HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-03-03 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting
Council Chambers
March 3, 2014
6:00 PM
REVISED
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the
Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting.
1 March 3, 2014
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be
determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this
agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council
Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give
your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful.
TIME ESTIMATES
Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings.
Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is
in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order
of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after
the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or
to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest
arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called.
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 up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public
have spoken.
Call to Order
Study Session 6:00-6:30 P.M.
1. Water Shortage Study Session
Special Orders of the Day 6:30-6:40 P.M.
2. Resolution of the Council Expressing Appreciation to Denny Neverve
Upon His Retirement
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the
public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken.
OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be
limited to a maximum of three minutes per speaker.
2 March 3, 2014
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
City Manager Comments 6:40-6:50 P.M.
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements 6:50-7:05 P.M.
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
Oral Communications 7:05-7:20 P.M.
Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of
Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
Consent Calendar 7:20-7:25 P.M.
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members.
3. Recommending Authorization of Indemnity Agreement With Santa
Clara Stadium Authority to Allow Provision of Requested Law
Enforcement Services to Levi’s Stadium
4. Approval of Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. C12141152 Between
the City of Palo Alto and Leidos Engineering, LLC
5. Approval of the Purchase of 38 Multi-band Radios for Police and Fire
for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $116,000
6. Request for Authorization to Increase Existing Legal Services
Agreement with the Law Firm of Goldfarb & Lipman, LLP (S13149272)
by an additional $175,000 for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of
$230,000 and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance to
Appropriate $175,000 from the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fee Fund
for Legal Services
7. Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Take-Over Agreement with
Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland and Federal Insurance
Company Establishing Terms for Completion of Construction of the
Mitchell Park Library and Community Center and Amendment No.2
With Turner Construction in the Amount of $740,000 for Extended
Construction Management Service
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
7:25-7:40 P.M.
8. From Finance Committee Review of Development Impact Fees: List of
Public Facilities Capital Needs
7:40-9:10 P.M.
3 March 3, 2014
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
9. Comprehensive Plan Update- Revised Approach, Schedule, Scope of
Work, and Contract Amendment in the amount of $597,206 with The
Planning Center | DCE for Consultant Support Related to the Ongoing
Update of Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan for the Future of Our City
9:10-9:55 P.M.
10. From Policy and Services Committee Staff Requests Direction From
Council on the Naming of the Main Library
9:55-11:00 P.M.
11. Infrastructure Project and Funding Plan
Adjournment
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) 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.
4 March 3, 2014
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Additional Information
Standing Committee Meetings
CAO Meeting March 3, 2014 5:00 PM
Finance Committee Meeting March 4, 2014 7:00 PM
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda
Informational Report
Residential Permit Parking Program Implementation Schedule for Citywide
Ordinance & Downtown Neighborhood Program
Palo Alto Arbor Day Proclamation
Board and Commission Recruitment Flyer
Public Letters to Council
Set One
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4527)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 3/3/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Water Shortage Study Session
Title: Water Shortage Study Session
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
This is an informational item and Council action is not required.
Executive Summary
Staff has prepared the attached presentation to be reviewed during the Council’s study session
on the drought and related impacts of a water supply shortage on the city. While unusual, the
presentation is provided in advance of the study session and in lieu of a staff report to allow the
Council and public a preview opportunity.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Council Study Session presentation without backup slides (PDF)
1
Drought Update
Council Study Session
March 3, 2014
2
Agenda
Water Supply Situation
Drought Plans
Drought Communications Plan
Hydroelectric Generation Expectations
3
Water Supply Situation
Jan 17 – Governor Brown proclaimed a “state of
emergency” which called for 20% statewide cutbacks
in water use and called upon local urban water
suppliers “to implement their local water shortage
contingency plans immediately in order to avoid or
forestall outright restrictions that could become
necessary later in the drought season.”
Jan 28 – SCVWD board set a preliminary water
reduction target equal to 10% percent of 2013 water
use in Santa Clara County.
Jan 31 – SFPUC asked all customers of the Hetch
Hetchy Regional Water System to voluntarily curtail
water consumption by 10%
4
SFPUC Total Water Supplies
(Last 14 years)
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
St
o
r
a
g
e
L
e
v
e
l
(
a
c
r
e
-fe
e
t
)
5
SFPUC Total Water Supplies
(Jan 1983-Jan 2014)
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
Jan-83 Jan-88 Jan-93 Jan-98 Jan-03 Jan-08 Jan-13
St
o
r
a
g
e
L
e
v
e
l
(
a
c
r
e
-fe
e
t
)
6
SFPUC System Wide: Recent Usage
vs. Total System Storage
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
Jan-83 Jan-88 Jan-93 Jan-98 Jan-03 Jan-08 Jan-13
Wa
t
e
r
i
n
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
(
A
c
r
e
-Fe
e
t
)
Water Bank Up Country (Hetch Hetchy, Cherry, Eleanor)
Bay Area Reservoirs Regional Water Use for Last 4 Years
7
Palo Alto’s Historical Water Usage
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Co
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
(
A
F
/
y
e
a
r
)
SFPUC water available in 10% system-wide shortage
SFPUC water available in 20% system-wide shortage
8
Palo Alto Water Sales
by Customer Class
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
An
n
u
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
S
a
l
e
s
(
C
C
F
/
y
e
a
r
)
Residential
Commercial/Industrial
Public/City Facilities
9
Palo Alto Residential
Per Capita Water Sales
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
g
a
l
l
o
n
s
pe
r
c
a
p
i
t
a
p
e
r
d
a
y
10
Palo Alto Total Per Capita Water Sales
0
50
100
150
200
250
To
t
a
l
g
a
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
c
a
p
i
t
a
p
e
r
d
a
y
State’s 20% by
2020 Target =
176 GPCPD
11
Water Shortage Contingency Plan
(from Palo Alto’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan)
The City’s primary response to a water supply shortage will be to reduce
consumption. The four water supply shortage stages are:
1.Stage I (5% to 10% supply reductions): low level educational outreach
and enforcement of the permanent water use ordinances.
2.In Stage II (10% to 20%): stepped up outreach effort and the adoption of
additional water use restrictions. Drought rate schedules will be
implemented.
3.Stage III (20% to 35%): increased outreach activities and additional
emergency water use restrictions. Drought rates in each block would
increase from those in Stage II. Fines and penalties would be applied to
users in violation of water usage restrictions. In some cases, water flow
restriction devices would be installed on customers’ meters.
4.Stage IV (35% to 50%): requires very close management of the available
water supplies. Allocations of water for each customer will be
introduced. Informational outreach activities would be operating at a
very high level. Severe water use restrictions and a restrictive penalty
schedule would be implemented.
12
Demand Management Programs
(from Palo Alto’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan)
Programs can be offered using different program
design options and delivery mechanisms, including:
1.Information Outreach Programs
2.Incentive‐based Demand Side
Management Programs
3.Customer Water Use Audit Programs
13
STAGE I: Minimum Water Shortage –
5% to 10% target water savings
The SFPUC requested voluntary reductions in this range in 1987, and again in
2009, which the City was able to achieve. In those years, SFPUC did not
impose rationing.
1.Information Outreach and Audit Programs
Ongoing informational outreach and audit programs focused on water saving
information.
A low level media information campaign would begin with the emphasis on
reducing waste.
Enforcement of permanent water use ordinances on an “as reported” basis and
mostly via reminder notices.
2.Incentive‐based Demand Side Management Programs
DSM programs continued and augmented to provide the savings required
Monitor programs being developed by other utilities in order to take advantage of
regional momentum and shorten internal development time.
3.Drought Rate Structures
No special drought rate structure since standard residential rate structure already
encourages conservation by having a relatively small fixed charge and increasing
block rates based on water consumption.
14
Existing Permanent Water Use Regulations
(from Palo Alto’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan)
•Flooding or runoff of potable water prohibited
•Shut‐off valves required for hoses used to wash
vehicles, sidewalks, buildings, etc.
•If recycled water available, potable water for
construction uses prohibited
•Broken or defective plumbing and irrigation
systems must be repaired or replaced within a
reasonable period.
15
Water Use restrictions are added for
Subsequent Water Shortage Stages
(from Palo Alto’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan)
Stage II: Restrictions added for landscape irrigation and
restaurants may serve water only upon request.
Stage III: Nine more restrictions related to:
–Use of potable water for cleaning, in decorative fountains or pond, at
commercial car washes, and on golf courses.
–Water shortage emergency signage.
–Outdoor water use audits for customers using more than target
allotments.
Stage IV: Seven additional restrictions related to:
–Limitations on new water service connections, landscaping at new
construction sites, and vehicle washing.
–Prohibition on turf irrigation and irrigation by sprinklers.
–Conversion of once‐through cooling systems to recycling systems.
16
•City Facilities Improvements
•most have high-efficiency toilets, faucets & showerheads
•staff identifying locations for replacing turf with more water-wise
landscaping
•Golf Course Improvements
•major reconstruction with water-saving improvements
•Grant Projects
•applied for SCVWD grants($100,000) to:
• improve water use monitoring at City facilities
• provide water use reports for businesses
(similar to those now provided to residents)
•Continued partnership with the SCVWD
•residential and business free water audits, free devices and
newly increased rebate levels.
What the City is doing
17
What Customers Can Do
•Easy actions
•Find and fix leaks
•Running toilet? $80/month Leaking irrigation hose? $160/month
•Don’t rinse recyclables---shake and toss
•Reset sprinkler timers---especially when it does rain!
•Adjust sprinklers to avoid all runoff
•Modify behaviors – e.g. avoid letting faucets run needlessly or taking
extra-long showers
•Call us to get:
•Free home or business water audits
•Free devices (showerheads, aerators, leak tablets)
•Free installation (for businesses—high-efficiency toilets)
•Bigger rebates now for actions like:
•installing a high-efficiency toilets
•getting a more efficient washer
•replacing guzzling grass with beautiful beds of water-efficient plants
•Join the Great Race to Save Water on April 19th
18
Outreach Communication Examples
19
Outreach Communication Examples
20
Getting the Word Out
•www.cityofpaloalto.org/water
•Social Media (Twitter, Facebook, NextDoor)
•SFPUC calls for 10% voluntary cutbacks (with link to article)
•Flushed with gratitude for those who install high efficiency toilets.
•It’s raining---are your sprinkler timers off?
•Bill inserts and messages
•Print, Video & Cable TV Ads : e.g. PA Weekly inserts
•Palo Alto Neighborhood groups: email blasts & meetings
•Large commercial customer email blasts & meetings
•Media Alerts --local print/broadcast outlets, Chamber of Commerce etc.
•Handouts (Keep Calm/Save Water, Kids’ Checklist, etc.)
•Distributed around town via Libraries, Community Centers, etc.
•Local Organizations—outreach to Canopy, Master Gardeners, Landscapers etc.
21
Hydroelectric Supply Situation
Hydroelectric supplies provide about half of
the City’s electric needs in normal water years
Poor hydro conditions mean:
–Less hydro generation, but same cost for hydro
–Replacement supplies must be purchased
Financial reserves sufficient for now
If drought continues, additional costs will
require electric rate increase
22
Expected Electric Supply Situation
Low supplies in 2014, then return to normal
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
Average Year 2014 2015 2016
El
e
c
t
r
i
c
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
(
G
W
h
)
Market + RECs
Calaveras
Western
Renewables
23
Electric Supply Situation
If drought continues
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
Average Year 2014 2015 2016
El
e
c
t
r
i
c
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
(
G
W
h
)
Market + RECs
Calaveras
Western
Renewables
24
Electric Supply Costs increase in
Dry Hydro Conditions
Additional Costs in Dry Years Range of Cost Increase
($M/year)
Market power purchases $4.0 - $7.0
Carbon neutral (REC)
purchases
$0.3 - $0.7
CVPIA Restoration Fund costs $1.5 - $2.0
25
Electric Supply Costs – Expected vs
Continuation of Dry Conditions
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Average
Year
2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016
Co
s
t
o
f
E
n
e
r
g
y
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
(
$
M
)
Market + RECs
Calaveras
Western
Renewables
Expected Conditions Continued Drought Conditions
26
Drought Update
Council Study Session
March 3, 2014
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4483)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 3/3/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Retirement Resolution for Denny Neverve
Title: Resolution of the Council Expressing Appreciation to Denny Neverve
Upon His Retirement
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Police
Attachments:
Denny Neverve PD (DOCX)
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO
DENNY NEVERVE UPON HIS RETIREMENT
WHEREAS, for over 46 years Denny Neverve served the City of Palo Alto and its citizens as a member of
the Palo Alto Police Department from July 1967 to July 1997 as a full time police officer, and August 1997 to
February 2014 as a reserve police officer; and
WHEREAS, Denny Neverve served the Palo Alto community in all aspects of law enforcement, beginning
with the fourth watch foot patrol and traffic enforcement on a three wheeler; and
WHEREAS, Denny Neverve received over one hundred commendations, ranging from a notice of merit for
talking an armed suspect out of his weapon to a medal of valor for rescuing several citizens from burning homes
during the 1985 Foothills fire; and
WHEREAS, Denny Neverve was a pioneer of the evidence team and mastered the art of photography and
fingerprint collection, and he served in many capacities during his 30-year law enforcement career as a full time
officer, including as a property and person crimes detective in Investigative Services, a warrant officer, and a
court liaison officer; and
WHEREAS, Denny Neverve served as a range master for over 28 years and as a hostage negotiator for 16
years, and he was awarded the Officer of the Year by the Lions Club in 1986 for his courage on the job; and
WHEREAS, Denny Neverve was the organizer of the memorial events for fallen Officers Gene Clifton,
Lester Cole, and Ted Brassinga.
WHEREAS, Denny Neverve pursued his 46 years and 7 months law enforcement career with sensitivity,
loyalty, fairness, courtesy, and professionalism.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby gratefully
records and extends its sincere appreciation and the appreciation of the community to Denny Neverve for this
faithful and excellent service rendered to the City.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: March 3, 2014
ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________ _______________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
________________________ _______________________
City Attorney City Manager
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4452)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/3/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Law Enforcement Services to Levi's Stadium
Title: Recommending Authorization of Indemnity Agreement With Santa
Clara Stadium Authority to Allow Provision of Requested Law Enforcement
Services to Levi’s Stadium
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Police
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the
attached agreement which would allow the Palo Alto Police Department to provide law
enforcement services to the new Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara beginning in February 2014,
joining other Santa Clara agencies whose assistance is needed given the staffing demand.
Executive Summary
In August 2014, the San Francisco Forty-Niners will host their regular season football games at
the new Levi’s Stadium built and maintained by the City of Santa Clara and the Santa Clara
Stadium Authority. The Santa Clara Police Department has requested support from local law
enforcement agencies and has worked with staff from the City of Palo Alto and other Bay Area
municipalities to develop a police services staffing plan. The plan allows Santa Clara to
supplement its police department’s staff with experienced peace officers from the region.
Under the proposed plan, regular peace officers and Level 1 reserve officers employed by the
City would be eligible to apply for and work in the position of “Per Diem Police Officer Special
Events—As Needed” for the City of Santa Clara for the sole purpose of providing police services
for the Santa Clara Stadium Authority. A copy of the job announcement is attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
Staff recommends participation as a cooperative measure to support an allied law enforcement
agency in providing adequate public safety resources for a significant regional venue, and to
City of Palo Alto Page 2
provide an outside employment opportunity for some Palo Alto police officers who have
expressed interest in the position.
Analysis
This is a voluntary program in which permanent status Palo Alto peace officers and Level 1
reserve officers could apply for hourly, part-time employment with the City of Santa Clara. The
selection process and appointments comply with requirements regulated by the State’s
Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) and would require the Palo Alto
Police Chief’s approval for outside employment in accordance with City policy.
Participating officers working in a per diem capacity at the stadium would be off-duty from
their employment with the Palo Alto Police Department. The hours worked in Santa Clara
would not contribute to hours worked for the City of Palo Alto for the purposes of calculating
overtime or other City-provided benefits. The Officers will be paid directly by Santa Clara. Palo
Alto will not pay salary or overtime for this work.
The officers will be classified as reserve police officers and will wear Santa Clara police uniforms
and insignias. The officers would be trained and supervised by the Santa Clara Police
Department for stadium events. Officers will utilize their personal protective equipment issued
by the City of Palo Alto in order to ensure familiarity and proficiency by the officer. The limited
use of this gear would have a negligible impact to the lifespan of the equipment.
Indemnification Agreement/Limitation of Liability
Various city attorneys and staff from local municipalities in the County have negotiated the
Indemnification Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Agreement provides that
participating officers’ duties to the City of Palo Alto will take priority over any assignment with
the Santa Clara Police Department and officers can be recalled to the City of Palo Alto without
prior notice. Santa Clara and the Stadium Authority will hold harmless and indemnify the City
of Palo Alto for any losses or damages arising out of any civil claims or lawsuits involving an
officer while on duty at the stadium. The Stadium Authority will purchase and maintain
insurance policies for the event that a civil action is filed and in the event they are required by
law to provide worker’s compensation. The City of Palo Alto will be named as an additional
insured. If an Officer is injured during the course of the performance of his or her job duties as
a Santa Clara reserve officer, the City of Palo Alto will not be responsible for worker’s
compensation related to that injury; rather worker’s compensation will be paid by Santa Clara
in accordance with state law.
The cities of Mountain View, Los Altos, Milpitas, Gilroy, Campbell, Morgan Hill, City of Santa
Clara, and the Town of Los Gatos have already approved this agreement. Police Department
staff will monitor its officers’ participation for any negative impacts and report any incidents to
City of Palo Alto Page 3
the City Manager. If necessary, individual outside work authorizations can be rescinded, or the
City’s participation can be terminated in its entirety at its election.
The attached agreement minimizes the financial risk to the participating agencies in terms of
liability and also explicitly affirms the City’s authority and discretion to limit officer employment
with Santa Clara to ensure the City’s needs are met. The proposed agreement is intended for
planned policing events at the stadium and does not supersede mutual aid agreements for
unusual occurrences or other significant events.
Resource Impact
The agreement will result in no resource impact.
Policy Impact
The agreement will result in no policy impact. The Palo Alto Police Department Policy manual
currently allows officers to engage in secondary employment subject to certain restrictions and
with the approval of the Chief of Police. The policy manual will undergo minimal revisions to
allow officers to act as per diem officers under the agreement.
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Job Announcement Santa Clara Reserve (PDF)
Exhibit B - Indemnity Agreement (PDF)
9/27/13 Job Bulletin
agency.governmentjobs.com/cityofsantaclaraca/job_bulletin.cfm?JobID=713554 1/4
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
invites applications for the position of:
Per Diem Police Officer
Special Events - As
Needed Phase 2 2013
SALARY:$55.00 /Hour
OPENING DATE: 09/26/13
CLOSING DATE: 10/30/13 04:00 PM
TENTATIVE EXAM INFORMATION: Informational Meetings will be conducted on Saturday,
October 5, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. and on Monday, October 7, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. at the City of San
Mateo Police Department, 200 Franklin Parkway San Mateo, CA
DESCRIPTION:
Final Filing Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2013
To be considered for this position, candidates must submit a 1) City of Santa Clara Employment
Application and 2) Proof of completion of a Basic Peace Officer Academy certified by the
California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) OR proof of completion of
Level 1 Reserve Peace Officer POST Regular Basic Course (Reserve Police Officers Only).
Incomplete applications will not be accepted.
All applicants are required to obtain authorization from their home agency Chief of
Police/Sheriff authorizing them to work on a Per Diem basis for the City of Santa Clara.
TYPICAL DUTIES:
Duties include but are not limited to the following:
Under general supervision; patrol designated areas in car, by foot, by bicycle, or other
means to preserve law and order;
Direct traffic;
Enforce parking regulations, issue citations and tow vehicles that are in violation of codes;
Observe, monitor, and control routine and unusual traffic conditions; assist and advise
motorists; issue traffic citations and warnings;
Discover and prevent the commission of crimes, and enforce laws and ordinances;
Maintain awareness of and remain alert for wanted suspects, known criminals, stolen
vehicles, missing persons, traffic violators, and crimes in progress;
Conduct investigations at scenes of incidents to which summoned or incidents observed to
determine what, if any, crime has been committed;
Respond to calls for the protection of life and property, the enforcement of laws and
ordinances, general public service calls, and complaints including those involving automobile
accidents, traffic hazards, misdemeanor and felony incidents;
Investigate complaints and take appropriate action, which may include the use of deadly or
non-deadly force;
Use sound judgment under adverse, stressful conditions;
Identify, collect, preserve, process, and book evidence;
Locate and interview victims and witnesses;
Work in partnership with the Santa Clara Police Department and the District Attorney’s
Office to follow through on criminal complaints;
9/27/13 Job Bulletin
agency.governmentjobs.com/cityofsantaclaraca/job_bulletin.cfm?JobID=713554 2/4
Apprehend and arrest offenders for crimes committed under federal, state, and local laws
and codes;
Control and mitigate people under the influence of drugs or alcohol or other potentially
hostile situations;
Establish and preserve good relationships with the general public;
Answer questions from the public concerning local and state laws, procedures, and
activities of the department, apply good public relation principals;
Participate in continuous training required by POST through home agency to enhance law
enforcement skills including firearms proficiency, defensive driving skills, apprehension and
arrest techniques, investigative skills, and general law enforcement skills;
Attend meetings and trainings;
Prepare a variety of reports including those on activities, operations, arrests made, and
unusual incidents observed; prepare investigative reports and case information;
Testify in courts and at hearings; prepare and present case evidence;
Escort prisoners to county jail, juvenile hall, or Santa Clara Police Department; and
Perform other duties as assigned.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
NOTE: This job description is currently under review and subject to City Council approval.
EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE
Currently employed as a Full Time or Part Time Peace Officer with a California Law
Enforcement Agency; or
Currently working as a Level I Reserve Police Officer with a California Law Enforcement
Agency.
LICENSES &/OR CERTIFICATES
Possession of valid California Class C driver's license is required;
Proof of completion of a Basic Peace Officer Academy certified by the California Commission
on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) is required at time of application (Not
required for Reserve Officers, see below);
Must have passed Field Training Program with home agency as required by POST;
Must have passed Probationary Period with home agency;
Pursuant to Government Code Section 1031, applicants must be a citizen of the United
States or a permanent resident alien who is eligible for and has applied for citizenship; and
Must maintain current CPR and First Aid Certification.
Reserve Police Officers Must Also Provide:
Proof of completion of Level 1 Reserve Peace Officer POST Regular Basic Course (Reserve
Police Officers Only).
PHYSICAL AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS
Must be at least 20 years of age at time of application filing and 21 years of age at time of
job appointment;
Meet and maintain required peace officer employment standards as required by POST;
Per The California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) “Public Safety retirees on
service retirement may not work more than 960 hours in a fiscal year for all CalPERS
employers.”
Must possess the strength and physical ability necessary to perform the essential functions
of the position;
Must possess Hearing, speech, and mental capabilities sufficient to perform all of the
essential functions of the position; and
9/27/13 Job Bulletin
agency.governmentjobs.com/cityofsantaclaraca/job_bulletin.cfm?JobID=713554 3/4
Must be willing to be fingerprinted and pass a departmental interview, psychological,
medical, and background investigation prior to appointment.
Vision requirements:
Must possess vision including color, night, depth, and peripheral vision sufficient to perform
all of the essential functions of the position; and
Must possess visual acuity of not less than 20/80 vision in each eye uncorrected, and
corrected to 20/30 in each eye.
EXCEPTION: Applicants with correction afforded by soft contact lenses are exempt from the
minimum uncorrected vision standard of 20/80, provided their corrected vision is 20/30 in each
eye.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Will be required to work special events.
Will be required to work odd and unusual hours, including weekends and designated
holidays.
Will be required to purchase Department Uniforms (reimbursement will occur after working
ten regular events).
Will be required to provide own safety equipment (defined as ballistic vests, duty belt, and
firearm).
Per the California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) “Public Safety retirees on
service retirement may not work more than 960 hours in a fiscal year for all CalPERS
employers."
Candidates are required to pass a departmental interview prior to being given a conditional job
offer. If given a conditional offer of employment, candidates must also pass medical and
psychological exams as well as a background investigation.
KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND ABILITIES:
Possession of the following knowledge, skills, and abilities at a level necessary to do police work:
Interest in Police Work – willingness to handle routine, repetitive tasks; enforce laws that may
conflict with personal values; relate to others; work with minorities; work with fellow officers
and the general public; participate in situations which require courage; function in different
roles; work under hostile conditions, work under hazardous conditions over long periods of time;
accept new job duties; work weekends, holidays.
Ability to Take Orders – the ability to relate to supervisors; to maintain objectivity; take
criticism and control temper.
Ability to Take Responsibility - the ability to work without supervision; reliability; ability to
participate in situations which require courage, refrain from abusing authority vested in official
role; maintain confidentiality of information; and assume a command presence in conflict
situations.
Self-Control – the ability to control one’s temper, maintain objectivity; take criticism, function
under oral or physical stress; use authority effectively; function in different roles, work under
hazardous and hostile conditions for long periods of time, and work at accident and crime scenes
which involve severe personal injuries, or in situations which involve loss of life.
Ability to Communicate Effectively – the ability to testify accurately; obtain information from
witnesses under normal and stressful conditions; communicate in person, in writing, and via radio.
Ability to Make Reasonable Decisions Rapidly – the ability to reason logically; apply discretion in
9/27/13 Job Bulletin
agency.governmentjobs.com/cityofsantaclaraca/job_bulletin.cfm?JobID=713554 4/4
maintaining confidentiality of information; observe and interpret what is observed; evaluate
situations and people effectively; and apply good judgment.
Willingness to Arrest People – willingness to take actions which will result in imposing penalties
on others, including depriving them of their freedom; taking a life if necessary; and fighting to
win and injuring another if required; use techniques and applications of self defense and proper
use of force.
Ability to Learn – the immediate potential to learn to write readable, comprehensible reports; to
read and interpret relevant laws and procedural material including designated SCPD Operational
Manual Sections and Stadium Security Procedures; read maps; apply regulations; communicate
verbally with others under stress, analyze material and situations; and record observations from
accident and crime scenes.
Emotional Stability – the ability to take verbal abuse; the possession of: honesty, integrity,
maturity, tolerance, self-confidence, truthfulness and psychological stability; ability to meet the
physical and psychological demands of police work.
Ability to Problem Solve – the ability to identify problems or issues that are of concern to
residents of the City or Stadium attendees.
PHYSICAL DEMANDS AND WORKING ENVIRONMENT
Environment:
The employee is regularly exposed to outside weather conditions; extreme cold, extreme heat,
potentially hostile environments; extensive public contact. The noise level in the work
environment is usually moderate but may be very loud due to crowd noise, music, sirens, firearm
training, etc. Incumbents are required to work various shifts, including evenings and weekends,
and may be required to travel to attend meetings or court appearances.
Physical:
Primary functions require sufficient physical ability to work in a law enforcement setting; restrain
or subdue individuals; walk, stand, sit, bike or run for prolonged periods of time;
occasionally stoop, bend, kneel, crouch, reach, and twist; occasionally climb and balance;
regularly push, pull, lift, and/or carry light to moderate weights; frequently lift and/or move
moderate to heavy weights; occasionally lift and/or move heavy weights; requires a sense of
touch, finger dexterity, and gripping with hands and fingers.
APPLICATIONS MAY BE FILED ONLINE AT:http://www.santaclaraca.gov
1500 Warburton Ave.
Santa Clara, CA 95050
408-615-2080Fax: 408-247-5627
humanresources@santaclaraca.gov
Position # PER DIEM POLICE OFFICER SPECIAL EVENTS - AS NEEDED
PHASE 2 2013 VG
Equal Opportunity Employer
Page 1 of 11
AGREEMENT FOR INDEMNITY
AGREEMENT by and between the
SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY, CITY OF SANTA CLARA, and
the CITIES OF CAMPBELL, MILPITAS, MORGAN HILL, MOUNTAIN VIEW and
PALO ALTO, and the TOWN OF LOS GATOS
FOR INDEMNITY
PREAMBLE
This agreement for indemnity (“Agreement”) is made and entered into on this ______
day of __________, 2013, (“Effective Date”) by and between the Santa Clara Stadium
Authority, a Joint Powers Authority, with its primary business address at 1500 Warburton
Avenue, Santa Clara, California 95050 (“Authority”), the City of Santa Clara, a chartered
municipal corporation, located at 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California 95050
(“Santa Clara”), the City of Campbell, a municipal corporation, located at 70 N. First Street,
Campbell, California 95008 (“Campbell”), the City of Milpitas, a municipal corporation,
located at 455 E. Calaveras Blvd., Milpitas, California 95035 (“Milpitas”), the City of Morgan
Hill, a municipal corporation, located at 17575 Peak Ave., Morgan Hill, California 95037
(“Morgan Hill”), the City of Mountain View, a chartered municipal corporation, located at 500
Castro St., Mountain View, California 94039 (“Mountain View”), the City of Palo Alto, a
chartered municipal corporation, located at 250 Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto, California 94301
(“Palo Alto”), and the Town of Los Gatos, located at 110 E. Main St., Los Gatos, California
95030 (“Los Gatos”) (collectively “Agencies” and individually “Agency”). Authority, City and
Agency may be referred to individually as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties” to this
Agreement.”
RECITALS
A. Authority and Santa Clara agrees to provide indemnity and insurance coverage to
Agency regarding the performance of the law enforcement functions described
herein.
B. Agency is agreeable to allow its off-duty police officers to participate in such law
enforcement services pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.
The Parties agree as follows:
AGREEMENT PROVISIONS
1. DOUBLE BADGING OF OFFICERS.
A. Santa Clara and Authority require supplemental special detail law enforcement
services for events taking place at the new Santa Clara Levi Stadium (“Stadium”) site
and surrounding areas during the term of this Agreement. Santa Clara will be hiring
off-duty law enforcement officers from other local agencies, including Agency, as
City of Santa Clara Police Reserve Officers. These officers will be Reserve Police
Officers of the City of Santa Clara in accordance with the Santa Clara Police
Department Operations Manual, General Order 16.3 or any other applicable order.
The Reserve Police Officers will be issued badges and uniforms by the City of Santa
Clara.
Page 2 of 11
AGREEMENT FOR INDEMNITY
B. Santa Clara is authorized to and does hereby provide consent, pursuant to Penal Code
section 830.1(a)(2), for any Agency peace officer providing services hereunder to
exercise full peace officer authority within Santa Clara’s jurisdiction.
