service quality have been identified. By targeting improvements in key services, the City of Palo Alto can focus on the services that have the greatest likelihood of influencing residents’ opinions about overall service quality. Services found to be influential in ratings of overall service quality from the Key Driver Analysis were: Public information services Land use, planning and zoning Police services Preservation of natural areas Sidewalk maintenance Of these services, those deserving the most attention may be those that were below or similar to the benchmark comparisons: sidewalk maintenance. For public information services, land use, planning and zoning, police services and preservation of natural areas, the City of Palo Alto was above the benchmark and should continue to ensure high quality performance. Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 7 CCoommmmuunniittyy RRaattiinn ggss OOVVEERRAALLLL CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTYY QQUUAALLIITTYY Overall quality of community life may be the single best indicator of success in providing the natural ambience, services and amenities that make for an attractive community. The National Citizen Survey™ contained many questions related to quality of community life in the City of Palo Alto – not only direct questions about quality of life overall and in neighborhoods, but questions to measure residents’ commitment to the City of Palo Alto. Residents were asked whether they planned to move soon or if they would recommend the City of Palo Alto to others. Intentions to stay and willingness to make recommendations provide evidence that the City of Palo Alto offers services and amenities that work. Most of the City of Palo Alto’s residents gave high ratings to their neighborhoods and the community as a place to live. Further, most reported they would recommend the community to others and plan to stay for the next five years. Ratings for the quality of life in Palo Alto were steady when compared over the past eight years. FIGURE 3: RATINGS OF OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE BY YEAR 92% 93%90%92% 94% 91% 93% 94% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Percent rating overall quality of life as "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 4: RATINGS OF OVERALL COMMUNITY QUALITY BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 94% 93% 91% 94% 92% 90% 93% 92% Your neighborhood as a place to live 91% 90% 91% 91% 91% 90% 91% 88% Palo Alto as a place to live 95% 94% 95% 96% 94% 94% 96% 95% Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 5: LIKELIHOOD OF REMAINING IN COMMUNITY AND RECOMMENDING COMMUNITY BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 83% 87% 85% 80% NA NA NA NA Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 90% 90% 91% 100% NA NA NA NA Percent "very likely" and “somewhat likely” City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 8 FIGURE 6: OVERALL COMMUNITY QUALITY BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Overall quality of life in Palo Alto Much above Your neighborhood as place to live Much above Palo Alto as a place to live Much above Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks Much above Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years Above ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 9 CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTYY DDEESSIIGGNN TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn The ability to move easily throughout a community can greatly affect the quality of life of residents by diminishing time wasted in traffic congestion and by providing opportunities to travel quickly and safely by modes other than the automobile. High quality options for resident mobility not only require local government to remove barriers to flow but they require government programs and policies that create quality opportunities for all modes of travel. Residents responding to the survey were given a list of seven aspects of mobility to rate on a scale of “excellent,” “good,” “fair” and “poor.” Ease of walking was given the most positive rating, followed by ease of bicycle travel in Palo Alto. These ratings tended to be much higher than the benchmark and were mostly similar to years past. FIGURE 7: RATINGS OF TRANSPORTATION IN COMMUNITY BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Ease of car travel in Palo Alto 66% 65% 60% 65% 60% 61% 52% 55% Ease of bus travel in Palo Alto 39% 36% 34% 37% 44% 44% 43% 41% Ease of rail travel in Palo Alto 62% 63% 52% 55% 60% 69% 64% NA Ease of bicycle travel in Palo Alto 81% 79% 78% 84% 78% 79% 80% 84% Ease of walking in Palo Alto 85% 82% 86% 88% 87% 86% 85% 86% Availability of paths and walking trails 75% 75% 74% NA NA NA NA NA Traffic flow on major streets 47% 46% 38% NA NA NA NA NA Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 8: COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Ease of car travel in Palo Alto Much above Ease of bus travel in Palo Alto Below Ease of rail travel by in Palo Alto Much above Ease of bicycle travel in Palo Alto Much above Ease of walking in Palo Alto Much above Availability of paths and walking trails Much above Traffic flow on major streets Similar City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 10 Seven transportation services were rated in Palo Alto. As compared to most communities across America, ratings tended to be a mix of positive and negative. Four above were rated above the benchmark. Two were rated similar to the benchmark and one was below the benchmark. FIGURE 9: RATINGS OF TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING SERVICES BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Street repair 43% 42% 47% 47% 47% 48% 47% 50% Street cleaning 76% 73% 75% 77% 77% 74% 77% 75% Street lighting 68% 64% 64% 61% 66% 63% 65% 67% Sidewalk maintenance 51% 53% 53% 57% 53% 51% 50% 50% Traffic signal timing 56% 56% 56% 60% 55% 49% 57% NA Bus or transit services 45% 50% 49% 57% 58% NA NA NA Amount of public parking 60% 55% 52% 65% 58% 56% 56% NA Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 10: TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Street repair Similar Street cleaning Much above Street lighting Much above Sidewalk maintenance Similar Traffic signal timing Above Bus or transit services Below Amount of public parking Much above Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 11 By measuring choice of travel mode over time, communities can monitor their success in providing attractive alternatives to the traditional mode of travel, the single-occupied automobile. When asked how they typically traveled to work, single-occupancy (SOV) travel was the overwhelming mode of use. However, 3% of work commute trips were made by transit, 13% by bicycle and 5% by foot. FIGURE 11: FREQUENCY OF BUS USE IN LAST 12 MONTHS BY YEAR 31% 31% 33%28%32%34%30%28% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Percent using at least once in past 12 months FIGURE 12: FREQUENCY OF BUS USE BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Ridden a local bus within Palo Alto Much more FIGURE 13: MODE OF TRAVEL USED FOR WORK COMMUTE BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc…) by myself 61% 58% 59% NA NA NA NA NA Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc…) with other children or adults 9% 8% 6% NA NA NA NA NA Bus, rail, or other public transportation 3% 7% 5% NA NA NA NA NA Walk 5% 7% 4% NA NA NA NA NA Bicycle 13% 9% 16% NA NA NA NA NA Work at home 9% 10% 9% NA NA NA NA NA Other 0% 0% 0% NA NA NA NA NA FIGURE 14: DRIVE ALONE BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Average percent of work commute trips made by driving alone Much less City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 12 HHoouussiinngg Housing variety and affordability are not luxuries for any community. When there are too few options for housing style and affordability, the characteristics of a community tilt toward a single group, often of well-off residents. While this may seem attractive to a community, the absence of affordable townhomes, condominiums, mobile homes, single family detached homes and apartments means that in addition to losing the vibrancy of diverse thoughts and lifestyles, the community loses the service workers that sustain all communities – police officers, school teachers, house painters and electricians. These workers must live elsewhere and commute in at great personal cost and to the detriment of traffic flow and air quality. Furthermore lower income residents pay so much of their income to rent or mortgage that little remains to bolster their own quality of life or local business. The survey of the City of Palo Alto residents asked respondents to reflect on the availability of affordable housing as well as the variety of housing options. The availability of affordable housing was rated as “excellent” or “good” by 15% of respondents, while the variety of housing options was rated as “excellent” or “good” by 37% of respondents. The rating of perceived affordable housing availability was much worse in the City of Palo Alto than the ratings, on average, in comparison jurisdictions. These ratings were consistent when compared with past survey ratings. FIGURE 15: RATINGS OF HOUSING IN COMMUNITY BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Availability of affordable quality housing 15% 17% 12% 10% 11% 8% 7% 6% Variety of housing options 37% 39% 34% NA NA NA NA NA Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 16: HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Availability of affordable quality housing Much below Variety of housing options Much below ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 13 To augment the perceptions of affordable housing in Palo Alto, the cost of housing as reported in the survey was compared to residents’ reported monthly income to create a rough estimate of the proportion of residents of the City of Palo Alto experiencing housing cost stress. About 34% of survey participants were found to pay housing costs of more than 30% of their monthly household income. This proportion was less when compared to other communities, and similar when compared to past survey years. FIGURE 17: PROPORTION OF RESPONDENTS WHOSE HOUSING COSTS ARE "AFFORDABLE" BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Housing costs 30% or more of income 34% 35% 31% NA NA NA NA NA Percent of respondents FIGURE 18: HOUSING COSTS BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Experiencing housing costs stress (housing costs 30% or MORE of income) Less City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 14 LLaanndd UUssee aanndd ZZoonniinngg Community development contributes to a feeling among residents and even visitors of the attention given to the speed of growth, the location of residences and businesses, the kind of housing that is appropriate for the community and the ease of access to commerce, green space and residences. Even the community’s overall appearance often is attributed to the planning and enforcement functions of the local jurisdiction. Residents will appreciate an attractive, well-planned community. The NCS questionnaire asked residents to evaluate the quality of new development, the appearance of the City of Palo Alto and the speed of population growth. Problems with the appearance of property were rated, and the quality of land use planning, zoning and code enforcement services were evaluated. The overall quality of new development in the City of Palo Alto was rated as “excellent” or “good” by 53% of respondents. The overall appearance of Palo Alto was rated as “excellent” or “good” by 83% of respondents and was much above the benchmark. When rating to what extent run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles were a problem in the City of Palo Alto, 3% thought they were a “major” problem. The services of code enforcement, animal control and land use, planning and zoning were rated above the benchmark. FIGURE 19: RATINGS OF THE COMMUNITY'S "BUILT ENVIRONMENT" BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 53% 55% 57% 57% 62% 56% NA NA Overall appearance of Palo Alto 83% 83% 89% 86% 85% 85% 86% 87% Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 20: BUILT ENVIRONMENT BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Quality of new development in Palo Alto Below Overall appearance of Palo Alto Much above Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 15 FIGURE 21: RATINGS OF POPULATION GROWTH BY YEAR 40%39% 49%44% 55%51%54%49% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Percent rating population growth as "too fast" FIGURE 22: POPULATION GROWTH BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Population growth seen as too fast More FIGURE 23: RATINGS OF NUISANCE PROBLEMS BY YEAR 4%2%4% 4%2%3%4%3% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Percent rating run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles as a "major" problem FIGURE 24: NUISANCE PROBLEMS BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Run down buildings, weed lots and junk vehicles seen as a "major" problem Much less City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 16 FIGURE 25: RATINGS OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Land use, planning and zoning 49% 47% 47% 49% 50% 46% 48% 41% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 53% 50% 59% 59% 61% 56% 59% 55% Animal control 76% 78% 78% 79% 78% 79% 79% 79% Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 26: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Land use, planning and zoning Above Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) Much above Animal control Much above ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 17 EECCOONNOOMMIICC SSUUSSTTAAIINNAABBIILLIITTYY The United States has been in recession since late 2007 with an accelerated downturn occurring in the fourth quarter of 2008. Officially we emerged from recession in the third quarter of 2009, but high unemployment lingers, keeping a lid on a strong recovery. Many readers worry that the ill health of the economy will color how residents perceive their environment and the services that local government delivers. NRC researchers have found that the economic downturn has chastened Americans’ view of their own economic futures but has not colored their perspectives about community services or quality of life. Survey respondents were asked to rate a number of community features related to economic opportunity and growth. The most positively rated features were Palo Alto as a place to work and overall quality of business and service establishments. Receiving the lowest rating was employment opportunities. Ratings were similar to the most recent survey year; the rating for employment opportunities showed the most variation over time. FIGURE 27: RATINGS OF ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY AND OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Employment opportunities 52% 51% 61% 61% 59% 45% 43% 33% Shopping opportunities 70% 70% 71% 79% 80% 75% NA NA Palo Alto as a place to work 87% 87% 90% 90% 84% 81% NA NA Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 75% 73% 77% NA NA NA NA NA Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 28: ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY AND OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Employment opportunities Much above Shopping opportunities Much above Palo Alto as a place to work Much above Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto Much above City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 18 Residents were asked to evaluate the speed of job growth and retail growth on scale from “much too slow” to “much too fast.” When asked about the rate of job growth in Palo Alto, 67% responded that it was “too slow,” while 31% reported retail growth as “too slow.” Much fewer residents in Palo Alto compared to other jurisdictions believed that retail growth was too slow, and much fewer residents believed that job growth was too slow. FIGURE 29: RATINGS OF RETAIL AND JOBS GROWTH BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Retail growth seen as too slow 31% 34% 28% 29% 26% 25% 21% 18% Job growth seen as too slow 67% 65% 48% 38% 49% 63% 69% 76% Percent of respondents FIGURE 30: RETAIL AND JOB GROWTH BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Retail growth seen as too slow Much less Job growth seen as too slow Much less FIGURE 31: RATINGS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BY YEAR 48% 58%55% 61%62%63% 54%49% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 32: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Economic development Above Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 19 Residents were asked to reflect on their economic prospects in the near term. Sixteen percent of the City of Palo Alto residents expected that the coming six months would have a “somewhat” or “very” positive impact on their family. The percent of residents with an optimistic outlook on their household income was the same as comparison jurisdictions. FIGURE 33: RATINGS OF PERSONAL ECONOMIC FUTURE BY YEAR 26%28% 21% 27%26% 5% 13%16% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Percent "very" or "somewhat" positive FIGURE 34: PERSONAL ECONOMIC FUTURE BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Positive impact of economy on household income Similar City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 20 PPUUBBLLIICC SSAAFFEETTYY Safety from violent or property crimes creates the cornerstone of an attractive community. No one wants to live in fear of crime, fire or natural hazards, and communities in which residents feel protected or unthreatened are communities that are more likely to show growth in population, commerce and property value. Residents were asked to rate their feelings of safety from violent crimes, property crimes, fire and environmental dangers and to evaluate the local agencies whose main charge is to provide protection from these dangers. Most gave positive ratings of safety in the City Palo Alto. About 85% percent of those completing the questionnaire said they felt “very” or “somewhat” safe from violent crimes and 83% felt “very” or “somewhat” safe from environmental hazards. Daytime sense of safety was better than nighttime safety. These ratings were generally stable over time. The rating for safety from property crimes improved from 2009 to 2010. FIGURE 35: RATINGS OF COMMUNITY AND PERSONAL PUBLIC SAFETY BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Safety in your neighborhood during the day 96% 95% 95% 98% 94% 98% 98% 97% Safety in your neighborhood after dark 83% 78% 78% 85% 79% 84% 82% 83% Safety in Palo Alto's downtown area during the day 94% 91% 96% 94% 91% 96% 94% 95% Safety in Palo Alto's downtown area after dark 70% 65% 65% 74% 69% 69% 76% 71% Safety from violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 85% 82% 85% 86% 75% 87% 84% 84% Safety from property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) 75% 66% 74% 75% 62% 76% 71% 73% Safety from environmental hazards 83% 81% 80% NA NA NA NA NA Percent "very" or "somewhat" safe FIGURE 36: COMMUNITY AND PERSONAL PUBLIC SAFETY BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark In your neighborhood during the day Much above In your neighborhood after dark Much above In Palo Alto's downtown area during the day Much above In Palo Alto's downtown area after dark Much above Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) Much above Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) Much above Environmental hazards, including toxic waste Above ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 21 As assessed by the survey, 9% of respondents reported that someone in the household had been the victim of one or more crimes in the past year. Of those who had been the victim of a crime, 86% had reported it to police. Compared to other jurisdictions fewer Palo Alto residents had been victims of crime in the 12 months preceding the survey and many more Palo Alto residents had reported their most recent crime victimization to the police. FIGURE 37: CRIME VICTIMIZATION AND REPORTING BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 During the past twelve months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? 9% 11% 10% 9% 12% 10% 11% 13% If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? 86% 80% 73% 62% 62% 69% 62% 80% Percent "yes" FIGURE 38: CRIME VICTIMIZATION AND REPORTING BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Victim of crime Less Reported crimes Much more City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 22 Residents rated seven City public safety services; of these, five were rated above the benchmark comparison and two were rated similar to the benchmark comparison. Ambulance or emergency medical services and fire services received the highest ratings, while traffic enforcement and emergency preparedness received the lowest ratings. Most were similar compared to previous years. FIGURE 39: RATINGS OF PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Police services 87% 84% 84% 91% 87% 87% 90% 89% Fire services 93% 95% 96% 98% 95% 94% 97% 96% Ambulance or emergency medical services 94% 91% 95% 94% 94% 95% 95% 95% Crime prevention 79% 73% 74% 83% 77% 86% 86% NA Fire prevention and education 79% 80% 87% 86% 84% 82% 85% NA Traffic enforcement 64% 61% 64% 72% 63% 63% 64% 64% Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency services) 59% 62% 71% NA NA NA NA NA Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 40: PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Police services Much above Fire services Above Ambulance or emergency medical services Much above Crime prevention Much above Fire prevention and education Above Traffic enforcement Similar Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) Similar Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 23 EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL SSUUSSTTAAIINNAABBIILLIITTYY Residents value the aesthetic qualities of their hometowns and appreciate features such as overall cleanliness and landscaping. In addition, the appearance and smell or taste of the air and water do not go unnoticed. These days, increasing attention is paid to proper treatment of the environment. At the same time that they are attending to community appearance and cleanliness, cities, counties, states and the nation are going “Green”. These strengthening environmental concerns extend to trash haul, recycling, sewer services, the delivery of power and water and preservation of open spaces. Treatment of the environment affects air and water quality and, generally, how habitable and inviting a place appears. Residents of the City of Palo Alto were asked to evaluate their local environment and the services provided to ensure its quality. The overall quality of the natural environment was rated as “excellent” or “good” by 84% of survey respondents. Cleanliness of Palo Alto received the highest rating, and it was much above the benchmark. These four ratings were similar when compared to past surveys. FIGURE 41: RATINGS OF THE COMMUNITY'S NATURAL ENVIRONMENT BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Cleanliness of Palo Alto 85% 85% 88% NA NA NA NA NA Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 84% 84% 85% NA NA NA NA NA Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 78% 82% 78% NA NA NA NA NA Air quality 77% 73% 75% 79% 80% NA NA NA Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 42: COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Cleanliness of Palo Alto Much above Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto Much above Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts Much above Air quality Much above City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 24 Resident recycling was much greater than recycling reported in comparison communities, and was similar to the past three survey years. FIGURE 43: FREQUENCY OF RECYCLING IN LAST 12 MONTHS BY YEAR 98%97% 82%84%87% 99% 99%98% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Percent using at least once in past 12 months FIGURE 44: FREQUENCY OF RECYCLING BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home Much more ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 25 Of the five utility services rated by those completing the questionnaire, all were much higher than the benchmark comparison. These service ratings trends were all stable compared to the most recent survey and mostly similar to past survey years, though storm drainage and drinking water varied over time. FIGURE 45: RATINGS OF UTILITY SERVICES BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Sewer services 82% 81% 81% 83% 83% 82% 80% 84% Drinking water 84% 81% 87% 79% 80% 80% 74% 82% Storm drainage 74% 73% 70% 59% 61% 60% 57% 65% Recycling collection 90% 90% 90% 93% 92% 91% 90% 90% Garbage collection 88% 89% 92% 91% 92% 92% 91% 94% Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 46: UTILITY SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Sewer services Much above Drinking water Much above Storm drainage Much above Recycling collection Much above Garbage collection Much above City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 26 RREECCRREEAATTIIOONN AANNDD WWEELLLLNNEESSSS PPaarrkkss aanndd RReeccrreeaattiioonn Quality parks and recreation opportunities help to define a community as more than the grind of its business, traffic and hard work. Leisure activities vastly can improve the quality of life of residents, serving both to entertain and mobilize good health. The survey contained questions seeking residents’ perspectives about opportunities and services related to the community’s parks and recreation services. Recreation opportunities in the City of Palo Alto were rated positively as were services related to parks and recreation. City parks, recreation programs or classes and recreation centers or facilities were rated much higher than the national benchmark. Parks and recreation ratings have stayed constant over time. Resident use of Palo Alto parks and recreation facilities tells its own story about the attractiveness and accessibility of those services. The percent of residents that used Palo Alto recreation centers was greater than the percent of users in comparison jurisdictions. Similarly, recreation program use in Palo Alto was higher than use in comparison jurisdictions. FIGURE 47: RATINGS OF COMMUNITY RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR 83%85%82%78%80% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 48: COMMUNITY RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Recreation opportunities Much above Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 27 FIGURE 49: PARTICIPATION IN PARKS AND RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Used Palo Alto recreation centers 60% 63% 68% 67% 63% 62% 60% 53% Participated in a recreation program or activity 50% 49% 56% 53% 54% 52% 50% 49% Visited a neighborhood park or City park 94% 94% 93% 92% 93% 93% 91% 92% Percent using at least once in last 12 months FIGURE 50: PARTICIPATION IN PARKS AND RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Used Palo Alto recreation centers More Participated in a recreation program or activity More Visited a neighborhood park or City park Much more FIGURE 51: RATINGS OF PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 City parks 90% 92% 89% 91% 87% 92% 91% 90% Recreation programs or classes 82% 85% 87% 90% 85% 87% 85% 83% Recreation centers or facilities 81% 80% 77% 82% 81% 78% 84% 77% Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 52: PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark City parks Much above Recreation programs or classes Much above Recreation centers or facilities Much above City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 28 CCuullttuurree,, AArrttss aanndd EEdduuccaattiioonn A full service community does not address only the life and safety of its residents. Like individuals who simply go to the office and return home, a community that pays attention only to the life sustaining basics becomes insular, dreary and uninspiring. In the case of communities without thriving culture, arts and education opportunities, the magnet that attracts those who might consider relocating there is vastly weakened. Cultural, artistic, social and educational services elevate the opportunities for personal growth among residents. In the survey, residents were asked about the quality of opportunities to participate in cultural and educational activities. Opportunities to attend cultural activities were rated as “excellent” or “good” by 74% of respondents. Educational opportunities were rated as “excellent” or “good” by 90% of respondents. Compared to the benchmark data, educational and cultural activity opportunities were much above the average of comparison jurisdictions. About 76% of Palo Alto residents used a City library at least once in the 12 months preceding the survey. This participation rate for library use was above comparison jurisdictions. FIGURE 53: RATINGS OF CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Opportunities to attend cultural activities 74% 74% 79% 81% 85% 77% 83% NA Educational opportunities 90% 91% 93% 94% 93% NA NA NA Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 54: CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Opportunities to attend cultural activities Much above Educational opportunities Much above FIGURE 55: PARTICIPATION IN CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 76% 82% 74% 79% 76% 79% 77% 80% Percent using at least once in last 12 months FIGURE 56: PARTICIPATION IN CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services More ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 29 FIGURE 57: PERCEPTION OF CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Public library services 82% 78% 75% 81% 78% 80% 81% 81% Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 58: CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Public library services Similar City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 30 HHeeaalltthh aanndd WWeellllnneessss Healthy residents have the wherewithal to contribute to the economy as volunteers or employees and they do not present a burden in cost and time to others. Although residents bear the primary responsibility for their good health, local government provides services that can foster that well being and that provide care when residents are ill. Residents of the City of Palo Alto were asked to rate the community’s health services as well as the availability of health care and preventive health care services. About 62% of Palo Alto residents rated affordable quality health care as “excellent” or “good,” while about 67% rated the availability of preventive health services as “excellent” or “good.” Both ratings were much above the ratings of comparison jurisdictions and similar when compared to past survey years. FIGURE 59: RATINGS OF COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Availability of affordable quality health care 62% 63% 57% 56% 57% NA NA NA Availability of preventive health services 67% 67% 70% NA NA NA NA NA Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 60: COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Availability of affordable quality health care Much above Availability of preventive health services Much above Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 31 CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTYY IINNCCLLUUSSIIVVEENNEESSSS Diverse communities that include among their residents a mix of races, ages, wealth, ideas and beliefs have the raw material for the most vibrant and creative society. However, the presence of these features alone does not ensure a high quality or desirable space. Surveyed residents were asked about the success of the mix: the sense of community, the openness of residents to people of diverse backgrounds and the attractiveness of the City of Palo Alto as a place to raise children or to retire. They were also questioned about the quality of services delivered to various population subgroups, including older adults, youth and residents with few resources. A community that succeeds in creating an inclusive environment for a variety of residents is a community that offers more to many. Almost all residents rated the City of Palo Alto as an “excellent” or “good” place to raise kids and a majority rated it as an excellent or good place to retire. Most residents felt that the local sense of community was “excellent” or “good.” About eight in ten survey respondents felt the City of Palo Alto was open and accepting towards people of diverse backgrounds. The availability of affordable quality child care was rated the lowest by residents and was much lower than the benchmark. Most ratings were stable over time, however, the rating for availability of affordable quality child care was lower compared to 2009. FIGURE 61: RATINGS OF COMMUNITY QUALITY AND INCLUSIVENESS BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Sense of community 71% 71% 70% 70% 66% 68% 69% 70% Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds 79% 78% 77% 79% 75% 72% 73% 73% Availability of affordable quality child care 25% 32% 28% 26% 35% 26% 25% 25% Palo Alto as a place to raise children 93% 91% 94% 92% 92% 92% 93% 90% Palo Alto as a place to retire 65% 64% 67% 61% 68% 60% 63% 62% Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 62: COMMUNITY QUALITY AND INCLUSIVENESS BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Sense of community Much above Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds Much above Availability of affordable quality child care Much below Palo Alto as a place to raise kids Much above Palo Alto as a place to retire Above City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 32 Services to more vulnerable populations (e.g., seniors, youth or low-income residents) ranged from 49% to 79% with ratings of “excellent” or “good.” Services to seniors and youth were much above the benchmark and were similar to past survey years. Services to low-income people was the same when compared to the benchmark, and decreased from 2009 to 2010. FIGURE 63: RATINGS OF QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED FOR POPULATION SUBGROUPS BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Services to seniors 79% 82% 81% 79% 84% 78% 82% 77% Services to youth 70% 75% 73% 73% 70% 68% 68% 66% Services to low-income people 49% 59% 46% 46% 54% 45% 37% NA Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 64: SERVICES PROVIDED FOR POPULATION SUBGROUPS BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Services to seniors Much above Services to youth Much above Services to low income people Similar ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 33 CCIIVVIICC EENNGGAAGGEEMMEENNTT Community leaders cannot run a jurisdiction alone and a jurisdiction cannot run effectively if residents remain strangers with little to connect them. Elected officials and staff require the assistance of local residents whether that assistance comes in tacit approval or eager help; and commonality of purpose among the electorate facilitates policies and programs that appeal to most and causes discord among few. Furthermore, when neighbors help neighbors, the cost to the community to provide services to residents in need declines. When residents are civically engaged, they have taken the opportunity to participate in making the community more livable for all. The extent to which local government provides opportunities to become informed and engaged and the extent to which residents take those opportunities is an indicator of the connection between government and populace. By understanding your residents’ level of connection to, knowledge of and participation in local government, the City can find better opportunities to communicate and educate citizens about its mission, services, accomplishments and plans. This survey information is essential for public communication and for helping local government staff to conceive strategies for reaching reluctant voters whose confidence in government may need boosting prior to important referenda. CCiivviicc AAccttiivviittyy Respondents were asked about the perceived community volunteering opportunities and their participation as citizens of the City of Palo Alto. Survey participants rated the volunteer opportunities in the City of Palo Alto favorably. Opportunities to attend or participate in community matters were rated slightly less favorably. Ratings of civic engagement opportunities were much above ratings from comparison jurisdictions where these questions were asked and similar when compared to past survey years. FIGURE 65: RATINGS OF CIVIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Opportunities to volunteer 81% 83% 86% NA NA NA NA NA Opportunities to participate in community matters 76% 76% 75% NA NA NA NA NA Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 66: CIVIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Opportunities to participate in community matters Much above Opportunities to volunteer Much above City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 34 Most of the participants in this survey had not attended a public meeting or participated in a club in the 12 months prior to the survey, but the vast majority had helped a friend. The participation rates of these civic behaviors were compared to the rates in other jurisdictions. Volunteerism was much higher when compared to other communities. Those who had provided help to a friend or neighbor, participated in a club or civic group in Palo Alto or attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting showed similar rates of involvement. Those who had watched a meeting of local elected officials or other public meeting showed much lower rates of community engagement. FIGURE 67: PARTICIPATION IN CIVIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR1 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 27% 28% 26% 26% 27% 30% 28% 30% Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other public meeting on cable television, the Internet or other media 28% 28% 26% 26% 31% 29% 27% 28% Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Palo Alto 51% 56% 51% 52% 53% 52% 52% 49% Participated in a club or civic group in Palo Alto 31% 33% 34% NA NA NA NA NA Provided help to a friend or neighbor 92% 93% 93% NA NA NA NA NA Percent participating at least once in the last 12 months FIGURE 68: PARTICIPATION IN CIVIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting Similar Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other public meeting on cable television, the Internet or other media Much less Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Palo Alto Much more Participated in a club or civic group in Palo Alto Similar Provided help to a friend or neighbor Similar 1 Over the past few years, local governments have adopted communication strategies that embrace the Internet and new media. In 2010, the question, “Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting on cable television” was revised to include “the Internet or other media” to better reflect this trend. Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 35 City of Palo Alto residents showed the largest amount of civic engagement in the area of electoral participation. Ninety percent reported they were registered to vote and 86% indicated they had voted in the last general election. This rate of self-reported voting was about the same as that of comparison communities. FIGURE 69: REPORTED VOTING BEHAVIOR BY YEAR2 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Registered to vote 90% 90% 89% 79% 77% 80% 83% 78% Voted in the last general election 86% 87% 87% 76% 70% 79% 78% 72% Percent "yes" FIGURE 70: VOTING BEHAVIOR BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Registered to vote Less Voted in last general election Similar 2 Note: In addition to the removal of “don’t know” responses, those who said “ineligible to vote” also have been omitted from this calculation. The full frequencies appear in Appendix A. City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 36 IInnffoorrmmaattiioonn aanndd AAwwaarreenneessss Those completing the survey were asked about their use and perceptions of various information sources and local government media services. When asked whether they had visited the City of Palo Alto Web site in the previous 12 months, 79% reported they had done so at least once. Public information services were rated favorably compared to benchmark data. These rating were similar to the most recent survey. FIGURE 71: USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Visited the City of Palo Alto Web site (at www.cityofpaloalto.org) 79% 75% 78% 62% 54% 52% NA NA Percent using at least once in last 12 months FIGURE 72: USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Visited the City of Palo Alto Web site Much more FIGURE 73: RATINGS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEDIA SERVICES AND INFORMATION DISSEMINATION BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Public information services 67% 68% 76% 73% 72% 74% 77% 72% Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 74: LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEDIA SERVICES AND INFORMATION DISSEMINATION BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Public information services Above ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 37 SSoocciiaall EEnnggaaggeemmeenntt Opportunities to participate in social events and activities were rated as “excellent” or “good” by 74% of respondents. This was similar to the last survey and much above the benchmark comparison. FIGURE 75: RATINGS OF SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 74% 80% 80% NA NA NA NA NA Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 76: SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Opportunities to participate in social events and activities Much above Residents in Palo Alto reported a fair amount of neighborliness. More than 42% indicated talking or visiting with their neighbors at least several times a week. This amount of contact with neighbors was much less than the amount of contact reported in other communities. FIGURE 77: CONTACT WITH IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 About how often, if at all, do you talk to or visit with your immediate neighbors (people who live in the 10 or 20 households that are closest to you)? 42% 48% 40% NA NA NA NA NA Percent "at least several times per week" FIGURE 78: CONTACT WITH IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Has contact with neighbors at least several times per week Much less City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 38 PPUUBBLLIICC TTRRUUSSTT When local government leaders are trusted, an environment of cooperation is more likely to surround all decisions they make. Cooperation leads to easier communication between leaders and residents and increases the likelihood that high value policies and programs will be implemented to improve the quality of life of the entire community. Trust can be measured in residents’ opinions about the overall direction the City of Palo Alto is taking, their perspectives about the service value their taxes purchase and the openness of government to citizen participation. In addition, resident opinion about services provided by the City of Palo Alto could be compared to their opinion about services provided by the state and federal governments. If residents find nothing to admire in the services delivered by any level of government, their opinions about the City of Palo Alto may be colored by their dislike of what all levels of government provide. A majority of respondents felt that the value of services for taxes paid was “excellent” or “good.” When asked to rate the job the City of Palo Alto does at welcoming citizen involvement, 57% rated it as “excellent” or “good.” Of these four ratings, three were much above the benchmark and one was similar to the benchmark. FIGURE 79: PUBLIC TRUST RATINGS BY YEAR3 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 62% 58% 64% 67% 74% 70% 74% 69% The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 57% 53% 63% 57% 62% 54% 63% 54% The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 57% 56% 57% 68% 73% 59% 70% 65% Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 90% 92% 92% 93% 91% NA NA NA Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 80: PUBLIC TRUST BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto Much above The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking Similar Job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement Much above Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto Much above 3 For jurisdictions that have conducted The NCS prior to 2008, this change in the wording of response options may cause a decline in the percent of residents who offer a positive perspective on public trust. It is well to factor in the possible change due to question wording this way: if you show an increase, you may have found even more improvement with the same question wording; if you show no change, you may have shown a slight increase with the same question wording; if you show a decrease, community sentiment is probably about stable. Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 39 On average, residents of the City of Palo Alto gave the highest evaluations to their own local government and the lowest average rating to state government. The overall quality of services delivered by the City of Palo Alto was rated as “excellent” or “good” by 80% of survey participants. The City of Palo Alto’s rating was much above the benchmark when compared to other communities. FIGURE 81: RATING OVERALL QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO BY YEAR 87%90%88%87%86%85%80% 80% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 82: RATINGS OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Services provided by City of Palo Alto 80% 80% 85% 86% 87% 88% 90% 87% Services provided by the Federal Government 43% 41% 33% 33% 33% 32% 38% 32% Services provided by the State Government 27% 23% 34% 44% 38% 32% 35% 31% Services provided by Santa Clara County Government 48% 42% 54% NA NA NA NA NA Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 83: SERVICES PROVIDED BY LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Services provided by the City of Palo Alto Much above Services provided by the Federal Government Above Services provided by the State Government Much below Services provided by Santa Clara County Government Similar City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 40 CCiittyy ooff PPaalloo AAllttoo EEmmppllooyyeeeess The employees of the City of Palo Alto who interact with the public create the first impression that most residents have of the City of Palo Alto. Front line staff who provide information, assist with bill paying, collect trash, create service schedules, fight fires and crime and even give traffic tickets are the collective face of the City of Palo Alto. As such, it is important to know about residents’ experience talking with that “face.” When employees appear to be knowledgeable, responsive and courteous, residents are more likely to feel that any needs or problems may be solved through positive and productive interactions with the City of Palo Alto staff. Those completing the survey were asked if they had been in contact with a City employee either in- person or over the phone in the last 12 months; the 56% who reported that they had been in contact (a percent that is similar to the benchmark comparison) were then asked to indicate overall how satisfied they were with the employee in their most recent contact. City employees were rated highly; 77% of respondents rated their overall impression as “excellent” or “good.” Overall employee ratings were higher than the benchmark and were similar to past survey years. FIGURE 84: PROPORTION OF RESPONDENTS WHO HAD CONTACT WITH CITY EMPLOYEES IN PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS BY YEAR 62%64% 56%54%57%54%58%56% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Percent "yes" FIGURE 85: CONTACT WITH CITY EMPLOYEES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Had contact with City employee(s) in last 12 months Similar ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 41 FIGURE 86: RATINGS OF CITY EMPLOYEES (AMONG THOSE WHO HAD CONTACT) BY YEAR 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Knowledge 81% 84% 75% 85% 83% 84% 85% 85% Responsiveness 75% 78% 73% 80% 78% 77% 83% 74% Courtesy 82% 84% 78% 84% 83% 83% 84% 83% Overall impression 77% 79% 73% 79% 79% 79% 84% 78% Percent "excellent" or "good" FIGURE 87: RATINGS OF CITY EMPLOYEES (AMONG THOSE WHO HAD CONTACT) BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Knowledge Similar Responsiveness Similar Courteousness Above Overall impression Above City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 42 FFrroomm DD aattaa ttoo AAccttii oonn RREESSIIDDEENNTT PPRRIIOORRIITTIIEESS Knowing where to focus limited resources to improve residents’ opinions of local government requires information that targets the services that are most important to residents. However, when residents are asked what services are most important, they rarely stray beyond core services – those directed to save lives and improve safety. In market research, identifying the most important characteristics of a transaction or product is called Key Driver Analysis (KDA). The key drivers that are identified from that analysis do not come from asking customers to self-report which service or product characteristic most influenced their decision to buy or return, but rather from statistical analyses of the predictors of their behavior. When customers are asked to name the most important characteristics of a good or service, responses often are expected or misleading – just as they can be in the context of a citizen survey. For example, air travelers often claim that safety is the primary consideration in their choice of an airline, yet key driver analysis reveals that frequent flier perks or in-flight entertainment predicts their buying decisions. In local government core services – like fire protection – invariably land at the top of the list created when residents are asked about the most important local government services. And core services are important. But by using KDA, our approach digs deeper to identify the less obvious, but more influential services that are most related to residents’ ratings of overall quality of local government services. Because services focused directly on life and safety remain essential to quality government, it is suggested that core services should remain the focus of continuous monitoring and improvement where necessary – but monitoring core services or asking residents to identify important services is not enough. A KDA was conducted for the City of Palo Alto by examining the relationships between ratings of each service and ratings of the City of Palo Alto’s overall services. Those Key Driver services that correlated most highly with residents’ perceptions about overall City service quality have been identified. By targeting improvements in key services, the City of Palo Alto can focus on the services that have the greatest likelihood of influencing residents’ opinions about overall service quality. Because a strong correlation is not the same as a cause, there is no guarantee that improving ratings on key drivers necessarily will improve ratings. What is certain from these analyses is that key drivers are good predictors of overall resident opinion and that the key drivers presented may be useful focus areas to consider for enhancement of overall service ratings. Services found to be most strongly correlated with ratings of overall service quality from the Palo Alto Key Driver Analysis were: Public information services Land use, planning and zoning Police services Preservation of natural areas Sidewalk maintenance Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 43 CCIITTYY OOFF PPAALLOO AALLTTOO AACCTTIIOONN CCHHAARRTT™™ The 2010 City of Palo Alto Action Chart™ on the following page combines three dimensions of performance: Comparison to resident evaluations from other communities. When a comparison is available, the background color of each service box indicates whether the service is above the national benchmark (green), similar to the benchmark (yellow) or below the benchmark (red). Identification of key services. A black key icon () next to a service box indicates it as a key driver for the City. Trendline icons (up and down arrows), indicating whether the current ratings are higher or lower than the previous survey. For Palo Alto, all of the services included in the action chart had rated similar to the last survey. Seventeen services were included in the KDA for the City of Palo Alto. Of these, 13 were above the benchmark and four were similar to the benchmark. Considering all performance data included in the Action Chart, a jurisdiction typically will want to consider improvements to any key driver services that are trending down or that are not at least similar to the benchmark. In the case of Palo Alto, no key drivers were below the benchmark or trending lower in the current survey. Therefore, Palo Alto may wish to seek improvements to sidewalk maintenance as this key driver received ratings similar to other benchmark jurisdictions. More detail about interpreting results can be found in the next section. Services with a high percent of respondents answering “don’t know” were excluded from the analysis and were considered services that would be less influential. See Appendix A: Complete Survey Frequencies, Frequencies Including “Don’t Know” Responses for the percent “don’t know” for each service. City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 44 FIGURE 88: CITY OF PALO ALTO ACTION CHART™ SampleOverall Quality of City of Palo Alto Services Recreation and Wellness City parks Library Public Safety Traffic enforcement Police services Civic Engagement Public information Environmental Sustainability Sewer services Drinking water Storm drainage Garbage collection Recycling Preservation of natural areas Community Design Street repair Planning and zoning Street lighting Street cleaning Traffic signal timing Sidewalk Maintenance Legend Above Benchmark Similar to Benchmark Below Benchmark Rating decrease*Rating increase*Key Driver *All Palo Alto ratings included in the KDA were similar to the previous survey results ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 45 UUssiinngg YYoouurr AAccttiioonn CChhaarrtt™™ The key drivers derived for the City of Palo Alto provide a list of those services that are uniquely related to overall service quality. Those key drivers are marked with the symbol of a key in the action chart. Because key driver results are based on a relatively small number of responses, the relationships or correlations that define the key drivers are subject to more variability than is seen when key drivers are derived from a large national dataset of resident responses. To benefit the City of Palo Alto, NRC lists the key drivers derived from tens of thousands of resident responses from across the country. This national list is updated periodically so that you can compare your key drivers to the key drivers from the entire NRC dataset. Where your locally derived key drivers overlap national key drivers, it makes sense to focus even more strongly on your key drivers. Similarly, when your local key drivers overlap your core services, there is stronger argument to make for attending to your key drivers that overlap with core services. As staff review key drivers, not all drivers may resonate as likely links to residents’ perspectives about overall service quality. For example, in Palo Alto, planning and zoning and police services may be obvious links to overall service delivery (and each is a key driver from our national database), since it could be easy for staff to see how residents’ view of overall service delivery could be colored by how well they perceive police and land use planning to be delivered. But animal control could be a surprise. Before rejecting a key driver that does not pass the first test of conventional wisdom, consider whether residents’ opinions about overall service quality could reasonably be influenced by this unexpected driver. For example, in the case of animal control, was there a visible case of violation prior to the survey data collection? Do Palo Alto residents have different expectations for animal control than what current policy provides? Are the rare instances of violation serious enough to cause a word of mouth campaign about service delivery? If, after deeper review, the “suspect” driver still does not square with your understanding of the services that could influence residents’ perspectives about overall service quality (and if that driver is not a core service or a key driver from NRC’s national research), put action in that area on hold and wait to see if it appears as a key driver the next time the survey is conducted. In the following table, we have listed your key drivers, core services and the national key drivers and we have indicated (in bold typeface and with the symbol “•”), the City of Palo Alto key drivers that overlap core services or the nationally derived keys. In general, key drivers below the benchmark may be targeted for improvement. Additionally, we have indicated (with the symbol “°”) those services that neither are local nor national key drivers nor are they core services. It is these services that could be considered first for resource reductions. City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 46 FIGURE 89: KEY DRIVERS COMPARED Service City of Palo Alto Key Drivers National Key Drivers Core Services • Police services Fire services Ambulance and emergency medical services ° Traffic enforcement Street repair ° Street cleaning ° Street lighting Sidewalk maintenance ° Traffic signal timing Garbage collection ° Recycling Storm drainage Drinking water Sewer services ° City parks • Land use planning and zoning Code enforcement Economic development ° Public library • Public information services Public schools Preservation of natural areas • Key driver overlaps with national and or core services ° Service may be targeted for reductions it is not a key driver or core service Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 47 PP ooll iicc yy QQ uu ee ss ttiioonn ss “Don’t know” responses have been removed from the following questions. Question 18a: Policy Question 1 During the past 12 months, did you or anyone in your household have contact with the Palo Alto Police Department? Percent of respondents Yes 32% No 68% Total 100% Policy Question 2 If yes, how do you rate the quality of your contact with the Palo Alto Police Department? Percent of respondents Excellent 48% Good 30% Fair 14% Poor 8% Total 100% Policy Question 3 Please rate the City of Palo Alto on each of the following: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Preservation of wildlife and native plants 29% 56% 12% 3% 100% City's composting process and pickup services 35% 48% 13% 4% 100% Water and energy preservation 24% 55% 17% 4% 100% Downtown shopping, dining and entertainment experience 23% 52% 22% 4% 100% Infrastructure Investment (e.g., buildings, streets) 8% 46% 33% 14% 100% Promoting business growth and economic development 10% 39% 35% 16% 100% Policy Question 4 In the past 12 months, did you or anyone from your household apply for a permit(s) from the City's Development Center? Percent of respondents Yes 8% No 92% Total 100% Policy Question 5 If yes, how would you rate each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Inspection timeliness 23% 38% 25% 14% 100% Overall customer service 13% 43% 28% 17% 100% Ease of the planning approval process 10% 26% 24% 40% 100% Ease of the overall application process 10% 24% 36% 30% 100% Time required to review and issue the permit(s) 10% 23% 26% 41% 100% City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 48 Policy Question 6 As you may know, in response to the economic downturn, Palo Alto has implemented additional measures to keep its expenses in line with its revenues. To what extent do you support or oppose the following additional fiscal efforts for Palo Alto? Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Total Pursuing a new revenue source for specific projects (e.g. capital projects, roads, recreation, etc.) 36% 49% 10% 5% 100% Further economic development efforts to increase sales tax revenue 33% 42% 15% 9% 100% Further reduction of City services and programs 13% 28% 34% 24% 100% ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 49 AApppp ee nnddii xx AA:: CCoommpp lleettee SSuu rrvv ee yy FFrreeqquuee nncc iieess FFRREEQQUUEENNCCIIEESS EEXXCCLLUUDDIINNGG ““DDOONN’’TT KKNNOOWW”” RREESSPPOONNSSEESS Question 1: Quality of Life Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Palo Alto as a place to live 55% 40% 4% 0% 100% Your neighborhood as a place to live 47% 44% 8% 1% 100% Palo Alto as a place to raise children 51% 42% 7% 1% 100% Palo Alto as a place to work 42% 45% 11% 1% 100% Palo Alto as a place to retire 30% 35% 23% 12% 100% The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 45% 48% 6% 0% 100% Question 2: Community Characteristics Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Sense of community 18% 53% 24% 4% 100% Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds 29% 49% 18% 3% 100% Overall appearance of Palo Alto 30% 53% 16% 1% 100% Cleanliness of Palo Alto 33% 51% 14% 1% 100% Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 10% 43% 35% 13% 100% Variety of housing options 6% 31% 43% 21% 100% Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 19% 55% 22% 3% 100% Shopping opportunities 29% 41% 23% 7% 100% Opportunities to attend cultural activities 30% 44% 21% 5% 100% Recreational opportunities 31% 50% 17% 3% 100% Employment opportunities 15% 37% 36% 11% 100% Educational opportunities 47% 42% 10% 1% 100% Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 24% 50% 22% 3% 100% Opportunities to volunteer 35% 46% 18% 1% 100% Opportunities to participate in community matters 30% 46% 20% 4% 100% Ease of car travel in Palo Alto 18% 48% 27% 7% 100% Ease of bus travel in Palo Alto 9% 30% 35% 27% 100% Ease of rail travel in Palo Alto 18% 44% 30% 8% 100% Ease of bicycle travel in Palo Alto 32% 49% 16% 3% 100% Ease of walking in Palo Alto 38% 46% 13% 2% 100% Availability of paths and walking trails 23% 52% 21% 4% 100% Traffic flow on major streets 4% 43% 38% 15% 100% Amount of public parking 13% 47% 31% 9% 100% City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 50 Question 2: Community Characteristics Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Availability of affordable quality housing 2% 13% 33% 52% 100% Availability of affordable quality child care 4% 21% 43% 32% 100% Availability of affordable quality health care 19% 43% 26% 12% 100% Availability of preventive health services 22% 45% 26% 7% 100% Air quality 22% 54% 21% 2% 100% Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 30% 54% 14% 2% 100% Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 48% 41% 10% 1% 100% Availability of locally grown produce 30% 41% 21% 7% 100% Opportunities to learn about City services through social networking Web sites such as: Twitter, Facebook and MySpace 16% 41% 33% 10% 100% Question 3: Growth Please rate the speed of growth in the following categories in Palo Alto over the past 2 years: Much too slow Somewhat too slow Right amount Somewhat too fast Much too fast Total Population growth 1% 2% 48% 35% 15% 100% Retail growth (stores, restaurants, etc.) 5% 25% 62% 7% 1% 100% Jobs growth 19% 47% 31% 2% 1% 100% Question 4: Code Enforcement To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles a problem in Palo Alto? Percent of respondents Not a problem 21% Minor problem 57% Moderate problem 19% Major problem 3% Total 100% Question 5: Community Safety Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel from the following in Palo Alto: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Total Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 46% 39% 10% 5% 0% 100% Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) 25% 50% 12% 10% 2% 100% Environmental hazards, including toxic waste 39% 45% 12% 4% 1% 100% Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 51 Question 6: Personal Safety Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Total In your neighborhood during the day 76% 20% 3% 1% 0% 100% In your neighborhood after dark 42% 41% 9% 7% 1% 100% In Palo Alto's downtown area during the day 70% 23% 4% 2% 0% 100% In Palo Alto's downtown area after dark 26% 45% 13% 14% 3% 100% Question 7: Crime Victim During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? Percent of respondents No 91% Yes 9% Total 100% Question 8: Crime Reporting If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? Percent of respondents No 14% Yes 86% Total 100% City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 52 Question 9: Resident Behaviors In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated in the following activities in Palo Alto? Never Once or twice 3 to 12 times 13 to 26 times More than 26 times Total Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 24% 17% 28% 14% 17% 100% Used Palo Alto recreation centers 40% 24% 22% 7% 6% 100% Participated in a recreation program or activity 50% 23% 18% 5% 5% 100% Visited a neighborhood park or City park 6% 13% 31% 21% 28% 100% Ridden a local bus within Palo Alto 69% 14% 8% 2% 6% 100% Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 73% 18% 8% 1% 1% 100% Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other City-sponsored public meeting on cable television, the Internet or other media 72% 19% 7% 1% 1% 100% Visited the City of Palo Alto Web site (at www.cityofpaloalto.org) 21% 23% 41% 12% 3% 100% Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home 2% 1% 4% 5% 88% 100% Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Palo Alto 49% 15% 12% 8% 15% 100% Participated in a club or civic group in Palo Alto 69% 10% 10% 3% 9% 100% Provided help to a friend or neighbor 8% 23% 42% 14% 13% 100% Used the City's Web site to conduct business or pay bills 67% 12% 13% 4% 4% 100% Read a Palo Alto Newspaper 9% 9% 17% 16% 49% 100% Question 10: Neighborliness About how often, if at all, do you talk to or visit with your immediate neighbors (people who live in the 10 or 20 households that are closest to you)? Percent of respondents Just about everyday 18% Several times a week 24% Several times a month 29% Less than several times a month 29% Total 100% Question 11: Service Quality Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Police services 37% 49% 11% 2% 100% Fire services 49% 44% 6% 1% 100% Ambulance or emergency medical services 52% 42% 6% 1% 100% Crime prevention 26% 53% 17% 4% 100% ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 53 Question 11: Service Quality Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Fire prevention and education 29% 50% 17% 4% 100% Traffic enforcement 14% 50% 25% 10% 100% Street repair 7% 36% 37% 20% 100% Street cleaning 22% 54% 21% 3% 100% Street lighting 16% 52% 25% 7% 100% Sidewalk maintenance 11% 40% 34% 15% 100% Traffic signal timing 9% 48% 31% 12% 100% Bus or transit services 9% 36% 36% 18% 100% Garbage collection 40% 48% 11% 1% 100% Recycling collection 44% 46% 9% 1% 100% Storm drainage 20% 53% 19% 7% 100% Drinking water 41% 43% 13% 3% 100% Sewer services 27% 55% 15% 3% 100% City parks 43% 47% 10% 0% 100% Recreation programs or classes 28% 54% 16% 2% 100% Recreation centers or facilities 22% 59% 17% 3% 100% Land use, planning and zoning 9% 40% 33% 18% 100% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) 15% 38% 35% 12% 100% Animal control 23% 53% 19% 5% 100% Economic development 11% 38% 33% 18% 100% Services to seniors 25% 54% 19% 2% 100% Services to youth 23% 48% 23% 7% 100% Services to low-income people 10% 39% 30% 21% 100% Public library services 36% 46% 14% 3% 100% Public information services 16% 51% 28% 5% 100% Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 18% 42% 29% 12% 100% Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 28% 50% 18% 4% 100% Neighborhood branch libraries 29% 46% 17% 7% 100% Variety of library materials 28% 47% 19% 6% 100% Your neighborhood park 33% 55% 11% 1% 100% Street tree maintenance 19% 50% 22% 10% 100% Electric utility 29% 50% 17% 4% 100% Gas utility 28% 52% 17% 3% 100% City's Web site 12% 51% 24% 13% 100% Art programs and theater 27% 51% 19% 3% 100% City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 54 Question 12: Government Services Overall Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The City of Palo Alto 22% 58% 17% 3% 100% The Federal Government 4% 39% 44% 14% 100% The State Government 3% 23% 42% 31% 100% Santa Clara County Government 6% 41% 42% 11% 100% Question 13: Contact with City Employees Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Palo Alto within the last 12 months (including police, receptionists, planners or any others)? Percent of respondents No 44% Yes 56% Total 100% Question 14: City Employees What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City of Palo Alto in your most recent contact? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Knowledge 33% 48% 15% 4% 100% Responsiveness 37% 39% 17% 8% 100% Courtesy 41% 41% 13% 5% 100% Overall impression 34% 44% 17% 6% 100% Question 15: Government Performance Please rate the following categories of Palo Alto government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 16% 46% 30% 8% 100% The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 11% 46% 28% 15% 100% The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 14% 43% 30% 13% 100% Question 16: Recommendation and Longevity Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Total Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 57% 32% 6% 4% 100% Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 61% 22% 12% 5% 100% Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 55 Question 17: Impact of the Economy What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Percent of respondents Very positive 3% Somewhat positive 12% Neutral 56% Somewhat negative 23% Very negative 6% Total 100% Question 18a: Policy Question 1 During the past 12 months, did you or anyone in your household have contact with the Palo Alto Police Department? Percent of respondents Yes 32% No 68% Total 100% Question 18b: Policy Question 2 If yes, how do you rate the quality of your contact with the Palo Alto Police Department? Percent of respondents Excellent 48% Good 30% Fair 14% Poor 8% Total 100% Question 18c: Policy Question 3 Please rate the City of Palo Alto on each of the following: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Preservation of wildlife and native plants 29% 56% 12% 3% 100% Water and energy preservation 24% 55% 17% 4% 100% City's composting process and pickup services 35% 48% 13% 4% 100% Infrastructure Investment (e.g., buildings, streets) 8% 46% 33% 14% 100% Downtown shopping, dining and entertainment experience 23% 52% 22% 4% 100% Promoting business growth and economic development 10% 39% 35% 16% 100% Question 18d: Policy Question 4 In the past 12 months, did you or anyone from your household apply for a permit(s) from the City's Development Center? Percent of respondents Yes 8% No 92% Total 100% City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 56 Question 18e: Policy Question 5 If yes, how would you rate each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Ease of the planning approval process 10% 26% 24% 40% 100% Time required to review and issue the permit(s) 10% 23% 26% 41% 100% Inspection timeliness 23% 38% 25% 14% 100% Overall customer service 13% 43% 28% 17% 100% Ease of the overall application process 10% 24% 36% 30% 100% Question 18f: Policy Question 6 As you may know, in response to the economic downturn, Palo Alto has implemented additional measures to keep its expenses in line with its revenues. To what extent do you support or oppose the following additional fiscal efforts for Palo Alto? Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Total Pursuing a new revenue source for specific projects (e.g. capital projects, roads, recreation, etc.) 36% 49% 10% 5% 100% Further reduction of City services and programs 13% 28% 34% 24% 100% Further economic development efforts to increase sales tax revenue 33% 42% 15% 9% 100% Question D1: Employment Status Are you currently employed for pay? Percent of respondents No 34% Yes, full-time 52% Yes, part-time 14% Total 100% Question D2: Mode of Transportation Used for Commute During a typical week, how many days do you commute to work (for the longest distance of your commute) in each of the ways listed below? Percent of days mode used Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc…) by myself 61% Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc…) with other children or adults 9% Bus, rail, subway or other public transportation 3% Walk 5% Bicycle 13% Work at home 9% Other 0% ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 57 Question D3: Length of Residency How many years have you lived in Palo Alto? Percent of respondents Less than 2 years 17% 2 to 5 years 18% 6 to 10 years 13% 11 to 20 years 17% More than 20 years 35% Total 100% Question D4: Housing Unit Type Which best describes the building you live in? Percent of respondents One family house detached from any other houses 60% House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a duplex or townhome) 3% Building with two or more apartments or condominiums 35% Mobile home 0% Other 2% Total 100% Question D5: Housing Tenure (Rent/Own) Is this house, apartment or mobile home… Percent of respondents Rented for cash or occupied without cash payment 39% Owned by you or someone in this house with a mortgage or free and clear 61% Total 100% Question D6: Monthly Housing Cost About how much is the total monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners" association (HOA) fees)? Percent of respondents Less than $300 per month 4% $300 to $599 per month 7% $600 to $999 per month 6% $1,000 to $1,499 per month 13% $1,500 to $2,499 per month 25% $2,500 or more per month 44% Total 100% Question D7: Presence of Children in Household Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent of respondents No 62% Yes 38% Total 100% City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 58 Question D8: Presence of Older Adults in Household Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent of respondents No 72% Yes 28% Total 100% Question D9: Household Income How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent of respondents Less than $24,999 8% $25,000 to $49,999 12% $50,000 to $99,999 25% $100,000 to $149,000 17% $150,000 or more 39% Total 100% Question D10: Ethnicity Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent of respondents No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 96% Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 4% Total 100% Question D11: Race What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent of respondents American Indian or Alaskan Native 0% Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 27% Black or African American 1% White 71% Other 4% Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 59 Question D12: Age In which category is your age? Percent of respondents 18 to 24 years 2% 25 to 34 years 18% 35 to 44 years 17% 45 to 54 years 24% 55 to 64 years 14% 65 to 74 years 12% 75 years or older 14% Total 100% Question D13: Gender What is your sex? Percent of respondents Female 50% Male 50% Total 100% Question D14: Registered to Vote Are you registered to vote in your jurisdiction? Percent of respondents No 9% Yes 81% Ineligible to vote 10% Total 100% Question D15: Voted in Last General Election Many people don't have time to vote in elections. Did you vote in the last general election? Percent of respondents No 12% Yes 75% Ineligible to vote 13% Total 100% Question D16: Has Cell Phone Do you have a cell phone? Percent of respondents No 7% Yes 93% Total 100% City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 60 Question D17: Has Land Line Do you have a land line at home? Percent of respondents No 23% Yes 77% Total 100% Question D18: Primary Phone If you have both a cell phone and a land line, which do you consider your primary telephone number? Percent of respondents Cell 25% Land line 52% Both 24% Total 100% ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 61 FF RR EE QQUUEENNCCII EE SS II NN CC LLUUDDIINNGG ““DDOONN’’TT KK NN OOWW ”” RR EE SS PPOO NN SS EE SS These tables contain the percentage of respondents for each response category as well as the “n” or total number of respondents for each category, next to the percentage. Question 1: Quality of Life Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Palo Alto as a place to live 55% 343 40% 250 4% 26 0% 2 0% 0 100% 622 Your neighborhood as a place to live 47% 290 44% 269 8% 51 1% 3 0% 0 100% 614 Palo Alto as a place to raise children 45% 275 37% 228 6% 36 1% 4 12% 71 100% 615 Palo Alto as a place to work 35% 213 37% 226 9% 58 1% 7 17% 105 100% 610 Palo Alto as a place to retire 24% 148 28% 174 18% 113 9% 57 20% 122 100% 614 The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 45% 279 48% 298 6% 37 0% 2 0% 1 100% 617 Question 2: Community Characteristics Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Sense of community 18% 106 51% 306 24% 141 4% 25 3% 16 100% 594 Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds 28% 173 48% 290 17% 104 3% 20 3% 21 100% 608 Overall appearance of Palo Alto 30% 185 52% 325 16% 98 1% 8 0% 2 100% 619 Cleanliness of Palo Alto 33% 204 51% 317 14% 85 1% 9 0% 1 100% 616 Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 8% 50 37% 224 30% 181 11% 67 14% 86 100% 607 Variety of housing options 6% 36 28% 173 39% 241 19% 117 8% 47 100% 614 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 19% 115 54% 331 22% 134 3% 18 2% 15 100% 612 Shopping opportunities 29% 179 41% 250 23% 142 7% 42 1% 3 100% 615 Opportunities to attend cultural activities 29% 176 42% 260 20% 126 5% 29 4% 23 100% 615 Recreational opportunities 30% 182 48% 295 17% 101 3% 15 3% 16 100% 610 Employment opportunities 11% 69 29% 174 28% 168 9% 53 23% 139 100% 603 Educational opportunities 46% 278 41% 250 9% 57 1% 3 3% 20 100% 609 Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 62 Question 2: Community Characteristics Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 22% 134 46% 285 21% 127 3% 19 8% 48 100% 612 Opportunities to volunteer 30% 183 39% 238 15% 92 1% 5 15% 94 100% 612 Opportunities to participate in community matters 25% 153 39% 238 17% 104 3% 20 16% 95 100% 610 Ease of car travel in Palo Alto 18% 108 48% 292 26% 162 7% 43 1% 6 100% 611 Ease of bus travel in Palo Alto 6% 35 18% 112 22% 132 17% 101 38% 230 100% 609 Ease of rail travel in Palo Alto 15% 91 37% 229 25% 153 7% 43 16% 97 100% 613 Ease of bicycle travel in Palo Alto 29% 177 44% 270 14% 87 3% 19 10% 59 100% 612 Ease of walking in Palo Alto 38% 236 46% 285 13% 77 2% 15 1% 4 100% 617 Availability of paths and walking trails 22% 135 49% 303 20% 125 4% 23 5% 28 100% 615 Traffic flow on major streets 4% 27 42% 259 38% 232 15% 89 1% 5 100% 612 Amount of public parking 13% 78 46% 280 30% 183 9% 55 2% 15 100% 611 Availability of affordable quality housing 2% 12 11% 64 28% 169 44% 266 16% 98 100% 609 Availability of affordable quality child care 2% 12 10% 62 21% 127 16% 93 51% 307 100% 601 Availability of affordable quality health care 16% 97 36% 219 22% 133 10% 63 17% 102 100% 613 Availability of preventive health services 16% 101 34% 211 20% 122 5% 34 24% 146 100% 614 Air quality 22% 135 53% 327 21% 127 2% 12 2% 15 100% 616 Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 30% 188 54% 332 14% 87 2% 11 0% 1 100% 619 Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 48% 293 41% 249 10% 60 0% 3 1% 5 100% 611 Availability of locally grown produce 25% 151 35% 210 18% 107 6% 37 16% 95 100% 600 Opportunities to learn about City services through social networking Web sites such as: Twitter, Facebook and MySpace 7% 41 17% 102 14% 82 4% 26 58% 348 100% 599 ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 63 Question 3: Growth Please rate the speed of growth in the following categories in Palo Alto over the past 2 years: Much too slow Somewhat too slow Right amount Somewhat too fast Much too fast Don't know Total Population growth 1% 3 1% 8 31% 193 23% 140 10% 60 34% 211 100% 615 Retail growth (stores, restaurants, etc.) 4% 26 20% 126 50% 309 5% 33 1% 4 19% 118 100% 616 Jobs growth 11% 68 27% 164 18% 108 1% 6 0% 2 43% 263 100% 610 Question 4: Code Enforcement To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles a problem in Palo Alto? Percent of respondents Count Not a problem 20% 121 Minor problem 53% 325 Moderate problem 18% 110 Major problem 3% 17 Don't know 6% 37 Total 100% 610 Question 5: Community Safety Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel from the following in Palo Alto: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Don't know Total Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 46% 283 38% 237 9% 58 5% 31 0% 2 1% 5 100% 616 Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) 25% 151 50% 306 12% 75 10% 60 2% 15 1% 7 100% 613 Environmental hazards, including toxic waste 36% 220 42% 256 11% 68 4% 24 1% 3 7% 42 100% 613 Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 64 Question 6: Personal Safety Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Don't know Total In your neighborhood during the day 76% 466 20% 125 3% 17 1% 5 0% 3 0% 0 100% 616 In your neighborhood after dark 41% 254 40% 249 9% 58 7% 44 1% 4 1% 6 100% 616 In Palo Alto's downtown area during the day 69% 419 23% 140 4% 27 2% 11 0% 0 2% 14 100% 612 In Palo Alto's downtown area after dark 24% 148 42% 255 12% 76 13% 79 2% 15 7% 42 100% 615 Question 7: Crime Victim During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? Percent of respondents Count No 90% 546 Yes 9% 57 Don't know 1% 6 Total 100% 609 Question 8: Crime Reporting If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? Percent of respondents Count No 14% 8 Yes 86% 48 Don't know 0% 0 Total 100% 56 ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 65 Question 9: Resident Behaviors In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated in the following activities in Palo Alto? Never Once or twice 3 to 12 times 13 to 26 times More than 26 times Total Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 24% 149 17% 106 28% 171 14% 86 17% 106 100% 618 Used Palo Alto recreation centers 40% 247 24% 146 22% 137 7% 43 6% 37 100% 609 Participated in a recreation program or activity 50% 298 23% 136 18% 108 5% 28 5% 30 100% 600 Visited a neighborhood park or City park 6% 37 13% 82 31% 189 21% 126 28% 172 100% 606 Ridden a local bus within Palo Alto 69% 418 14% 84 8% 51 2% 14 6% 36 100% 603 Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 73% 448 18% 110 8% 46 1% 4 1% 7 100% 615 Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other City- sponsored public meeting on cable television, the Internet or other media 72% 445 19% 115 7% 41 1% 7 1% 6 100% 614 Visited the City of Palo Alto Web site (at www.cityofpaloalto.org) 21% 126 23% 141 41% 246 12% 74 3% 20 100% 608 Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home 2% 12 1% 7 4% 26 5% 30 88% 532 100% 606 Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Palo Alto 49% 301 15% 93 12% 74 8% 49 15% 92 100% 609 Participated in a club or civic group in Palo Alto 69% 409 10% 57 10% 57 3% 20 9% 53 100% 596 Provided help to a friend or neighbor 8% 47 23% 136 42% 254 14% 85 13% 78 100% 601 Used the City's Web site to conduct business or pay bills 67% 410 12% 71 13% 79 4% 22 4% 26 100% 607 Read a Palo Alto Newspaper 9% 55 9% 58 17% 104 16% 96 49% 303 100% 615 Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 66 Question 10: Neighborliness About how often, if at all, do you talk to or visit with your immediate neighbors (people who live in the 10 or 20 households that are closest to you)? Percent of respondents Count Just about everyday 18% 110 Several times a week 24% 148 Several times a month 29% 180 Less than several times a month 29% 175 Total 100% 613 Question 11: Service Quality Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Police services 31% 186 41% 247 9% 55 2% 12 18% 109 100% 608 Fire services 34% 204 30% 183 4% 26 1% 4 31% 189 100% 606 Ambulance or emergency medical services 31% 188 25% 149 3% 20 0% 2 40% 244 100% 603 Crime prevention 18% 106 35% 211 11% 68 3% 15 33% 199 100% 599 Fire prevention and education 16% 96 28% 165 9% 55 2% 14 45% 269 100% 598 Traffic enforcement 12% 71 43% 258 22% 129 9% 53 14% 83 100% 593 Street repair 6% 38 35% 212 35% 213 20% 118 3% 21 100% 602 Street cleaning 21% 129 53% 324 21% 127 3% 19 1% 9 100% 608 Street lighting 16% 98 51% 309 25% 149 7% 41 1% 7 100% 603 Sidewalk maintenance 11% 63 38% 230 33% 195 15% 88 4% 24 100% 600 Traffic signal timing 8% 50 46% 272 30% 178 12% 71 4% 24 100% 596 Bus or transit services 5% 30 20% 121 20% 121 10% 61 44% 260 100% 592 Garbage collection 39% 234 47% 283 10% 63 1% 6 2% 14 100% 601 Recycling collection 43% 258 45% 270 9% 52 1% 6 2% 15 100% 601 Storm drainage 17% 101 44% 264 16% 95 6% 35 18% 106 100% 602 Drinking water 39% 237 42% 253 12% 75 3% 19 4% 22 100% 606 Sewer services 23% 136 47% 278 13% 75 2% 13 16% 93 100% 595 City parks 42% 255 46% 276 9% 57 0% 1 3% 17 100% 605 ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 67 Question 11: Service Quality Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Recreation programs or classes 19% 112 35% 211 10% 62 2% 9 34% 205 100% 599 Recreation centers or facilities 15% 88 40% 236 11% 67 2% 10 33% 196 100% 598 Land use, planning and zoning 6% 38 29% 171 23% 138 13% 77 29% 170 100% 594 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) 9% 56 24% 143 22% 132 8% 45 36% 216 100% 592 Animal control 15% 87 34% 205 13% 75 3% 20 35% 208 100% 594 Economic development 7% 41 24% 143 21% 123 11% 66 37% 222 100% 594 Services to seniors 12% 74 27% 160 9% 57 1% 5 51% 303 100% 598 Services to youth 12% 71 25% 150 12% 72 4% 21 47% 279 100% 593 Services to low-income people 3% 20 13% 79 10% 61 7% 42 66% 387 100% 588 Public library services 31% 185 39% 236 12% 72 3% 18 15% 90 100% 602 Public information services 12% 71 37% 218 20% 119 4% 21 27% 162 100% 590 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 11% 64 25% 153 17% 105 7% 44 39% 235 100% 600 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 24% 143 43% 257 15% 90 3% 20 15% 89 100% 599 Neighborhood branch libraries 23% 139 37% 221 14% 83 6% 35 21% 127 100% 604 Variety of library materials 22% 131 37% 222 15% 87 5% 29 22% 130 100% 599 Your neighborhood park 31% 188 53% 319 11% 65 1% 5 4% 24 100% 601 Street tree maintenance 18% 107 48% 289 21% 124 9% 56 5% 29 100% 605 Electric utility 27% 164 47% 285 17% 99 4% 26 5% 28 100% 602 Gas utility 25% 150 47% 281 15% 89 3% 16 11% 66 100% 602 City's Web site 9% 56 40% 238 19% 112 10% 59 22% 132 100% 597 Art programs and theater 18% 112 35% 212 13% 77 2% 13 31% 190 100% 604 Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 68 Question 12: Government Services Overall Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The City of Palo Alto 22% 133 56% 342 16% 99 3% 20 3% 16 100% 609 The Federal Government 3% 19 31% 187 35% 212 11% 66 19% 116 100% 600 The State Government 3% 16 19% 111 34% 202 25% 148 21% 123 100% 599 Santa Clara County Government 4% 24 27% 162 27% 163 7% 42 35% 209 100% 601 Question 13: Contact with City Employees Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Palo Alto within the last 12 months (including police, receptionists, planners or any others)? Percent of respondents Count No 44% 256 Yes 56% 330 Total 100% 586 Question 14: City Employees What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City of Palo Alto in your most recent contact? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Knowledge 33% 106 47% 152 15% 48 4% 14 2% 6 100% 326 Responsiveness 36% 119 39% 127 17% 55 8% 25 0% 1 100% 327 Courtesy 41% 134 41% 133 13% 44 5% 17 0% 0 100% 328 Overall impression 34% 111 44% 143 17% 54 6% 20 0% 0 100% 328 Question 15: Government Performance Please rate the following categories of Palo Alto government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 14% 83 39% 240 26% 157 7% 43 14% 86 100% 609 The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 9% 56 40% 243 24% 150 13% 79 14% 84 100% 612 The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 10% 59 30% 182 21% 128 9% 54 30% 186 100% 608 ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 69 Question 16: Recommendation and Longevity Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Don't know Total Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 57% 348 32% 197 6% 37 4% 24 1% 8 100% 614 Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 59% 365 21% 132 12% 71 5% 29 3% 19 100% 616 Question 17: Impact of the Economy What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Percent of respondents Count Very positive 3% 18 Somewhat positive 12% 74 Neutral 56% 346 Somewhat negative 23% 144 Very negative 6% 34 Total 100% 616 Question 18a: Policy Question 1 During the past 12 months, did you or anyone in your household have contact with the Palo Alto Police Department? Percent of respondents Count Yes 32% 199 No 67% 416 Don't know 1% 4 Total 100% 620 Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 70 Question 18b: Policy Question 2 If yes, how do you rate the quality of your contact with the Palo Alto Police Department? Percent of respondents Count Excellent 47% 95 Good 29% 60 Fair 14% 28 Poor 8% 15 Don't know 2% 5 Total 100% 203 Question 18c: Policy Question 3 Please rate the City of Palo Alto on each of the following: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Preservation of wildlife and native plants 23% 142 45% 275 10% 61 2% 13 19% 114 100% 604 Water and energy preservation 20% 123 47% 289 15% 89 3% 20 14% 88 100% 608 City's composting process and pickup services 29% 173 39% 236 10% 62 3% 18 19% 114 100% 603 Infrastructure Investment (e.g., buildings, streets) 6% 38 38% 231 27% 163 11% 68 18% 107 100% 606 Downtown shopping, dining and entertainment experience 22% 133 49% 301 21% 128 4% 22 4% 24 100% 609 Promoting business growth and economic development 6% 39 25% 149 22% 134 10% 62 36% 219 100% 603 Question 18d: Policy Question 4 In the past 12 months, did you or anyone from your household apply for a permit(s) from the City's Development Center? Percent of respondents Count Yes 8% 50 No 91% 556 Don't know 1% 4 Total 100% 610 ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 71 Question 18e: Policy Question 5 If yes, how would you rate each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Ease of the planning approval process 10% 6 25% 14 24% 13 39% 22 2% 1 100% 56 Time required to review and issue the permit(s) 9% 5 22% 12 26% 14 41% 22 2% 1 100% 55 Inspection timeliness 21% 12 34% 19 22% 13 12% 7 11% 6 100% 57 Overall customer service 12% 7 42% 23 28% 16 16% 9 2% 1 100% 56 Ease of the overall application process 10% 5 23% 13 35% 20 29% 16 3% 2 100% 56 Question 18f: Policy Question 6 As you may know, in response to the economic downturn, Palo Alto has implemented additional measures to keep its expenses in line with its revenues. To what extent do you support or oppose the following additional fiscal efforts for Palo Alto? Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Don't know Total Pursuing a new revenue source for specific projects (e.g. capital projects, roads, recreation, etc.) 31% 187 43% 256 9% 53 5% 28 12% 72 100% 596 Further reduction of City services and programs 12% 72 25% 151 31% 187 22% 133 9% 52 100% 595 Further economic development efforts to increase sales tax revenue 29% 176 38% 225 14% 82 8% 49 11% 66 100% 599 Question D1: Employment Status Are you currently employed for pay? Percent of respondents Count No 34% 208 Yes, full-time 52% 322 Yes, part-time 14% 88 Total 100% 617 Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 72 Question D2: Mode of Transportation Used for Commute During a typical week, how many days do you commute to work (for the longest distance of your commute) in each of the ways listed below? Percent of days mode used Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc…) by myself 61% Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc…) with other children or adults 9% Bus, rail, subway or other public transportation 3% Walk 5% Bicycle 13% Work at home 9% Other 0% Question D3: Length of Residency How many years have you lived in Palo Alto? Percent of respondents Count Less than 2 years 17% 96 2 to 5 years 18% 104 6 to 10 years 13% 76 11 to 20 years 17% 100 More than 20 years 35% 205 Total 100% 581 Question D4: Housing Unit Type Which best describes the building you live in? Percent of respondents Count One family house detached from any other houses 60% 369 House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a duplex or townhome) 3% 18 Building with two or more apartments or condominiums 35% 219 Mobile home 0% 0 Other 2% 11 Total 100% 618 ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 73 Question D5: Housing Tenure (Rent/Own) Is this house, apartment or mobile home… Percent of respondents Count Rented for cash or occupied without cash payment 39% 237 Owned by you or someone in this house with a mortgage or free and clear 61% 369 Total 100% 606 Question D6: Monthly Housing Cost About how much is the total monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners" association (HOA) fees)? Percent of respondents Count Less than $300 per month 4% 25 $300 to $599 per month 7% 43 $600 to $999 per month 6% 39 $1,000 to $1,499 per month 13% 80 $1,500 to $2,499 per month 25% 151 $2,500 or more per month 44% 263 Total 100% 600 Question D7: Presence of Children in Household Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent of respondents Count No 62% 387 Yes 38% 233 Total 100% 620 Question D8: Presence of Older Adults in Household Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent of respondents Count No 72% 445 Yes 28% 177 Total 100% 622 Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 74 Question D9: Household Income How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent of respondents Count Less than $24,999 8% 45 $25,000 to $49,999 12% 72 $50,000 to $99,999 25% 145 $100,000 to $149,000 17% 97 $150,000 or more 39% 230 Total 100% 590 Question D10: Ethnicity Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent of respondents Count No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 96% 590 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 4% 22 Total 100% 612 Question D11: Race What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent of respondents Count American Indian or Alaskan Native 0% 3 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 27% 163 Black or African American 1% 7 White 71% 436 Other 4% 22 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 75 Question D12: Age In which category is your age? Percent of respondents Count 18 to 24 years 2% 10 25 to 34 years 18% 109 35 to 44 years 17% 107 45 to 54 years 24% 149 55 to 64 years 14% 85 65 to 74 years 12% 71 75 years or older 14% 85 Total 100% 616 Question D13: Gender What is your sex? Percent of respondents Count Female 50% 306 Male 50% 304 Total 100% 610 Question D14: Registered to Vote Are you registered to vote in your jurisdiction? Percent of respondents Count No 9% 54 Yes 80% 489 Ineligible to vote 10% 59 Don't know 1% 9 Total 100% 612 Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 76 Question D15: Voted in Last General Election Many people don't have time to vote in elections. Did you vote in the last general election? Percent of respondents Count No 12% 75 Yes 74% 454 Ineligible to vote 12% 76 Don't know 2% 10 Total 100% 615 Question D16: Has Cell Phone Do you have a cell phone? Percent of respondents Count No 7% 46 Yes 93% 577 Total 100% 623 Question D17: Has Land Line Do you have a land line at home? Percent of respondents Count No 23% 143 Yes 77% 478 Total 100% 621 Question D18: Primary Phone If you have both a cell phone and a land line, which do you consider your primary telephone number? Percent of respondents Count Cell 25% 109 Land line 52% 226 Both 24% 103 Total 100% 438 ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 77 AApppp eennddiixx BB:: SSuu rrvv eeyy MMeetthh ooddoo lloogg yy The National Citizen Survey™ (The NCS) was developed to provide local jurisdictions an accurate, affordable and easy way to assess and interpret resident opinion about important community issues. While standardization of question wording and survey methods provide the rigor to assure valid results, each jurisdiction has enough flexibility to construct a customized version of The NCS that asks residents about key local services and important local issues. Results offer insight into residents’ perspectives about local government performance and as such provide important benchmarks for jurisdictions working on performance measurement. The NCS is designed to help with budget, land use and strategic planning as well as to communicate with local residents. The NCS permits questions to test support for local policies and answers to its questions also speak to community trust and involvement in community-building activities as well as to resident demographic characteristics. SSUURRVVEEYY VVAALLIIDDIITTYY The question of survey validity has two parts: 1) how can a jurisdiction be confident that the results from those who completed the questionnaire are representative of the results that would have been obtained had the survey been administered to the entire population? and 2) how closely do the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect what residents really believe or do? To answer the first question, the best survey research practices were used for the resources spent to ensure that the results from the survey respondents reflect the opinions of residents in the entire jurisdiction. These practices include: Using a mail-out/mail-back methodology, which typically gets a higher response rate than phone for the same dollars spent. A higher response rate lessens the worry that those who did not respond are different than those who did respond. Selecting households at random within the jurisdiction to receive the survey. A random selection ensures that the households selected to receive the survey are similar to the entire population. A non-random sample may only include households from one geographic area, or from households of only one type. Over-sampling multi-family housing units to improve response from hard-to-reach, lower income, or younger apartment dwellers. Selecting the respondent within the household using an unbiased sampling procedure; in this case, the “birthday method.” The cover letter included an instruction requesting that the respondent in the household be the adult (18 years old or older) who most recently had a birthday, irrespective of year of birth. Contacting potential respondents three times to encourage response from people who may have different opinions or habits than those who would respond with only a single prompt. Soliciting response on jurisdiction letterhead signed by the highest ranking elected official or staff member, thus appealing to the recipients’ sense of civic responsibility. Providing a self-addressed, postage-paid return envelope. Offering the survey in Spanish when appropriate and requested by City officials. Using the most recent available information about the characteristics of jurisdiction residents to weight the data to reflect the demographics of the population. The answer to the second question about how closely the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect what residents really believe or do is more complex. Resident responses to surveys are influenced by a variety of factors. For questions about service quality, residents’ expectations for City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 78 service quality play a role as well as the “objective” quality of the service provided, the way the resident perceives the entire community (that is, the context in which the service is provided), the scale on which the resident is asked to record his or her opinion and, of course, the opinion, itself, that a resident holds about the service. Similarly a resident’s report of certain behaviors is colored by what he or she believes is the socially desirable response (e.g., reporting tolerant behaviors toward “oppressed groups,” likelihood of voting a tax increase for services to poor people, use of alternative modes of travel to work besides the single occupancy vehicle), his or her memory of the actual behavior (if it is not a question speculating about future actions, like a vote), his or her confidence that he or she can be honest without suffering any negative consequences (thus the need for anonymity) as well as the actual behavior itself. How closely survey results come to recording the way a person really feels or behaves often is measured by the coincidence of reported behavior with observed current behavior (e.g., driving habits), reported intentions to behave with observed future behavior (e.g., voting choices) or reported opinions about current community quality with objective characteristics of the community (e.g., feelings of safety correlated with rates of crime). There is a body of scientific literature that has investigated the relationship between reported behaviors and actual behaviors. Well-conducted surveys, by and large, do capture true respondent behaviors or intentions to act with great accuracy. Predictions of voting outcomes tend to be quite accurate using survey research, as do reported behaviors that are not about highly sensitive issues (e.g., family abuse or other illegal or morally sanctioned activities). For self-reports about highly sensitive issues, statistical adjustments can be made to correct for the respondents’ tendency to report what they think the “correct” response should be. Research on the correlation of resident opinion about service quality and “objective” ratings of service quality tend to be ambiguous, some showing stronger relationships than others. NRC’s own research has demonstrated that residents who report the lowest ratings of street repair live in communities with objectively worse street conditions than those who report high ratings of street repair (based on road quality, delay in street repair, number of road repair employees). Similarly, the lowest rated fire services appear to be “objectively” worse than the highest rated fire services (expenditures per capita, response time, “professional” status of firefighters, breadth of services and training provided). Whether or not some research confirms the relationship between what residents think about a community and what can be seen “objectively” in a community, NRC has argued that resident opinion is a perspective that cannot be ignored by government administrators. NRC principals have written, “If you collect trash three times a day but residents think that your trash haul is lousy, you still have a problem.” SSUURRVVEEYY SSAAMMPPLLIINNGG “Sampling” refers to the method by which survey recipients were chosen. All households within the City of Palo Alto were eligible to participate in the survey; 1,800 were selected to receive the survey. These 1,800 households were randomly selected from a comprehensive list of all housing units within the City of Palo Alto boundaries. The basis of the list of all housing units was a United States Postal Service listing of housing units within zip codes. Since some of the zip codes that serve the City of Palo Alto households may also serve addresses that lie outside of the jurisdiction, the exact geographic location of each housing unit was compared to jurisdiction boundaries, using the most current municipal boundary file (updated on a quarterly basis), and addresses located outside of the City of Palo Alto boundaries were removed from consideration. Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 79 To choose the 1,800 survey recipients, a systematic sampling method was applied to the list of households known to be within the City of Palo Alto. Systematic sampling is a procedure whereby a complete list of all possible items is culled, selecting every Nth one until the appropriate amount of items is selected. Multi-family housing units were over sampled as residents of this type of housing typically respond at lower rates to surveys than do those in single-family housing units. FIGURE 90: LOCATION OF SURVEY RECIPIENTS An individual within each household was selected using the birthday method. The birthday method selects a person within the household by asking the “person whose birthday has most recently passed” to complete the questionnaire. The underlying assumption in this method is that day of birth has no relationship to the way people respond to surveys. This instruction was contained in the cover letter accompanying the questionnaire. City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 80 In response to the growing number of the cell-phone population (so-called “cord cutters”), which includes a large proportion of young adults, questions about cell phones and land lines were added to The NCS™ questionnaire. According to recent estimates, about 12 percent of all U.S. households have a cell phone but no landline. By 2010, researchers predict that 40 percent of Americans 18 to 30 years old will have only a cell phone and no landline.4 FIGURE 91: PREVALENCE OF CELL-PHONE ONLY RESPONDENTS IN PALO ALTO 74% 16% 22% 2% 0%25%50%75%100% 18-34 35-54 55+ Overall Percent of respondents reporting having a "cell phone" only SSUURRVVEEYY AADDMMIINNIISSTTRRAATTIIOONN Selected households received three mailings, one week apart, beginning August 20, 2010. The first mailing to all 1,800 households was a prenotification postcard announcing the upcoming survey. The next mailing contained a letter from the city auditor inviting the household to participate, a questionnaire and a postage-paid return envelope. The final mailing contained a reminder letter, another survey and a postage-paid return envelope. The second cover letter asked those who had not completed the survey to do so and those who have already done so to refrain from turning in another survey. Completed surveys were collected over seven weeks. SSUURRVVEEYY RREESSPPOONNSSEE RRAATTEE AANNDD CCOONNFFIIDDEENNCCEE IINNTTEERRVVAALLSS It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a “level of confidence” and accompanying “confidence interval” (or margin of error). A traditional level of confidence, and the one used here, is 95%. The 95% confidence interval can be any size and quantifies the sampling error or imprecision of the survey results because some residents' opinions are relied on to estimate all residents' opinions. The confidence interval for the City of Palo Alto survey is no greater than plus or minus four percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample (624 completed surveys). A 95% confidence interval indicates that for every 100 random samples of this many residents, 95 of the confidence intervals created will include the “true” population response. This theory is applied in practice to mean that the “true” perspective of the target population lies within the confidence interval created for a single survey. For example, if 75% of residents rate a service as “excellent” or “good,” then the 4% margin of error (for the 95% confidence interval) indicates that the range of likely responses for the entire jurisdiction is between 71% and 79%. This source of error is called sampling error. In addition to sampling error, other sources of error may affect any 4 Paul J. Lavrakas, Charles D. Shuttles, Charlotte Steeh, and Howard Fienberg, “The State of Surveying Cell Phone Numbers in the United States: 2007 and Beyond,” Public Opinion Quarterly 71, no. 5 (2007), 840-854. ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 81 survey, including the non-response of residents with opinions different from survey responders. Though standardized on The NCS, on other surveys, differences in question wording, order, translation and data entry, as examples, can lead to somewhat varying results. For subgroups of responses, the margin of error increases because the sample size for the subgroup is smaller. For subgroups of approximately 100 respondents, the margin of error is plus or minus 10 percentage points SSUURRVVEEYY PPRROOCCEESSSSIINNGG ((DDAATTAA EENNTTRRYY)) Completed surveys received by NRC were assigned a unique identification number. Additionally, each survey was reviewed and “cleaned” as necessary. For example, a question may have asked a respondent to pick two items out of a list of five, but the respondent checked three; NRC staff would choose randomly two of the three selected items to be coded in the dataset. Once all surveys were assigned a unique identification number, they were entered into an electronic dataset. This dataset was subject to a data entry protocol of “key and verify,” in which survey data were entered twice into an electronic dataset and then compared. Discrepancies were evaluated against the original survey form and corrected. Range checks as well as other forms of quality control were also performed. City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 82 SSUURRVVEEYY DDAATTAA WWEEIIGGHHTTIINNGG The demographic characteristics of the survey sample were compared to those found in the 2006- 2008 American Community Survey Census estimates for adults in the City of Palo Alto. Sample results were weighted using the population norms to reflect the appropriate percent of those residents. Other discrepancies between the whole population and the sample were also aided by the weighting due to the intercorrelation of many socioeconomic characteristics. The variables used for weighting were housing tenure, housing unit type, race and ethnicity, and sex and age. This decision was based on: The disparity between the survey respondent characteristics and the population norms for these variables The saliency of these variables in detecting differences of opinion among subgroups The importance to the community of correct ethnic representation The historical use of the variables and the desirability of consistently representing different groups over the years The primary objective of weighting survey data is to make the survey sample reflective of the larger population of the community. This is done by: 1) reviewing the sample demographics and comparing them to the population norms from the most recent Census or other sources and 2) comparing the responses to different questions for demographic subgroups. The demographic characteristics that are least similar to the Census and yield the most different results are the best candidates for data weighting. A third criterion sometimes used is the importance that the community places on a specific variable. For example, if a jurisdiction feels that accurate race representation is key to staff and public acceptance of the study results, additional consideration will be given in the weighting process to adjusting the race variable. A special software program using mathematical algorithms is used to calculate the appropriate weights. Data weighting can adjust up to 5 demographic variables. Several different weighting “schemes” may be tested to ensure the best fit for the data. The process actually begins at the point of sampling. Knowing that residents in single family dwellings are more likely to respond to a mail survey, NRC oversamples residents of multi-family dwellings to ensure their proper representation in the sample data. Rather than giving all residents an equal chance of receiving the survey, this is systematic, stratified sampling, which gives each resident of the jurisdiction a known chance of receiving the survey (and apartment dwellers, for example, a greater chance than single family home dwellers). As a consequence, results must be weighted to recapture the proper representation of apartment dwellers. The results of the weighting scheme are presented in the table on the following page. Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 83 Palo Alto Citizen Survey Weighting Table Characteristic Population Norm5 Unweighted Data Weighted Data Housing Rent home 39% 37% 39% Own home 61% 63% 61% Detached unit 61% 52% 60% Attached unit 39% 48% 40% Race and Ethnicity White alone, not Hispanic 67% 71% 67% Hispanic and/or other race 33% 29% 33% Sex and Age Female 51% 53% 50% Male 49% 47% 50% 18-34 years of age 20% 13% 19% 35-54 years of age 43% 32% 42% 55+ years of age 37% 55% 39% Females 18-34 9% 7% 9% Females 35-54 21% 18% 21% Females 55+ 20% 28% 21% Males 18-34 11% 5% 11% Males 35-54 22% 15% 21% Males 55+ 17% 27% 18% 5 Source: 2006-2008 ACS City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 84 SSUURRVVEEYY DDAATTAA AANNAALLYYSSIISS AANNDD RREEPPOORRTTIINNGG The survey dataset was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Frequency distributions were presented in the body of the report. UUssee ooff tthhee ““EExxcceelllleenntt,, GGoooodd,, FFaaiirr,, PPoooorr”” RReessppoonnssee SSccaallee The scale on which respondents are asked to record their opinions about service and community quality is “excellent,” “good,” “fair” or “poor” (EGFP). This scale has important advantages over other scale possibilities (very good to very bad; very satisfied to very dissatisfied; strongly agree to strongly disagree, as examples). EGFP is used by the plurality of jurisdictions conducting citizen surveys across the U.S. The advantage of familiarity was one that NRC did not want to dismiss when crafting The National Citizen Survey™ questionnaire, because elected officials, staff and residents already are acquainted with opinion surveys measured this way. EGFP also has the advantage of offering three positive options, rather than only two, over which a resident can offer an opinion. While symmetrical scales often are the right choice in other measurement tasks, NRC has found that ratings of almost every local government service in almost every jurisdiction tend, on average, to be positive (that is, above the scale midpoint). Therefore, to permit finer distinctions among positively rated services, EGFP offers three options across which to spread those ratings. EGFP is more neutral because it requires no positive statement of service quality to judge (as agree- disagree scales require) and, finally, EGFP intends to measure absolute quality of service delivery or community quality (unlike satisfaction scales which ignore residents’ perceptions of quality in favor of their report on the acceptability of the level of service offered). ““DDoonn’’tt KKnnooww”” RReessppoonnsseess On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer “don’t know.” The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the body of the report. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. BBeenncchhmmaarrkk CCoommppaarriissoonnss NRC has been leading the strategic use of surveys for local governments since 1991, when the principals of the company wrote the first edition of what became the classic text on citizen surveying. In Citizen Surveys: how to do them, how to use them, what they mean, published by ICMA, not only were the principles for quality survey methods articulated, but both the idea of benchmark data for citizen opinion and the method for gathering benchmark data were pioneered. The argument for benchmarks was called “In Search of Standards.” “What has been missing from a local government’s analysis of its survey results is the context that school administrators can supply when they tell parents how an 80 percent score on the social studies test compares to test results from other school systems...” NRC’s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in citizen surveys from approximately 500 jurisdictions whose residents evaluated local government services. Conducted with typically no fewer than 400 residents in each jurisdiction, opinions are intended to represent over 30 million Americans. NRC has innovated a method for quantitatively integrating the results of surveys that are conducted by NRC with those that others have conducted. The integration methods have been thoroughly described not only in the Citizen Surveys book, but also in Public Administration Review, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Scholars who ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 85 specialize in the analysis of citizen surveys regularly have relied on this work (e.g., Kelly, J. & Swindell, D. (2002). Service quality variation across urban space: First steps towards a model of citizen satisfaction. Journal of Urban Affairs, 24, 271-288.; Van Ryzin, G., Muzzio, D., Immerwahr, S., Gulick, L. & Martinez, E. (2004). Drivers and consequences of citizen satisfaction: An application of the American Customer Satisfaction Index Model to New York City, Public Administration Review, 64, 331- 341). The method described in those publications is refined regularly and statistically tested on a growing number of citizen surveys in NRC’s proprietary databases. NRC’s work on calculating national benchmarks for resident opinions about service delivery and quality of life won the Samuel C. May award for research excellence from the Western Governmental Research Association. The comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in each jurisdiction; most communities conduct surveys every year or in alternating years. NRC adds the latest results quickly upon survey completion, keeping the benchmark data fresh and relevant. TThhee RRoollee ooff CCoommppaarriissoonnss Benchmark comparisons are used for performance measurement. Jurisdictions use the comparative information to help interpret their own citizen survey results, to create or revise community plans, to evaluate the success of policy or budget decisions and to measure local government performance. Taking the pulse of the community has little meaning without knowing what pulse rate is too high and what is too low. When surveys of service satisfaction turn up “good” citizen evaluations, jurisdictions need to know how others rate their services to understand if “good” is good enough. Furthermore, in the absence of national or peer community comparisons, a jurisdiction is left with comparing its fire protection rating to its street maintenance rating. That comparison is unfair. Streets always lose to fire. More important and harder questions need to be asked; for example, how do residents’ ratings of fire service compare to opinions about fire service in other communities? A police department that provides the fastest and most efficient service – one that closes most of its cases, solves most of its crimes and keeps the crime rate low – still has a problem to fix if the residents in the community it intends to protect believe services are not very good compared to ratings given by residents to their own objectively “worse” departments. The benchmark data can help that police department – or any department – to understand how well citizens think it is doing. Without the comparative data, it would be like bowling in a tournament without knowing what the other teams are scoring. NRC recommends that citizen opinion be used in conjunction with other sources of data about budget, personnel and politics to help managers know how to respond to comparative results. Jurisdictions in the benchmark database are distributed geographically across the country and range from small to large in population size. Most commonly, comparisons are made to the entire database. Comparisons may also be made to subsets of jurisdictions (for example, within a given region or population category). Despite the differences in jurisdiction characteristics, all are in the business of providing local government services to residents. Though individual jurisdiction circumstances, resources and practices vary, the objective in every community is to provide services that are so timely, tailored and effective that residents conclude the services are of the highest quality. High ratings in any jurisdiction, like SAT scores in any teen household, bring pride and a sense of accomplishment. City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 86 CCoommppaarriissoonn ooff PPaalloo AAllttoo ttoo tthhee BBeenncchhmmaarrkk DDaattaabbaassee The City of Palo Alto chose to have comparisons made to the entire database. A benchmark comparison (the average rating from all the comparison jurisdictions where a similar question was asked) has been provided when a similar question on the City of Palo Alto Survey was included in NRC’s database and there were at least five jurisdictions in which the question was asked. For most questions compared to the entire dataset, there were more than 100 jurisdictions included in the benchmark comparison. Where comparisons for quality ratings were available, the City of Palo Alto results were generally noted as being “above” the benchmark, “below” the benchmark or “similar” to the benchmark. For some questions – those related to resident behavior, circumstance or to a local problem – the comparison to the benchmark is designated as “more,” “similar” or “less” (for example, the percent of crime victims, residents visiting a park or residents identifying code enforcement as a problem.) In instances where ratings are considerably higher or lower than the benchmark, these ratings have been further demarcated by the attribute of “much,” (for example, “much less” or “much above”). These labels come from a statistical comparison of the City of Palo Alto's rating to the benchmark where a rating is considered “similar” if it is within the margin of error; “above,” “below,” “more” or “less” if the difference between your jurisdiction’s rating and the benchmark is greater the margin of error; and “much above,” “much below,” “much more” or “much less” if the difference between your jurisdiction’s rating and the benchmark is more than twice the margin of error. Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 3005 30th Street 777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 500 Boulder, CO 80301 Washington, DC 20002 www.n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 www.icma.org • 202-289-ICMA The National Citizen Survey™ CCII TT YY OO FF PP AA LL OO AA LL TT OO ,, CC AA 22001100 BBeenncchhmmaarrkk RReeppoorrtt City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . CCoonntteenn tt ss Understanding the Benchmark Comparisons......................................................................3 Comparison Data .....................................................................................................................3 Putting Evaluations onto the 100-point Scale ............................................................................4 Interpreting the Results.............................................................................................................5 National Benchmark Comparisons......................................................................................6 Jurisdictions Included in National Benchmark Comparisons ...................................................15 ATTACHMENT 2 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 3 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . UU nnddeerrss tt aann dd iinn gg tthh ee BBeenncchhmmaarrkk CC oommppaarriiss oonnss CCOOMMPPAARRIISSOONN DDAATTAA NRC’s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in citizen surveys from approximately 500 jurisdictions whose residents evaluated local government services and gave their opinion about the quality of community life. The comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in each jurisdiction; most communities conduct surveys every year or in alternating years. NRC adds the latest results quickly upon survey completion, keeping the benchmark data fresh and relevant. The jurisdictions in the database represent a wide geographic and population range as shown in the table below. Jurisdiction Characteristic Percent of Jurisdictions Region West Coast1 16% West2 21% North Central West3 10% North Central East4 13% South Central5 7% South6 25% Northeast West7 3% Northeast East8 4% Population Less than 40,000 45% 40,000 to 74,999 20% 75,000 to 149,000 17% 150,000 or more 19% 1 Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii 2 Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico 3 North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota 4 Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin 5 Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas 6 West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Maryland, Delaware, Washington DC 7 New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey 8 Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 4 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . PPUUTTTTIINNGG EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONNSS OONNTTOO TTHHEE 110000--PPOOIINNTT SSCCAALLEE Although responses to many of the evaluative questions were made on a four point scale with 1 representing the best rating and 4 the worst, the benchmarks are reported on a common scale where 0 is the worst possible rating and 100 is the best possible rating. The 95 percent confidence interval around an average score on the 100-point scale is no greater than plus or minus two points based on all respondents. The 100-point scale is not a percent. It is a conversion of responses to an average rating. Each response option is assigned a value that is used in calculating the average score. For example, “excellent”=100, “good”=67, “fair”=33 and “poor”=0. If everyone reported “excellent,” then the average rating would be 100 on the 100-point scale. Likewise, if all respondents gave a “poor”, the result would be 0 on the 100-point scale. If half the respondents gave a score of “excellent” and half gave a score of “poor,” the average would be in the middle of the scale (like the center post of a teeter totter) between “fair” and “good.” An example of how to convert survey frequencies into an average rating appears below. Example of Converting Responses to the 100-point Scale How do you rate the community as a place to live? Response option Total with “don’t know” Step1: Remove the percent of “don’t know” responses Total without “don’t know” Step 2: Assign scale values Step 3: Multiply the percent by the scale value Step 4: Sum to calculate the average rating Excellent 36% =36÷(100-5)= 38% 100 =38% x 100 = 38 Good 42% =42÷(100-5)= 44% 67 =44% x 67 = 30 Fair 12% =12÷(100-5)= 13% 33 =13% x 33 = 4 Poor 5% =5÷(100-5)= 5% 0 =5% x 0 = 0 Don’t know 5% -- Total 100% 100% 72 How do you rate the community as a place to live? 5% 13% 44% 38% 0 Poor 67 Good 33 Fair 100 Excellent 72 Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 5 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . IINNTTEERRPPRREETTIINNGG TTHHEE RREESSUULLTTSS Average ratings are compared when similar questions are included in NRC’s database, and there are at least five jurisdictions in which the question was asked. Where comparisons are available, three numbers are provided in the table. The first column is your jurisdiction’s rating on the 100- point scale. The second column is the rank assigned to your jurisdiction’s rating among jurisdictions where a similar question was asked. The third column is the number of jurisdictions that asked a similar question. The fourth column is shows Palo Alto’s percentile. The final column shows the comparison of your jurisdiction’s average rating to the benchmark. Where comparisons for quality ratings were available, the City of Palo Alto’s results were generally noted as being “above” the benchmark, “below” the benchmark or “similar” to the benchmark. For some questions – those related to resident behavior, circumstance or to a local problem – the comparison to the benchmark is designated as “more,” “similar” or “less” (for example, the percent of crime victims, residents visiting a park or residents identifying code enforcement as a problem.) In instances where ratings are considerably higher or lower than the benchmark, these ratings have been further demarcated by the attribute of “much,” (for example, “much less” or “much above”). These labels come from a statistical comparison of the City of Palo Alto's rating to the benchmark where a rating is considered “similar” if it is within the margin of error; “above,” “below,” “more” or “less” if the difference between your jurisdiction’s rating and the benchmark is greater the margin of error; and “much above,” “much below,” “much more” or “much less” if the difference between your jurisdiction’s rating and the benchmark is more than twice the margin of error. This report contains benchmarks at the national level. City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 6 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . NNaa tt iioonnaall BBeenncchhmmaarr kk CCoommpp aarriissoonnss Overall Community Quality Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Overall quality of life in Palo Alto 79 26 354 93% Much above Your neighborhood as place to live 79 28 237 89% Much above Palo Alto as a place to live 83 29 303 91% Much above Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 81 42 131 68% Much above Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 80 47 130 64% Above Community Transportation Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Ease of car travel in Palo Alto 59 64 232 73% Much above Ease of bus travel in Palo Alto 40 99 163 40% Below Ease of rail travel by in Palo Alto 57 17 45 64% Much above Ease of bicycle travel in Palo Alto 70 10 228 96% Much above Ease of walking in Palo Alto 74 17 230 93% Much above Availability of paths and walking trails 65 30 133 78% Much above Traffic flow on major streets 46 84 188 56% Similar Frequency of Bus Use Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Ridden a local bus within Palo Alto 31 37 138 74% Much more Drive Alone Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Average percent of work commute trips made by driving alone 61 104 118 12% Much less ATTACHMENT 2 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 7 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Transportation and Parking Services Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Street repair 43 201 357 44% Similar Street cleaning 65 41 245 84% Much above Street lighting 59 62 264 77% Much above Sidewalk maintenance 49 134 226 41% Similar Traffic signal timing 51 49 180 73% Above Bus or transit services 45 119 183 35% Below Amount of public parking 55 32 165 81% Much above Housing Characteristics Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Availability of affordable quality housing 22 237 253 6% Much below Variety of housing options 41 111 122 9% Much below Housing Costs Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Experiencing housing costs stress (housing costs 30% or MORE of income) 34 78 125 38% Less Built Environment Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Quality of new development in Palo Alto 50 135 204 34% Below Overall appearance of Palo Alto 71 48 276 83% Much above Population Growth Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Population growth seen as too fast 49 84 197 58% More City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 8 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Nuisance Problems Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Run down buildings, weed lots and junk vehicles seen as a "major" problem 3 167 194 14% Much less Planning and Community Code Enforcement Services Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Land use, planning and zoning 47 87 240 64% Above Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 52 81 296 73% Much above Animal control 64 21 269 93% Much above Economic Sustainability and Opportunities Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Employment opportunities 52 20 242 92% Much above Shopping opportunities 64 43 240 82% Much above Palo Alto as a place to work 76 5 247 98% Much above Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 64 25 117 79% Much above Economic Development Services Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Economic development 48 93 233 60% Above Job and Retail Growth Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Retail growth seen as too slow 31 112 196 43% Much less Jobs growth seen as too slow 67 143 199 28% Much less Personal Economic Future Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Positive impact of economy on household income 15 109 193 44% Similar Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 9 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Community and Personal Public Safety Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark In your neighborhood during the day 92 55 261 79% Much above In your neighborhood after dark 79 56 257 79% Much above In Palo Alto's downtown area during the day 90 56 223 75% Much above In Palo Alto's downtown area after dark 69 81 232 65% Much above Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 81 57 228 75% Much above Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) 71 50 228 78% Much above Environmental hazards, including toxic waste 79 49 127 62% Above Crime Victimization and Reporting Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Victim of crime 9 151 199 24% Less Reported crimes 86 29 197 86% Much more Public Safety Services Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Police services 74 56 343 84% Much above Fire services 80 75 284 74% Above Ambulance or emergency medical services 82 38 278 87% Much above Crime prevention 67 48 267 82% Much above Fire prevention and education 68 76 213 65% Above Traffic enforcement 56 158 288 45% Similar Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 55 78 144 46% Similar Community Environment Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Cleanliness of Palo Alto 72 26 133 81% Much above Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 71 26 129 80% Much above City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 