C. Reserve Police Officers from Agency will be using their home Agency equipment
including firearms, vests, duty belts, and tasers. Communication devices (radio) shall
be provided by Santa Clara.
D. Subject to the terms and provisions of this Agreement, Agency shall allow its police
officers to serve as City of Santa Clara Reserve Officers for the purposes described in
this Agreement when off-duty from their assignments with the Agency. Agency also
authorizes them to use the Agency equipment described in paragraph D of this
section, subject to the terms and provisions of this Agreement.
E. The parties understand and agree that the officers’ duties and assignments to Agency
shall have priority over any assignments as a City of Santa Clara Reserve Officer, and
that the Agency may recall the officer for duty to the Agency at any time, without
prior notice to Santa Clara or the Authority. However, Agency will cooperate in good
faith to avoid any scheduling conflicts.
F. The parties further understand and agree that while serving as a City of Santa Clara
Reserve officer, the officer will be under the supervision of the City of Santa Clara
Police Department.
2. HOLD AGENCY HARMLESS.
Agency shall not be responsible for any act or omission of its law enforcement officer(s)
while serving as a City of Santa Clara Reserve Officer or the act or omission of law
enforcement officers from other Agencies pursuant to this Agreement.. To the extent
permitted by law, Santa Clara and Authority agree to indemnify, protect, defend with
counsel reasonably acceptable to Agency and hold harmless Agency, its Council,
officers, employees, volunteers and agents from and against any claim, action, injury,
liability, loss, cost, and/or expense or damage, including all costs and reasonable
attorney's fees in providing a defense to any claim, arising from, or alleged to arise from
any negligent, reckless or wrongful acts, errors, or omissions with respect to or in any
way connected with the performance of the services by Agency, its employees, officers
or agents or the use of Agency equipment under this Agreement, except for any claim,
injury, liability, loss, cost, and/or expense or damage directly and proximately caused by
the sole and active negligence or willful misconduct of Agency.
The provisions of this section are intended to fully allocate all responsibility between the
parties for claims, demands, actions or suits brought by any third party concerning the
services contemplated under this Agreement. Neither Santa Clara nor the Authority shall
have any rights in law or equity, or otherwise, to any indemnity or contribution from
Agency for matters covered by this section.
This section does not apply to any workers’ compensation liability that may arise if
Agency’s officer(s) are injured while working as a Santa Clara Reserve Officer. In the
Page 3 of 11
AGREEMENT FOR INDEMNITY
event of such an industrial injury, City and/or Authority shall be liable and responsible
for payment(s) they are statutorily obligated to pay, as agreed to by the Parties or as
determined by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction.
In the event of a dispute between the City and/or Authority and any Agency, or if an
Agency employee is named in an action due to service as a Santa Clara Reserve Officer,
the other Agencies named in this Agreement are not necessary parties and need not be
named or involved as parties to that dispute.
3. INSURANCE.
During the term of this Agreement, Santa Clara and Authority shall purchase, and
maintain in full force and effect, at least the following insurance policies:
A. Commercial general liability insurance;
B. Comprehensive automobile injury insurance (bodily injury and property damage)
with respect to employees and vehicles assigned to the performance of work
pursuant to this Agreement;
C. Workers' compensation, employer's liability, if required by law; and,
Santa Clara and Authority shall, during the term of this Agreement, and at no expense to
Agency, maintain the insurance policies, with limits of coverage, endorsements and with
the required certificates as set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" entitled "Insurance
Requirements." The scope and form of each respective insurance coverage shall be
subject to approval of Agency’s City Attorney's Office so that the protection afforded to
Agency by Santa Clara and Authority with respect to this Agreement will be
accomplished. Agency must approve all insurance coverages and carriers prior to
commencement of work under this Agreement. Santa Clara and/or Authority may elect
to self-insure with written notice of such self-insurance provided to Agency(ies).
4. TERM OF AGREEMENT.
The term of this Agreement shall commence upon execution by the Parties and shall
terminate June 30, 2016, unless terminated sooner or extended in whole or in part as
provided for herein.
5. TERMINATION.
A. Any Party may terminate this Agreement as to that Party with or without cause by
giving not less than sixty (60) days advance written notice to the other Parties. A
termination by one Party other than Santa Clara or the Authority shall not
terminate this Agreement as to the remaining Parties.
B. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Agency may terminate the Agreement on only
twenty (20) days advance notice, or less in the event of exigent circumstances, if
Agency concludes that there are insufficient personnel to provide the agreed upon
services and still perform other Agency duties as solely determined by Agency in
its unfettered discretion.
Page 4 of 11
AGREEMENT FOR INDEMNITY
C. In the event of a termination, each Party shall fully discharge all obligations owed
to the other Party accruing prior to the date of such termination, and, except as
otherwise provided herein, each Party shall be released from all obligations,
which would otherwise accrue subsequent to the date of termination. The duty to
hold harmless, indemnify, protect, and defend in accordance with Section 2 above
shall survive termination of this Agreement.
6. NOTICES.
All notices to the Parties shall, unless otherwise requested in writing, be sent and
addressed as follows:
Santa Clara Stadium Authority
Attention: Executive Director
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, California 95050
Fax: (408) 241-6771
And to Santa Clara as follows:
City of Santa Clara
Attention: City Manager
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Fax: (408) 241-6771
And to Agencies addressed as follows:
Campbell: City Manager
70 N. First Street
Campbell, California 95008
Fax: (408) 374-6889
Los Gatos: Town Manager
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Fax: (408) 399-5786
Milpitas: City Manager
455 E. Calaveras Blvd.
Milpitas, California 95035
Fax: (408)
Morgan Hill: City of Morgan Hill
17575 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
Attn: Steve Rymer, City Manager or David Swing, Chief of Police
Fax: (408)
Page 5 of 11
AGREEMENT FOR INDEMNITY
Mountain View: City Manager
500 Castro St.
Mountain View, CA 94039
Fax: (650)
Palo Alto: City Manager
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Fax: (650)
The workday the facsimile was sent shall control the date notice was deemed given if
there is a facsimile machine generated document on the date of transmission. A facsimile
transmitted after 1:00 p.m. on a Friday shall be deemed to have been transmitted on the
following Monday.
7. LAW GOVERNING CONTRACT AND VENUE.
This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the statutes and laws
of the State of California. The venue of any suit filed by either Party shall be vested in
the state courts of the County of Santa Clara.
8. COUNTERPARTS.
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an
original, but both of which shall constitute one and the same instrument; and the Parties
agree that signatures on this Agreement, including those transmitted by facsimile, shall be
sufficient to bind the Parties.
[Signatures follow on next pages.]
Page 6 of 11
AGREEMENT FOR INDEMNITY
The Parties acknowledge and accept the terms and conditions of this Agreement as evidenced by
the following signatures of their duly authorized representatives. It is the intent of the Parties that
this Agreement shall become operative on the Effective Date.
CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA,
a chartered California municipal corporation
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RICHARD E. NOSKY, JR.
City Attorney
ATTEST:
JULIO J. FUENTES
City Manager
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Telephone: (408) 615-2210
Fax: (408) 241-6771
ROD DIRIDON, JR.
City Clerk
“SANTA CLARA”
SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY
a Joint Powers Authority
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RICHARD E. NOSKY, JR.
Authority Counsel
ATTEST:
JULIO J. FUENTES
Executive Director
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Telephone: (408) 615-2210
Fax: (408) 241-6771
ROD DIRIDON, JR.
Secretary
“AUTHORITY”
Page 7 of 11
AGREEMENT FOR INDEMNITY
City of Campbell Approved as to Form:
By: By:
MARK LINDER WILLIAM R. SELIGMANN
City Manager City Attorney
70 N. First Street
Campbell, California 95008
Telephone: (408) 866-2125
Fax: (408) 374-6889
“CAMPBELL”
Town of Los Gatos
By:
Greg Larson, Town Manager
Approved as to Form:
Judith J. Propp, Town Attorney
“LOS GATOS”
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
MICHAEL J. OGAZ
City Attorney
THOMAS C. WILLIAMS
City Manager
455 E. Calaveras Blvd.
Milpitas, CA 95035
Telephone: (408) 586-3050
Fax: (408) 586-3056
STEVE PANGELINAN
Chief of Police
1275 North Milpitas Blvd.
Milpitas, CA 95035
Telephone: (408) 586-2426
Fax: (408) 586-2492
“MILPITAS”
Page 8 of 11
AGREEMENT FOR INDEMNITY
Approved as to Form: CITY OF MORGAN HILL a California
general law municipal corporation
By:
RENEE A. GURZA STEVE RYMER
City Attorney Its: City Manager
“MORGAN HILL”
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jannie L. Quinn
City Attorney
FINANCIAL APPROVAL:
Patty J. Kong
Finance and Administrative Services
Director
ATTEST:
Daniel H. Rich
City Manager
City of Mountain View
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Telephone: 650-903-6301
Fax: 650-962-0384
Lorrie Brewer
City Clerk
“MOUNTAIN VIEW”
CITY OF PALO ALTO
_____________________
City Manager
James Keene
CITY OF PALO ALTO
_____________________
Police Chief
Dennis Burns
APPROVED AS TO FORM
By: _________________________
Assistant City Attorney
City of Palo Alto
“PALO ALTO”
I:\49ers\STADIUM AUTHORITY\Law Enforcement Security Agreements\CITY SANTA CLARA INDEMNITY AGREEMENT FINAL.doc
Page 9 of 11
AGREEMENT FOR INDEMNITY
AGREEMENT FOR INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE
EXHIBIT "A"
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Santa Clara and Authority, and subcontractor(s), if any, shall purchase and maintain the
insurance policies set forth below on all of its operations under this Agreement at its/their sole
cost and expense. Such policies shall be maintained for the full term of this Agreement and the
related warranty period (if applicable). For purposes of the insurance policies required under this
Agreement, the term "Agency" shall include the duly elected or appointed council members,
commissioners, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers of the Agency (city), California,
individually or collectively.
1. MINIMUM SCOPE AND LIMITS OF REQUIRED INSURANCE POLICIES.
The following policies shall be maintained with insurers authorized to do business in the
State of California and shall be issued under forms of policies satisfactory to the Agency:
A. COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY ("CGL").
Policy shall include coverage at least as broad as set forth in Insurance Services
Office (herein "ISO") Commercial General Liability coverage (Occurrence Form
CG 0001) with policy limits not less than the following:
$1,000,000 each occurrence (combined single limit);
$1,000,000 for personal injury liability;
$3,000,000 aggregate for products-completed operations; and,
$3,000,000 general aggregate applying separately to this project.
B. BUSINESS AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY POLICY ("BAL").
Policy shall include coverage at least as broad as set forth in Insurance Services
Office Business Automobile Liability coverage, Symbol 1 "Any Auto" (Form CA
0001). This policy shall include a minimum combined single limit of not less than
one million ($1,000,000) dollars for each accident, for bodily injury and/or
property damage.
C. WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
INSURANCE POLICY ("WC/EL"). (A Workers' Compensation Policy is
required.)
These policies shall include at least the following coverages and policy limits:
1. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the laws of the State of
California; and
2. Employer's Liability insurance with coverage amounts not less than one
Page 10 of 11
AGREEMENT FOR INDEMNITY
million ($1,000,000) dollars each accident/Bodily Injury (herein "BI");
one million ($1,000,000) dollars policy limit BI by disease; and, one
million ($1,000,000) dollars each employee BI by disease.
2. DEDUCTIBLES AND SELF-INSURANCE RETENTIONS.
Any deductibles and/or self-insured retentions which apply to any of the insurance
policies referred to above shall be declared in writing by Santa Clara and or Authority
and approved by the Agency before work is begun pursuant to this Agreement. At the
option of the Agency, Santa Clara shall either reduce or eliminate such deductibles or
self-insured retentions or provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the Agency
guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and/or
defense expenses.
3. ENDORSEMENTS.
All of the following clauses and endorsements, or similar provisions, are required to be
made a part of the required insurance policies indicated in parentheses below:
A. Additional Insureds The Agency, its City Council, commissions, officers and
employees are hereby added as additional insureds in respect to liability arising
out of the scope of work of this Agreement, providing coverage at least as broad
as Insurance Services Office (ISO) Endorsement CG 2010, 1985 Edition, or
insurer's equivalent (CGL);
B. General Aggregate The general aggregate limits shall apply separately to Santa
Clara and Authority stadium events under this Agreement providing coverage at
least as broad as Insurance Services Office (ISO) Endorsement CG 2503, 1985
Edition, or insurer's equivalent (CGL);
C. Primary Insurance This policy shall be considered primary insurance with respect
to any other valid and collectible insurance Agency may possess, including any
self-insured retention Agency may have, and any other insurance Agency does
possess shall be considered excess insurance only and shall not be called upon to
contribute with this insurance (CGL & BAL); and
D. Notice of Cancellation No cancellation shall be effective until written notice has
been given at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of such cancellation
to Agency at the address set forth below, except the insurer may give ten (10)
days notice for non-payment of premium (CGL, BAL, WC/EL & PL).
4. ABSENCE OF INSURANCE COVERAGE.
Agency may direct Santa Clara or Authority to immediately cease all activities with
respect to this Agreement if the Agency determines that Santa Clara fails to carry, in full
force and effect, all insurance policies with coverages at or above the limits specified in
this Agreement.
Page 11 of 11
AGREEMENT FOR INDEMNITY
5. PROOF OF INSURANCE COVERAGE AND COVERAGE VERIFICATION.
A Certificate of Insurance, on an Accord form, and implementing endorsements shall be
provided to Agency by each of Santa Clara's and Authority’s insurance companies as
evidence of the stipulated coverages prior to commencement of work under this
Agreement, and annually thereafter at least ten (10) days prior to termination of existing
coverage for the term of this Agreement. Agency reserves the right to require complete,
certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the
coverage required by this Agreement at any time. All of the insurance companies
providing insurance for Contractor shall have, and provide evidence of, a Best Rating
Service rate of "A VI" or above.
The Certificate of Insurance and coverage verification and all other notices related to
cancellation shall be mailed to:
Office of the City Clerk
Attention: [insert department name]
_____________________
_____________________
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4450)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/3/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. C12141152
Title: Approval of Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. C12141152 Between the
City of Palo Alto and Leidos Engineering, LLC
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council approve, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to
execute, Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. C12141152 with Leidos Engineering, LLC (Contract).
Leidos Engineering to allow for the assumption of all obligations of SAIC Energy Environment &
Infrastructure, LLC (SAIC) under the Contract and all amendments to the Contract.
Staff also recommends extending the contract term for a third time to June 30, 2014, with no
increase in compensation, to allow the vendor to complete the agreed-upon scope of work.
(See Attachment A: Amendment No. 3 to Contract C12141152.)
Background
The Council, as part of the FY 2012 Budget discussion, asked the City Manager to retain a firm
with expertise in conducting organizational assessments of municipal utility operations. The
City issued a formal Request for Proposals (RFP) in fall 2011. Seven firms responded to the RFP,
and Leidos (SAIC) was selected by staff and recommended as the lowest responsible bidder,
with the Council granting its approval on February 6, 2012. (See Attachment B: CMR #2421.)
The original contract award was for $205,888 plus a contingency amount of $19,112 for a not to
exceed amount of $225,000.
Discussion
The original contract term was to expire on May 28, 2012. The term was extended to
November 28, 2012 and then to August 28, 2013 with no increase in compensation. Staff
requests that the term of the Contract be extended through June 30, 2014. Although the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
vendor produced its draft final report, staff wants to ensure that the consultant has adequate
time to make its final presentation to Council. The extensions were necessary because of
delays due to several factors:
(1) Validation requested by the Utility staff on benchmarking data
(2) Multiple meetings to discuss findings with ASD and Utilities staff
(3) City project manager’s temporary assignment as Interim Office of Management and
Budget Director
(4) City project manager’s subsequent departure from the City
(5) Leidos project manager and another key staff member left the company
(6) Reassigned project leads required additional meetings to catch up and update the
report.
SAIC changed its name to Leidos Engineering, LLC per the Consultant’s Letter dated October 17,
2013. (See Attachment A1: Consultant’s Letter re: Name Change dated October 17, 2013.)
Resource Impact
No additional funding is needed at this time.
Policy Implications
Approval of the agreement is consistent with existing City policies.
Environmental Review
These services do not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
Attachments:
Attachments A and A1: C12141152 Leidos Contract Amendment 3 (PDF)
Attachment B: CMR #2421 (PDF)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2421)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 2/6/2012
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Utilities Organizational Assessment Contract
Title: Approval of an agreement for Professional Services with SAIC Energy,
Environment & Infrastructure, LLC in the amount of Two Hundred and Twenty
Five Thousand dollars ($225,000) for an Organizational Assessment of the
Palo Alto Utilities Department
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a contract for
professional services with SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC in the amount of
Two-Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand dollars ($225,000) to complete an organizational
assessment of the Utilities Department.
Executive Summary
The City Council as part of the FY12 budget discussion asked the City Manager to move forward
with a plan to retain a firm with expertise in conducting organizational assessments of
municipal utility operations. The City issued a formal Request for Proposals (RFP) for this work
in the fall of 2011. Seven firms responded to the RFP. After review of the written RFP
responses and personal interviews with the finalist firms, SAIC was selected to do the work.
Two SAIC innovations they proposed included:
1. A Cultural Assessment Tool. SAIC plans to quantify and measure the existing CPAU
culture to determine how the culture is supporting or hindering organizational
performance and achievement of strategic initiatives. This work will be essential to
developing a practical plan leading to potential attainable improvements in CPAU
operations.
2. A Workload Forecasting Tool. SAIC has also developed a forecasting tool to provide a
City of Palo Alto Page 2
quantitative assessment of staffing requirements. The tool looks at both capital and
operating budget-based projects and estimates the labor hours required by task,
subtask, project and function. Each project and function is assigned a priority based on a
multi-objective function that considers safety, reliability, customer service, regulatory
compliance and cost minimization as objectives. The tool then provides a quantitative
assessment of the workload and resources to help managers align the work with
available resources.
Background and Discussion
Solicitation and Evaluation Process
Development of the Request for Proposals (RFP) began in the summer 2011. As part of this
process the decision was made that the evaluation criteria weighted value would be 90%
qualitative and 10% cost. The Request for Proposals (RFP) for these services was issued
September 16, 2011. As part of the outreach, sixteen perspective proposers were sent a copy of
the RFP. Additionally, the RFP was posted on the City Web Site. Furthermore, a Pre-Proposal
Solicitation Conference was held October 5, 2011 to explain the RFP and answer questions
submitted by potential proposers regarding the RFP. On November 7, 2011 the RFP closed.
Seven proposers responded. These firms were: First Quartile, Moss Adams LLP, PA Consulting
Group LLC, SAIC, Nexant, Matrix and Capgemini Consulting. The range of proposal prices
submitted was between: $95,000-$516,120. The evaluation committee was comprised of
members from the City Manager’s Office, Planning and Community Environment, Utilities and
ASD. After reviewing the seven proposals the committee decided to invite four proposers for
interviews: First Quartile, Moss Adams LLP, PA Consulting Group LLC, SAIC. After completion of
the interviews the evaluation committee unanimously decided to recommend to the City
Manager that SAIC be awarded a contract to perform the work.
The last major external organizational assessment of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department
(CPAU) was done in November of 1996. This assessment was done by a firm called TB&J which
has since been purchased by a larger firm in the same line of work. The City has also completed
such studies in the past including an organizational review of paramedic billings and collections
and a separate report was done evaluating all city operations. Both of these reports were done
in 1994.
Since that time, there have been many changes to CPAU’s operations and services to the
community. For example, one significant change has been the emergence of sustainability
measures due to the passage of AB32 and SB375 in California. CPAU is the largest City
department. It operates five enterprise funds in which rates and charges support the services
provided as well as the infrastructure maintained and operated by CPAU. In each budget cycle
CPAU presents information on suggested rates and charges, recommended capital
improvement plans, and operational data.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
An independent and comprehensive review of CPAU will be conducted, including
administration, customer support services, resource management, engineering, and operations.
The report will analyze and review how the department is organized, and how the department
is performing in terms of providing highly efficient and effective utility services to the
community. The purpose for undertaking an organizational assessment is twofold. The first is to
review the services CPAU provides to determine optimal staffing levels. The second is to
evaluate the current and potential future trends in the utilities industry (electric, gas, water,
wastewater collection, fiber), to ensure that CPAU is appropriately positioned to meet those
challenges. For example, is CPAU positioned correctly to be appropriately innovative and
effectively and efficiently use state-of-the art technology applications to serve its customers?
Should CPAU take full advantage of emerging and new technologies on the horizon and at what
cost? What level of leadership should CPAU take as compared to its peers in the area of
environmental sustainability and green technologies, and at what cost? The organizational
assessment will review current CPAU services and determine how to best deliver required
services to customers in the most fiscally responsible way.
How it relates to strategic plan
The CPAU 2011 strategic plan approved by the City Council will be one of several source
documents that will be used by SAIC to perform the CPAU organizational analysis work. Driving
the recent completion by CPAU of a new strategic plan was the need for an update since the
last plan was completed in 2005.
Deliverables
A report listing current CPAU services, organizational structure, and services desired by
the community
Recommendations on the optimal utilities services provision model
Report outlining external regulatory and business environment
Report outlining future trends and technologies expected to influence the provision of
utilities services in the next 5-10 years
Assessment of skills required to meet current and future utilities business needs
Recommendations on the organizational changes desired to optimally meet the needs
of the current and future utility business and the customer service environment
Report outlining the current cost of service delivery by function or service
Benchmark results comparing CPAU to organizations providing similar services
Report providing a comparison of customer satisfaction for CPAU versus similar
organizations
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Recommendations for the adequacy of current staffing and the use of internal versus
external service delivery mechanisms
Report listing alternative service delivery mechanisms, services that should be
discontinued, and services that should be added
Recommendations on the optimal service delivery mechanism for the delivery of each
service identified
The final report will include recommendations on the: 1) set of services that are valued by the
community; 2) key features of the external environment that will the influence organizational
structure and the delivery of services; 3) appropriate staffing and use of external resources and
services; 4) the best way to provide each service; 5) organizational changes needed to support
the provision of the recommended services; and 6) a plan to implement the organizational
changes over the next three years.
The final report will include:
An executive summary of key findings
A comprehensive analysis of CPAU’s current effectiveness and efficiency in the delivery
of services
Recommendations on areas where efficiency and effectiveness can be improved.
The report will also identify recommendations in order of priority and consider:
Alternative staffing strategies
Alternative or modified service delivery methods including, the costs and benefits of
privatization options and alternatives
Alternative organizational structures and functional relationships within the
department, and possible changes to this structure and with third party organizations;
and
Alternative or modified work methods and protocols
Recommendations on changes to the organizational structure to enhance the cost effectiveness
and quality of service delivery in the future will analyze:
Steps needed to implement the organizational structure
Options for phasing in the recommendation
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Costs for implementation
Staffing and additional resources required to implement the changes
Changes required in existing policy
Impacts to existing employees
The recommendations including recommended actions will be ranked by priority, include a
resource plan needed to execute (e.g., staff, budget, outside resources), identified success
criteria, a workplan and schedule, issues identification and policy implications. Once completed,
the report will be presented to the City Manager, the UAC and the City Council for review and
action. Based on City Council policy direction, staff will implement the plan recommendations.
Timeline and Resource Impacts
It is anticipated this work will take approximately four to five months to complete following
contract award. Thus, we are anticipating the report will be available in May/June of this year.
The Utilities Department (UTL) had budgeted $100,000 in their FY12 budget previously
approved by the City Council. The project cost is $225,000. The UTL’s Department will augment
the original $100,000 with another $50,000 in current savings in their budget and request the
remaining balance of $75,000 in the FY12 Mid-Year budget adjustment.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Introduction to SAIC, the Project Consultant (PDF)
Attachment B: Palo Alto City Council Slides January 2012 (PDF)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4236)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/3/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Public Safety Radios
Title: Approval of the Purchase of 38 Multi-band Radios for Police and Fire
for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $116,000
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Police
Recommendation
Staff recommends that City Council approve and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute
the purchase of 23 multi-band mobile radios and accessories for the Fire Department. An Assistance to
Firefighters Grant (AFG) award will cover 80 percent of the purchase price with a 20 percent match from
the City’s Radio Infrastructure Replacement Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Staff recommends that
Council also approve the purchase of 15 multi-band portable radios for the Police Department from the
Radio Infrastructure Replacement CIP. These radios are eligible for a 49 percent discount as part of the
Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA) 700 MHz radio project.
Discussion
Santa Clara County, through the SVRIA, is in the first phase of building a countywide 700 MHz radio
system. Currently, public safety personnel in the various agencies within the County operate on
separate radio frequencies, which hinder communication between agencies. This system will provide a
countywide interoperable radio system that will allow public safety personnel from multiple agencies to
communicate with each other in the 700 MHz band, which has been reserved for public safety
communications by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The City of Santa Clara’s police and
fire personnel and Sunnyvale’s Department of Public Safety (DPS) personnel will begin operating on the
new 700 MHz system this year. The timeline for the complete countywide build out is dependent on
funding, and there is certain to be a minimum of three years before the system is completed, even
under optimum circumstances. During that time, public safety agencies will be operating on three
different frequency bands. The multi-band radios provide interoperability both during and after the
construction phase of the 700 MHz system.
In the State of California and most of the United States, fire agencies operate radios in the very high
frequency (VHF) range between 30 and 300 MHz. The Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) operates at 153
MHz. As the initial phase of a planned countywide radio system, Santa Clara Police and Fire and
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety (DPS) will migrate to a new 700 MHz radio system. These two
frequency bands are not compatible for radio communication, which hinders communication at major
incidents and delays response and coordination at events requiring multi-agency responses. Effective
communication between responding fire personnel from different agencies is critical for coordination
and firefighter safety.
The Palo Alto Fire Department, in conjunction with Sunnyvale DPS, Milpitas Fire, City of Santa Clara Fire,
San Jose Fire, Gilroy Fire, and Santa Clara County Fire applied for a 2012 Assistance to Firefighters Grant
to purchase dual-band mobile radios to equip the fire apparatus. As a result of this grant award, Palo
Alto was allocated 23 multi-band mobile radios, the maximum number of radios allowed under the grant
award guidelines. This will allow the Department to equip all frontline fire apparatus with a multi-band
mobile radio to cover the existing VHF frequencies and the new 700 MHz frequencies. This capability
will allow fire personnel to communicate with any fire agency in the region and state. The mobile radios
will enhance on-scene coordination and situational awareness for local incidents, as well as the ability to
communicate when deployed on mutual aid to major incidents throughout the state.
The Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD) operates radios in the ultra-high frequency (UHF) range
between 300 and 3,000 MHz; however, the current radios do not work on the 700 MHz frequencies.
Staff recommends the purchase of 15 multi-band portable radios for on-duty Police supervisors to
communicate with Santa Clara Police and Sunnyvale DPS on the new 700 MHz frequencies in the event
of a major incident or catastrophe. In addition, the new multi-band radios will enable PAPD and PAFD to
continue to communicate with public safety agencies to the north in San Mateo County who will
continue to operate on UHF for Police and VHF for Fire.
Resource Impact
The AFG Award was awarded to the County of Santa Clara in the amount of $1,386,000, and requires the
participating agencies to provide a 20 percent match for the radio purchases. The participating agencies
determined the allocation of radios to the various jurisdictions based on the total grant amount, and
Palo Alto was allocated 23 mobile radios at a cost of $5,811 per radio, for a total cost of $133,653,
including 8.75% sales tax. Palo Alto’s 20 percent match amount will be approximately $26,730, and with
a small contingency, to fund any additional equipment needed to install the radios in the apparatus, the
total cost for Palo Alto will not exceed $31,000. As part of the purchase, maintenance costs for the
radios will be covered for five years after the purchase. After this warrantee period, the Department
will need to include the maintenance costs as part of their non-salary budget. The Department has
funding available in the Radio Infrastructure Replacement CIP (TE-05000). Based on the AFG Award
agreement, the County of Santa Clara will purchase the radios for the region and will bill Palo Alto for
the 20 percent match.
Santa Clara County, through SVRIA, negotiated very favorable pricing on the police portable radios and
the cost, with accessories represents a 49 percent discount from Motorola’s retail pricing. The cost of
the 15 Police multi-band portable radios is $5,349 per radio; a total of $80,235 including 8.75% sales tax.
Funding for this purchase will come from the Radio Infrastructure Replacement CIP (TE-05000), and with
a small contingency to fund holsters, microphones, and other necessary accessories, the not to exceed
City of Palo Alto Page 3
amount is $85,000. As part of the purchase, maintenance costs for the radios will be covered for five
years after the purchase. After this warrantee period, the Department will need to include the
maintenance costs as part of their non-salary budget. Palo Alto will pay Motorola directly for the 15
Police multi-band portable radios.
Policy Implications
Expenditure of funds is consistent with City policy.
Environmental Review
The equipment being supplied is in conformance with all applicable emissions laws and regulations.
Attachments:
ATTACHMENT A - 2012 AFG Award (PDF)
ATTACHMENT B - Motorola Mobile Radio Quote - Fire (PDF)
ATTACHMENT C - Motorola Portable Quote - Police (PDF)
Award Package
Page 1 of 6Panel Review
10/25/2013https://eservices.fema.gov/FemaFireGrant/firegrant/jsp/fire_admin/a...
Ms. Ann Durkes
City of Sunnyvale
P.O. Box 3707
Sunnyvale, California 94088-3707
Re: Grant No.EMW-2012-FR-00331
Dear Ms. Durkes:
On behalf of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), I
am pleased to inform you that your grant application submitted under the FY 2012 Assistance to Firefighters Grant has
been approved. FEMA’s Grant Programs Directorate (GPD), in consultation with the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA),
carries out the Federal responsibilities of administering your grant. The approved project costs total to $895,409.00. The
Federal share is 80 percent or $716,327.00 of the approved amount and your share of the costs is 20 percent or
$179,082.00.
As part of your award package, you will find Grant Agreement Articles. Please make sure you read and understand the
Articles as they outline the terms and conditions of your grant award. Maintain a copy of these documents for your official
file. You establish acceptance of the grant and Grant Agreement Articles when you formally receive the award
through the AFG online system. By accepting the grant, you agree not to deviate from the approved scope of work
without prior written approval from FEMA.
If your SF 1199A has been reviewed and approved, you will be able to request payments online. Remember, you should
request funds when you have an immediate cash need.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the awards process or how to request your grant funds, please call the
helpdesk at 1-866-274-0960.
Sincerely,
Brian E. Kamoie
Assistant Administrator
Grant Programs Directorate
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20472
Page 2 of 6Panel Review
10/25/2013https://eservices.fema.gov/FemaFireGrant/firegrant/jsp/fire_admin/a...
Agreement Articles
AGREEMENT ARTICLES
ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANT PROGRAM -Operations and Safety program
GRANTEE: City of Sunnyvale
PROGRAM: Operations and Safety
AGREEMENT NUMBER: EMW-2012-FR-00331
AMENDMENT NUMBER:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Article I -Project Description
The purpose of the Assistance to Firefighters Program is to protect the health and safety of the public and firefighting
personnel against fire and fire-related hazards. After careful consideration, FEMA has determined that the grantee's
project submitted as part of the grantee's application, and detailed in the project narrative as well as the request details
section of the application -including budget information -is consistent with the program's purpose and worthy of award.
Therefore, the grantee shall perform the work described in the approved grant application as itemized in the request
details section of the application and further described in the grant application's narrative. These sections of the
application are made a part of these grant agreement articles by reference. The grantee may not change or make any
material deviations from the approved scope of work outlined in the above referenced sections of the application without
prior written approval from FEMA.
Article II -Grantee Concurrence
By providing the Primary Contact’s electronic signature and indicating acceptance of the award, the grantee accepts and
agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of the grant as set forth in this document and the documents identified
below. Grantees agree that they will use the funds provided through the Fiscal Year 2012 Assistance to Firefighters
Grant Program in accordance with these Articles of Agreement and the program guidelines provided in the Fiscal Year
2012 Assistance to Firefighters Grant program guidance. All documents submitted as part of the application are made a
part of this agreement by reference.
Article III -Period of Performance
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20472
Article I Project Description
Article II Grantee Concurrence
Article III Period of Performance
Article IV Amount Awarded
Article V Financial Guidelines
Article VI Prohibition on Using Federal Funds
Article VII GPD Allocations
Article VIII Financial Reporting
Article IX FEMA Officials
Article X Central Contractor Registration (CCR)
Page 3 of 6Panel Review
10/25/2013https://eservices.fema.gov/FemaFireGrant/firegrant/jsp/fire_admin/a...
The period of performance shall be from 23-SEP-13 to 22-SEP-14.
Article IV -Amount Awarded
The amount of the award is detailed on the Obligating Document for the Award attached to these articles. Following are
the budgeted estimates for each object class of this grant (including Federal share plus grantee match):
NEGOTIATION COMMENTS IF APPLICABLE
The Program Office has made the following reductions to your grant:
The approved quantity of mobile radios is 160 at $5,562 each.
The approved cost for “additional funding”is $5,489.
Therefore, they have recommended the award at this level:
Total budget $895,409
Federal share $716,327
Applicant share $179,082
Any questions pertaining to your award package, please contact your GPD Grants Management Specialist: Earl Davis at
Earl.Davis@dhs.gov.
Article V -Financial Guidelines
The grantee and any subgrantee shall comply with the most recent version of the Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles, and Audit Requirements. A non-exclusive list of regulations commonly applicable to FEMA grants are listed
below:
Personnel $0.00
Fringe Benefits $0.00
Travel $0.00
Equipment $889,920.00
Supplies $0.00
Contractual $0.00
Construction $0.00
Other $5,489.00
Indirect Charges $0.00
Total $895,409.00
A. Administrative Requirements
1. 44 CFR Part 13, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and
Local Governments
2. 2 CFR Part 215, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher
Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations (OMB Circular A-110)
B. Cost Principles
1. 2 CFR Part 225, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments (OMB Circular A-87)
2. 2 CFR Part 220, Cost Principles for Educational Institutions (OMB Circular A-21)
3. 2 CFR Part 230, Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations (OMB Circular A-122)
4. Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), Part 31.2 Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, Contracts with
Commercial Organizations
C. Audit Requirements
1. OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Nonprofit Organizations
Page 4 of 6Panel Review
10/25/2013https://eservices.fema.gov/FemaFireGrant/firegrant/jsp/fire_admin/a...
Article VI -Prohibition on Using Federal Funds
Recipient understands and agrees that it cannot use any federal funds, either directly or indirectly, in support of the
enactment, repeal, modification or adoption of any law, regulation or policy, at any level of government, without the
express prior written approval of FEMA.
Article VII -GPD Allocations
The recipient agrees that all allocations and use of funds under this grant will be in accordance with the FY 2012
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program guidance and application kit.
Article VIII -Financial Reporting
Recipients of any Assistance to Firefighters Grants will be required to submit a semi-annual Federal Financial Report
(FFR) via the automated system on the Standard Form 425. The FFR is intended to provide Federal agencies and grant
recipients with a standard format and consistent reporting requirements throughout the government. The FFR, to be
submitted using the online e-grant system, will be due semi-annually based on the calendar year beginning with the
period after the award is made. Grant recipients will be required to submit a FFR throughout the entire period of
performance of the grant.
The reporting periods for the FFR are January 1 through June 30 (Report due by July 31), and July 1 through December
31 (Report due by January 30).
At the end of the grant’s period of performance, all grantees are required to produce a final report on how the grant
funding was used and the benefits realized from the award. Grantees must submit a final financial report and a final
performance report within 90 days after the end of the period of performance.
Article IX -FEMA Officials
Program Officer: Catherine Patterson is the Program Officer for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. The
Program Officer is responsible for the technical monitoring of the stages of work and technical performance of the
activities described in the approved grant application.
Grants Assistance Officer: Andrea Day is the Assistance Officer for this grant program. The Assistance Officer is the
Federal official responsible for negotiating, administering, and executing all grant business matters. If you have any
questions regarding your grant please call ASK-GMD at 866-927-5646 to be directed to a specialist.
Grants Management Division POC: The Grants Management Specialist shall be contacted to address all financial and
administrative grant business matters for this award. If you have any questions regarding your grant please call ASK-
GMD at 866-927-5646 to be directed to a specialist.
Article X -Central Contractor Registration (CCR)
Recipients of an AFG grant are required Central Contractor Registration (CCR) in the SAM.gov system. Active
registration in the Central Contractor Registry ensures grantees are compliant with Federal regulations under Federal
Financial Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA). CCR registration is free, and may take up to 5 to 10 business
days to process. For help with registering in the CCR, please visit SAM.gov for more information.
Page 5 of 6Panel Review
10/25/2013https://eservices.fema.gov/FemaFireGrant/firegrant/jsp/fire_admin/a...
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
OBLIGATING DOCUMENT FOR AWARD AMENDMENT
1a. AGREEMENT NO.
EMW-2012-FR-00331
2. AMENDMENT NO.
0
3. RECIPIENT NO.
94-6000438
4. TYPE OF
ACTION
AWARD
5. CONTROL NO.
W279230N
6. RECIPIENT NAME AND
ADDRESS
City of Sunnyvale
700 All America Way
Sunnyvale
California, 94086-7642
7. ISSUING OFFICE AND ADDRESS
Grant Programs Directorate
500 C Street, S.W.
Washington DC, 20528-7000
POC: Andrea Day
8. PAYMENT OFFICE AND ADDRESS
FEMA, Financial Services Branch
500 C Street, S.W., Room 723
Washington DC, 20472
9. NAME OF RECIPIENT
PROJECT OFFICER
Ann Durkes
PHONE NO.
4087307355
10. NAME OF PROJECT COORDINATOR
Catherine Patterson
PHONE NO.
1-866-274-0960
11. EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS
ACTION
23-SEP-13
12. METHOD OF
PAYMENT
SF-270
13. ASSISTANCE ARRANGEMENT
Cost Sharing
14. PERFORMANCE PERIOD
From:23-SEP-
13 To:22-SEP-14
Budget Period
From:01-NOV-
12 To:30-SEP-13
15. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
a. (Indicate funding data for awards or financial changes)
PROGRAM NAME
ACRONYM
CFDA NO.ACCOUNTING DATA
(ACCS CODE)
XXXX-XXX-XXXXXX-XXXXX-
XXXX-XXXX-X
PRIOR
TOTAL
AWARD
AMOUNT AWARDED
THIS ACTION
+ OR (-)
CURRENT
TOTAL AWARD
CUMMULATIVE
NON-
FEDERAL
COMMITMENT
AFG 97.044 2013-1C-C111-P4000000-4101-
D
$0.00 $716,327.00 $716,327.00 $179,082.00
TOTALS $0.00 $716,327.00 $716,327.00 $179,082.00
b. To describe changes other than funding data or financial changes, attach schedule and check here.
N/A
16a. FOR NON-DISASTER PROGRAMS: RECIPIENT IS REQUIRED TO SIGN AND RETURN THREE (3) COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT TO FEMA
(See Block 7 for address)
Assistance to Firefighters Grant recipients are not required to sign and return copies of this document. However, recipients should print and keep a
copy of this document for their records.
16b. FOR DISASTER PROGRAMS: RECIPIENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO SIGN
This assistance is subject to terms and conditions attached to this award notice or by incorporated reference in program legislation cited above.
17. RECIPIENT SIGNATORY OFFICIAL (Name and Title)
N/A
DATE
N/A
18. FEMA SIGNATORY OFFICIAL (Name and Title)
Andrea Day
DATE
20-SEP-13
Go Back
Page 6 of 6Panel Review
10/25/2013https://eservices.fema.gov/FemaFireGrant/firegrant/jsp/fire_admin/a...
Date: RADIO EQUIPMENT PROPOSAL
BILLTO:Palo Alto Fire Department SHIP TO:Palo Alto Fire Department
Attn: Charles Cullen Attn: Charles Cullen
275 Forest Avenue 275 Forest Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301 Palo Alto, CA 94301
charles.cullen@cityofpaloalto.org
650.329.2331
Item ProductNumber Description Unit Price
List Price
SVRIA Qty
Discount
Incentive
III.C Price
1 17 17 APX7500 Motorola Mobile, Dual Band Radio 2,772.00 1,995.84 1,566.73
M30TXS9PW1 N 1250 Channel, Digital, 10-110 Watts
2 66APX7500 Motorola Mobile, Dual Band Radio 2,272.00 1,635.84 1,284.13
M30TSS9PW1 N 1250 Channel, Digital, 10-45 Watts
A 23 23 G806 Astro Digital CAI 515.00 370.80 291.08
B 23 23 G51 Smartzone Operation 1,500.00 1,080.00 847.80
1c 17 17 GA00309 VHF Secondary Band, High Power 400.00 288.00 226.08
2c 66GA00308 VHF Secondary Band, Mid Power 400.00 288.00 226.08
D 23 23 GA00244 700/800 Primary Band 0.00 0.00 0.00
E 23 23 GA00579AA Enable Dual Band 600.00 432.00 339.12
F 23 23 G442 APX 05 Control Head 432.00 311.04 244.17
G 23 23 G444 Control Head Software 0.00 0.00 0.00
H 23 23 G361 P25 Trunking Software 300.00 216.00 169.56
I 23 23 GA00580 TDMA Operation 400.00 288.00 226.08
J 29 29 W22 Palm Microphone 72.00 51.84 40.69
K 29 29 B18 Auxillary Speaker, 7.5 Watts 60.00 43.20 33.91
L 23 23 G335 Antenna, 1/4 Wave 762 - 870 Mhz 14.00 10.08 7.91
M 23 23 G629 Antenna, 146 - 174 Mhz 64.00 46.08 36.17
N 23 23 G996 Over-the-Air Provisioning 100.00 72.00 56.52
O 23 23 W947 RS232 Packet Data Interface 200.00 144.00 113.04
P 23 23 QA01749AB Software Key 0.00 0.00 0.00
1q 6 6 G618 Cable, Remote Mount, 10 Feet 10.00 7.20 5.65
1r 6 6 G628 Cable, Remote Mount, 17 Feet 15.00 10.80 8.48
1s 6 6 GA00092 APX7500 Dual Control Hardware 570.00 410.40 322.16
2t 6 6 G66 Dash Mount 125.00 90.00 70.65
U 23 23 GA00318 4 Year Service SFS 246.00 246.00 193.11
V*1 1 TEMPLATE Template Development 2,000.00 2,000.00 1,570.00
1w*6 6 INSTALL DH Installation - Fire Engine, Dual Head 2,095.00 2,095.00 1,644.58
2x*6 6 INSTALL DM Installation - Dash Mount 410.00 410.00 321.85
1y*9 9 INSTALL SH Installation - Fire Engine, Single Head 870.00 870.00 682.95
1z*2 2 INSTALL R Installation - Remote, Single Head 525.00 525.00 412.13
1307 E. Algonquin Rd., Schaumburg, IL 60196 Phone: 866.593.3190 Fax: 214.343.5555
02/10/14
Quantity
AA*23 23 PROGRAM APX Programming 120.00 120.00 94.20
ALTERNATE OPTIONS
A1 0 W20 Keypad Microphone, GCAI 180.00 129.60 101.74
Terms: Net 30 Total Equipment Cost
Contract: SVRIA
Proposal Valid for: 2/28/14
Purchase Order Number: Estimated Tax: 8.75%
Approximate Delivery Date: Ship/Handling
Prepared By: Ken McCarthy, Authorized Manufacturer's Rep Subtotal Taxable
FTU NEW ADD UPGRADE Subtotal Non-Tax Items *
(Items V, 1w, 2x, 1y, 1z and AA)
Accepted By:______________________Date:_____________ TOTAL
*Please note installation may be approximate until free job walk is complete.
**Frequency Coordination/License fees are paid directly to the licensing agency. Motorola is not responsible for customer
licenses, frequency coordination or radios that are programmed previous to F.C.C granting of customer licenses.
Prepared by Ken McCarthy, Motorola Manufacturer's Representative, ken.mccarthy@bearcom.com, 707.249.1565
Total
26,634.41
7,704.78
6,694.84
19,499.40
3,843.36
1,356.48
0.00
7,799.76
5,615.91
0.00
3,899.88
5,199.84
1,180.01
983.39
181.93
831.91
1,299.96
2,599.92
0.00
33.90
50.88
1,932.96
423.90
4,441.53
1,570.00
9,867.48
1,931.10
6,146.55
824.26
2,166.60
-
-
102,208.95$
8,943.28$
-$
111,152.23$
22,505.99$
133,658.22$
Date: RADIO EQUIPMENT PROPOSAL
BILLTO:City of Palo Alto Police Department SHIP TO:City of Palo Alto Police Department
Attn: Charles Cullen Attn:
275 Forest Avenue 275 Forest Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301 Palo Alto, CA 94301
charles.cullen@cityofpaloalto.org
650.329.2331
Item Quantity ProductNumber Description List Price Discount Price Total
APX7000 PORTABLE RADIO LIST
1 15 H97TGD9PW1AN Motorola APX7000 Portable Radio 2,797.00 28% 2,013.84 30,207.60
700/800Mhz, 3 Watt, Dual Band
1a 15 QA00577 Large Color Display, Full Keypad 500.00 28% 360.00 5,400.00
1b 15 Q629 AES Encryption 475.00 28% 342.00 5,130.00
1c 15 QA02818 Battery,2300mAh Lithium, FM,Impres 50.00 28% 36.00 540.00
1d 15 Q806 Software, Astro Digital CAI, P25 515.00 28% 370.80 5,562.00
1e 15 H38 Smartzone System Software 1,500.00 28% 1,080.00 16,200.00
1f 15 Q361 P25 9600 Baud Trunking 300.00 28% 216.00 3,240.00
1g 15 QA01749AB Advanced System Key Software 0.00 28% 0.00 0.00
1h 15 QA00579 Enable Dual Band Operation 1,000.00 28% 720.00 10,800.00
1i 15 QA00569 700/800Mhz Primary Band 0.00 28% 0.00 0.00
1j 15 QA00576 UHF 2 Secondary Band 0.00 28% 0.00 0.00
1k 15 QA00580 TDMA Operation 400.00 28% 288.00 4,320.00
1l 15 G996 Programming over P25 (OTAP)100.00 28% 72.00 1,080.00
1m 15 Q947 Radio Packet Data 200.00 28% 144.00 2,160.00
1n 15 GA00232 3 Year Repair Service Advantage 150.00 28% 150.00 2,250.00
2 15 NNTN7080A Impres Single Unit Rapid Charger 125.00 28% 90.00 1,350.00
3 15 PMMN4062 SpeakerMic, Noise Canceling,3.5jack 107.00 28% 77.04 1,155.60
4 15 RLN5883 Impres Surveillance, 2-Wire, Beige 122.00 28% 87.84 1,317.60
5 2 NNTN7065 Impres Multiunit Charging Station (6)788.00 28% 567.36 1,134.72
6 15 NNTN8092 Battery,2300mAh Lithium, FM,Impres 140.00 28% 100.80 1,512.00
7 15 RLN4941 Earpiece, Receive Only Acoustic Tube 58.00 28% 41.76 626.40
0.00
-
Terms: Net 30 Total Equipment Cost 93,985.92$
Contract: SVRIA * User training
Proposal Valid for: 12/10/2013 ** Frequency Coord./License n/a
Purchase Order Number: Estimated Tax: 8.750% 8,223.77$
Approximate Delivery Date: Ship/Handling -$
Prepared: Ken McCarthy, Authorized Manufacturer's Rep Total 102,209.69$
FTU NEW ADD UPGRADE Less Down Payment
Agency Migration Incentive (III.C) 21.50% (21,975.08)$
Accepted By:______________________Date:_____________ TOTAL 80,234.61$
*Please note installation may be approximate until free job walk is complete.
**Frequency Coordination/License fees are paid directly to the licensing agency. Motorola is not responsible for customer
licenses, frequency coordination or radios that are programmed previous to F.C.C granting of customer licenses.
1307 E. Algonquin Rd., Schaumburg, IL 60196 Phone: 866.593.3190 Fax: 214.343.5555
Prepared by Ken McCarthy, Motorola Manufacturer's Representative, ken.mccarthy@bearcom.com, 707.249.1565
11/11/13
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
March 3, 2014
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Request for Authorization to Increase Existing Legal Services
Agreement with the Law Firm of Goldfarb & Lipman, LLP (S13149272)
by an additional $175,000 for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of
$230,000 and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance to
Appropriate $175,000 from the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fee Fund
for Legal Services
The City has an existing agreement with the Law Firm of Goldfarb & Lipman LLP for
litigation services relating to the City’s Below Market Rate (“BMR”) Housing Program (Contract
No. S13149272). The City Attorney's Office requests authorization to amend the agreement to
increase compensation under the agreement by an additional $175,000. This amendment
would bring the not to exceed amount of the agreement to $230,000.
Goldfarb & Lipman has defended the City in one litigation matter relating to the City’s
BMR housing program since November 2012. Additional funding is necessary to fund the next
phase of the original matter and to fund defense of an additional BMR lawsuit recently filed
against the City.
Resource Impact:
Based on previous costs of litigation related to the City’s BMR Housing Program, staff
recommends to appropriate $175,000 from the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fee Fund to fund
this contract amendment amount.
ATTACHMENTS:
BAO xxxx Litigation Contract Amendment for the City's BMR Program (DOC)
Department Head: Molly Stump, City Attorney
Page 2
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF $175,000 IN THE
RESIDENTIAL HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE FUND FOR LITIGATION
SERVICES PROVIDED BY GOLDFARB & LIPMAN LLC.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and
determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article
III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on
June 10, 2013 did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year 2014; and
B. Goldfarb & Lipman LLC has defended the City in one
litigation matter relating to the City’s Below Market Rent
(BMR) Housing Program since November 2012.
C. Additional funding is necessary to fund the next phase
of the original matter and to fund defense of an additional
BMR lawsuit recently filed against the City.
D. At the time the 2014 Adopted Budget was being
considered by the City Council, the status of the original law
suit was reviewed by the courts.
SECTION 2. The sum of One Hundred Seventy Five Thousand
Dollars is hereby appropriated for litigation services
contract amendment with Goldfarb & Lipman LLP and the ending
fund balance in the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund is
decreased by One Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Dollars.
SECTION 3. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective
upon adoption.
SECTION 4. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby
finds that this is not a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental
impact assessment is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager
City Attorney
Director of Administrative
Services
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
March 3, 2014
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Takeover Agreement with
Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland and Federal Insurance
Company Establishing Terms for Completion of Construction of the
Mitchell Park Library and Community Center and Amendment No. 2
with Turner Construction in the Amount of $740,000 for Extended
Construction Management Services
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager or designee to execute
and/or approve:
1) The Takeover agreement with Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland and Federal
Insurance Company (collectively “Surety”) to permit the Surety to complete the
Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Project following original contractor’s
termination (Attachment A);
2) Amendment No. 2 (“Amendment”) to Contract No. C13149552 (“Contract”) with
Turner Construction Company to add $740,000 for a total not to exceed $2,225,000
and to extend term to June 30, 2015 for extended construction management
services for the Project (Attachment B);
3) a $44,100 increase to Purchase Order 4513000340 to One Workplace for storage of
standard furniture for Mitchell Park Library and Community Center building project
for a total not to exceed $836,895; and
4) a $8,000 increase to Purchase Order 4513000194 to Contract Office Group for
storage of office furniture for Mitchell Park Library and Community Center building
project for a total not to exceed $231,220.
Executive Summary
On January 10, 2014, the City terminated the contractor on the Mitchell Park Library and
Community Center (MPLCC), Flintco Pacific, Inc., for, among other things, failing to complete
the project on time and to provide adequate quality control. The City concurrently demanded
Page 2
that the Surety promptly hire a qualified replacement contractor to complete the project. The
City and Surety have negotiated a Takeover Agreement, setting forth the terms under which
the Surety (through a separate general contractor) will complete the project.
The Surety plans to hire Big-D Pacific Builders, LP (Big D) as the replacement contractor. Big D
was the general contractor who completed the recent Art Center renovation. Big D performed
that project on time and under budget. In addition, Big D has familiarity with the MPLCC project
as the City separately retained Big D on an “on call” basis to perform work that Flintco was
unable or unwilling to perform. Big D has also been vetted by the Surety and its construction
consultant.
Background
As part of the original construction contract between the City and Flintco, Flintco was required
to post a Performance Bond to guarantee performance of its obligations under the contract.
Under the terms of the Performance Bond, if Flintco is unable to complete the contract or
terminated for default, Surety is required to either complete the Project, or reimburse the City
for the cost to complete the project. The Surety’s liability on the Performance Bond is generally
capped at the “penal” sum of the bond. The original penal sum of the Performance Bond
posted by Flintco was $24,365,000 and it was later increased to $27,775,616 to reflect
additional work added to the contract.
On January 10, 2014, the City terminated Flintco Pacific, Inc. for default on the construction of
the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center as a result of the contractor’s historically poor
performance and failure to make adequate progress toward completion.
The letter of termination followed numerous warnings by the City to Flintco about inadequate
progress on the project, lack of staffing, faulty work and missed deadlines. On May 2, 2013, the
City notified Flintco that it intended to initiate default proceedings unless Flintco took specified
actions by designated milestones. While Flintco was successful in completing some of the
actions listed in the City’s Notice, the completion schedule continued to slip and the quality of
the work performed continued to be an issue. Flintco had promised completion of the project
by November 27, 2013, but failed to reach this milestone as promised. On December 4, 2013,
the City issued a Notice of Default, giving Flintco a maximum of ten days to cure its defaults
under the contract. In response to the City’s Notice of Default, the City was contacted by
Flintco’s sureties, and a meeting was arranged to discuss the problems Flintco was having in
completing the project. The meeting did not result in any noticeable change in the staffing of
the project or attention to quality control.
The final termination occurred after the City had provided Flintco with numerous opportunities
to establish a plan for completion of the project. Flintco repeatedly failed to present the City
Page 3
with a realistic plan for the completion of the project by its revised completion date of January
28, 2014, and misrepresented the amount of progress that had been achieved. Flintco has
advised the City that it disputes the default termination and it is likely that litigation will ensue
concerning claims by the City against Flintco for late project completion and claims by Flintco
associated with purported design issues that it blames for its inability to complete the project.
Discussion
Takeover Agreement
Following substantial discussions and negotiations, the Surety has agreed to take over the
construction contract and complete the MPLCC work through a replacement contractor. The
Takeover Agreement is structured in a way that prioritizes the immediate completion of the
MPLCC and defers any claims that the parties have against one another to a subsequent
arbitration or other legal proceeding. The key terms of the Takeover Agreement are
summarized below.
The Surety agrees to hire a replacement contractor to complete all remaining work,
including the correction and repair of all remedial or defective work. The Surety will
not be required to engage in public bidding, because it is taking over a project that has
already been through the public bid process. If the Surety claims that certain work is not
necessary, the City can direct the Surety to perform the work and the Surety reserves its
right to claim the disputed costs incurred.
The Surety will consult with the City on the hiring of subcontractors. The City reserves its
right to object to any of the subcontractors based on poor prior performance. The City
will also have the right to approve Big D's key personnel.
The City has a remaining contract balance of approximately $4.5 Million. The Takeover
Agreement permits the City to set off all previously accrued liquidated damages
(approximately $1.6 Million) from the remaining contract balance. In addition, the City
may retain some of the contract balance for future liquidated damages, defective work,
stop notice claims or other setoffs/deducts allowed under the original construction
contract. The City will pay any remaining funds to the Surety based on its completion of
work and satisfaction of payment claims.
The Surety will provide the City with a new completion date within 15 days of receiving
a scope of work. (Note liquidated damages will continue to accrue at the rate of $2,500
per day until final completion.) The Surety agrees to diligently pursue the work.
Page 4
The Surety's total liability under the Agreement is capped at the amount of the bond --
approximately $28 Million. (Note this includes completion work in addition to any
warranty claim arising after occupancy.)
The Surety reserves its rights to make later claims against the City in the event the
Surety determines the City wrongfully terminated Flintco. Likewise, the City reserves its
rights to pursue additional damage claims against the Surety resulting from Flintco’s
default.
Completion Schedule
Based on preliminary discussions with the Surety, the Surety believes the remaining work can
be completed within 3 to 4 months. This preliminary estimate could change, depending on the
amount of corrective or defective work discovered, the time needed to order materials, and the
Surety’s ability to obtain sufficient documentation to support the contractually required LEED
Platinum certification . Although the City has given both the Surety and the anticipated
completion contractor access to the project site and project records, they have been reluctant
to expend substantial resources investigating the project until the Takeover Agreement is
approved. Following execution of the Takeover Agreement, the City will receive a completion
schedule. The Takeover Agreement confirms the continuing liability of the Surety to complete
the work, and the continued accrual of liquidated damages at the rate of $2,500 per day, which
the City may offset against any remaining contract balance. If the Completion Schedule
proposed by the replacement contractor is unacceptable, the City has the option of requesting
acceleration of the work at an increased cost, or it may elect to terminate the Takeover
Agreement.
Turner Amendment
Turner has remained on site since Flintco’s termination on January 10, 2014 and assisted the
City during this transition period to ensure the site is secure, the state of the buildings and their
systems are safeguarded and to assist in the identification of the remaining work. Turner’s
construction management services include: analyzing, estimating and processing change orders
and claims; reviewing schedules; coordinating construction and inspections; inspecting and
cataloging defective work; and assisting the City in coordinating the completion of work by the
Replacement Contractor. With the City’s termination of Flintco and the resultant delay of
construction while the takeover agreement between the City and the Surety was being
negotiated, additional construction management services through the end of construction and
the warranty period are now necessary and are provided by Amendment No. 2 to Turner’s
contract. The following items summarize the key provisions of Amendment No. 2:
Provide funding of $460,000 to extend Turner’s current time and materials-based
services for four additional months, through June 30, 2014, which is in agreement with
Page 5
preliminary discussions with the Surety about the length of time necessary to complete
the project.
Provide funding of $230,000 for a separate task for two additional months of time and
materials-based services that would continue Turner’s services if construction continues
beyond June 30, 2014. These funds would not be spent if the project is completed by
June 30, 2014.
Increase the task budgets for Testing and Inspection and Reimbursables by a total of
$70,000 to pay for additional testing and inspection needs and for the security service
provided by Turner since the January 10, 2014 termination of Flintco.
Expand Turner’s services to include assisting the City in implementing the Takeover
Agreement by describing the remaining scope of work to the Replacement Contractor,
assisting the Replacement Contractor in prioritizing the remaining work, and overseeing
the Replacement Contractor’s review and correction of existing defective work to
ensure new work is performed properly.
Library Storage Contracts
Due to the construction delays of the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center project, Staff
anticipates there will be additional storage fees for office furniture previously ordered and
delivered. Staff requests additional funding totaling $52,100 to account for additional storage
fees from January to September 2014. Staff is tracking these extra costs and plans to submit
them to Flintco and/or the Surety for reimbursement or setoff.
Resource Impact
Funds for Amendment No. 2 to the Turner contract and for the additional storage costs are
available in the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center project (CIP PE-09006). The
balance of the replacement work will be paid by the Surety under the terms of the Takeover
Agreement and is not expected to require any additional expenditure by the City.
The Takeover Agreement requires the City to reimburse the Surety from construction funds
remaining after deductions for liquidated damages and contractually permitted set offs are
taken into account. Considering the significant delay in completion that has already taken
place, staff anticipates there will be little if any balance available for payment to the Surety.
Below is an accounting of the current Contract Balance:
Original Contract Price: $24,365,000.00
Approved Change Orders: $3,821,357.00
Revised Contract Price: $28,186,357.00
Page 6
Less Amounts Paid to Date: ($23,657,172.00)
Less Liquidated Damages (to 2/10/14): ($1,630,000.00)
Contract Balance*: $2,929,185.00**
* As defined in the Takeover Agreement.