10 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Community Environment Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 68 12 134 92% Much above Air quality 66 62 179 66% Much above Frequency of Recycling Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home 98 5 184 98% Much more Utility Services Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Sewer services 69 38 236 84% Much above Drinking water 74 12 235 95% Much above Storm drainage 62 37 282 87% Much above Recycling collection 78 20 264 93% Much above Garbage collection 76 44 289 85% Much above Community Recreational Opportunities Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Recreation opportunities 69 41 244 84% Much above Participation in Parks and Recreation Opportunities Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Used Palo Alto recreation centers 60 59 159 63% More Participated in a recreation program or activity 50 68 186 64% More Visited a neighborhood park or City park 94 16 194 92% Much more ATTACHMENT 2 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 11 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Parks and Recreation Services Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark City parks 78 33 258 88% Much above Recreation programs or classes 69 63 280 78% Much above Recreation centers or facilities 67 65 219 71% Much above Cultural and Educational Opportunities Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Opportunities to attend cultural activities 66 25 248 90% Much above Educational opportunities 79 8 189 96% Much above Participation in Cultural and Educational Opportunities Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 76 56 170 67% More Cultural and Educational Services Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Public library services 72 125 260 52% Similar Community Health and Wellness Access and Opportunities Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Availability of affordable quality health care 56 33 192 83% Much above Availability of preventive health services 60 19 100 82% Much above Community Quality and Inclusiveness Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Sense of community 62 71 248 72% Much above City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 12 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Community Quality and Inclusiveness Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 68 19 210 91% Much above Availability of affordable quality child care 32 161 185 13% Much below Palo Alto as a place to raise kids 81 42 295 86% Much above Palo Alto as a place to retire 61 104 276 63% Above Services Provided for Population Subgroups Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Services to seniors 68 26 245 90% Much above Services to youth 62 47 219 79% Much above Services to low income people 46 72 192 63% Similar Civic Engagement Opportunities Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Opportunities to participate in community matters 67 9 121 93% Much above Opportunities to volunteer 72 18 125 86% Much above Participation in Civic Engagement Opportunities Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 27 89 194 54% Similar Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other public meeting on cable television, the Internet or other media 28 132 151 13% Much less Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Palo Alto 51 69 197 65% Much more Participated in a club or civic group in Palo Alto 31 45 99 55% Similar Provided help to a friend or neighbor 92 81 99 18% Similar Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 13 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Voter Behavior Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Registered to vote 81 146 204 29% Less Voted in last general election 75 108 203 47% Similar Use of Information Sources Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Visited the City of Palo Alto Web site 79 4 118 97% Much more Local Government Media Services and Information Dissemination Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Public information services 60 94 241 61% Above Social Engagement Opportunities Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 65 23 125 82% Much above Contact with Immediate Neighbors Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Has contact with neighbors at least several times per week 42 93 113 18% Much less Public Trust Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 56 51 311 84% Much above The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 51 109 255 57% Similar Job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 53 64 269 76% Much above Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 79 13 234 95% Much above City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 14 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Services Provided by Local, State and Federal Governments Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Services provided by the City of Palo Alto 66 94 339 72% Much above Services provided by the Federal Government 44 52 207 75% Above Services provided by the State Government 33 198 210 6% Much below Services provided by Santa Clara County Government 48 64 109 42% Similar Contact with City Employees Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Had contact with City employee(s) in last 12 months 56 117 226 48% Similar Perceptions of City Employees (Among Those Who Had Contact) Benchmarks Palo Alto average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Palo Alto Percentile Comparison to benchmark Knowledge 70 119 266 55% Similar Responsiveness 68 101 263 62% Similar Courteousness 72 72 217 67% Above Overall impression 68 109 304 64% Above ATTACHMENT 2 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 15 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . JJUURRIISSDDIICCTTIIOONNSS IINNCCLLUUDDEEDD IINN NNAATTIIOONNAALL BBEENNCCHHMMAARRKK CCOOMMPPAARRIISSOONNSS Valdez, AK................................................4,036 Auburn, AL..............................................42,987 Gulf Shores, AL.........................................5,044 Tuskegee, AL...........................................11,846 Fayetteville, AR .......................................58,047 Little Rock, AR ......................................183,133 Avondale, AZ..........................................35,883 Casa Grande, AZ.....................................25,224 Chandler, AZ.........................................176,581 Cococino County, AZ............................116,320 Dewey-Humboldt, AZ...............................6,295 Flagstaff, AZ ............................................52,894 Florence, AZ ...........................................17,054 Gilbert, AZ............................................109,697 Green Valley, AZ ....................................17,283 Kingman, AZ...........................................20,069 Marana, AZ.............................................13,556 Mesa, AZ...............................................396,375 Peoria, AZ.............................................108,364 Phoenix, AZ.......................................1,321,045 Pinal County, AZ...................................179,727 Prescott Valley, AZ..................................25,535 Queen Creek, AZ......................................4,316 Scottsdale, AZ .......................................202,705 Sedona, AZ .............................................10,192 Surprise, AZ ............................................30,848 Tempe, AZ............................................158,625 Yuma, AZ................................................77,515 Yuma County, AZ..................................160,026 Agoura Hills, CA.....................................20,537 Bellflower, CA.........................................72,878 Benicia, CA.............................................26,865 Brea, CA..................................................35,410 Brisbane, CA.............................................3,597 Burlingame, CA.......................................28,158 Carlsbad, CA...........................................78,247 Chula Vista, CA.....................................173,556 Concord, CA .........................................121,780 Davis, CA................................................60,308 Del Mar, CA..............................................4,389 Dublin, CA..............................................29,973 El Cerrito, CA..........................................23,171 Elk Grove, CA .........................................59,984 Galt, CA..................................................19,472 La Mesa, CA............................................54,749 Laguna Beach, CA...................................23,727 Livermore, CA.........................................73,345 Lodi, CA..................................................56,999 Long Beach, CA.....................................461,522 Lynwood, CA..........................................69,845 Menlo Park, CA.......................................30,785 Mission Viejo, CA...................................93,102 Morgan Hill, CA......................................33,556 Mountain View, CA ................................70,708 Newport Beach, CA................................70,032 Palm Springs, CA ....................................42,807 Palo Alto, CA..........................................58,598 Poway, CA..............................................48,044 Rancho Cordova, CA ..............................55,060 Redding, CA ...........................................80,865 Richmond, CA ........................................99,216 San Francisco, CA.................................776,733 San Luis Obispo County, CA.................247,900 San Rafael, CA ........................................56,063 Santa Barbara County, CA.....................399,347 Santa Monica, CA ...................................84,084 South Lake Tahoe, CA.............................23,609 Stockton, CA.........................................243,771 Sunnyvale, CA ......................................131,760 Temecula, CA.........................................57,716 Visalia, CA..............................................91,565 Walnut Creek, CA...................................64,296 Calgary, Canada....................................878,866 District of Saanich,Victoria, Canada......103,654 Edmonton, Canada................................666,104 Guelph, Ontario, Canada......................114,943 Kamloops, Canada..................................77,281 Kelowna, Canada....................................96,288 Oakville, Canada ..................................144,738 Thunder Bay, Canada............................109,016 Victoria, Canada .....................................78,057 Whitehorse, Canada................................19,058 Winnipeg, Canada ................................619,544 Yellowknife, Canada...............................16,541 Arapahoe County, CO...........................487,967 Archuleta County, CO...............................9,898 Arvada, CO...........................................102,153 Aspen, CO................................................5,914 Aurora, CO...........................................276,393 Boulder, CO ...........................................94,673 Boulder County, CO .............................291,288 Breckenridge, CO .....................................2,408 Broomfield, CO ......................................38,272 Castle Rock, CO......................................20,224 Centennial, CO.....................................103,000 Clear Creek County, CO ...........................9,322 Colorado Springs, CO...........................360,890 Craig, CO..................................................9,189 Crested Butte, CO.....................................1,529 Denver, CO ..........................................554,636 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 16 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Douglas County, CO.............................175,766 Durango, CO ..........................................13,922 Eagle County, CO....................................41,659 Englewood, CO.......................................31,727 Fort Collins, CO....................................118,652 Frisco, CO.................................................2,443 Fruita, CO .................................................6,478 Georgetown, CO.......................................1,088 Grand County, CO..................................12,442 Grand Junction, CO.................................41,986 Greenwood Village, CO..........................11,035 Gunnison County, CO.............................13,956 Highlands Ranch, CO..............................70,931 Hot Sulphur Springs, CO..............................521 Jefferson County, CO.............................527,056 Lakewood, CO......................................144,126 Larimer County, CO..............................251,494 Lone Tree, CO...........................................4,873 Longmont, CO ........................................71,093 Louisville, CO.........................................18,937 Loveland, CO..........................................50,608 Mesa County, CO..................................116,255 Montrose, CO .........................................12,344 Northglenn, CO ......................................31,575 Parker, CO ..............................................23,558 Pitkin County, CO...................................14,872 Salida, CO.................................................5,504 Silverthorne, CO .......................................3,196 Steamboat Springs, CO..............................9,815 Sterling, CO ............................................11,360 Summit County, CO................................23,548 Thornton, CO..........................................82,384 Vail, CO....................................................4,531 Westminster, CO...................................100,940 Wheat Ridge, CO....................................32,913 Coventry, CT...........................................11,504 Hartford, CT..........................................121,578 Wethersfield, CT .....................................26,271 Windsor, CT............................................28,237 Dover, DE...............................................32,135 Belleair Beach, FL......................................1,751 Bonita Springs, FL....................................32,797 Brevard County, FL................................476,230 Cape Coral, FL.......................................102,286 Charlotte County, FL .............................141,627 Clearwater, FL.......................................108,787 Collier County, FL.................................251,377 Cooper City, FL.......................................27,939 Coral Springs, FL...................................117,549 Dania Beach, FL......................................20,061 Daytona Beach, FL..................................64,112 Delray Beach, FL.....................................60,020 Destin, FL................................................11,119 Duval County, FL..................................778,879 Escambia County, FL.............................294,410 Eustis, FL.................................................15,106 Gainesville, FL........................................95,447 Hillsborough County, FL.......................998,948 Jupiter, FL ...............................................39,328 Kissimmee, FL.........................................47,814 Lee County, FL......................................454,918 Martin County, FL.................................126,731 Melbourne, FL ........................................71,382 Miami Beach, FL.....................................87,933 North Palm Beach, FL .............................12,064 North Port, FL .........................................22,797 Oakland Park, FL ....................................30,966 Ocala, FL ................................................45,943 Oldsmar, FL............................................11,910 Oviedo, FL..............................................26,316 Palm Bay, FL...........................................79,413 Palm Beach, FL .......................................10,468 Palm Beach County, FL......................1,131,184 Palm Beach Gardens, FL .........................35,058 Palm Coast, FL........................................32,732 Panama City, FL......................................36,417 Pasco County, FL ..................................344,765 Pinellas County, FL ...............................921,482 Pinellas Park, FL......................................45,658 Port Orange, FL.......................................45,823 Port St. Lucie, FL.....................................88,769 Sanford, FL..............................................38,291 Sarasota, FL.............................................52,715 Seminole, FL...........................................10,890 South Daytona, FL...................................13,177 St. Cloud, FL ...........................................20,074 Tallahassee, FL......................................150,624 Titusville, FL ...........................................40,670 Volusia County, FL................................443,343 Walton County, FL..................................40,601 Winter Garden, FL ..................................14,351 Winter Park, FL.......................................24,090 Albany, GA.............................................76,939 Alpharetta, GA........................................34,854 Cartersville, GA.......................................15,925 Conyers, GA ...........................................10,689 Decatur, GA............................................18,147 Milton, GA..............................................30,180 Roswell, GA............................................79,334 Savannah, GA.......................................131,510 Smyrna, GA ............................................40,999 Snellville, GA..........................................15,351 Suwanee, GA............................................8,725 Valdosta, GA...........................................43,724 Honolulu, HI ........................................876,156 Ames, IA.................................................50,731 Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 17 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Ankeny, IA..............................................27,117 Bettendorf, IA..........................................31,275 Davenport, IA..........................................98,359 Des Moines, IA......................................198,682 Indianola, IA............................................12,998 Marion, IA.................................................7,144 Urbandale, IA..........................................29,072 Waukee, IA ...............................................5,126 Boise, ID...............................................185,787 Moscow, ID ............................................21,291 Post Falls, ID ...........................................17,247 Twin Falls, ID..........................................34,469 Batavia, IL ...............................................23,866 Centralia, IL.............................................14,136 Clarendon Hills, IL....................................7,610 Collinsville, IL.........................................24,707 Crystal Lake, IL........................................38,000 DeKalb, IL...............................................39,018 Downers Grove, IL..................................48,724 Elmhurst, IL.............................................42,762 Evanston, IL.............................................74,239 Freeport, IL..............................................26,443 Gurnee, IL...............................................28,834 Highland Park, IL.....................................31,365 Lincolnwood, IL ......................................12,359 Naperville, IL ........................................128,358 Normal, IL...............................................45,386 Oak Park, IL ............................................39,803 O'Fallon, IL.............................................21,910 Palatine, IL ..............................................65,479 Park Ridge, IL..........................................37,775 Peoria County, IL...................................183,433 Riverside, IL ..............................................8,895 Sherman, IL...............................................2,871 Shorewood, IL...........................................7,686 Skokie, IL ................................................63,348 Sugar Grove, IL .........................................3,909 Wilmington, IL..........................................5,134 Woodridge, IL.........................................30,934 Fishers, IN...............................................37,835 Munster, IN.............................................21,511 Arkansas City, KS.....................................11,963 Chanute, KS ..............................................9,411 Fairway, KS ...............................................3,952 Gardner, KS...............................................9,396 Lawrence, KS...........................................80,098 Lenexa, KS ..............................................40,238 Merriam, KS............................................11,008 Mission, KS ...............................................9,727 Olathe, KS...............................................92,962 Overland Park, KS.................................149,080 Roeland Park, KS.......................................6,817 Salina, KS................................................45,679 Wichita, KS...........................................344,284 Bowling Green, KY .................................49,296 Daviess County, KY.................................91,545 New Orleans, LA ..................................484,674 Andover, MA ..........................................31,247 Barnstable, MA .......................................47,821 Bedford, MA ...........................................12,595 Burlington, MA .......................................22,876 Cambridge, MA.....................................101,355 Needham, MA ........................................28,911 Shrewsbury, MA .....................................31,640 Worcester, MA......................................172,648 Baltimore County, MD..........................754,292 College Park, MD....................................24,657 Gaithersburg, MD...................................52,613 La Plata, MD.............................................6,551 Montgomery County, MD.....................873,341 Ocean City, MD........................................7,173 Rockville, MD.........................................47,388 Takoma Park, MD...................................17,299 Saco, ME.................................................16,822 Ann Arbor, MI.......................................114,024 Battle Creek, MI......................................53,364 Delhi Township, MI................................22,569 Escanaba, MI...........................................13,140 Flushing, MI..............................................8,348 Gladstone, MI...........................................5,032 Howell, MI ...............................................9,232 Jackson County, MI...............................158,422 Meridian Charter Township, MI ..............38,987 Novi, MI .................................................47,386 Oakland Township, MI ...........................13,071 Ottawa County, MI ...............................238,314 Petoskey, MI .............................................6,080 Rochester, MI..........................................10,467 Sault Sainte Marie, MI.............................16,542 South Haven, MI.......................................5,021 Troy, MI..................................................80,959 Village of Howard City, MI .......................1,585 Blue Earth, MN .........................................3,621 Carver County, MN.................................70,205 Chanhassen, MN.....................................20,321 Dakota County, MN..............................355,904 Duluth, MN ............................................86,918 Fridley, MN ............................................27,449 Hutchinson, MN.....................................13,080 Maple Grove, MN...................................50,365 Mayer, MN ..................................................554 Medina, MN .............................................4,005 Minneapolis, MN..................................382,618 North Branch, MN....................................8,023 Olmsted County, MN............................124,277 Prior Lake, MN........................................15,917 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 18 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Scott County, MN....................................89,498 St. Cloud, MN.........................................59,107 St. Louis County, MN............................200,528 Washington County, MN.......................201,130 Woodbury, MN.......................................46,463 Blue Springs, MO....................................48,080 Branson, MO.............................................6,050 Clay County, MO..................................184,006 Creve Coeur, MO....................................16,500 Ellisville, MO ............................................9,104 Grandview, MO......................................24,881 Joplin, MO..............................................45,504 Lee's Summit, MO...................................70,700 Liberty, MO.............................................26,232 Maryland Heights, MO............................25,756 Maryville, MO.........................................10,581 O'Fallon, MO..........................................46,169 Platte City, MO .........................................3,866 Raymore, MO .........................................11,146 Richmond Heights, MO ............................9,602 Starkville, MS ..........................................21,869 Billings, MT.............................................89,847 Bozeman, MT..........................................27,509 Missoula, MT ..........................................57,053 Asheville, NC..........................................68,889 Cary, NC.................................................94,536 Charlotte, NC........................................540,828 Concord, NC...........................................55,977 Davidson, NC ...........................................7,139 Durham, NC .........................................187,038 High Point, NC........................................85,839 Kannapolis, NC.......................................36,910 Mecklenburg County, NC......................695,454 Mooresville, NC......................................18,823 Winston-Salem, NC...............................185,776 Wahpeton, ND..........................................8,586 Cedar Creek, NE...........................................396 La Vista, NE.............................................11,699 Dover, NH..............................................26,884 Lebanon, NH ..........................................12,568 Lyme, NH .................................................1,679 Alamogordo, NM....................................35,582 Albuquerque, NM.................................448,607 Bloomfield, NM ........................................6,417 Farmington, NM......................................37,844 Rio Rancho, NM .....................................51,765 San Juan County, NM............................113,801 Carson City, NV......................................52,457 Henderson, NV.....................................175,381 North Las Vegas, NV.............................115,488 Reno, NV..............................................180,480 Sparks, NV ..............................................66,346 Washoe County, NV .............................339,486 Beekman, NY..........................................11,452 Canandaigua, NY....................................11,264 New York City, NY ............................8,008,278 Blue Ash, OH .........................................12,513 Delaware, OH ........................................25,243 Dublin, OH ............................................31,392 Hudson, OH...........................................22,439 Kettering, OH .........................................57,502 Lebanon, OH..........................................16,962 Orange Village, OH..................................3,236 Sandusky, OH.........................................27,844 Springboro, OH ......................................12,380 Upper Arlington, OH..............................33,686 Westerville, OH......................................35,318 Broken Arrow, OK ..................................74,839 Edmond, OK...........................................68,315 Oklahoma City, OK ..............................506,132 Stillwater, OK..........................................39,065 Albany, OR.............................................40,852 Bend, OR................................................52,029 Corvallis, OR ..........................................49,322 Eugene, OR...........................................137,893 Hermiston, OR........................................13,154 Jackson County, OR..............................181,269 Keizer, OR..............................................32,203 Lane County, OR ..................................322,959 Multnomah County, OR........................660,486 Portland, OR.........................................529,121 Tualatin, OR ...........................................22,791 Borough of Ebensburg, PA ........................3,091 Cranberry Township, PA.........................23,625 Cumberland County, PA .......................213,674 Ephrata Borough, PA...............................13,213 Kutztown Borough, PA..............................5,067 Lower Providence Township, PA ............22,390 Peters Township, PA ...............................17,556 Philadelphia, PA ................................1,517,550 State College, PA.....................................38,420 Upper Merion Township, PA ..................28,863 East Providence, RI..................................48,688 Newport, RI ............................................26,475 Greenville, SC.........................................10,468 Mauldin, SC............................................15,224 Rock Hill, SC ..........................................49,765 Sioux Falls, SD......................................123,975 Johnson City, TN.....................................55,469 Nashville, TN........................................545,524 Oak Ridge, TN........................................27,387 White House, TN......................................7,220 Arlington, TX ........................................332,969 Austin, TX.............................................656,562 Benbrook, TX..........................................20,208 Bryan, TX................................................34,733 ATTACHMENT 2 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 19 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Coppell, TX.............................................39,958 Corpus Christi, TX.................................277,454 Dallas, TX...........................................1,188,580 Denton, TX..............................................80,537 Duncanville, TX ......................................36,081 El Paso, TX ............................................563,662 Flower Mound, TX ..................................50,702 Fort Worth, TX ......................................534,694 Georgetown, TX......................................28,339 Grand Prairie, TX ..................................127,427 Houston, TX.......................................1,953,631 Hurst, TX.................................................36,273 Hutto, TX ..................................................1,250 Irving, TX ..............................................191,615 McAllen, TX..........................................106,414 Pasadena, TX.........................................141,674 Plano, TX ..............................................222,030 Round Rock, TX ......................................61,136 Rowlett, TX .............................................44,503 San Marcos, TX .......................................34,733 Shenandoah, TX........................................1,503 Southlake, TX..........................................21,519 Sugar Land, TX........................................63,328 Temple, TX..............................................54,514 The Colony, TX.......................................26,531 Tomball, TX ..............................................9,089 Farmington, UT.......................................12,081 Riverdale, UT............................................7,656 Sandy City, UT........................................88,418 Saratoga Springs, UT .................................1,003 Springville, UT........................................20,424 Washington City, UT.................................8,186 Albemarle County, VA ............................79,236 Arlington County, VA............................189,453 Blacksburg, VA........................................39,357 Botetourt County, VA..............................30,496 Chesapeake, VA....................................199,184 Chesterfield County, VA........................259,903 Hampton, VA........................................146,437 Hanover County, VA...............................86,320 Hopewell, VA .........................................22,354 James City County, VA............................48,102 Lexington, VA ...........................................6,867 Lynchburg, VA........................................65,269 Newport News, VA...............................180,150 Northampton County, VA .......................13,093 Prince William County, VA...................280,813 Radford, VA............................................15,859 Roanoke, VA...........................................94,911 Spotsylvania County, VA.........................90,395 Stafford County, VA ................................92,446 Staunton, VA...........................................23,853 Virginia Beach, VA................................425,257 Williamsburg, VA....................................11,998 Chittenden County, VT .........................146,571 Montpelier, VT..........................................8,035 Auburn, WA ...........................................40,314 Bellevue, WA........................................109,569 Bellingham, WA......................................67,171 Clark County, WA.................................345,238 Federal Way, WA....................................83,259 Gig Harbor, WA........................................6,465 Hoquiam, WA...........................................9,097 Kirkland, WA..........................................45,054 Kitsap County, WA................................231,969 Lynnwood, WA.......................................33,847 Mountlake Terrace, WA..........................20,362 Ocean Shores, WA....................................3,836 Olympia, WA..........................................42,514 Pasco, WA..............................................32,066 Redmond, WA........................................45,256 Renton, WA............................................50,052 Snoqualmie, WA.......................................1,631 Spokane Valley, WA...............................75,203 Tacoma, WA.........................................193,556 Vancouver, WA ....................................143,560 Columbus, WI...........................................4,479 De Pere, WI............................................20,559 Eau Claire, WI.........................................61,704 Merrill, WI..............................................10,146 Ozaukee County, WI ..............................82,317 Racine, WI..............................................81,855 Suamico, WI.............................................8,686 Wausau, WI............................................38,426 Whitewater, WI.......................................13,437 Morgantown, WV ...................................26,809 Cheyenne, WY........................................53,011 Gillette, WY............................................19,646 Laramie, WY...........................................27,204 Teton County, WY ..................................18,251 Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2010 THIS REPORT IS INTENDED TO PROMOTE THE BEST POSSIBLE MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC RESOURCES This report has been printed on recycled paper You are welcome to keep this copy if it is useful to you. If you no longer need this copy, please return it to: City Auditor’s Office 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 We maintain an inventory of past audit reports, and your cooperation will help us save on extra copying costs. If you need additional copies of this report, please contact us at 650.329.2667 or city.auditor@cityofpaloalto.org. Our reports are also available on the web at: www.cityofpaloalto.org/auditor/reports.html Table of Contents Page 1 City Organization and Information Page 2 Progress in Fiscal Year 2010 Page 3 Fiscal Year 2010 Revenues and Expenses Page 4 What's Next? City’s Economic Outlook and Moving Forward A Report to Our Citizens The City of Palo Alto, California The government of the City of Palo Alto exists to promote and sustain a superior quality of life in Palo Alto. In partnership with the community, our goal is to deliver cost-effective services in a personal, responsive, and innovative manner Demographics Information 2009 2010 Population 64,480 65,408 Average travel time to work * 21 minutes 21 minutes Median household income* $126,740 $126,740 Average price of single family home $1,759,870 $1,514,900 Number of authorized City staff 1,150 1,151 City Organization and Information Incorporated in 1894, the City of Palo Alto covers 26 square miles and is located in the heart of Silicon Valley. Palo Alto has about 65,400 residents and the daytime population is estimated at 110,000. Stanford University, adjacent to Palo Alto and one of the top-rated institutions of higher education in the nation, has produced much of the talent that founded successful high-tech companies in Palo Alto and Silicon Valley. The City of Palo Alto provides a full range of municipal services, in addition to owning and operating its own utility system, including electricity, gas, water, wastewater treatment, refuse, storm drain, and fiber optics. The City also offers expanded service delivery including fire protection service for Stanford and Los Altos Hills. The Regional Water Quality Control Plant serves the cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford, and East Palo Alto. City residents elect nine members to the City Council to serve staggered four-year terms. Each January, Council members elect a Mayor and Vice- Mayor. Since 1950, the City has operated under a Council-manager form of government. 1 * Figures reflect 2008 American Community Survey data Fiscal Year 2010 The City of Palo Alto’s Values Quality— Superior delivery of service Courtesy— Providing service with respect and concern Efficiency— Productive, effective use of resources Integrity— Straight-forward, honest and fair Innovation— Additional information is available at the City Auditor’s website, www.cityofpaloalto.org/auditor/reports.html How We Have Progressed Progress in Fiscal Year 2010 City Council Top Priority Areas for 2010 ► City Finances ► Land Use and Transportation ► Emergency Preparedness ► Environmental Sustainability ► Community Collaboration for Youth Well Being The City maintained its AAA credit rating, the highest credit rating possible. In addition, Standard & Poor’s assigned the City’s 2010 General Obligation Bonds a AAA rating. High Speed Rail emerged as a major issue in FY 2010, and the City assumed a leadership position within the region and the State, in representing and advocating on behalf of residents. The City made significant progress toward a development agreement with Stanford University for the Stanford Medical Center renovations. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the first time reported on the condition of Palo Alto’s streets and roads and rated the City’s roads “good,” scoring Palo Alto higher than several local jurisdictions. Key Measures Additional information is available at the City Auditor’s website, www.cityofpaloalto.org/auditor/reports.html Community Indicators 2009 2010 Met Budget Bench- mark Target in FY 2010 Comparison to Survey Benchmark Public Safety Average response to fire calls within 8 minutes 78% 90% Yes Residents feeling “very” or “somewhat” safe from violent crime 82% 85% Much above Police response to emergency calls within 6 minutes 81% 78% No Number of crimes reported per 1,000 population 64 59 Quality of Life Residents rating Palo Alto’s overall quality of life as “good” or “excellent” 93% 94% Much above Residents rating Palo Alto as a place to raise children as “good” or “excellent” 91% 93% Much above Top Priority Areas City Finances Net general fund cost per resident $1,597 $1,645 Percent of reserves maintained (Budget stabilization reserve) 17.4% 19.7% Yes Percent rating economic development services “good” or “excellent” 54% 49% Above Land Use and Transportation Percent rating overall quality of new development in Palo Alto “good” or “excellent” 55% 53% Below Emergency Preparedness Percent rating emergency preparedness services “good” or “excellent” 62% 59% Similar Environmental Sustainability Residents rating quality of Palo Alto’s overall natural environment as “good” or “excellent” 84% 84% Much above Percent rating preservation of natural areas “good” or “excellent” 82% 78% Much above Community Collaboration for Youth Well Being Percent rating services to youth “good” or “excellent” 75% 70% Much above Percent rating overall appearance of Palo Alto “good” or “excellent” 83% 83% Much above Fiscal Year 2010 Accomplishments 2 What would you like to see re- ported on in this page? Please let us know by contacting the Office of the City Auditor at City.Auditor@Cityofpaloalto.org or 650-329-2667. The City’s Finances Revenues and Expenses Primary Sources of General Fund Revenue Primary General Fund Expenses Additional information is available at the City Auditor’s website, www.cityofpaloalto.org/auditor/reports.html Expenses by Use FY 2009 Expense FY 2010 Expense Administrative Departments $16.4 million $18.1 million Community Services $21.1 million $20.5 million Fire $23.4 million $27.7 million Library $6.2 million $6.4 million Planning and Community Environment $9.9 million $9.4 million Police $28.3 million $28.8 million Public Works $12.9 million $12.5 million Non-departmental $6.8 million $8.7 million Operating Transfers for Capital Projects and Debt Service $15.8 million $14.5 million Encumbrance $5.9 million $4.0 million Total General Fund Expenses: $146.7 million $150.6 million1 Revenues by Source FY 2009 Actual Revenue FY 2010 Actual Revenue Sales Tax $20.1 million $18.0 million Property Tax $25.4 million $26.0 million Transient Occupancy Tax $7.1 million $6.9 million Utility Users Tax $11.0 million $11.3 million Other Taxes and Fines $ 5.4 million $5.8 million Charges for Services $19.8 million $19.7million Permits and Licenses $4.3 million $4.6 million Charges to Other Funds $11.2 million $11.0 million Rental Income $13.7 million $14.4 million Other Revenue $6.0 million $5.6 million Operating Transfers-in $17.6 million $21.9 million Total Revenues: $146.1 million $151.0 million Encumbrance/reappropriation $4.5 million $5.9 million Independent Audit An independent audit of the City’s financial statements resulted in a clean audit opinion. 3 1 Operating expenditures were reported as $150.9 million in the 2009- 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report; the difference is attribut- able to rounding. What’s Next? City’s Economic Outlook and Moving Forward City’s Economic Outlook According to the City Manager, City staff began the year in the midst of continuing financial challenges related to the national economic climate and the State's fiscal crisis, as well as having to navigate through Palo Alto's own issues of a shrinking budget, reduced staffing levels, labor tensions, unfunded infrastructure needs, and historically high commercial vacancies. The City closed a $6.3 million General Fund budget gap at mid-year, essentially through temporary cost cutting measures, and balanced the FY 2011 General Fund Budget with reductions of $7.3 million. Despite the City’s economic challenges, it has maintained a healthy budget stabilization reserve, 19.7% of budgeted expenditures and operating transfers for FY 2011. Moving Forward Adequate investment in infrastructure continues to be a challenge. The City’s current infrastructure backlog totaled $153 million in FY 2010. Total identified infrastructure needs through 2028 are estimated at $302 million. The City has established a citizen’s panel, the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee, to review City needs and make funding recommendations to the City Council in the next year. The City grappled with a number of ongoing issues that generated local concerns, such as the California Avenue trees, the Development Center, High Speed Rail, and Stanford Hospital’s expansion plans. The City also made significant progress on its library renovation projects. The historic renovation of the College Terrace Library and adjoining childcare center was completed, and the library reopened on November 9, 2010. Construction of the new 56,000 square foot Mitchell Park Library & Community Center began in September 2010 and is scheduled to be open in the summer of 2012. A temporary Mitchell Park Library opened to the public in June 2010. Work is underway on the renovation of the Downtown Library which is scheduled to reopen in the summer of 2011. We want to hear from you Do you like this report? Do you believe it should include any other information? Please let us know by contacting the Office of the City Auditor at City.Auditor@Cityofpaloalto.org or 650-329-2667. The Office of the City Auditor is responsible for independently evaluating the City’s programs, services, and departments. For nine years our office has issued the City’s annual performance report to supplement the City’s financial reports and statements. If you are interested in viewing the City’s complete annual performance report, please view the Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report for FY 2010 at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/aud/service_efforts_and_accomplishments.asp. Approved design for the new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center by Group 4 Architecture About Citizen Centric Reporting The Association of Government Accountants (AGA) developed guidance on producing Citizen Centric Reporting as a method to demonstrate accountability to residents and answer the question, “Are we better off today than we were last year?” Additional details can be found at the AGA website: www.agacgfm.org/citizen/. 4 This report has been printed on recycled paper Continuing to Provide Valuable Services Throughout several years of conducting surveys, residents have given the City of Palo Alto high ratings in a variety of areas. The 2010 survey results continue to show Palo Alto residents value the City’s services and community amenities. The City is in the top 10% of surveyed jurisdictions nationally in the following areas: National Ranking Palo Alto as a place to work 98th Percentile Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home 98th Percentile Educational opportunities 96th Percentile Ease of walking in Palo Alto 96th Percentile Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 95th Percentile Drinking water 95th Percentile Overall quality of life in Palo Alto 93rd Percentile Recycling collection 93rd Percentile Visited neighborhood park or City park 92nd Percentile Palo Alto as a place to live 91st Percentile January 12, 2011 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Geographic Subgroup Comparisons Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 In January 2011, the Auditor’s Office issued the Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report for Fiscal Year 2010. Attachment 1 of this geographic subgroup comparison report contains additional comparisons for each of the survey questions in the 2010 National Citizen SurveyTM. The comparisons are delineated by zip code; Attachment 2 of this report shows the zip code locations. In addition to the two attachments, the Auditor’s Office has included two separate analyses. The first analysis, on page 2, shows the questions which had statistically significant differences in the FY 2010 survey ratings. According to the National Research Center, which administers the survey, there is less than a 5% probability that the statistically significant differences observed between subgroups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed are “real.” The 95% confidence level for the geographic subgroup comparison report is approximately +/-9% since sample sizes were approximately 226 for zip codes 94301 and 94304, 127 for zip code 94303 and 271 for zip code 94306. The report highlights statistically significant differences in gray. Since there can be a variety of reasons for the differences in survey ratings, we are providing this data for informational and discussion purposes only. The second analysis, on pages 3-12, compares overall survey ratings and the ratings by zip code for FY 2009 and FY 2010. FY 2010 survey ratings are color-coded to show ratings that have increased (green), stayed the same (yellow), or decreased (red). Respectfully submitted, Michael Edmonds Acting City Auditor Attachment 1: National Citizen Survey Report of Geographic Subgroup Comparisons Attachment 2: Zip Code Map - 1 - CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR - 2 - City Auditor’s Analysis I: Statistically Significant Differences in Survey Ratings Survey Question Zip Code Ratings of “good” or “excellent” 94301 and 94304 94303 94306 Palo Alto as a place to raise children 93% 99% 89% Palo Alto as a place to retire 72% 71% 57% Overall quality of life in Palo Alto 98% 91% 92% Shopping opportunities 78% 72% 63% Employment opportunities 60% 52% 47% Ease of rail travel in Palo Alto 70% 59% 57% Ease of walking in Palo Alto 93% 88% 78% Availability of paths and walking trails 80% 78% 69% Availability of locally grown produce 79% 68% 67% Quality of street repair 39% 57% 39% Quality of street cleaning 79% 80% 71% Quality of bus or transit services 58% 36% 43% Quality of storm drainage 67% 80% 76% Quality of public library services 87% 84% 77% What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City of Palo Alto in your most recent contact? – Knowledge 84% 68% 84% What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City of Palo Alto in your most recent contact? – Courtesy 88% 71% 81% The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 70% 59% 57% Quality of contact with Palo Alto Police Department 82% 63% 83% Permit application process overall customer service 59% 79% 39% Ease of overall permit application process 33% 65% 18% Survey Question Zip Code Resident behavior: (Ratings of participation at least once in the past 12 months) 94301 and 94304 94303 94306 Used Palo Alto libraries or their services 74% 88% 72% Visited the City of Palo Alto website 74% 86% 80% Read a Palo Alto Newspaper 88% 98% 90% Other Ratings Population growth seen as “too fast” 33% 62% 54% Feel “very” or “somewhat” safe from environmental hazards, including toxic waste 89% 79% 81% “Somewhat” or “very” likely to recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 94% 90% 87% “Somewhat” or “very” likely to remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 80% 90% 82% Crime Victimization and Reporting You or anyone in your household a victim of crime during the past 12 months? 14% 10% 6% If victim of crime, was the crime reported to the police?97% 93% 61% City Auditor’s Analysis II: Overall Ratings and Ratings by Zip Code for FY 2009 and FY 2010 Legend: Community Characteristics (Percent "excellent" or "good") Zip Code Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Overall Rating 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 Sense of community 71% 71% 69% 74% 77% 73% 63% 68% Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds 78% 79% 74% 80% 79% 82% 74% 77% Overall appearance of Palo Alto 83% 83% 82% 85% 86% 83% 77% 81% Cleanliness of Palo Alto 85% 85% 84% 87% 88% 84% 78% 83% Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 55% 53% 57% 55% 59% 46% 41% 54% Variety of housing options 39% 37% 37% 33% 47% 41% 32% 38% Increased Stayed the same Decreased Quality of Life (Percent "excellent" or "good") Zip Code Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Palo Alto: Overall Rating 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 Palo Alto as a place to live 94% 95% 95% 98% 94% 94% 93% 94% Your neighborhood as a place to live 90% 91% 91% 93% 87% 87% 91% 91% Palo Alto as a place to raise children 91% 93% 89% 93% 95% 99% 87% 89% Palo Alto as a place to work 87% 87% 91% 89% 90% 85% 76% 87% Palo Alto as a place to retire 64% 65% 75% 72% 65% 71% 57% 57% The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 93% 94% 95% 98% 93% 91% 89% 92% - 3 - City Auditor’s Analysis II: Overall Ratings and Ratings by Zip Code for FY 2009 and FY 2010 Community Characteristics (Percent "excellent" or "good") Zip Code Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Overall Rating Alto as a whole: 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 73% 75% 76% 79% 75% 73% 68% 72% Shopping opportunities 70% 70% 71% 78% 75% 72% 64% 63% Opportunities to attend cultural activities 74% 74% 71% 76% 78% 74% 69% 72% Recreational opportunities 78% 80% 80% 83% 81% 81% 76% 78% Employment opportunities 51% 52% 56% 60% 48% 52% 42% 47% Educational opportunities 91% 90% 90% 92% 91% 92% 93% 87% Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 80% 74% 82% 79% 82% 74% 73% 70% Opportunities to volunteer 83% 81% 84% 85% 86% 81% 76% 79% Opportunities to participate in community matters 76% 76% 74% 81% 79% 78% 74% 71% Ease of car travel in Palo Alto 65% 66% 64% 67% 66% 69% 65% 64% Ease of bus travel in Palo Alto 36% 39% 33% 47% 35% 35% 41% 35% Ease of rail travel in Palo Alto 63% 62% 70% 70% 59% 59% 56% 57% Ease of bicycle travel in Palo Alto 79% 81% 84% 81% 79% 88% 78% 78% Ease of walking in Palo Alto 82% 85% 88% 93% 82% 88% 78% 78% Availability of paths and walking trails 75% 75% 75% 80% 74% 78% 75% 69% Traffic flow on major streets 46% 47% 45% 50% 43% 48% 45% 44% Amount of public parking 55% 60% 66% 63% 52% 66% 48% 55% Availability of affordable quality housing 17% 15% 15% 15% 19% 16% 17% 14% Availability of affordable quality child care 32% 25% 27% 27% 39% 27% 28% 23% Availability of affordable quality health care 63% 62% 78% 64% 57% 62% 52% 60% Availability of preventive health services 67% 67% 73% 72% 70% 62% 58% 65% Air quality 73% 77% 74% 81% 73% 72% 71% 76% - 4 - City Auditor’s Analysis II: Overall Ratings and Ratings by Zip Code for FY 2009 and FY 2010 Community Characteristics (Percent excellent or good) Zip Code Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Overall Rating 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 84% 84% 90% 87% 85% 80% 75% 84% Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 92% 90% 95% 92% 92% 87% 88% 88% Availability of locally grown produce 70% 71% 73% 79% 67% 68% 71% 67% Opportunities to learn about City services through social networking Web sites such as: Twitter, Facebook and MySpace 60% 57% 49% 63% 62% 61% 66% 51% Community Safety (Percent "very" or "somewhat" safe) Zip Code Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel from the following in Palo Alto: Overall Rating 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 82% 85% 83% 83% 77% 81% 85% 89% Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) 66% 75% 72% 75% 61% 70% 62% 78% Environmental hazards, including toxic waste 81% 83% 87% 89% 76% 79% 78% 81% Personal Safety (Percent "very" or "somewhat" safe) Zip Code Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Overall Rating 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 In your neighborhood during the day 95% 96% 96% 98% 94% 93% 96% 96% In your neighborhood after dark 78% 83% 79% 82% 72% 77% 81% 86% In Palo Alto's downtown area during the day 91% 94% 95% 95% 89% 91% 91% 94% In Palo Alto's downtown area after dark 65% 70% 73% 72% 54% 66% 66% 71% - 5 - City Auditor’s Analysis II: Overall Ratings and Ratings by Zip Code for FY 2009 and FY 2010 Crime Victimization and Reporting (Percent "yes") Zip Code Overall Rating 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? 11% 9% 12% 14% 11% 10% 12% 6% If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? 80% 86% 96% 97% 80% 93% 70% 61% Resident Behaviors (Percent at least once in past 12 months) Zip Code In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated in the following activities in Palo Alto? Overall Rating 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 82% 76% 69% 74% 87% 88% 87% 72% Used Palo Alto recreation centers 63% 60% 56% 62% 73% 64% 62% 55% Participated in a recreation program or activity 49% 50% 43% 51% 59% 53% 44% 49% Visited a neighborhood park or City park 94% 94% 87% 95% 96% 93% 96% 94% Ridden a local bus within Palo Alto 31% 31% 24% 29% 37% 28% 20% 33% Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 28% 27% 27% 26% 30% 33% 27% 25% Visited the City of Palo Alto Web site (at www.cityofpaloalto.org) 75% 79% 66% 74% 78% 86% 72% 80% Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home 99% 98% 99% 97% 99% 99% 98% 98% Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Palo Alto 56% 51% 53% 51% 63% 48% 50% 52% Participated in a club or civic group in Palo Alto 33% 31% 32% 32% 39% 27% 30% 33% Provided help to a friend or neighbor 93% 92% 92% 90% 94% 96% 92% 92% Used the Citys Web site to conduct business or pay bills 25% 33% 24% 34% 32% 34% 21% 30% - 6 - City Auditor’s Analysis II: Overall Ratings and Ratings by Zip Code for FY 2009 and FY 2010 Resident Behaviors (Percent at least once in past 12 months) Zip Code In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated in the following activities in Overall Rating 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 Palo Alto? 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 Read a Palo Alto Newspaper 95% 91% 94% 88% 98% 98% 94% 90% Service Quality (Percent excellent or good) Zip Code Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Overall Rating 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 Police services 84% 87% 82% 88% 87% 84% 84% 88% Fire services 95% 93% 91% 93% 93% 91% 99% 93% Ambulance or emergency medical services 91% 94% 85% 93% 91% 95% 98% 94% Crime prevention 73% 79% 65% 77% 76% 79% 79% 81% Fire prevention and education 80% 79% 73% 83% 80% 76% 86% 77% Traffic enforcement 61% 64% 56% 71% 57% 59% 65% 62% Street repair 42% 43% 36% 39% 47% 57% 40% 39% Street cleaning 73% 76% 81% 79% 72% 80% 64% 71% Street lighting 64% 68% 59% 70% 68% 61% 61% 70% Sidewalk maintenance 53% 51% 46% 50% 53% 53% 46% 51% Traffic signal timing 56% 56% 54% 59% 57% 57% 52% 54% Bus or transit services 50% 45% 38% 58% 49% 36% 48% 43% Garbage collection 89% 88% 89% 89% 86% 87% 85% 88% Recycling collection 90% 90% 87% 92% 89% 89% 88% 89% Storm drainage 73% 74% 67% 67% 73% 80% 73% 76% - 7 - City Auditor’s Analysis II: Overall Ratings and Ratings by Zip Code for FY 2009 and FY 2010 Service Quality (Percent excellent or good) Zip Code Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Overall Rating 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 Drinking water 81% 84% 75% 88% 83% 84% 83% 81% Sewer services 81% 82% 75% 80% 86% 79% 77% 86% City parks 92% 90% 92% 90% 90% 89% 93% 91% Recreation programs or classes 85% 82% 82% 85% 85% 78% 86% 82% Recreation centers or facilities 80% 81% 77% 80% 78% 81% 78% 81% Land use, planning and zoning 47% 49% 53% 54% 53% 50% 34% 46% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) 50% 53% 48% 60% 56% 53% 42% 48% Animal control 78% 76% 76% 83% 78% 70% 78% 74% Economic development 54% 49% 57% 52% 53% 53% 47% 46% Services to seniors 82% 79% 85% 83% 84% 74% 75% 80% Services to youth 75% 70% 72% 74% 76% 62% 73% 73% Services to low-income people 59% 49% 67% 49% 63% 42% 51% 53% Public library services 78% 82% 75% 87% 84% 84% 77% 77% Public information services 68% 67% 63% 73% 70% 69% 68% 63% Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 62% 59% 61% 56% 62% 62% 64% 60% Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 82% 78% 77% 78% 82% 74% 86% 80% Neighborhood branch libraries 75% 75% 72% 75% 78% 80% 74% 73% Variety of library materials 73% 75% 69% 80% 78% 75% 71% 72% Your neighborhood park 87% 88% 82% 88% 88% 85% 91% 89% Street tree maintenance 72% 69% 70% 70% 73% 63% 71% 70% Electric utility 83% 79% 87% 80% 82% 72% 78% 80% - 8 - City Auditor’s Analysis II: Overall Ratings and Ratings by Zip Code for FY 2009 and FY 2010 Service Quality (Percent excellent or good) Zip Code Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Overall Rating 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 Gas utility 81% 80% 85% 85% 82% 74% 77% 81% City's Web site 55% 63% 51% 67% 61% 63% 53% 61% Art programs and theater 79% 78% 80% 82% 80% 77% 77% 76% Government Services Overall (Percent "excellent" or "good") Zip Code Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Overall Rating 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 The City of Palo Alto 80% 80% 86% 82% 79% 79% 74% 79% The Federal Government 41% 43% 41% 44% 36% 47% 42% 40% The State Government 23% 27% 21% 27% 24% 22% 24% 28% Santa Clara County Government 42% 48% 40% 51% 39% 41% 41% 49% Contact with City Employees (Percent yes) Zip Code Overall Rating 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Palo Alto within the last 12 months (including police, receptionists, planners or any others)? 58% 56% 52% 59% 59% 58% 64% 54% - 9 - City Auditor’s Analysis II: Overall Ratings and Ratings by Zip Code for FY 2009 and FY 2010 City Employees (Percent excellent or good) Zip Code What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City of Palo Alto in your most recent contact? Overall Rating 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 Knowledge 84% 81% 90% 84% 84% 68% 78% 84% Responsiveness 78% 75% 85% 80% 76% 64% 72% 77% Courtesy 84% 82% 91% 88% 79% 71% 80% 81% Overall impression 79% 77% 84% 82% 77% 69% 73% 78% Government Performance (Percent "excellent" or "good") Zip Code Please rate the following categories of Palo Alto government performance: Overall Rating 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 58% 62% 62% 70% 55% 59% 58% 57% The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 53% 57% 65% 60% 50% 53% 43% 56% The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 56% 57% 63% 59% 54% 57% 48% 55% Recommendation and Longevity (Percent "somewhat" or "very" likely) Zip Code Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Overall Rating 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 90% 90% 96% 94% 84% 90% 88% 87% Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 87% 83% 83% 80% 90% 90% 82% 82% - 10 - City Auditor’s Analysis II: Overall Ratings and Ratings by Zip Code for FY 2009 and FY 2010 Impact of the Economy (Percent "somewhat" or "very" positive) Zip Code Overall Rating 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: 13% 16% 8% 15% 17% 14% 12% 16% Policy Questions (Percent "yes") Zip Code Overall Rating 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 During the past 12 months, did you or anyone in your household have contact with the Palo Alto Police Department? 35% 32% 35% 33% 35% 34% 39% 31% If yes, how do you rate the quality of your contact with the Palo Alto Police Department? 72% 78% 67% 82% 76% 63% 70% 83% Policy Questions (Percent "excellent" or "good") Zip Code Please rate the City of Palo Alto on each of the following: Overall Rating 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 Preservation of wildlife and native plants 87% 85% 91% 84% 84% 83% 87% 87% Water and energy preservation 83% 79% 91% 82% 82% 79% 76% 77% City's composting process and pickup services 86% 83% 85% 85% 86% 80% 88% 85% Infrastructure Investment (e.g., buildings, streets) 56% 54% 58% 53% 63% 56% 44% 54% Downtown shopping, dining and entertainment experience 74% 75% 77% 76% 77% 77% 68% 72% Promoting business growth and economic development 46% 49% 50% 53% 43% 53% 42% 44% - 11 - City Auditor’s Analysis II: Overall Ratings and Ratings by Zip Code for FY 2009 and FY 2010 - 12 - Policy Questions Zip Code Overall Rating 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 In the past 12 months, did you or anyone from your household apply for a permit(s) from the City's Development Center? (percent yes) 7% 8% 6% 6% 9% 10% 7% 9% If yes, how would you rate each of the following? (percent excellent or good) Ease of the planning approval process 21% 36% 0% 35% 31% 57% 24% 25% Time required to review and issue the permit(s) 26% 33% 16% 31% 38% 48% 17% 25% Inspection timeliness 52% 61% 52% 65% 58% 85% 39% 45% Overall customer service 28% 56% 33% 59% 18% 79% 39% 39% Ease of the overall application process 15% 34% 0% 33% 17% 65% 26% 18% 3005 30th Street 777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 500 Boulder, CO 80301 Washington, DC 20002 www.n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 www.icma.org • 202-289-ICMA The National Citizen Survey™ CC II TT YY OO FF PP AA LL OO AA LL TT OO ,, CC AA 22001100 RReeppoorrtt ooff GGeeooggrraapphhiicc SSuubbggrroouupp CCoommppaarriissoonnss ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . CC oo nn tt ee nn tt ss Survey Background.............................................................................................................1 About The National Citizen Survey™ ........................................................................................1 Understanding the Results..................................................................................................2 “Don’t Know” Responses .........................................................................................................2 Understanding the Tables.........................................................................................................2 Comparisons ......................................................................................................................2 ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 1 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . SS uu rr vv ee yy BB aa cc kk gg rr oo uu nn dd AA BB OOUUTT TT HH EE NN AATT IIOONNAA LL CCII TTII ZZEENN SSUURRVVEEYY™™ The National Citizen Survey™ (The NCS™) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality survey methods and comparable results across The National Citizen Survey™ jurisdictions. Participating households are selected at random and the household member who responds is selected without bias. Multiple mailings give each household more than one chance to participate with self-addressed and postage paid envelopes. Results are statistically weighted to reflect the proper demographic composition of the entire community. The National Citizen Survey™ customized for this jurisdiction was developed in close cooperation with local jurisdiction staff. The City of Palo Alto staff selected items from a menu of questions about services and community problems; they defined the jurisdiction boundaries NRC used for sampling; and they provided the appropriate letterhead and signatures for mailings. City of Palo Alto staff also determined local interest in a variety of add-on options to The National Citizen Survey™ Basic Service. ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 2 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . UU nn dd ee rr ss tt aa nn dd ii nn gg tt hh ee RR ee ss uu ll tt ss ““DD OONN’’TT KK NN OOWW ”” RREE SS PPOONNSS EESS On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer “don’t know.” The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the body of the report. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. UUNNDDEERRSSTT AA NN DD IINNGG TTHHEE TTAABBLLEESS In this report, comparisons between geographic subgroups are shown. For most of the questions, we have shown only one number for each question. We have summarized responses to show only the proportion of respondents giving a certain answer; for example, the percent of respondents who rated the quality of life as “excellent” or “good”, or the percent of respondents who felt the rate of growth was “about right.” ANOVA and chi-square tests of significance were applied to these comparisons of survey questions by geographic subgroups. A “p-value” of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences observed between subgroups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed are “real.” Where differences were statistically significant, they are marked in grey. The 95 percent confidence level for this survey is generally no greater than plus or minus four percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample (approximately 624 completed surveys). For each Zip Code category (94301 combined with 94304, 94303 or 94306), the margin of error rises to approximately + or - 9% since sample sizes were approximately 226 for Zip Codes 94301 and 94304, 127 for Zip Code 94303 and 271 for Zip Code 94306. ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 3 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . CC oo mm pp aa rr ii ss oo nn ss Cells shaded grey indicate statistically significant differences between subgroups. Question 1: Quality of Life (Percent "excellent" or "good") Zip Code Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Palo Alto: 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 Palo Alto as a place to live 98% 94% 94% Your neighborhood as a place to live 93% 87% 91% Palo Alto as a place to raise children 93% 99% 89% Palo Alto as a place to work 89% 85% 87% Palo Alto as a place to retire 72% 71% 57% The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 98% 91% 92% Question 2: Community Characteristics (Percent "excellent" or "good") Zip Code Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 Sense of community 74% 73% 68% Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds 80% 82% 77% Overall appearance of Palo Alto 85% 83% 81% Cleanliness of Palo Alto 87% 84% 83% Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 55% 46% 54% Variety of housing options 33% 41% 38% Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 79% 73% 72% Shopping opportunities 78% 72% 63% Opportunities to attend cultural activities 76% 74% 72% Recreational opportunities 83% 81% 78% Employment opportunities 60% 52% 47% Educational opportunities 92% 92% 87% Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 79% 74% 70% Opportunities to volunteer 85% 81% 79% Opportunities to participate in community matters 81% 78% 71% Ease of car travel in Palo Alto 67% 69% 64% ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 4 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Question 2: Community Characteristics (Percent "excellent" or "good") Zip Code Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 Ease of bus travel in Palo Alto 47% 35% 35% Ease of rail travel in Palo Alto 70% 59% 57% Ease of bicycle travel in Palo Alto 81% 88% 78% Ease of walking in Palo Alto 93% 88% 78% Availability of paths and walking trails 80% 78% 69% Traffic flow on major streets 50% 48% 44% Amount of public parking 63% 66% 55% Availability of affordable quality housing 15% 16% 14% Availability of affordable quality child care 27% 27% 23% Availability of affordable quality health care 64% 62% 60% Availability of preventive health services 72% 62% 65% Air quality 81% 72% 76% Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 87% 80% 84% Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 92% 87% 88% Availability of locally grown produce 79% 68% 67% Opportunities to learn about City services through social networking Web sites such as: Twitter, Facebook and MySpace 63% 61% 51% Question 3: Growth (Percent of respondents) Zip Code Please rate the speed of growth in the following categories in Palo Alto over the past 2 years: 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 Population growth too fast 33% 62% 54% Retail growth too slow 29% 32% 31% Job growth too slow 70% 61% 67% Question 4: Code Enforcement (Percent at least a "minor" problem) Zip Code 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 Run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicle a major problem in Palo Alto 2% 4% 4% ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 5 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Question 5: Community Safety (Percent "very" or "somewhat" safe) Zip Code Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel from the following in Palo Alto: 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 83% 81% 89% Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) 75% 70% 78% Environmental hazards, including toxic waste 89% 79% 81% Question 6: Personal Safety (Percent "very" or "somewhat" safe) Zip Code Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 In your neighborhood during the day 98% 93% 96% In your neighborhood after dark 82% 77% 86% In Palo Alto's downtown area during the day 95% 91% 94% In Palo Alto's downtown area after dark 72% 66% 71% Questions 7 and 8: Crime Victimization and Reporting (Percent "yes") Zip Code 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? 14% 10% 6% If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? 97% 93% 61% ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 6 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Question 9: Resident Behaviors (Percent at least once in past 12 months) Zip Code In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated in the following activities in Palo Alto? 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 74% 88% 72% Used Palo Alto recreation centers 62% 64% 55% Participated in a recreation program or activity 51% 53% 49% Visited a neighborhood park or City park 95% 93% 94% Ridden a local bus within Palo Alto 29% 28% 33% Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 26% 33% 25% Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other City-sponsored public meeting on cable television, the Internet or other media 25% 28% 30% Visited the City of Palo Alto Web site (at www.cityofpaloalto.org) 74% 86% 80% Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home 97% 99% 98% Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Palo Alto 51% 48% 52% Participated in a club or civic group in Palo Alto 32% 27% 33% Provided help to a friend or neighbor 90% 96% 92% Used the City's Web site to conduct business or pay bills 34% 34% 30% Read a Palo Alto Newspaper 88% 98% 90% Question 10: Neighborliness (Percent at least several times a week) Zip Code 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 Visit with neighbors at least several times a week 44% 42% 41% ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 7 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Question 11: Service Quality (Percent "excellent" or "good") Zip Code Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 Police services 88% 84% 88% Fire services 93% 91% 93% Ambulance or emergency medical services 93% 95% 94% Crime prevention 77% 79% 81% Fire prevention and education 83% 76% 77% Traffic enforcement 71% 59% 62% Street repair 39% 57% 39% Street cleaning 79% 80% 71% Street lighting 70% 61% 70% Sidewalk maintenance 50% 53% 51% Traffic signal timing 59% 57% 54% Bus or transit services 58% 36% 43% Garbage collection 89% 87% 88% Recycling collection 92% 89% 89% Storm drainage 67% 80% 76% Drinking water 88% 84% 81% Sewer services 80% 79% 86% City parks 90% 89% 91% Recreation programs or classes 85% 78% 82% Recreation centers or facilities 80% 81% 81% Land use, planning and zoning 54% 50% 46% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) 60% 53% 48% Animal control 83% 70% 74% Economic development 52% 53% 46% Services to seniors 83% 74% 80% Services to youth 74% 62% 73% Services to low-income people 49% 42% 53% Public library services 87% 84% 77% ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 8 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Question 11: Service Quality (Percent "excellent" or "good") Zip Code Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 Public information services 73% 69% 63% Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 56% 62% 60% Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 78% 74% 80% Neighborhood branch libraries 75% 80% 73% Variety of library materials 80% 75% 72% Your neighborhood park 88% 85% 89% Street tree maintenance 70% 63% 70% Electric utility 80% 72% 80% Gas utility 85% 74% 81% City's Web site 67% 63% 61% Art programs and theater 82% 77% 76% Question 12: Government Services Overall (Percent "excellent" or "good") Zip Code Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 The City of Palo Alto 82% 79% 79% The Federal Government 44% 47% 40% The State Government 27% 22% 28% Santa Clara County Government 51% 41% 49% ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 9 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Question 13: Contact with City Employees (Percent "yes") Zip Code 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Palo Alto within the last 12 months (including police, receptionists, planners or any others)? 59% 58% 54% Question 14: City Employees (Percent "excellent" or "good") Zip Code What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City of Palo Alto in your most recent contact? 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 Knowledge 84% 68% 84% Responsiveness 80% 64% 77% Courtesy 88% 71% 81% Overall impression 82% 69% 78% Question 15: Government Performance (Percent "excellent" or "good") Zip Code Please rate the following categories of Palo Alto government performance: 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 70% 59% 57% The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 60% 53% 56% The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 59% 57% 55% Question 16: Recommendation and Longevity (Percent "somewhat" or "very" likely) Zip Code Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 94% 90% 87% Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 80% 90% 82% ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 10 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Question 17: Impact of the Economy (Percent "somewhat" or "very" positive) Zip Code 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: 15% 14% 16% Question 18a: Policy Question 1 (Percent "yes") Zip Code 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 During the past 12 months, did you or anyone in your household have contact with the Palo Alto Police Department? 33% 34% 31% Question 18b: Policy Question 2 (Percent "excellent" or "good") Zip Code 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 If yes, how do you rate the quality of your contact with the Palo Alto Police Department? 82% 63% 83% Question 18c: Policy Question 3(Percent "excellent" or "good") Zip Code Please rate the City of Palo Alto on each of the following: 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 Preservation of wildlife and native plants 84% 83% 87% Water and energy preservation 82% 79% 77% City's composting process and pickup services 85% 80% 85% Infrastructure Investment (e.g., buildings, streets) 53% 56% 54% Downtown shopping, dining and entertainment experience 76% 77% 72% Promoting business growth and economic development 53% 53% 44% ATTACHMENT 1 City of Palo Alto | 2010 The National Citizen Survey™ 11 Th e N a t i o n a l C i t i z e n S u r v e y ™ b y Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Question 18d: Policy Question 4 (Percent "yes") Zip Code 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 In the past 12 months, did you or anyone from your household apply for a permit(s) from the City's Development Center? 6% 10% 9% Question 18e: Policy Question 5 (Percent "excellent" or "good") Zip Code If yes, how would you rate each of the following? 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 Ease of the planning approval process 35% 57% 25% Time required to review and issue the permit(s) 31% 48% 25% Inspection timeliness 65% 85% 45% Overall customer service 59% 79% 39% Ease of the overall application process 33% 65% 18% Question 18f: Policy Question 6 (Percent "somewhat" or "strongly" support) Zip Code As you may know, in response to the economic downturn, Palo Alto has implemented additional measures to keep its expenses in line with its revenues. To what extent do you support or oppose the following additional fiscal efforts for Palo Alto? 94301 & 94304 94303 94306 Pursuing a new revenue source for specific projects (e.g. capital projects, roads, recreation, etc.) 87% 88% 81% Further reduction of City services and programs 41% 44% 40% Further economic development efforts to increase sales tax revenue 73% 73% 78% ATTACHMENT 1 94304 94304 94304 94306 94303 94301 P age Mi l l Road A r a s t r a d e r o R o a d El Ca m i n o R e a l San Antonio Avenue C h a r l e s t o n R o a d Orego n E xpres s w ay Mid dlefield Road Univ e r s i t y Avenue Al m a Str e et Foothill Expre s s w a y Lo s T r a n c o s R o a d E a s t B a y s h o r e W e s t B a y s h o r e Fa b i a n Sand H i l l R o a d Embarca d e r o R o a d This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS T his document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0'4655' City of Palo Alto Zip Codes CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R PORAT E D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1 894 T he City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2010 City of Palo Alto jthayer, 2010-01-15 15:17:41 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\jthayer.mdb) ATTACHMENT 2 TO: CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALO ALTO Memorandum . January 18,2011 SUBJECT: Approval of an Exchange Agreement and Quit Claim Deed for the Exchange of a 1,525 Square Foot Portion of Public Street Right-of-Way Land Along San Antonio Road for a 28,098 Square Foot Privately Owned Parcel of Land Located Under the San Antonio Road Overpass to Secure and Maintain a Public Access Road to the Former Mayfield Mall Site at 200 San Antonio Road This replaces Iteln #1268, previously submitted for. your review and consent, for the January 18, 2011 meeting. The attachments were misaligned in the previous version. Directo {fr~~j City of Palo Alto \gj}}fr5it\~ City Council Staff Report "'"cr.."n J (ID # 1268) Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 1/18/2011 Title: Approval of an Agreement and Quit Claim Deed Subject: Approval of an Exchange Agreement and Quit Claim Deed for the Exchange of a 1,525 Square Foot Portion of Public Street Right-of-Way Land Along San Antonio Road for a 28,098 Square Foot Privately Owned Parcel of Land located Under the San Antonio Road Overpass to Secure .and Maintain a Public Access Road to the Former Mayfield Mall Site at 200 San Antonio Road From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services RECOMMEf;lDATION Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to sign an Exchange Agreement and Quitclaim Deed (Attachment A) for the exchange of a 1,565 square foot portion of public street right-of-way land along San Antonio Road for a 28,098 square foot privately owned parcel of land located under the San Antonio Road overpass to secure and maintain a public access road to the former Mayfield Mall site at 200 San Antonio Road BACKGROUND In June 2006, the City of Mountain View approved a project for redevelopment of the Mayfield Mall/Hewlett Packard site at 200 San Antonio Road with 450 units of multiple family housing. The entire project site, owned by Hewlett Packard (Owner), located at the corner of Central Expressway and San Antonio Road contains 24 acres, 19.8 acres are located with the City of Mountain View and 4.2 are located within the City of Palo Alto. On April 17, 2008, the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board (ARB) approved plans, with conditions, for the 45 units to be built upon the 4.2 acre Palo Alto portion ofthe project (Project). On July 27, 2009, Council adopted Ordinance No. 5046 (CMR:209:09) approving a Development Agreement extending the ARB . approval and Vesting Tentative Map approval for the Project to February 26, 2014, to be consistent with the expiration of approvals for the larger portion of the housing project located in the City of Mountain View. One of the ARB conditions of approval for the Project ensured public access to the development through an existing underpass roadway serving San Antonio Road. This condition required that the Owner acquire a privately-owned parcel (Kelly Parcel) on the West side of San Antonio Avenue on which the access road to the underpass lies and then deed this parcel to the City of Palo Alto (Attachment B). The 28,089 square-foot Kelly parcel was acquired by Hewlett Parckard after months of negotiation at a cost of $25,000. Another ARB condition noted that January 18, 2011 (10 # 1268) Page 1 of 4 the approved Tentative Map plans require the Owner to acquire a 1,565 square-foot City- owned right-of-way parcel (City Parcel) adjacent to both San Antonio Avenue and th e Project property (Attachment C). The ARB condition notes that "if the applicant is unable to secure the small City owned parcel, the alternate site plan shall be considered". DISCUSSION During the ARB approval process there was discussion thaUhe Owner would acquire from the City the small 1,565 portion of City right-of-way, to provide for the design as approved in the Tentative Map. The approved site plan is not significantly different from the alternative, but it does have some benefits in terms of design configuration. It will provide for a less cramped site layout which eliminates some of the necessary setback encroachments. It removes a unit from one building (Building 4) and places it at another building (Building 8) providing a greater setback at the entry to the project (see Attachments D and E). The 1,565 square foot City Parcel is triangular in shape with 99.20 feet of frontage along San Antonio Road, immediately north of Central Expressway/Alma Street. The parcel overlays a portion of the San Antonio Road right-of-way; however, it is not necessary for the movement of traffic on San Antonio Road. It lies partially within an area that was used at one time as an access roadway/driveway to the Owners parcel at 200 San Antonio Road. It contains 3 pine trees, ground cover and some asphalt paving and concrete curbing (see Attachment E). The parcel is zoned Public Facility (PF) which permits only public use. The Owner intends to apply for a zone change once the parcel is conveyed to them to become incorporated into the Project. Appraisal To aid in making an informed decision concerning the proposed exchange, staff contracted for an independent appraisal of the City Parcel prepared by a Member of the Appraisal Institute (M.A.I.), The purpose ofthe appraisal was to provide an opinion of the market value of the City Parcel based on its highest and best use. By itself, the size and location of the City parcel is severely limiting and could not be developed independently. The appraisal concludes the highest and best use is to assemble the City Parcel with the adjoining property of the Owner. Given this limited use, the market value of the parcel is determined by comparing the value of the Project with and without the inclusion ofthe City Parcel. The addition ofthe City Parcel will not affect the density or development rights accruing to the project, but, as described above, it will affect the deSign configuration in terms of location and placement of units in bUildings. The appraisal concludes that only one unit is affected in terms of increased market appeal and value. The additional landscaped area afforded by the City parcel is essentially an amenity to one of the town home units, which will provide an approximate 2 percent Increase in value over a competing unit. Using comparable direct sales of similar units to determine the value of this town home the appraisal concludes a market value for the City Parcel of $22,500. January 18, 2011 (ID 111268) Page 2 of4 Exchange Both the Kelley and City Parcels are irregularly-shaped and are overlain by or adjacent to public rights-of-way and roadway improvements. The Kelley Parcells larger, however, its market value of $25,000 is comparable to the $22,500 value of the City Parcel. In accordance with the ARB approval condition, the Developer has acquired the Kelley Parcel and deeded it to the City. In addition, as required by the ARB approval, the developer of the project must upgrade the access road upon the former Kelley Parcel to City standards. This benefits the City by assuring public access to the Project through the San Antonio Road underpass. The conveyance of the City Parcel to the Owner provides for a more desirable site layout as provided in the approved Tentative Map. In summary, the parcels are equivalent in value, and maintain or provide pUblic benefit by continuing access through the former private access road and by providing the layout as approved in the Tentative Map, therefore, the exchange as requested by the . Developer is recommended. RESOURCE IMPACT The Owner has paid the $1,260 deed preparation processing fee required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and has reimbursed the City for the cost of the appraisal. The parcels proposed for exchange have offsetting equal economic value and the proposed exchange involves no cost to the City. The Developer will pay for any escrow costs and recording charges. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The recommendation does not represent any change to City policies. The Planning Department has determined that the quit claim of the City Parcel does not impact the sites conformity with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Environmental Impact Report for the development project was adopted in June of 2006. The proposed quitclaim for the City Parcel as assemblage to the adjacent owner are categorically exempt from the review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15305 as a minor alteration in land use limitations. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment A: Exchange Agreement and Quit Claim Deed (PDF) • Attachment B: Kelly Parcel (PDF) • Attachment C: City Parcel(PDF) • Attachment D: Site Plan With Assembled City Parcel (PDF) • Attachment E: Site Plan Without Assembled City Parcel (PDF) Prepared By: January 18, 2011 (ID n 1268) Martha Miller, Manager, Real Property Page 3 of 4 Department Head: City Manager Approval: January 18, 2011 (ID # 1268) , . lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services ~;/7(r-"- James Keenel.vlvlanager (j Page4of4 ATfACHMENT A (Page 1 of 17) AGREEMENT FOR EXCHANGE OF REAL PROPERTY THIS AGREBM~NT FOR EXCHANGE OF REAL PROPERTY ("Agreement") is dated January ~ 2010'r("Effective Date"), and is made by and between HEWLETT·PACKARD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation ("Developer"). and the CITY OF PALO ALTO, 1\ California municipal corporation eClty"). City and Developer are herein collectively referred to as the "Owners.» RECITALS A. City is the owner of certain real property (referred to herein as the "Triangle"), located within the City of Palo. Alto, California, consisting of an approximately 0.12-acre remainder portion of land Wlderlying the public right of way for San Antonio Road and which is more fully described and depicted on Exhibit "A" to this· Agreement. Gity intends to convey the Triangle to Developer so that It may he incorporated into Developer's approved site plan for the "Mayfield" residential development Pl:oject ("Project'?,loeated at 200 San Antonio Road. B. In connection with the Project, by that certain Grant Deed recortjed in the·Official Records of Santa Clara County, California on April 9, 20 I 0 as J;locument No. 20672467, a copy ofwbich is attached hereto as Elxhibit "B", Developer caused to be conveyed to City certain real property (referred to herein as the "Kelley Parcel'1 located within the City of Palo Alto. Clilifornia, consisting of an approximately 0.59 acre remainder portion of land underlying the public right of way for an underpass serving San Antonio Road. The Triangle and the Kelley Parcel are correctively referred to herein as the "Properties." C. Incident to City's issuance of land use approvals ("Approvals") for the Project, specifically a Vesting Tentatiye Subdivision Map and Architectural Review Board design approval, City desired Developer to cause the Kelley Parcel 10 he conveyed to City. In anticipation of Developer acquiring rights to the City owned Triangle, City has approved the Project in a site design configuration which included the Triangle· as part of the Project. The Kelley Parcel and the Triangle. are both small, irregularly-shaped fragments of real property overlain by or adjacent io public rights of way and roadway improvements, and such Properties therefore have no feasible economic use and no objective value to any third party. D. As contemplated In the Approvals, City and Developer now desire to complete the previously anticipated exchange of the Triangle and the Kelley Parcel. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual agreements, City and Developer agree lIS follows: TERMS AND CONDITIONS L EllChange of Properties: In exchange for the acknowledged conveyance of the Kelley Parcel to the City, City agrees to transfcr and convey the Triangle to Developer upon the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The Owners agree that the reciprocal conveyances described herein are an exchange of real properties with offsetting equal economic values and no additional monetary remWleration shall bc paid to either part.y. 1Il1404.06 2. Title and Conveyance of the Triangle: At the Property Closing (defined below), "City shall convey "the Triangle to Developer by quit claim deed in the form attaehed hereto as exhjbit ''C'' (the "Triangle Deed"), with title free from any public rights of way and other rights of the public. If shall be a condition to the Property Closing that First American Title Insurance" Company ("Title "Company"), be irrevocably committed to issue, subject only to payment of its premium therefore, a standard owner's ALTA policy of title insurance (the "Triangle Title < Policy'" in fomi aniI substance acceptable to Developer, insuring roe simple title to the ;rriangle vested in Developer, subject only to exceptions approved by Developer during the DUe Diligence Period (as defmed below). City will complcte any necessary abandonment of any public rights of way and other rights of the public in or over the Triangle prior to the Property Closing. 3. Inspection: <3.1 "Documents: To the extent such items ere in City's possession or reasonably within City's control, City shall make available for inspection by "Developer, the information and documents available in City's files conceming the Triangle, within ten (10) days after the"date of this Agrc<ement. " 3.2 Due Dilhlenee: Developer and Its agents shall have until 5:00 p.m., PaCific Time on the thirtieth (30th) day following the full execution arid delivery of this Agreement by the "OWners (the "Due Diligence Period") in which . to exlimine, inspect, and investigate the Triangle and, "in Developer's sole discretion, to determine whether the same is satisfactory to Developer. peveloper may elect for any reason, in its sole discretion, to terminate this Agreement pursulirtt to tWs Section 3.2 by giving notice of termination (the "Due Diligimce Tennmation Notice'~ to City on or before the end of the Due Diligence Period. Developer shall be deemed to have approved such examination, inspection and investigation, and this Agreement shall oontinue in full foree and' ~fect, if'Developer does ndt deliver a Due Diligerlce Termination Notice tQ. thy as 'specified herein. In the everit Developer elects tp ternlllU\te tWs Agreement pursuant to IWs Section 3.2, then neither Developer nor the City shallthereJifter have any further nghts or" obligatiohs under tWs Agreentent uriless expreSsly provided otherwise herein. Developer shall have reasonablellC(:ess ro the Triangle djlring the term of this Agreement for the PUrpose< of conducting snrveys, arehitectnrsl, engineering;" geotech!1lcal and environmental " inspections"and tests, and other inspections, studies, and tests desiied by Developer (collectively, "Inspections"); pi-ovided, however, that Developer shall not coilduct any physical testing, boring, sampling or removal (cpllectlvely, "Physical Testing") of any portion of the Triangle without f11'St obtaining the written consent of City. DevelQper, on behalf of itself and its agents, bereby waives all claims against City for any injury to persons or damage to property arising out of any Inspj:Ctions ()r Physical Testing, including, without Iimitalion, any damage to the tools and equipment of Developer or its agents. and agrees to indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses of any kind or character arising from, related to or caused by Developer's entry upon the Triangle or the perfonnance 'ofthe Inspections and any Physical Testing by Developer or its agents. Illl40QJi6 "2 " L~~ 4. Conditionsto Properly Closing: 4. L Conditions. The obligations of the parties under this Agreement to complete the Property Closing are subject to the satisfaction on or before the date of the Property ~ Closing of the folloWing conditions precedent: 4.1. I The obligation of City to ~complete the Property Closing shall be conditioned on the satisfaction of tho following conditions: (a) the City shall have acquired the Kelley Parcel (which condition the City hereby acknowledges has been satisfied). and (b) . Developer shall not be in default of any covenant. representation or warranty under this )\greement. 4.1.2 The obligation of Developer to complete the Property Closing shall , be conditioned on the satisfaction of the following conditions: (a) the Title Company shall have issued or shall have committed to issue, upon the sole condition of the payment of its regularly scheduled premium, tlie Tri.angle Title Policy, and (b) the City shall not be in default of any covenant, repres~tation or· warranty under this Agreement. , 4.2 Failure of Conditionll. If any of the conditions set forth in Scction 4.1 are not timely satisfied or waived by the applicable party and neither party is in default hereunder, !ben the party benefited by such eondition may by written notice to the other party terminate this Agreement and the rights and obligations of City or Developer shall terminate and be of· no further force or effect except as to ·those matters as specifically stated in this Agreement to survive termination. In the event of the failure of any such condJiion due to a default by one of the Owners, such default may be waived by the non-defaulting party in which event the Property Closing shall proceed, and in the absence of any such waiver Section 8 below shall apply. 4.3 Satisfaction of Conditions. The occurrence of the Property Closing shall constitute satisfaction of conditions set forth in Section 4.1 that were not otherwise specifically satisfied or waived by the Owners. 5. Escrow: S.l Opening of Escrow: Once this Agreement has been fully executed, the Owners shall open an escrow ("Escrow'~ with the Title Company. The Owners shall also execute such further escrow instructions as the Title Company may reasonably require in connection with the Property Closing so long as such instructions are consistent with the provisions of this Agreement. In the event of any contlict between the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the provisions of any escrow instructions, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall control. 5.2 Property Closing: Subject to the satisfaction or waiver ofthe conditions to the Property Closing set forth in Section 4.1 hereof, the closing ("Property Closing") shall occur at the offices of the Title Company, and be completed on or before the earlier of: (8) the date which is ten (10) business days following the date upon which Developer gives notice to City that Developer desires to close the transaction, or (b) March 31, 2011. It is understood and agreed by the Owners that the Property Closing may occur concurrently with Developer's conveyance of the Project to a third party and such third party may be the Developer's nominee 111140&.06 -3 - to take title to the Triangle pursuant to Seetion 13 below. Each of the Owners agree to work with the other party, such third party which is acquiring the Project and any escrow or title officers involved in the cOnveyance of the Project, so that the Property Closing and the closing of Developer's conveyance of the Project shall occur concurrently. 5.3 Triangle Deed: Further Assurances: City shalt deliver the duly executed and acknowledged Trilll18le Deed into Escrow within ten (10) business days following the eXpiration of the Due DiligenceJ'eriod. The Owners shall each deposit such other instruments 118 ate reasonably required by the Title Company or otherwise required to consummate the exchange of the Properties in accordance with the t= hereof 5.4 Taxes; Closing Costs: Developer shall accept the Triangle subject to any non-delinquent real property taxes and assessments. Developer shall pay for the cost of the rriangle-rille Policy lIS well lIS all other escrow costs and recording charges, or any other charges required to close escrow on this Agreement 6. No Brokers and Finders: Neither party has had any contact or dealings regarding -thp Trllll18le or the Kelley Parcel through any real estate broker, finder or other person who can claim a-right to a comn\isslon or finder's fee in connection with the transaction contemplated herein. -Each party agrees to prolect, defend, indemnify and hold haImless the other party from IIild against any and aU commissions, fees and other compensation claimed by any broker, finder or third party arising by virtue of this transaction whose commissions, fees or other compensation, or any claim therefor, arises from acts of the indemnifying party. The obligations of iMeronity contained in this Section 6 shall survive the Property Closing or the earlier expiration or tennination of this Agreement. 7. As-Is: Mutua) Release: Each of the Owners represents, warrants and covenants to the other party that: (I) -Owners are familiar with and have investigated the Triangle and the Kelley Parcel and. all matters pertaining thereto, and there are no representations or warranties of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, made by the Owners to eaCh other -in connection with this Agreement, the exchange of the Triangle for the Kelley Parcel, the physical condition of the Properties, or whether the Properties comply with applicable laws or are appropriate for the Owners' respective intended uses, as applicable (except any representations given by City to Developer in connectiQll witl.t the development ()!' entiilement process of the Project); (il) except as expressly set forth in this Agreement, l\either party is relying on any statement or representation made by the other party, or the Other party's agents or representatives; (iii) the Owners are aware (or have voiun)arily chosen not to be aware) of all zoning regulations, other governmental requirements, site and physical conditions, title Bnd other matters affecting the ownership, use IlI1d condition of the Properties, as applicable; and (iv) City accepts the Kelley Parcel, and Developer accepts thc Triangle, in their respective "AS IS" condition WITH ALL FAULTS lIS of the date of the PrQperty Closing, and both Owners waive and release any and all claims, demands, causes of action, losses, costs, dllll1ages, penalties, fines, taxes, remedial actions, I1lmovai and disposal costs, iDvestigation and remedial costs and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys', expert and consultant fees), whether direct or indirect, known or unknowil, either party may have against the other party as a result of the foregoing matters. The provisions of this Section 7 shall survive the Property Closing. The Owners each hereby waive tlie provisions of Califomia Civil Code Seetion 1542, which provides that: 11210108.06 -4- "A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH TIlE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT TIm . TIME OF IlXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH!F KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE MA TERIALL Y AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR." By initialing below. the Owners hereby waive the provisions of Sootion 1542 solely in connootion with the matters which are the subject of the foregoing waiver and release: . Initials by City: .~~ __ ~ __ Initials by Developer: U'if!!:- 8. LImitation on Deyeloper Remedies: If City shall default in iis obligation under this Agreement to· convey the Triangle to Developer. Develojler's sole and exclusive remedies shall be either to (i) sue for spooific perfonnance. or (ii) terminate this Agreem~t. which tennination shall release the defaulting party from any and all liability hereunder. Developer shall be deemed to have elected to tenninate this Agreement if it falls to file suit for specific performance agalnst City on or before ninety (90) days following the date upon which the Property Closing was to have occurred. Developer hereby waives any other rern~les available at law or in equity in the event of a default by City in its obligation 10 convey the Triangle to Developer. including without limitation its rights to seek damages for such default. 9. Attorneys' Fjles: Should any action or proceeding be conunenced between the parties hereto concerning the Propertles. this Agreement or the rights and duties of either party pursuant thereto. the prev.ailing party shall be entitled, including in any specific perfonnance action and in addition to all other relief as may be granted by the court, to reasonable sums for attorneys' fees and cosis in the discretion of the court. "Prevailing party" as used In Ibis Section 9 includes a party who dismisses· an action for recovery hereunder in· exchange for· sums allegedly due, perfonrnmce of covenants allegedly breached or considerations sUbstanli.ally equal to the relief sought in the action. 10. Notices: Any notice or report required or desired to be given regarding this Agreement shall be in writing and may be given by personal delivery. by certified mail return receipt requested. or by courier service. Any notice or report addressed 10 the Owners at· their respective addresses sct forlli below, as appropriate, shall be deemed to have been given (i) when personally delivered, (ii) if properly addressed and deposited in the mail (certified, return receipt requested), on the date shown on the return receipt·for acceptance or rejection or (iii) if properly addressed and deposited with a reputable overnight carrier. on the liusiness day next follOwing the date of deposit. For this purpose, a "business day" shall be a day on which such reputable overnight carrier has regularlY scheduled delivery (excluding Saturdays). lI21408-06 Each notice to City shail be delivered to; Office of the City Attorney City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 9430 I ·5· . i Bach notice to Developer shall be delivered to: Office ,of Corporate GcneralCounsel Hewlett-Packard Company 3000 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 , 13.. Assignment: Developer may assign its right, title and interest in and to this Agreement to any other PartY without the approval of City. Additionally, Developer shall have the right to designate a nominee to acquire title to the Triangle under the Triangle Deed. . .' ." . . 14.' ' Miscellaneous: This Agreement constitutes the c6mplete and fmal expression, of the agreemellt of the OWners relating to the matters set forth hereIn and supersedes all previous contracts, agreeinenls; aridundetiltaiJdings of the Owners, eithef oral or written, relating thereto. This Agreemellt cannot be modified,or any of the terms hereof waived, except by an inslrUlnent in writing (referring spedficallyto this Agreement) executed by the party against whom enforcement of the ln6dlfication or wruver is sought: Time is of the essence for the performance of each and every covenant and for the satisfaction of each and every cOndition contained in this Agreement. This Agreement Shall be .governed by and construed in accordance with the Jaws of the State of CalifornIa. The language in all 'parts of this Agreement shall in all cases be construed as a whole acCording 'to iis reasonable meaning. This Agreement may be exeeuted in counterparts by the parties hereto; and shall become biilding when all parties have eaeh executed and delivered to' the other party a Counte!pllrt hereof. and together' such executed counterparts shall constitute this Agreement. Each plirtyhereto shuJlexecute. acknowledge and deliver or to cause to have executed, acknowledged and delivered, such other and further instnunents and documents as may reasonably be requested by,the other to carry out ttils Agreement. ' [Siguatore page follows] L IN Wl1NESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on "the respective dates set forth below. " DEVELOPER: HEWLETT·PACKARD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation BY:d.-~ Name: 8'W~ 'PnfRr Tide: ve,. ikn 6"" ,f Itrlf. '!:!f' Dale: December 1,2010" ClTY; Cily of Palo Alto, a California Municipal Corporalion By:" ______ ~ ________ ~ Name: ______ "_~ ___ _ Title:: _______ ~ APPROVED AS TO FORM: By:_"" City Attorney Date: January_"~. 2011 " 1111<40s.o6 ACKNOWLEDGED: By:_-:-;-_"=-:-____ _ City Clerk -7 - ; " , I I t TRIANGLE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND DEPICTION TImt certain real property located in the Cit)' of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara; State"" of California, and more particularly described as follows: Real Property in the Cit)' of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clnra, Slate of California, being a portion of Parcel No.2 as described in the Filial Order of Condemnation recorded April 18, 1962,.in Book 5543 of Official Records, page 586, Santa Clam County Records, and a portion of Parcel No. I as described in the Final Order and Decree of Condemnation recorded April "18, 1962, in Book 5543 of Official Records, page 591, Santa Cllllil County Records, described as: follows: " Beginning at the most easterly corner of said Parcel No.2; Thence along the southeasterly lines of said Parcel No.2, the following two courses: 1. Thence South 38°23'10" West, 68.00 feet; 2. Thence North 51 °36'50" West, 2.57 feet: ~: Thence North 08°39'58" East, 99.20 feet. to a point of cusp, being on the ea~terly"line of said Parcel No. I: Thence along said easterly line, southerly, along a tangent curve to the Jdt, having a radius of " 36.00 feet, whose"center hears South 81°20'02" .Easl, through a central angle of 60°16'49" for an arc length of37.87 feet, to the northeasterly line of Parcel No.2; " Thence along sold northeasterly line, South 51 °36'50" East, 20.49 feet. to the Point of Beginning. " 1111408.00 -8- LEG£N~ (II) fWlIAi. , 1!tAAI~ hJ" i p.o.e. _r OF BECM<!HO 1 IN •• 80 FT. SAN ANTONIO ROAD j I ____ ' __ cl!Y ~L£ ~L~.J,_' _,_ CITY or MOUNTAIN VIEW ----,--- W ::J ,~ I « , ; 1::::< i • I , / I : I :z I /[ / / I / I 1/ ( it. , .. '\ I I ---1j: -----1 j I /_.- 1 01' 1 ~~-~f~~I~'~~~~'_-~~_A_~_to_cc_~_PC_nY_d~ __ Pt_lOO~~ -9- 11214118.6& EXHIBIT"B" KELLEXPARCELDEED [Attached] ( ·10. I' , ' L j. 11lI463.!16 , :lIttit.I.-'<M TIIIa ~ 'F""",! Ii ... U'S'lfW'fR-SC llECORUI~G RUQI.lT'lTO,O nv MIT> WHEN tlEl.'O\WII>RE1'I1I!N TO: Cf1f<lft'llb""o . Htqlttll fftOidbJi witI~ '", 1i:ttMd rer klldlt ot elf)' of Pllio ,,\It(l pl"U~ .,~ Secnon ~l(l) 01 (ltlmnmm' M¢, m"A~'f u.:nu Ft.",," " "'II"'.,' . tho f··~ ,1 .... lIt, ' {:lfP'lfI. , _---"' ,"I P'J.Jj H,I( 'YALUASUi COr\SlOtRA.TlO)l, N¢O'lt (if ",hjt1\ I" hmby tCMowledllod, RYIA~n Ktl.l.';V Mill lIA VKA ~IWU' KllLUiY ""'by (I .... r .. "" <:fry (W!'AL\) All'(}. ItOt rl$l ",,'VoW in lht ehy of r.to Aho. County \)f $wJt1f t!l\l'l'o, 5tllt cil ()llrOlttiJ, dutribtdt1in J!Xbibh 'w' JI~h~d '!fret!'! 1M tl'lC\lJPOf1i1Cd Uetlll'fnLy I-:lm'n':(, -11 • ·" : .. • 12- l tl214tlUM ",' . IJX'IIUI"'''A"' THAT CEATAltt I'.M\.. .... Of£ltTY illUATEO IN tHr lfrA1-e OF !:.UJftOO>IA, OOOOY of MN1'A tlAM. Cltv OF ,...,,1.0 .iL TO, ;')If) I'1tJCiiJARI'l/l" FQtJ.¢WS' 'G!IIIO f, "On'(Jo.~O!" LOT '"Cf 'fl1f\1'ttnrAfN ;"""l'otn'!)"Al\tm()~(lr 1"': MI"'t:lIf. flt"rrO~mOYQIL'"a(ll"l ... RAtA',.1 AI..; lHTH! MAiftHORl~ DU,4,N fAANOSQIJI'J"(TtlOCORDfl) OC'tOOUt, n fU, ~.(loot: If QItldAfI&. PACI19l.lll!mnMru' $/l.WrACLAJ.A 0Qmit'V. C4L1:ro~)~. WfUCH PDATIOH I!S ~O:u: PAlltlCtlLAr..t. y DE:WtIflWAS t{)t.LOWJ: JI~e~ATnm'cmrrOfl~jummtH£fOlITHlAtrJllt.Vtml('Jf'S"toLO'l'l W1'Ji1$'I\·(')1TtlJ'.AST1,RLV1,llI,;n, ",tIM mrfTqof\M£itLY ~ AS GJlIP.FIiH AVt!NUE) WHJQJlj.~lH;;Afii'Jlt.V UNf: III 'J='xm;bl.eUL~tu. Y mSfANr",qu ftth'·MJttl\tfL"b1~1U. \' 1m! lH5 r"tsntHII>'K.lNtr.wt.")!1) UJ:ifUllLIHl! UY At.'t.\ i'UtlUif. WlfJql4 ,()Jlft l!t UI1)4'j\jH SOOtttdMmL V IILOH<l ~lD m"nft,\~l V t1}lR"U24 ff:r.r Jr." rJ£n J12.91'-m'1' Olt SAtDMAP)f'Rtt,{rifS SwtlJW1wu.V lh:f.01 $1\..~ANJO>nUA\11oJUi tAi.YtHC';IiQWN "Hil" 1tl\"T0!0M .OAD ANP 10aMJ.!U .. 't (AtJ,nD SW~u. flOAt),} YllflCtl!OL'T'Il!!A 'T1?llV Ut.-r. Of ~AN A"'-OHIO h\'llMll; f$ '~l)ICU1.h1\l. '( b}Sr MII'~l,tOfW $OVnliAJ'f'MLY1kOM lH. itXl$/fNfi M(lmlMIlt:'{P.I, a.MfHj,rwi; OF!"", Al."T(Jt,:'tU A YtH1Jtl; ntl!l\'C8 FROM ~"1O l'Ot.%tr ()f'~MmHlN« ft, U· oW S1" Y."lCAl..lMO:'.~\· »' W, I.it'WlWU MAl') 1lV)'«.I SAifl ~tmw:Am"l.y.IJNC (lV AI»A !rrkrutT mm4 f1!i)'1TT01UUOCmWJEM.Vu.,OV \.AN!)$(:(IN\,t:Yt!» tty Utlt!f)ftl.b):, I«(JWAtDT. eatAt;Wf,ltlCOlOI!OJlltt!)AkY M. U~JfI Roost tim Of OIfftlAI,IF"(''t)ftDi, PAGE WI, s.uorll ""'fI;llh WU1frV{ i ju:~t /lIJ,)fOO $Alb IOL"'rnWmLV WN!I.COf'f!ll\tAM)"'S Oil "KfIItMA" ~'. "","'flO" r. Ilo.~ fElt;1UCI,:CU AtOi'lGl1rtnroonflWlTUtY imp, Of' "All) !..A1ltI10f' IItKlU(AN N. 11"'0' ,,, .. 'N. !!f'.V' P'f}1!:7 TO {"in lOUlUM$K'-W Ilt:iOFJAfoo /l1't'lf.\"IlO i\W;HUH/ 1UliNCRlttC)ltl nm J<lL1HWttfU.V U:o.u:Ol'NAW Atntfl";lU ... w. .. ,I!:J!t H' ft· W' E, (CAu .. m H. U"u'!t O~ WhlllMl\tjH 30 ffltrrTl)ntli. tni:tM1Nl0'J1F.QfNWlml ntI;;CU s. ",·w W"(l.·/\ hl~rA.WCf M"11~1Co nE7: nmK:n~, 2" '" "'~t.,A tll}"f""M;t!QI' w~:1't ~Ii'r; 11tF.HC£t4. -U"W 00" W. ADflTI\Ii(lJOI' &1~) rBfll TOA IImNTON THIi-Mt/)lIDUTH'A~'llIU, Y LlHLI twit.NJI,,"r<INlO ,w£.~~ 'ff~ .'\t.QHO $.AID lOUtMIlU" LINt: S, )""9'1IL~ 'II, A fflln-Am 0' !n,l·1 ri!.ttf T¢ TljN lRUJl m::lT ~ Ot:Gr;..'trI~O Mtf" 'A,.IH.!I,)1 ~---- -13 - .. ' 1111.408.06 t!}!R'N'JI'fCNH!I 01' A.CeEHA-WE. 'lbl0 is co CQt'f'.;'f)" tilut; t:'0 1ntereat in :red prol'IU:Ly r:CilvflYtill IJ~ thO wLtlau dtted 01' qrant fO ttJQ C:!.ty tif t'j),ln ,,.:t">f • C8,l!tQlnh l~h"'II:~r C!CY-. !& b't:'oOby olCC@I.e6 1.1)' t.11. \:mre!9tild officer 01' lluaftt 00 hfih1'l1r af:.t.~ (:;ounon O~ the. C!ty.of palo ;.t·~(li \\Ul'HUIIf+t, to .vthQf'h:V corafi!rm rrl :~.solUr:t.(ltt I'J! ills lllli-t3 C,,1,Illf,li ... ,"*ptetl en &m IS, 1'9'"1 aM tmfl: C!il'.l' or t'li.lo Aito, cons!Gta ';';0'" . nco.r4atio)\ taerao! ~y It,,. dldy ,,\1trurrl'lJd ()U1cQI:, 1\ppYoved pi '1::00 Porm . Abot. C:Uy A,';;.LIQn')WY ',,' COllN'l~ or BAWl." ¢L.AAA ; .' on&\ltv ... b· . aOI;), Iltl~u". ;;'j>skb lA, D4,... • A nnl'Jlry ~1C •. jn .lJd, for the State at C4U!orda, p{l.t'Slrn1bllr . • ~rW t-~jL , "Ifmt ~ov..-d to' n.u on 'Che b'tl)~s of SAt:i.Sr!'(; '(uty t¥.lrthult."(I to 'tI" t'he panonM wholiht· r.A1'l* 1~ • &ub3o-.:i bed to tb1t WiU:1n .t"ItXI~:W:lt W .w~:)w1411du.ul t~l 1DIt t;b.-t ~,,~;'~'. execu.ted LhQ ff&ilt$ an fl!~r .uc:~i:.d e4P4C1.t.Y~f o.td ~h. .. t by )-.!II/~r ttt9J\ature~! (11). ,!..bel l.n~p'\)fl\,fnt: the peiocn~. or thi!: ~t1ty 'Jt)Otl ~l! oC wh~v.h tlle llersonJ(l a<-"tad, "('QCu~\ toll. inl'f~rtnent. = l;41ntt:y ~'Dder l'Uft.'A!."V ur IEMUey UtUihr tM In.~ ¢ ,;:hO DrAlt& ot Oa.lifornla t;tmt tho fox.Ml:~g £)jt"aurt\J).ll 1a tnu. and cozrect. to1:TKISS ny h~d 01t4 orllcia}. .... 1 --:.'7 ~.' 5!.Olwfur: .. 'i4"_ .... "W=:::..-I~=-"=L-.;... -14- ( EXHIBIT "C" FORM OF TRIANGLE DEED [Attached] -J 5 - -_.--" .~ .... "-... ""---_ .. ........ ". '"" RECORDING REQUESTED BY' WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO AND MAlL TAX STATEMENTS TO; (Space Above for Recorder's Use) QUITCLAIM DEED The undersigned Grantor declares that this conveyance is exempt from the payment of Documentary Transfer Tax pursuant to Section 11922 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, as amended. FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby aclmowledged, the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a Californiamunicipai corporation ("Grantor"), does hereby quitclaim, remise, convey and release to -:-:---:::-__ ;;-::-_ {"Grantee"),lhat certain real property (the "Property") in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Additionally, Gr!llltor releases and conveys any rights uf the public in, to or over the Property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Grant Deed has been executed this ____ day of _____ " 2011. CITY OF PALO ALTO, a ClIIifurnia municipal corporation By: Nam-e-:~---------------- TItle: ______ --'-__ _ ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ·16 - · ......... _--_." .. ,".--_ ... -..... , .. EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description of Property That certain real property located in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, aad more particularly described as follows: _ -_ Real Property in the CitY of Palo Alio; County of Santa Clara, State of C!llifornia, bei,llga portion of Parcel No.2 as descri\1ed in the Fhial Order of Condemtllltion recorded April 18, 1962, in Book 5543 of Official Records, page 586, Santa Clara-County R~cords, and a -portion of Parcel No. I as described in the Final Order and Decree of Condemnation .recorded April 18; 1962, in Book 5543 of Offieial Records, page 591, Santa Clara County Records,deseribe_d as follows! -. -. --' '-- Beginnlrig -atthemost easterly eomer of said Parcel No. '2; Thence along the southeasterly lines of said Parcel No.2, the following two courses: 1. Thence South 38°23'10" West"68,00 feet; 2. Thence North 5 1°36'50" West, 2.57 feet; Thence North 08°39'58" East. 99.20 reel, to a point of cusp, being on the easterly line of sald Parcel No. I: Thence along said easterly Hne, southerly, along a tangent curVe to the left, having a radius of 36.00 feet, whose center bears South 81°20'02" East, through a central angle of 60°16'49" for an arc length of 37.87 feet, to tlle northeasterly line of Parcel No.2; Thenee along said northeasterly line. South 51·36'50" East, 20.49 feet, to the Point of Beginning. . 112141)3J)& • 17· __ Pl_IliDl ,.,.,...... W8tet Featue ~ (SO) i!Jll c.teh Ib:$in l,$0} "'.. Jnlet{SO) " -ISO) <10", 0t.4fd (SO) ,-, W;<~ (SO) ,-F!l)e.UBh(WT) ..--Pipe. SeNce (WT) ____ PPl, Main H}'dr.rIlt (WTj ""..-C1'I'Juin; ~1'I9'(Wi) n CoI.Iping, ~ (WT) .. ~~(WT) i1 F'MjI'JO,~twn Q ~1(Wt} ~ fHlter, htail'I ('Wi) ~ ~.$~O'(WT) " -lWll X !Itr! strudimII fIbdO, M'M (\¥'I) o Valle, Uair1 ('oVT) 'f' vfiIio.&, Air ReIi~(WT) o VR,6aNce(Wl) o VN. HyOr1nt (WT) " Vb. B1OwIJftwt} .1Ii!Ie Text (\NT) .--P~. ~(GS) :;: c.atra' Ff.ting (OS) -. COp (GOl $ Pipe. SeNe.e ~ I,'GS) ;! ~~er(GS) V ~ ReMer(GS) ~,...~ .. ' Cn:r;w.g C3:!;11lg [GS} ,.",-FI\!I'I,:;e(GS) Meter, Si!Jt\ice (GS) 3 Weter, Senk:eCtrb(GS) .,..-p~. Man (GS) 9~" TIIb1 (GS) o v ..... Ma,!t, (GS) o v8he,$~(m-} ;:" V~. tlrIp (GiS} ",.--Pi~ Late:af (WW) Fi!t~~(iNWr. .,..-Pipe. 1.fI:Ml PabAtto ()M1od(WYll) .-"'" ~. Main I'Iot City o.ned (W'W) ".~'-. CtonI('9 Casing ~ 0" ~. Meil'l (WW) ~'. ~. L.atai'al (WIN) y \tIQ'I S~ NtdQ,. MlSntNNJ F1~ Tee(WW) :011 FItting. Ph:g (:N'N; \to MIri'oIe. M.Sn (WYII} ~/ I.am~~ 'Main (rII'M \i A",1ing tiet, MIn rN'M i\ ~ r:.ap (WW) ~~ 'JlQ:rt~ ~ ~tahtI, III" (W'N) • PeinI 'Tap (YM) ~~Mo.!".iI\o$II'N"'#<~1"f"~fJ:.;,p~J'W:tQ>T!l'!.t;!~I'IoW*.;~".:ml:i!'!:IrNI'II!Qt!':I$-=~ l' i, Kelly Parcel. To Be Deeded To City o 1t\. to;" ,.r Palo ABo ~ Q 3! .. ~ o-iI = '1'WII:",,"WI fI--=<>fe<l ~Qf~II.#I>GIft ~ . ;. LEGEND (R) P.O.B. RADIAL BEARIHG POINT OF BEGIHNING 4p 80 I I 80 FT. SAN ANTONIO ROAD -----~-------------- CITY OF PALO ALTO --_···-CiTV-OF MouNiAlt~" V:::IE:,-W-L...--------j-~~--i 111100al<l,,,,d Rood 95131 "PALO CITY PARCEL """'.T 1 " , .-~.-.-.... -"~ ... ~~.'". ATTACHMENTD· r I, , . ----I " , ATTACHMENTE 1-1 'r-;l '~ ~ ~ ~ b u \ ~ fj ~ CI':l CI':l -< ~ ~ j I ~ ~ I '" , IJ) i ,. _i POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-45/C~D . Effective: September 2005 ART IN CITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS POLICY STATEMENT As a policy the City will ,budget one percent (1 %) of its construction costs to in~lude public art for City capital improvement projects that have a visual impact on the surrounding environment by altering a site through new construction or reconstruction. The Public Art Commission, through its staff liaison, will work with the appropriate City departments (which may include but are not limited to Planning, Public Works, Utilities, and Community Services) to identify and select the appropriate projects and artists. PROJECTS INCLUDED AS POTENTIAL SITES City capital improvement projects that have. a visual impact on the surrounding environment by significantly changing or altering a site with the. addition of a substantial new construction or reconstruction are potential sites for an art component. Examples of projects may include but are not limited to:. • New buildings such as libraries, public safety buildings, c~mmunity centers, parking garages and lots, transit stations, or performing art· center. • Parks and plazas • Gateways entering and existing at the City boundaries • Bridges, walls and tunnels PROJECTS EXCLUDED FROM CONSIDERATION AS POTENTIAL SITES City capital improvement projects with minor or no visual impact are excluded from consideration. Examples of excluded projects may include but are not limited to: • Any improvements, upgrades, and/or repai~ to existing systems such as irrigation, mechanical or electrical, and projects where the significant portion of the work is placed in underground locations, such as the Electric Utility undergrounding projects and the Water Utility, Gas Utility or Wastewater Utility rehabilitation and augmentation projects. . • Any installation of a new system such as irrigation, mechanical or electrical, and projects where the significant portion of the work is placed in underground locations, such as the electric undergrounding projects and water, gas or wastewater rehabilitation and augmentations projects: • Projects with no design or construction, such as studies associated with capital projects. • Customer connection projects associated with the utility meters and equipment for electric, water, and gas services to customers for which customers are charged for Page 1 of3 POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-45/CSD Effective: September 2005 the services. It is not the intention of the procedure to cause an increase in connection fees to customers. • Projects designed and constructed to protect and guard the security of City Utility facilities. • . Projects associated with software, hardware and other IT related products. • ADA compliance • Seismic retrofitting • Open space maintenance projects such as trail and erosion repair • Parking lot repair or reconstruction • Annual street maintenance and sidewalk replacement projects • Any project of a temporary nature such as construction fencing and signage, vehicle or equipment replacement. • Projects for which funding is provided through government, non-profit, or private grants are excluded unless identified for the specific and restricted purpose of the creation of artwork PROCEDURE FOR IDENTIFYING AND SELECTING PROJECTS A. The staff liaison to the Public Art Commission working with the Infrastructure . Management Committee and appropriate City departments will first identify projects that have a visual impact on the surrounding environment, significantly changing or altering a site with the addition of substantial new construction .. B. Identified projects that merit further consideration will be presented to the Public Art Commission. Consideration will include, but not be limited to: • Significant visual impact on the surrounding environment • Safety and security of the project and the public C. Projects selected to include public art and submitted during the regular budget process will include one percent (1 %) of the project construction budget for art. The project manager will determine the one percent budget derived from the construction estimates, excluding the contingency and design budget. The one percent (l %) will be augmented or decreased during the design phase with the determination of final cost estimates for construction. D. The Finance Committee will review and recommend to the City Council the financing of any public art element in any Infrastructure Management project costing over $20 million and all projects that may impact the General Fund. E. Every effort should be made to identify and select projects in a timely mantler. PROCEDURE FOR IDENTIFYING AND SELECTING ART WORKS Once the City Council has approved the Capital Improvement Project (CIP), the designer/architect is selected by the City's Project Team and purchasing staff. When the Page 20f3 POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-45/CSD Effective: September 2005 design work for the project has begun, the staff liaison to the Public Art Commission and the Project Managerwill develop the RFP in consultation with the selected designer/architect. The art budget will be derived from the 1 % of the construction budget of the project, excluding the contingency and design budget. The one percent (1%)'will be subject to change during the design phase with the determination of final cost estimates for construction. The RFP will include, but not be limited to: • Artist's time line beginning with the project design phase. • Any restrictions and requirements of the project as defined by staff and/or project manager. • Artist's responsibilities to the project in regards to time and involvement with the project manager and project team. A Selection of the artist will include input from the appropriate City department . representative as well as the Public Art Commission. Selection of the artistwill occur according to the procedures outlined in the City's Purchasing Manual. B. Artists' submittals will be reviewed by a selection panel composed of representatives of the Public Art Commission, staff liaison to the Public Art Commission, appropriate City department representative; project manager, and architect/designer. Considerations in selecting the proposed work of art will . include: • Safety and security • Maintenance and repair to the work of art • Appropriateness to the purpose of the site C. The Public Art Commission will recommend the selected artist and artist's proposal to the City. D. The selected artist will work with the appropriate department(s) and project manager as noted in the RFP and contract. E. Every effoli should be made to conduct the artist selection and contract process in a timely manner. . OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE The City of Palo Alto owns and maintains all art in City projects and has sole fiscal responsibility for the artworks and the maintenance of the works. This includes all artworks in utility projects, separate from the structures. NOTE: Questions and/or clarification of this policy should be directed to the Community Services Department. Page 3 of3 Environmental Review On August 2, 1999, the City Council approved a Negative Declaration for the shuttle project. Shuttle service will remain the same; the proposed change in operator would not result in any new significant environmental impact. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment A: Agreement with MV Transportation for Shuttle Services (PDF) • Attachment B: Amendment to Agreement No. 50114750 with Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PDF) Prepared By: Department Head: City Manager Approval: January 18, 2011 (10 # 1312) Ii£'""j IJ ~', J Ruchika Aggarwal, ' '" /. 'V ~ Curtis Williams, ~ ~~ v~s/t/~ James Keene, cV ger. r Page 5 of 5 ATTACHMENT A CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. Cl1138195 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MV TRANSPORTATION, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROVISION OF BUS SHUTTLE SERVICE This Agreement is entered into on this 28th day of February, 2011, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("CITY"), and MV TRANSPORTATION, INC., a California Corporation, located at 4620 Westamerica Drive, Fairfield, CA 94534, (PH) (707) 863-8980 ("CONTRACTOR"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to provide Bus Shuttle Service between the Palo Alto Caltrain Station and destinations throughout the City of Palo Alto ("Project") and desires to engage a CONTRACTOR to provide the shuttle service for this Project. ("Services"). B. CONTRACTOR has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONTRACTOR to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit "A", attached to and made a part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONTRACTOR shall perform the Services described in Exhibit "A" in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through February 28,2014, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit "B", attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONTRACTOR in a reasonably prompt and timely manner Professional Services Rev. June 2,2010 based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONTRACTOR. CITY's agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONTRACTOR SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONTRACTOR for performance of the Services described in Exhibit "A", including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Four Hundred Eighty Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Four Dollars ($480,744.00). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed. Four Hundred Eighty Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Four Dollars ($480,744.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit "C-l ", entitled "HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE," which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit "C". CONTRACTOR shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit "A". SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONTRACTOR shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONTRACTOR's billing rates (set forth in Exhibit "C-l "). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in . CONTRACTOR's payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONTRACTOR shall send all invoices to the City's project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONTRACTOR or under CONTRACTOR's supervision. CONTRACTOR represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONTRACTOR represents that it, its employees and subcontractor, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONTRACTOR under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONTRACTOR shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform 2 Professional Services Rev. June 2,2010 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICIT A TIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KA THy\Contra cts\C11138195-MV Transportation (Shunie)\Contract Cll138195 -MY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, Inc.doc Services under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall procure ~ll permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONTRACTOR shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives notice to CONTRACTOR. If CONTRACTOR has prepared plans and specifications or other design documents to construct the Project, CONTRACTOR shall be obligated to correct any and all errors, omissions br ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project. This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONTRACTOR shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of the CITY's stated construction budget, CONTRACTOR shall make recommendations to the CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONTRACTOR, and any person employed by or contracted with CONTRACTOR to furnish labor andlor materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONTRACTOR are material considerations for this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONTRACTOR's obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. DOption A: No Subcontractor: CONTRACTOR shall not subcontract any portion ofthe work to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee. ~Option B: Subcontracts Authorized: Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subcontractors may be used to complete the Services. The subcontractors authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are: Inspection Services, Inc. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for directing the work of any subcontractors and for any compensation due to subcontractors. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONTRACTOR shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subcontractor. CONTRACTOR shall change or add subcontractors only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. 