**This amount includes retention in the amount of $2,628,574.00.
Environmental Review
A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Takeover Agreement (PDF)
Attachment B: Contract Amendment with Turner Construction Company (PDF)
Department Head: Molly Stump, City Attorney
DOCS/18439829v1
TAKEOVER AGREEMENT
This Takeover Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this ___ day of
______________, 2014, by and between the City of Palo Alto, a California chartered municipal
corporation (“Owner”), and Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland (“F&D”) and Federal Insurance Company (“Federal”) (collectively, F&D and Federal shall be referred to as “Surety”), acting through their respective duly authorized, undersigned representatives. The Owner and Surety are sometimes
collectively referred to as the “Parties” in this Agreement.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, on or about August 5, 2010, Owner and Flintco, Inc. (subsequently assigned to Flintco Pacific, Inc.) (“Original Contractor”) entered into a contract for construction of all work on the project known as the “Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Project” (the “Project”), contract
no. C11136473 (such contract, including all contract documents referenced in such contract, being
referred to herein as the “Contract”), with Original Contractor in the amount of $24,365,000.00. The
Contract is expressly incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, Surety, as surety, and Original Contractor, as bond principal, executed and delivered to Owner certain performance and payment bonds, each numbered PRF08975391/82198910
and dated August 24, 2010, and each with a penal sum in the amount of $24,365,000.00 (individually
and respectively, “Performance Bond” and “Payment Bond;” collectively, the “Bonds”). Subject to their
terms, conditions and applicable law, the Bonds guarantee Original Contractor’s obligations under the Contract and payment bond obligations under California Civil Code section 3248, et seq., on the Project, respectively. The Performance Bond and Payment Bond are incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, Owner represents, that on or about December 4, 2013, Owner issued a Notice of
Default to Original Contractor; and
WHEREAS, Owner contends Original Contractor failed to cure said Notice of Default within the time permitted by the Contract, Contractor disputes this contention, and Surety has not made a determination of this issue as of this date; and
WHEREAS, Owner represents that, on or about January 10, 2014, Owner terminated Original
Contractor for default and demanded Surety takeover and complete the remaining work by letter dated
January 10, 2014 in accordance with the provisions of the Performance Bond; and
WHEREAS, Surety and Owner acknowledge that Original Contractor disputes the termination for default and Surety may also dispute Owner’s claim; and
WHEREAS, Owner and Surety, in an effort to mitigate losses and disputes among the Parties,
are willing and desire to cooperate with each other to mitigate damages by Surety procuring the
completion of the work through the use of a completion contractor, provided the Parties agree to the
terms and conditions of this Takeover Agreement; and
WHEREAS, in entering this Agreement, Surety and Owner agree that this Agreement is intended
to clarify the terms by which the Surety and Owner shall perform their respective obligations under this
DOCS/18439829v1 2
Agreement, as they oversee, manage and complete the Work pursuant to the Contract and the Bonds,
and that this Agreement is not intended to serve as a novation of the Bonds; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and for other good and valuable
consideration, including the mutual terms, conditions and covenants set forth herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:
1. The Parties recognize, in light of the disputes between Original Contractor and Owner
regarding Original Contractor’s and Owner’s performance under the Contract, that Original Contractor,
Owner and Surety may be engaged in litigation and/or arbitration proceedings at some future time. It is
the intention of the Parties to fully and completely reserve all rights, liabilities, defenses, and remedies between them and not compromise or effect the same by this Agreement, and the Parties expressly so agree to such reservation. Accordingly, the Parties agree that no Party to this Agreement shall be
deemed to have made any admission, or waived or compromised any right, defense or remedy they may
have or had by entering into this Agreement or by performing pursuant to this Agreement, unless the
Party or Parties expressly agree to the contrary. Instead, the Parties’ performance hereunder shall be deemed to be efforts at mitigation of damages. However, notwithstanding this provision, and subject to the Exit Clause provision set forth hereinbelow, a Party may be in found in breach of this Agreement for
failing to materially perform and liable to the other party for any discreet damages related to such
material breach. Nothing in this Agreement should be construed to exclude from evidence the
Agreement or the conduct of the Parties pursuant thereto in proceedings between the Parties, or with Original Contractor.
2. Owner and Surety agree to cooperate with each other in efforts to mitigate damages and
in connection with the performance of the remaining work; provided, however, that to the extent either
Party determines the other Party’s requested action would require such Party to incur additional cost or
expense beyond the cost or expense required pursuant to its obligations under the Contract, Bonds or applicable law, such Party shall so notify the other Party in advance and either (i) decline to perform such action on the basis that such action is over and above its obligations and not reasonably required to
mitigate damages, or (ii) agree to perform such action and track the directly related cost and expense and
preserve the same for determination in later litigation or arbitration proceedings. Such cooperation shall
include, subject to the Party’s rights to track costs, reasonable identification of all alleged remaining work, including without limitation alleged corrective or remedial work. The Parties acknowledge that they will track all their costs and expenses in conducting their investigations and in performing under
this Agreement, and that each Party may present some or all of such costs and expenses in later litigation
or arbitration proceedings.
3. The Surety undertakes and agrees to procure the performance of all remaining work and other obligations of Original Contractor to Owner under the Contract not presently completed or fulfilled, including the correction and repair of all remedial or defective workmanship, if any; however,
it is agreed that in doing so Surety is acting in its capacity as performance bond surety and performing
under its Bonds in an effort to mitigate damages, and that Surety is not acting as a contractor. Surety
will procure the performance of all work remaining by and through a completing contractor
(“Completion Contractor”), pursuant to a separate contract between Surety and Completion Contractor, to which the Owner is not a party. Surety, through Completion Contractor, will provide Owner with a
list of Completion Contractor’s Superintendent, project manager, and project engineer personnel. The
Surety has indicated its intent to retain Big-D Pacific Builders, LP, as the Completion Contractor and the
City hereby consents to such retention, subject to approval of the Superintendent, project manager or
DOCS/18439829v1 3
staff member, pursuant to paragraph 3.9.1 of the General Conditions to the Contract. If the Surety
elects to retain a different Completion Contractor, it shall promptly provide Owner with notice and
opportunity to investigate and object. Owner reserves the right to object to any of Completion
Contractor’s personnel acting as Superintendent, project manager, or project engineer, which may be granted or withheld in the City’s reasonable discretion. City will provide Surety with ten (10) day’s advance notice and an opportunity to respond to any such objection. In the event Surety and Owner are
unable to agree on Completion Contractor or its personnel, the Parties’ obligations under this Agreement
shall be excused for failure to meet a condition precedent. The Surety shall obligate Completion
Contractor to satisfy the required insurance obligations under the Contract by providing the Owner Certificates of Insurance from its Completion Contractor for the coverage(s) specified in the Contract. Surety acknowledges and agrees that Completion Contractor shall not be permitted to commence work
on the Project until the contractually required proof of insurance is provided to the Owner.
4. Owner agrees to administer all aspects of the Contract with respect to Completion
Contractor in the same manner as it is obligated to perform its administrative responsibilities to Original Contractor under the Contract, including but not limited to scheduling and performing inspections, having periodic site visits, engaging in communications, responding to requests for clarification,
responding to requests for information, reviewing, adjusting, and approving pay estimates, negotiating
change orders and time extension requests for compensable or excusable delays, evaluating claims and
providing written approvals or disapprovals thereof, and approving submittals and other paperwork requirements of the Contract in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract. Surety shall contractually obligate Completion Contractor to administer its responsibilities in accordance with the
Contract.
5. Owner further agrees, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the Contract, to
make payments to Surety in the manner provided by the Contract and as provided herein, regardless of whether or not any lien or other claims to said funds have been made by Original Contractor or any of its creditors (including but not limited to subcontractors, laborers, labor trust funds, or suppliers, banks or
others); provided Surety (1) agrees to take over the Owner’s defense of such claims or any claim or lien
filed or presented after such payment, at the expense of the Surety, and (2) agrees to indemnify and hold
harmless Owner, its elected members, agents and employees, against any and all liability for making such payments notwithstanding the pendency of such lien or other claim or lien or claim filed or presented after such payments. If Surety so agrees, Surety will have the right to select counsel on any
defense of Owner on such claims, subject to Owner’s approval and Surety’s counsel will present for
Owner’s signature a waiver of conflicts of interest, and Owner shall not unreasonably withhold such
conflict waiver unless circumstances reasonably justify separate counsel. If Surety’s counsel defends Owner in such claims, Surety’s counsel shall coordinate communications with the Owner, to the extent needed, through Owner’s outside counsel. Owner reserves the right to associate its own counsel into
such action or actions to the extent Owner believes it is more than a mere stakeholder in the action, and
any disputed costs and fees for such association shall be determined in subsequent actions or arbitration.
6. The Surety, or its designated agent, agrees to prepare, certify, and submit its request for
payment in accordance with the terms of the Contract. The request for payment shall be submitted in the name of the Surety, but may be prepared by the Completion Contractor. The Owner shall review all
requests for payment and, upon approval, forward payments to F&D, as the sole payee, at the location
herein identified for notices between the Parties. Federal waives any claim that payment to F&D as sole
payee does not constitute payment to Federal as well.
DOCS/18439829v1 4
7. Upon request, the Surety will furnish records, documents, and information reasonably
available and necessary as required under the Contract, to the extent such items are within its possession,
custody or control. Further, to the extent it is reasonably requested, Surety shall request cooperation
from Original Contractor to furnish such records, documents, and information available and necessary as required under the Contract, but Owner acknowledges that Surety does not control the actions or inactions of Original Contractor.
8. The Owner shall not be bound to any contractor as a result of this Agreement, and shall
look only to Surety for completion in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and the Contract and,
except as provided in this Agreement, the terms of the Contract shall control.
9. Owner will pay to Surety all “Contract Balance,” if any, as defined below, at the time and in the manner provided in the Contract and this Agreement, less what Owner contends is properly
assessed liquidated damages and other offsets permitted by the Contract, which may be disputed.
Owner represents the Contract balance of said Contract to be:
1. Original Contract Price $24,365,000.00
2. Approved Change Orders $ 3,821,357.00
3. Revised Contract Price $28,186,357.00
4. Less Amounts Paid to Date ($23,657,172.00)
5. “Contract Balance” $4,529,185
6. Retention (included in Contract Balance) $2,628,574.00
At this time, the total Contract Balance (including retention) is $4,529,185 (hereafter, “Contract Balance”). Through February 10, 2014, Owner has assessed $1,630,000 in liquidated damages pursuant
to the Contract rate, which it contends are proper, and such liquidated damages continue to accrue at a
rate of $2,500 per day, all of which Original Contractor disputes and may be disputed by Surety in
proceedings with Original Contractor and/or the Parties.
The “Contract Balance” is defined as constituting all monies due or to become due Original Contractor or Surety arising out of or incidental to the performance of the Contract or this Agreement,
including, but not limited to, unpaid Contract Balance including unpaid monies relating to approved
change orders, retained percentages, monies relating to pending or subsequently submitted change
orders later approved by the Owner, and any and all monies withheld by Owner for retention, stop notices, claims, offset permitted by Contract, and/or liquidated damages (collectively hereinafter called “Contract Balance”), to the extent sums are determined to be due or become due under the Contract
and/or this Agreement. Owner intends to set-off or deduct from such Contract Balance payable to
Surety hereunder liquidated damages and other offsets assessed pursuant to the Contract, which Owner
understands Original Contractor and/or Surety may dispute in proceedings between them. The Owner
may also enforce any rights under the Contract for deductions or withholdings on account of alleged non-performance of the Surety hereunder or in accordance with Paragraphs 9.4 and 9.8 of the General
Conditions of the Contract, which Surety may dispute. Any disputes over the assessed liquidated
damages or other deductions or withholdings hereunder is reserved by the Parties for later resolution.
DOCS/18439829v1 5
Payment to the Surety of any amount not withheld by the City hereunder is without prejudice to the
City’s right to claim such amount as damages in any later proceeding.
10. Owner and Surety agree that any and all further agreements, judgmental decisions, and/or
changes to the Contract are subject to review and approval by Surety to the extent consistent with the terms and conditions of the Contract. The Completion Contractor, as Surety’s representative, is authorized to make all routine day-to-day decisions on behalf of Surety as to the manner of performance
of the remaining work; provided, however, Owner acknowledges that Completion Contractor has no
authority to bind Surety as to any agreements that materially affect time of performance or the costs or
expenses of performance by the Parties hereunder, which must be expressly agreed to by Surety. Owner agrees to coordinate and cooperate with Surety and Completion Contractor concerning such day-to-day Project activities and work in performance of the Contract. To the extent consistent with the terms of the
Contract, all changes to the Contract required to be approved by the Surety must be approved in writing
by Surety. The Surety agrees to diligently proceed with and to complete the remaining Contract work in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract. Further, within fifteen (15) calendar days after the remaining work is reasonably identified, Surety shall cause Completion Contractor to provide Owner and Surety with a completion schedule that shall identify a new completion date (hereafter, the
“New Completion Date”) which shall be a reasonable date based on the remaining work. The schedule
establishing the New Completion Date shall anticipate reasonable and normal staffing and man hour
requirements which are not accelerated; provided, however, that Owner reserves the right to demand that all or some portion of the work be completed earlier and if such determination results in Surety contending Completion Contractor must accelerate, Surety shall so inform Owner and give Owner the
option (without admission or agreement) to set the completion date anyway. The establishment of a
New Completion Date will be for Surety’s benefit in its dealings with Completion Contractor, and shall
not affect Owner’s rights to liquidated damages, if any. In the retention of a Completion Contractor, the Surety shall not be required to engage in public bidding, and shall not have the obligation to comply with the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act. Surety shall consult with Owner regarding
Completion Contractor’s use of any subcontractors, and Owner reserves the right to object to any such
subcontractor on reasonable grounds based on poor prior performance. Consistent with the terms and
conditions of the Contract, Surety and Owner agree to cooperate and in good faith to evaluate pending, rejected and subsequently presented change order requests to the extent Original Contractor or Surety is entitled to excusable or compensable time and damages, provided Surety presents Owner with
appropriate documentation to substantiate and justify such time and/or damages. Nothing herein shall
operate to waive any defenses the City has or may have to pending, rejected or subsequently presented
change orders.
11. If at any time the Owner determines that Completion Contractor is failing or refusing to perform in a manner sufficient to ensure Surety’s performance under this Agreement, Owner shall
promptly so inform Surety and provide Surety with a reasonable opportunity to supplement Completion
Contractor’s work or find another contractor to performing all or part of the remaining work. Such
notice and reasonable opportunity, except in the case of an emergency, shall be not less than ten (10)
calendar days and include a good faith meet and confer effort, consistent with the Parties’ intention to mutually cooperate to mitigate damages under this Agreement. Given that Surety does not directly
perform work and will rely on communication from Owner and Completion Contractor, it is agreed by
the Parties that such notice in this provision applies notwithstanding the Contract’s Disputes Clause
(Section 14) or Default Clause (Section 15).
DOCS/18439829v1 6
12. If Surety contends that any remaining, remedial or corrective work requested by Owner is
(i) beyond the scope of work identified in the Contract, (ii) would constitute a betterment, or (iii) would
result in economic waste, Surety shall notify Owner within ten (10) calendar days of becoming
reasonably aware of such contention, or sooner if reasonable and the context of the work reasonably requires it. Owner shall respond within five (5) calendar days and provide Surety with written direction in light of Surety’s contention. If Surety is directed to perform such work despite its contention herein,
Owner understands and agrees that Surety may separate track its discrete costs, if possible, for later
determination in litigation or arbitration proceedings. This process shall be without prejudice to any
party.
13. Insofar as Owner has any right, title or interest therein, Owner agrees that Surety, Completion Contractor or its subcontractors will have the right to use, without charge, any of the
materials, supplies, equipment or personal property furnished or supplied to or by Original Contractor
which may be stored on the premises of the Project or which may have been fabricated for use in
connection with the Project, whether or not presently upon the Project. Surety has been advised of Original Contractor’s removal of materials and equipment from the Project, and raises no objection to the removal of such materials and equipment.
14. Nothing in this Agreement will be in derogation of the Surety’s obligation to the Owner
under Surety’s Performance Bond for unpaid withholding taxes due to Surety’s failure to pay said taxes
or Completion Contractor’s failure to pay said taxes during the performance of this Agreement, if any. As of the date of execution of this Agreement, the Owner represents that it is not aware that any such unpaid withholding taxes are due or have been directed or are warranted.
15. With respect to Surety’s performance or otherwise, in the event of alleged breach or other
obligation related to or in connection with this Agreement, the Owner agrees that in no event shall
Surety be liable for any sums, amounts, claims, liquidated or unliquidated damages, compensations, actual or punitive damages, penalties, assessments, fees, or fines for any sum in excess of the penal amount of the Performance Bond, as modified by riders, if any; which amount is the maximum of
Surety’s liability in connection with the Contract. Surety may cause further work to complete the
Contract to cease on its behalf if it has expended the full bond penalty, provided, however, the Surety
must give the Owner fifteen (15) days notice prior thereto. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed in any way to release any other liability of Surety to the Owner under the aforesaid Bond. All payments made by Surety directly related to the completion of the Project, less actual receipts from
Owner of all or any part of the Contract Balance paid to Surety (which summed together are defined as
“net loss”), shall be credited against the penal amount of the Performance Bond.
16. This Agreement is solely for the benefit of the Owner and the Surety. The Owner and the Surety do not intend by any provision of this Agreement to create any rights in, or increase the rights of, any third-party beneficiaries, nor to confer any benefit upon anyone other than the parties to this
Agreement. Specifically, the Parties’ acknowledge that nothing in this Agreement shall extend or
increase the rights of any third-party claimants, or the liabilities or obligations of the Surety under the
Bonds; nor shall this Agreement be construed to decrease the already existing obligations of the Surety
under the Bonds.
17. Owner and Surety shall cooperate fully and in good faith by taking such actions and
executing such further documents as may be necessary for timely completion of, and payment for said
Contract Balance to Surety consistent with the terms and conditions herein. Any notices concerning the
DOCS/18439829v1 7
Parties’ performance, alleged breach, or other issues related to this Agreement or the Bonds shall be
directed to the following:
To Owner: City of Palo Alto
Office of the City Attorney Attn: Cara E. Silver, Esq. 250 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 8
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Tel.: 650.329.2171
Email: cara.silver@cityofpaloalto.org With copy to:
David Ginn, Esq.
Ginn & Crosby, LLP 1981 N. Broadway, Ste. 275 Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Tel. phone #: 925-256-4466
Email: dginn@ginnlaw.com
To Surety: Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland James Hamel, Esq.
PO Box 968003
Schaumburg, IL 60196
Tel.: 817-421-4085 Email: james.hamel@zurichna.com and phayek@chubb.com
With copy to:
Jonathan J. Dunn, Esq. Sedgwick LLP 3 Park Plaza, 17th Floor
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel. phone #: 949-567-7817
Email: jonathan.dunn@sedgwicklaw.com 18. Exit Clause. In the event either Party determines it is no longer reasonable possible or
reasonably efficient or expedient to continue performance under this Agreement, either Party may, upon
thirty (30) days’ notice to the other Party, terminate for convenience their prospective obligations under
this Agreement; provided, however, the Parties acknowledge such termination for convenience is
without prejudice of the non-terminating party to contend that the other Party has failed to mitigate its damages in connection with matters to be litigated or arbitrated. Further, as set forth above, nothing
herein affects the parties’ reserved rights, and claims. In the event Surety exercises its right to terminate
this Agreement for convenience, Surety shall, upon request of Owner, assign its contract with
Completion Contractor to Owner, and Surety’s contract with Completion Contractor shall notify
Completion Contractor the Owner may desire such an assignment, subject to the consent and rights of Completion Contractor.
DOCS/18439829v1 8
19. This agreement shall bind the parties and their successors, and shall not be modified or
amended except by a written document duly executed by the parties or their successors.
20. This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed, and enforced in accordance with and
governed by the laws of the State of California, without reference to its conflict of laws principles.
21. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts.
22. Owner and Surety agree that, in the event they are used, facsimile or electronic copies of
their signatures to this Agreement shall be treated as original signatures, are acceptable to each other,
and shall bind their respective rights and obligations under this Agreement, to the same extent as if such
signatures were original (wet) signatures.
23. This Agreement, including incorporated Contract, Performance Bond and Payment Bond, represents the whole and complete agreement between Owner and Surety and shall not be changed,
modified, or abridged, except by a subsequent written agreement executed by Owner and Surety, and,
together, supersede all prior negotiations, representations, offers, and other written or oral statements of
every description.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date indicated above and each of the undersigned personally represent and warrant that they have the full power, right and
authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the respective parties.
Dated:____________________________ CITY OF PALO ALTO
By:___________________________
Its:___________________________
Dated:____________________________ FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
By:___________________________
Its:___________________________
Dated:____________________________ FIDELITY & DEPOSIT COMPANY OF
MARYLAND
By:___________________________
Its:___________________________
Approved As To Form:
DOCS/18439829v1 9
Dated:____________________________ ______________________________
City Attorney
Dated:____________________________ _____________________________
Sedgwick LLP as counsel for Federal Insurance
Company and Fidelity & Deposit Company of
Maryland
EXHmIT "B"
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services consistent wi,th the City's objective of completing each
milestone set forth be low on or about the estimated date specified below. The time to complete each
milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for
CON ULTANT and TTY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement.
Milestones Estimated Date
1 . Substantial Completion ( C) JuneJO 2014
2. Post Construction (3 months after C) eptember 30,2014
3. WaJ'I'aJlty Period Ends (12 months after SC) June 30, 20 15
11
EXHIBIT "C"
COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT on a time and materials basis ("Time
and Material") for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement. Compensation shall be calculated on a time and material
basis for the performance of the services specified in Phase II, Construction Phase
Services in Exhibit "A". The hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-l will be used to
compensate CONSULTANT for personnel assigned to each task set forth below. CITY
and CONSULTANT have discussed the project staffing and agree that the
CONSULTANT's current level of staffing of approximately 3.6 full time employees is
appropriate to fulfill the scope of services. The budget per task below will be used by the
CITY for internal accounting.
For Subconsultants, such as Inspections, special inspections, electronic document services,
photographic documentation services, and security services, the CITY agrees to
compensate the CONSULTANT for services performed in accordance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement and as s(:t forth in the budget schedule below.
Compensation for the CONSULTANT shall be calculated based upon the actual cost of
the subconsultant, plus a fee of five percent (5%), up to the not to exceed budget amount
set forth below.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for the
performance of services described in Exhibit "A" ("Basic Services") and reimbursable
expenses shall not exceed $2,245,000 (the "Cap"). If the CITY wants CONSULTANT to
perform the Services so that CONSULTANT's compensation (for both professional
services and reimbursable expenses) would exceed the Cap, then (a) prior written
authorization from the CITY will be required, and (b) CONSULTANT will not be
required to perform those Services unless and until the City Council authorizes a written
contract amendment increasing the Cap accordingly. Any work performed or expenses
incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the Cap without prior
authorization from the CITY shall be at no cost to the CITY.
CONSULTANT's work shall be performed on a Time and Materials basis and shall
perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined below. In the event Consultant's
Task 1 Staff Costs exceed $120,000 in any month, CONSULTANT shall promptly notify
the City Manager and Public Works Director in writing once it becomes aware that such
Staff Costs have been incurred. CONSULTANT shall submit detailed time records and
reimbursables backup in a form acceptable to the CITY. The CITY's Project Manager
may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or
categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including
reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $2,245,000.
12
BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Task 1 Staff osts $1 740000
(Phase 11, Section A: Construction Phase)
Task 2 $55,000
(Phase II Section B: Testing & Inspection)
Ta k 3 $90000
(Phase II ection C: Electronic Documents)
Task 4 $5 000
(Phase 11 Section C: Photographic)
Task 5
(phase 111: Post ConstrucLion)
Task 6
(potential Pha elL Section A Construe! ion after 6/30/2014)
ub-total Basic Services
Reimbursable Expenses
otal Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses
Additional Services (Notto Exceed)
13
$50000
$230,000
$2 170,000
$75,000
$2,245,000
$0
Materials work, and that Consultant will provide staff and services up to the total contract
authori zation of$2,245,OOO only, regardless of the status of construction, the status of til e
project, th e performance or actions of the Contractor, the status of mileston e dates, or the
status of the Construction Schedu le. Consultant will keep the City advised at reasonable
intervals as to how the Construction Management compensa ti on is approaching the total
authori zation of$2,245,000, and wi ll work with the City to manage the level of staff and
th e services to wo rk towards the $2,245,000 authorization.
15
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4518)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/3/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Development Impact Fees: Needs List
Title: From Finance Committee Review of Development Impact Fees: List of
Public Facilities Capital Needs
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests that City Council review and approve the attached Development Impact Fee (DIF)
Project Needs List (Attachment A) prior to having the City’s consultant prepare the quantitative
analyses and narratives needed to update some categories of the City’s Development Impact
Fees.
The Finance Committee reviewed this list and accompanying report on November 5, 2013, and
voted to recommend the City Council approve, on the Action Agenda, the Development Impact
Fee Capital Needs List.
BACKGROUND
Though Council approval of the Needs List is not required by law, it is a recommended step
toward ensuring maximum transparency and public involvement, thereby enhancing the
comprehensiveness of the City’s Development Impact Fee program.
Note that the capital needs outlined in the Project Needs List indicate that the City should
consider updating its transportation, and general government facilities impact fees, and
examine the possibility of a new public safety DIF. Housing impact fees were not included in
this analysis and will be considered separately at a later date.
Under California law, cities and other local agencies may exact Development Impact Fees on
proposed development which must be paid as a condition of development approval.
Development Impact Fees (“DIFs”) were enacted under Assembly Bill 1600 by the California
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Legislature in 1987 and codified under California Government Code §66000 et. seq., also
referred to as the Mitigation Fee Act (the “Act” or “AB 1600”).
Development Impact Fees are not ongoing fees or taxes; they are one-time fees, paid at the
time of construction. Impact fees are not special assessments, nor are they permitted to cover
ongoing operations and maintenance costs. The use of impact fees is effectively restricted to
public capital improvements. The fees are collected by local governmental agencies to pay for
infrastructure or capital facilities needed to serve new development. Because impact fees are
collected during the development approval process, the fees are typically paid by developers,
builders, or other property owners who are seeking to develop property, as a way of paying
their “fair share” of needed capital facilities.
The City of Palo’s current DIFs are listed in Attachment B. Cities typically identify a number of
exemptions to DIFs, which reflect policy decisions addressed at the time each impact fee was
enacted or amended by City Council. Developments may be exempt from all or some impact
fees, depending upon the intended use. For instance, 100% affordable housing projects (not a
mix of market rate and below market rate) are exempt from current impact fees, as are home
remodels or expansions.
A brief summary of Palo Alto’s current DIFs (detailed in Attachment B) follows, with enactment
dates in parentheses:
1. Housing Impact Fees for commercial and industrial projects (1984 and updated 2004)
2. Traffic Impact fees in the Stanford Research Park and San Antonio/East Bayshore areas
(1989)
3. In-lieu parking fee for downtown development (1995)
4. Parks (2002)
5. Community Centers (2002)
6. Libraries (2002)
7. Transportation (2007)
Last year, the City contracted with David Taussig & Associates, Inc (“DTA”) to (a) review the
City’s impact fees and evaluate the existing program’s general compliance with current legal
requirements, (b) compare the City’s fee categories and levels with those in comparable cities,
(c) work with City staff to identify existing and projected facilities and major equipment needs,
and (d) recommend options and methods to annually adjust impact fees.
In May 2012, DTA submitted to staff the results of a Comparative Development Impact Fee
Survey which evaluated the City’s existing DIF programs in relation to those maintained by the
following eight (8) cities – Cupertino, Fremont, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Redwood City, San
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Mateo, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale. The survey data revealed that the City’s cumulative impact
fees for residential development are relatively similar to other cities, and that its non-
residential fees are high compared to other jurisdictions. In particular, the City’s DIFs for
transportation are on the low side, and there is no DIF for public safety.
DTA recommended that the City review and update its transportation, general government
facilities impact fees, and examine the possibility of a new public safety DIF. Note that the
evaluation of the City’s housing impact fees is not included in DTA’s current contract scope, but
is included as a program under the recently adopted Updated Housing Element.
DISCUSSION
The next step in this process is to identify the City’s projected facilities and major equipment
needs in the three categories identified above: transportation, general city government
facilities, and public safety. The attached Public Facility Capital Needs List (Attachment A) is the
product of discussions between Public Works, Police, Fire, Community Services, and
Administrative Services Departments; and a thorough review of the FY 2014 Adopted Capital
Budget, the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Task Force (“IBRC”) recommendations, and the work to
date of the Council Infrastructure Committee.
The Needs List identifies the City’s capital needs (through a Target Year of 2035) within the
selected categories.
Staff presents this to the Council for discussion, comment, and approval. Staff asks that the
Council keep in mind that this list is meant to be more inclusive than exclusive. It is also a
snapshot in time, i.e., there is no possible way the City and DTA can properly catalogue all of
the City’s needs over the next 21 years. DTA has indicated that the standard of review is that
the City should utilize the “best information that it has available at the time.” The specific
projects the Needs List includes, as well as funding requirements it indicates, are likely to
change over time. It is suggested that the City revisit the Needs List and its AB 1600 program at
least every five (5) years to ensure the appropriate legal nexus and ultimately the health and
defensibility of the AB 1600 program. This “snapshot” list serves as the denominator of “Total
Needs” which can then be utilized to calculate the “fair share” of facilities costs attributable to
new development through 2035.