3 Professional Services Rev. June 2; 2010 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATlONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHy\Contra cts\C11138195-MY Transportation (Shuttle)IContract Cll138195 -MY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, Inc.doc SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONTRACTOR will assign Joe Escobedo, Vice President, as Principal in Charge, to have supervisory responsibility for the perfonnance, progress, and execution of the Services and John Murphy as Project Manager, to represent CONTRACTOR during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project manager, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project manager and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY's project manager. CONTRACTOR, at CITY's request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. The City'S Project Manager is Ruchika Aggarwal, Planning and Community Environment Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, Telephone: (650) 617-3136. The Project Manager will be CONTRACTOR's point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONTRACTOR agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONTRACTOR waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONTRACTOR nor its contractors, ifany, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONTRACTOR makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONTRACTOR will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONTRACTOR's records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONTRACTOR further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONTRACTOR shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an "Indemnified Party") from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements ("Claims") resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or nonperformance by CONTRACTOR,its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 18 Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 S:\ASDIPURCH\SOLlCIT ATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHy\Contra cts\CII138195-MV Transportation (Shuttle)\Contract CI1I38195 -MV TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, Inc.doc 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONTRACTOR to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONTRACTOR's services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law .. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONTRACTOR, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONTRACTOR and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONTRACTOR retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution ofthis Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY's Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification, CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY's Purchasing Manager during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONTRACTOR's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONTRACTOR will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19 Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHy\Contra cts\CII138195-MV Transportation (Shuttie)\Contract Cll138195 -MV TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, Inc.doc 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONTRACTOR. Upon receipt of such notice, CONTRACTOR will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19.2. CONTRACTOR may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONTRACTOR shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONTRACTOR or its contractors, if any, or given to CONTRACTOR or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONTRACTOR will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONTRACTOR, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONTRACTOR only for that portion of CONTRACTOR's services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise ofhislher discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4,20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by 'certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONTRACTOR: Attention of John Murphy, Vice President at the address of CONTRACTOR recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONTRACTOR covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 20 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\K.A THY\Contra cts\C11138195-MV Transportation (Shuttle)\Contract Cll138195 -MV TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, Inc.doc conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONTRACTOR further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subcontractors, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONTRACTOR certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State ofCalifomia. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONTRACTOR is a "Consultant" as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONTRACTOR shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONTRACTOR certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONTRACTOR acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.5 ~O of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the City's Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at the City's Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONTRACTOR shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City's Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or compo sting waste. In particular, CONTRACTOR shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: • All printed materials provided by CONTRACTOR to City generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by the City's Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. • Goods purchased by CONTRACTOR on behalf of the City shall be purchased in accordance with the City's Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office. • Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the CONTRACTOR, at no additional cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. CONTRACTOR shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. . 21 Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 S:\ASDIPURCIDSOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHy\Contra cts\Cll138195-MV Transportation (Shuttle)\Contract Cll138195 -MV TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, Inc.doc SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION 24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys' fees paid to third parties. 25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and CONTRACTORs of the parties. 25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. 25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONTRACTOR, City shares with CONTRACTOR personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about a California resident ("Personal Information"), CONTRACTOR shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONTRACTOR shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing 22 Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICIT ATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KA THY\Contra cts\Cl 1 138l95-MV Transportation (Shuttle)\Contract Cll138195 -MV TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, Inc.doc purposes without City's express written consent. IN WI1NESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager (Required on contracts over $85,000) Purchasing Manager (Required on contracts over $25,000) Contracts Administrator (Required on contracts under $25,000) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney (Required on Contracts over $25,000) Attachments: EXHIBIT "A": ·SCOPE OF WORK MV TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. By: __________ _ Name: ---------------------Title: --------------------- EXHIBIT "B": EXHIBIT "C": SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE COMPENSATION EXHIBIT "C-l": EXHIBIT "D": SCHEDULE OF RATES INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 23 Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 S:\ASDIPURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHy\Contra cts\Cll138195-MV Transportation (Shuttle)\Contract Cl1l38195 -MV TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, Inc.doc I. BACKGROUND EXHIBIT" A" SCOPE OF SERVICES The City of Palo Alto (CITY) currently operates a Palo Alto Shuttle Program that provides shuttle bus service between the Palo Alto Caltrain station and city destinations and neighborhoods. The shuttle routes operate Monday through Friday, excluding some holidays. The Palo Alto shuttle program began in December 1999 to provide convenient local shuttle services to Palo Alto residents, employees and businesses. The program has been expanded and modified, but in Uninterrupted operation since that time. The shuttle routes connect residential neighborhoods, senior residences and services, middle schools, libraries, recreation facilities, community centers, shopping districts, the downtown and Caltrain. The shuttle is free of charge for all riders. II. OVERVIEW It is the intent of the CITY to award a contract for a three (3) year term, with a not to exceed CPI annual increase, to furnish Palo Alto shuttle services, in accordance with the specifications included herein. Contractor shall be responsible for providing all personnel and equipment needed for the service. The vehicles used to provide the shuttle service must comply with California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) mandates and policies that govern mass public transit and public shuttle services. Zero-emission, hybrid and alternative-fuelled vehicles are encouraged and preferred, but not required, for all or a portion of the service. Information herein and pertaining to the Palo Alto shuttle with regard to service hours, days of service, schedules, ridership, vehicle demands, routes and route capacity requirements are based on estimates and are subject to change. CITY staffhas developed this information for purposes of general planning and providing a service framework. However, CONTRACTOR shall maintain a reasonable level of flexibility that will allow for alterations to shuttle routes and schedules, as the demand for shuttle services and economic conditions affecting the transit agency change over the contract term. Crosstown shuttle route is as follows: • Crosstown Shuttle operates from the Downtown Palo Alto shuttle stop on Lytton Avenue at Alma Street via Lytton, Webster, Channing, Newell, North California, Middlefield Road, Lorna Verde Avenue, East Meadow, and Middlefield Road to the terminus at 455 E. Charleston Road and back in reverse direction to the Palo Alto Caltrain station. The Crosstown shuttle serves two middle schools (Jordan and JL Stanford,) four community facilities (Main Library, Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, Palo Alto Art Center), Downtown, Midtown and Charleston shopping districts, and several senior housing sites .. The shuttle carries 200-250 passengers daily. Total run time for the round trip is approximately 50 minutes. 24 Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICIT ATIONS\CURRENT BUYER·CM FOLDERS\KA THY\Contra cts\Cll138195~MV Transportation (Shuttle)IContract CI113819S -MV TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, Inc.doc · III. SCOPE OF WORK Contractor to operate the shuttle routes in accordance with the schedules and route design established by CITY. The schedules, hours of operation and routes may occasionally be altered by CITY. SECTION 1: PALO ALTO SHUTTLE SERVICE A. Service Hours and Days Palo Alto Shuttle Services under the contract are scheduled to begin on award of contract and operate approximately 254 days per calendar year. Shuttle Route Operating Hours Total Service HoursN ehicle Crosstown Shuttle 7:40 a.m. -5:20 p.m. 9.6667 B. Service Increases and Reductions CITY reserves the right to increase, reduce, or modify shuttle service as CITY may find necessary or appropriate in response to changes in ridership or CITY's annual budget. Any such additions, reductions or modifications shall be compensated at the hourly rates agreed upon by Contractor and CITY. CITY will give Contractor at least thirty (30) days notice for shuttle service changes such as adding, deleting or modifying service. Contra~tor will be expected to acquire any additional vehicles as well as hiring and training new personnel necessary for providing expanded Palo Alto Shuttle service. If Contractor requires additional time beyond 30-days to acquire the necessary vehicles and personriel, Contractor must contact CITY in writing within five (5) business days of receipt of CITY's written request for the expanded service. Contractor and CITY must then mutually agree on a new date for fulfilling CITY's request to add service, however, under no circumstances shall that date be more than 75 days from the date of City's written request for additional service. Contractor may elect to provide the requested service change in less than 30- days if they are able and CITY agrees. Contractor must maintain sufficient staffing of bus operators to operate all routes at all times. SECTION 2: DELIVERABLES A. Vehicle Requirements: Contractor shall provide a sufficient number of buses that seat a minimum of twenty-five (25), including at least one dedicated spare to be used as a stand-by vehicle. Contractor shall also have the capability to provide additional vehicles for any service expansion requested by CITY at a later date. All vehicles used on the Palo Alto shuttle route must first be approved and accepted by CITY before placed in service. Additionally, Contractor is responsible for ensuring that all Palo 25 Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHy\Contra cts\C11138195-MV Transportation (Shuttle)\Contract Cll138195 -MV TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, Inc.doc Alto Shuttle vehicles meet the applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) air emissions standards for public transit fleets at all times. At commencement of service, all vehicles used for Palo Alto Shuttle services shall be no more . than three (3) years old and have incurred fewer than 50,000 miles on engine and transmission, unless prior written approval from CITY has been received. CITY may inspect, accept and/or reject vehicles prior to commencement of services. All vehicles used at the start of the contract must adhere to the vehicle requirements contained in the next section, "Type of Vehicle." • Type of Vehicle: The following types of vehicles may be placed in service on the Palo Alto Shuttle routes during the contract term. a. An alternative fuel vehicle (CNG, LNG, propane, electric); b. A hybrid-electric vehicle; c. A post-1994 diesel vehicle with a CARB-certified particulate matter filter installed (this option requires the use of ultra-Iow-sulphur-fuel not exceeding 15 parts per million); or d. A post-1989 gasoline-fueled vehicle. Each Palo Alto Shuttle vehicle shall further meet the following criteria: a. Every vehicle in operation shall be accessible to disabled patrons and be equipped with proper wheelchair restraints, complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act regulations. b. Vehicle signage and logos, provided by Contractor, shall be displayed as directed by CITY; any other signage requires CITY approval. c. Each vehicle shall be equipped with safety equipment that meets California Highway Patrol standards. d. Each vehicle shall be equipped with a working communications system linking the vehicle with its operating facility. The communications system must be operable in all locations on the routes specified. Two-way communications must be possible at all times during all service hours. e. Each vehicle providing Palo Alto Shuttle service shall have fully functioning and properly maintained heating and air-conditioning. f. Each vehicle shall have stanchions and overhead grab rails for standing passengers. g. Each vehicle shall have the potential to be equipped with a bicycle rack. • Vehicle Licensing: The Contractor shall keep all vehicles fully licensed and inspected as required by state and local government and regulatory agencies. The Contractor shall further comply with all federal, state and local vehicle registration, permitting, operating, emissions and regulatory requirements, restrictions and laws. • Vehicle Safetyllnspections: 26 Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATlONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHy\Contra cts\CII138195-MV Transportation (Shuttle)'Contract Cll138195 -MV TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, Inc.doc The vehicles shall comply with all applicable Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The Contractor shall perform and document daily safety inspections of vehicles prior to beginning each day's service. The "pre" and "post" operation inspections shall, at a minimum, comply with California Code of Regulations, Title 13 and may be subj ect to approval by CITY. Vehicles shall be repaired or replaced within 30 minutes of breakdown. Vehicles failing the daily inspectionshall not be used in service until the failure and its cause(s) are corrected. All replaced vehicles must display the proper signage as directed by CITY. CITY reserves the right but has no obligation to ensure that vehicles are being maintained properly and are in safe operating condition. CITY may inspect vehicles at any time and may bar a vehicle from service, if it determines that the safety or operation of the vehicle is impaired, until the problem(s) are corrected. CITY may also bar a vehicle from service, if it fails to comply with the maintenance, operating and emissions standards dictated by federal, state and local mandates. Contractor must also ensure that the maintenance/repair facility and equipment used for maintenance and repair of all Palo Alto Shuttle vehicles are in compliance with all federal, state and local laws. CITY reserves the right to inspect all facilities and equipment used for Palo Alto Shuttle maintenance and repair activities and require that they be replaced or improved to ensure operational efficiency of the shuttle vehicles and the safety of employees and passengers. Additionally, the Contractor shall be in receipt of a current CHP Terminal Inspection Report at all times. • Vehicle Maintenance: The Contractor, at its expense, shall maintain all vehicles used for the shuttle service, at a minimum, in accordance with manufacturer's specifications and/or in accordance with the State's vehicle maintenance standards. Where duplicate standards/regulations exist, the Contractor shall be required to maintain vehicles in accordance with the stricter standards .. Vehicles shall be cleaned and maintained as stated in the section, Performance Standards and Liquidated Damages Charges. Maintenance records shall be kept for all vehicles and shall be available for CITY inspection during normal office hours (8 a.m. to 5 p.m.). Contractor shall provide a maintenance plan describing how and where vehicles will be maintained and any maintenance system or procedures that will be utilized. All fuels, lubricants, parts, materials, etc., required for the performance of the service, shall be supplied by the Contractor at Contractor's expense and maybe subject to specification and approval by CITY. • Air Emissions: The vehicles used for provision of Palo Alto Shuttle services must not emit particulate matter (PM), Nitrous Oxide (NOx) and other air pollutants, indicated by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), in amounts that exceed the maximum level(s) mandated by them. (See "Type of Vehicle" paragraph in this 27 Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHy\Contra cts\Cll138195-MV Transportation (Shuttle)\Contract Cl1138195 -MVTRANSPORTATION SERVICES, Inc.doc section for vehicle details.) Should Contractor choo~e to use diesel-powered vehicles, as approved by CARB and the BAAQMD only, Contractor must use ultra-low-sulphur diesel fuel that does not exceed fifteen parts per million. Unless otherwise instructed, all Palo Alto Shuttle operators shall turn off the vehicle's engine if the idle time will exceed five minutes. • Wheelchair Lifts: . Contractor shall maintain all wheelchair lifts and safety devices in full operating condition and ensure that wheelchair lifts be cycled twice daily, once prior to beginning the service day, and once again at the end of the service day. During all preventative maintenance inspections, the·lift shall be checked to ensure it is capable of lifting 600 pounds. Any required maintenance or repair work shall be performed before a vehicle can be put into service. • Spare Vehicles: The Contractor shall have at its disposal a sufficient number of spare vehicles available to meet service requirements, including one dedicated spare vehicle as a stand-by vehicle. • Vehicle Damage: All cosmetic damage to vehicles shall be repaired in a high quality manner and in an expeditious manner. Damaged vehicles shall immediately be removed from service until such repairs are completed and replaced with another vehicle that meets the vehicle and signage requirements indicated in the service contract. • Vehicle Signage: Vehicles shall have a paint and decal scheme as directed by CITY. Vehicles shall display signage as directed and approved by CITY, when providing Palo Alto Shuttle services. The Contractor shall provide the following at its sole expense: 1) A head-sign stating "FREE SHUTTLE"; 2) A display of the CITY logo and paint/decal scheme on the rear and sides of the vehicle; 3) side-mounted placards that identify the specific route served; 4) other special logos on the side-mounted placards or on other locations as specified, and; 5) other signage, decals, or paint schemes as specified by CITY. CITY will only provide specifications and/or artwork for such signage, decals, logos, and paint schemes. Contractor shall then procure vehicle signage and decals, at Contractor's sole cost, after receiving direction and approval from CITY. Signs shall be maintained in prime condition throughout the contract period. CITY shall have the right to require the Contractor, at any time during the contract period and at Contractor's sole expense, to replace any signage and/or logos that are tom, faded, frayed along the edges, obsolete, or otherwise deemed unacceptable by CITY for professional display. 28 Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICIT A TIONS\CURRENT BUYER -CM FOLDERS\KA THY\Contra cts\Cl 1 138195-MV Transportation (Shuttle)\Contract C1ll38195 -MV TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, Inc.doc Contractor must meet all Federal, State and local regulations regarding vehicle identification and signage. All marked vehicles are subject to approval by CITY before being placed in service. Furthermore, all signage and logos associated with the Palo Alto Shuttle service must be removed or completely covered, should any of the designated shuttle vehicles be used to perform other contracted services that are unrelated to the Palo Alto Shuttle service. • On Board Schedule Rack: Contractor shall supply and install CITY approved schedule rack on board any vehicle providing shuttle service that is contracted by CITY. Schedules and other promotional literature shall be provided by CITY. • On Board Advertising: Any advertising on either the interior or exterior of the shuttle vehicles, while in service, is strictly prohibited. Any advertising already on vehicles must be removed prior to entering into CITY Service. However, CITY reserves the right to review this policy at a later date and implement on-board advertising. C. Personnel Requirements: CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for the provision and the satisfactory work performance of all its employees, including subcontracted personnel, contributing to the Palo Alto Shuttle service. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for payment of all employee and/or subcontractor wages and benefits. Without any additional expense to CITY, the Contractor shall comply with the requirements of employee liability, equal employment, Worker's Compensation, unemployment insurance, Social Security, income tax and all other applicable laws. • Removal of Contract Personnel: CITY reserves the right to demand the removal of any personnel, furnished by the Contractor, from providing shuttle services for reasonable cause. The Contractor shall not, without prior written notice to CITY, remove or re-assign the key management personnel identified in its proposal, (i.e. Project Manager) at any time, prior to or after execution of the Agreement. CITY has the right to approve of any proposed substitute or replacement of such key management r' personnel. • Use of Subc~ntractors: The Contractor shall obtain CITY's written consent before entering into any subcontract affecting the Palo Alto Shuttle service. Before implementation of the service contract, Contractor shall identify any potential subcontractors for this project and their role in the provision of service. 29 Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHy\Contra cts\CI 1 138195-MV Transportation (Shuttle)\Contract CII138195 -MY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, Inc.doc • Project Manager: Contractor shall designate a Project Manager, specifically assigned to the provision of Palo Alto Shuttle service, who shall oversee the day-to-day operation of the service, as well as serve as a daily point of contact. The Project Manager shall fulfill reporting requirements, address service and operator issues, respond to complaints, and ensure that daily service requirements are met. • Route Supervisor: Contractor shall designate a Route Supervisor for coordinating, monitoring and overseeing the day-to-day operations of shuttle service in the field. The Route Supervisor shall be responsible for communicating special instructions from CITY to all shuttle vehicle operators and ensuring that the instructions are fulfilled accordingly. The Route Supervisor duty may be fulfilled by a Lead Operator. CITY staff, at their discretion, may supervise the Palo Alto Shuttle operations. Contractor shall inform all shuttle drivers that operational instructions from CITY staff must be fully executed. CITY staff shall notify Contractor of any special instructions provided to the shuttle operators which may impact service hours. • Drivers: The Contractor shall supply a sufficient number of properly qualified personnel to operate the vehicles and to provide the Services required. All drivers furnished by Contractor for the Services shall comply with the following: 1. Appearance':'-Each of the Contractor's drivers shall, at all times while on duty, in the performance of the services, be neatly, professionally and cleanly dressed in a required uniform, including identification badge. 11. Driver and Passenger Conduct Standards: 1. Drivers shall maintain a courteous and cooperative attitude in their contact with the public. 2. Drivers shall only provideac.curate and correct information to customers. Project Manager is responsible for providing personnel with the most updated and accurate information regarding the Palo Alto Shuttle service on a daily basis or . more frequent. 3. Each driver shall carry a timepiece accurate to within one minute, reset to the exact time prior to beginning any CITY Service. 4. Drivers and passengers shall not smoke on board or near the shuttle vehicles. 5. There shall be no operation of audio devices by drivers or passengers, with the exception that headphone systems are allowed to be played by passengers. 6. Drivers shall not use communication devices of any kind, including cellular telephones or bluetooth headsets, for any purpose while driving or attending to passengerS. These devices shall only be used while the driver is stopped at a designated bus stop or other safe location. 30 Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 S:\ASD\PURCH\sOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHY\Contra cts\CII138195-MV Transportation (Shuttle)\Contract CII138195 -MY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, Inc.doc 7. Shoes and shirts shall be required of all passengers. 8. No eating or drinking shall be allowed on board the vehicles. Drivers shall enforce these conduct standards, in order to maintain a comfortable and safe environment for all Palo Alto Shuttle patrons. 111. Language Proficiency - A level of proficiency in the English language, sufficient for speaking effectively and clearly with passengers and for preparing required written logs and reports, is required. CITY has the right to request the Contractor to remove any personnel from the Palo Alto Shuttle project that cannot demonstrate an acceptable level of English proficiency. IV. Licensing and Other Requirements 1. Contractor shall comply with the Immigration Reform and Control Act (lRCA), which requires all employers to verify the authorization of its employees to /work in the United States. It is illegal to knowingly hire, recruit or refer an . unauthorized alien to work in the lJ.S. 2. All drivers shall be properly licensed in the State of California to provide this type of service. A written record from the State Department of Motor Vehicles shall be submitted to CITY semi-annually for each driver, beginning at the start of the contract period, and then kept on file. Drivers shall possess a Class "B" Drivers License, with applicable endorsements mandated by the State of California for the type of vehicle operated, All drivers shall comply with all relevant State of California codes and standards. v. Future Standards -At such time as they may be implemented, drivers shall comply with any future standards, which may be required of drivers operating the Services. VI. Distribution of Promotional Materials and Surveys -Upon CITY's request, drivers shall be required to hand out CITY promotional materials or surveys to passengers. CITY shall supply all such materials. . Vll. Criminal Conviction Disclosure -Contractor shall, prior to assignment of any driver to operate a vehicle in CITY Service, require the driver to complete a questionnaire form approved by CITY disclosing the driver's criminal conviction record, ifany. All completed questionnaires must be delivered to CITY for verification. If the completed form discloses no convictions that would bar the driver from CITY service, the driver may be assigned to duties under the Agreement, subject to CITY's verification of the record. Failure to disclose material information or the significant misstatement of the driver's record shall disqualify the driver from operating a vehicle under the Agreement. In addition, Contractor shall immediately report to CITY any drivers who are arrested for public offenses while providing shuttle services, including being cited for moving traffic violations, and immediately take all reasonable steps to ensure passenger and vehicle safety in the event of such a violation. 31 Professional Services Rev June 2, 201 0 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLIClTATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHy\Contra cts\CII138195-MV Transportation (Shuttle)\Contract CII138195 -MV TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, Inc.doc Vlll. Training -All drivers shall be required to receive, and have successfully completed, the minimum current drivers training required by the California Department of Motor Vehicles for the type of vehicle operated. All costs associated with driver training shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. The Contractor is responsible for ensuring that each driver is properly acquainted with the requirements of the program, hislher responsibilities as a driver, and assisting passengers with special needs and disabilities. IX. Logs/Trip Sheets -Drivers shall be required to maintain vehicle logs or trip sheets for each day of service, to include passenger counts and incident reports. See Records and Reports Requirements section for additional requirements. x. Driver Suitability Requirements - A driver may be disqualified from operating a vehicle under this Agreement for criminal misconduct if he/she has been convicted of one or more of the following offenses: 1., Operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, amphetamines or narcotic drugs, formulations of amphetamines or derivatives of narcotic drugs. 2. A crime involving the transportation, possession, sale or possession for sale, or unlawful use of amphetamines, narcotic drugs, formulations of amphetamines or derivatives of narcotic drugs. 3. A felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. 4. A felony or serious misdemeanor involving violence. 5. Leaving the scene of a traffic accident, which resulted in personal injury or death. 6. A felony involving the use of motor vehicle. Xl. Sex Offenses - A driver shall be disqualified from operating a vehicle for conduct resulting in the following: 1. Any person determined to be a mentally disordered 'sex offender under th~ provisions of Article I (commencing with Section 6300) of Chapter 2, Part 2, division 6 of the Welfare arid Institutions Code or under similar provisions of law of any other state. 2. Any person required to register as a sex offender under the provisions of Section 290 of the Penal Code or under similar provisions of law of any other state. Xu. Driving Offenses - A driver shall be disqualified from providing shuttle service, if any of the following circumstances exist: 1. Conviction of more than three (3) moving violations within the last three years. 2. Driver's license suspended or revoked license may not participate. X111. Drug/Alcohol Abuse--In accordance with Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements, the Contractor shall, at its own expense, assure that all drivers, mechanics and other safety sensitive personnel performing Services are free from alcohol misuse and/or the abuse of drugs; including amphetamines, opiates, cocaine, PCP, marijuana and the misuse/abuse of prescription drugs, formulations of amphetamines or derivatives of narcotic drugs, while on the job and/or performing safety sensitive duties. 32 Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHy\Contra cts\Cll138195-MV Transportation (Shuttle)\Contract Cll138195 -MV TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, Inc.doc The Contractor will require its prospective safety sensitive employees who may be assigned to perform work under this contract undergo pre-employment drug testing. Safety sensitive employees shall also be subject to post-accident testing, probable cause testing, and random testing as required by applicable law. Such drug and alcohol tests will comply with all applicable regulations. If an employee fails a random, post-accident, or probable cause test, the Contractor shall inform the CITY's Project Manager of the failure and of the actions taken within 24-hours of the event. XIV. Usage of Vehicles --It is prohibited for drivers to allow friends, family or relatives to ride aboard shuttles unless they are actually using the service to get to a Palo Alto Shuttle destination. • Office Staff: The Contractor shall supply a sufficient number of employees to staff the contractor's office at all required times and perform all necessary tasks associated with the service, including responding to calls for information or assistance from the public or city staff. The Contractor shall be responsible for training these employees and ensuring that all program policies and procedures are understood and enforced. During all times when vehicles are on the road for this program, the Contractor shall staff the office with at least one person trained to perform radio dispatching functions, monitor the telephone and handle any issues associated with CITY Service. D. Records and Reports Requirements: • Routine Reports: Contractor shall compile, prepare and furnish to CITY the following records and reports in a format approved by CITY. These records and reports shall be submitted on a monthly basis with billing information. CITY reserves the right to withhold payment if the required reports are not included with the billing information by the due date established by CITY at the onset of the contract. 1. Billing Information (in CITY-specified format) 11. Actual/Scheduled number of service operating hours and miles of each route and vehicle 111. Level of usage by disabled passengers IV. Complete explanation of all accidents, incidents, complaints and unusual events v. Driver's daily passenger logs, which must include daily passenger counts (on/off per stop/route, totals) Other Reports that shall be provided by Contractor as required by this Agreement include the following: 1. Maintenance Records -vehicle number, dates, types of service, etc., daily vehicle availability, summary of vehicle road failures (as requested) 11. State Department of Motor Vehicles record of each driver (semi-annually) 111. California Highway Patrol (CHP) Pull-Notice System Reports (as required) 33 Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 S:\ASDIPURCH\SOLICITATIONSICURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHy\Contra ctsICll138195-MV Transportation (Shuttle)\Contract Cll138195 -MV TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, Inc.doc IV. California Highway Patrol (CHP) Tenninal Inspection Report v. Substance Abuse Control Program reports (as required) VI. Vehicle reports verifying compliance with CARB and the BAAQMD (as requested) VB. Passenger Surveys provided by CITY (as requested) Vlll. Report on Vehicle Compliance with the CARB to include engine type, vehicle model and year, odometer readings, fuel used, and vehicle size for each shuttle used' to provide Palo Alto Shuttle services (prior to start of service and annually thereafter, or as requested) • Records Requirements: The Contractor shall be responsible for properly maintaining separate records and summaries for this Service as deemed necessary by CITY and/or for CITY's submission to federal and/or state agencies. Contractor shall comply with all federal, state and local mandates regarding record retention. . . • Maintenance and Ownership of Records: All reports, records, and data relating to this Agreement shall be the property of CITY subject to the requirements of Section 14 of the contract. D. Miscellaneous Requirements: • Fares: This Palo Alto Shuttle service shall be free of charge to all passengers. No fares shall be collected. • Gratuities: The Contractor and its employees and or subcontractors are prohibited from soliciting or accepting any tips or gifts of any kind while operating a vehicle in CITY Service. • Meetings: CITY plans to hold meetings on an as-needed basis for the purpose of discussing service problems and proposed solutions and to maintain open and frequent communications. Unless otherwise notified, the Contractor's Project Manager shall attend all meetings. • Facilities: The Contractor shall provide suitable maintenance and storage facilities with which to operate the Service. All furnishings, equipment and supplies are the responsibility of the Contractor. ' • SafetylEmergency Preparedness/Security Requirements: 34 Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 S:\ASD\PURCH\sOUCITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHy\Contra cts\CI I I38-l95-MV Transportation (Shuttle)\Contract CllI38195 -MV TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, Inc.doc The Contractor shall provide for the safety of passengers by any and all reasonable means, including but not limited to: driver training, retraining, and monitoring; vehicle maintenance; maintaining order in and around vehicles; providing safety and emergency procedures. Each vehicle shall be equipped with a fire extinguisher and appropriate first-aid kit furnished by Contractor. E. Performance Standards and Liquated Damage Charges: With this award of the Palo Alto Shuttle service contract, it is agreed upon by both parties that strict adherence to the schedule of operations in rendering the public service, called for by these specifications, is of the essence. The Contractor shall abide by the performance standards stated herein and shall be liable for the stated liquidated damage charges in the event of their breech. Liquidated damage charges may be waived at the discretion of CITY. Any liquidated damage charges imposed or other assessments may be deducted from Contractor's invoice for services. In . addition to any liquidated damage remedy, CITY reserves the right to terminate the Agreement for any reasonable cause, especially for failure to maintain performance standards. Specific performance standards and the assessments that will be imposed for non-performance are listed below. • On-Time Performance: Standard: Contractor shall be on time for all trips to ensure a smooth and efficient transfer of passengers between the Palo Alto trains and the Palo Alto Shuttles. Contractor shall have all Palo Alto Shuttles staged and ready to receive passengers at least ten (10) minutes before start of each service day. 1. Non-performance: Missing a trip entirely is considered as not providing the required service. CITY shall not pay for missed trips. A $100.00 penalty per trip that was missed entirely shall be assessed. 2. Non-'performance: Departing a shuttle terminus stop ten (1 0) or more minutes later than the scheduled departure time published in the time guide. Penalty: $100.00 shall be assessed for each late departure. 3. Non-performance: Departing a shuttle terminus stop before the scheduled pick-up time at that location. Penalty: $100.00 shall be assessed for each early departure. • Vehicle Maintenance: Contractor shall maintain vehicle equipment in proper operating condition. Non-performance: Schedules that operate using a vehicle with a cracked windshield, inoperative safety devices, inoperative heater/air conditioner, illegal tire tread, or other significant defects are unacceptable. Penalty: $250.00 per day shall be assessed. • Safety Standard: Contractor shall maintain all vehicles used in CITY Service in compliance with all applicable federal and state safety standards. 35 Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 S:\ASDIPURCH\SOLICITATIONSICURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERSIKATHY\Contra ctslCl 1 138195-MV Transportation (Shuttle)IContract Cll138195 -MY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, 1nc.doc Non-performance: In the case that the vehicle operating authority falls under the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and if the CPUC revokes the permits to operate the vehicles in this Service, as a result of unsatisfactory inspection ratings by the CHP, they shall not operate. Penalty: $500.00 per vehicle per day. Penalty shall be assessed until a satisfactory inspection report is obtained. • Vehicle Appearance: Contractor shall maintain the upkeep and cleanliness of all vehicles. 1. . At a minimum, interiors shall be swept"mopped, and wiped down daily, including the driver and dash areas. 11. At a minimum, exteriors shall be washed twice weekly with more frequent washings as required during periods of rainy weather, including polishing of windshields and cleaning of wheels. 111. At a minimum, all vehicles shall be completely detailed twice a month including, but not limited to, the driver's area, dashboard, windows, ceiling, walls, floors and seats. Non-performance: A vehicle that has not,been cleaned as described above. Penaity: $100.00 per day will be assessed. • Vehicle Signage: Contractor shall ensure that the vehicle displays the required signage appropriately on the vehicle. 1. Non-performance: Vehicles that operate without the proper signage. Penalty: $100 per day without the proper signage will be assessed. 2. Non-performance: Vehicles that operate with improperly placed signage. Penalty: $100 per day with the improperly placed signage. 3. Non-performance: Vehicles that operate service unrelated to the Palo Alto Shuttle Program while displaying signage and/or logos that reference' the Palo Alto Shuttle services. Penalty: $100 will be assessed per vehicle per incident. • Vehicles -Disabled Accessibility: Each vehicle shall be accessible to disabled persons through wheelchair lifts, ramps or other approved method. Non-performance: Schedules that operate without a working wheelchair lift shall be considered as having not operated. CITY shall not pay for missed trips. Penalty: $250.00 per vehicle trip will be assessed. • Vehicles -Emissions Compliance: All vehicles used to provide Palo Alto Shuttle service shall comply with the vehicle type, fuel requirements, and emissions standards required by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) at all times. 36 Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHy\Contra cts\CII138195-MV Transportation (Shuttie)\Contract CII138195 -MV TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, ID.c.doc 1. Non-performance: The use of non-compliant vehicles for Palo Alto Shuttle service any time during the contract period will result in penalties to the Contractor. Penalty: $500 per day that the non-compliant vehicle operates. • Report Submissions: Contractor must submit all reports required by CITY, as listed in Section C of the Scope of Work, by the date established by CITY at the onset of the contract. 