Once Council members’ comments are considered and incorporated into the Needs List, DTA
will proceed to its next phase – developing and documenting methodologies for calculating new
fee amounts in a manner that complies with all nexus requirements of AB 1600. DTA has
prepared over 300 AB 1600 Nexus Studies; their clients have included nearly every major City,
City of Palo Alto Page 4
County, and urban center in the State of California. Staff will then present their
recommendations to Council for approval.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Development Impact Fees provide funding for capital improvements to mitigate the impacts of
new development on the community and a specific public facility. The revenues received each
year vary based on the amount of development (both residential and non-residential) occurring
in Palo Alto during that timeframe. Recommended changes to the fees will be presented to
Council in future meetings.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Council has the authority to charge new development for its relative share of the cost of
specific public facilities, as calculated based on a Nexus Study. Council also has the authority,
for policy reasons, to restructure fees based on articulated City policies. The information
provided in this report allows Council to take the next step towards re-evaluating and adjusting
the City’s Development Impact Fees.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Public Facility Capital Needs List (PDF)
Attachment B: Current Impact Fees (PDF)
Attachment C: Excerpt from the November 5, 2013 Finance Committee Minutes (PDF)
{1}{2}{3}
Facility Name Total Cost for
Facility
Off-setting
Revenues Net Cost to City
A. TRANSPORTATION
1 Bike/Pedestrian Plan $22,250,000 ($6,000,000)$16,250,000
2 Citywide Traffic System Upgrade $453,000 $0 $453,000
3 California Avenue Parking Garage $16,500,000 $0 $16,500,000
4 Charleston/Arastradero Corridor $9,750,000 ($2,270,000)$7,480,000
5 Citywide Traffic Signal ITS Upgrade $5,345,000 ($650,000)$4,695,000
6 Downtown Parking Garage (new)$18,400,000 $0 $18,400,000
7 El Camino Medican Landscape Improvements $1,086,000 ($30,000)$1,056,000
8 Highway 101 Bike/Ped. Bridge $10,000,000 ($8,350,000)$1,650,000
9 Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Upgrade $2,500,000 ($2,500,000)$0
10 Safe Routes to School $2,200,000 ($528,000)$1,672,000
11
Traffice Management & Parking Improvements in non-Safe
Routes to School Neighborhoods $4,950,000 ($225,000)$4,725,000
12 Sign Reflectivity Upgrade $1,100,000 ($50,000)$1,050,000
13 Street Lights, Streets and Sidewalk Improvements $13,130,000 ($140,000)$12,990,000
14 Thermoplastic Marking & Striping $1,650,000 ($75,000)$1,575,000
15 Benches, Signage, Fencing, Walkways, Perim. Landscaping $3,300,000 ($150,000)$3,150,000
16 Transportation Revenues not yet Committed ($489,245)($489,245)
TOTAL - TRANSPORTATION 112,614,000$ (21,457,245)$ 91,156,755$
B. PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES
1. Police Facilities
1 Public Safety Building ("PSB") - Replace (44,850 square feet)$57,000,000 $0 $57,000,000
Subtotal $57,000,000 $0 $57,000,000
2. Fire Facilities
2 Fire Station 3 (Rinconada Park - built 1948) - Replace $6,700,000 $0 $6,700,000
3 Fire Station 4 (Meadow/Middlefield - built 1953) - Replace $7,500,000 $0 $7,500,000
4 Rescue Vehicle $750,000 $0 $750,000
5 BC Van (x 2)$200,000 $0 $200,000
6 Fire Trucks (x 2)$2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000
7 Type III Engine (x 2)$800,000 $0 $800,000
8 Training Tower & Related Land Acquisition $8,000,000 $0 $8,000,000
9 Type I Engine (x 8) - 2024 $4,200,000 $0 $4,200,000
10 Ambulances (x 4) - 2022-2025 $1,300,000 $0 $1,300,000
11 Vehicles (Van, Trucks, Engines, Ambulances)$9,250,000 $0 $9,250,000
Subtotal $31,450,000 $0 $31,450,000
12 Pubic Safety Revenues not yet Committed $0 $0
TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES $88,450,000 $0 $88,450,000
ATTACHMENT B
CITY OF PALO ALTO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM
PUBLIC FACILITIES NEEDS LIST THROUGH 2035
1
{1}{2}{3}
Facility Name Total Cost for
Facility
Off-setting
Revenues Net Cost to City
ATTACHMENT B
CITY OF PALO ALTO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM
PUBLIC FACILITIES NEEDS LIST THROUGH 2035
1 Acquisition of Post Office*TBD $0 -
2 Acquisition of New Computers $750,000 ($75,000)$675,000
3 Buildings Systems Improvements $6,300,000 ($100,000)$6,200,000
4 Civic Center Plaza Deck $16,000,000 $0 $16,000,000
5 Municipal Services Center Improvements (through 2020) $ 1,991,000 $0 $1,991,000
6 Municipal Services Center - Replace (after 2020)$93,000,000 ($32,550,000)$60,450,000
7 Ventura Buildings Improvements $690,000 $0 $690,000
8 General Government Revenues not yet Committed $0 $0
TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES 118,731,000$ (32,725,000)$ 86,006,000$
GRAND TOTAL $319,795,000 ($54,182,245)$265,612,755
Note:
*Funds required for acquisition of Post Office not included.
C. GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES (COMMUNITY CENTER, INFORMATION TECHONOLOGY,
PUBLIC ART, ETC.)
2
City of Palo Alto Development Impact Fees
As per FY 2014 Adopted Municipal Fee Schedule page 17-3
Type of Project Parks Community Centers Libraries Housing
Total Fees (NIC
Transp.)Transportation
Residential - New Homes Only*
Single family < 3,000 sq. feet $10,638/residence $2,758/residence $963/residence EXEMPT $14,359/res.
$3,197 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Single family >3,000 sq. feet $15,885/residence $4,129/residence $1,434/residence EXEMPT $21,448/res.
$3,197 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Multi-family </= 900 sq. feet $3,521/unit $916/unit $316/unit EXEMPT $4,753/unit
$3,197 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Multi-family >900 sq. feet $6,963/unit $1,815/unit $565/unit EXEMPT $9,343/unit
$3,197 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Non-residential
Commercial/Industrial
$4,517 per 1,000 sq ft
or fraction thereof
$255 per 1,000 sq ft or
fraction thereof
$243 per 1,000 sq ft or
fraction thereof
$18.89 per sq
ft
$23.89 per net
new sq ft
$3,197 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Hotel/Motel
$2,043 per 1,000 sq ft
or fraction thereof
$115 per 1,000 sq ft or
fraction thereof
$102 per 1,000 sq ft or
fraction thereof
$18.89 per sq
ft
$21.15 per net
new sq ft
$3,197 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Residential Subdivisions of over 50 parcels
Single-family
Multi-family
Special Zones Traffic Impact Fee
Stanford Research Park/El Camino Real CS
Zone
$11.08 per net new sq
ft
San Antonio/West Bayshore Area $2.28 per sq ft
Charleston/Arastradero Commercial $0.34 per sq ft
Charleston/Arastradero Residential $1,168 per unit
Parking in-lieu fee for Downtown
Assessment District
$60,750 per parking
space
Note: "Single-family" is defined as a single dwelling unit that does not share a common wall with another dwelling unit
Fee Category
Parkland Dedication Fee
*Square footage refers to living area, not lot size.
555 sq ft of parkland/unit or $58,366/unit in-lieu fee
382 sq ft of parkland/unit or $40,187/unit in-lieu fee
Attachment C
Page 1 of 13
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Minutes Excerpt 11/5/2013
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Chairperson Shepherd called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. in the
Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Berman, Burt (Chair), Schmid, Shepherd
Absent:
2. Development Impact Fees: Approval of List of Public Facilities Capital
Needs.
Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services and Chief Financial Officer
reported that Development Impact Fees (DIF) were designed to allow
agencies to recapture the additional cost of services required as a result of
new development. A DIF was only applied to Capital Costs. A Nexus Study
was required to demonstrate that the proposed fee was appropriately scaled
to match the likely increase in cost. Staff proposed two new fees: a Public
Safety Fee and a General Government Facility Fee. Only Transportation
Fees were updated because other Development Fees were at the appropriate
levels within the preliminary review. The Capital Needs List was to be used
to calculate and update proposed new fees. The Finance Committee
(Committee) needed to review and approve the Capital Needs List. Council
approval of the Capital Needs List was not required; however, the
Committee was able to recommend the Council review it. The Capital Needs
List contained more projects than the Infrastructure Committee Project List
because the Infrastructure Committee focused on projects that were
prioritized but had no funding. The Committee was able to include projects
that could conceivably be performed within the designated time period. The
List included projects funded primarily through the Capital Improvements
Program (CIP) Budget on a pay-as-you-go basis. The cost of a project was
able to be reduced by any revenue identified for that project. If a project
was partially funded through the five-year plan, then the Capital Needs List
contained only the delta. If the City received new funding for projects
included on the Capital Needs List, the project cost needed to be adjusted at
a later point in time.
Nate Perez, Vice President, David Taussig and Associates (DTA), explained
that DIF’s were not utilized to cure existing deficiencies or for operations and
maintenance. They were only utilized for Capital Projects. The standard for
projects was a useful life of five years or longer. DIF’s were a function of
MINUTES EXCERPT
Page 2 of 13
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Minutes Excerpt 11/5/2013
California Law, which demanded a certain level of proportionality and nexus.
The methodologies proposed for the Nexus Study could be difficult, but the
nexus depended on the given fee category being analyzed.
Chair Burt requested Mr. Nate Perez comment on the voluntary aspect of
fees.
Mr. Nate Perez indicated the term "voluntary" was a term used to mean art.
The exactions were made legal by Assembly Bill (AB) 1600. The Bill was
oriented to the development community.
Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if the collection of DIF’s were voluntary for the
City.
Mr. Nate Perez replied yes.
Chair Burt asked if “voluntary” applied to the City or to those paying the
fees.
Mr. Nate Perez stated the voluntary comment referred to the development
community, who were responsible for paying the fees in order to obtain a
building permit. Staff requested DTA provide a comparative survey of peer
cities in the South Bay Area. Cities preferred to charge DIF’s at an average
level; however, none committed to reducing fees to an average level.
Among South Bay cities, fees averaged between $30,000 and $40,000 for a
single-family dwelling unit. He felt that the City's fees did not inhibit the
City's attractiveness to the development community; a small change in any
one of the fees changed that. The City's fees were slightly high, but were
manageable. The Water Fee was a significant amount and negatively
impacted the City.
Vice Mayor Shepherd requested clarification of Water Fee.
Mr. Nate Perez meant the Water Sewer Hookup Fee for new homes. Impact
Fees typically included Housing Fees, Transportation Fees, Water and Sewer
Fees, and Capital Facilities Fees. The City was very competitive with respect
to Capital Facilities Fees.
Vice Mayor Shepherd asked why the Affordable Housing Fee was not
included in the list of fees.
Mr. Nate Perez explained that it was an In-lieu Fee. A developer who
constructed one single-family home was not necessarily conditioned to pay
an Affordable Housing Fee.
MINUTES EXCERPT
Page 3 of 13
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Minutes Excerpt 11/5/2013
Vice Mayor Shepherd understood developers paid the fee when they built
homes.
Mr. Nate Perez indicated cities had different triggers for fees. Some cities
required fees for each project, some required fees for projects of more than
50 parcels.
Chair Burt recommended information from Santa Clara not be included in
the presentation, as it skewed the data.
Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired about the process for collecting Capital Facility
Fees.
Mr. Nate Perez stated that was similar to the General Government Fee he
proposed for a Municipal Services Building. He thought that would be a good
fee for the City to begin collecting.
Chair Burt requested Staff comment on the drivers for the amount of the
Water Sewer Hookup Fee.
Mr. Lalo Perez did not have specific details, but recalled the Council reviewed
it approximately five years ago to establish the range and accept the
percentage.
Chair Burt wanted the City to have Park Fees comparable to Park Fees
collected by other cities and not be inhibited by a High Water Hookup Fee.
Mr. Nate Perez suspected that the high cost of the new water system and
the extension of water pipes was a driver of the fee. Perhaps some
elements of the City were not served quite as well as other elements.
Mr. Lalo Perez believed the cost resulted from building up the reservoirs, but
he said he would review the matter.
Chair Burt felt the City had two major capital categories: rebuilding the
Hetch-Hetchy system and emergency water supplies.
Mr. Lalo Perez noted the City did not have funding when the fee was
established.
Chair Burt asked if the City could charge new hookups for an existing
system.
MINUTES EXCERPT
Page 4 of 13
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Minutes Excerpt 11/5/2013
Mr. Nate Perez replied no. The allocation occurred in the setting of the fee
level because the numerator was the cost of the new system, and the
denominator was the number of new homes or new nonresidential square
footage.
Chair Burt inquired whether the City could charge for the new system after it
being built.
Mr. Nate Perez reported once the system was built, the City could charge the
homes and the demographics contained within the study. The projections
within the study were based upon the number of homes and nonresidential
square footage.
Chair Burt asked if the City could implement a fee if construction of the
system was based upon a future projected need.
Mr. Nate Perez answered yes.
Mr. Lalo Perez requested time to confirm the correct information regarding
the hookup fee, given the amount of the fee.
Vice Mayor Shepherd asked Staff to explain the Fire Facility Fee charged by
Menlo Park.
Mr. Nate Perez assumed it was utilized for additional fire capital
improvements.
Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether the fee would be used for capital
improvements to Menlo Park's fire stations.
Mr. Nate Perez responded yes.
Vice Mayor Shepherd indicated Palo Alto did not charge that fee.
Mr. Lalo Perez proposed a General Government Fee that could capture those
types of things.
Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if the fee was used for development.
Mr. Nate Perez replied that the fee could only be utilized for new
development. In light of Palo Alto's unique nature, he was suggesting
maximum fees. The City Council always retained the authority to charge
lower fees. The Citywide Transportation Fee, approximately $3,000 per
single family home, was able to be slightly increased. He suggested two
MINUTES EXCERPT
Page 5 of 13
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Minutes Excerpt 11/5/2013
new fee categories to help cover some costs of capital improvements. He
said a Public Safety Fee could be utilized for a new Public Safety Building,
some new fire stations, some new rescue vans, and things such as that. A
General Government Fee was utilized for a Municipal Service Center. Funds
generated by those fees were able to be used to assist the City in meeting
some costs.
Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired if the proposed increase to the Community
Facility Fee could be used to pay for some fire and police capital
improvements.
Mr. Lalo Perez answered no. It was meant for community centers.
Mr. Nate Perez was not comfortable putting municipal buildings in the
Community Facility category.
Vice Mayor Shepherd noted funds generated by fees would be appropriated
and then used for the CIP Budget. She asked if those funds were
differentiated from General Fund dollars allocated to CIP.
Mr. Lalo Perez responded yes because Staff identified the source of funding
that came from a fee.
Mr. Nate Perez reported some communities did not have as many fees as
others. The draft Capital Needs List was meant to be expansive and
inclusive and was prepared using the best information Staff had. If there
were no projects on the Capital Needs List, then there could be no fees. As
circumstances changed, projects had the potential to be removed from and
added to the Capital Needs List.
Council Member Berman thought it was better for the Capital Needs List to
be as inclusive as possible
Mr. Nate Perez was not able to target a fee level and then work backwards
to determine funding for improvement projects. He tried to be inclusive of
projects, calculated some draft fees, and circulated draft fees to the
Committee for its impressions.
Council Member Berman stated fees would not provide sufficient funds to
build a new Municipal Services Center or Public Safety Building; yet, the two
projects were being considered in determining the amount of fees. He
inquired about the process for setting fees.
Mr. Nate Perez explained that the bottom line numbers were the numerator,
MINUTES EXCERPT
Page 6 of 13
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Minutes Excerpt 11/5/2013
and the number of shared new homes and nonresidential square feet over
the next 20 years was the denominator. He thought fees should be
controlled, mitigated, and moderately increased to provide more revenue
without jeopardizing the City's relationship with the development
community.
Chair Burt wanted to consider setting a fee level that would cause new
development to pay for its proportionate share of the cost of the additional
capital improvements needed to sustain the community. That was the fair
framework and was the objective discussion.
Mr. Lalo Perez reported that was the Council's practice in the past. There
were different discussions as to having a percentage of the fee be the fee
itself, and that depended on the type of fee.
Chair Burt recalled that the discussion of a Park Impact Fee was based on
two acres per 1,000 people, and that was embedded in the Comprehensive
Plan as an objective. The Council was not able to have a Policy Objective of
what they thought was correct for the community. He thought a 10 percent
increase in car trips could cause a 20 or 30 percent increase in congestion.
The question then became whether new developments paid for 10 percent of
the total number of car trips or for the 30 percent increase in congestion.
The guidance was that the City could not charge fees based on the 30
percent of congestion. He was interested in framing the levels of fees in
that manner.
Mr. Nate Perez indicated the Transportation Fee would be reviewed for trips
and congestion. The City currently based its Park Impact Fee on five acres
per 1,000 people and the Parkland Dedication Fee was technically different
than the Park Impact Fee. He noted that one or the other could be charged.
Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if funds from a Parkland Dedication Fee were
utilized to purchase parkland, rather than maintenance of parks.
Mr. Nate Perez explained a developer above 50 parcels paid the Dedication
Fee or gave up the land. An individual homeowner paid the Park Impact
Fee. For Capital Facilities and General Government Fees, the Nexus Study
reviewed the increase in persons served and calls for service from police and
fire.
Chair Burt noted the Committee's Agenda Item was to review the Capital
Needs List.
Council Member Berman inquired about the lack of new police vehicles under
MINUTES EXCERPT
Page 7 of 13
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Minutes Excerpt 11/5/2013
police facilities. The category contained only the Public Safety Building,
while the fire category contained multiple projects.
Mr. Lalo Perez reported the majority of police vehicles were embedded in
fleet replacement. The amount of funds estimated at the time fire vehicles
were enrolled in fleet replacement did not align with the cost.
Council Member Berman asked if the cost of replacing police vehicles was
contained within the Budget.
Chair Burt assumed the City retained fire trucks far longer than police
vehicles.
Mr. Lalo Perez indicated fire engines were typically retained 15 years, as
opposed to three years for police vehicles.
Chair Burt stated projects enduring less than five years did not qualify under
the capital definition.
Vice Mayor Shepherd noted the Capital Needs List contained only one
parking garage, when many parking improvements were needed to reduce
neighborhood overflow.
Mr. Lalo Perez clarified that the Capital Needs List contained two parking
garages. Staff did not have a study to verify the number of garages
needed; therefore, they used the best information they had.
Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether the City could collect a fee to
construct a Public Safety Building when the amount of fees generated would
not pay to construct it.
Mr. Lalo Perez reported the Capital Needs List could not contain items that
the Council knew would not be constructed. The City needed a Public Safety
Building; he thought it could be funded through other means and Staff had a
reasonable cost estimate.
Vice Mayor Shepherd referenced the $16 million cost for the Civic Center
plaza deck, and inquired whether the Capital Needs List included a project to
seismically retrofit the building.
Mr. Eggleston indicated Staff was not planning a project to seismically
retrofit the building.
Mr. Lalo Perez understood the building was retrofitted through the elevator
MINUTES EXCERPT
Page 8 of 13
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Minutes Excerpt 11/5/2013
shafts in the early 1990s. He was unaware of additional requirements since
that occurred.
Chair Burt remarked that a higher level of seismic retrofitting was required
for buildings providing essential services than for buildings providing general
services.
Mr. Lalo Perez believed the work in the 1990s took care of the tower but not
necessarily the wing.
Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if the retrofit included City Hall.
Mr. Lalo Perez did not believe so, but said he would have to check on that.
Chair Burt felt there were two possible thresholds. One was whether the
upgrade in the 1990s met the current requirements for general services.
The second threshold was whether the upgrade met the highest seismic
standard for essential services.
Mr. Lalo Perez said he would review construction records.
Chair Burt was interested in including seismic retrofitting as a long-term
capital need.
Mr. Lalo Perez agreed it would be a reasonable project to include if an
additional retrofit was needed to meet current standards.
Mr. Nate Perez stated new residents would obviously benefit from that
project.
Council Member Schmid referenced the quote from the Act regarding
inclusion of public improvements and public services; however, Mr. Nate
Perez indicated the Council could only utilize funds for capital investments.
He requested clarification.
Mr. Nate Perez reported a category of public services under water and sewer
would qualify for the DIFs. For the City's purposes, public services were not
able to be included on the list.
Council Member Schmid noted that the Staff Report did not state that public
services were excluded.
Vice Mayor Shepherd questioned the inclusion of $750,000 for computers.
MINUTES EXCERPT
Page 9 of 13
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Minutes Excerpt 11/5/2013
Council Member Schmid reiterated that the Act included public services.
Mr. Nate Perez stated use of DIFs was restricted to capital improvements.
Council Member Schmid asked why grade crossings were not included on the
Capital Needs List. The Council voted to fund a detailed study.
Chair Burt indicated the Council did not make a policy decision to include
grade crossings in long-term capital plans at the current time.
Council Member Schmid remarked that the Capital Needs List was inclusive
to 2035.
Chair Burt explained that the Capital Needs List was inclusive of work
identified as a prospective project.
Council Member Schmid felt grade crossings could become a viable project
before the Nexus Study was presented in the spring of 2014.
Chair Burt agreed the Council could move the grade separation issue from a
possibility to an intention. He expected that at that point in time, it would
be included in the Capital Needs List.
Council Member Schmid believed development would enhance the need for
the program. He requested Staff review the timeline.
Vice Mayor Shepherd questioned the inclusion of computers on the Capital
Needs List.
Mr. Nate Perez reported Information Technology (IT) upgrades were
identified as projects.
Vice Mayor Shepherd noted the Item was listed as an acquisition of new
computers, not IT upgrades, and asked if the description needed to be
changed.
Mr. Lalo Perez stated that he would work on that. If the Committee
preferred to refer the Item to the Council, it could probably be presented to
the Council in January 2014. He mentioned that David Taussig and
Associates and Staff could present the Nexus Study to the Council or return
to the Committee. If the Nexus Study returned to the Committee, then Staff
needed to implement a faster track. The final study was to be presented to
the Council for approval in April 2014. Next, Staff was going to discuss how
to incorporate DIFs into the proposed 2015 Budget process during the
MINUTES EXCERPT
Page 10 of 13
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Minutes Excerpt 11/5/2013
Budget hearings in May 2014. DIFs were to be presented to the Council in
June 2014 and implemented in July.
Council Member Schmid expressed concern about the focus on the Capital
Needs List rather than on the elements of the nexus that were apparent in
Attachment A. A number of critical questions needed discussion. The
Council discussed that the assessment of four workers per 1,000 square feet
could be a misstatement. That assessment was a critical part of the nexus
study. The study had a tremendous impact on parking structures,
roadways, and transportation.
Chair Burt asked to which study Council Member Schmid was referring.
Council Member Schmid commented that the Transportation Fee and Traffic
Impact Fee implied certain assumptions about development.
Vice Mayor Shepherd believed Council Member Schmid was referring to a
study to change the assessment of four workers per 1,000 square foot.
Council Member Schmid referenced the Planning Director's statement in
January 2013 that the City needed to update the Traffic and Parking Study
because the numbers were outdated.
Chair Burt was unclear to which study he was referring as the Planning
Director's statement was a specific study in a specific timeframe. He agreed
there was an issue. He understood the City historically framed Impact Fees
as dollars per square foot. The Council was not sure that was the correct
metric. If the Council implemented a Business License Tax linked to number
of employees, then businesses with differing employees per square foot
needed to pay the same amount per square foot but would suffer radically
different impacts.
Council Member Schmid reported the table contained four or five
assumptions about things that had tremendous impacts on the nexus. He
asked when the Council would have an opportunity to discuss that within the
timeline.
Mr. Nate Perez requested updated demographics from the Planning
Department three times. He mentioned that the demographics would be
front and center in the Nexus Study. He had competing demographic data
sources, which he vetted and adjusted to reflect Council Member Schmid's
concerns. He noted that he could provide a review of demographics as well.
Council Member Schmid expressed an interest in an actual number and a
MINUTES EXCERPT
Page 11 of 13
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Minutes Excerpt 11/5/2013
methodology to vet that number.
Mr. Lalo Perez noted DTA recommended updating the Citywide
Transportation Fee. He inquired whether Council Member Schmid's concern
would be part of the Nexus Study review, even though Staff did not propose
updating all fees.
Mr. Nate Perez indicated Council Member Schmid was concerned that
utilizing the existing Transportation Fee Study with new demographics would
result in a different fee without changing the improvements. Council
Member Schmid was asking DTA to review both the improvements and the
demographics.
Council Member Schmid inquired whether that would be part of the March
2014 presentation to the Council.
Mr. Lalo Perez indicated that was the Committee's decision. The intent of
the timeline was to update the Capital Needs List as soon as possible to be
able to collect fees from projects creating incremental impacts. The
Committee was able to direct Staff with respect to a different timeline.
Council Member Schmid was concerned that the information would be
overshadowed by the proposed Budget.
Chair Burt concurred that there was an issue. He asked if the Nexus Study
could be presented to the Committee before the Council.
Mr. Lalo Perez indicated Staff could present it to the Committee prior to the
Council.
Chair Burt wanted the Committee to review the Nexus Study without
delaying the timeline.
Mr. Lalo Perez needed to ensure Staff could meet the timeline and would
notify the Committee in the January 2014 update.
Mr. Nate Perez noted that providing a Capital Needs List before the Nexus
Study seemed bizarre.
Chair Burt expressed concern with respect to new residents versus
commercial space and employees. He was not able to recall whether certain
fees were apportioned. Public Safety and Transportation Fees were able to
be fully apportioned to new employees. He thought new employees living
outside Palo Alto would probably not utilize parks, community centers, and
MINUTES EXCERPT
Page 12 of 13
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Minutes Excerpt 11/5/2013
libraries as much as residents. Utilizing the same ratio between Residential
and Commercial Fees most likely did not apply equally for each category.
Mr. Nate Perez concurred that the same ratio did not always apply equally.
Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if Staff recommended the Committee to approve
the Capital Needs List.
Mr. Lalo Perez answered yes.
Vice Mayor Shepherd felt the Item should be presented to the Council on the
Consent Calendar to make the Council aware of the Capital Needs List and
its contents. She asked if the Capital Needs List would be final when it was
presented to the Council.
Mr. Lalo Perez reported the Capital Needs List would be final once the
Council approved it.
Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether projects could be added to the
Capital Needs List once the Council approved it.
Mr. Lalo Perez believed the timeline would be delayed if projects were added
to the Capital Needs List.
Chair Burt noted the Staff recommendation implied it would be presented to
the Council.
Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if Staff wanted to present the Item to the
Council as an Action Item.
Mr. Lalo Perez indicated that was the Committee's decision. If it was a
Consent Item, the Council could provide Staff with comments or remove it
from Consent Calendar.
Chair Burt explained that if the Committee voted unanimously, the Item
would be placed on the Consent Calendar; although, the Mayor and City
Manager were able to move it to an Action Item.
Council Member Schmid felt the Item was too important for the Consent
Calendar and that the Council needed to review the list to prepare for the
Nexus Study.
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Vice Mayor
Shepherd to recommend the City Council approve, on the Action Agenda,
MINUTES EXCERPT
Page 13 of 13
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Minutes Excerpt 11/5/2013
the Development Impact Fee Capital Needs List.
Vice Mayor Shepherd suggested the Staff Report to the Council feature the
proposed new fees.
Chair Burt referenced the fact that the City had not charged fees for major
remodels. The definition of major remodel was revised a few years ago. He
wished to have a valid distinction made for remodeling.
Vice Mayor Shepherd understood an Impact Fee applied to a new family
building a new place to live in Palo Alto.
Chair Burt indicated that was not a definition, but it was useful for
discussion. He noted the comparisons to other cities did not include a
percentage of the value of the constructed property. That was a better
indication of whether fees were at or below the mean. He inquired whether
that metric would be appropriate for comparing fees.
Mr. Nate Perez added that he could utilize the appraised value to provide
that information.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4505)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/3/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Renaming Main Library
Title: From Policy and Services Committee Staff Requests Direction From
Council on the Naming of the Main Library
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Library
Recommendation
Staff seeks direction regarding selection of a possible new name for the Main Library as
described in the Discussion section.
Background
On August 23 and September 27, 2012, Library Advisory Commission (LAC) discussed
possibilities for renaming the Main Library and recommended “Rinconada” to tie into the
neighboring park while reflecting the history of the land grant name for that area. On June 13,
2013, the Palo Alto Historical Association Board reviewed the suggested change and confirmed
the historical accuracy and appropriateness of that name choice. Following the City’s
procedure for renaming resources, the LAC submitted the proposal to City Council for
consideration at its September 9, 2013 meeting. Council then referred the issue to Policy and
Services Committee for direction and action. Based on the outcome of the vote at the
December 10, 2013 Policy and Services Committee meeting, the matter was sent back to the
City Council for consideration and direction. At its regular December 19, 2013 meeting, the LAC
reaffirmed its recommendation of the name “Rinconada” as an appropriate suggestion and
seeks Council approval for this change.
Discussion
In 2012, the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) discussed the subject of renaming the Main
Library at two meetings, reviewing historical names from Palo Alto’s past, considering personal
names, and the implications that renaming the facility may have. Following presentations by
local historian Steve Staiger and Community Services Director Greg Betts, the LAC voted to
City of Palo Alto Page 2
recommend the name “Rinconada” in place of “Main” Library. Following the approval of this
selection, the LAC forwarded the name to the Palo Alto Historical Association (PAHA) Board for
their review and approval. The PAHA Board approved the suggestion, noting that this name is
historically accurate. They have continued to support the suggestion; if another name were
suggested, the PAHA Board would consider that for historical accuracy too.
The name Rinconada comes from the Spanish for “elbow” or “inside corner.” The land upon
which the original Palo Alto town was developed was originally part of the Rancho Rinconada
del Arroyo de San Francisquito land grant. The Park name came from a contest held by the
Chamber of Commerce to rename the City's Waterworks Park in the mid-1920's. Other names
considered included Newell, Embarcadero, and Community Center (the neighborhood in which
the library is located). The name “Rinconada Library” was selected because of geographic
location/adjacency to Rinconada Park, Pool, and Fire Station.
The LAC was guided by Policy and Procedures 1-15/MGR (revised in April 2008) regarding
naming City-Owned Land and Facilities Policy Statement. The policy outlines certain criteria for
renaming, three of which the LAC felt relevant to the library facility:
The name should, if possible, have or preserve the geographic, historic or landmark
connotation of particular significance to the area in which the land or facility is located.
Consideration may be given to naming the City-owned land or facility after an individual
when the land or facility, or the money for its purchase, has been donated by the
individual.
Names honoring individual or families, other than those of recognized historic
importance, must be supported by compelling reasons.
The LAC and staff have researched possible issues:
The Palo Alto Library Foundation (PALF) created, with City Council’s approval, a naming
process to use for fundraising for the Measure N bond projects. This includes naming
rooms for large donations. In discussion with the PALF Board, they likewise could have
foreseen requesting a building be named for a particularly large donation to their
fundraising efforts, which benefit Downtown, Main, and Mitchell Park libraries,
specifically.
Past foundation requests for building support outside of the library fundraising have
included foundations which use the name(s) of influential figures in Palo Alto history.
These foundations have indicated that they have specific restrictions on the use of the
names; potentially selecting those names could create logistical problems for the name
change process.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
The Library Service Model Analysis and Recommendations (LSMAR) report, approved by
the City Council in 2006, included Council’s conceptual approval of key concepts,
including one that noted that upgrading Mitchell Park Library’s resources should not
downgrade the Main Library.
Referral to Policy & Services Committee
At its September 9, 2013 meeting, City Council referred this issue to the Policy and Services
Committee for discussion, consideration, and further recommendation, with the following
motion: “To refer this item to the Policy and Services Committee with directions that they work
with Palo Alto Historical Association to bring a recommendation to the City Council to rename
the Main Library for a distinguished person in Palo Alto history or recommend the continued
use of the name Main Library if an appropriate individual cannot be determined.” Because the
Policy and Services Committee voted 2-2 on the motion, the discussion returns to City Council.
The LAC, at its regular December 19, 2013 meeting, discussed the progress of the possible
renaming at the Council level and the reaffirmed its recommendation of the name “Rinconada”
as an appropriate suggestion and seeks Council approval for this change. LAC unanimously
passed the following motion:
“Recognizing that the Policy and Services Committee could not reach consensus,
the Library Advisory Commission (‘LAC’) is respectfully resubmitting its
recommendation of adopting a name change for the library facility at 1213
Newell Road to ‘Rinconada.’ This recommendation is consistent with the total
makeover of the facility with modifications from the ground up. The reasons for
renaming this facility from its current title of ‘Main’ are many fold:
The name Rinconada is consistent with the location-related naming theme of other
library branches;
Upon reopening it will no longer be the largest branch;
The branch will not house library administration;
The title ‘Main’ is not descriptive to users;
Although a diminished issue under the current administration, the ‘Main’ title has
previously created issues with staff morale;
Under Parks and Services’ Rinconada Long-Range Plan, this facility will be part of
that plan’s improvements and renovations where all of the local facilities such as the
Park space, Swimming Pool, Tennis Courts and Zoo will be branded under the
Rinconada name; and
Finally, Rinconada has historical significance as part of Rancho Rinconada del Arroyo
de San Francisquito land grant.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
In addition to these issues, the Council's desire to rename the Newell Road facility
after an individual may create an implicit conflict with the Palo Alto Library
Foundation’s ‘Launch our Libraries’ naming opportunities campaign.”
Attached are the renewed LAC recommendation, documents related to the discussions, as well
as the City’s policy regarding how to change named resources.
Policy Implications
The item is now before City Council for direction and action. Should the Council decide to
pursue renaming the library for a person of historical interest, they would need to override the
policy requirements, declining the recommendation from the LAC as well as the endorsement
by PAHA.
Resource Impact
There will be impacts to costs related to print materials, though these are used less frequently
than in the past. Changing the name will require staff time as it relates to web-based
information and other promotional materials, though again, it is expected that this will be
relatively minimal. Signage for the renovated building is included in the Measure N budget and
these changes can be incorporated at this time.
Environmental Review (If Applicable)
This does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore,
no environmental assessment is needed.
Attachments:
Attachment A: 02/18/2014 LAC Memorandum to City Council (PDF)
Attachment B: Excerpt from Working Minutes of 12/10/2013 Policy and Services
Committee Meeting (PDF)
Attachment C: Excerpt from Action Minutes of 09/09/2013 City Council Meeting (PDF)
Attachment D: 06/13/2013 Email Correspondence from Steve Staiger, Historian, Palo
Alto Historical Association (PDF)
Attachment E: 09/27/2012 Library Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes and Packet
Information (PDF)
Attachment F: 08/23/2012 Library Advisory Commision Meeting Minutes and Packet
Information (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Attachment G: Palo Alto Library Foundation "Launch our Libraries" Naming Recognition
Schedule (PDF)
Attachment H: City Policy and Procedure 1-15, Naming City-Owned Land and Facilities
(PDF)
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Summary:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
MEMORANDUM
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 18, 2014
Library Advisory Commission resubmission ofthe name "Rinconada" for
the library facility at 1213 Newell Road and its rationale
With the projected opening of an expanded Mitchell Park branch, the question of
renaming the Main Library has been pending for over two years. At our January 2012
joint meeting with City Council, it was suggested that the Library Advisory Commission
(LAC) should consider changing the name of the library facility at 1213 Newell Road.
LAC recommended renaming this library as the Rinconada Branch. After considering
LAC's recommendation and debating the issue, Council referred the question to the
Policy and Sen/ices Committee for further review. A deadlocked Committee has
referred the matter back to Council to again consider this question in 2014. As between
honoring an "individual" or associating the branch with a "location", LAC respectfully
reiterates our recommendation of "Rinconada" and articulates the facts, policies and
reasoning that support our conclusion.
Background:
It may be useful to chronicle the work done by LAC at a series of meetings in 2012 and
2013. This effort was guided by Policy and Procedures 1-15/MGR (revised in April 2008)
regarding naming City-Owned Land and Facilities Policy Statement. The policy
enumerates certain criteria, three of which were deemed relevant to the library facility:
• The name should, if possible, haveor preserve the geographic, historic or
landmark connotation of particular significance to the area in which the
land or facility is located.
• Consideration may be given to naming the City-owned land or facility
after an individual when the land or facility, or the money for its
purchase, has been donated by the individual.
• Names honoring individual or families, other than those of recognized
historic importance, must be supported by compelling reasons.
Page 1 of4
J
At the July 26,2012 meeting, LAC scheduled renaming of the branch as a discussion
item for August 23, 2012 and requested information regarding the history of the name
and any policy requirements that should be considered.
On August 23, 2012, LAC reviewed materials related to the history of naming the "Main"
Library, discussed a number of possible names, requested additional clarification
regarding the origin of certain other local names, studied the process for naming City-
owned land and facilities, and noted details of the Rinconada "campus" idea of the Park
and Services Long Range Plan. Further discussion was scheduled for the September 27,
2012 meeting.
During the intervening month, individual Commissioners performed informal outreach
with library patrons, Newell area residents, book groups and library staff. Additionally,
library staff along with Steve Staiger, local historian and librarian with Palo Alto
Historical Association (PAHA), gathered information regarding local history related to
the facility and neighborhood.
On September 27, 2012, LAC received input from and held discussions with Steve Staiger
and Greg Betts, Director of the Community Services Department. These discussions
considered the historical significance of some possible names, the future CSD Rinconada
branding, timeframe, signage and way finding, and integration of the Library and Art
Center.
At its September 9, 2013 meeting, Council rejected the LAC's recommendation of
"Rinconada"and referred the issue to the Policy and Services Committee for it to either
propose the name of a distinguished person in Palo Alto's history or retain the name,
"Main." At its meeting on December 10, 2013, the Committee was deadlocked, and had
to refer the question back to the full Council.
LAC unanimously passed the following motion at our December 19,2013 meeting:
Recognizing that the Policy and Services Committee could not reach consensus,
the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) is respectfully resubmitting its
recommendation of adopting a name change for the library facility at 1213
Newell Road to "Rinconada." This recommendation is consistent with the total
makeover of the facility with modifications from the ground up. The reasons for
renaming this facility from its current title of "Main" are many fold:
• The name Rinconada is consistent with the location-related naming
theme of other library branches;
• Upon reopening it will no longer be the largest branch;
• The branch will not house library administration;
• The title "Main" is not descriptive to users;
• Although a diminished issue under the current administration, the
"Main" title has previously created issues with staff morale;
Page 2 of4
(
• Under Parks and Services' Rinconada Long-Range Plan, this facility will be
part ofthat plan's improvements and renovations where all ofthe local
facilities such as the Park space, Swimming Pool, Tennis Courts and Zoo
will be branded under the Rinconada name; and
• Finally, Rinconada has historical significance as part of Rancho Rinconada
del Arroyo de San Francisquito land grant.
In addition to these issues, the Council's desire to rename the Newell Road
facility after an individual may create an implicit conflict with the Palo Alto
Library Foundation's "Launch our Libraries" naming opportunities campaign.
Prior to adopting our recommendation, LAC identified the following observations:
• The function of the "Main" Library, like its neighborhood of "Community
Center" and the memory of such, has changed. Community Center
historically housed city hall and other functions in the Newell Ave.
neighborhood which have since relocated; consequently, few residents
even remember such history or are aware ofthe community center
designation.
• Names considered historically significant to the neighborhood included
Dr. William Newell, the early purchaser of the property, but was
eliminated as "Newell" was not descriptive given the distance of Newell
Road from East Palo Alto to Jordan Middle School. Other individuals of
importance to the local neighborhood --such as Duveneck, Greer,
Hopkins, Rengstorff, Soto and Stanford --were eliminated for other
reasons.
• A historically significant name was "Ohlone" for the native residents. This
area has known Indian mounds with a commemorative plaque erected at
Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road. "Ohlone" was eliminated as
confusing with the previously recognized location of Ohlone Elementary
School at 950 Amarillo Ave.
• Many of Palo Alto's parks, schools and streets have been given the name
of historically significant individuals. However, the most local park,
Rinconada, is currently subject to an extensive review under a long-term
plan and is retaining its name with the addition ofthe words "Cultural
Center."
• Fire stations and library branches are generally named for location
(except the name of Children's library branch which was selected by the
funding donor, Lucie Stern).
• During discussions with Council, we were specifically directed to look at
the historical figures David Packard and William.Hewlett. These were
eliminated because neither of these individuals was particularly tied to
libraries. Palo Alto with its rich history of inventors who contributed jobs,
recognition and revenue to the City has benefitted from a number of
visionaries such as Hewlett, Jobs, Packard, the Varian brothers, and many
Page 3 of4
Cheng, Evelyn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Staiger, Steve
Thursday, June 13, 2013 1:45 PM
Cheng, Evelyn
rename of Main Library
The Palo Alto Historical Association board met yesterday and discussed the proposed renaming ofthe Main Library. The
board agreed that the proposed new name (Rinconada) is historically appropriate for the library on Newell Road and will
support its adoption.
Steve Staiger
Palo Alto Historical Association
Landmarks and Streets Committee, chair
1
. ·r
APPROVED
MINUTES
Library Advisory Commission (LAC)
September 27,2012
Downtown Library Community Room
270 Forest Avenue
7:00 p.m.
Commissioners Present: Leonardo Hochberg, Eileen Landauer, Bob Moss,
Theivanai Palaniappan, Mary Beth Train
Tolulope Akinola, Noel Bakhtian Commissioners Absent:
Staff Present:
Council Liaison:
Monique Ie Conge, Evelyn Cheng, Greg Betts
Greg Schmid
CALL TO ORDER -Palaniappan called the meeting to order at 7:22 p.m.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -A member of the public spoke about his idea to
have library used as incubator space, tapping into the City's vibrant network.
AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS -Item marked as "7e" in the
LAC packet should go with "7d".
BUSINESS
1. Approval of draft minutes of Regular Meeting on August 23,2012.
• Without corrections, Hochberg moved to approve minutes of Regular
Meeting on August 23, 2012. Train seconded. Minutes were approved
unanimously.
2. Continuing Discussion: Possible name change for Main
• Following the August 2012 LAC meeting, Ie Conge invited Steve Staiger,
local historian, and Greg Betts, Director, Community Services Department
(CSD), to the meeting to provide additional information that would be
useful in the LAC discussion regarding choice of names for the library.
• Staiger provided a historical perspective of some of the possible names
for Main Library, their meaning, origin and/or historic nature of the name,
e.g. Rinconada, Newell, Embarcadero and Community Center.
• Betts gave a brief discussion on the intent of CSD's Rinconada signage
plan and way-finding program, with the increasing awareness of
Rinconada Park as a kid-centric campus. Betts said after consideration of
several names, the direction is heading to branding the area as
"Rinconada Cultural Park" but the process requires numerous steps,
including the review/approval by the different Boards and Commission
(e.g. Architectural Review Board and the Historic Review Board).
• Discussion followed, with members of the LAC providing comments and
asking questions about project timeframe, placement of signage, and how
best to integrate the Main Library and Art Center to the area, as well as
possible names the Commission should consider for renaming the facility.
• Landauer presented a file she received from an individual while asking the
community about their opinion on a new name for the Main Library.
Included in the file were names of Palo Alto neighborhoods and fire
stations at parks, and a proposed solution to have the remodeled facility
be integral to Rinconada Park.
• Commissioners agreed that the name "Rinconada" has historical value, is
consistent with the area and would tie in well.
• MOTION: Moss moved, Train seconded
"The LAC recommends to City Council, when Main Library's
renovation is complete, to rename the facility 'Rinconada
Library' ."
• Discussion followed, with Commissioners expressing their preference to
keep the Motion to renaming the facility only and to leave the effective
date unspecified to give it more flexibility.
• AMENDMENT: Landauer moved, Train seconded
Removing from the Motion "when Main Library's renovation is
complete"
Amendment Passed: 4-1 (Moss opposing)
MOTION, as Amended, passed, 5-0.
• Ie Conge said the City has a policy for naming city-owned land and
facilities, which establishes criteria to guide Commissions in
recommending names to the Council for approval. "The commission shall
conduct a public hearing, confirm that the recommended name meets the
criteria of appropriate significance, select recommendation(s) provided by
the Historical Association, and shall forward its recommendation to the
City Council." (Policy and Procedures 1-15/MGR)
2
• Staff will confirm with the City Clerk's Office on next steps to move the
LAC's recommendation forward.
3. Presentation on Axis 360 -Amy Glaza, Baker & Taylor
• Ie Conge announced that Agenda item no. 3 will be re-scheduled since
presenter, Amy Glaza of Baker & Taylor, was unable to come to the
meeting.
4. Additional Information: Draft Library Statistics for FY2012
• Following Councilmember Schmid's suggestion at the August meeting,
staff prepared updated statistics for FY2009, FY2011 and FY2012.
FY2009 is the last year that all five Palo Alto branch libraries were open.
• Commissioners appreciate seeing the numbers and noted that customer
visits and checkout of materials held up very well even when libraries
closed. However, reference and database searches as well as public PC
sessions have gone down.
• Ie Conge said that going forward, statistical information on basic upper
level elements (e.g. circulation, visitor counts, program attendance) will be
provided to the LAC on a quarterly basis. Statistical highlights are posted
on the Library's website and will be included in the City's new Open Data
platform soon.
5. Continuing Discussion: Economic Impact of eBooks
• To broaden the discussion of eBooks and economic impacts, staff
provided a comparison of eBook costs versus book costs, and developed
comments regarding actions and future thinking about eBooks, as well as
articles of interest.
• Discussion followed, with members of the LAC providing comments,
asking clarification and questions about costs/pricing, advantages of
providing eBooks, and limits to checkouts. Commissioners noted the high
cost of purchasing eBooks as compared to book costs.
• Ie Conge said that there are changes on a day-to-day basis and staff will
continue to keep the LAC informed and updated on eBooks and its impact
on libraries.
6. 2012 LAC's Joint Meeting with City Council
• The LAC agreed to schedule their joint meeting with City Council at the
start of 2013 when new Council members are on board and libraries are
set to close and/or open.
3
• Staff will check with the City Clerk's Office on available dates in the
January/February timeframe and advise the Commissioners.
• Priority setting for the joint meeting with City Council will be discussed at
the next LAC meeting.
• Hochberg said several years ago, the LAC Chair and Vice Chair had an
informal dialogue with Council Members Elect on library issues -this was
part of the Commission's outreach activities which he felt was effective
and helpful.
7. 2012 LAC Priorities
• The subcommittees presented thejr final update/report to close out their
work, following the 6-month term for special committees and to be
consistent with the policy and procedures established by City Council.
Community Relations/Advocacy (members: Train, Bakhtian)
-The LAC Advocacy template was revised, incorporating the comments
and recommendations from the Commissioners, and Train will provide
the final draft at the October meeting.
Finance (Landauer, Palaniappan)
-The focus was narrowed to evaluating options for pilots at Mitchell
Park to highlight and assist with planning for staffing and funding
issues at the time all branches are open. The subcommittee
recommends when Mitchell Park and Temporary Main open, staff
should continue to evaluate and pilot services that may have minimal
funding impacts by either utilizing volunteers or by tapping into private
funding sources.
Virtual Library (members: Akinola, Hochberg)
-Hochberg and Akinola will continue to interact with staff and work on
finalizing the identification of issues before moving forward with
establishing a special committee.
ByLaws (member: Moss)
-After final review of the ByLaws
MOTION: Moss moved, Hochberg seconded
"the LAC adopt the ByLaws as presented."
Motion passed, 5-0.
• 2013 LAC Priorities. Commissioners agreed to table this item for the
October meeting.
LIBRARY DIRECTOR'S REPORT
4
Ie Conge provided a written report (included in packet) on recent library activities
of interest in September, as well as follow-up on items previously
discussed/requested by the LAC, which include
Request for Information (RFI) process before selecting an
Integrated Library System (llS) will start in January 2013.
Google Cloud Print is available at the Mitchell Park Library, for up
to 15 pages per Google account per day. Google provides all the
necessary supplies.
LiquidSpace reservations have been extended to 7 days in
advance.
-Wifi data use cannot be tracked currently, but may be possible
when city-wide upgrades to a standardized system is completed.
OTHER REPORTS
Commissioner reports and questions:
• Moss expressed his concern about the construction progress report for
Mitchell Park Library and the media broadcasting system at Downtown
Library which is still not fully functional.
• Moss attended the September 12 Friends of the Palo Alto Library (FOPAl)
Board meeting; Train announced that the Library Foundation Board did not
meet this month, a retreat is planned early next year.
Council Liaison Report:
Schmid addressed Moss' concern about the status of the Mitchell Park
construction project and mentioned some of the highlights in Staff Report #3125
(Mitchell Park Construction Contract Bi-Monthly Report).
COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
• Ie Conge said the City Clerk's Office is asking the LAC's help in recruiting
applicants interested in serving in one unexpired term ending January 31,
2014 (Bakhtian's).
• Library has a new subscription service called Credo Reference which is a
great resource for students working on special projects. Topic pages pull
together links to Palo Alto library books, full text magazine articles and news
and images to complement projects.
AGENDA for meeting on October 25,2012:
The items suggested for the meeting are:
• 2012-13 LAC Priorities
5
• Presentation on Axis 360
• Joint Meeting with City Council
Hochberg moved to adjourn.
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 10:37 p.m.
6
LOBRARY
PALO ALTO CITY
September 13, 2012
TO: Library Advisory Commission
FROM: Monique Ie Conge, Library Director
RE: Naming Information, Main Library
Following up on the August 2012 LAC meeting, I've asked Steve Staiger to
find some answers for you based on your question, regarding possible
names for Main Library. Here are his notes:
Rinconada comes from the Spanish for elbow or inside corner. The land
upon which the original Palo Alto town was developed was originally part
of the Rancho Rinconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito land grant. The
Park name came from a contest held by the Chamber of Commerce to
rename the City's Waterworks Park in the mid 1920's.
Newell is named for Dr. Newell, an early resident of the area, who bought
land in the 1860's from the Soto/Greer family. His home is today the oldest
home in Palo Alto, located on Edgewood near Newell Road (Zuckerberg
is the current owner).
Embarcadero Road (rough Spanish of "road to landing") is the name for
the path that led to the small boat landing on San Francisquito Creek
where Capt. John Greer sailed in the early 1850's and found his love,
Maria Soto). Present day Newell Road was once part of the
Embarcadero as it turned left and led to the landing located just
downstream of the present-day Newell Bridge.
Community Center: I'm not sure of how this name came about, but my
guess is that Carol Blitzer of the Palo Alto Weekly may have had
something to do with it. Prior to the Weekly's series of articles on various
P A neighborhoods there were neighborhoods without accepted names.
In order to cover the entire community, Carol gave names to
neighborhoods that did not have common or officially accepted names.
This may be one of those names of 15 -20 years ago. The area was
originally called Alba Park back in the first decade(s) of the 20th century
when that was the name of the subdivision being promoted just outside
the original town of Palo Alto.
APPROVED
MINUTES
Library Advisory Commission (LAC)
August 23,2012
Downtown Library Community Room
270 Forest Avenue
7:00 p.m.
Commissioners Present: Leonardo Hochberg, Eileen Landauer, Bob Moss,
Theivanai Palaniappan, Mary Beth Train
Tolulope Akinola, Noel Bakhtian Commissioners Absent:
Staff Present: Monique Ie Conge, Evelyn Cheng
Council Liaison: Greg Schmid
CALL TO ORDER -Palaniappan called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -None
AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS -None
BUSINESS
1. Approval of draft minutes of Regular Meeting on July 26,2012
• Without corrections, Train moved to approve minutes of Regular Meeting
on July 26,2012. Moss seconded. Minutes were approved unanimously.
2. Economic Impact of eBooks
• Ie Conge presented basic data for the collection development and use of
eBooks, started in Palo Alto in 2007, and the economic impact of providing
such in the Library, from the customers' view and on staffs ability to
provide services, and how to achieve greater success in the future.
• Additional documents were provided/referenced: e.g. American Library
Association's report on eBook Business Models for Public Libraries
(August, 2012); Library Journal's "eBooks Choices and the Soul of
Librarianship -the Digital Shift" (July 2012); Pew report "Libraries,
Patrons, and eBooks" (http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/06/22I1ibraries-
patrons-and-e-books/)
1
• Discussion followed, with members of the LAC asking
questions/clarification about the use of eBooks and the impact on libraries.
• Ie Conge said the Library offers access to four vendor databases for
online readable eBooks and one for downloadable ones. A comparison of
costs by vendor, including budgetary and statistical information can be
provided for continued discussion at the next LAC meeting in September.
3. Draft Library Statistics for FY2012
• Ie Conge prepared a draft of the statistics the Library has to date
regarding circulation, attendance, programs, and services, for the fiscal
year covering 2011-2012.
• Ie Conge added that the draft will not be considered complete until the
library submits its annual data to the California State Library and collection
counts, budgetary information, and other statistics will be included in that
final report.
• FY2011/12 highlights increase in customer use of library facilities,
materials and many services, in part due to the re-openings of the
renovated College Terrace Library in November 2010 and Downtown
Library in July 2011; increase in program activity with the new 60-seat
community meeting room at Downtown Library; and additional volunteer
opportunities at both renovated branches. Overall checkouts of library
materials increased 5.6%, branch visits increased 8.6%.
• Graphs comparing checkouts and visits at each branch library in the last
eight fiscal years (FY2005-2012) were also provided, to show the impact
of the various branch closings and re-openings during that time. In 2015,
the Library would have a full year of having all branches open and expects
to show significant impact on Palo Alto.
• Commissioners commended staff for increasing the number of programs
and new library cardholders, and asked questions/clarification about the
various data collected.
• Schmid said it would be helpful to include 2009 statistics since all Palo
Alto libraries were open that year and use that as a standard for
comparison. Ie Conge said she will have these available at the
September meeting.
• Palaniappan asked about meeting room reservations at Downtown Library
and allowing customers more flexibility to make reservations. Currently,
the public can make reservations three days in advance. Ie Conge said
she will have staff look into changing the policy.
2
• Hochberg asked if it would be possible to collect the data use at each
library branch and include this in the Library's annual data collection;
Ie Conge said she will check with the City's IT department.
• leConge also provided two weeks of use statistics on Freega/ and
Discover and Go, the Library's most recently-added online services.
(Freegal is a new music download service; Discover and Go provides
free and discount passes to a wide variety of Bay Area museums and
other cultural destinations)
4. Possible Name Change for Main Library
• Ie Conge prepared materials related to the history of the naming of
Main Library as requested by the LAC at the July 2012 meeting .
.. Clipping files from 1955 and 1958 were i!1c1uded, showing in essence
that the Main Library was named for its function at the time.
• Discussion followed, with members of the LAC giving
comments/suggestions for possible name change for the library and
asking questions about origin of some names (e.g. Rinconada, Newell,
Embarcadero, neighborhood name of Community Center), the
process, if any, for naming City-owned land and facilities, and how this
was handled in the past.
• Ie Conge said she will find out from Steve Staiger, local historian and
librarian, where some of the names come from, and invite him to the
September meeting to answer additional historic questions from the
Commission.
• Moss said since the names of other branches in Palo Alto are location-
related, it would make sense to keep that approach.
• Ie Conge will put together a list of names with their historical
perspective for further discussion at the September meeting. As part
of the discussion, the Commissioners agreed that it would be helpful to
get a better understanding of the Rinconada "campus" idea and the
corresponding signage plan to help inform their decision regarding
choice of names.
5. LAC Priorities
a) LAC ByLaws (member: Moss)
Moss provided a revised draft of the proposed revisions to the LAC
ByLaws, incorporating the comments/recommendations from the
City Attorney's Office.
3
Commissioners asked for clarification on Section 6 -Agendas,
specifically on the preparation of agenda items, i.e. if other
Commissioners can provide input/suggestion outside the public
meeting.
- A clean copy of the LAC ByLaws will be provided at the next meeting
for the LAC's final review and adoption, and the City Attorney's
clarification on Section 6.
b) Community Relations/Advocacy (members:Train, Bakhtian)
-Train presented the subcommittee's updated presentation
template/talking points that can be used as a tool to promote library
awareness and the role of the Commission to the community, including
sample elevator pitches.
Members of the LAC gave feedback and asked questions about
various slides in the presentation, and agreed to continue their
review/discussion at the next meeting in September.
Since Bakhtian has resigned from the Commission and is moving to
another state, Hochberg offered to help Train revise the presentation
template.
c) Finance (members: Landauer, Palaniappan)
Landauer gave a brief update of the subcommittee's research work
and web browsing. She also met with staff to discuss plans and
directions for services, technology and staffing when Mitchell Park
opens.
Landauer added that she has an idea on how the subcommittee can
move ahead but will need to discuss this first with Palaniappan to see if
this is the right path to pursue, as well as with Ie Conge to see if their
plan fits within the overall long-term vision of the library.
Discussion to continue at the next LAC meeting in September.
d) Virtual Library (members: Akinola, Hochberg)
Hocberg said the subcommittee intends to work with staff on the mock
up of the virtual branch soon.
LIBRARY DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Ie Conge provided a written report (included in packet) on recent activities of
interest in August, and made special mention of the following events:
4
-August 27, An Evening with Tomi Reichenta/, 7 p.m., Downtown
Library. Reichental is a Holocaust survivor and will share the story of
his past.
November 2-4,2012 California Library Association (CLA) Annual
Conference, San Jose, CA, with Jonathan Reichental as CLA Master
Speaker.
OTHER REPORTS
Commissioner reports and questions:
1. Moss gave a brief background on Cable Co-op's "Nine Libraries Project" in
2004 and a status update on the grant awarded to Palo Alto Library, where
public dollars are being used effectively for the purchase of technical furniture
and equipment in libraries.
2. Moss said the Friends of the Palo Alto Library (FOPAl) Board did not meet in
July; Train attended the Palo Alto Library Foundation (PAlF) Board meeting
held on August 14.
Council Liaison Report:
Schmid said he uses the Library's services and resources to entertain his
grandchildren when they visit and/or go on long trips.
COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Marissa Moss, author and daughter of Commissioner Moss, will be participating
in the Oshman Family Jewish Community Center's Litquake (literary festival)
event on August 26.
Hochberg said he was pleased to see more children using the kids' area at
Downtown Library and cannot wait until Mitchell Park Library opens.
AGENDA for meeting on September 27,2012:
The items suggested for the meeting are:
• Continuing discussion: Economic impact of eBooks
• Continuing discussion: Possible name change for Main Library
• Information on Google Cloud Print
• Presentation on Axis 360
• Updates from lAC Subcommittees
Train moved to adjourn.
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 9:38 p.m.
5
LOBRARY
PALO ALTO CITY
August 16, 2012
TO: Library Advisory Commission
FROM: Monique Ie Conge, Library Director
RE: Main Library, Naming Information
At the July 2012 Library Advisory Commission meeting, I was asked to
prepare material related to the history of the naming of Main Library in
preparation for a discussion on the matter. At the January 2012 joint
meeting with the City Council, it was suggested that perhaps changing
the name could be considered in the near future, coinciding the building
construction projects and I believe this was suggested by Council member
Klein earlier than that. This was mentioned again by Ned Himmel at the
July 2012 LAC meeting. This information is presented with the assistance of
Kathy Shields and Anita Delaney, both Senior Librarians at Main Library,
and Steve Staiger, local historian and librarian.
In essence, Steve Staiger ascertained from his clipping files that Main
Library came about its name without much thought or discussion. It seems
that it was named for its function at the time. The two articles attached
reference the "main library" and the "Main Library." Apparently, the
original Carnegie library was the main library in Palo Alto. Then, the city
built a new larger facility, which was to act as the new main library.
One interesting side note is that a planning consultant for the library
thought that one large library would meet the Palo Alto community
needs. He also thought the library should be built with the population of
85,000 in mind, though made no formal recommendation.
An October 1957 report prepared by the City Manager's Office, titled
"Library Facilities in the Downtown Palo Alto Area" likewise calls the
Carnegie building the main library and discusses the new planned facility,
to be called a main library, with the Carnegie building to become the
"downtown" library. This information is likewise conveyed in Palo Alto and
Its Libraries: A Long-Time Love Affair, by Tom Wyman. These documents
will be available at the August LAC meeting.
Please let me know if you require any additional information.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4524)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/3/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Infrastructure Project and Funding Plan
Title: Infrastructure Project and Funding Plan
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
The Infrastructure Committee recommends that Council approve the attached
infrastructure project funding plan that allocates existing and potential future City
funding to a prioritized project list with the recommendation to move forward with a
three percentage point Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) increase.
Background
At the December 9, 2013 City Council meeting staff brought forward updates,
information, and surveying work related to the City’s infrastructure program. In
addition, staff posed four specific questions for Council consideration and direction.
Those questions were:
1) Does the City Council want to proceed with ballot measure preparation and
community outreach on a potential increase to the City’s TOT for the November
2014 ballot, with a final decision to be made to place a measure on the ballot at
a later date? If so, should a two or three percent increase to the tax be
proposed?
2) Does the City Council want to proceed with a follow-up survey and further study
on a sales tax increase that could be placed on the November 2014 ballot?
3) Does the City Council want to proceed with a follow-up survey and further study
a General Obligation bond to fund transportation related projects that will yield
recommendations on whether to place a measure on the November 2014 ballot?
City of Palo Alto Page 2
4) Are there additional information needs, areas of further study, or other next
steps that the Council would like to direct staff to pursue?