1. Non-performance: Submitting required reports beyond the deadline for submission. Penalty: Withholding payments of Contractor's monthly invoices until reports are received by CITY. 2. Non-performance: Deliberately reporting falsified information on a report submItted to CITY. Penalty: Withholding payments of Contractor's monthly invoices until accurate information is received by CITY. 37 Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICIT ATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHy\Contra cts\Cll138195-MV Transportation (Shuttie)\Contract Cl1l38195 -MV TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, Inc.doc EXHIBITB SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE It is agreed upon by both parties that strict adherence to the schedule of operations in rendering the public service, called for by these specifications, is of the essence. Contractor shall be on time for all trips to ensure a smooth and efficient transfer of passengers between the Palo Alto trains and the Palo Alto Shuttles. Contractor shall have all Palo Alto Shuttles staged and ready to receive passengers at least ten (10) minutes before start of each service day. A. Service Hours and Days Palo Alto Shuttle Services under the contract are scheduled to begin on award of contract and shall operate Monday through Friday with the exception of these holidays -New Years Day, Presidents Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Thursday and Friday, and Christmas Day, approximately 254 days per calendar year. Shuttle Route Operating Hours Crosstown Shuttle 7:40 a.m. -5:20 p.m. 38 Total Service HoursNehicle 9.6667 Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHy\Contra cts\CII138195-MY Transportation (Shuttle)\Contract C11138195 -MY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, Inc.doc Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 EXHIBIT "C" COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONTRACTOR for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the CITY, as described in Exhibit A, Scope of Services, an amount not to exceed Vehicle Projected Total Other Mise Contingency Yearly Cost Service Annual Annual Cost Costs(GPS, Rate per Service for Shuttle Bus Wrap, etc. Hour Hours Services $60.18 2425 $145,936.00 $2,860.00 $11,500.00 $160,296.00 $57.02 2815 $160,511.00 $360.00 $160,871.00 $56.56 2815 $159,217.00 $360.00 $159,577.00 TOTAL COST FOR 3 YEAR $480,744.00 AGREEMENT 39 Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLlCIT ATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KATHy\Contra cts\CI1138195-MY Transportation (Shuttle)\Contract CII138195 -MY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, Inc. doc EXHIBIT "C-l" SCHEDULE OF RATES POSITION TITLE HOURLY RATE Maintenance Technician $20.63 Vehicle Service Worker $9.00 40 Professional Ser;vices Rev June 2, 2010 S\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KA THY\Contra cts\Cll138195-MV Transportation (Shuttle)\Contract Cl1138195 -MVTRANSPORTATION SERVICES, Inc.doc EXHIBIT "D" INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OFTHE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINT AlN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WIlli AM BEST'S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUmORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY'S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: MINIMUM LIMITS REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT EACH YES YES YES YES NO YES OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE WORKER'S COMPENSATION STATUTORY EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY STATUTORY BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INmRY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 LIABILITY COMBINED. BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 -EACH PERSON $1,000,000 $1,000,000 -EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 BODILY INmRY AND PROPERTY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 DAMAGE, COMBINED PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBT AlN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULT ANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. L INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRlTTEN THIRTY DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY'S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO "ADDITIONAL INSUREDS" A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY 41 Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 S:\ASD\PURCHISOLICIT ATIONSICURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\KA THY\Contra ctsICII138195-MV Transportation (Shuttle)IContract Cl1138195 -MY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, Inc.doc THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMTIJM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATEOF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 42 Professional Services Rev June 2,2010 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICIT ATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOWERS\KATHy\Contra cts\C11138195-MY Transportation (Shuttle)\Contract Cll138195 -MY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, Inc.doc • ATTACHMENT B AMENDMENT NO. 17 TO AGREEMENT NO. SOl14750 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD This Amendment No. 17 to Agreement No. S0114750 ("Contract") is entered into January 19, 2011, by and between the CITY. OF PALO ALTO,a ckarter city and a municipal corporation of the State of California ("EMPLOYER"), and PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD, a JOINT POWERS AGENCY ("JPB"), located at 12501 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA 94070 ("JPB"). R E CIT A L S: WHEREAS, the Agreement was entered into between the parties for the provision of Regular Shuttle Services, Expanded Shuttle Services and Midday Shuttle Service; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement to terminate the provision of the Midday and Expanded Shuttle Service; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 7 is hereby added to the to read as follows: 7. TERMINATION OF MIDDAY AND EXPANDED SHUTTLE SERVICE Effective February 28, 2011, "JPB" shall cease to provide the Midday and Expanded Bus Service as described in Section 1 of the Agreement for the Crosstown Shuttle Service. Last day of these Services shall be Februpry 25, 2011. Employer's obligation to pay all costs and expenses pertaining to the provision of Midday and Expanded Service shall cease with termination of that Service. Regular shuttle service to the Embarcadero Shuttle, and Employer's obligation to pay for such Service, shall continue unaffected as Bstablished in the Agreement. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Agreement, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. 1 110110 8m 010 CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVED: City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney 2 110110 sm 010 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD By: ----------------------------- Name: --------------------------~ Title: -------------------------- .J- .i TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: JANUARY 18,2011 REPORT TYPE: Action DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CMR: 101:11 SUBJECT: Adoption of the Energy Risk Management Policy. This is an action item and Council action is required. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Palo Alto's Risk Management Policy serves as the overriding document for the management, monitoring and hedging of risks associated with commodity transactions. In line with the Policy requirement to submit the Policy to City Council for approval each year, staff requests Council to approve these Policies. The Utilities Advisory Commission has approved the proposed 2011 Energy Risk Management Policy. BACKGROUND The purpose of this repon is to request that the City Council approve the Risk Management Policies. The City's Energy Risk Management Policy requires that staff update the Policies annually. The Council last approved the Policy on September 14,2009 (CMR 359:09). 'Ibe 2009 Risk Management Policies were prepared by staff to take into account new regulatory requirements, as well as updated risk management best practices. Before submitting to Council, the Risk Management Policies were reviewed internally by the Utilities Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee, and by the Utilities Advisory Commission (Attachment B). DISCUSSION Electricity and gas prices are the most volatile commodities, and purchasing these carries inherent risks. The Risk Management Policy is the overarchillg document ibl' the management of the City's risks associated with purehasing of electric and gas commodities. In addition to the Poliey, energy risk management is managed by two increasingly dctailed sets of documents: the Risk Management Guidelines and Risk Management Procedures. The Guidelines are prepal'ed by ASD staff and approved by the Utilities Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee (UROCC). The Risk Management Procedures are prepared by the Front, Middle and Back CMR:10l:ll . Page 1 of2 Offices, approved by the Utilities and Administrative Services Directors, and provided to the UROCC. The City's risk management policies codify for staff policies designed to minimize risks, define segregation of duties, provide organizational structure for risk controls, set acceptable risk parameters and limits, ensure transparent and appropriate purchasing procedures, and protect the City from excessive risk exposure. In addition the policy has a eontliet of interest section. The Policy clearly delineates that all contract transactions, whether carried out under the master agreements or not, must be fulJy in compliance with the Municipal Code. Transactions with Northern California Power Agency, including scheduling, arc covered under a separate Member Services Agreement. The 2009 Policy was substantively updated to take into account changes in regulation and management stl1lcture within the City. No significant changes have occurred in the past year with regard to best practices, regulatory requirements or transaction products or processes. Therefore, no changes have been made to the Policy in 20 II. Staff recommends that COlmcil approve the Policy. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Energy Risk Management Policy Attachment B: Draft Minutes of Utilities Advisory Commission, December 1,2010 PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL: CITY MANAGER APPRO V AI.: ~i~~ .c.. c: JAMES KEENE . \ LV" City Manager CMR:lOl:ll Page 2 of2 City of Palo Alto Energy Risk Mallagement Policy January 17,2011 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTI LITI ES City of Palo Alto Energy Risk Management Policy Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1 II. APPLICABILITY ............................................................................................................................................ 1 III. ENERGY RISK MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY ...................................................................................... 2 IV. ENERGY RISK MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................... 2 1. RETAIL RATE STABILITY ................................................................................................................................. 2 2. PRESERVE A SUPPLY COST ADVANTAGE ......................................................................................................... 3 3. EFFICIENT AND COST EFFECTIVE BUSINESS PROCESSES .................................................................................. 3 V. OVERSIGHT BODIES .................................................................................................................................... 3 1. ClTYCOUNCIL ................................................................................................................................................. 3 2. UTILlTIESADVISORY COMMISSION ................................................................................................................. 3 3. (lTY MANAGER ............................................................................................................................................... 4 4. UTILITIES RlSK OVERSIGHT AND COORDINATING COMMITTEE ....................................................................... 4 5. MANAGEMENT OVERSIGllT ............................................................................................................................. 4 a. Front Office -Planning and Procurement -.............................................................................................. 4 b. Middl" QlJice -Risk ManagemeJl! Comrols and Reporting ....................................................................... j c. Back 0fficlil-Settlement and Recording" .. " .. " .... ,.,,,., .............. ,, .... ,., ..... , ................... , ................... ., .... , .. ,.6 VI. SCOPE ............................................................................................................................................................... 6 VII+ TRANSACTINt, POLICY .#H •••••• HH ......... HH .......... H ••• HH~~.+ ••• + ••• + ....... +HU .... H ........ u ............................... n ....... 6 I. ANTI-SPECULATION ......................................................................................................................................... 7 2. MAXIMUM TRANSACTION TERM ...................................................................................................................... 7 3. PoRTFOLIO PERFORMANCE AND VALUE REPoRTING ....................................................................................... 7 4. COMPETITIVE PROCESS .................................................................................................................................... 7 VIII. COUNTERPARTYCREDITPOLICY .......................................................................................................... 7 IX. COMMODITY PIUCING POLICY ............................................................................................................... 8 X. RISK MANAGEMENT ImpOI{TING POLiCy .......................................................................................... 9 XI. AUTHORIZED PRODUCTS POLiCy .......................................................................................................... 9 XII. TRANSACTING AUTHORITY POLiCy ................................................................................................... 10 XIII. CONI<'LICT 01<' INTEREST POUCY ......................................................................................................... 11 XlV. GLOSSARY OJ' TERMSH .. HH ...... HH •• H~ ......... H ... H ... HHH ..... HHHH~ ...................... hH.n ........... 04HH .. H ... u ............ 12 ~\IJ~ -....; ;....---. \~ Cll'( or P,\lO ,\L TO UTILITIES 1. INTRODUCTION It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto Utilities to provide reliable and affordable energy and energy services to its industrial, commercial and residential customers in an environmentally sustainable manner. Furthermore, this policy is consistent with the City's business objectives of making financially sound and timely investments in the capital infrastructme of the Utilities to ensure the reliable delivery of energy and energy services to its customers. The City of Palo Alto's Energy Risk Management Policy ("Policy") details the key control structures and policies for prudent risk management processes based on sound energy risk management principles while ensuring adherence to financial requircments set forth by City Council and Director of Administrative Services as well as all pertinent legal requiremcnl~. The control structures and policies are focused on the following issues: • Clearly defined segregation of duties and delegation of authority • Organizational structure for risk management controls • Policies related to setting acceptable risk parameters and risk limits. • .Policies for risk reporting. • Permitted trdnsaction and product types. The Energy Risk ManagementPolicy serves as the key policy level document on energy risk management. 111is Policy is supported by more detailed operational-level docmnents: the Energy Risk Management Guidelines and the Energy Risk Management Procedures for the Front, Middle and Back Offices. II. APPLICABILITY This Energy Risk Management Policy applies to all City of Palo Alto employees engaged directly or indirectly in transacting in the energy markets. The first objective of this Policy is to build risk awareness within the City. Consistent with the City Council's desire for the City to be an active manager of risk, the organization must maintain awareness of the risks faced. It is critical that all members of the organization have awareness that participation in the energy business entails a host of risks and that all members have knowledge of the EneqlY Risk Management Policy. 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES III. ENERGY RISK MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY The mission statement of the Utilities Department is to "Provide valued utility services to customers and dependable returns to the City." The Utilities Strategic Plan, delivered to . the City Councill contains four supporting objectives: 1) Provide valued utility services to customers and dependable returns to the City, 2) employ balanced environmental solutions, 3) provide fair and reasonable returns to the City and competitive rates to customers through municipal oWliership; and 4) ensure a safe and engaged workforce. Palo Alto recognizes that certain risks are inherent in the energy business environment. The City seeks to minimize risks in order to provide rate stability to its customers and a stable financial return to the City's General Fund. The basic premise wlderlying the City's Energy Risk Management Policy is that no activities related to energy purchases and sales should unduly expose the City to the possibility of financial losses in relation to the size of the electricity and gas reserve funds. IV.· ENERGY RISK MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES The primary objectives of energy risk management activities are to balance the business goals of: (I) providing stable gas and electric rates to end users, (2) preserving a supply cost advantage through obtaining the best available price, and (3) managing business processes to allow the City to work efliciently and cost effectively. 1. Retail Rate Stability Stable rates are of high value to the citizens and businesses in Palo Alto. However, energy commodity market prices are extremely volatile. Therefore, a primary objective is to manage the risks inherent in the energy commodity markets in which CPAU participates. The rate stability objective is to mitigate market risk, weather risk, volwne risk, and credit risks to avoid freqllent rate changes. Reserve balances maintained by the gas and electric utilities provide financial liquidity and flexibility for entering into long-term contracts and for purchases of energy in the spot and forward market as needed to meet the projected load. Reserve funds are designed to cover short-term price exposure due to market changes or hydro risk, and to avoid rapidly changing rates to cover those events. Maintaining the adequacy of these reserve funds in accordance with Council approved reserve policies and guidelines is a matter of the highest priority for CP AU and the City. I (CMR: 148:05) CITY OF P,\L() ALTO UTILITIES 2 2. Preserve a Supply Cost Advantage City staff will endeavor to: (a) reduce exposure to potential adverse energy price movements; (b) enhance value by taking advantage of flexibility inherent in CP AU contracts and resources; and (c) enhance value by offering cost-effective commodity products that address customer needs. 3. EffICient and Cost Effective Business Processes City staflwill utilize business practices and controls that are sufficient to identify, evaluate, and manage risks through appropriate recording, analysis and reporting requirements. The Energy Risk Manager, in collaboratioll with CP AU, will determine the sufficiency of eontrol and reporting requirements. Staff Will strive to improve the risk management procedures to enhance productivity, reduce the cost of conducting risk management activities, and maintain transparency and the value of the risk management process. When the above goals arc in conflict, the Energy Risk Manager will collaborate with CPAU and the Utilities Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee (UROCC) to resolve the conflict. V. OVERSIGHT BODIES 1. City Council The City Council is responsible for making high-level broad policy and strategy statements as contained in this Policy document and as such approves the Policy. The Policy shall guide the general vision of CPAU business practices, articulating the City's risk philosophy, and establishing risk tolerances. The City Council reviews and adopts the Energy Risk Management Policy as developed and recommended by the UROCC and delegates the City Manager to implement it. The City Council will review the Policy annually or more frequcntly if the UROCC recommends significant changes. Additionally, the City Council shall receive reports quarterly from the City Manager regarding energy risk management activities. 2. Utilities Advisory Commission The Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) is responsible for advising the City Council on long-range planning and policy matters relating to the electricity, gas and water utilities. While it has no formal responsibility in energy risk management, the UAC does receive and review rcgular management reports prepared by the Risk Manager for the City Council. In addition, the UAC can serve as an important source of advice and comment to the City Council on risk management. 3 CITY Of PALO ALTO UTILITIES 3. City Manager The City Manager has overall responsibility for executing and ensuring compliance with policy adopted by the City Council. The City Manager reports quarterly to the City Council regarding energy risk management activities. 4. Utilities Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee The Utilities Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee (UROCC) consists of the Director of Utilities (Chairperson), the Director of Administrative Services, the Director of Public Works and a delegated representative of the City Manager. The Senior A~sistant City Attorney assigned to Vtilities and the City Auditor act as non-voting advisors for the UROCC. In accordance with 2007 Government Auditing Standards, the City Auditor's participation as an advisor to the UROCC is not considered an audit service and does not impair the City Auditor's ability to audit the Utilities Department. The Energy Risk Manager serves as the Secretary to the UROeC. A quorum consists of at least three voting members of the UROeC. The UROCC is responsible for overseeing a sound approach to managing risks which is consistent with the business strategy and risk tolerance of the organization, as defined by the City Council. The UROCC is the primary body responsible for approving the implementation of guidelines consistent with Council-approved energy risk management policies. As such, the UROCe is critical to overseeing and reviewing the risk management process and infrastructure and ensuring proper management of the Utilities' risk exposure. 5. Management Oversight Risk management oversight at an operational level is accomplished through supervisory review and approval and appropriate separation of duties. The functions of the Front Office, Middle Office and Back Office are detailed in the Energy Risk Management Guidelines. Risk management functions are separated as follows: a. Front Office -Planning and Procurcmeot- Reporting to the Director of Utilities, the Front Oake is primarily responsible for resource planning and procuring energy supplies and services. The Front Office. by delegation of the City Manager, has a critical role in risk management through its transacting operations. The Front Office has the authority to commit the capital of the eity of Palo Alto to energy transactions with cOLlnterparties. As such, the Front Office is a central clearing point for risk assumption and risk mitigation. The Front Office roles in risk management include: • Develop and implement Utility Director-approved. Front Office procedures consistent with Council approved Policy and UROCC approved Guidelines. 4 ~'IJ~ -....; ;...---- CITY OF P/',LO ALTO UTILITIES • Develop and implement energy portfolio management plans, strategies and guidelines in supportofCPAU objectives and in accordance with the City's Energy Risk Management Policy and legal and regulatory requirements. • Develop and recommend for annual approval retail rates and fmancial plans including gas and electric reserves in support ofCPAU objectives. • Ensure adherence to Energy Risk Management Policy, Guidelines and Procedures including proper recording of transactions, monitoring and valuation of risk. • Report position, ·valuation and market conditions and energy portfolio risk and report to the UROCC. • Ensure proper reporting of contractual commitments to the City financial reporting system. Front Office Procedures are developed by staff, approved by the Utilities Director, and provided to the UROCC for information. b. Middle Office -Risk Management Controls and Reporting Reporting to the Director of Administrative Services, the Middle Office provides the primary independent oversight role. The Middle Office consists of the Risk Manager, and institutes, supervises, and reviews all risk management activities including portfolio exposure, credit exposure, transaction compliance and on-going approval of counterparties and transacting limits. The Middle Office responsibilities include monitoring CPAU's risk exposures and ensuring compliance with policies, guidelines, and procedures. Additionally, the Middle Office is responsible for reporting to the UROCC on risk management issues, and recommending when changes in policy or operating procedure are required. These recommendations may relate to the temporary or permanent halting of transactions with one or more counterparties, exceptions to rules and procedures, other operational exceptions, and any other topic the Risk Manager believes represents an unacceptable risk exposure. The Middle Office recommends as necessary updates to the Energy Risk Management Policy, Guidelines and Procedures so that portfolio management functions occur in compliance with the Council-adopted Energy Risk Management Policy and UROCC - adopted Energy Risk Management Guidelines. Middle Office Procedures are developed by staff, approved by the Administrative Services Director, and provided to the UROCC for information. ~\IJ~ --\":- CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES 5 c. Back Oftice -Settlement and Recording The Back Office is primarily responsible for settlement of bills, recording transactions, bookkeeping and accounting, and contract administration. The Back Office roles in oversight arc ensuring that bills reflect orders, independently monitoring and recording transactions into a tracking database, and verifying and reporting on compliance with proeedures as reflected in the deal tracking documentation. Functions within the Back Officc ate performed by both ASD and CP AU persolUlel and are detailed in the Risk Management Guidelines. Back Office Procedures are collectively developed by staff from Administrative Services and Utilities, jointly approved by the Administrative Services Director and the Utilities Director, and provided to the UROCC for information. VI. SCOPE The Energy Risk Management Policy shall apply to the electric and natural gas supply business units. The electric and natural gas supply business units are the part of the electric and natural gas enterprise funds that deal directly with the acquisition of energy supply resources. The Energy Risk Management Policy prescribes the management, organization, authority, processes, tools and systems to monitor, measure, and control risks to which the City is exposed in its normal course of business, including wholesale and retail operations, capital projects (related to generation, transmission, transportation, and storage), and participation in j oint powers authorities. The Policy does not address general business risks such as fire, accident, casualty, worker health and safety, and general liability. Neither does the policy cover the water fund, the electric and natural gas distribution business units, or the telecommunications business unit. The Policy does not apply to transactions executed on behalf of the City by joint agencies such and the Northern California Power Agency (NCP A). The NCP A Commission approves its own energy risk management policies and procedures. VII. TRANSACTING POI_ICY The City of Palo Alto's transacting policy is to ensure transactions carried out under the electric and gas master agreements arc done in a manner consistent with the authority granted by Council to transact under these contracts; the City of Palo Alto's Municipal Code; and are carried out to manage risk which is inherent to the energy supply portfolio CITY OF PALO i\L TO UTILITIES 6 and to ensure the City is not exposed to unnecessary risk. The policy is based on four key elements: 1. Anti-speculation Speculative buying and selling of energy products is prohibited. Speculation is defined as buying energy not needed for meeting forecasted load or selling energy that is not owned. In no event shall transactions be entered into in order to speculate on market conditions. The volume limits for forward purchases are listed in the Energy Risk Management Guidelines . . 2. . . Maximum Transaction Term The maximum tenn of any supply resource transaction (purchase or sale) is ten years, unless specifically approved by the City Council, to meet long-term portfolio plmming objectives. 3. Portfolio Performance and Value Reporting Front and Middle Office staff shall prepare performance reports containing an analysis of physical and financial positions of all electric and gas com.modity contracts. The frequency and content of perfonnance reports for each oversight body shall be prescribed in the Energy Risk Management Guidelines. Should the risks associated with the portfolio, or a specific transaction within the portfolio, fall outside of the risk limits prescribed in the Energy Risk Management Guidelines, the Risk Manager will report this fact to the UROCC and the City Council witllln a reasonable period and evaluate the risk of holding any of the contracts in the portfolio to delivery. 4. CompeJiJive Process Whenever possible, CPAU will obtain three or more quotations when making a purcha~e or sale transaction and select the best price from a creditworthy bidder. VIII. COUNTERPARTY CREDIT POLICY The Counterparty Credit Policy is designed to minimize the potential adverse financial impacts on the City in the event of a defaulting counterparty. The policy is to minimize the City's credit exposure and potential adverse financial impacts related to wholesale commodity transactions by: • Establishing a credit risk management governance and oversight stmcture within the existing energy risk management program; • Providing a framework to enable the City to qualify energy suppliers and transact with approved counterparties; 7 CITY OF I'ALOALTO UTILITIES • Providing counterparty transacting parameters (limits) to control and measure the City's exposure to anyone supplier; and • Implementing a mechanism to monitor and report on supply portfolio relatcd countcrparty credit exposures. All transactions must adhere to Chapter 2.30 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Contracts and Purchasing Procedures) which sets creditworthiness standards and certain contractual provision required for wholesale commodity transactions. As such, transactions carried out under the Electric and Gas Master Agreements are limited to counterparties with a Standard and Poor's Rating ofBBB-or better, or a Moody's Investor Services Rating of Baa3 or better. Only the City Couneil can approve exemptions to this requirement. Counterparty credit limits and controls arc set forth in the Energy Risk Management Guidelines. IX. COMMODITY PRICING POLICY RetaiLprices for energy supplies willbe fair and cquitable to all customers and will recover all incurred costs. The commodity pricing policy will be used both for the development of standardized commodity tariffs and for long-term, or customized, customer contract rates. The City Manager is responsible for implementing this policy and overseeing the process for all commodity rate development and ensuring that all procedures are followed consistently and that all calculations are appropriately documented. The commodity pricing policy is composed of the following three principles with the first principle having priority over the remaining two: a. Direct Cost Recovery All direct costs of providing commodity service will be recovered in commodity rates and/or through the use of Utilities' reserves. b. Risk Managemcnt To the extent practicable contract terms must protect CPAU from major contingencies. To the extcnt that CP AU assumes risk to provide commodity products to customers, thc customer shall pay reasonablc compensation for bearing that risk. c. Indirect Cost Recovery To the extent practicable, it is an objective to recover all indirect costs of commodity service from commodity customers. ~\1/~ '" ..... --\~ CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES 8 The regulations for oversight, review, approval, pricing and reporting of customer contracts and fixed-term commodity rates are contained within the Council-approved Rules and Regulations orthe City of Palo Alto Utilities. X. RISK MANAGEMENT REPORTING POLICY Key to energy ri~kmanagement i~ the monitoring of risks and the accurate and timely information that must be provided to a\1 parties involved in any aspects of energy risk management to allow them to perform their functions appropriately. Quarterly reports will be pro'lid~d for distribution to the UROCC, the U AC, and the City Counci.1 which provide details on the City's forward purchases, market exposure, credit exposure, counterparty credit ratings, transaction compliance and other relevHnt data. Xl. AUTHORIZED PRODUCTS POLICY The purpose of the Authorized Product Policy is to ensure proper controls are in place to minimize risk when transacting under the Electric and Gas Master Agreements. Transactions not covered by the Master agreements must conform to the Municipal Code and must bc approved by City COImcil In general the types of prodUcts to be purchased include electricity, capacity, transmission, ancillary services, congestion, renewable energy, natural gas, transportation, and storage. The Council is responsible for authorizing all products and commodity types to be executed under the Electric and Gas Master Agreements. The UROCC is responsible for understanding and commwlicating the risks associated with each transaction and making recommendations to Council for approving products. Further the UROCC ensures that the necessary processes and controls are in place for proper execution of authorized products as further detailed in the Energy Risk Management Guidelines. Transactions of products not apProved by the Council are strictly prohibited. All transactions must be consistent with Energy Risk Management Policies, Guidelines and Procedures. Key elements of the Authorized Products Policy arc as follows: • Policy applies to transactions executed under the Council-approved Electric and Gas Master Agreements • Policy applies to transactions carried out by City of Palo Alto staff • All transactions must be committed to by an authorized trader. • All transactions must be with eligible coullterparties with adequate available credit. • All transactions must be committed over a recorded phone lines; via electronic mail; or through a signed confirmation from both parties .. ~\I/~ -...; :;...-' -- GlTYOf ?ALOAlTO UTILITIES 9 • All transactions must be on the Approved Productsrrransaction Type List. Approved Products/Transaction Type List Approved products are limited to purchases to meet load and/or sales incidental to. load for the following: A. Purchase of physical fixed price, index-based price, call options, capped-price or COllar-priced energy, natural gas, capacity, transportation, basis and transmission products B. Sale of physical fixed price or index-based price "'lCrgy, natural gas, capacity, storage, and transmission C. Electric heat rate products D. Renewable Energy Credits with or without bundled energy to meet the City's Renewable Portfolio Standards; E. Gas storage F. Electric Ancillary Services G. Local and system capacity to meet the City's Resource Adequacy Program; II. Fixed price or index-priced purchases and sales to substitute the use of higher cost resources with lower cost market alternatives. I. .Fixed price or index-priced forward purchases and sales of transmission and transmission rights to meet contractual obligations or to dispose of surplus capacity. J. Purchase of physical call options and physical collars. K. Financial transactions related to the nomination, purchasing and selling of Congestion Revenue Rights XII. TRANSACTING AUTHORITY POLICY The City Manager has the authority to purchase and sell wholesale energy conunodities for terms of up to three years under open purchase contracts. City Manager authorities may be delegated by the City Manager to the Director of Utilities. Purchases and sales are subject to signature authority limits as defined in the Municipal Code. Currently, energy purchases exceeding $250,000 per year and exceeding a three-year term require City ('.,DuncH approval (Municipal Code Sec 2.30.210 (I)). Authority to enter into transactions must be based on City Council approved contracts such as master agreements, purchase agreements, or other contractual forms. In all cases the Municipal Code provides the final authori7.ation rules and regulations for energy purchases. 10 ------------------------~---------------------- ellY OF PALO AL10 UTILITIES Authorization levels for City staff as delegated are maintained in the Risk Management Guidelines by the Middle Office. The City Clerk maintains the list of individuals authorized to make wholesale trunsaetions. XIII. CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY In accordance with the Municipal Code and California law, personnel involved in transacting and oversight of the City of Palo Alto Utilities supply resource acquisition, contract negotiation, risk management, and back office programs may not participate in decisions in which they have Ii financial conflict of interest. All personnel are reqdired to complete, on an anllllal basis, the Form 700 Disclosure forms and submit these forms to the City Clerk. Each staff member engaged ill energy transacting, risk management, or energy back office operations has the sole responsibility of identifying and reporting any potential conflict of interest, and cnsuring that he or she does not participate in decisions when a tlnancial conflict of interest exists. If the employee has a reportable interest, it is their responsibility to disclose the interest and have their supervisor sign-off on the form so that their supervisor is aware of the potential conflict. Supervisors should ensure employees arc not involved in a decision-making capacity with respect to any of their reportable interest. An employee who has a potential oonfiet should contact the Fair Political Practices Commission at 1-866-ASK-FPPC for advice and notify his or her supervisor ofthe potential conflict. If questions remain aft~r talking to the FPPC, contact the City Attorney's Office and your Department Director for further assistance. ________________________ ~----------------------ll ~'l/&. .....: :,..." - cny DF PALO ALTO UTILITIES XIV. Glossary of Terms I Back 0 ffice A set of business functions in Utilities and Administrative Services Departments including trade confirmation, accounting and other . processes that support the transaction of commodities. l Call options ! A:;; oplion that allows the owner the right to purchase energy at the --~.. -_ ....... --specified strike price. : Cap price A structured product that contains a strip of multiple call option contract:; with identical but st"ggcred eXEirations. Collar A combination of a price with a maximum and minimum value. Congeb1ion Revenue Rights A CRR is a hedging tool or a financial instrument that entitles the holder to a CRR payment when Congestion (a characteristic of the I transmission system produced when constraints on the system prevent the optimum economic dispatch of generation to meet : demand) is in the direction of the CRR Source (a node or a trading : hub where generation is scheduled into the electric grid) to the CRR ! Sink (a node or a trading hUb specified as the point of withdrawal : for consum tlon . ! Credit risk The probable change in the value of a contract due to a counterparty defaultin . Electric Ancillary Services Those services necessary to support the transmission of electric ~~----- power from seller to purchaser 'given the obligations of control areas : and transmitting utilities within those control areas to maintain : reliable operations of the interconnected transmission system. .. .........- I i Electric heat rate product A contract based on how efficiently a generator uses heat energy in : i fuel (ie natural gas) to generate electricity. Financial Position The total dollar amount of contracts that setting with counterparties exchanging cash. Front Office The sector of energy procurement operations in utilities where trading occurs. Hydro risk The risk that altered precipitation patterns result in less than normal hydro electric generation. Index-based price A pri<,:e 1113t varies based on Qublished index prices. Market risk The probable change in value of (or sensitivity to) a contract, position or portfolio due to general changes in Illarket conditions. ________________________ ~--------__ ------------12 CITY Of ?ALO ALTO UTII_ITIES I ~aster Algreement Al standardized agreement to which other agreements and purchases I are referred. """"""""""""""" ...... ------- i ~iddle Office The set of business functions in Aldministrative Services that carries out the risk management activities including measuring, controlling andhedgillg market, eredit, hydro and other risks. Physical fixed price Al contract for a fixed price which settles when one counterparty delivers the commodity to another who paysllyash settlement. Physical Position The volumetrie sum of all physical transactions. Portfolio exposure The monetary sum of aU positions that are subject to change. 0-I Risk Management The set of skills and processes for measuring, controlling and· I : Supply Portfolio hedging risk. The comp(jsitioJ1and amount of alll2urehased power . • Transmission product The sale or purchase of a non-energy asset to transport energy . Volume risk . Ibe risk of the volume of a contract or position changing from ()lJl!ent expectations. Weather risk The risk of weather changing from current expectations and causing changes to expected load or g~ll~ration. 13 ----------------------------------------------------------~\I/&. -....; ;...-" -- errY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES EXCERPTED DRAFT MINUTES OF UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION Meeting of December 3,2010 ITEM 5: ACTION: City of Palo Alto's Energv Risk Management Policy Van Orsdol noted the Policy states that the Policy is to be approved by City Council on an annual basis, and that prior to presenting to Council, Staff requested that the UAC approve the policy. Van Orsdol noted that at the previous year's Policy was significantly modified, based on changes in regulatory requirements and changes in operations. Additionally, all allowed transaction products were included in the policy. Van Orsdol also reminded the UAC that they carried out a lengthy discussion of certain aspects of the policy, !,)otably the section on non-discrimination, and that staff had altered the policy based on the UAC discussion and recommendations. Since that time, staff had not implemented any major operational changes. Therefore, the Policy document required few changes from last year. ACTION: The UAC unanimously approved that new Energy Risk Management Policy.