Following the conclusion of staff’s presentation and Council’s discussion, the item was
referred back to the Infrastructure Committee for further discussion and direction.
Executive Summary
Since being referred back to the Infrastructure Committee, the Committee has met
three times and made the following recommendations for Council consideration:
1) Proceed with a three percentage point TOT increase
a. (2/14/2014 meeting, passed 2-1 with Berman dissenting, Burt absent)
2) Prioritize the funding of the Public Safety Building as number one
a. (1/29/2014 meeting, passed 4-0)
3) Proceed with ballot measure preparation and community outreach on a TOT
increase subject to final Council determination to put the measure before the
voters, which must occur no later than August 8, 2014.
a. (1/10/2014 meeting, passed 4-0)
4) Direct the City Manager to develop a plan for a Public Safety Building
a. (1/10/2014 meeting, passed 4-0)
5) While proceeding with a TOT do no further surveying work on which type of
measure to pursue
a. (1/10/2014 meeting, passed 4-0)
Infrastructure Project Funding Proposal
Based on those motions, staff generated an infrastructure project funding proposal for
Infrastructure Committee review. Following input from the Infrastructure Committee on
that proposal it has been updated for Council consideration (Attachment A).
Under this infrastructure project funding proposal a new Public Safety Building would be
priority number one. This building would be funded through a combination of existing
resources and anticipated revenues from new hotels. Under this proposal, the Public
Safety Building would not be constructed from a TOT increase. Instead, the TOT
increase would fund such projects as the Bike/Pedestrian Plan (including
Charleston/Arastradero improvements), parks rehabilitation, and the replacement of
obsolete fire stations.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
It is important to note that the following projects are not included in the infrastructure
project funding proposal. These projects are recommended for funding through the
ongoing CIP process or are too uncertain at this time to include in the proposal:
1) Surface catch-up
2) Buildings catch-up
3) Sidewalks additional spending
4) Cubberley deferred maintenance
5) Animal Services Center
6) Playing fields at the golf course
7) History Museum
Additionally, the Committee’s funding proposal does not recommend drawing down the
infrastructure reserve by $8 million or allocating lease revenue expected from the
current Police Station for specific projects at this time. This action would both maintain
flexibility in case of unanticipated reserve needs and avoid relying on lease revenue that
will not be realized for several years.
Below is a summary of information the Committee considered in making their
recommendations. City staff agrees with the Committee’s recommendation of a three
percentage point TOT increase. City staff feels the three percentage point increase will
help the City make much more complete progress on the City’s infrastructure needs and
provide valuable resources in the event of unanticipated revenue draws or unforeseen
future events such as another recession.
Polling
The City’s public opinion polling firm, Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3)
completed a survey from November 10 - 14, 2013 of 600 Palo Alto voters likely to cast
ballots in November 2014. The margin of error for the full sample is +/- 4.0%; margins
of error for subgroup questions presented with each ballot measure concept were
larger. The objective of the survey was to assess voter support for a variety of ballot
measure concepts that would fund infrastructure improvements.
If Council decides to move forward with a TOT increase, no additional polling on a TOT
is recommended by FM3 due to the broad support it received in polling and the strong
performance of the prior TOT increase. FM3 has determined that such a measure is
City of Palo Alto Page 4
clearly viable and does not recommend an advisory measure to accompany it.
Below is a summary of FM3’s key findings on the feasibility of each of the ballot
measure concepts tested. The measures are discussed below in rank order, from the
most feasible to the least.
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Most Feasible
The TOT increase was clearly the most feasible of the five measures tested. It initially
received the support of 79% of likely voters when presented as the first option in the
survey, and received backing from at least 65% of voters throughout. Even when the
full sample of voters is considered, including those who were presented with the TOT
increase after hearing about other alternative measures, support remains at 62% or
higher throughout the survey. The data suggests that limiting the increase to two
percentage points could potentially enhance support (it rose as high as 77% among the
full sample of voters, under the assumption that all those supportive at three
percentage points would remain so at two percentage points). If Council chose to
pursue a special tax (requiring two-thirds support), a two percentage point increase
would likely be prudent; as a general tax (requiring simple majority support) a three
percentage point increase would be feasible.
Sales Tax Second Most Feasible
A sales tax increase also shows solid viability provided that it is structured as a general
tax requiring a simple majority support. At the outset, among the sample that was
presented with sales tax first in the rotation the measure receives 57% support and
retains slight majority support of 51% even after an opposition message. Even when
the full sample is taken into account, regardless of the order in which the measures
were presented, the sales tax measure receives majority support in every vote question
except the final vote after the opposition message (at that point support falls to 46%).
The data does suggest that reducing the rate from one-quarter cent to one-eighth cent
might enhance support and provide some additional cushion over the majority
threshold. Further research could explore the potential details of a sales tax measure in
more depth.
General Obligation Bond for Transportation Third Most Feasible
The prospects for a general obligation bond for transportation related projects also
looks strong. The concept initially receives support from 73% of voters when presented
City of Palo Alto Page 5
as the first ballot measure option, and it receives 67% support after positive messaging
even after voters have been exposed to the other potential ballot measure concepts.
However, a number of findings suggest that support for a transportation bond is highly
fluid, and merits further investigation. A negative message reduces support to 61%
even among the sample that was presented the transportation bond first in the rotation
of questions. Moreover, when the results of the full sample are considered, support for
a transportation bond varies from as high as 65% initially to as low as 46% after the
negative message. The wide variation in support for the measure suggests that it
merits further exploration and research if it is to be pursued.
General Obligation Bond for Public Safety Fourth Most Feasible
The general obligation bond for public safety does not appear viable. Even when
presented as the first in the series of potential ballot measures, it never receives two-
thirds support, starting at 62% (a full eleven points lower than the transportation bond)
and rising to only 65% after the positive messaging (still below the level of support for
the transportation bond). Moreover, negative messaging has a notable impact dropping
support to 55% even among those voters who were presented with the measure as the
initial option (six points lower than the transportation bond).
Support surpasses the two-thirds level (69%) when the amount of the bond is dropped
to $51 million under the assumption that all of those supportive of the higher amount
would also back the lower amount. That said, support remains extremely soft, with
only one voter in five (19%) “definitely” in favor.
Given these results and those of prior polls that showed similar challenges in obtaining
two-thirds support for a public safety bond, it is reasonable to conclude that such a
measure is unlikely to win approval absent a restructuring that would significantly
reduce its costs. Even if the measure obtained ultimate support from all of the
undecided voters in a best-case initial scenario, it would barely clear the required vote
threshold.
Community Facilities District (CFD) Least Feasible
A community facilities district to fund parking improvements is clearly not feasible. The
peak support obtained for the measure in the survey (55% after voters who heard the
measure first in the rotation were presented with only arguments in favor of the
measure) is well short of the two-thirds that would be required for approval. And while
64% of voters say they would back a CFD that included funding for public transit,
shuttles, carpooling incentives, biking, and car sharing; funding such services in
addition to parking would cost more than the $24 per household tested in the survey.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
At that cost level, only 42% of voters indicated a willingness to pay. Even at a
substantially lower cost level of $9 per household, only 55% of voters indicated support
which is still far short of the required two-thirds majority. When paired with the low
level of support for parking improvements observed in the last survey, this new data
offers little encouragement for pursuing the formation of a CFD.
Transient Occupancy Tax
A TOT is charged by the City to guests at Palo Alto hotels. The tax is computed by
multiplying the daily rate charged by the hotel operator by the tax rate percentage.
TOT revenue accounts for 11.5% of the City's total general fund revenue. Palo Alto’s
TOT rate was raised from 10% to 12% percent by the voters in November 2007 with
81% of the electorate voting for the increase.
Across California, TOT rates range from a low of 9.5% to a high of 15%. The table
below provides a list of TOT rates for surrounding Bay Area communities.
Bay Area TOT Rates
San Francisco 14.0%
San Jose 10.0%
Oakland 14.0%
East Palo Alto 12.0%
Menlo Park 12.0%
Palo Alto 12.0%
Redwood City 12.0%
Sunnyvale 10.5%
Mountain View 10.0%
Santa Clara 9.5%
An increase in the TOT from 12% to 14% would yield an additional $1.8 million
annually. An increase in the TOT from 12% to 15% would yield an additional $2.7
million annually.
At the 12% TOT rate new hotels coming on line in the next few years are anticipated to
yield an additional $2.4 million per year. At the 14% TOT rate new hotels would yield
an additional $2.8 million per year (or $0.4 million more than the 12% TOT tax rate). At
City of Palo Alto Page 7
the 15% TOT rate new hotels would yield an additional $3 million per year (or $0.6
more than a 12% TOT tax rate).
Thus, a 14% TOT rate would yield $2.2 million more than a 12% TOT rate and a 15%
TOT rate would yield $3.3 million more than a 12% TOT rate.
The infrastructure project funding proposal does not draw on existing TOT revenue.
Instead it proposes drawing on revenue that will come from new hotels and a potential
TOT increase.
Certificates of Participation
To issue Certificates of Participation (COPs) to finance projects, the City must identify
existing, increased, or new revenue streams to cover the resulting debt service. Based
on several assumptions, staff estimates that for each $1 million in annual revenue, $14
million in project funds can be generated. Hence, a two percentage point TOT increase
combined with new hotel revenues results in $4.6 million in new revenue which
translates into $64.4 million in project funds. A three percentage point TOT increase
combined with new hotel revenues results in $5.7 million in new revenue which
translates into $79.8 million in project funds.
2 Percentage Point TOT Increase 3 Percentage Point TOT Increase
New Rate 14% New Rate 15%
New Rate Revenue $1.8M New Rate Revenue $2.7M
Expected Revenue from New
Hotels (12% Rate)
$2.4M Expected Revenue from New
Hotels (12% Rate)
$2.4M
Expected Additional Revenue
from New Hotels (14% Rate)
$0.4M Expected Additional Revenue
from New Hotels (15% Rate)
$0.6M
Total New Revenue $4.6M Total New Revenue $5.7M
COPs from Total New Revenue $64.4M COPs from Total New Revenue $79.8M
Transient Occupancy Tax Assumptions
Below is a summary of assumptions made in deriving new hotel revenues. The estimate
of $2.4 million per year, derived in May 2013, has been consistently used in analysis.
Relatively conservative assumptions were used in projecting the $2.4 million figure.
These assumptions include an occupancy rate of 65% and an average daily rate of
$150 per room.
Fiscal Year 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Average Daily Rate $199 (to date) $182 $166 $147 $140 $146 149
Average Occupancy Rate 83% (to date) 80% 79% 73% 66% 66% 75%
Historical Revenue TBD $10.8 $9.7 $8.1 $6.9 $7.1 $8
As seen from the table above, average occupancy rates have exceeded the 65%
assumption every year since 2008 while average daily rates have surpassed the $150
assumption since 2012 (and are close to that level in the four years prior). Staff
estimates that the $2.4 million that will be used toward debt service represents 70% of
what will actually be realized based on a stable economy. Given this information, staff
is comfortable with achieving new hotel revenue adequate to cover debt service levels
cited in recent reports.
Sales Tax
Palo Alto’s current sales tax rate is 8.75% with 7.5 percentage points of that rate
coming from the base state sales tax rate and 1.25 percentage points of that rate
coming from local taxing agencies. State law allows local taxing agencies (cities,
transportation agencies, counties, etc.) to increase local sales tax in 1/8 percentage
point increments up to a maximum of 2 percentage points above the base state rate.
Once that cap is reached, no additional increases are allowed. Therefore, the sales tax
rate in Palo Alto cannot rise above 9.5%. This means there is a maximum three fourths
of a percentage point increase available for Palo Alto. If Palo Alto does not use this
increment it remains available for other county-wide taxing agencies.
Four county-wide initiatives have increased Palo Alto’s sales tax by 1.25 percentage
points bringing us to the current rate of 8.75%. Of the 8.75% rate, one percentage
point of the base state rate goes to local taxing agencies and is commonly known as
the Bradley Burns portion. That one percentage point of sales tax revenue accounts for
15% of the City’s general fund revenue (or approximately $23.8 million per year).
Bay Area Sales Tax Rates
East Palo Alto 9.0%
Menlo Park 9.0%
Oakland 9.0%
Redwood City 9.0%
Campbell 9.0%
San Francisco 8.75%
City of Palo Alto Page 9
San Jose 8.75%
Palo Alto 8.75%
Mountain View 8.75%
Sunnyvale 8.75%
Santa Clara 8.75%
A one-eight cent sales tax increase would raise the sales tax rate to 8.875% and would
yield the City $2.6 million in additional revenue per year. $2.6 million in additional
revenue per year could generate approximately $36.4 million of COPs. A one-quarter
cent sales tax increase would raise the sales tax rate to 9% and would yield the City
$5.2 million in additional revenue per year. $5.2 million in additional revenue per year
could generate approximately $72.8 million of COPs.
1/8 Cent Sales Tax Increase 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Increase
Current Rate 8.75% Current Rate 8.75%
New Rate 8.875% New Rate 9%
New Revenue $2.6M New Revenue $5.2M
COPs from New Revenue $36.4M COPs from New Revenue $72.8M
Public Safety Building
Providing a modern, seismically safe Public Safety Building for Palo Alto was a key
recommendation of the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) and continues to
be a high priority for the City. Staff and the Infrastructure Committee concur with this
priority as is evident from the Committee’s unanimously approved motion to
recommend that the construction of a Public Safety Building be the number one
infrastructure priority.
The November 2013 infrastructure survey demonstrated that a public safety general
obligation bond measure is not viable. Therefore, staff has presented a plan, with
Infrastructure Committee support, for how a Public Safety Building could be funded
through a combination of existing revenues and anticipated future new hotel revenues.
Under this proposal, the Public Safety Building would not be constructed using any
revenue from a TOT increase. Instead, the TOT increase would fund many of the
remaining infrastructure projects.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Public Safety Building Timeline
Below is a draft schedule for design and construction of a new Public Safety Building.
This schedule results in completion of the project in February 2018. The length of time
for project design and environmental review will be strongly influenced by the extent to
which past programming, design, and environmental review work can be applied to the
eventual site selected for the new Public Safety Building.
Task Start Date Duration
Site identification and acquisition February 2014 12 months
Project design and environmental review February 2015 14 months
Construction bidding and award April 2016 3 months
Construction period July 2016 18 months
Parking Garages
The parking garage cost estimates provided are calculated by multiplying the current in
lieu parking fee of $60,750 per space by the number of additional spaces that would be
provided by the garage. The number of additional spaces is the difference between the
total garage spaces and the number of spaces currently provided by a surface lot. The
in lieu parking fee is derived by calculating the cost per space for building the last two
downtown parking garages, and then inflating that cost over time to current dollars.
The project list considered by the Committee included two Downtown parking garages.
Although the number or location of additional Downtown parking spaces has not been
determined, the infrastructure project funding proposal includes new parking garage
placeholders on existing surface lots, D and P, which would provide 214 and 89
additional spaces respectively.
The project list considered by the Committee also included a California Avenue parking
garage with an estimated cost of $16.5 million. This estimate is for construction of a
391 space parking garage on Lot 8 (located on Sherman Avenue between El Camino
Real and Ash Street). The garage would provide an increase of 272 parking spaces
over the existing 119 space surface lot.
As discussed at the Infrastructure Committee’s January 29, 2014 meeting, the parking
increase of 272 spaces is not based on an assessment of parking needs in the California
Avenue area, but represents the number of spaces that could be added by building a
garage on Lot 8. The number of spaces that could be provided by building garages on
City of Palo Alto Page 11
other California Avenue area surface lots has not been investigated at this time. The
Committee’s infrastructure project funding proposal includes funding for a California
Avenue area garage that would provide 158 additional spaces. This number of spaces
is based on the remaining funding available under the proposal, and also reflects
concerns about the size and massing of a 272 additional space garage.
The final determination of where any garages would eventually be constructed, as well
as the total number of additional spaces, will not occur until staff receives additional
direction from Council on the City’s entire parking garage issue as a whole.
Fire Stations
In the IBRC Final Report two fire stations were identified for reconstruction and are now
part of the Infrastructure Committee’s funding and prioritization plan. These stations
(Station Three at Embarcadero and Newell and Station Four at East Meadow and
Middlefield) are more than 50 years old and obsolete. Because City staff judged these
buildings to have “extensive structural, code, and operational deficiencies,” the City
commissioned a study in 2005 which found that they “do not meet the current
requirements of the California Building Code, Essential Services Act, Americans with
Disabilities Act, the National Fire Protection Association, and the Occupational Safety
and Health Act.”
Both stations are earthquake vulnerable, lack sufficient space for emergency supplies,
lack adequate separation of living quarters from the fumes of engines and hazardous
materials, and can barely hold the two engines located at each of those locales. For
example, Station Three has only 12 inches of space between engines and the back wall
of the apparatus bay.
A City-commissioned “Fire Services Utilization and Resources Study” (2011)
recommended that the City “replace or significantly upgrade Stations Three and Four at
or near their present locations.” Given that emergency response incidents are
estimated to increase from 7,938 in 2010 to 9,417 in 2020, structural soundness and
flexible capacity were strong justification to the IBRC for recommending that Fire
Stations Three and Four be brought up to a standard that will serve the City well for the
next several decades.
Stanford Infrastructure Funds Interest Accrual
Below is information on interest income earned on the Stanford funds by year:
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Fund Stanford
Infrastructure
Stanford
Sustainability
Combined
FY 2014 (as of 12/31/2013) $158,082 $92,611 $250,693
FY 2013 $285,746 $167,848 $453,594
FY 2012 $190,293 $98,427 $288,720
Total $634,121 $358,886 $993,007
The interest income cited above does not include earnings on other Stanford funds such
as Project Safety Net or the Pedestrian Bike Link at Quarry Road. Total interest income
from July 1, 2011 (start of FY 2012) to December 31, 2013 (mid-point of FY 2014) on
all Stanford funds is approximately $1.49 million. The Infrastructure Committee’s
recommendations incorporate this interest income as a funding source for infrastructure
projects.
Cash Flow Projections
To date, staff has shared with the Infrastructure Committee sources of funds and
potential revenue streams that can support projects prioritized by the Committee.
These include, for example, Stanford funds from the Hospital Development Agreement,
the City’s Infrastructure Reserve, and potential new tax revenue streams. Use of these
one-time and ongoing resources must be viewed within a wider context of the City’s
cash flow capabilities to support projects both within, and outside of, the scope of the
infrastructure project funding proposal.
For example, the City is considering purchasing the Downtown Post Office as well as
the renovation of the Golf Course. While these projects would eventually generate
revenues that can be used to cover expected debt service, it is important to analyze the
timing and availability of funds and what projects should be cash or debt financed.
Timeline
In alignment with FM3’s survey findings and recommendations, TBWB has developed a
plan and schedule to complete additional opinion research, develop and implement a
communication plan, and prepare for a potential ballot measure for the November 2014
election. If Council directs staff to proceed with a TOT increase, no additional research
by FM3 is needed at this time. If Council directs staff to continue evaluating the sales
tax or other funding measures, additional public opinion research by FM3 would likely
be recommended.
City of Palo Alto Page 13
A final tracking survey is also recommended in May 2014 just prior to Council making a
final decision on whether to place a measure on the ballot. For more information on
the TBWB plan and schedule please see the attached TBWB Communication and
Outreach Plan for an Infrastructure Funding Measure (Attachment B).
For your convenience, TBWB’s 2014 infrastructure funding measure schedule from
Attachment B has been included in the text of this report below:
February
• Prepare draft ballot question
• Develop stakeholder outreach target list
• Update PaloAltoForward.org microsite based on Committee direction
• Develop briefing packets, talking points, and FAQs
• Review, edit, and approve outreach materials
• Begin to schedule outreach meetings
• Begin initial conversations with key stakeholders
March & April
• City Council reviews Infrastructure Committee recommendations
• Begin outreach meetings, collect feedback, and track progress
May
• Mail first informational brochure to residents
• Complete stakeholder outreach and compile feedback
• Conduct final tracking survey
June
• Present final tracking survey results to Council and receive policy direction whether to
place measure(s) on November 2014 ballot
• Mail second informational brochure (as applicable)
• First reading of ordinance/resolution calling for election
• Final adoption of ordinance/resolution calling for election
City of Palo Alto Page 14
August
• City Clerk files Ordinance/Resolution
• Mail third informational mailing announcing the election
Infrastructure Committee Minutes
Minutes or Action Minutes from the February 10th (Attachment C), January 29th
(Attachment D), and January 10th (Attachment E) Infrastructure Committee meetings
referenced above have been included for your review.
Attachments:
A - Infrastructure Project Funding Proposal (PDF)
B - TBWB Communication and Outreach Plan_2-24-2014 (PDF)
C - Infrastructure Committee Action Minutes_2-12-2014 (PDF)
D - Infrastructure Committee Action Minutes_1-29-2014 (PDF)
E - Infrastructure Committee Minutes_1-10-2014 (PDF)
DRAFT
Infrastructure Project Funding Proposal
Status Quo Step 1 Step 2
(Public Safety Building using existing funding)(Use remaining existing funding and 3% TOT increase)
Public Safety Building & Land 57 Bike Bridge 1.7
Bike/Pedestrian Plan 28.5
Byxbee Park 3.6
Funding Cal Avenue Garage (+158 spaces)9.6
New Hotels - COPs 33.6 Downtown Parking Garage (+214)13
FY 2013 Surplus 8.5 Fire Stations (2)14.2
Stanford Funds - Infrastructure 14.9 Parks Catch-up 4.6
Sum:57 Sum:75.2
Funding
Stanford Funds - Infrastructure 7.2
Stanford Funds - Sustainability 12.3
Stanford Funds - Interest 1.5
Parking In-Lieu Fund 4
FY 2014 Surplus (projected)4
TOT Increase 3% - COPs 46.2
Sum:75.2
Unfunded Projects Cost Remaining Unfunded Projects Cost Remaining Unfunded Projects Cost
Bike Bridge 1.7 Bike Bridge 1.7 Cal Avenue Garage (+114 spaces)6.9
Bike/Pedestrian Plan 28.5 Bike/Pedestrian Plan 28.5 Downtown Parking Garage (+89 spaces)5.4
Byxbee Park 3.6 Byxbee Park 3.6 Parks Catch-up 4.3
Cal Avenue Garage (+272 spaces)16.5 Cal Avenue Garage (+272 spaces)16.5 Sum:16.6
Downtown Parking Garage (+214 spaces)13 Downtown Parking Garage (+214 spaces)13
Downtown Parking Garage (+89 spaces)5.4 Downtown Parking Garage (+89 spaces)5.4
Fire Stations (2)14.2 Fire Stations (2)14.2
Parks Catch-up 8.9 Parks Catch-up 8.9
Public Safety Building & Land 57 Sum:91.8
Sum:148.8
Remaining Existing Funding Amount Remaining Existing Funding Amount
Existing Funding Amount
New hotels - COPs 33.6 Stanford Funds - Infrastructure 7.2 Infrastructure Reserve 8
Stanford Funds - Infrastructure 22.1 Stanford Funds - Sustainability 12.3
Stanford Funds - Sustainability 12.3 Stanford Funds - Interest 1.5
Stanford Funds - Interest 1.5 Parking In-Lieu Fund 4
Parking In-Lieu Fund 4 FY 2014 Surplus (projected)4
FY 2013 Surplus 8.5 Infrastructure Reserve 8
FY 2014 Surplus (projected)4 Sum:37
Infrastructure Reserve 8
Sum:94
City Hall Police Area Lease - COPs*19.6
Total Sum:113.6
Other Factors to Consider:
1) Potential costs for shuttle system improvements and parking lot
2) Potential cost of post office construction project
3) *Infrastructure Reserve of $8 million and projected $19.6 million through COPs from lease of current police space upon completion of Public
Safety Building project are not allocated to projects in this scenario, allowing these funds to be programmed through a future process.
4) **Parking garage cost estimates are based on additional parking spaces and the City's In-Lieu Parking Fee
400 Montgomery Street, 7th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94104 | Phone: (415) 291-1894 | Fax: (415) 291-1172 | TBWB.com
TO:
City
Council
City
of
Palo
Alto
FROM:
Charles
Heath
and
Amanda
Brown-‐Stevens
TBWB
Strategies
RE:
Communication
and
Outreach
Plan
for
an
Infrastructure
Funding
Measure
DATE:
February
24,
2014
At
its
January
and
February
meetings,
the
Infrastructure
Committee
of
the
Palo
Alto
City
Council
voted
to
recommend
to
the
full
City
Council
on
March
3rd
to
move
forward
with
preparing
a
Transient
Occupancy
Tax
(TOT)
for
the
ballot
and
conduct
related
community
outreach.
This
memo
summarizes
a
plan
aiming
to
satisfy
two
essential
prerequisites
for
placing
a
funding
measure
on
the
ballot
in
November
2014:
1. Refine
the
specific
components
of
an
infrastructure
funding
measure,
develop
the
ballot
language/materials
and
qualify
for
the
ballot;
and
2. Implement
an
informational
outreach
program
seeking
to
inform
the
public
of
Palo
Alto’s
infrastructure
funding
needs
and
engage
key
community
leaders/stakeholders
in
the
process
of
preparing
a
measure
for
the
ballot.
Background
Concurrent
to
the
first
round
of
opinion
research
designed
to
identify
the
community’s
infrastructure
funding
priorities
and
narrow
the
list
of
viable
funding
mechanisms,
TBWB
Strategies
developed
an
initial
set
of
messages
and
materials
related
to
the
city’s
infrastructure
planning
process.
An
informational
microsite
(www.PaloAltoForward.org)
and
related
infographic
were
created
to
better
define
the
city’s
infrastructure
funding
needs
and
provide
a
portal
to
more
detailed
information
pertaining
to
each
need
category.
A
coordinated
social
media
and
earned
media
strategy
drew
attention
to
these
informational
resources
and
generally
raised
community
awareness
of
the
infrastructure
planning
efforts.
The
primary
purpose
of
this
messaging
was
to
begin
shaping
the
community’s
understanding
of
the
city’s
infrastructure
needs
while
also
providing
a
positive
backdrop
to
the
ongoing
opinion
research
process.
Now
that
opinion
research
has
uncovered
a
clear
set
of
infrastructure
funding
priorities
and
a
finite
set
of
viable
funding
measure
options,
we
can
begin
the
process
of
developing
the
specific
features
of
a
measure,
vetting
a
draft
ballot
measure
with
key
community
stakeholders
and
implementing
a
communication
program
specifically
focused
on
the
high-‐
priority
funding
needs
and
funding
mechanism.
400 Montgomery Street, 7th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94104 | Phone: (415) 291-1894 | Fax: (415) 291-1172 | TBWB.com
Drafting
and
Vetting
Ballot
Measure
Language
Per
FM3
Research’s
recommendations,
as
the
Committee
has
decided
to
pursue
a
Transient
Occupancy
Tax
(TOT)
to
fund
general
infrastructure
needs,
no
further
polling
is
required
due
to
the
strong
support
for
the
measure.
Accordingly,
TBWB
will
work
with
the
City
Attorney’s
Office
to
develop
draft
ballot
language
that
can
be
shared
with
identified
community
leaders
and
stakeholders
for
review,
feedback
and
input.
In
addition,
TBWB
will
work
with
city
staff
to
prepare
a
sample
listing
of
the
infrastructure
needs
that
would
be
addressed
with
TOT
funding
and
a
general
timeline
for
the
completion
of
the
projects.
This
information
will
be
communicated
as
part
of
the
outreach
process
to
provide
stakeholders
and
the
community
at
large
with
a
sense
of
what
will
be
accomplished
with
TOT
funding
if
a
measure
is
approved.
Draft
ballot
language
should
be
prepared
and
approved
internally
by
no
later
than
the
early
March
so
that
the
language
can
be
utilized
in
outreach
meetings
occurring
in
late
March,
April
and
May.
Any
adjustments
or
refinements
based
on
feedback
gathered
as
part
of
the
outreach
process
will
be
incorporated
in
final
ballot
language
that
will
be
prepared
in
June
for
testing
in
a
tracking
survey
before
going
to
the
City
Council
in
July
for
final
adoption.
Identifying
Stakeholder
Outreach
Targets
To
facilitate
an
organized
and
effective
outreach
effort,
TBWB
has
begun
work
with
city
staff
and
its
community
outreach
subconsultant
to
develop
a
prioritized
list
of
community
leaders
and
stakeholders
to
be
the
targets
of
outreach
efforts.
These
leaders
and
stakeholders
will
include
current
and
past
local
elected
officials,
members
of
city
boards
and
commissions,
the
chamber
of
commerce
and
other
business
leaders,
neighborhood
leaders
and
advocates
working
on
issues
related
to
the
infrastructure
funding
proposal.
For
efficient
outreach,
individual
outreach
targets
will
be
combined
into
logical
groupings.
TBWB
will
work
with
city
staff
to
secure
time
on
scheduled
agendas
for
established
groups
and
organizations.
Each
outreach
target
will
be
matched
with
an
appropriate
city
representative.
Outreach
assignments,
meetings,
feedback
and
progress
will
be
tracked
in
a
shared
spreadsheet
accessible
by
all
staff
and
consultants
participating
in
the
outreach
process.
The
outreach
target
list
will
be
developed,
reviewed
and
approved
by
early
March.
The
scheduling
process
will
begin
in
February
and
most
outreach
will
occur
during
the
months
of
March,
April
and
May.
Initial
outreach
to
some
key
stakeholders
will
start
in
February
to
ensure
an
inclusive
process.
Developing
Messaging
and
Materials
In
preparation
for
outreach
meetings
with
community
leaders
and
stakeholders,
TBWB
will
prepare
briefing
packets
with
background
and
summary
information
about
the
infrastructure
planning
process
to
date,
identified
priority
infrastructure
needs,
the
funding
measure
under
consideration
and
a
survey
for
collecting
qualitative
feedback.
Specifically,
the
packets
will
include
a
presentation
that
will
allow
for
a
consistent
setting
of
the
context,
delivery
of
the
message
and
collection
of
feedback.
Information
in
the
packets
400 Montgomery Street, 7th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94104 | Phone: (415) 291-1894 | Fax: (415) 291-1172 | TBWB.com
will
direct
the
outreach
targets
to
online
and
social
media
sites
to
follow
the
process
and
stay
engaged.
To
further
support
outreach
efforts,
TBWB
will
update
the
PaloAltoForward.org
microsite
with
information
focused
on
the
priority
infrastructure
needs
and
funding
measure.
In
addition,
we
will
provide
talking
points
and
on
message
answers
to
frequently
asked
questions
to
ensure
a
consistency
of
message
throughout
the
outreach
process.
Questions
and
answers
will
be
updated
throughout
the
process
as
new
questions
arise
and
new
information
becomes
available.
TBWB
will
update
the
microsite
and
develop
the
briefing
packets,
talking
points
and
FAQs
during
the
month
of
February
so
that
the
materials
may
be
reviewed,
edited
and
approved
once
the
full
City
Council
review’s
the
Committee’s
recommendation
on
March
3
for
use
during
the
months
of
March,
April
and
May.
Informational
Voter
Communication
In
addition
to
targeted
outreach
to
community
leaders
and
stakeholders,
TBWB
will
design
and
implement
a
broad-‐based
voter
communication
program
aiming
to
raise
awareness
of
the
city’s
high-‐priority
infrastructure
needs
and
infrastructure
funding
measure.
The
primary
communication
vehicle
for
this
program
will
be
direct
mail
sent
to
all
registered
voter
households.
TBWB
will
write,
design
and
coordinate
the
production
and
mailing
of
the
pieces.
We
recommend
sending
three
informational
mailings
timed
at
key
points
in
preparing
the
measure
for
the
ballot.
A
first
mailing
will
be
sent
in
May
with
general
messaging
regarding
the
city’s
priority
infrastructure
needs,
funding
options
and
including
a
tear
off
response
card
to
allow
for
community
feedback.
While
not
scientific
like
a
poll,
this
response
mechanism
is
a
useful
engagement
tool
for
collecting
qualitative
feedback
and
identifying
recurring
questions.
A
similar
survey
will
be
posted
on
the
PaloAltoForward.org
microsite
for
online
feedback.
A
second
informational
mailing
will
be
sent
in
June
to
report
back
to
the
community
on
the
feedback
received
and
provide
an
update
on
the
ballot
measure
planning
process.
Specifically,
this
mailing
will
identify
the
meeting
at
which
the
City
Council
will
adopt
a
resolution
calling
for
an
election
and
invite
the
community
to
participate.
A
third
informational
mailing
will
be
sent
immediately
following
the
Council’s
vote
to
adopt
a
resolution
calling
for
an
election.
This
final
piece
will
provide
the
final
details
of
the
measure
heading
to
the
ballot
and
provide
information
about
voting
in
the
election.
This
mailing
will
mark
the
end
of
the
city-‐funded
informational
outreach
effort.
Any
additional
public
communication
related
to
the
ballot
measure
should
be
coordinated
and
funded
by
an
independent
advocacy
campaign
committee.
400 Montgomery Street, 7th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94104 | Phone: (415) 291-1894 | Fax: (415) 291-1172 | TBWB.com
Tracking
Research
To
measure
the
impact
of
the
city’s
informational
outreach
efforts,
make
final
refinements
to
the
ballot
measure
and
ensure
support
remains
at
a
sufficient
level
to
justify
going
to
the
ballot,
a
tracking
poll
should
be
conducted
at
the
start
of
June.
This
will
provide
up-‐to-‐date
opinion
data
that
can
be
presented
to
the
Council
in
late
June
along
with
the
final
resolution
calling
for
the
election
and
establishing
the
specifics
of
the
measure.
Qualifying
for
the
Ballot
To
place
a
measure
on
the
November
4,
2014
ballot,
the
City
Council
must
adopt
a
resolution
calling
for
the
election
no
later
than
August
8,
2014.
Accordingly,
we
recommend
a
schedule
that
brings
the
resolution
to
the
Council
for
final
adoption
no
later
than
the
third
meeting
in
June.
A
first
reading
or
consideration
of
a
draft
resolution
should
occur
at
the
first
meeting
in
June
to
allow
for
any
adjustments
based
on
feedback
from
the
Council.
To
be
ready
for
these
time
sensitive
meetings,
it
will
be
important
that
an
initial
iteration
of
the
ballot
question
is
drafted,
reviewed
and
finalized
by
early
March.
This
will
allow
the
draft
to
be
vetted
during
outreach
meetings
in
March,
April
and
May
and
the
tracking
survey
in
early
June.
Through
this
process,
we
are
confident
that
the
Council
will
be
considering
a
measure
that
stands
the
best
chances
for
approval
and
we
will
minimize
the
chances
of
being
surprised
by
unforeseen
issues
once
the
measure
is
on
the
ballot.
400 Montgomery Street, 7th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94104 | Phone: (415) 291-1894 | Fax: (415) 291-1172 | TBWB.com
2014
Schedule
and
Key
Milestones
February
• Prepare
draft
ballot
question
• Develop
stakeholder
outreach
target
list
• Update
PaloAltoForward.org
microsite
based
on
committee
direction
• Develop
briefing
packets,
talking
points
and
FAQs
• Review,
edit
and
approve
outreach
materials
• Begin
to
schedule
outreach
meetings
• Begin
initial
conversations
with
key
stakeholders
March
–
April
• City
council
reviews
Infrastructure
Committee
recommendation
• Begin
outreach
meetings,
collect
feedback,
track
progress
May
• Mail
first
informational
brochure
to
residents
• Complete
stakeholder
outreach
and
compile
feedback
• Conduct
final
tracking
survey
June
• Present
final
tracking
survey
results
to
Council
&
policy
direction
whether
to
place
measure(s)
on
November
2014
ballot
• Mail
second
informational
brochure
(as
applicable)
• First
reading
of
ordinance/resolution
calling
for
election
• Final
adoption
of
ordinance/resolution
calling
for
election
August
• City
Clerk
files
Ordinance/Resolution
• Mail
third
informational
mailing
announcing
the
election
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
ACTION MINUTES
Page 1 of 2
Special Meeting
February 12, 2014
The Infrastructure Committee met on this date in the Council Conference
Room at 10:05 A.M.
Present: Berman, Klein (Chair), Scharff
Absent: Burt
ACTION ITEMS
1. Discussion of the Draft Infrastructure Project Cost and Prioritization
Plan.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Chair Klein to
recommend the City Council approve a three percentage point Transient
Occupancy Tax (TOT) increase.
MOTION FAILED: 2-1-0 Berman no, Burt absent
AMENDMENT: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Council
Member XXXX to increase the Sales Tax by 1/8 cent.
AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND
AMENDMENT: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Council
Member XXXX to recommend the City Council approve a two percentage
point Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) increase.
AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Chair Klein to
recommend the Step 2 from the Draft Infrastructure Project Funding
Proposal : the Bike Bridge, Bike/Pedestrian Plan, and the Downtown Parking
Garage, be combined with Step 3b: Fire Stations (2), Parks Catch-up,
Byxbee Park, and California Avenue Parking Garage.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Council
Member XXXX to move $5.6 million from the Parks Catch-up and $3.4
million from the proposed Byxbee Park improvements to the Capital
Improvement Projects (CIP) process rather than fund it all at once.
MINUTES
Page 2 of 2 Infrastructure Committee Special Meeting
ACTION Minutes: 02/12/14
AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND
MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Burt absent
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 P.M.
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
MINUTES
Page 1 of 2
Special Meeting
January 29, 2014
The Infrastructure Committee met on this date in the Council Conference Room
at 09:02 A.M.
Present: Berman, Burt, Klein (Chair), Scharff
Absent:
ACTION ITEMS
1. Infrastructure Committee Project List Discussion.
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Berman
to set February 12, 2014 at 10:00 A.M. as the next Infrastructure Committee
meeting.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Berman to recommend the City Council prioritize the funding of the Public
Safety Building as number one.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
2. Presentation on Utility User Tax (UUT) Options.
Council Member Burt left the meeting at 10:42 A.M.
NO ACTION TAKEN
3. Communication and Outreach Plan for an Infrastructure Funding
Measure.
NO ACTION TAKEN
FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS
February 12, 2014 at 10:00 A.M.
MINUTES
Page 2 of 2 Infrastructure Committee Special Meeting
Working Minutes: 01/10/14
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 A.M.
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
MINUTES
Page 1 of 13
Special Meeting
January 10, 2014
The Infrastructure Committee met on this date in the Council Conference
Room at 11:01 A.M.
Present: Berman, Burt, Klein (Chair), Scharff
Absent:
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
ACTION ITEMS
1. Review Infrastructure Survey Findings and Recommendations and
Provide Direction to Staff on Next Steps.
Herb Borock preferred a ballot include an amendment to the Utility Users
Tax (UUT). A ballot measure should include a general tax without an
accompanying advisory measure.
Sheila Tucker, Assistant to the City Manager, recalled findings of the second
survey were presented to the Council on December 9, 2013. The Transient
Occupancy Tax (TOT) received an approval rating of approximately 79
percent. A sales tax increase and a General Obligation (GO) Bond for
transportation were also potentially viable measures; however, more polling
with respect to pro and con arguments could be needed to shape a
communication campaign.
Dave Metz, Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates (FM3), reported
that an advisory measure accompanying a general tax measure entailed a
fair amount of risk in that the advisory measure would discuss the kinds of
services to be funded. An advisory measure would not have a tax
associated with it directly; therefore, it was very appealing to voters
generally. A general tax measure would not reference the kinds of services
to be funded, would entail a tax, and would be less appealing to voters.
Unless the connection between an advisory measure and a tax measure was
very clear in voters' minds, voters tended to vote no on the tax measure and
yes on the advisory measure. In a number of communities that dynamic
resulted in a loss for the tax measure. Essentially, a private, citizen-funded
MINUTES
Page 2 of 13 Infrastructure Committee Special Meeting
Working Minutes: 01/10/14
campaign was needed to advocate for the two measures and to clarify the
connection between the two measures. The League of California Cities
investigated the structure and found that an advisory measure did not
provide any significant advantage in securing the passage of a general tax
measure. FM3's sense was that that strategy would entail more risks than
rewards. FM3 believed that a UUT modernization measure was likely to be
successful. The rate of passage for UUT measures was high, particularly if a
measure entailed a rate reduction along with modernization. A UUT
modernization measure and a revenue measure on the same ballot would
probably succeed, without necessarily undermining the success of either
one. Having multiple measures on the same ballot, however, would likely
reduce the prospects for success of the measure that fared less well in
polling. The TOT was the only measure polled that received support in
excess of the approval threshold and that could withstand being paired with
another measure. Pairing it with eithera bond measure, a Mello-Roos
District or a sales tax increase could potentially undermine the success of
the second measure. The City could pair a revenue measure with a UUT
modernization measure; however, FM3 would not recommend multiple
revenue measures on the same ballot.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether FM3 recommended against pairing
a sales tax measure with a TOT measure, because the sales tax measure
would lose.
Mr. Metz would not say a sales tax measure would likely lose, but a sales tax
measure would be placed in significant jeopardy. He would recommend
against that.
Council Member Burt asked if historical analysis proved that an advisory
measure did not assist in passing a general tax.
Mr. Metz explained that the League of California Cities report reached that
conclusion. Including an advisory measure was not a frequent practice
currently. In the decade the League of California Cities reviewed, only six or
seven cities utilized that structure.
Molly Stump, City Attorney, indicated the Council could include language
addressing both the telephone tax portion of the UUT and the large volume
discount on a single ballot measure. Those two aspects could be combined
into one ballot item, listed individually, or one or the other could be
included.
Ms. Tucker noted the Staff Report focused on issues raised in the survey
findings. Packet Page 26 provided an update of project costs. Packet Page
MINUTES
Page 3 of 13 Infrastructure Committee Special Meeting
Working Minutes: 01/10/14
27 reviewed existing funding sources and funding from potential finance
measures. Packet Page 42 reviewed funding scenarios.
Joe Saccio, Assistant Director of Administrative Services, reported the
General Fund could be responsible for increased project costs or unexpected
projects; however, no potential costs had been identified at the current time.
Loans for the Airport and additional costs for the Golf Course were examples
of possible future costs to the General Fund.
James Keene, City Manager, suggested the Infrastructure Committee
(Committee) consider a ballot measure as a means to supplement other
funding sources for infrastructure needs. After deciding on a measure, then
the Committee could identify the projects to be funded. He could not
imagine solving all infrastructure needs with only a ballot measure revenue
stream.
Chair Klein agreed that unforeseen projects could require funding; however,
the City had more revenue than previously. The Parks and Recreation
Commission indicated it was not interested in developing playing fields at
the Golf Course. There would always be changes in revenue and costs. He
inquired whether Mr. Keene disagreed with telling the public how funds
would be spent if a measure was placed on the ballot.
Mr. Keene answered no. The Committee should not determine the projects
and their costs before determining a ballot measure. He presumed that
current funding would not be sufficient to fund all infrastructure needs. The
Committee would need to determine the best possible revenue stream as a
source to fund infrastructure needs. A TOT measure could yield $30-$40
million in financing.
Council Member Scharff clarified that the yield could be $65-$80 million.
Chair Klein stated the $65-$80 million included the revenue from new hotels.
Council Member Burt explained Mr. Keene was talking about the TOT.
Mr. Keene reported the tax measure could yield $30.8-$46.2 million in
revenue from hotels. He suggested the Committee decide on a tax
measure, and then decide how to describe to the public what the funds
would be spent on. That was a quicker means to reach a decision on which
measure to place on a ballot. The faster the Committee determined
infrastructure funding streams and projects, the easier it would be to solve
infrastructure problems.
MINUTES
Page 4 of 13 Infrastructure Committee Special Meeting
Working Minutes: 01/10/14
Chair Klein felt the Agenda was determined by the four questions that Staff
asked on pages 1-2. He had other questions as well: Did the Committee
want to develop a list of projects in priority order? What did the Committee
wish to do about the Public Safety Building? Did the Committee need to
develop a timetable; for example, a date to provide a report to the Council?
Council Member Scharff assumed a Public Safety Building would be part of
the broader discussion. He wished to review the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon
Commission (IBRC) Report with respect to projects, costs, and funding
sources. Deciding how much money was needed and funding sources could
be part of the discussion regarding a list of priorities. A funding plan would
determine the infrastructure projects that would and would not be funded.
Council Member Burt felt the amount of funds available through obtainable
measures was close to meeting the total cost of priority projects. The Public
Safety Building and Fire Stations were top priorities. Close behind that was
addressing parking needs in Downtown. He was hesitant to commit to the
upper end of an amount for garages prior to determining what could be
accomplished through Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Programs. If the project list included only one Downtown garage and half
the cost of a California Avenue garage, the cost total was in the
neighborhood of $130 million. Some items were put in the list because they
were attractive in polling, not because they were at the top of community
needs or Council priorities. He was not inclined to include the Infrastructure
Reserve in the funding sources; that should remain a reserve. Perhaps the
list of projects should not contain projects that could be funded through the
normal infrastructure program. He was not inclined to include the five-year
annual surplus. Those funds could be utilized for second-tier infrastructure
projects. The list of funding sources could include a projection for the Fiscal
Year (FY) 2014 surplus. Using a 2 percent TOT increase, he calculated
approximately $130 million. The vast majority of infrastructure priority
projects could be accomplished through new hotel revenues, back rent for
the Police Building, Stanford funds, an increase in the TOT, and two years of
surpluses. The gap did not seem to be as large as originally thought.
Council Member Berman inquired about the reasons for omitting the scenario
for a sales tax increase in the current Staff Report.
Ms. Tucker agreed Staff did not update scenarios to include sales tax. A
sales tax increase did not become a viable option until it was retested in
polling.
Council Member Berman wished to discuss a sales tax increase vis-à-vis a
TOT increase.
MINUTES
Page 5 of 13 Infrastructure Committee Special Meeting
Working Minutes: 01/10/14
Mr. Keene noted a 1/8-cent sales tax increase could yield $3.6 million.
Council Member Berman clarified the yield could be $36.4 million.
Mr. Keene stated that amount was fairly close to the 2 percent TOT increase
amount.
Council Member Berman added that a 1/4-cent sales tax increase was
significantly more, $72.8 million.
Mr. Keene indicated a potential sales tax measure could be part of the
discussion.
Council Member Berman reiterated that a sales tax measure needed to be
part of the discussion. He agreed that funding sources and costs were close
in amount. The projects that were included on the Committee's list were
included in the IBRC Report. His goal was to find ways to fund as many
projects as possible. He was agreeable to discussing which projects should
be on the list.
Ms. Tucker noted Packet Page 159 contained a scenario for a sales tax
increase of 1/4 cent and 1/8 cent.
Council Member Berman noticed that the polling language for the TOT and
sales tax were practically identical in focusing on general City services.
Language for the transportation bond focused more on parking,
transportation, and traffic. He asked if people reacted to the funding vehicle
or to the projects when polled.
Mr. Metz answered both. A synthesis of the two yielded the level of support.
In the first poll, FM3 isolated where the money would go and where it would
come from. When those two were combined, the differences became less
stark.
Council Member Berman asked if that applied when voters perceived funding
as coming from outside sources.
Mr. Metz responded yes. In the poll, FM3 framed the TOT and sales tax
measures as general taxes in order to list a wide range of City services as
examples that could be funded. By its nature, the bond measure would
require a two-thirds vote; therefore, FM3 could be specific about the range
of transportation projects.
Council Member Berman felt residents' main concerns were traffic and
parking. Given the current situation with the Public Safety Building, it
should not be a focus of a ballot measure. The description of the
MINUTES
Page 6 of 13 Infrastructure Committee Special Meeting
Working Minutes: 01/10/14
transportation bond measure was aligned with the types of projects the
Committee would like to fund through a TOT or sales tax measure. He was
curious about how voters would react to the description of the bond measure
matched to the TOT and sales tax measures. Perhaps use of that language
would be a question for the City Attorney.
Chair Klein stated the Committee could ask anything in surveys.
Mr. Metz reported applying the language for the transportation bond to the
general tax options would read far too much like a specific tax. Expanding it
to transportation purposes would still read like a special tax. The City could
choose to approve legislatively an expenditure plan in advance of the
election, where the Council stated its intentions with respect to spending the
funds. An expenditure plan was not binding in that future Councils could
spend the money a different way if the measure was a general tax. An
expenditure plan created a political context where the Council's intent was
clear, and the voters could hold the Council accountable for it.
Council Member Berman inquired whether an expenditure plan was placed
on the ballot.
Mr. Metz indicated it did not appear on the ballot. The burden would remain
on a campaign to communicate the expenditure plan to voters. The
expenditure plan would be a formal record of the Council's intent. Through
that vehicle, the Council could use a general tax to fund the same set of
purposes listed in the transportation bond measure.
Council Member Scharff asked if there were different levels of support for a 2
percent and 3 percent TOT increase.
Mr. Metz reported there was a relatively modest difference in support,
approximately 7 points. The initial level of support was above two-thirds;
therefore, it did not appear the rate would be determinative of success. If
the Council decided to pursue a TOT rate increase as a special tax, then it
could help increase support.
Council Member Scharff inquired about the action Staff sought from the
Committee.
Ms. Tucker indicated Staff needed strong direction regarding measures to
include in outreach. Staff would return in late spring or early summer with
results from a final poll, and the Council would make a decision on whether
to place a measure on the ballot at that time.
MINUTES
Page 7 of 13 Infrastructure Committee Special Meeting
Working Minutes: 01/10/14
Council Member Scharff did not believe additional polling was necessary
regarding a TOT increase given the current level of support.
Ms. Tucker agreed. Further polling of pro and con arguments for other
measures were needed to shape a communication campaign.
Council Member Scharff questioned whether the Committee needed to make
a recommendation to the Council regarding use of an expenditure plan
rather than an advisory measure. He was unsure whether the Committee
needed to decide now which projects would be funded as more information
and details were needed. He assumed a list of projects would be contained
within an expenditure plan.
Mr. Keene understood the outreach campaign was a method to pretest
tentative decisions regarding a revenue measure and projects before the
Council finalized decisions.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether the Committee needed to discuss
projects and which to include.
Mr. Keene believed a list of projects would be refined during outreach so that
the Council could ensure projects were viable. For example, the lack of a
site for a Public Safety Building could impact public support. A larger
question was the amount of infrastructure problem or needs the Council
wished to address.
Council Member Scharff stated all of it.
Mr. Keene felt some projects would need to be removed from consideration
as a means to solve the whole problem. The Committee would want to test
whether the public agreed that the list of projects met the Council's goal of
resolving infrastructure needs. People would want to know that the Council
thought through the full problem. That was why outreach was important.
The Committee should make a recommendation to the Council sooner rather
than later.
Mr. Saccio suggested a TOT increase needed outreach with the business
community. A sales tax increase probably needed more outreach than a
TOT increase. It could be helpful to review past efforts to raise revenues
and the degree of opposition in the community.
Council Member Scharff recommended the Committee make a
recommendation on the new hotel revenue. New hotel revenue was a large
part of the funding sources; however, the Council had not given that
direction.
MINUTES
Page 8 of 13 Infrastructure Committee Special Meeting
Working Minutes: 01/10/14
Chair Klein clarified that the Council discussed, but did not provide direction
with respect to an advisory measure and new hotel revenue. A five-year
reserve was not included in funding sources. He inquired whether Council
Member Burt referred to funds from new hotels.
Council Member Burt indicated five-year surpluses could be found on page
42.
Chair Klein felt it was appropriate to include five-year surpluses just as the
FY 2013 surplus was included. Staff ensured projects funded by the annual
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) were not included among infrastructure
projects. The Committee's final action should be taken by the last meeting
in June 2014, assuming the Council Break occurred in July. In order to
provide the Council with time to review and discuss the Committee's
recommendation, the Committee's recommendation should be presented to
the Council between April 15 and April 30, 2014. He agreed with Council
Member Scharff that funding should cover all projects identified at the
current time. The Committee should direct Staff to proceed with ballot
preparation and community outreach regarding a potential measure to
increase the TOT by 2 percent. If the Committee agreed to proceed with a
TOT increase, then additional polling was not needed. One of the major next
steps was for the Committee to finalize a list of priority projects. He
concurred with Mr. Metz's comments regarding use of an expenditure plan.
The statement to the public should refer to the IBRC Report and projects
included for funding. He questioned whether the statement should identify
funding sources for individual projects.
Council Member Burt suggested the Committee discuss projects definitely to
include separately from projects not to include and projects perhaps to
include. An expenditure plan should not include highly contentious projects.
Funding for streets was tripled and repairs were moving at a faster pace.
The amount of funding for sidewalks was a fraction of the amount increased
for streets. He preferred to review funds as a combined streets and
sidewalks expenditure.
Council Member Scharff did not believe sidewalks were being repaired at an
increased rate.
Council Member Burt wanted to review increasing sidewalk expenditure by
reviewing streets and sidewalks together and the total amount of increased
funding for streets and sidewalks.
Mr. Keene noted the sidewalk expenditure increased $1 million annually
beginning in 2013, resulting in double the amount of sidewalks. Perhaps the
amount should be quadrupled or quintupled.
MINUTES
Page 9 of 13 Infrastructure Committee Special Meeting
Working Minutes: 01/10/14
Council Member Burt felt including streets and sidewalks in infrastructure
projects was not necessary, given the progress already made. He concurred
with Chair Klein regarding a 2 percent TOT increase. Voters would probably
support a 3 percent increase; however, that amount did not appear to be
fair to hotels and would cause Palo Alto to have the highest TOT rate on the
Peninsula. He did not believe identifying a site for a Public Safety Building
was a necessity. If the City had a budget for construction of a Public Safety
Building, then it would find a site. When discussing which projects to
include, the Committee should consider the most important projects to
accomplish in a five-year horizon.
Council Member Berman previously understood Staff would conduct outreach
prior to the Committee making a decision on a revenue measure. He was
surprised that speakers from the business community did not appear before
the Committee. He would support a 2 percent TOT increase, but remained
interested in a sales tax scenario. The public perceived a TOT increase as
being paid from outside sources. A transportation bond would be paid solely
by residents. A sales tax increase seemed to be a hybrid of the two. If the
Council opted to utilize a 2 percent TOT increase, all Stanford funds would
be needed for infrastructure projects. If the Council opted to utilize a 1/4
cent sales tax, only a portion of Stanford funds would be needed. He
inquired about the two categories of Stanford funds.
Mr. Keene reported one of the main categories was infrastructure and
housing.
Council Member Berman asked if housing meant affordable housing.
Mr. Keene explained that the Council did not want to limit the category to
housing; therefore, the fund was primarily for infrastructure needs. The
second category was sustainability.
Council Member Berman noted a 2 percent TOT increase would generate
only $30.8 million; therefore, the Committee would not need to discuss all
projects. He favored additional polling regarding sales tax increases using a
different project description. While polling was conducted, Staff could
perform outreach to those impacted by TOT and sales tax increases.
Increasing the sales tax would not result in a great disparity with
surrounding cities. He was comfortable with a 2 percent TOT increase. A
TOT increase was the easiest option, but not necessarily the best option. He
preferred more research on sales tax.
Council Member Scharff supported a 3 percent TOT increase. A 2 percent
increase would not realize sufficient funds to construct a Public Safety
Building. The difference in a 2 percent increase and a 3 percent increase
MINUTES
Page 10 of 13 Infrastructure Committee Special Meeting
Working Minutes: 01/10/14
provided confidence that a Public Safety Building could be constructed. He
inquired whether the Committee should direct Staff to develop a plan for a
Public Safety Building.
Chair Klein indicated the Council authorized the City Manager to do that.
Mr. Keene believed developing a plan for a Public Safety Building was a
hollow exercise when no funding was available.
Council Member Scharff suggested the Committee defer a decision on
increasing the TOT by 2 percent or 3 percent. If funds were needed, then
the Committee should recommend a 3 percent increase.
Chair Klein was agreeable to fine tuning needs and funds.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Burt to recommend the City Council: 1) proceed with narrowing towards a
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT); 2) proceed with ballot measure preparation
and community outreach on the TOT increase, with no decision on 2 or 3
percent; 3) direct City Manager to come up with a plan for a Public Safety
building; 4) do no further surveys; and 5) direct Staff to bring back a list of
projects.
Ms. Tucker inquired whether the Motion included preparation of a measure
regarding the UUT.
Council Member Scharff asked if the Committee needed more discussion on
decreasing the UUT rate and utilizing a fixed 5 percent rate.
Chair Klein indicated the Committee needed additional discussion. A
modernization measure was referred to the City Attorney.
Ms. Stump reported Staff was drafting language, but needed to know if it
should be presented to the Committee or the Council. Policy questions
would be whether to lower or to maintain the rate and whether to include
the large user discount. Staff could present to the Council a draft including
those items and highlighting options in approximately one month.
Chair Klein stated modernization should be presented to the Council, while
rates would be part of the Committee discussion.
Ms. Stump inquired whether that matter should be presented to the Council
when Staff completed drafting it or at the same time as the Committee's
recommendation.
MINUTES
Page 11 of 13 Infrastructure Committee Special Meeting
Working Minutes: 01/10/14
Council Member Burt felt the Committee's recommendation regarding rates
would inform the Council's decision on language reform.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Council
Member XXXX to further study and review of sales tax increase.
AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Mr. Keene reported members of the IBRC were concerned about
assumptions in Staff's revenue yielding methodology.
Steven Levy indicated the Business Policy Committee of the Chamber of
Commerce recommended vigorous opposition to an increase of the TOT.
The Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors would argue that companies
would shift their business to hotels in Mountain View or Menlo Park in
response to a TOT increase. He was not aware if Staff considered a
diminution to existing revenue.
Mr. Saccio did consider loss of business. Palo Alto experienced only a small
decrease in business after the prior TOT increase.
Mr. Levy suggested the Committee consider polling on a TOT increase using
the actual opposition argument rather than the argument utilized in earlier
polling. The Staff Report combined revenue from the three new hotels with
a 2 percent TOT increase, making the amount appear larger.
Chair Klein stated Staff did separate the two amounts.
Mr. Levy did not share the Committee's optimism for success of a TOT
measure based on the original polling results, because polling did not utilize
actual opposition arguments. He recommended the Committee consider a
combination of sales tax and TOT increases.
Council Member Berman conversed with Mr. Levy prior to the Committee
meeting. Mr. Levy's opinions did not alter his original thoughts.
Chair Klein believed the discussion should have occurred prior to voting on
the Motion.
Council Member Burt recalled the concern at the time of the prior TOT
increase was whether corporate travel and bookings would be affected. It
was the strongest argument against a TOT increase. A decrease in business
did not occur. He would be interested in a discussion of dilution of support,
MINUTES
Page 12 of 13 Infrastructure Committee Special Meeting
Working Minutes: 01/10/14
and inquired about the percentage of support a TOT increase received in the
previous election.
Mr. Saccio replied over 70 percent.
Council Member Burt requested Staff provide a history of polling results for
the previous TOT increase and voter support at the election. The same
argument regarding possible business impact of a sales tax increase also
existed. Purchases of big ticket items were affected by the amount of sales
tax.
Mr. Saccio noted the City did not receive any sales tax from internet sales.
As internet sales increased, the City could experience leakage. The City did
not experience as much leakage with the TOT.
Mr. Keene reported identified funding sources totaled $126.9 million. If the
Charleston-Arastradero project and one parking garage were eliminated
from the list, project costs totaled $124-$125 million. A consideration of
other revenues provided expenditure flexibility. He requested Staff give
specific attention to presentation of information regarding FY 2015 CIP
expenditures, because CIP funding was supplemental to an infrastructure
measure.
FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS
Mr. Keene announced Richard Hackmann would staff future Infrastructure
Committee (Committee) meetings.
Chair Klein inquired about the next meeting date.
Council Member Berman asked if the Committee's recommendation would be
presented to the Council for decision.
Chair Klein answered yes.
Council Member Berman inquired whether the Committee would discuss a
recommendation of a 2 percent or 3 percent Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
increase.
Chair Klein responded yes, along with other topics.
Council Member Berman expressed concern regarding time for the Council to
consider other options.
Council Member Burt suggested the Committee provide an update to the
Council after the next Committee meeting.
MINUTES
Page 13 of 13 Infrastructure Committee Special Meeting
Working Minutes: 01/10/14
Chair Klein recommended the next Committee meeting be scheduled in
three weeks.
Mr. Keene reported the next meeting would be scheduled for Wednesday,
January 29, 2014, at 9:00 A.M.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:39 P.M.